Social Justice with Guest Dr. Anthony Silvestro

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host of Striving for Eternity, Andrew Rappaport.

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host of Striving for Eternity, Andrew Rappaport.

Alright, we are live, Apologetics Live. This is a ministry of striving for eternity.

This is a podcast you can listen to on Apologetics Live is the podcast name. It is on the

Christian podcast community. And I have with us, as if you looked in the title, we have a guest apologist, the unshaven, trying to grow his beard.

Dr. Anthony Silvestro. It's about as much as I can get away with as everybody knows.

Your wife will be calling soon saying, dear, shave that if you want to kiss.

Well, she has a better voice than that, I'm sure. All right.

Well, so what we're going to do tonight, folks want to join and ask questions. We will do a live

Q &A for folks who are familiar with Dr. Silvestro. His background is going to deal more in the creation science and things like that.

So if you want to ask, he's by the way, you're are you a real doctor? No, that's what the atheists always say on the street.

What kind of doctor are you? I'm a dentist, doctor of dental surgery is

DDS. So technically you have a doctorate degree, right? Right.

Because I noticed that when atheists get guys with PhDs, they call them doctor, but they're not medical doctors.

So, yeah, that's correct, doctor. But everyone jokes and says you're a fake doctor.

You're not a real doctor. That doctoral degree just doesn't count. But your background is is math and chemistry undergrad.

So those are areas you're you're knowledgeable on for folks. And when we get to open Q &A, what we're going to do to start is we'll be discussing an issue that both of us think is quite important for the church, and that is the issue of social justice.

And so we could put some comments up here that we see.

Billy says runs away. Now he's a dentist. People do run away from their their dentist.

Yeah, this is a nice thing about this. We can read some comments. Well, for some reason on Facebook, I'm not seeing some of the pictures, but it says.

But Danny says, hey, brother, Andrew Rappaport and brother Anthony Silvestro, throw me and my girls a shout out, please.

Their names are Addison and Abigail. So there you go. You got to send

Abigail. All right. But Danny, you can actually join us better than that.

You can join us. So how do they join? Well, you do what Anthony did. You go to Apologize Live dot com.

There's a link there for to participate using StreamYard. If you need the instructions, they are there.

I'll mention this throughout the show. And so actually we could just put up the ticker.

There we go. So now you have that throughout the show. Little thing to remind you to go to Apologize Live dot com to ask any questions.

So we should start off, Anthony. We weren't around last week. We were going to try to do a show last week, but you were like kept me so busy.

It was all you. It was all me. I'm blaming you. I forget what we were doing somewhere.

Yeah. We were at the G3 conference and I think we kind of were passing each other a lot.

We didn't really talk very much, even though we stayed in the same Airbnb. So so let's start off with a report from G3.

How did you enjoy it? What are the question I was asking folks that I was interviewing? What was your the session you liked the most?

And outside of the sessions, what did you enjoy the most from the conference? Well, OK, so I'm always biased, but Voli Vakam is.

And I know that was kind of my favorite preacher to listen to there. And you're going to go to Modi.

So, of course, that's going to be my favorite session. Well, you know, sadly, you know, when we are in ministry, you can't go to G3 and see every session or you can't do a lot of the ministry.

You want to do in making contacts and seeing people and fellowshipping and that kind of stuff. So I saw only about a third of the sessions.

So Modi is the winner in the third that I saw. Now, people tell me Tim Challies was really good. I heard

Tim's was very good. Yeah. And a few others, too. So I'll enjoy going back and seeing how

I think that they're already online. Oh, really? Not the edited versions, but I think the original ones are up.

All right. So outside of the talks, what was it that you enjoyed the most? Well, I'm going to say two things.

One is a really cool thing. The other one was a very disturbing thing to me. The cool thing was, was the fellowshipping.

You know, getting a chance to see people that you only see on Facebook all year and to get a chance to see them live for a few days is a lot of fun.

Getting a chance to meet people and see people for the first time that you knew from Facebook.

My favorite picture, if you go to my Facebook page, is is meeting a female who had a she had her own

T -shirt made that said Proud Sammich Maker. And I'm like,

I don't know you, but I need a picture with you. Turns out she knows

Bud Allheim and a lot of other guys that that's that we're friends with. So so I was

I was enthused to see that. The the part that I was there, actually, when you when you saw that and you grabbed your wife, you're like,

Julie, come here. Give me a picture. Yeah. So.

So that was that was funny. But the other one, I'm a little more serious. Something I was pretty disturbed on.

And I don't even know if you know this, Andrew. But so my wife, when she found out that there was a cheap cruise that she could go on, she's like, oh, sign me up.

And she while she didn't tell me first, she ran over to the Sovereign Nations booth who is hosting this cruise for next year.

So G3 is breaking up. We'll give a plug to G3. Wait, wait, wait. It's not breaking up.

It's breaking up. Beatles or something. They all had to go their separate ways. All right. Don't start creating a rumor.

That's it. We're going to be hearing from folks. You know, Anthony Svester says G3 is breaking up.

Yeah. Then we got to get the band back together again. They kind of are. So what they're doing next year is no longer is the conference going to be in January because the weather is so suspect in Atlanta.

So now they're doing a cruise that same week every year for four to five days, four nights or four days, three nights or the other.

