Tag Archive for: apologetics

Three Bad Arguments for Euthanasia

Polling sometimes suggests that the UK public is in favor of ‘assisted dying.’ This is an illusion, caused in many cases by people not knowing what ‘assisted dying is.’ A recent poll showed that only 42% of the public understood what ‘assisted dying’ refers to, with 10% thinking it meant hospice-type care and 42% believing it meant stopping treatment.

There is no legal or ethical mandate that a terminally ill person must be kept alive “at all costs.” There is, however, a major difference between withdrawing medical treatment and thereby allowing a patient to die of his or her own medical condition and intentionally ending a patient’s life.

What Is Euthanasia?

Euthanasia (as well as assisted suicide) is most basically understood as the lethal dose of drugs to deliberately end a life. Here is what euthanasia is not:

  • Turning off life support or withdrawing treatment.[1]
  • Providing drugs that reduce a patient’s discomfort at the end of their life.
  • Making a ‘do not resuscitate’ CPR request

But as well as the simple misunderstandings people have about what ‘assisted dying’ is – there are some often repeated arguments for euthanasia that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Three bad arguments for euthanasia

Reason #1: We euthanize our pets. The precise reason that we might euthanize a pet but not a human is because a human is not a pet! Once we reduce human beings to mere animals, a host of horrendous evils are bound to follow. Have you ever heard of the saying “treated like animals”? Human beings are a unique category of being, and so it is a dangerous category error to argue for human beings to be euthanized based on how we treat our pets. Human beings are not pets.

Reason #2: A patient can become a heavy financial strain. A price tag cannot be placed on human life – we cannot argue that life must be taken in order to save money. A human being’s value is not determined by their medical bill but by the fact that they are a human being. Human dignity is levelled across the scope of the entire human race, and those of us who are ill and inhibited are no less human than those of us who are not. Can you imagine the upheaval if it were argued that poor people are less valuable than rich people because they are more of a burden on the state? “Financial strain” is an unethical reason to end a human life.

Reason #3: People need the autonomy to choose to die in peace. Euthanasia is not necessary to satisfy this reason. The benefits of modern medicine mean that terminally ill people can generally choose to die in peace with effective use of palliative care (i.e., hospice). For people whose illness is no longer curable, palliative care supports quality of life and pain-management enabling patients to enjoy their final moments in peace—without killing themselves. Modern medicine makes available sufficient treatment to ethically treat patients without killing them, and thus the call for euthanasia (based off reason #3) is obsolete.

Euthanasia advocates do not have the moral high ground.

To appear convincing, pro-euthanasia arguments (see above) have to (Reason 1) de-escalate human dignity to the value of animals, (Reason 2) place a price-cap on human worth, and (Reason 3) argue that suicide is a good option in some circumstances.

No such position which advocates for these three things can be said to be taking the ethical high ground. And here is the major ethical problem that surfaces once euthanasia is legalized: The legalization of euthanasia sends the message that you can justifiably determine that your life is not worth living.

What message would the legalization of euthanasia send to someone who has depression? The whole issue with depressed people who go on to commit suicide is that they are mentally convinced that they are stuck with a terminal condition from which they will never be able to escape, unless they end their lives.

How can we promote positive mental health for people who struggle with depression, and strive to see them pursue life; if we have another sub-set of the population whom we deem worthy of ending their life over their suffering?

The legalization of euthanasia, for a sub-set of the population, sets an extremely dangerous precedent for other vulnerable members of society. Innocent lives are not ours to take. We are morally obligated not to kill ourselves or others. Euthanasia is always in some form of homicide, and so ethically, it should be prohibited.

A Christian view of suffering

Much can be learned through suffering. Pro-euthanasia arguments, perhaps understandably, tend to emphasize avoiding of suffering, even at the cost of one’s life. But this is not a Christian view of suffering. James 1:2-4 (ESV) says, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.”

And Romans 5:3-4 (ESV) says, “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.”

You can read more on what the Bible says about euthanasia here.

Far from being an evil to be avoided at all costs, suffering can be a time for refinement, and character building, no matter how old we are.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s note: A distinction can be drawn here between (1) “life-support” and (2) “assisted living.” Life-support refers to technological measures which artificially sustain someone’s life when, otherwise, their heart, lungs, brain, (etc.) would not be able to do it. A ventilator would be an example – since it “breathes” for them, doing the work that lungs should be doing. Meanwhile, Assisted living refers to the use of different measures, technological or not, to help sustain someone’s basic needs even though their organs can sustain life. For example, an oxygen tube, intravenous hydration, or a feeding tube. When life support is removed the person dies of natural causes. When assisted living is terminated the individual starves or suffocates to death.

