Veggie Tales Creator Goes PRO-CHOICE?!

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to Fight for Truth, the channel where we bring you Christian commentary about the things that matter.

In today's video, we're going to be talking about Phil Viger. Now, Phil is the creator of Veggie Tales, a popular

Christian program for children that attempts to teach them Biblical values in a way that's entertaining.

Unfortunately, Phil has recently come out as pro -choice, and we're going to talk about that in this video.

As for Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, we reached out to them for comment and did not receive a response.

The jury's still out on those two, but we'll keep you posted. In any case, the context of Phil Viger's comment that we'll be reviewing today was a little

Twitter spat that he had with some conservative Christians. What could possibly go wrong? By the way, we will be replacing the word associated with the pro -choice debate, you know, the big nasty word that starts with an

A, and instead we're going to opt to use the word baby -killing. The reason behind this is both accuracy and an attempt to avoid any punishment from YouTube.

But in any case, this Twitter spat starts with Phil Viger asking his opponent, quote, And can you tell me exactly what the

Biblical position is on the permissibility of baby -killing? Again, my word, not his.

When is it allowed, according to Scripture? And a gentleman named William answers him saying, quote, Never.

Easy. What's your answer? And you gotta give him credit for simply telling the truth. It's a lot less complicated to live your life with a

Biblical worldview rather than constantly carrying water for the secular left. But then

Phil Viger responds, saying, quote, And what Scripture leads you to that conclusion? Instead of quoting the other man's response, let me offer you a potential answer in this video.

Phil wants to know why conservative Christians don't have exceptions with regard to killing babies in the womb.

Well, Exodus 20 verse 13 says, quote, You shall not murder. The Bible tells us not to kill innocent people, so we think it's bad to do that.

Again, humbly, I just want to say that the Biblical worldview is so much easier than making pseudo -Biblical excuses for the modern left.

But their Twitter argument goes on. William asks a obvious question, quote, Phil, do you support legal baby -killing in instances of pregnancy resulting from sexual assault?

Again, that's my word, not his, because YouTube won't let you speak without demonetizing you. As you can see on your screen,

William used a more accurate word, which starts with an R. And here's Phil Viger, the creator of VeggieTales, responding to the question, quote,

I don't have a specific position, but probably if it's early in the pregnancy, end quote.

So there you have it. Phil believes that baby -killing is permissible, morally speaking, if the baby is conceived from an illegal assault upon the woman.

In that situation, he is pro -choice. It seems ironic, then, that Phil asked William to provide

Biblical support for his position, especially given that there is no Biblical support for Phil's position whatsoever.

But I digress. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can kill a child because their father assaulted their mother.

Leviticus 24 .17 does say, quote, Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.

And 1 John 3 .12 says, quote, We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother.

We are told not to take innocent lives, not to murder, and we are never given an exception in the case of assault.

Phil's argument here can be Biblically debunked in under a minute. So here are just a few observations.

Observation 1. Phil Vizier and others of his ilk often talk about political idolatry.

They can often be seen calling out Trump supporters or conservative Christians for compromising on their

Christian values in order to appease the culture or accomplish political goals. Here we can see that the pot is very certain that the kettle is indeed black.

The problem with this is that Phil Vizier's position here is far more unbiblical than that of the pro -Trump evangelicals that he's critiquing.

The argument is so blatantly inconsistent, it's incredible. Phil Vizier, who himself didn't vote for Trump on moral grounds, still thinks it's perfectly fine to murder a little baby because its father committed a sin against its mother.

This is where the real threat of political idolatry is coming from among professing

Christians. The Bible tells us not to kill innocent people, but the modern woke left holds their right to kill babies in very high esteem.

They love it. And as a result, Phil Vizier carries water for them and says that he supports their right to choose whether the baby lives or dies, provided, of course, that it's early in the pregnancy, as if that makes a difference.

Phil is putting cultural values over and against the values of Scripture. It's very clear. And all the while, he and his contemporaries constantly decry and condemn so -called white

Christian nationalism on the right for following the culture instead of God. But the inconvenient fact still remains.

If you want to find an evangelical who is putting secular values above the Christian worldview, look no further than what

Phil Vizier just said. This brings us to observation two. Notice the confusion, the lack of clarity in Phil's statement.

Quote, I don't have a specific position, but probably if it's early in the pregnancy.

End quote. He doesn't have a specific position, but then again, he probably does, as long as it's specifically early in the pregnancy.

But I guess that's not specific enough. As you can see, it's all very confusing. Contrast this with the biblical standard, the one that tells us not to murder people.

Once again, the biblical standard is far better than any counterfeit. Romans 3, 4 rightly says, quote, let

God be true, though everyone were a liar. This brings us to observation three. Notice that Phil claims, to some degree, that he's actually still pro -life.

A gentleman named Atticus responded to him, saying, quote, this means you're pro -choice. In other words, he's stating the obvious.

