If you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower. In part 1 of this series, we looked at 25 reasons why men should still speak up, despite being told, “No Womb, no Say!” In part 2, we can dig even deeper and see even more reasons why women, families, and society at large desperately need men to speak up against the horrors of abortion.
More Reasons Why Men Need to Speak Out Against Abortion
26. Some women don’t want to make the abortion-decision for themselves – I’m a married man, and I grew up with a mother and sister. And from my experience, sometimes, women can feel too close to the situation to make a decision, or perhaps she doesn’t trust her own judgment, or she may even have a conflict of interest that makes her feel unsure. In that case, she may prefer to have a trusted man in her life help her make that decision, or even make the decision on her behalf. The “no womb, no say” position handicaps those women by demanding that all the men in their lives stay silent, even if they are strong, wise, loving, and great decision-makers for the family. I’m sure there are lots of women who balk at the very idea of letting man make an important decision her behalf. But, that woman isn’t every woman. Some women have healthy father figures, a good husband, and other decent and redeeming men in their lives. For those women, they are often more than happy to share the burden of a big decision with the men in their life. And when a strong and vocal husband, brother, or father is lending his strength in selfless support, she might just have the encouragement she needs to make the right decision.
27. Truth doesn’t have a sex/gender – If something is true about abortion, it’s still true even if a man says it. Moral facts are still the facts, no matter if a man or a woman is speaking.
28. Men have access to moral facts just as much as women do – just as moral facts don’t care what sex/gender you are, knowing moral facts is likewise open to men and women.
29. There are sex/gender-neutral reasons for doubting the “my body, my right” argument undergirding this “women only” mentality – It’s never been clearly shown, legally, that the right of privacy includes the privilege of intentionally killing one’s own, innocent, non-threatening, non-combatant, child-in-utero. Also, Roe v. Wade was argued on the belief that we aren’t sure when biological human life begins. But that question has long been settled: new human life begins at conception. Moreover, the “my body, my right” argument promotes extremism and contradicts normal guardian responsibilities. If bodily autonomy isn’t enough to even justify abortion, then it’s not enough to justify silencing all male voices on abortion either.
30. “No womb, No Say” is sexist against men – The “no womb, no say” position is blatant sexism, discriminating against millions of people because of their sex/gender. It’s not the tame kind of discrimination either, like when employers discriminate against job applicants for being lazy incompetent nitwits. We’re talking about the lame kind of discrimination, attempting to restrict freedom of speech and marginalizing men even if the man was permanently handicapped in a botched abortion, or when he’s been traumatized by watching, assisting, or conducting an abortion, or if they’ve walked their wives through the long-term side effects of a past abortion.
31. Abortion-Choice Policy Promotes Sexism against women – Not only is the “no womb, no say” position sexist, but abortion choice policy itself is sexist. Sex-selective abortion is currently legal, and that means girls in utero are sometimes aborted just because they are girls. Abortion also has a bad history of promoting negative health outcomes for women. Abortion itself is a violent act against women, especially when the mother’s “consent” is blurred with heavy pressure from parents or partners. And perhaps the most glaring problem of sexism in abortion is how it enables reckless man-boys males to exploit women. They can “love ’em and leave ’em”.
32. It’s hypocritical to encourage pro-choice men to speak up and prohibit pro-life men from doing the same – NARAL, URGE, and other supporters of the “Bro Choice” movement encourage men to speak up so long as they are supporting abortion-choice.
33. It’s hypocritical to accept the verdict of Roe v. Wade (1973) and then say that men shouldn’t have a voice on the issue – Seven out of nine old white guys, on the Supreme Court, decided that abortion should be legalized across the nation.
34. If pro-choice advocates tried to undo the hypocrisy, and still keep men silent about abortion, they would have to reject what men have already said on abortion – besides just the Roe v. Wade ruling, if male voices were muffled then that would mean rejecting the established insights from men in the past, regarding abortion, including expert testimony from doctors, judges, scientists, attorneys, pollsters, technicians, politicians, academics and scholars.
35. “No womb, No Say” is a veiled attempt to stifle opposition – Pro-choice powers don’t really want men, generally, to be silent, they want pro-life men to be silent. It’s not a matter of ethics and rights, it’s a matter of convenience. It’s easier to advance a pro-choice agenda if roughly half of the opposition is silent.
36. It takes two to tango – men are half of the pregnancy equation. Having a role in creating the child, it’s not clear why men would have no role when it comes to the (preventing the) fate of their offspring. Ideally, childbearing should be a team effort and not a lone burden for women.
37. The Good Samaritan Rule – Morally, we’re responsible to do the good that we can do. Tim Brahm of Equal Rights Institute explains this point with a story about watching a depressed woman attempt to drown her newborn child, then Brahm says, “Now, I’m a man. I’ve never been pregnant. I’ve never been a mother. I will never know what she is going through. . . But even though I can’t understand what she’s going through, shouldn’t I try to do something to save that kid?” Good question!
38. Some women cannot get pregnant – By the logic of “no womb no way” those women would be denied a voice on the abortion issue.
39. Men have freedom of speech, just like women do – If women can speak out about prostate cancer, and they have every right do so, then men can speak about abortion. The First Amendment works either way.
40. Abortion contradicts paternity rights – It is legally inconsistent for women to be able to “walk away” from a pregnancy (abortion), while men are denied that right. Instead, men can be forced to pay child support even when they didn’t want to be fathers. This inconsistency might be unjust, and so, men have reason to speak up.
41. Men should use their privilege in society to offer solidarity with good causes – Supposing that men have a lot of privilege in society, we, therefore, have a moral duty to exercise our privilege in support of good. Fighting against the deadliest act against fellow human beings in world history is a worthy candidate.
42. It’s good to defend those who can’t defend themselves, regardless of sex/gender – Their silent scream cannot be heard, so people with a voice need to speak up for them. Men and women alike can intercede for the voiceless.