Recommended Resources:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)   

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3XCfbSL

/by

Open Borders: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? | with Hedieh Mirahmadi

How do you express concerns about illegal immigration without sounding like a racist? And is it irrational to be Islamophobic? Speaking out against open border policies can get you canceled, but should that fear outweigh the risks of unvetted, undocumented immigrants flooding into the country? Is the real goal of unchecked immigration to weaken Christianity? If so, can Christians and Conservatives do anything in an attempt to sustain the infrastructure of America before it’s too late?

Picking up right where they left off in the last podcast, Frank and Hedieh Mirahmadi continue their discussion about the potential destruction that the West is facing in light of mass immigration and the rise of radical Islam. How could America do a better job of vetting people from Muslim countries? Why is the far left’s alliance with Islam illogical? How has the Biden-Harris Administration emboldened antisemitism? Does Trump have the power to take down the Deep State if he wins the next election? They’ll tackle all these topics and much more in this special follow-up episode!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Hedieh’s website: Ressurect Ministry

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Former Undercover Counter-Terrorism Agent Speaks Out | with Hedieh Mirahmadi

With the encroaching geopolitical movement of Islam and the influx of immigrants from all over the world through our open borders, what future lies ahead for the West, and where are we when it comes to national security? Are we more vulnerable to terrorism today than we were before 9/11? Have we learned from the past, or is America on the verge of repeating history?

Buckle up for an eye-opening discussion with Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi, a former Muslim and undercover counterterrorism operative who has served five presidents and worked with the U.S. government for over 20 years. Hedieh will share her unique insights into the U.S. efforts to combat Islamic jihadist extremism in Muslim nations along with her concerns surrounding the shift in focus from Islamic terrorism to domestic terrorism. During their conversation, Frank and Hedieh will answer questions like:

  • How was Hedieh originally led into Islam and how did she become an FBI informant?
  • What’s happening with immigration in the UK and what does it reveal about the potential future of the U.S.?
  • How did Islamic extremism replace mainstream Islam in places like Africa, Asia, and the Middle East?
  • Why would the CIA fund Bin Laden? And were there clear warnings in advance about 9/11 that were overlooked by government officials?
  • Is the spread of disinformation a true threat to the American people?
  • Is democracy achievable in Muslim nations? And what’s the relationship between Islam and Marxism?

 

Don’t miss the upcoming midweek episode where Hedieh and Frank further explore the rise of radical Islam, its implications for the Church, and what can be done to protect the West! And be sure to visit Hedieh’s website to learn more about her work and stay informed on these critical issues!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

ResurrectMinistry.com

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Key Tenets of Marxism VS America’s Philosophical Foundations

I’ve been fascinated by Marxism since my parents first told me about the Cold War we were living in when I was almost 10-years-old (1983). I remember asking them why the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons aimed at us. After my parents reassured me that we had just as many nuclear missiles aimed back at them — ensuring that they will not use these weapons against us (peace through strength) — they explained it to me like I was 10-years-old (because I was). While not using these exact words, my parents basically told me that the Soviet Union was based upon a philosophy called Marxism which is logically incompatible with America’s theological and philosophical foundations. This sparked a desire to learn more about our fundamental disagreements.

I wanted to know about America’s philosophical foundations. I wanted to know more about Marxism. So, over the past four decades I have studied Marxism off and on as a hobby. While I make no claims to be a Marxist scholar, as a philosophically inclined analytic theologian — who has applied the tools of my trade to this hobby — I do think it’s fair to say that I know enough about Marxism to have an informed conversation on the matter. So, since my parents provided me with a nice introduction to Marxism four decades ago, allow me to pay it forward and provide an introduction here.

Marxism 101 

In a nutshell, Marxism is a socio-political and economic ideology developed by Karl Marx (hence the name “Marxism”) and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. As Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, his philosophy emphasizes the role of struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor in societal development. Marx advocated for a classless, stateless society where the means of production are owned collectively.

That might look good on paper, but Marxism has a rich history of utter failure, poverty, tyranny, death, and destruction. Indeed, if we are comparing death counts, Marxism makes Hitler’s Nazi Party seem tame. While Hitler’s Holocaust of evil murdered six million Jews, those putting Marx’s philosophy into action have killed well-over 100 million people! Yet, while we do not hear that we’ve got to keep trying Naziism again and again, Marxists demand that despite repeated failures, along with more and more death and destruction, we must keep trying to implement Marxism again, and again, and over again.

