Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!

A A
By:

Tidbits – July 2025

Roses are red…

They come in red,
Also yellow.
For the right gal,
Risk red, fellow.

Deep thoughts from Cookie Monster

  • “It weird that we cook bacon, and bake cookies.”
  • “Cookie dough is the sushi of desserts.”
  • “Surely if tomato is fruit, that make ketchup a jam.”
  • “What was the best thing before sliced bread?”

Caterpillars are crazy cool

The wonder of how caterpillars become butterflies is so mysterious that in 2009 zoologist Donald Williamson suggested, in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that butterflies and caterpillars were, basically, two different organisms that at some point in their evolution accidentally mated. His theory was ridiculed by others, and the same journal published a rebuttal soon afterwards, but it highlights just how wonderfully weird caterpillar/butterflies are – evolutionists are left grasping at straws to explain them.

When a caterpillar undergoes metamorphosis, the caterpillar parts of its DNA are described as being “turned off” and the butterfly parts are then turned on – it undergoes a complete remodeling. In fact, if a caterpillar were to lose a leg, it would have no impact on how many legs it would then have in butterfly form. There are two complete and utterly different bodies, wrapped up in one amazing creature.

Our God is amazing…and fun!

Source: Ted Olsen’s “Are Butterflies a New Creation” posted to ChristianityToday.com on Feb 19, 2014

Facing insults I

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek in the face of personal attacks (Matt. 5:39) He gave us a very powerful witnessing method. One of the most effective ways to respond to ad hominum attacks (or in plain English – insults) is to simply absorb the insult. Don’t get angry, don’t strike back, just absorb it and go on.

This approach can be incredibly effective. For example when Roseanne Barr, the infamous comedian, stated that pro-lifers were all a bunch of perverted old men who just wanted to force women to get pregnant so they could molest their kids, the proper response was not indignant rage (although that is an understandable response). As pro-life speaker Scott Klusendorf demonstrated, the proper response is to absorb the insult and get back to the main point:

“Yes Roseanne, the pro-life movement is just a bunch of perverted old men – even all the pro-life women – and all we want to do is molest your kids…but what does that have to do with whether or not the unborn are human?”

Someone might call Christians stupid. Turn the other cheek, absorb the insult, and respond: “Maybe I am stupid…but can you show me why I’m wrong?”

Insulting you is simply a way for unbelievers to avoid dealing with the rather uncomfortable truth you are confronting them with. So let them denigrate you, and keep the focus on the truth.

Best dad joke ever?

When does a joke become a dad joke?
When the punchline becomes apparent.

There’s something about the beat

About a dozen years ago, around 2012 or 2013, I went through the year’s top 100 songs with a group of college-age young people. Someone had excerpted clips from each hit and then strung them all together, and the challenge I pitched the group was to identify how many songs were clearly attacking God’s truth, and how many weren’t. Each clip was only something like 10 or at most 20 seconds long. Yet in just that blink of time, of the first 10 songs we heard, something like 8 were clearly wicked, I think one might have been an instrumental, and one was okay… at least for the ten seconds we heard. At least 8 out of 10 were simply evil. What is it about Pop/Rock that has it trending in this direction?

And lest you think that’s a recent turn, Jamie Soles shared on his blog (jamiesoles.substack.com) that the top 10 nearly a half century ago weren’t any better.

“1979 was a bad year for the Canadian and American public. The number one song, the song they loved the most, was a guy lusting after an underage girl (My Sharona – The Knack); the number two song was celebrating prostitution (Bad Girls – Donna Summer), number three was a mindless dance song (Le Freak – Chic), the number four song was Rod Stewart hitting on everybody (Do You Think I’m Sexy?), and Gloria Gainor got dumped by some guy in the number six song, and she is ANGRY about it (I Will Survive). In number seven, Donna Summer is back, declaring how she will sleep with any man who is warm (Hot Stuff), and in song number ten the girly-voiced Robert John is sending his illicit lover out the back door while his wife is coming in the front, all the while encouraging her to remember with fondness the good times they had (Sad Eyes).”