43. Abortion is an intersectional issue so that silencing men is too simplistic to represent it fairly – There are several different inequalities tied into abortion-choice policy. There are potential inequalities between men and women. But we can also point to inequalities along racial lines, or health, age, and so forth. Some of the most influential and expert witnesses for age discrimination, ableism, and racism are males. Silencing males on the issue of abortion restricts the voices protesting ableism, ageism, and racism.
44. Men can help deter the jerks who pressure women towards abortion – Male influence can be positive or negative. It’s true that some males are horrible human beings: abusive, predatory, deviants, who exploit women and coerce them into abortion. These jerks need every societal corrective we can throw at them – police, prosecutors, jailers, therapists, etc. But often they descend into deviancy for lack of a healthy father figure or positive male friends. When decent men are involved as Big Brothers, for example, they can help counteract many of the factors driving women to abortion, such as coercion, poverty, abuse, abandonment, etc. That won’t work in all cases, but it will work for some. Decent upstanding men can help create a family-friendly pro-life culture just by modeling redemptive manhood.
45. Men can work with women in teaching a family-based model of pregnancy – It’s no surprise that most women seeking abortion are not married or even in a healthy stable family. Healthy stable families are a historically well-established way to raise up the kind of people who don’t have unplanned pregnancies. Men and women together can promote healthy marriage, and parenting as a means of curbing abortion.
46. Men are justified in wanting to defend women from harm – if chivalry is dead, it’s because feminism killed it. But good men can always resurrect it, especially if it means protecting women from the violence in and around abortion.
47. Men can speak up through their actions – Male culture is more than words. A healthy masculine voice is not just spoken, it’s modeled. Raising a child is hard work anyway, but it gets even harder when men don’t step up as fathers, friends, and husbands. Far too many men already lack the maturity, courage, and commitment to come alongside the women in their lives to help them choose life. Sometimes the most powerful words we can share about abortion are voiced in silent strength and quiet commitment.
48. Fathers should be able to talk with their daughters about abortion – Fathers have a natural right and responsibility to raise their daughters, and that includes talking about sex, love, marriage, parenting, and of course the immeasurable value of human life.
49. Husbands should be able to talk with their wives about abortion – healthy marriages should share decision making, and work as a team in their family planning. Silent men would be a disservice to wives who want support and input from their husbands.
50. Brothers should be able to talk with their sisters about abortion – Healthy sibling relationships are another family tie where guys can have the rapport with their sisters to talk about important things like sexual health, pregnancy, and abortion.
51. Women should be free to get counsel and advice from males – Male counselors, religious leaders, and caring friends can be a tremendous help for women in a crisis pregnancy. If men are supposed to shut up about abortion, then they are handicapped in their ability to help.
52. Silent men are a waste of resources –Disenfranchised males can be incredibly dangerous. Every society has an enormous burden in deciding what to do with the boys. When boys don’t have to mature, settle down, or become gentlemen to be accepted in society, then they will tend to settle for adolescence, never marrying, never committing to fatherhood, slinking towards addiction, apathy, violence, and crime. The problem isn’t as simple as “toxic masculinity.” Males are a resource in society; they can spoil if neglected and explode when broken. But when they are mobilized and directed towards human flourishing they are an irreplaceable source of innovation, defense, and development. With the issue of abortion, men can be incredibly useful. Besides lending strength, compassion, and service, they can have insights, research, and sage counsel to help struggling mothers in their time of need. It would be a pity to lock away all those resources just because of casual pro-choice rhetoric.
53. Excluding men reduces diversity – We can learn a lot if we listen to a diverse array of voices sharing insights into issues that matter. Silencing all (pro-life) men artificially restricts that diversity.
54. Men who care about the health and direction of the nation should speak up about abortion as it ties into our founding principles as a nation, i.e., an equal right to life from our creation onward – It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The benefits of a free and humanitarian society will not defend themselves. We the people have a duty, as citizens, to protect the better parts of our society, and that includes the notion of “equal rights.” The Declaration of Independence says, “all men [humans] are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our founding fathers didn’t know, at that time, that the biological moment of creation is at conception. And if we are going to avoid infusing some spiritually weighted notion about souls, then we have to legally treat that moment of creation as a biological question – the moment of conception, the onset of biological human life. See more about this point in my debate at UT-Arlington (TX).
55. It’s not humanitarian to restrict whole demographics from discussing a human rights issue – the history of human rights legislation has, for the most part, been a gradual unveiling of our equal rights as human beings. But that process has had many pitfalls and perils. We cannot trust that any one group will safely lead the way without vital corrections arising from other groups. In this way, all of us are part of an ongoing conversation about the nature, extent, and grounding of our human rights. There is no settled and final conclusion, whether in the court of law, in the classroom, or in the science lab, dictating that men need to stay out of the abortion issue. It would contradict our humanitarian values as a nation to silence whole sectors of humanity because of their race, age, sex/gender.
56. Silencing men is close-minded – No one on earth is 100% right all the time. We should be open-minded enough to where we can keep learning and correct our mistakes. Silencing an entire demographic does not signal open-mindedness. It’s dogmatic and close-minded
57. Silencing men forces weird results with the LGBTQ movement – Do biological females lose their right to speak if they identify as a male? What if they have been pregnant before, but still identify as a male? What if a biological male identifies as a female, does that person get their voice back?
58. “No womb, no say” discriminates against intersex people – Some people are born with male and female sex organs, or with some other gender-ambiguating condition. Yet, the “no womb, no say” argument operates on a simple binary notion that women can speak up but not men. How traditionally “male” must a man be before he’s “man” enough to qualify in the eyes of pro-choice tone-police? Intersex people, just like everyone else, have the same general right to speak out about abortion, no matter who is trying to silence them.
59. Silent men have done enough damage already – Far too many men are passive, wimpy, indifferent loafers, too selfish and scared to protect, support, and honor the women in their lives. So, it’s no surprise when those women end up having an abortion because they never had the support network they needed. No gentleman stepped in as a husband, a brother, a friend, or a father, to lend the support she needed to choose life. Brothers, this should not be.