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results

The preceding words are attributed to Albert Einstein, but whoever originally said it, these words ring true. Yet, Karl Marx’s philosophy — which promises a better tomorrow — always leads to the same outcome, with the “useful idiots” who helped to usher Marxists into power, now trying to escape their new “utopia.” (The term “useful idiots” is not a pejorative term, but a Marxist term for a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda.)

Konstan Kisin was fortunate enough to escape Marxism and puts it this way:

Lenin promised a better tomorrow in Russia, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Mao promised a better tomorrow in China, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Castro promised a better tomorrow in Cuba, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Chavez promised a better tomorrow in Venezuela, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.

Surprisingly, many useful idiots living within the borders of America — while enjoying a protection of their unalienable God-given rights — seem to think that they should use their freedom to destroy their freedom by making progress toward a Marxist utopia. The historical death count alone should prevent any sane person from advancing the cause of Marxism today, yet key tenets of Marx’s philosophy are alive and well.

Marxism’s Key Tenets

Here’s a short list of key ingredients included in Marx’s philosophy:

1. Class Struggle: Marxism is basically a worldview that posits a necessary conflict that only Marxism can solve. Marx said that the history of class struggles were between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class). Today, the language typically used (and that most of us will recognize) is the struggle between the “oppressed” and the “oppressor.” The ultimate goal is for the proletariat (or “the oppressed”) to overthrow the bourgeoisie (“the oppressor”), leading to a classless society.

Marx utilized the oppressor/oppressed narrative in the 1840s when he co-authored the Communist Manifesto. Today, you will hear the exact same language used by those at the top of the Black Lives Matter organization. This makes sense since the leaders of the movement have proudly admitted that they are “trained Marxists.”

2. Abolition of Private Property: Marxists advocate for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, etc.) and propose that these should be owned collectively by the community or ruling government.

As the World Economic Forum (WEF) recently said, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”

3. Collectivism and State Control: Marxism starts with Socialism and emphasizes the central role of the government in controlling and distributing resources until the state itself “withers away” and transforms into full-blown Communism.

4. Critique of Capitalism: Marxism views capitalism as an exploitative system where the bourgeoisie (or the oppressor) extracts surplus value from the labor of the proletariat (or the oppressed), leading to inequality and social injustice. Thus, the Marxist advances what they refer to as “social justice,” which seeks equity (equal outcomes) as opposed to equal rights and opportunity.

Kamala Harris points out the difference between equality (equal rights and opportunity) as opposed to equity — “all ending up in the same place” (equal outcomes) in this short video.

5. Revolutionary Change: Marxism advocates for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system, rather than reforming it through gradual or democratic means. We have seen this throughout history. “Political power grows out of a barrel of a gun” are infamous words uttered by Chinese Marxist named Mao Zedong. This has happened multiple times in world history, but most of us are old enough to remember that Black Lives Matter led a summer full of “mostly peaceful” protests combined with extremely violent riots in 2020 (that made January 6th look like a guided tour of the Capitol building). We saw a snapshot of what trained Marxists are willing to do in order to destroy “the system” in hopes to “Build Back Better.”

Karl Marx died in 1883, but his ideas have evolved and advanced at the Frankfurt School in Germany which exists for the purpose of advancing Marxism. This provided the foundation for the idea known as Critical Theory, and what has been advanced recently as Critical Race Theory (CRT). It’s vital to recognize this “theory” has deep roots in Marxism.

*Click here to read a copy of a speech I gave to the Kearney Public Schools Board of Education in 2022 about the dangers of CRT.

America’s Philosophical Foundations

The key tenets of Marxism are in opposition to America’s theological foundations stated in the Declaration of Independence and enemies of the United States Constitution. That is to say, the foundational documents of the United States are based upon principles that are incompatible with Marxism:

1. Individual Equal Rights and Private Property: The Declaration of Independence emphasizes God-given equal and “unalienable rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” which are closely tied to the protection of individual rights and private property (starting with the private property of your own body). The Constitution enshrines these rights through various amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights. Marxism, in contrast, seeks to abolish private property and emphasizes collective rights and property over individual rights and property.

2. Limited Government: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of limited government, with checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power. When the government is smaller, We the People have more freedom. Marxism, on the other hand, advocates for a powerful state — ultimately a dictator — to control resources and enforce equity (equal outcomes) upon all people, regardless of their personal choices.

3. Democratic Processes: The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic and the U.S. Constitution is based on democratic principles where change is achieved through We the People in an electoral processes and the rule of law. As noted above, however, Marxism often advocates for revolutionary change, which can involve the use of horrible violence and the overthrow of existing governmental structures.