And now Donny Jacks, good to see you here. And he says we have to keep this civil. Yeah, we'll try to put him on.

We should bring Donny on. So so G3 is doing that. And then they're going to move their conference to October.

So the next official G3 won't be until October 2021. And then the part of the breakup that they're doing is they want to start doing these mini workshops around the country, expository workshops.

And so different guys will be leading those around the country, many workshops on expository preaching.

So it'll be neat for some of the changes that they do. I have to be honest, I'll be more excited being in Atlanta in October than I would be in January.

So, OK, having said all that, my wife drags me over to this booth. Wait, wait, wait, wait. So they're going to go.

You're going on the cruise, right? Yeah. OK, so here's here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking of going.

I've already I've already thrown it out there that, you know, we're going to we're going to get to see

James Watkins roll with Vody Bokum. You know, just just that'd be fun to see

James get choked out by Vody Bokum in like seconds. Yeah, that would be interesting for sure. I said

I'll bring my my geese so that I can I can I'll roll with John Evans. I don't

I'm not rolling with Vody, no. OK, so you wanted to talk about some sad news with the cruise.

OK. No, not with the cruise. It was when we went over signing up for the cruise. So ended up talking to to who's

Michael Fallon. Now, look, I don't care about Christian celebrity whatsoever. Apparently he's a celebrity.

He himself told me that he is the only guy who has been allowed to moderate every one of James White's debates since 1999.

I didn't know that. Oh, well. So anyways, we got to talk to social justice for a few minutes.

And he had a guy next to him who you may recognize from some of the videos. I've never watched one of the videos through and through.

I've seen bits and pieces. His name is James Lindsay, and he was he was there at the

G3 conference. So us three were talking. My wife was filling out the paperwork for this

G3 cruise. And within a few minutes, I'm like, something doesn't sound right as they're talking.

And so I asked the guy, James, I said, are you a Christian? You say.

And he goes, no, I'm an agnostic atheist. Like, oh, so I just want you to understand something,

James. You know, enjoy your conversation. But I'm going to shift gears now towards evangelism instead.

And so we actually had a chance, my wife and I, to evangelize to him for, oh, 20, 25 minutes and talk through some things.

And had a great time doing it. I found out some interesting stuff. So, Andrew, we noticed when we were at the

Reason Rally almost four years ago now. It used to be the atheists did a Reason Rally every four years this summer of a presidential election year.

And they did this for the purposes of wanting to inject what they would consider reason and science into politics.

And they were pretty upset, weren't they, Andrew? Four years ago. So much so that they're not even doing one this year.

So they canceled this Reason Rally. And one of the things that they were really upset about was they were overrun.

You're saying that. I was just looking up Reason Rally 2020 to see if they were doing it.

So the first year they did this, and the first one they did, they said no one showed up because of the rain.

Expected huge crowds. Last time that they did it because we brought a thousand

Christians to evangelize. And they said we scared away all the atheists. And that's why they only had 4 ,000 people.

So we made up 20 percent of their of their attendance. Yeah, no, that's right.

We did. We were 30 ,000 people. They had we were everywhere. But, you know, there was something that was undermining them.

And and this is kind of the subject we're talking about today is social justice.

Is the atheist agnostics were undermined by the LGBTQ crowd?

And so, as you remember, atheists are there and they were trying to promote their agenda.

The the gay lesbian crowd came in to promote their agenda.

And those two thought that they could link arms and join sides, so to speak. And it turned out to be disaster for both groups.

I remember walking through the the atheist convention, whatever you call it, and doing witnessing.

One time I was actually walking around with Josh Smith and Matt Slick. Another time I went through with another guy

I never met before and haven't seen since. And another time I went through by myself. But each time you saw the groups actually fighting among one another because literally the atheists are being overrun.

I didn't think a whole lot of this other than just kind of being silly. You know, we're here to evangelize to all of them.

So I didn't really care. I bring all this up because when we were talking with this

James Lindsay guy who's part of the Sovereign Nations group who is speaking out against social justice.

Turns out he's an agnostic atheist or atheist or whatever he calls himself. But he's not happy with the direction of the country being overrun by cultural

Marxism. And specifically what's going on with the LGBTQ movement as part of the cultural

Marxism and what they're doing in society. They literally have all the power. And I think the atheist agnostics are upset and probably jealous that they have had some of their power diminished for the agenda of these guys instead.

And so so this guy and one other one, I can't remember his name off the top of my head, have joined with Sovereign Nations to speak out against social justice.

So I say this because what I find it interesting that they are willing to join up with Christians who obviously they don't like.

They fundamentally disagree with. They would stop us out in any chance that they would have.

And yet they're willing to at least some of them link arms with us because they see a greater poison to them, which is the

LGBT LGBTQ movement. But the sad part to me is, is

I don't understand why Sovereign Nations is using atheists to be part of a group.

I don't understand why I go to G3 conference where I'm expecting this to be Christians.

I'm expecting to talk to Christian ministries. I was shocked to find out that they have brought in what they would call field experts to be part of their ministry.

I don't know how they're contracted with them or anything, but to be part of them in order to combat social justice.

And the only thing I can get from Michael Fallon is that, well, you know, these guys are really intelligent. He has a

Ph .D. in something I don't even know. James Lindsay does. All I can think about is there's tons of Christians, including us, who have studied this, who understand social justice issues that could easily speak about this.