These are just the first 59 reasons I could come up with. But that’s more than enough to prove that “no womb, no say” is a myth. Silencing men is a popular pro-choice tactic designed to smother opposition and shame men into silence. It’s worked well over the years. Perhaps if more men had stepped into the mix with a gentle voice of concern or a careful word of wisdom, then we might not be in this predicament, staring at an abortion total that dwarfs the holocaust eleven-fold, literally. Men, your voice matters. Don’t just stand quietly on the sidelines hoping that your wives, sisters, daughters, and female friends will all do the right thing. Speak up! A word of compassion and truth just might make the difference between life and death.
Recommended Resources:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi
Why Are Christians Supporting Unbiblical Positions? with Megan Basham, Alisa Childers, & Natasha Crain
PodcastWhy are so many popular figures who claim to be Christians supporting anti-Christian positions and is there anything we can do about it? In this special midweek podcast episode recorded LIVE from CrossExamined Instructor Academy 2025 in Charlotte, NC, Frank sits down with Megan Basham, Alisa Childers, and Natasha Crain to discuss some of the popular secular ideas that plague the modern Church and answer questions like:
Be sure to check out some of the valuable resources for both kids and adults that were mentioned during the episode in the list below, and stay tuned for more podcast episodes recorded from CIA 2025!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Fearless Faith Self-Paced Online Course – https://bit.ly/4kmld3g
Train Your Brain (online logic course for kids & adults) – https://bit.ly/4lMq6ni
Shepherds for Sale by Megan Basham – https://www.amazon.com/dp/0063413442
World Watch News – https://worldwatch.news/
Natasha’s books – https://natashacrain.com/books/
Alisa’s books – https://alisachilders.com/
59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion Part 2
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsIf you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower. In part 1 of this series, we looked at 25 reasons why men should still speak up, despite being told, “No Womb, no Say!” In part 2, we can dig even deeper and see even more reasons why women, families, and society at large desperately need men to speak up against the horrors of abortion.
More Reasons Why Men Need to Speak Out Against Abortion
26. Some women don’t want to make the abortion-decision for themselves – I’m a married man, and I grew up with a mother and sister. And from my experience, sometimes, women can feel too close to the situation to make a decision, or perhaps she doesn’t trust her own judgment, or she may even have a conflict of interest that makes her feel unsure. In that case, she may prefer to have a trusted man in her life help her make that decision, or even make the decision on her behalf. The “no womb, no say” position handicaps those women by demanding that all the men in their lives stay silent, even if they are strong, wise, loving, and great decision-makers for the family. I’m sure there are lots of women who balk at the very idea of letting man make an important decision her behalf. But, that woman isn’t every woman. Some women have healthy father figures, a good husband, and other decent and redeeming men in their lives. For those women, they are often more than happy to share the burden of a big decision with the men in their life. And when a strong and vocal husband, brother, or father is lending his strength in selfless support, she might just have the encouragement she needs to make the right decision.
27. Truth doesn’t have a sex/gender – If something is true about abortion, it’s still true even if a man says it. Moral facts are still the facts, no matter if a man or a woman is speaking.
28. Men have access to moral facts just as much as women do – just as moral facts don’t care what sex/gender you are, knowing moral facts is likewise open to men and women.
29. There are sex/gender-neutral reasons for doubting the “my body, my right” argument undergirding this “women only” mentality – It’s never been clearly shown, legally, that the right of privacy includes the privilege of intentionally killing one’s own, innocent, non-threatening, non-combatant, child-in-utero. Also, Roe v. Wade was argued on the belief that we aren’t sure when biological human life begins. But that question has long been settled: new human life begins at conception. Moreover, the “my body, my right” argument promotes extremism and contradicts normal guardian responsibilities. If bodily autonomy isn’t enough to even justify abortion, then it’s not enough to justify silencing all male voices on abortion either.
30. “No womb, No Say” is sexist against men – The “no womb, no say” position is blatant sexism, discriminating against millions of people because of their sex/gender. It’s not the tame kind of discrimination either, like when employers discriminate against job applicants for being lazy incompetent nitwits. We’re talking about the lame kind of discrimination, attempting to restrict freedom of speech and marginalizing men even if the man was permanently handicapped in a botched abortion, or when he’s been traumatized by watching, assisting, or conducting an abortion, or if they’ve walked their wives through the long-term side effects of a past abortion.
31. Abortion-Choice Policy Promotes Sexism against women – Not only is the “no womb, no say” position sexist, but abortion choice policy itself is sexist. Sex-selective abortion is currently legal, and that means girls in utero are sometimes aborted just because they are girls. Abortion also has a bad history of promoting negative health outcomes for women. Abortion itself is a violent act against women, especially when the mother’s “consent” is blurred with heavy pressure from parents or partners. And perhaps the most glaring problem of sexism in abortion is how it enables reckless man-boys males to exploit women. They can “love ’em and leave ’em”.
32. It’s hypocritical to encourage pro-choice men to speak up and prohibit pro-life men from doing the same – NARAL, URGE, and other supporters of the “Bro Choice” movement encourage men to speak up so long as they are supporting abortion-choice.
33. It’s hypocritical to accept the verdict of Roe v. Wade (1973) and then say that men shouldn’t have a voice on the issue – Seven out of nine old white guys, on the Supreme Court, decided that abortion should be legalized across the nation.
34. If pro-choice advocates tried to undo the hypocrisy, and still keep men silent about abortion, they would have to reject what men have already said on abortion – besides just the Roe v. Wade ruling, if male voices were muffled then that would mean rejecting the established insights from men in the past, regarding abortion, including expert testimony from doctors, judges, scientists, attorneys, pollsters, technicians, politicians, academics and scholars.
35. “No womb, No Say” is a veiled attempt to stifle opposition – Pro-choice powers don’t really want men, generally, to be silent, they want pro-life men to be silent. It’s not a matter of ethics and rights, it’s a matter of convenience. It’s easier to advance a pro-choice agenda if roughly half of the opposition is silent.