This is one reason why the Second Amendment (2A) of the U.S. Constitution is so important. America’s Founders realized that the human right of self-defense — and the defense of loved ones — serves as an insurance of all of our other rights and is “necessary to the security of a free state.” This makes it clear that the 2A is not about “hunting rights,” it’s about security and the ability to oppose enemies of the Constitution; foreign or domestic (this might explain why progressives, who are willing to use violence to overthrow the freedoms of American citizens, often seem frustrated by the 2A).

4. Capitalism: The American system is built on a capitalist economic model, which Marxism fundamentally opposes. The protection of free markets and private enterprise is central to the U.S. economy, whereas Marxism seeks to dismantle capitalism entirely.

These fundamental differences lead to an inherent opposition between Marxist ideology and the principles enshrined in America’s theological and philosophical foundational documents. These two views are logically incompatible. The American system prioritizes individual human freedom (my favorite topic), private ownership of property, and a government that serves and protects objective and unalienable human rights, whereas Marxism seeks to replace these structures with a collectivist system focused on equity and the forced communal ownership (ultimately through the barrel of a gun) of all resources and everything else.

I believe that America’s philosophical foundations are objectively true (i.e., they correspond to reality). Thus, in order to avoid painful collisions with reality, we ought to strive to correspond to reality. In a nutshell, I affirm Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Accordingly, objectively good governments will not violate a human’s God-given rights. Indeed, an objectively good government will use its power to protect and fight for the God-given rights of humanity.

Since I possess knowledge that Christianity is true (given a cumulative case of evidence), I also know that Jefferson was right. Humanity was created on purpose and for specific purposes. This places us in an epistemic position to know exactly what our God-given rights are. This is also why it’s vital to study the entirety of God’s inspired Word (read your Bible)! Ultimately, Bible-believing Christians know that humans have God-given rights that ought not be violated by anyone – including governments.

In addition to the four philosophical principles of American philosophy, listed above, House Speaker Mike Johnson provides seven key essentials (some overlap with the above list) that American Conservatives — those seeking to conserve America’s philosophical and theological foundations — uphold:

  1. Individual Freedom
  2. Limited Government
  3. The Rule of Law
  4. Peace through Strength
  5. Fiscal Responsibility
  6. Free Markets
  7. Human Dignity

 

Progressives, as opposed to conservatives, have different goals. Whenever one refers to themselves as a “progressive,” I always ask them to clarify and be specific about what they are “progressing away from” and what they are progressing toward. I’ve had these conversations on many college campuses around the country and it seems that those who refer to themselves as “progressive” tend to make progress away from America’s philosophical foundations and often find themselves on a journey toward what they have been promised: a Marxist utopia.

This utopia can only exist if America’s foundation can be destroyed. Or in the words of Kamala Harris:

“To see what can be, unburdened by what has been.”

Make no mistake, Marxists have a religious devotion to being “unburdened by what has been” (America’s philosophical foundations). Despite horrendous failures over and over again, a Marxist utopia is what they believe “can be,” if they just try it one more time.

A Theological View of Marxism

Marxism is not merely a “shallow philosophy” (Colossians 2:8). As a theologian, I believe it is fair to refer to Marxism as a religion or a religious substitute. Of course, Marx did say that “religion is the opium of the people” so, although Marx himself would probably not refer to Marxism as a “religion,” it does share striking similarities with religion. Indeed, it seems to be an anti-Christ religion.

Just as Buddhism is often referred to as an “atheistic religion,” Marxism also seems to be worthy of that label. This is because it steps into the theological lane and attempts to provide answers to the problem of evil, sin, atonement, and forgiveness.

I have published two books and an academic journal article destroying particular arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Namely, all the problems of evil. I highly recommend reading the chapter I contributed to the book, Faith Examined (Wipf and Stock, 2023) where I show that if Christianity is true, combined with God’s necessary omniscience, then all the so-called “problems of evil” melt away. But, as philosopher Owen Anderson notes in his article, “Mere Marxism,” the Marxist seeks to take a non-theological approach to addressing why evil exists in the world. The problem is that some people have more stuff than other people. The Marxist’s answer is that the places where there is not as much suffering have exploited the places that have more suffering. Dr. Anderson writes:

In this story, those places were once Edenic. The people lived in harmony with each other and with nature until European sails were seen on the horizon, and all hell broke loose.

Of course, anyone with minimal knowledge of history knows this is historical revisionism (see, How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt). As Anderson notes, before these lands were “colonized” by Europeans they were . . .

“filled with idolatry, sexual immorality, warfare, cannibalism, rape, self-mutilation, torture, and human sacrifice. But if you are taught the Mere Marxist narrative from K-12 and then in college, it is all you know.”