Might it be better now? If you run your own experiment with this year’s hits, I’d love to hear about your results.

How do you witness to a Jehovah’s Witness?

In one of his many YouTube videos, Ray Comfort highlights a simple, biblical way to confront the JW at your door about their belief in salvation by works. He asks them what he could do to be saved if “there’s a knife in my back.” Can they tell him how he could enter the Kingdom of Heaven if he had just three minutes left to live?

Their answer? There is nothing to be done, because he doesn’t have time left to do the good works necessary. So Comfort then asks:

“What about the thief on the cross? He was dying; he got saved. He just turned to Jesus. He couldn’t go anywhere. And he was saved by God’s grace, and that’s how you and I can be saved. It’s not by works of righteousness that we do – how can we earn everlasting life? It’s a free gift of God.”

Roses are red II

Violets are blue
So we are told
Are they lonely
Or simply cold?

Adam’s rib

Since Eve was created out of Adam’s rib there is a popular but erroneous misconception that men today have one less rib than women. Interestingly, even Adam might not have been short a rib: this bone, if carefully removed leaving the surrounding periosteum membrane intact, can grow back.

Facing insults II

Another very effective way of responding to insults is to ask for a definition.

“Umm… you just called me a homophobe – I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Could you explain?”

“It means you’re scared of homosexuals!”

“But I’m standing right here talking to you. Do I seem scared of you? If that’s the proper definition it doesn’t seem to apply to me, does it?”

“Well, then you’re an intolerant bigot!”

“I’m sorry, but I’m confused again. Could you explain what you mean by ‘intolerant’?”

“It means you hate anyone different than you.”

“Well, I do disagree with you but I hope I’m not coming off angry or hateful. Is disagreement the same thing as hate? Because if it is, well, then since you disagree with me, you must be hateful, and consequently an intolerant bigot as well. Is that right?”

Newspaper finds

Some headlines and newspaper ads from years past…

  • Catnapper prowling community, owners fear
  • Gambling alone won’t draw crowds
  • ’83 Toyota hunchback – $2000
  • Lawyer says client is not that guilty
  • Grocery stalker wanted
  • Free puppies: ½ cocker spaniel – ½ sneaky neighbor dog

So good someone should have said them

Some of the very best quotes may never have been said. Or, at least, not by the folks they are linked to. For example, Luther, when asked to recant his writings, declined, and is said to have told the Emperor, “Here I stand. I can do no other.” While the sentiment is certainly Luther’s, whether this verbiage came from his lips is up for debate. What follows are quotes whose origins are disputed, but whose awesomeness is certain.

  • “Comparison is the thief of Joy.” – attributed, but disputed, to Theodore Roosevelt
  • “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but seemingly never sourced
  • “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”  – commonly attributed to Martin Luther, it is by Elizabeth Rundle Charles, in her novel The Chronicles of the Schonberg-Cotta Family
  • “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul; you have a body.” – attributed to C.S. Lewis, but seemingly not found in his writings
  • “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.” – attributed to G.K. Chesterton, but likely originating as a summary of his thoughts by biographer Emile Cammaerts

Roses are red III

If you believe
Violets are blue,
What color are
Oranges to you?

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.