36. It takes two to tango – men are half of the pregnancy equation. Having a role in creating the child, it’s not clear why men would have no role when it comes to the (preventing the) fate of their offspring. Ideally, childbearing should be a team effort and not a lone burden for women.
37. The Good Samaritan Rule – Morally, we’re responsible to do the good that we can do. Tim Brahm of Equal Rights Institute explains this point with a story about watching a depressed woman attempt to drown her newborn child, then Brahm says, “Now, I’m a man. I’ve never been pregnant. I’ve never been a mother. I will never know what she is going through. . . But even though I can’t understand what she’s going through, shouldn’t I try to do something to save that kid?” Good question!
38. Some women cannot get pregnant – By the logic of “no womb no way” those women would be denied a voice on the abortion issue.
39. Men have freedom of speech, just like women do – If women can speak out about prostate cancer, and they have every right do so, then men can speak about abortion. The First Amendment works either way.
40. Abortion contradicts paternity rights – It is legally inconsistent for women to be able to “walk away” from a pregnancy (abortion), while men are denied that right. Instead, men can be forced to pay child support even when they didn’t want to be fathers. This inconsistency might be unjust, and so, men have reason to speak up.
41. Men should use their privilege in society to offer solidarity with good causes – Supposing that men have a lot of privilege in society, we, therefore, have a moral duty to exercise our privilege in support of good. Fighting against the deadliest act against fellow human beings in world history is a worthy candidate.
42. It’s good to defend those who can’t defend themselves, regardless of sex/gender – Their silent scream cannot be heard, so people with a voice need to speak up for them. Men and women alike can intercede for the voiceless.
43. Abortion is an intersectional issue so that silencing men is too simplistic to represent it fairly – There are several different inequalities tied into abortion-choice policy. There are potential inequalities between men and women. But we can also point to inequalities along racial lines, or health, age, and so forth. Some of the most influential and expert witnesses for age discrimination, ableism, and racism are males. Silencing males on the issue of abortion restricts the voices protesting ableism, ageism, and racism.
44. Men can help deter the jerks who pressure women towards abortion – Male influence can be positive or negative. It’s true that some males are horrible human beings: abusive, predatory, deviants, who exploit women and coerce them into abortion. These jerks need every societal corrective we can throw at them – police, prosecutors, jailers, therapists, etc. But often they descend into deviancy for lack of a healthy father figure or positive male friends. When decent men are involved as Big Brothers, for example, they can help counteract many of the factors driving women to abortion, such as coercion, poverty, abuse, abandonment, etc. That won’t work in all cases, but it will work for some. Decent upstanding men can help create a family-friendly pro-life culture just by modeling redemptive manhood.
45. Men can work with women in teaching a family-based model of pregnancy – It’s no surprise that most women seeking abortion are not married or even in a healthy stable family. Healthy stable families are a historically well-established way to raise up the kind of people who don’t have unplanned pregnancies. Men and women together can promote healthy marriage, and parenting as a means of curbing abortion.
46. Men are justified in wanting to defend women from harm – if chivalry is dead, it’s because feminism killed it. But good men can always resurrect it, especially if it means protecting women from the violence in and around abortion.
47. Men can speak up through their actions – Male culture is more than words. A healthy masculine voice is not just spoken, it’s modeled. Raising a child is hard work anyway, but it gets even harder when men don’t step up as fathers, friends, and husbands. Far too many men already lack the maturity, courage, and commitment to come alongside the women in their lives to help them choose life. Sometimes the most powerful words we can share about abortion are voiced in silent strength and quiet commitment.
48. Fathers should be able to talk with their daughters about abortion – Fathers have a natural right and responsibility to raise their daughters, and that includes talking about sex, love, marriage, parenting, and of course the immeasurable value of human life.
49. Husbands should be able to talk with their wives about abortion – healthy marriages should share decision making, and work as a team in their family planning. Silent men would be a disservice to wives who want support and input from their husbands.
50. Brothers should be able to talk with their sisters about abortion – Healthy sibling relationships are another family tie where guys can have the rapport with their sisters to talk about important things like sexual health, pregnancy, and abortion.
51. Women should be free to get counsel and advice from males – Male counselors, religious leaders, and caring friends can be a tremendous help for women in a crisis pregnancy. If men are supposed to shut up about abortion, then they are handicapped in their ability to help.
52. Silent men are a waste of resources –Disenfranchised males can be incredibly dangerous. Every society has an enormous burden in deciding what to do with the boys. When boys don’t have to mature, settle down, or become gentlemen to be accepted in society, then they will tend to settle for adolescence, never marrying, never committing to fatherhood, slinking towards addiction, apathy, violence, and crime. The problem isn’t as simple as “toxic masculinity.” Males are a resource in society; they can spoil if neglected and explode when broken. But when they are mobilized and directed towards human flourishing they are an irreplaceable source of innovation, defense, and development. With the issue of abortion, men can be incredibly useful. Besides lending strength, compassion, and service, they can have insights, research, and sage counsel to help struggling mothers in their time of need. It would be a pity to lock away all those resources just because of casual pro-choice rhetoric.
53. Excluding men reduces diversity – We can learn a lot if we listen to a diverse array of voices sharing insights into issues that matter. Silencing all (pro-life) men artificially restricts that diversity.
54. Men who care about the health and direction of the nation should speak up about abortion as it ties into our founding principles as a nation, i.e., an equal right to life from our creation onward – It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The benefits of a free and humanitarian society will not defend themselves. We the people have a duty, as citizens, to protect the better parts of our society, and that includes the notion of “equal rights.” The Declaration of Independence says, “all men [humans] are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our founding fathers didn’t know, at that time, that the biological moment of creation is at conception. And if we are going to avoid infusing some spiritually weighted notion about souls, then we have to legally treat that moment of creation as a biological question – the moment of conception, the onset of biological human life. See more about this point in my debate at UT-Arlington (TX).