So there is a “problem of sin” in Marxism, and some are born sinners and some are born sinned against. But don’t worry, just as Jesus provides good news so that you can be set free from sin, the Marxist religion also provides atonement for your sins (more theology) if you happened to be born into the class of “oppressor.” Of course, this atonement is not through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but rather, Marxism is a religion of works. If you were born into the class of the sinful oppressor, you can be saved and make the world a better place by giving lots of your money and time to progressive causes — along with much virtue signaling.

Anderson notes that

“Marxism should rightly be considered as a cult that borrows from Christian beliefs. It teaches about a perfect time, the introduction of sin (private property and greed), and the path through atonement and redemption. It is a religion of works. There is no grace or mercy. You can only be redeemed by doing your fair share.”

Now that we’ve shown Marxism to meet the requirements for being a religion, I’m sure the ACLU will be consistent and demand the separation of Church and State.

So, not only is Marxism the enemy of America’s Philosophical Foundations, it’s also opposed to The Law of Christ and the gospel message. Marx seemed to realize this inherent contradiction between these two worldviews when he decried that “religion was the opium of the people.” Thus, religion — especially Christianity — opposed the goals of Marxism. After all, if the ultimate goal of Marxism is equity (equal outcomes despite personal choices) it opposes the teachings of Jesus and the Law of Christ.

This is why, in order to transform America into a Marxist utopia, one of the first steps was to advance arguments raised against the knowledge of God. This is also why those advancing Marxist ideals have spent so much time focused on the growing number of theologians and philosophers who “destroy every argument raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5) and provide a cumulative case of arguments and evidence supporting the existence of God and the truth of the historical resurrection.

When Christianity thrives, Marxism dies. 

Conclusion

This article briefly surveyed some key principles of Marxism and compared and contrasted them with key principles of America’s philosophical and theological foundations. We have seen that these two worldviews are logically incompatible and thus, natural enemies. Indeed, when one takes the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution . . .

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

. . . one promises to defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. Marxism is at the top of the list of these enemies.

Although the evil of Marxism presents itself in physical form against your neighbors, loved ones, and the least of these (Mark 12:30-31; Matthew 25:31-46), while promising to help them, it comes to destroy them. We must remember where this evil comes from. The Apostle Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:

12 For our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. 13 This is why you must take up the full armor of God, so that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having prepared everything, to take your stand.

Of course, these spiritual forces of evil in which Paul speaks have infected the minds of many humans. We must seek to reason together (Isaiah 1:18) and speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) as we strive to free their minds (which is what FreeThinking Ministries is all about). We must always speak the truth, but we should begin with gentleness and kindness. If those we love refuse to listen — and as this evil becomes a clear and present danger to them and others — then Jesus and Paul give us examples of how the most loving thing to do is to stop worrying about being nice or coming across in humility. At that point, speaking the hard truth with cold facts is often the most loving thing a person can do for those refusing to see this danger.

Stay awake!

8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world (1 Peter 5:8-9).

Bottom line: We must call out the evils of this “shallow philosophy” (some have referred to it as the “woke mind virus”) which has taken so many captive (Colossians 2:8). Your neighbors, your loved ones, and the least of these depend on your voice. With this in mind, do not be silent in the face of evil! Be loud for the sake of love.

Much more can be said on this topic. Don’t worry, although this article was written as an introduction to the topic, FreeThinking Ministries has many articles and videos about the evils of Marxism (including several from Phil Bair, the author of Marx Attacks). More are forthcoming. Stay tuned.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and live in freedom (Galatians 5:13).

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

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.

Original Blog Posted Here: https://bit.ly/47wepLU

 

/by

Where Do Democrats Stand on Major Issues? | with Wintery Knight and Desert Rose

Christian apologists Wintery Knight and Desert Rose return to the program to continue their conversation on ‘How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics.’ On the last episode, Knight and Rose discussed socialism, abortion, and the past voting record of Kamala Harris. Today, they cover in rapid-fire-succession where the Democratic platform stands on other “important matters of the law” (Mt. 23:23) that will affect the lives of people and the wellbeing of our country.

What is the Equality Act and what will be its negative implications on Christians and religious freedom? Why won’t price controls work? Where does the Harris administration stand when it comes to law enforcement and public safety? Is being compassionate the purpose of government? What does the current data say about immigration, sex trafficking, and open borders? What policies led to a 98.2% increase in the cost of electricity in California? And more.

Stay tuned for a future episode that covers the pros and cons of the Republican platform, and be sure to check out VoteYourFaith.net for more great resources on how to make a biblically informed decision when you’re standing in the voting booth this November.