Red heart icon with + sign.
In a Nutshell

Tidbits – June 2025

A one-question test During an episode of the TV drama West Wing, the President of the United States has to figure out whether a boatload of Chinese refugees are really Christian. If they are, they’ll get to stay in the US, since they would be true refugees from China’s persecution of Christians. However, they might only be claiming to be Christian so that they will be able to stay in the US. The President has to figure it out so he summons one of the refugees to the White House, and asks him a simple question. “Can you name any of Jesus’ disciples?” He didn’t ask him a theological or doctrinal question, but instead tested the man’s Bible knowledge. If the man was really a Christian he was expected to know basic well-known parts of his Bible. It was not an unreasonable expectation, and on the television show the Chinese refugee passed the test with flying colors, naming all twelve. But would we do as well? Do you know your Bible well enough to name all twelve disciples? Quiz your family - answers can be found at the bottom of this article. Did you hear the one...? Did you hear the one about the three-legged dog who walked into a saloon? He sidled up to the bar, pulled out his gun and fired a shot in the air to get everyone's attention. Then he barked, "I'm looking for the man who shot my paw!" Did you hear the one about the bear who rumbled into a saloon and said, "I'd like a grilled.............. cheese." The bartender asked, "Why the big pause?" "I'm a bear." Did you hear the one about the world's worst thesaurus? Not only is it terrible, it's terrible. Don’t make big out of little While the Bible never names the “principle of proportionality,” it does presume it, teaching us not to treat small things as big, or big things as small. In Matt. 7:3-5 Jesus teaches us not to correct a small fault in others, even as we overlook our own big sins. Then in Matt. 23:23, the Pharisees are taking to task for tithing mint, but neglecting the love of God. Today our society also treats as unimportant what is big (God, the plight of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, etc.) and treats the small as big, Osychologist Jonathan Shelder detailed some examples in a series of tweets: “What psychologist Ellis called ‘awfulizing’ and ‘horriblizing’ has become a culturally-accepted to speak and think It wasn’t upsetting, it was trauma I wasn’t annoyed, I was harmed They’re not difficult, they’re toxic I wasn’t uncomfortable, I was unsafe It wasn’t disagreement, it was gaslighting It wasn’t words, it was violence “In this way, we transforms life’s unavoidable difficulties into the Most Important Thing in the Universe And ourselves into the Main Character in the Universe.” This sort of narcissism ignores that there are truly horrible and awful happenings in the world. Every time little is made out to be big, it makes it more likely that the truly wicked will be ignored. So Christians mustn’t be like the boy who cried wolf. Screen-fasts seem to be trending! A CRC publication called Christian Courier asked readers to go on a screen-fast, and in the May 5 issue, editor Angela Reitsma Bick reported on the results. Her volunteers went one to three days without their phones. That’s not a lot of time, but they still learned some lessons. One gentleman, Dan DeBruyne, a physiotherapist, went just one day, and was anxious about all the unanswered texts he assumed must be piling up. At day’s end he realized, yes, there were 16, but only a couple were actually important. He shared, “It was an exercise in humility. To think I am required to be reachable 16-18 hours a day has an air of pride about it.” He also noticed that setting his phone aside, even for that one day, allowed him “quiet moments of daydreaming.” He was able to be “fully engaged playing with my daughters and making more eye contact during conversations.” His brief digital detox also allowed him to “realize how frequently I look to my phone to fill silence. How frequently I try to drown out any ‘still small voices’ with newsfeeds, friends’ photos or memes.” So how about? Are you up for RP’s own social media screen-fast? See the details here. Democracy from the comfort of your home? Mail-in ballots and e-voting are supposed to be the very latest improvements to the democratic process. The touted benefits are that it should increase voter participation by making voting quicker and easier. But do we really want to make voting any easier than it already is? As it stands now, we have to vote once each for the federal and provincial governments every four years or so. That works out to an average of once every two years. Traditional elections require us to leave the house and walk or drive to the nearest poll. If you’re a city voter the whole process will take about half an hour, and if you live in the country it may take up to an hour (or two if it’s snowing). That works out to an average of 15 – 60 minutes of voting time per year. And still, only about half the country is willing to spend the time to go out and vote. Electronic voting promises to make the process less time consuming, down to an average of around 2 minutes per year, and it consequently promises to increase voter turnouts. The downside is that the increase in voters will be made up of people who only started voting when it would take less than 15 minutes of their time! Per year! Instead of making voting easier, we should make the whole process