55. It’s not humanitarian to restrict whole demographics from discussing a human rights issue – the history of human rights legislation has, for the most part, been a gradual unveiling of our equal rights as human beings. But that process has had many pitfalls and perils. We cannot trust that any one group will safely lead the way without vital corrections arising from other groups. In this way, all of us are part of an ongoing conversation about the nature, extent, and grounding of our human rights. There is no settled and final conclusion, whether in the court of law, in the classroom, or in the science lab, dictating that men need to stay out of the abortion issue. It would contradict our humanitarian values as a nation to silence whole sectors of humanity because of their race, age, sex/gender.
56. Silencing men is close-minded – No one on earth is 100% right all the time. We should be open-minded enough to where we can keep learning and correct our mistakes. Silencing an entire demographic does not signal open-mindedness. It’s dogmatic and close-minded
57. Silencing men forces weird results with the LGBTQ movement – Do biological females lose their right to speak if they identify as a male? What if they have been pregnant before, but still identify as a male? What if a biological male identifies as a female, does that person get their voice back?
58. “No womb, no say” discriminates against intersex people – Some people are born with male and female sex organs, or with some other gender-ambiguating condition. Yet, the “no womb, no say” argument operates on a simple binary notion that women can speak up but not men. How traditionally “male” must a man be before he’s “man” enough to qualify in the eyes of pro-choice tone-police? Intersex people, just like everyone else, have the same general right to speak out about abortion, no matter who is trying to silence them.
59. Silent men have done enough damage already – Far too many men are passive, wimpy, indifferent loafers, too selfish and scared to protect, support, and honor the women in their lives. So, it’s no surprise when those women end up having an abortion because they never had the support network they needed. No gentleman stepped in as a husband, a brother, a friend, or a father, to lend the support she needed to choose life. Brothers, this should not be.
These are just the first 59 reasons I could come up with. But that’s more than enough to prove that “no womb, no say” is a myth. Silencing men is a popular pro-choice tactic designed to smother opposition and shame men into silence. It’s worked well over the years. Perhaps if more men had stepped into the mix with a gentle voice of concern or a careful word of wisdom, then we might not be in this predicament, staring at an abortion total that dwarfs the holocaust eleven-fold, literally. Men, your voice matters. Don’t just stand quietly on the sidelines hoping that your wives, sisters, daughters, and female friends will all do the right thing. Speak up! A word of compassion and truth just might make the difference between life and death.
Recommended Resources:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi
The Top 5 Principles of Proper Biblical Interpretation with Mike Winger
PodcastDoes your church teach you how to interpret the Bible? Sadly, many Christians never learn the tools to read Scripture well, and that leads to all kinds of confusion about theology. But how can we know if we’re handling God’s Word the right way?
This week, Frank sits down with the one and only Mike Winger, a former pastor turned popular YouTuber, who’s dedicated his channel to helping Christians understand the Scriptures. In this episode, Mike shares what led him to take his ministry online and explains the five core principles he uses when studying the Bible—principles many churches don’t talk about, but every believer should know! During their conversation, Frank and Mike will dive into questions like:
From spiritual gifts and women in ministry to Catholicism, false teachers, and misunderstood passages, Mike isn’t afraid to tackle the tough issues. With 1,000+ videos and a weekly Q&A livestream, Mike’s YouTube channel is a goldmine for anyone who wants to explore a deeper understanding of the Christian faith. Subscribe to Mike’s channel, visit his website BibleThinker.org, and learn how to study your Bible like never before!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Mike’s website: BibleThinker.org
Mike’s YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@MikeWinger
‘How to Interpret Your Bible’ Self-Paced Course
Why Biblical Authorship Matters: A Test Case
4. Is the NT True?On April 14th 2025, Christianity Today published an article entitled “Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?” In the article, the author asserted that it was likely that Jesus was not nailed to the cross but was instead tied to the cross with ropes. He argues this by appealing to an authority, a professor from Gordon College, who has made this argument based solely on some limited archaeological data. Indeed, in the article, the professor is cited as saying, “he wanted to explore the issue because it’s good to question tradition and people can benefit from closer scrutiny of history.”[i]
Did the Article Miss the Johannine Reference to the Nailprints?
When the article was published, it immediately came under fire on social media. After all, John 20:25 clearly states,
Thomas claimed that he would not believe Jesus rose from the dead unless he saw the very nail prints in Jesus’ hands and feet. This seems to be clear evidence in one of the Gospels that Jesus was crucified with nails. The question, then, is how could someone have missed this passage prior to publishing the article?
The simple answer is that they did not miss this passage. Indeed, the passage is addressed in the article. The article states, “Going back to the Bible, García said there is one place in the New Testament that mentions nails. In the Gospel of John, the doubting apostle Thomas says he would have to see and touch the “marks of the nails” (20:25), before he would believe that Jesus rose from the dead.” A few sentences later, however, the article states, “García said many scholars also think John was written later—perhaps after crucifixion with nails had become more common.”
The Implied Message of the Article: An Attack on Biblical Authorship
The article thus implies one of two things: either John, who was present at the crucifixion and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, got it wrong or the Gospel of John, which has been attributed to the apostle John since the early church, was not written by John as an eyewitness but was written much later by someone who was not present for these events and was just making up the story based on events of his own day instead of the events that actually occurred in history. Either one of these views is not something that should or needs to be held by believers.
Now, this is not an attack on Christianity Today. They acknowledged the article was incorrect, retracted some of the assertions and apologized for its assertions. However, how could this have happened in the first place when the text of Scripture seems so clear? Two years ago, I wrote an article entitled ”Why Biblical Authorship Matters?”. One of the assertions that I made in that article was that authorship mattered because “it gives us eyewitness accounts that help to establish historical reliability for many of the key events throughout the Bible.”
In this context, we know that Jesus was crucified with nails because John was both present for the crucifixion itself and was present for Thomas’ statement. He, as the author, serves as our eyewitness to these events. When you deny Johannine authorship, as Garcia asserts in the article, you open the door to destroying the reliability of the historical events presented in Scripture.