And I couldn't help but feel that the Sovereign Nations guys believe the only way that they could look good in the eyes of people is by having outsiders, so to speak, being part of their intelligence committee.

So I was disappointed in that. It depends on what they're doing. And this is the thing that I would be curious to know what role these guys have.

I mean, if they're if they're being hired because of their work with organizing cruises or something like that, that might be different than if they're being hired to.

I mean, they were in the one video. Granted, all videos. Yeah. Yeah. So so let's let's get to the issue that you and I would like to discuss, because there is a lot of people that may not understand what social justice is.

There's a lot of even believing Christians who would they'd see the social justice issues and think, well, as Christians, we should support social justice.

It sounds like a Christian thing. So we should as we get into this, we need to define terms and lay some groundwork.

And because you and I both agree that the issue of social justice is very detrimental to the church.

Both of us have signed the statement on social justice in the gospel, which we encourage folks to go do.

Actually, Ethan Tanner just posted that exact comment just just as I was saying it.

And so that's the thing that we would be saying to do. I encourage everyone to go.

I'm trying to remember the Web site offhand right now, but I can look it up quick enough. It's the Dallas statements.

Yes. Social justice is what it's called. And you can go to that Web page and sign the statement right there. Yeah. But the

Web site for it is statement on social justice dot com. So I encourage you to go out there.

And right now, as of now, there's what? Twelve thousand signers, because I do think that this is something that we end up seeing is going to have an effect.

And so so go go. You can check out all the affirmations and denials at statement on social justice dot com.

So with that, let's let's get into some of this stuff. Anthony, let's let's start with the fact that social justice is not justice.

All right. There's a difference when we talk about justice and social justice.

So justice, we as Christians would agree with. Christians should be about promoting what's just and right.

We get and we know what's right and what's just from the nature of God.

So the more we know about God, the more we're going to understand justice because that's part of his nature. I should have said earlier we had

Danny asking for a shout out to his daughter. He was in here, but then he disappeared.

So I don't know where he went. But OK, so justice is about the issue of.

You know, writing wrongs. Now, social justice is a little bit different because this is writing wrongs that may not actually be wrongs you've done.

When it comes to things like critical race theory and some of this intersectionality,

I'm going to throw these terms out and I'm going to end up having getting you to define some of these things so that I'm not doing all the talking.

But so when we hear these terms, we have to understand that these terms have a history to them.

This idea is grounded in social Marxism and you can't remove this from that.

So you have to understand that this has got an underpinning that's anti -biblical, anti -Christian.

Now, you're going to hear people that will say, well, we should. I'll give a for instance,

James Cone, who is very well known for black liberation theology, critical race theory.

He is the guy that everyone goes to when it comes to critical race theory. And in in his book, he actually argues that.

It is it's acceptable, it should be acceptable that Jewish people would be upset with the

Germans. Here's a quote that he's got. It is interesting that most people understand why

Jews can hate Germans. Why can they not understand why blacks who've been who've been deliberately and systematically dehumanized or murdered by the structure of this society hate white people?

And now here's the thing I want you to think about when he's writing this James Cone in the 60s.

It is true that many Jewish people hated Germans because of what they did.

That's not the case today. See, Jewish people don't go on continuing to hate Germans for what their ancestors did.

But that's exactly what he's arguing should be. He argues that because a group of people that died long ago dehumanized people, then all whites always in America will dehumanize all blacks.

And that's the case. So let's let's start off with some definitions. Let me get you to define social justice, critical race theory, intersectionality.

Yes. So let's let's let's do some background here. And this is where we want to make sure we understand the background of this terminology.

So we got Karl Marx, who wrote his book back in, I think, 1848 and promoted something called

Marxism. And in in his book, he says that he believes that the best system of government is an equal distribution of wealth.

He doesn't believe in private property. And so he looked at at people sold their sold their labor, that labor became a commodity.

And and that translates into a surplus value not for the person who works, but for the business owner, the capitalist.

And so he, Karl Marx, believed that there is a conflict between what he calls the proletariat, the working class and the bourgeoisie, which is the ownership class.

So he looked at this, what he believed to be an internal conflict. And he said, it's not fair that the workers are not making the type of money.

They're not getting their fair share according to what the owner is getting. And and obviously we understand with capitalism, there are reasons for why this happens.

Right. People who own businesses, of which I had for years, you take risk.

It's your own money. It's much more work. I mean, there's a whole lot more to it than just being somebody who is an owner of a business.

Wait, you don't own a business anymore? No, we sold the dental practice like a year, a year and a couple of months ago now.

Not only are you not a real doctor, you're like not even a dentist then.

Right. I'm like a nobody now. I think I somehow went from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat now.

So and so, you know, what Marx was teaching is he believed that because there's an inherent conflict, it wasn't fair that the that the ownership class were making much more money.

He believed that the wealth should actually be shared among everybody. And he believed then the way to do this was to not have private entities or private people owning businesses that things should be owned literally by the government or that it should be owned across the board.

So all the workers are essentially pro are part owners of the business. And so that's what he was was teaching this equitable distribution.

He wanted everything what he would call equal. Now, it's that Marxism that has found its way into literally every facet of society today.