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Money, Greed, and God by Jay Richards
WEBSITE: Wintery Knight
WEBSITE: An Affair With Reason
PDF with article links: https://bit.ly/LoveYourNeighborThroughPolitics

Download Transcript

/by

Witchcraft on Campus? Dr. Owen Anderson Exposes ASU’s Anti-Christian Agenda

For this special edition midweek podcast episode, Dr. Owen Anderson returns to expose more of what’s going on at Arizona State University and how it’s specifically singling out Christian and conservative faculty members. Last week, they talked about how Owen became the target of ASU when he was ordered to accept their DEI training and change the course syllabus for his introduction to Christianity course. In this episode, they discuss the infiltration of Marxism (and witchcraft!) that Dr. Anderson has personally witnessed during his time at the largest state college in the United States.

How is the Honors College at ASU promoting witchcraft? How is Christianity the real enemy of people promoting this on campus? Why is cultural Marxism attractive to a lot of Christians and why is philosophy so important these days? Why doesn’t Dr. Anderson just quit his job and teach at a Christian school? What should students do to prepare to go to a secular university? All this and more will be discussed in this BONUS episode of the ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ podcast!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Owen’s Website: https://drowenanderson.com/
Owen’s Substack: https://drowenanderson.substack.com/

Download Transcript

/by

The Early Martyrs Were Cross Examined to Death

Skeptics often challenge believers by claiming that the “evidence” for Christianity would never hold up in a courtroom. It’s hearsay, they contend, and since these witnesses can’t be cross-examined, the case would never even see the inside of a courtroom. For many unfamiliar with the legal system, this challenge seems solid. After all, why should we trust our eternity to a message that wouldn’t pass muster in a court dealing with comparatively less important issues?

Christianity On Trial

A bit of reflection shows the problem with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn’t take into consideration that we know many things that could never be “proven” according to the rules of evidence in a courtroom. Just about any historical event that is beyond the lifetime of living persons would suffer from similar problems, as well as problems of authenticating documents and physical evidence relating to the case. Yet, we have little doubt that these events occurred.

More importantly, the legal system provides the right to see and confront one’s accusers, and the related right to cross-examine them about their testimony, for a reason – “confrontation” is a reliable way to test evidence, to ensure that it is credible. But there are other ways to assure oneself that a person’s testimony is credible. In the case of the early martyrs, the way they demonstrated credibility – steadfastness in the face of persecution – is even more reliable.

On the Witness Stand

Consider: if a witness testifies that he saw the defendant point a gun at the victim and fire the fatal shot, the defense will want the right to test the reliability of the testimony. But what will they test? Generally speaking, the prosecution will take one of two possibles tacks. They will either, show that the witness is mistaken the witness is lying. Either way, their testimony isn’t very damaging to the defendant.

In preparing to cross examine, a skilled attorney need more oratory. He also needs to plot out an approach. If he wants to show that the witness isn’t mistaken, he will inquire into the types of things that could cause a mistake: how well does the witness know the defendant? How long did he see him? Were there impediments to clear viewing? How did the stress of the event affect the witness’ ability to perceive the event? Were drugs or alcohol a factor and if so, to what extent did they effect the witness’ ability to observe and record what occurred? Each of these avenues may prove productive in undercutting the conclusion the witness reached.

But if the witness says the defendant is his brother and he saw him a few feet away with nothing blocking his view, then alleging that the witness is “mistaken” will not be very productive. That leaves the other possibility, that the witness is lying. What is the relationship of the witness to the defendant? Does the witness stand to gain financially or otherwise by seeing the defendant convicted? What is the witness’s reputation in the community for honesty and integrity? Perhaps the witness is a “jailhouse snitch” who is trying to get out from another charge by telling the police what they want to hear. Or, by contrast, maybe the witness is the defendant’s brother who just happened to be present when the defendant committed the crime and is unwilling to lie for him.

Could the Martyrs Have been Telling the truth?

So, when skeptic’s refuse to even consider the testimony of the early martyrs, saying it’s hearsay, they are misunderstanding the point of cross-examination. The strength of a person’s testimony can be shown even more reliably by their behavior as it relates to that testimony. To put it bluntly: is he willing to die for it?

The skeptic will immediately object: but many people are willing to die for false beliefs? Yes, that’s true, but that is not the situation when we consider what those first martyrs faced. This group of men and women knew Jesus and witnessed the fact and circumstances of his death. This was their testimony: he died a gruesome death, he was later placed in a sealed and guarded tomb, and after three days he began to interact with them in a resurrected body.