Conclusion
This should remind us once again that biblical authorship matters. It helps us to hold to the eyewitness accounts of many of the events of the Bible and should not be something that we just haphazardly throw away because critics argue against it. Otherwise, we end up doubting whether events in the Bible happened as they were written. That is a place that we do not want to end up in. Instead, we should trust the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, in part because many of the stories are documented by eyewitness testimony.
References:
[i] https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/04/was-jesus-crucified-with-nails/
Recommended Resources:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Daniel Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/40edPzX
Is Judging the Ultimate Sin? Unpacking the Chip & Joanna Gaines Controversy PLUS Q&A
PodcastHGTV’s favorite home-renovating duo, Chip & Joanna Gaines, recently found themselves at the center of controversy after featuring a same sex couple on their new show. While they’re known for flipping houses, some Christians are now asking, have they flipped their theology too?
In this solo midweek podcast episode, Frank addresses the cultural pressure Christians face when it comes to affirming homosexuality, and whether it’s ever wrong for believers to judge the sinful behavior of others. Tune in as Frank reacts to the backlash coming from both sides and answers questions like:
Later in the show, Frank also answers more of your listener questions including:
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Would Jesus Attend a Gay Wedding? with Becket Cook & Dr. Robert Gagnon
Faithfully Different by Natasha Crain
Hollywood Heroes by Frank & Zach Turek
The Longer Ending of Mark is Authentic! (Part 1) with Dr. Warren Gage
59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsIf you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower.
Why should men be silent? – The “No Womb, No Say” Position
Just being honest here, some men probably do need to shut their pie hole, but that’s because they’re lying, manipulative, idiot, blowhards. I’m sure you’ve met a few of those. Fortunately, that’s not every man. Some men have a word worth hearing. They can even have a timely word of protest against abortion. Sadly, a lot of people still believe that men have no right to protest abortion. This is the “no womb, no say” position.
Now “no womb, no say” is all sorts of wrong, but it’s not entirely wrong. We have to admit a kernel of truth to this popular maneuver. According to Captain Obvious, “Men can’t get pregnant.” Men don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant, carry a child to term, or have an abortion. We’ll never squirt out a seven-pound chunk of living flesh unless we have an organ removed. Abortion directly impacts women in the most intimate way. But, for men, it’s always indirect and it’s never as intimate.
There’s also a history of sexism getting in the way of things. Even today, it’s not hard, to find dark alleys, studios, and industries where women are treated terribly. Liberals and conservatives can debate about the extent of that problem, but we can all agree that there have been many cases of genuine sexism against women. We can also agree that one of the key reasons for the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling was an attempt at equalizing rights for women. Today, most all of us can agree, across political aisles and in every sector of society, that women have (or should have) an equal or greater voice on the subject of abortion.
But no one, in good conscience, should grant that women have the only voice on abortion. Given the scale of abortion (66 million in the U.S., 1.7 billion globally), and it’s profound and lasting effects on families, communities, nations, and the whole world, it is unconscionable to exclude fully half society from that pregnant conversation. Here are…
59 Reasons Why Men Need To Speak Out About Abortion
***Stay Tuned for part 2 with reasons number 26-59 on “Why Men Need to Speak up!” ***
References:
[1] Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned abortion-choice policy at the federal level, finding that there is no constitutional protection for abortion. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Doe v. Bolton (1973) and subsequent cases built on those rulings like Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992). The Dobbs decision did not however overturn abortion-choice policy at the state level. States still have the legal right install, regulate, or ban abortion-choice at the state level.
Recommended Resources:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi
Standing for Christ on the NBA Court with Jonathan Isaac
PodcastWould you compromise your Christian faith to save your job, your relationships, and your reputation? Or would you have the courage to stand up for what you believe, no matter the consequences?
On July 31, 2020, the Orlando Magic starting forward, Jonathan Isaac, was the lone NBA player not to kneel for the national anthem amid a league-wide demonstration in support of Black Lives Matter. This week, Frank sits down with Jonathan to talk through his inspirational story of faith, conviction, and courage in the face of overwhelming pressure. In this episode, you’ll learn:
We hope this episode encourages you to boldly live out your Christian faith, even when it’s unpopular. To learn more about Jonathan’s powerful story, grab a copy of his book, ‘Why I Stand‘, and check out his sneaker and Christian apparel line at WeAreUnitus.com.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Why I Stand by Jonathan Isaac
Unitus Faith-Forward Footwear & Apparel
Not My Jesus: A List Of Christological Heresies
Theology and Christian ApologeticsJesus Of Nazareth Is the most disputed character in history. Most of the world’s religions incorporate him into their teaching, whether as a morally perfect prophet (Islam), a divine manifestation (Baha’i), or a reincarnated god (Hinduism). Buddhists believe he is a grace-giving demigod or even a Buddha. Christian cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormon Church readily incorporate Jesus as a partial divine, more than man but less than the full deity of Father God. Almost all of Judaism rejects Jesus as a false prophet, a mere mortal, and a failed messiah.[1] Meanwhile Atheists and skeptics tend to see Jesus as a liar or a lunatic. Mythicists debate his very existence with skeptical weapons set on eleven.
Clearly, Jesus of Nazareth is a contentious character. So we should not be surprised that Christian history has held many theological battles in the theatre of Christology (theology about Jesus). The church has fought hard to answer, “Who is Jesus?” If He is, indeed, “the way the truth and the life” and “salvation is found in no other name” then we should make sure we aren’t dealing with a distorted pseudo-Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Theological integrity is a matter of ultimate importance here. Heresies about Jesus (a.k.a., christological heresies) make for an important study because Jesus is the most important person there is.
What is a Heresy?