And so if you think about the word rights that's constantly used, like people constantly say, well, it's my right to choose.

It's my right to, you know, fill in the blank. Rights are interjected into things because they believe that this is the way to get what they would consider equity or equality throughout whatever arena they are talking about.

So the background is called cultural Marxism. And so the background is

Marxism with Karl Marx. Now, it turned into cultural Marxism years later. And so this is what's interesting as we as we trace through the history of some of this stuff is we get into.

We get into this foundation in the early 1900s. So you're talking 50 to 60 years later, you have people who are picking up on Marxism as an idea and people who are promoting this idea in the background.

And so it finally came to head in 1905, where it was called the

Upper Room Meeting. It was in Lower Manhattan. And there were a number of people who were part of this meeting.

So you had guys like John Dewey and there was a millionaire financer.

This is a guy who a millionaire at the time who would have been worth tens of millions, hundreds of millions today, all inherited wealth from his parents.

So these these guys and many others who were philosophers, socialists and whatnot at the time had come up with some ideas and they literally wanted to change

America, make it Marxist. And this would be the progressive movement, the birth of the progressive movement.

So this is their purpose, stated purpose, is to calculate changing America into a socialist nation and the overthrow of the

Christian worldview and replace it with the ideas of Karl Marx. So this was not just an affront against the capitalism, which is a biblical thing, but it was really on Christianity altogether.

Karl Marx was was an atheist and was a vehement hater of Christianity.

So so it shouldn't surprise us in terms of his ideas on Marxism in the economic realm because of that.

So this is this is this meeting that started. That meeting turned into these people becoming what's called the intercollegiate society.

So this society was born many years later, about 10 years later or so. And this is the society that determines how they were going to change

America. And their goal was to get into the colleges, universities. They wanted to get in there and get teachers trained into those universities in socialism and then now train the younger generation.

And so they theorize that within within not too many decades, they would be able to turn the tide of America.

Now, one other interesting thing is that during the same time, you had the progressive party and actual like Republicans, Democrats in a progressive party that rose during this time.

And they supposedly went away in 1921. But it looks like they had just wrapped themselves into the

Democrats back in the day. Well, the interesting thing is, is that the millionaire financier guy who is the behind intercollegiate society, his wife was a major player in the progressive party.

So so they had connections throughout in this. Now, by 1917, when this intercollegiate society was really getting their their feet in the door and getting some things moving, they were active on 61 campuses already.

So from 1905 to 1917, active on 61 college campuses and 12 graduate schools. Many of those were

Ivy League schools at the time. And so as that's going on, this is one more piece of background information happening is there is a

Baptist pastor who whose name is Rauschenbusch. And he wrote a book in 1917 that's called

A Theology for the Social Gospel. And so this is what he was teaching. He was a full on Marxist.

So he had socialistic ideas. And for those of you who understand these terms,

Marxism is the philosophy of what was taught. Socialism is getting those actually into laws in society.

So you're changing society through socialistic agendas. But the philosophy is the

Marxism that promotes that. And so you have the philosophy here by Rauschenbusch is that Jesus' death on the cross was not about atoning sacrifice.

Instead, he said his death on the cross was about social justice being

Jesus dying for social justice causes or social justice issues, the perceived inequalities throughout society.

And so Rauschenbusch was the first major pastor that put this into writing and was teaching it.

Incidentally enough, when you look at the trail all the way up to Obama, and I find this fascinating.

People like Votie Backham and others were warning people about Obama because at first it sounded like Obama was a

Christian going to Christian church. I mean, most of us knew he wasn't. But for the vast majority of people, they would say, well, he's going to Christian church.

Well, Obama's pastor is Jeremiah Wright, who is a complete cultural Marxist. Jeremiah Wright, one of the guys he studied from, is

Martin Luther King Jr., who was a serial flagger, who didn't believe in the atonement on the cross.

I wonder where he got that from, as well as many other things. I mean, he wasn't an Orthodox Christian. Unless he repented on his deathbed,

Martin Luther King Jr. isn't burning in hell today, unfortunately. But Martin Luther King Jr.,

guess who one of his major influences was? You guessed it, Rauschenbusch from 1917.

That was the connection between all of these guys. Now, granted, there's a lot more connections in all this, but it's interesting to see where all that comes from.

Because, mind you, even though the progressive movement has been here for a long time, when is the first time that we actually heard in public people calling it a progressive movement?

It was not until the second term of Obama that you started to hear him say this.

You started to hear Hillary Clinton say this, and she started to run for president. This is when the coming out party, so to speak, was.

But yet the groundwork was being laid for the last hundred years. So that's kind of the background in social justice.

Now, where things changed was you had this Rauschenbusch pastor in 1917 writing his book and promoting these ideas.

This is multiplying on college campuses and just among sociologists and philosophers.

We get to the civil rights time where, granted, look, there were a host of atrocities against people of color and things need to be made right.

There's no doubt about it. The problem is in the colleges and the seminaries, especially

African -American colleges and seminaries, they weren't just giving a balanced view on how to make things right from a biblical perspective, which we'll talk about a little bit later.

Instead, what happened was we saw the literal creation of black liberation theology and critical race theory where were these guys literally it was it was it was trying to be racist from the other aspect of it all.