a good deal tougher. Next election we should tell all the voters in Edmonton that their polling stations are in Calgary, and vice versa. A 700-km round trip, once every couple of years. Now that's something that could improve the democratic process! Grandpa...? A little boy asked his grandfather if he had been on the ark with Noah. The grandfather chuckled a little and told his grandson that no, he had not been on the ark. The confused grandson asked, “Then why didn’t you drown Grandpa?” Democracy and polygamy don’t mix Some years back, political scientist Tom Flanagan pointed out how polygamous marriage may be more harmful than homosexual "marriage"... at least for democracy. In his National Post article, “Democracy, polygamy, and the sexual constitution,” Flanagan argues that polygamy is detrimental to constitutional democracy. Democracies throughout the Western world are all monogamous, and constitutional democracy was only adopted in non-Western societies like Japan and India, when they too, accepted monogamy as the norm. Flanagan doesn’t believe monogamy causes democracy – there are monogamous societies like China that are dictatorships. But he does believe that widespread polygamy is detrimental to democracy. Areas where polygamy is popular like the Sub Saharan Africa, or parts of the Middle East are also areas where constitutional democracy has made the least progress. But why? Three reasons. First, polygamy almost always involves one (usually rich) man with multiple wives, which leaves many men with no chance of marriage, since there are fewer available women. Without the responsibilities of having to provide for a family, men are more inclined to crime. Studies in the US have found that crime is higher in areas where men won't marry the mothers of their children and won't, consequently, take on family responsibilities. A surplus of aimless, frustrated males also seems to make wars more likely, and generally creates instability, which is detrimental to democracy. Finally, as more men are left without wives, women become valuable as commodities. They are used as bartering chips to seal alliances and are treated as little more than property. And pieces of property don’t usually get to vote. Flanagan concludes that if we want to preserve democracy, the state must take a stand against polygamy. Making it work In the West, many pick partners based on qualities that may disappear over time: looks fade, intellect dulls, and charm may become cloying. The very qualities that made us fall in love initially, when gone, may have us thinking we've fallen out of love. The arranged marriages common in Asia and Africa aren’t based on attractive attributes or qualities. Instead of spending time wondering who they should marry, these couples are forced to figure out, given the person they are married to, how they will make it work. So they know right from the start that marriage is something you have to put effort into, and that love is something that can be built up. I'd never want an arranged marriage, but the West would benefit if they understood better that a good marriage takes work. Quotables “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – commonly, but probably wrongly, attributed to Edmund Burke “When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is still an evil.” – Max Lerner Atheists are living in the wrong world Every met a morally outraged atheist? What’s that about? That’s akin to… well, it’s akin to a flat earther taking a vacation trip round the world. In the Spring/Summer 2025 issue of Barnabas magazine, Owen Pikkert told a story about a flat earther who wanted to go on an exciting holiday. When his travel agent pitched the idea of polar circumnavigation – crossing both the North and South Poles – he had objections: The trip was too long. It was too expensive. Parts of the trip would be cold. His travel agent could have tried to solve these objections, perhaps by finding a discount rate, or providing blankets. “Or she could observe that the flat-earther is living in the wrong kind of world. For his objections presuppose that the world is spherical. In other words, he is borrowing from the spherical world in order to critique some aspect of the spherical world. Surely he should not raise such objections. Or, better yet, surely he should give up on a flat earth.” Debate can be a powerful way to discover the truth; so notes Prov. 18:17. But debate can also be a tool of obfuscation (as can the use of big words) by bringing up what’s irrelevant to hide what’s important. Parents experience this downside when a teen caught out past curfew starts asking why his brother gets away with so much more than he does. His parents shouldn’t go there, should they? When an atheist starts attacking God we shouldn’t go there either. Instead we need to demand the atheist explain on what basis he’s condemning anything or anyone at all. The purposeless pitiless universe his worldview proclaims doesn’t have wrong or right – it doesn’t care. So he needs to either live out his worldview and stop complaining, or admit to atheism’s shortcomings and reject it. But in the meantime we shouldn’t treat his moral objections seriously – it’ll only make him think he has a point (Prov. 26:4-5). Answers What are the names of the twelve disciples? Simon Peter, Andrew, James (the son of Zebedee), John, Phillip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (the son of Alphaeus), Thaddeus (Lebbaeus), Simon, and Judas....