First, we may ask, what is a heresy? The short answer is, “aberrant teaching.” A heresy is some teaching which departs from core Christian teaching. But that definition is a little unclear. It doesn’t really help quell the human habit of exaggerated accusations – where people are liable to call most anything heresy, even if it’s just a different option within historic Christianity. Nor does that definition help distinguish between denominational versus heretical disagreements.
Often people throw around the term “heresy” with little concern for the implications of this imposing term. Heresy is a libelous term and shouldn’t be used lightly. For our purposes here, we need to see what really qualifies as heresy. But to do this, we need to know, “what is orthodoxy?”
Orthodoxy (Lat., “right doctrine/teaching”) refers to the established, agreed-upon, and time-tested theology of the historic Christian faith (incl., Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox). A similar concept is orthopraxy (Lat. “right practice”). Sometimes these notions, right-practice and right-teaching, are fused under the parent-term orthodoxy. We’re just looking at teachings about Jesus Christ, what theologians call “Christology.” So, we don’t need to address orthopraxy here.
There is a lot of gray area in the notion of “orthodoxy,” and there are many disputes over particular teachings and whether they count as heresy, such as “open theism,” or “baptismal regeneration.” But we have an imperfect yet reliable way to identify what is probably orthodox and what is probably not.
These tests are the various ways the church has been checking ideas for theological integrity over the whole course of church history. You can skim any of the Ecumenical Church councils and see each of these criteria in action. These tests aren’t implemented equally by all denominations, nor are these tests collectively used by each Christian faith tradition. But together these tests constitute a good approximation for how to discern orthodoxy. This rubric is imperfect in that some orthodox ideas only satisfy a few of these tests. But this rubric is reliable in that there’s no orthodox idea which fails all of these tests.
Deviations from orthodoxy are called heterodoxy. Not all heterodox teachings would count as heresy because something could lie outside of orthodox teaching, but it’s not important enough, it doesn’t carry enough consequence, or it’s too much of a terminological dispute (just haggling over word choice, without any other significance underneath). For example, it would be heterodox to teach that Jesus’s favorite number was 9, or that all church buildings should be cross shaped, or that women and men have to partake of communion on different days of the week, or that church services will be meeting only on ground that’s been blessed by a saint.
Compared to orthodoxy, the term “heresy” is referring to some teaching or practice which deviates in a contradictory way from orthodoxy. That is, heresy deviates from the established and agreed-upon central teachings in historic Christianity.
What is Historic Christianity?
By “historic christianity” is meant the church universal over the course of it’s history. That includes, Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox. there is a continuum of development–as the church refines it’s teaching and practices over time. And there are denominational differences between and within these schools of thought. But the changes are not heresy unless (1) they step outside of the agreed-upon theological options vetted across church history (such as the 7 ecumenical councils, Vatican II, the test of Scripture, Apostle’s creed, etc.), and (2) they address a central teaching of the church, such as a creedal statement or a salvation teaching. For example, many of the teachings of the 2nd century Church Father Origen were not considered heresy at the time, but were later deemed heretical. There is grace for him, however, since the collective wisdom of the church had not yet aligned on the finer points of theology which he transgressed. Like the rest of us, Origen was responsible for what he was able to know, not for what he was couldn’t have known at the time.
What then is the orthodox teaching about Jesus Christ?
Getting Christ Right: Orthodox Christology
Orthodoxy: Jesus is revealed in the Bible as the promised and prophesied Messiah, fully God,
fully man, born of a virgin yet eternal and unborn, equal deity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, sinless and miracle worker, second person of the Trinity, who died by crucifixion, was buried, who rose bodily the third day, into the same but glorified body, having died for the sins of the world, such that faith in Him as God and savior is the only means of salvation, by grace and not by the works of other men, and He will return to judge all people and He reigns forevermore.
Christological Heresies
Ebionism: Originated in the1st-2nd cent. Jesus was only man, not God. *Heresy of the Ebionites.*From the Hebrew word “ebyon,” meaning “poor” which was the name chosen by an early and self-debasing Jewish sect for which this heresy is named. *They focused on Jesus’ teaching, “blessed are the poor in spirit.” *Deny Deity of Christ. *Deny virgin birth. Deny Jesus’ preexistence (before being born on earth). *Condemned in the Council of Nicea in 325AD.
Docetism: Orig., 3rd cent. Jesus was only God, not man *AKA: Illusionism. *From the Greek “Doketai” meaning “to seem.” *Jesus only seemed to be human but was in reality only God. *First mentioned in the early 3rd century but was found in various views including Marcionism and Gnosticism. *Some assert that another person died in Jesus’ place on the cross. *Condemned in the Council of Chalcedon 451.
Adoptionism: Orig., 2nd cent. Jesus was man who became Christ or God by adoption. *AKA: Dynamic Monarchianism. *Jesus was a righteous man who became the Son of God by adoption. *The adoption was at baptism where the Spirit or “Christ” descended on Him. *Some think He became “God” at the Resurrection. *Earliest expression of this view was in the Shepherd of Hermas. *Also affirmed by Theodotus. *Rejected by the church in the 2nd and 8th centuries. *Compatible with Arianism. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.
Arianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus was a demigod, between God and man. *Jesus was less than God but more than man. *Jesus was created, finite, and could sin. *Similar to ebionism and compatible with adoptionism. *Advanced by 4th Century Bishop Arius. *It took 18 church councils to resolve the issue, most of them elaborating on the Nicene Council. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.
Apollinarianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus had no human mind. *Jesus lacked a human mind/soul, having instead a divine mind. *Jesus had all the other parts of a human however: spirit, body, and animal soul (the animating force but not the intellect or spirit). *Espoused by Apollinarius in the 4th century. *Condemned in the 4th century, in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.
*see a review of this article “Not My Jesus, Part 1” by William Lane Craig at Reasonable Faith*
Monophysitism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus had only one divine nature and no human nature. *AKA: Eutychianism, named after its founder Eutychus. *Jesus had only one nature the divine nature which absorbed and nullified any human nature. *Affirms that Jesus is both divine and human, but not “fully” human. *Slightly different from Apollinarianism. This view asserts that Jesus had one nature, while Apol. asserts Jesus had one soul. *Condemned at the Council of Chalcedon 451.