And believe it or not, this is the background as well of the

Hebrew Israelites, the black Hebrew Israelites. They're born out of this type of stuff where it was it was all about getting vengeance on the white man.

And so when we look at this black liberation theology and the social justice issues, they really got promoted in the 1950s and 1960s in the classrooms.

And that's what kind of bore what we see today. Now, there's one thing I left out that I just hinted at right now, and it's and it's this when when

Karl Marx and other philosophers after him talked about the fabric of society.

The issue of social justice is this is that it is believed that the white man, specifically the white man,

European, middle aged, middle class and above type guy is the one who created the fabric of society to hold everybody else down and oppress in their terminology, oppress everybody.

And so the social justice movement is seeking to, in their minds, correct the issue.

So destroy the fabric of society and to to correct past wrongs or perceived wrongs.

And it's I don't know if it's helpful. And right now, before we or if you want to say anything else before we get to some of this terminology now, because this is where our terms of intersectionality are determined, especially comes into play.

Yeah, well, and I'm starting to hear a little digitizing on your voice. I don't know if the if your

Internet's I don't know, maybe someone's like watching a movie on the Internet. But huge, huge games are done.

But the but but there is this is the thing when you brought up the black people, Israelites.

And this is the thing that you end up seeing is when we talk black liberation theology, we hear a lot in the news right now.

It's an election year. So anytime there's an election year, you don't have to be a prophet to realize that they're going to bring up racial issues.

Everything's racist. And we're going to hear that all Republicans are racist. It's every four years we hear it.

But when you hear this, what's going on now, and like you mentioned, the black people are

Israelites. We hear about white supremacy quite a bit and how wrong it is and how bad it is.

But and they're right. I mean, they're right. And they're right. But here's the problem with what they're promoting with black

Hebrew Israelites, which are, you know, here in Brooklyn, you're seeing black Hebrew Israelites who are going into grocery stores and other places and killing

Jewish people. And, you know, they they are now no longer, you know, acknowledging that they're black

Hebrew Israelites doing it. But these are black supremacists, the

Black Panthers, black Hebrew Israelites, James Cone with the black liberation theology.

When you read what they're saying, if you read through what James Cone says, there is no way to fix this.

It's impossible to fix without, like you're saying, breaking down the society and recreating a society that is based completely on black values, which you and I, being creationists, being biblicists, we don't see race when there's one race, the human race.

So we don't see this as a black and white issue, that there's black values and white values.

There's biblical values or Satanist values. I mean, they're either biblical or they're anti -biblical.

They're either godly values or they're ungodly values. That's the breakup. And this is a system that is a for those who can recognize as we can recognize white supremacy is bad, but so is black supremacy.

And that's what critical race theory is and black liberation theology. It is black supremacy.

Yeah, absolutely. And so, you know, you touch on race and for those who might be listening now or will be listening, this is worth talking about here.

Racism is not a Christian idea. Racism does not have its have its foundations in the

Bible, because according to the Bible, it's one blood, one race. For those of us who understand creation properly, who understand the

Bible properly, we have every single person that has ever lived on this planet is a progeny of Adam and Eve.

And so we are literally one blood, one race. So the Bible clearly speaks of one blood, one race.

At the same time, though, it does speak on, as we see in Acts 17, 26, Genesis 11.

There are people groups. There are nations that God has established the boundaries of.

So so we do see that there are people groups and but yet one blood, one race.

And so when we talk about these subjects, the thing that disheartens me most is this pitting of white against black or white against.

I mean, really, it's everybody. And and this is what we have to fix. This is what bugs me most about churches when they when they speak to racial issues, is that they first need to talk biblically.

Look, I get the fact that there has been some wrongs. I understand the fact that there are still people that are racist in the church today.

I get that. I mean, look, it's sin. There is sin out there. So I get those issues.

The problem is, is that if churches don't start with truth and they don't establish truth.

Then anything goes, essentially. So we've got we've got to correctly speak about race before we do anything.

Now, this is this would be a good segue now into one of our terms here. And one of those terms is intersectionality.

And so this is one I wish I had a slide to put up for everybody to watch. But this is this is what's really alarming to me is people in this social justice movement believe that the more oppressed you appear to be.

Or the more oppressed groups you belong to, the more voice you should have in speaking out.

And the less oppressed groups that you are part of, the less voice you should have.

And so the five big ones in intersectionality are these categories. Disability, sexuality, racial identity, gender and nationality.

So when we look at nationality, if you are European. You're at the bottom of the barrel.

If you're male and gender, you're at the bottom barrel. If you are in what they would call racial identity, if you are

Caucasian, you are bottom of the barrel. If you are heterosexual and homosexual or whatever else they have now, you're bottom of the barrel.

And if you're not disabled, bottom of the barrel. So what I often do in church is when I teach on the subject is for anybody who is a white male

European background, heterosexual and not disabled. And, you know, we can throw another one in there, middle to upper class.

You are not only not belonging to any oppressed group, but you are actually the oppressor yourself.

And it's your fault that society is the way it is today. And you're the one that we need to punish and hopefully steal from in order to make things right.

That's that's what they teach with this intersectionality. So in the intersectionality now, if you are a let's change one thing on this.

Let's say instead of a male, you're female. So you are a female, white, European, middle to upper class, heterosexual who's not disabled.