And Phil responds, saying, quote, I believe I'm pretty close to most major pro -life organizations.

First off, being close to the ethical standard of major pro -life organizations means precisely nothing.

I can't stress that enough. Christians are not judged by the standard of human organizations, but by the standard of Scripture.

We seem to be missing that here. Secondly, while Phil seemingly claims to be pro -life, he has demonstrated that he holds to one of the most fundamental tenets of the pro -choice position.

Notice, he said, quote, probably if it's early in the pregnancy. So you can probably kill the baby as long as it's early in its development.

Well, here's a question. What changes about the baby between early stage and late stage pregnancy?

What changes morally speaking? A child is conceived by way of assault against the mother. And in the first month, it's not a human being.

But in the sixth month, it is. In the first month, you can kill it, no problem. But in the sixth month, you can't.

Why is this? And what's with the arbitrary standard? What exactly changed between those times?

Did God make the six -month -old baby in His image, but not the one -month -old? Again, when you leave the standard of Scripture and make up your own woke nonsense, you lose all objectivity.

You lose your ethical standard. But this is one of the main things believed by pro -choicers.

The idea is that somehow, human beings bestow humanity on a baby in the womb depending on which stage of development that we decide is sufficient.

Phil Vischer seems to have bought into this hook, line, and sinker. It's not in the Bible, but then again, that's our point.

He's left the Biblical standard and is following something else entirely, secular leftism.

But here's the issue. If early -stage babies in the womb are allowed to be killed, then why exactly would it matter how they were conceived?

If it's not a human, it's not a human at any point. If it's not a human early in the pregnancy, why does the conception and the circumstances behind it matter at all?

Phil Vischer's standard here, in other words, it opens the door to killing any baby you want as long as it's, quote, early in the pregnancy.

This is what secular leftists believe, on the basis of no evidence. That the early -stage baby in the womb is worthy of no moral dignity whatsoever, yet the late -stage baby in the womb is potentially worthy of moral dignity.

In this way, they open the door to questioning the value and worth of every baby in every womb at every stage.

And again, Phil Vischer agrees with the principle that got them to this point. But if you're a conservative

Republican Christian, you're the one who's compromised, believe it or not. You're the one who's ignoring

Scripture for the sake of politics. You're the one who's not loving your neighbor politically. The irony here is palpable.

And while we're on the topic of loving your neighbor, by the way, let's camp out there for a second. People like Phil Vischer, liberal -leaning

Christians, or those who carry water for the they often think that you need to love your neighbor, and they'll say this, but they get to use their own feelings, their own ingenuity, to figure out how this is done politically.

I think we should love our neighbor through student loan forgiveness, they say. We should love our neighbors through the welfare state.

We should love our neighbor through repenting of our whiteness. We should love our neighbor by allowing them to kill their baby in the womb.

As long as it's early in the pregnancy, of course. We wouldn't want to be unethical. By the way, I'm not saying that Phil Vischer believes all of those things.

They're just examples. What all of this ignores, though, is that the Bible gives us specific directions on how to love our neighbor.

We don't just get to make this up willy -nilly, whatever we want. Romans 13, 9 says, quote,

The commandments, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Notice this, it's very important. We love our neighbor, according to Paul the Apostle in Scripture, get this, by not murdering them.

You don't get to make up your own standard of compassion for women who have been assaulted, because your feelings tell you it's okay.

Why? Well, because your feelings don't define God's law. For anyone, God does. You see, the grand majority of political positions taken by liberal

Christians and those who support them can be refuted using this Biblical principle. In any case,

Phil Vischer is pro -choice, whatever he says to the contrary. And you can't follow the Biblical standard and also hold to his position.

You must choose one or the other because they're opposites. Will it be woke compromise or will it be a faithful Biblical worldview?

Answering this question is key as a dividing line that will help us better discern how Christians should act politically.

Yet one thing remains certain, Christian cultural engagement should not be done using the standard of Phil Vischer.

His teaching on this is deeply false and completely unbiblical. The good news is that if we stick to a

Biblical worldview, we can avoid this mess entirely. I pray that this has been a blessing to you, and please know that this video isn't meant as a sinful attack, but rather as a

Biblical critique. And let's pray for Phil, that he would stop this compromise and false teaching by God's grace and turn to the truth of God's Word.

Thank you so much for watching that video. Please give us a like and subscribe so that you don't miss any content.

Also, don't forget to subscribe to our Rumble channel as well, just in case YouTube ever takes us down.

The link is in the description. And before you go, take a look at this list here. These are the people who make all of the free content you see on this channel possible with their monthly support.

Today's highlighted channel supporter is Timothy J. If you also want to help and become part of the solution today, hit the link in the description.

Your support keeps us independent and helps us immensely here on the channel. So I hope you'll consider joining the

Truth Army today. And until next time, fight for truth, never surrender, and keep your eyes open.