|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
Thursday, March 12, 2026
What Happens When a Civilization Ignores God? (The Bible Already Told Us)
Thursday, January 08, 2026
30 Years Online: What God Has Done From Dial-Up to Now
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Gen Z are leading a faith renewal!
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Thursday, October 16, 2025
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus: Does Firstborn Mean Created?
One of the most popular video podcasts I’ve published on YouTube was a live discussion I had with two Jehovah’s Witnesses who visited me at my home. It attracted a lot of views from Christians, JWs and ex-JWs, many of whom were very grateful for an inside look at both the conversation and how I approached my interaction. Here are a couple:
@b-radz: Great job on this conversation. As a born in JW (currently leaving) I appreciate how you keep him talking and reasoning. Seeds were planted. He will come back to it if the Holy Spirit acts in his life. Good job.
@Silver_Sun5: Thank you for this. As someone who came out of the JW religion and discovered the true God, I really appreciate your apologetics in this discussion. Also, that deep dive into John 1:3 blew my mind, I love it!
@FreedomAndJustice4All: Masterful use of questions; just as Jesus did. Awesome
@unrecuerdo4674: This was great! I was raised in a Jehovah’s Witness family but was never baptized or a pioneer. As a shy young girl, I often felt isolated and uncomfortable, especially after meetings. I would go straight to the car and wait for my parents. My father was an elder, which added to the pressure. As a teenager, it was even harder. Because I hadn’t been baptized or actively pioneered—and because it seemed they valued works more than faith—I wasn’t invited to many youth events, which were already few and far between. This further deepened my sense of exclusion. Now, at 60, I’ve been watching Christian testimonies, particularly those of Muslims who converted to Christianity. Their stories have deeply moved me. I’ve struggled with the concept of the Trinity and even found it difficult to say that Jesus, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit are one. Despite not being fully committed to the Jehovah’s Witness faith, those beliefs were ingrained in me. I acknowledge that I am lukewarm in my faith. Please pray for me—that I may truly follow Jesus and embrace His teachings wholeheartedly
Of course, those who are still faithful to the Watchtower dismissed my arguments and offered some of the standard objections as to why Jesus is the second person of the Trinity: the Eternal God. One common point that was brought up in the comments more than once was Colossians 1:15, which states Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. This sounds like Jesus, being firstborn, means he was created first. But that understanding is wrong, as both the meaning of the Greek word AND the context of the passage displays. First, let’s look at the context, reading all of Colossians 1:15-17:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For everything was created by him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and by him all things hold together.
We can see here that like John 1:3, Colossians 17 doesn’t allow for Jesus to be a created being. If “all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and by him all things hold together,” it means that he pre-existed any created thing. This means he is non-created, e.g. eternal!
Secondly, the word for firstborn, prototokos, isn’t one that must imply creation. In fact, it means first in rank. The confusion comes in because the idea of the first in rank and the first male child were almost synonymous in the ancient Near East. We see the same issue with the famous prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 where a virgin will conceive. The word for virgin is the same word you would use for any young girl, because they would be expected to be synonymous. Does that mean there were never exceptions? Of course not! And there are also exceptions to the prototokos concept as well.
This doesn’t stop JWs from continuing to push their errant meaning. Here is one exchange below along with my reply:
@jimjuri6490: If Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation, how could God work through Jesus to create Jesus? Obviously Jesus is a direct creation of God (See John 3:16). Thereafter, everything else was created BY GOD working THROUGH His Firstborn SON. Not sure what working THROUGH means? Here is an example. Acts 19:11 And God kept performing extraordinary powerful works THROUGH the hands of Paul, Similarly with Jesus. Acts 2:22.
@comereason: You don’t understand what that Greek word means.
@jimjuri6490: Please! That ruse will never work. If only Greek speakers can understand the Bible, then why have translations? 'None of the wicked will understand' promises God in Daniel 12:10. That is why people think they can take on JWs using the Bible but make a mess of it. Isaiah 54:17 No weapon formed against you will have any success, And you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the SERVANTS OF JEHOVAH, If a simple Bible question is asked of you, will you be willing to answer it?