You are now somebody who has a point. You have your blood, one oppressed group. And so you have an ability to speak a little bit and people should hear you a little bit.

You want to know why Elizabeth Warren was so adamant that she was Native American? Well, it's because Elizabeth Warren is white, female, heterosexual.

Upper class, she's very wealthy. European type backgrounds.

I don't I don't hear you at all, Andrew. I thought she was because she wanted to get, you know, those scholarships when she went to college.

Well, she might have wanted that, too. But the reality is today, if she had to call herself a Native American, she would have been part of another group.

Yes. I mean, now she's just got to keep the lie going. Yeah. Even even though the genetic testing said something right.

She was a Native American. She's still she's still going to hang on to as much as she can for that reason.

And so this is what intersectionality is. The more oppressed groups you belong to, the more you should be listened to. Which means then that, like, if you want to be the chosen one to be able to speak on anything you wish, then it would be great for you to be, you know,

African descent and female, homosexual or something else.

It's low class to middle class, like you are somebody who is hitting on all cylinders in terms of oppressed groups.

And you should be able to have a loudest voice, which is exactly what we see today is they are given the loudest voice.

And so this is intersectionality. The scary part is, is number one, biblically speaking, there is one of two groups that we read in the

Bible today. We read about the group that everybody's born into, which is the family of Adam.

Which is also called the sons of wrath, sons of disobedience, sons of perdition. I mean, there's a number of terms for that.

Right. That's not a good family to be a part of. And and then when

God opens your eyes, grants your repentance and faith and you get saved, you are now adopted into sonship.

Which is Christ, you are now co -heirs with Christ in the eternal kingdom. And so that's the other family you belong to.

But that's all the Bible teaches is those two families. All people are made in the image of God.

Right. So we see that connection among everybody. The voice that we have is in relation to what the

Bible teaches. So as Christians, we understand what truth is. We understand where true knowledge comes from.

We understand what the foundation of that truth is, which is God himself and his revealed truth and scriptures.

That's that's where our foundations have to be when we speak in churches. This is where a foundation has to be as Christians when we go speak to the unbelieving world is foundational to truth in the

Bible. Now, having said all that, this is what's scary. In 2019, last year, the

Southern Baptist Convention, the largest denomination today and still the most solid denomination today, which is not saying a whole lot, they had a resolution.

And this is resolution nine. I'm going to read a portion of it to you here. It says that critical race theory and intersectionality.

So we've talked about both those terms now have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the

Christian faith, resulting in ideologies and methods that contradict scripture. OK, wonderful.

So we have leadership and others who believe that this that these terms and the philosophies behind them is is dead set against the

Bible contradict scripture. Can't get any worse than that. Right. But then they go on two paragraphs later.

It says this that critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools.

So here they've they've looked at these two things and said, not biblical at all.

And then out of the other side of their mouth, say that we should use these as or could use these as analytical tools.

So think about this. You could very well see the next couple of years for those churches that don't leave the

Southern Baptist Convention, where they're going to be rated in terms of how social socially woke they are.

We may have to explain that term to everybody today, but how socially woke they are based on intersectionality, which means that they better have enough people in representative groups of all those things that we talked about earlier.

You better have a fair mix of of white and color, so to speak.

You better have a fair mix of European descent and other descents.

You better have a fair, a pretty good mix of male and female, which is pretty typical in churches anyway. You should have get this one.

You should have a mix of heterosexual, homosexual, transgender and whatever else is out there also is part of your church.

Because if you don't have all of these things, these groups represented in your church, well, guess what?

You aren't the ones who have a voice. And guess what? You're actually part of the problem.

So that's how that's the danger in intersectionality and how they want to apply it to the group or possibly apply it to the group.

And obviously, critical race theory follows the same way is that is that with intersectionality, critical race theory says, as we said earlier, that it's white people that again, white people with European backgrounds, middle aged, middle class or higher.

Like they're the ones that have have made the fabric of society to be able to oppress everybody else.

And they're going to employ that to the churches to determine how the churches look as are they an oppressor or are they somebody who has been oppressed?

Absolutely downright dangerous. So I don't know if you have anything to add,

Andrew, on that portion there of social justice. Well, I mean,

I think that for because the terminology that unfortunately needs to be clarified when we talk about this is for some people, this is new.

You mentioned woke. I actually think woke should be those who believe in the

Bible because they woke from an unbiblical view, being a child of Satan to a child of God.

Yeah. I mean, kind of like Lazarus being woke from the dead, right? Yeah.

Yeah. From darkness to light. Darkness to light. Yeah. Woke has this idea.

Once dead in your sins, now made alive in Christ. Yeah. Okay. But the idea of being woke is this idea that someone is they've woken up to the to the reality that they're racist or that all whites are racist.

That and they'll they'll talk about this as a it's an inherent racism that you may not even realize you have it, but you are you're racist, even if you don't realize it.

That's what you end up seeing with this. Now, what I caution and because I do want to start discussing how this is going to affect the church, because you already mentioned the

Southern Baptists. There's others that are further along, but what you end up seeing in this is the fact that this is influencing the church.

This is people are using this to to basically, well, the

Southern Baptists want to use it as a way of of as a measure for the church. There's others who want to use this to destroy the church.