Nestorianism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus has two unmixed, unrelated, natures. *Jesus is two distinct natures, and only one, the human nature, was birthed by Mary. *Nestorius (5th cent.) vigorously opposed the phrase “[Mary] Mother of God” (Theotokos), preferring the phrase “Mother of Christ” (Kristotokos). *The human and divine natures are separate and distinct. *Condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD.
Monothelitism: Orig.: 7th cent. Jesus lacked a human will. *Originally taught in 633AD in Armenia and Syria by Vigilius and Pope Honorius. *Affirmed Jesus’s human and divine natures, but denied that Jesus had two wills. *Jesus’s divine will meant he would not/could not have conflicted desires. *Condemned in the Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681AD
Mythicism: Orig., 19th cent. Jesus was only a mythical character. *Originally taught by Charles Francois Dupuis (1742-1809). There are two-major variations. Strong mythicism teaches that there was no historical Jesus, a.k.a., Jesus of Nazareth. Weak Mythicism teaches that the “Jesus of faith” is radically different from the Jesus of history who was, instead, either a mere mortal subject to evolving myth and legend or he is an amalgam of characters and events fused together in the course of legendary accrual.
References:
[1] Judaism overwhelmingly rejects Jesus as the Messiah. This majority includes almost all Jewish denominations or sects including Orthodox/Rabbinic, Conservative, Reform, Karaite, Samaritan, Reconstructionist, Secular, Sephardic, and Hasidic Judaism. All broadly unite in the rejection of Jesus as Divine and as Messiah. The exception is Messianic Judaism, sometimes called “Fulfilled” Judaism, which is typically categorized as a Christian denomination instead of a Jewish sect properly. The conventional categories, however, are subject to debate since Messianic Jews, arguably, are an authentic hybrid of Jewish and Christianity identity–truly Jewish and truly Christian–with no theological compromise or revision on either front. This unique and uncompromised status would be in contrast to other alleged “hybrids” like Sikhism (supposedly hybridizing Islam and Hinduism), or Nation of Islam (supposedly Islamic plus Black Theology).
Recommended Resources:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3TAWiy6
Why the Foundations of Islam Are Now Crumbling with Dr. Jay Smith – Part 2
PodcastHow much do you really know about Islam? Is it possible that we’ve never been told the full story about the historic origins of Muhammad, Mecca, and the Qur’an? In this midweek episode, Frank continues his fascinating conversation with Islam expert, Dr. Jay Smith, who has dedicated his life to evangelizing Muslims. Together, they expose the shocking lack of historical and manuscript evidence for the Qur’an, the prophet Muhammad, and even the city of Mecca itself. Together, Frank and Dr. Smith address questions like:
This riveting conversation will not only expose the inconsistencies in Islam’s origin story, but also highlight the unmatched reliability of the Christian faith in contrast. We should encourage our Muslim friends to consider a better Man and a better Book–Jesus and His Word!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Why the Foundations of Islam Are Now Crumbling – Part 1
Dr. Jay Smith’s Website
Dr. Jay Smith’s YouTube channel
HOT OFF THE PRESS! Muslim Scholar Throws the Historicity of Muhammad UNDER THE BUS!
Two New Findings That Muhammad Didn’t Exist
Investigating Islam
Dismantling Islam PowerPoint Slides
100 Gorillas vs. 1 Man
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsThe internet has been buzzing with a hypothetical: “Could 100 men defeat a fully grown gorilla in a fight?”
As a former MMA fighter and coach, I’ve seen the limits of human strength—and the power of teamwork. I’ve trained with Olympic medalist wrestlers and UFC champions. Based on that experience, I’m convinced that 20 heavyweight, Olympic-caliber wrestlers or UFC champions could bring down a gorilla. Not because they’re stronger pound-for-pound, but because they’re strong enough together, and—more importantly—smart enough to devise a plan and execute it.
So, yes, 100 average men using their reasoning powers, coordination, and willpower could defeat one gorilla. But let’s flip the script: Could 100 gorillas outwit a single reasonable human? Absolutely not.
Even with sheer numbers, gorillas lack the intellectual hardware and cognitive faculties to engage in metaphysics, abstract reasoning, mathematics, moral judgment, strategic deception, or language. You could have a hundred gorillas staring at a chessboard or a copy of Mere Christianity, and they’d still be no match for even a modestly intelligent human being.
Why? Because Intelligence Isn’t Additive—It’s Categorical
Physical strength adds up: 100 pounds + 100 pounds = 200 pounds. But intelligence doesn’t scale like that. You don’t get collective rationality just by adding more non-rational minds together. Ten gorillas aren’t “ten times as clever” as one. A hundred gorillas don’t become a committee of philosophers. You just get a louder troop.
The Deeper Point
Human beings are categorically different, not just stronger or more social, but made in the image of God. The imago Dei means we are capable of recognizing metaphysical reality, reflecting morally, reasoning logically, practicing self-awareness, and giving and receiving genuine love. These are not just evolutionary adaptations. They are spiritual fingerprints—ontological markers of our uniqueness.
Strength and Intelligence: Different Kinds of Power
This gorilla debate accidentally reveals something profound: Raw strength and intelligence are distinct forms of power.
And it’s intelligence that allows strength to be managed, directed, or overcome. That’s why God told Adam to subdue the earth and govern the creatures—not because Adam was stronger than a lion, but because he was rational, relational, reflective , and morally responsible.
Conclusion: Why This Even Matters
It’s possible—at least hypothetically—for one hundred men to defeat a gorilla with brawn, brains, and teamwork. But not even a thousand gorillas could beat a man at chess, solve a logic puzzle, write a sonnet, or engage in metaphysics. Because intelligence isn’t just power in numbers. It’s power of a different kind altogether—a power that reflects the very mind of God.
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Tim Stratton
Recommended Resources:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/40cLE4j