@comereason: {{{sigh}}} Must I go through this again? The word prototokos (πρωτότοκος) while it can be literally broken down to "first" (protos) and "bring forth" (tiktos) and is used to describe the first-born son of a family, holds the primary idea of one who is pre-eminent or primary. This is because the first-born son would be the next king, inherit the double portion, etc. It doesn't NEED to mean actual first at birth, as in the OT Greek version, the rabbis used prototokos in Genesis 25:33 when referring to Jacob - who was second to be born after Esau! In Revelation 1:5, Jesus is called "the prototokos from the dead." Now, unless you want to make this word mean Jesus was born from a dead woman, it obviously has a different idea. All Greek scholars agree with this point - lookup the word in Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament as a primary source.
As to whether Jesus claimed to be God, he did. See Revelation 22:12 where Jesus claims the very names and descriptions of the Father: "Look, I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to repay each person according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." In order to dispel any ambiguity, he adds just two sentences later "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to attest these things to you for the churches." In Revelation 1:8&mndash;same book mind you—it is God who is using those names. In fact, the NWT reads specifically "I am the Alpha and the Omega" says Jehovah God, "the one who is and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty." Who is coming? Rev 1:8 and Rev 22:13 says the Alpha and the Omega. Who is coming? Revelation 1:8 NWT reads Jehovah and Rev. 22:16 read Jesus. John ends the book with "Amen! Come quickly Lord Jesus." Who is coming? God. There cannot be two Alphas and Omegas. There cannot be two beginnings and ends. These are exclusive to God, just like creation. No ruse here. You haven't done your homework.
Thursday, September 18, 2025
Secularists Shun Life: Anti-Natalist Excuses for Not Having Babies
I’ve posted several full-length videos and many more video shorts on the very dangerous threat of our baby bust. As societies across the globe have become more affluent and more secular, they also have become less willing to have children. Though the rise in affluence makes having and raising kids easier, younger generations are choosing to forego the responsibility of parenthood.
As I’ve interacted with many of these folks in the comments section, several trends became apparent. First, it is clear that the primary excuse young people today lean upon for not wanting to have children is that the world is a terrible place to live. One commenter, @JayLucaa, provides a typical example:
@JayLucaa: The problem is that it's already too late. As a Gen Z man from my perspective, with how much we have been screwed by the older generations, I and most of my friends don't even dare dream to ever buy our own homes. Most of us anticipate becoming homeless if we ever make a single mistake... why on earth would I ever want to bring a child into such a situation? Sure more working age people makes things better, but with how much worse the world has been getting for young people, with how generation on generation young people have gotten poorer and poorer, I would rather suffer myself into my older years than bring an innocent child into this situation.
My reply was short and to the point:
@comereason: You really think you're poorer that the generation coming of age in the Depression? In the Dust Bowl? You really think fighting in the Civil War was better than now? How about bubonic plague?
Over and over, I heard these kinds of excuses. It seems that young adults today are so dedicated to blaming their struggles ion the fact that they have been somehow victimized, that this is their default reaction.
@Helga7850 wrote:
@Helga7850: INDEED. The Capitalists get richer and richer exploiting young generations. DISGUSTING.”
And here’s @douglasbullet6456 with a similar claim, followed by my response.
@douglasbullet6456: I don't want my kids being corporate slaves and debt slaves.
@comereason: I think you're making excuses. Tell me in what other time was it better to rear children? When there were 12-hour work days and poor houses? When there was no social safety nets? When work didn't mean punching keys on a keyboard but swinging a pick axe or picking cotton by hand?
@Dragumix and @AnonymousWon-uu5yn sought to argue that bringing new life into the world is not unadvised, but objectively immoral:
@Dragumix: Isn't it selfish of a society to bring new children into this world without their consent so that these new children can help society, especially the elderly? Who brought us into this ponzi scheme of life? The generations that don't exist yet? No, they didn't do this cruel act. Our parent generations did it
@comereason: No, it’s natural. What’s evil is trying to classify one of the most basic aspects of life and the thing that makes us more human as a Ponzi scheme. Human beings are not net negatives.
@AnonymousWon-uu5yn: To force someone into an existence that they might absolutely not want to exist in is immoral.
@comereason: This isn't true at all, and it makes no sense to say one can be "forced" into existence, let alone that a nonexistent being can wish to never exist.
@AnonymousWon-uu5yn: Your parents forced you into existence, you didnt have the ability to not come into existence.
The incredible error in thinking here is that any kind of will can exist prior to the person possessing that will. @tvk380mtg9 tried a bit more subtle approach, but still failed in the attempt:
@tvk380mtg9: Why bring children into a world where they’ll inevitably become aware of their own existence, and the certainty of death? Why not spare them from that fate? Just because your so-called demi-god commands it?