If we had them on the witness stand, which of the challenges would we pursue. Mistake would not take us very far. No attorney with any sense would claim that Jesus survived the crucifixion or that the man the apostles saw after the resurrection was not Jesus. Jesus was well known to these individuals, and they witnessed the “effectiveness” of Rome’s favored way of ensuring a tortured and humiliating death. The tomb was empty and even if an imposter had tried to play Jesus’ role, he would not have been able to fool the apostles. That would be like telling the defendant’s brother that he actually saw someone else commit the murder – not a likely way to persuade anyone.

Perhaps then the apostles were lying. They knew Jesus had died on the cross but they wanted the world to believe that he had escaped death. They knew this was false but persisted anyway. How would a skilled attorney cross examine these witnesses? He would begin with the basics: is there a motive to lie? Do the apostles stand to benefit in some way, either financially, emotionally, or through the acquisition of power? Do the apostles have some animus against the “other side?” Are there prior inconsistent statements or actions that would undercut their present testimony? How committed are they to the position they are taking?

Having cross-examined countless witnesses, I for one would not want to take on these witnesses. Committed? They went to their deaths rather than retract their claim – “okay, you’re right, we just really wished that he was the Messiah, so we fabricated this whole thing.”

Prior inconsistencies? Quite the contrary. The change in their behavior shortly after Jesus’ death – from meek and broken to brave and bold – corroborates their testimony.

Animus against the other side? They preached a message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation. They gave unto Caesar the things of Caesar.

Motive for gain? Hardly. Insisting that Jesus was the Messiah brought them nothing; in many cases it took from them what little they had. They gained no position, nor power, nor wealth, nor anything else of earthly value.

Where does the cross-examiner go? Indeed, nothing they did on a witness stand could possibly add to the force of their “testimony” by remaining faithful . . . unto death.

They Wouldn’t Have Died for Lie

The missionary Jim Elliott once said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” Having witnessed the risen Lord, the early martyrs had a level of confidence in their message that few today can manage. They were neither fools nor liars. Indeed, it is rather the fool who refuses to acknowledge the power of their witness.

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

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

Christian Professor Fights DEI “Whiteness” Discrimination at Arizona State University | with Dr. Owen Anderson

Are Christian professors being discriminated against at public universities because of their faith? And when did it become unacceptable for Christians to teach students about the historic Christian worldview from a biblical perspective on a secular campus? Something strange is happening behind the scenes at Arizona State University and a tenured (Christ-following) professor is now choosing to fight back and speak out against the corruption taking place!

This week, Dr. Owen Anderson, professor of philosophy and religious studies at Arizona State University, joins Frank on the podcast to share how he found himself at odds with the university, and what he’s doing to bring awareness to what appears to be a clear case of discrimination against Christians on campus. Does ASU have the right to enforce syllabus changes just because professor Anderson is a Christian, or have they violated his constitutional rights to speak (and teach) freely? Frank and Owen will dive deep into the answer as well as tackle questions like:

  • What types of changes did ASU want Owen to make to the course syllabus?
  • Should Christian professors be forced to teach about Christianity as if they were skeptics like Bart Ehrman?
  • What help is available for Christians who face workplace discrimination?
  • What is the philosophy of “whiteness” according to DEI training?
  • How has ASU specifically singled out Owen and other Christian (or conservative) professors on campus?
  • Are universities being used to push anti-Christian bias?

This episode is nothing less of a cautionary tale of what can happen when college campuses go woke! But stay tuned, because this conversation’s just getting started! Be sure to check back in early next week to hear Frank and Owen wrap up their discussion about what’s happening at ASU and other universities across the country.

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Owen’s Website: https://drowenanderson.com/
Owen’s Substack: https://drowenanderson.substack.com/

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

What If I Don’t Like Either Candidate?

If you’re like me, this upcoming election feels like a choice between which electric outlet to jab a fork into. I’m not a big fan of either candidate. It may be tempting to just sit-out this election. But we shouldn’t give up that easily. This November, you won’t be voting for a pastor, or a personality. You’re not just voting for a president either. You’re voting for a package deal. We’re going to get the president and everything that comes with them. So, we owe it to ourselves to look past their personality and consider the rest of the caravan that’s coming along with them. Here are eight reasons why you and I should still vote in this election even if we don’t like either candidate.

If You Won’t Vote for Either Candidate Then . . .

1. Vote Down Ballot

Besides the presidency, there are thousands of other elected officers to be determined this November. History shows that whichever party wins the presidency gets a boost in the elections down ballot. You can help your preferred party win those other elections by endorsing their party for president.

2. Vote For a Cabinet

The president doesn’t work alone. He or she has a cabinet of about 15 different department heads, 10 other cabinet officials, and the Vice President.[1] This cabinet of 26 people advise the president on a regular basis. The president has the authority to appoint all of those officers. If you don’t like either candidate but you would trust a conservative cabinet over a progressive cabinet, then you know who to vote for.