Some don't and many don't even realize that's going to be the goal, because the message of of intersectionality is antithetical to the

Bible. The message of intersectionality is, look at me, I'm a victim. Oh, woe is me, poor me, because I'm such a victim.

You have to you have to value me more rather than valuing a person because they're made in the image of God.

So it's very different with this very different mindset when when we're focusing on who can claim more selfishness for themselves, because that's really what intersectionality is.

I want to be heard more. I want to count more. I want what I say to have more merit, more value, because I'm this, this, this, this, this and this.

And everybody is trying to find how they are more oppressed than the next person.

This is exactly what in a way we can look at in First Corinthians 12, 13, 14.

You end up seeing Paul addressing when there were people that were saying they had spiritual gifts and they're using these gifts.

Oh, look how spiritual I am. You can see this when when Paul is addressing, oh, you're from a, you know,

Apollos and you're of Paul and you're of Christ. People are always looking in a prideful way because that's what this is to say, look,

I am better than the next guy because I'm more oppressed. I'm more a victim. This is antithetical to the scriptures.

We are saved out of that, not saved to be victims. We're saved out of that to be children of God.

And this is why I do not think this can work within the church setting. It is, it is anti -biblical.

And this is where you and I have a agreement here with this is we see this as a danger and a threat to both the gospel and to the local church.

Well, yeah, I mean, in the end, that's really what it comes down to. And obviously there's a lot of other stuff kind of in between.

So, so let's talk to some of this. We got a comment here. Ethan, Ethan Tanner saying

Jesus was oppressed. So maybe they should go back to Jesus and believe in him.

You know, and that's right. I mean, you know, you know, Donnie says, if you don't like the racist racism language, then you're a racist.

And he's hitting the nail on the head here because this is the issue.

If you don't agree with them, there's something wrong with you. You don't even recognize how racist you are.

And, you know, I honestly, Andrew, I mean, look at us, you know, we're too white. We got to get to white guys,

European background, middle class, heterosexual, non -disabled. Like we shouldn't have a voice whatsoever today.

Well, OK, let's let's at least I'm Jewish. So, you know, we got that.

But here's the argument. And this is a fun when you can start to realize what this is really about.

Jewish people are not considered they're not a victim status. Why? Because they have money and they're educated.

Where did they get the money? Because they focused on education. They focused on being frugal so that they could have the money.

Right. So it's so it's kind of an interesting thing how they'll say, well, certain groups can't be. Even though they were like, you know, six million of them killed in just a generation ago.

So, you know, and here's how it works. Melissa has a good point. Victimization seems to work for Beth Moore.

And that's exactly she's exactly right. This is why no one touches Beth Moore, because she's a woman who claims to have been abused, which

I question. I'm sorry. I have to. She doesn't act like someone who, you know, who doesn't who acts like they've been abused.

Chris Chris says, I don't get it says Andrew doesn't get to be a victim. OK, Chris.

He's playing victim status there. Ethan says, what about the babies that are being murdered every day?

Why? How come they don't get victim status? Right. Shouldn't they get victim status? Absolutely.

You know, so so what you see, though, with Beth Moore is a great example, because in the church, you have people who are claiming, well,

I'm a victim. And therefore, you can't you can't question what

I do or what you're starting to see is in we're going we are returning to segregation.

Which is very interesting. And it's happening within the churches where they're now saying, well, we have to have you know, we have to have black only churches.

And, you know, that whites have to understand black worship. And now all of a sudden you have to accept not only accept, but as with everything else, celebrate, you know, someone else in the case we think of with LGBT, you have to celebrate their sin.

In this case, it's the matter that you can't be an individual that is outside of what the culture is saying.

You must believe, you know. So, you know, what

I find interesting all this, too, is you're bringing up your, you know, Jewish status is your handicap, by the way.

I mean, you're you're on your own. You know, you're only working limited hours here. You know, Mr. I can't use my hands.

I know. I mean, trust me, I wish I wish I don't know what's going on with it.

But listen, listen, I think everybody watching and listening will agree with me that you do not want to go to a dentist who's struggling with carpal tunnels.

I mean, when that drill is in your mouth. Oh, sorry. You know, I can't I didn't have the grip on the drill there.

Yeah. You know what? Well, that's why I'm working limited hours, because I can go about four hours a day and still have strength.

After that, it starts to go. I'm like, I can't do it. But hopefully they make sure you're not the last patient.

Now, we're doing really good at the office of limiting the hours and limiting procedures so that it doesn't happen.

But it's crazy. It came out of nowhere, you know, four or five months ago. I really just strange.

But OK, back to back to some real stuff now. So, you know, Hobie Bachum and other guys who are not white

Europeans are being called white oppressors. And so that's what's interesting about this whole intersectionality thing is it's if you speak against them, you're automatically the bottom of the totem pole.

Now, who in general is speaking out against the social justice stuff?

Well, it's Christians. And and make no mistake about it. The same way that Karl Marx, his his number one hatred was not against the economic climate of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat.

His number one enemy is Christianity or was Christianity. And and that's that is the enemy today.

So social justice, you can you can actually be black and middle class and middle class or lower, whatever else.

And technically, you should be in all of these oppressed groups. But the moment you are a biblical Christian, by default, you now have zero points and have literally no voice.