@comereason: Because it is better for people if they learn that they themselves aren’t the center of the universe. I think those shunning children like being selfish and all this cloaking talk about the possibility of death is simply them trying to justify avoiding responsibility.
@tvk380mtg9: Not having children isn’t selfish, it’s simply choosing a different way of living.
@tvk380mtg9: In fact, it can be less selfish than having kids.
@tvk380mtg9: Raising children often comes with an assumption that they will give meaning, care, or legacy to the parent’s life, which is in itself a self-centered motivation.
@tvk380mtg9: Bringing a new person into the world without their consent also comes with irreversible consequences, they inherit the risks of suffering, environmental instability, and the burdens of existence.
@tvk380mtg9: Choosing not to have children can actually be an act of responsibility: it avoids adding to overpopulation, reduces strain on resources, and respects the fact that no one is “owed” offspring.
@tvk380mtg9: If anything, insisting on having children because “that’s what people do” or to fulfill personal desires is more selfish, since it prioritizes the parent’s wants over the well-being and autonomy of a future person who never asked to exist.
@tvk380mtg9: Also I understand that you can’t consent before you exist, that’s exactly the point.
@tvk380mtg9: If you’d like to learn more about antinatalism, I recommend reading David Benatar’s work. He explains in depth why choosing not to have children isn’t a selfish decision.
@comereason: Benatar begs the question.
@comereason: Is there such a thing as human flourishing? What's required for that? Or is every decision weighed solely upon the individual and his or her perceptions? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You all think it is YOU that is the center of the world. Saying "Raising children often comes with an assumption that they will give meaning, care, or legacy to the parent’s life, which is in itself a self-centered motivation." That may be a motivation but it isn't a selfish one any more than serving at a homeless shelter or volunteering to visit people at the retirement home is. These acts provide meaning because they are INTRINSICALLY meaningful. To deny such acts is to limit or undermine human flourishing.
@tvk380mtg9: It's more the act of creating someone is a selfish one.
@comereason: NO. It is an intrinsic good. It is a good thing in and of itself. People hold intrinsic worth, which is why things like slavery are wrong. Every baby is a blessing. If people don’t have intrinsic worth, then by what objective standard are they worth anything at all?
@tvk380mtg9: I think the problem with appealing to “intrinsic worth” is that it isn’t actually observable or measurable, it’s more of a metaphysical assumption than something we can point to in reality.
@tvk380mtg9: When we say slavery is wrong, we don’t need to appeal to some hidden property of “intrinsic value”; we can explain it in terms of real harms, suffering, autonomy, and fairness.
@tvk380mtg9: People have worth because of their capacities, to think, to feel, to suffer, to flourish, not because of an abstract essence. A baby isn’t valuable in a vacuum, but because of the relationships, care, and potential surrounding them.
@tvk380mtg9: In fact, saying “every baby is a blessing” overlooks tragic realities where children are born into circumstances of immense suffering.
@tvk380mtg9: If worth is grounded in actual experiences and relationships, then we can have an objective standard rooted in human well-being, not an undefined metaphysical property.
Of course, defining someone as human is itself an "undefined metaphysical property," one that slaveholders and the Third Reich were more than happy to adjust so they could abuse their targets.
What is striking is just how short-sighted all of these exchanges are. as I wrote to another commenter, it is as if these people believe the world began only fifteen minutes ago and whatever difficulties they've had to deal with are somehow the worst in human history! Never mind that they are complaining while sipping a $7 latte while using high speed internet to browse social media with all the free time they have because they no longer need to spend three days tracking some wild animal so that maybe the tribe can eat for a couple of days.
One last observation about these exchanges. It was fascinating and enlightening to see just how many of those who are so vociferously in the anti-natalist camp are also atheists or agnostics. Social scientists and experts have been noticing the trend of cratering birthrates across the globe, meaning this isn’t just a US or even a western phenomenon. In fact. South Korea has birthrates so far below replacement levels that an ethnic Koreans are going extinct!
The scientists are struggling to explain the trend, as simply claims like the rise of the internet or the depression levels in the country don’t fit. But I think it is another consequence of secularism. When humanity believes that they themselves are the ultimate end, it should be unsurprising that 1) they want to have as much fun as they can and stay untethered to the responsibility of rearing children and 2) they believe there is no intrinsic value outside themselves anyway. No wonder depression rates are skyrocketing!
Nihilism is the natural end point of atheism. What hope is there without God to have his kingdom come, his will done on earth, and to deliver us from evil? Might as well just give up.