3. Vote For 4,000 Presidential Appointees.

Besides appointing all the cabinet members, the president also appoints 4,000 or so government positions. When people say, “The Trump Administration” or the “Biden Administration” that’s what they are talking about; it’s the president plus the cabinet plus 4,000 or so appointees. The president isn’t just a personality but also a gateway for overhauling Washington DC.

4. Vote For a Vice President

Besides serving as the next in line for president, the VP is the Chief officer in the president’s cabinet. Even if you don’t care for Trump or Harris, you can get a sense of the administration direction through their running mate. Plus, you might see something in a VP candidate to inspire your vote.

5. Vote For a Party Platform

I would say ‘vote for the party’ but there’s no telling what the party stands for without their platform (what they say they’ll do) and their policies (what they do). In the last 5-8 years, the “left” has pulled farther left. “Old-school” democrats are considered moderate or even Republican now. Today’s Republicans are tough to distinguish from libertarians. The point is, you can still read the party platform of the Democrats and the Republicans and vote for the one that best fits our beliefs and values.

6. Vote For the Policies

Beside the party platform, both candidates represents a set of policies. Now, you can expect politicians to make all sorts of campaign promises leading up to the election. But I’m not talking about those empty promises. I’m talking about the party policies that are likely to happen, once that party is in power. The president, of course, can’t just make a new law. Congress does that. But the president, VP, and his cabinet can throw a lot of influence behind their party policies.

7. Vote For the Power of Executive Office

The president has the power to make executive orders including creating or disbanding whole departments if they so choose. Now, you may not trust either candidate with that power. But someone will have that power regardless. I bet you distrust one candidate more than the others.

8. Vote Against the Other Candidate

There is no option to vote for two U.S. presidents in this election cycle. So, when you vote, you’re always voting against the other candidate. Maybe you don’t like either candidate. But you can still vote against whichever candidate you dislike the most.

A Final Warning

If you aren’t convinced yet, and you don’t follow my advice, then you have that right. It’s a free country, for now. It’s not like Christians will lose their salvation for voting third-party or sitting this one out. But I would urge you not to waste your vote. You can still exercise wisdom, love, and courage by voting not for the president but for the policies, platforms, and personnel that they represent. Yes, that means voting in the presidential election, but it’s not just about the president. It never was. It’s about competing visions of what American will become over the next 4 years. You can vote for the future of America by voting on the direction of this country right now.

Otherwise, if you sit this one out, then you’re muffling your God-given influence. You’re wasting a precious gift. And you’re telling all the rot and darkness out there rioting in the streets as we speak that you’d rather keep your “salt and light” to yourself (Matt. 5:13:16). Perish the thought. Let’s go vote!

References:

[1] This number can change with any given administration, whenever a new office or department is formed, or another one is shut down.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 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.

/by

Have We Lost Our Minds? | with Dr. Stan Wallace

What’s the correlation between the soul, the brain, and the mind? Many Christians today struggle to grasp the concept of an immaterial soul and how it impacts us physically and mentally.

For this midweek podcast, Frank sits down with Dr. Stan Wallace to discuss his book, ‘Have We Lost Our Minds?: Neuroscience, Neurotheology, the Soul, and Human Flourishing‘, which exposes the errors that even some Christians are making in their denial of the soul and challenges Christians to come to a sound understanding of how the soul functions in relation to the body. As the president and CEO of Global Scholars, Stan has made it his mission to equip Christian professors around the world to have a redemptive influence among their students and colleagues. Frank and Stan will answer questions like:

  • Is there really an attack on the soul and has neuroscience disproven its existence?
  • What is (Cartesian) dualism?
  • Why is it important to know the different characteristics of the soul?
  • Why are some Christians denying the existence of the soul and what does the Bible say about the soul?
  • Who are today’s leading neurotheologians and what’s causing them to form false conclusions about the reality of the soul?
  • How are beliefs surrounding the immaterial world impacting the rise of transgenderism?
  • How should near death experiences be factored into discussions on the soul and the mind?

Later in the episode, Stan will also uncover the six capacities of the human soul as well as explore three ways that we can approach the make-up of the human body. As you’ll hear during their talk, being aware of how mind, body, and soul work together is an important aspect of understanding the biblical worldview. So put on your thinking cap and get ready for an enlightening discussion on some of the ins and outs of soul-body theology!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Stan’s Book: Have We Lost Our Minds?
Stan’s Website: StanWallace.org
For Christian professors: GlobalScholars.org

Download Transcript

/by