And that's that's the real problem. Unless, of course, you capitulate to the movement.

So people like Beth Moore, there's no doubt the reason why she changed her position on homosexuality, which

I know we can't officially say that. But any time you have books written 10 years ago or so and then you'll wipe the slate clean on Kindle, you know, not too many months ago when you're questioned about this publicly.

There's no doubt that that she's gaining people in oppressed groups, which kind of rubs off on her and will allow her to prosper even more in her false prosperity movements and and everything else she teaches.

So so this is where I think things get really interesting, because the social justice movement, as they've infiltrated the churches, they are taking anti -God, anti -biblical ideas, trying to shove them into the church.

And in doing so, they are trying to use Bible verses in in making us believe that it's a biblical thing.

And so we think about how much we cringe when we listen to Hillary Clinton or or Nancy Pelosi quote a

Bible verse. Right. And usually they misquote it or or have a wrong interpretation as they give it.

Right. We've seen this countless times with with especially Democrats over the last couple of years. And it comes down to postmodernism.

And so I know we've talked on the show and others have talked in the show in the past about postmodernism or relativism, which is your truth is your truth.

My truth is my truth. We can both be right about the same thing. Well, there's something called deconstructionism, which is a large part of relativism.

And it goes like this. When we walk into art museums, I know when I took an art class back in college, we are taught today to look at the art and say, what does that mean to me?

What does that what does that look like to me? Rather than doing what we're supposed to be doing, which is looking at the art and saying, what was the artist or painter trying to convey to me looking at it all these years later?

Right. That's what you're looking at. Now, that philosophy of deconstructionism has really invaded all areas of society because that is part of postmodernism.

You are reinterpreting things in your own eyes. So now let's take that and bring it to the

Bible. And so how many of you have been in a Bible study in the past, especially if you were in a weaker church and you and you end up leaving to go to stronger church or maybe you weren't saved and you're going to church for years?

You may have recognized this as your Bible study. Five, six people sitting around around a table.

And the leader of the Bible study says, hey, here's this verse. I'm going to read it to you.

And then what does this mean to you? And then you go to the next person. What does this mean to you? And they all have different interpretations.

And all you do is say, oh, that's nice. You believe that. That's nice. You believe that. And everybody can be right about their personal belief about this verse.

Instead of looking at the Bible verse and saying, what is the what is the author God trying to convey to me in this verse or this passage?

Right. So deconstructionism has come into the church in this way. And in doing so, you have social justice people that are reinterpreting all kinds of verses and passages for social justice.

And so you'll see things like this problem today, which is us white oppressors.

We are responsible for slavery, 150 to 250 years ago, and so we have to give reparations for that.

Even when we didn't have any family members who were slave owners. Right.

I mean, my family is Russian and Romanian. There were no slaves that they had, but somehow

I'm still responsible for it. Your family's Italian? Yeah, my dad was born there.

My my mom's parents were born there, like in Italy. So, yeah, we have no family that was that was here.

Yeah. But because of the lack of melanin in your skin, that automatically makes it where you're somehow whether you realize they're not racist.

Mm hmm. Yeah, that's right. So so that's that's part of the issue.

Right. The other part of the issue is, is that you have African -Americans. Now, look, guys,

I can't remember which podcast. I think it's the Just Thinking podcast. But one of those podcasts, which is

African -Americans doing a podcast. They they did a lot of research into slavery and they have an estimate that's literally in the single digits, the amount of the percentage of people in this country that are actually ancestors that are that are living descendants of actual slaves.

So you have a really small percentage of people are slaves. You actually have a really small percentage of of whites that can trace their ancestry back to slave owners.

So virtually nobody alive today in America even has relatives, let alone the fact that what does the

Bible teach? The Bible teaches that are we responsible for somebody else's sins?

Now. Every man's appointed once to die in the judgment, we're going to be responsible for our own sins.

We stand in front of God. We read this through in several passages of Deuteronomy and Exodus and other areas of the

Bible where each person is responsible for their own sin. And so what you have these culture

Marxists doing is they're saying, well, wait a minute, we've got something called institutional sin or generational sin.

Right. They're equating the two. And so they're saying that with this, with this generational sin in the

Bible, they are telling people that the children and grandchildren are responsible for the sins of their grandfather, father, grandfather.

And if you read carefully, you will realize what generational sin actually is in the

Bible. Generational sin is that you've got great grandparents that have some sin that they constantly commit.

And because of that, there's a much highly higher likelihood their children will also do the same sin on their own and their children and their children.

That goes on. And so it's a generational sin in the context of you are watching other people do it.

There are people that are closest to you. And so you might end up doing the same sins. And yet the

Bible in those same passages will say that yet each person is only responsible for their own sin.

And that generational sins can be broken when the kids, when the children don't do the sins of their father, of their parents and grandparents.

So that's been completely made. We also see this issue of reparations that because we whites are all the oppressors and sorry, get leg cramps or something.

I keep moving because we are the oppressors that we must give reparations. We must give money to African -Americans because of the slave trade and because of the white fabric of society that has not not only caused them to be slaves 150, 200 years ago, but also has oppressed them all these years because the fabric of society.

And so they will often use Bible passages like the passages of Kiyos. They'll say, well, look, when and this this is the

I want to say this here because Andrew, this is I think this is the biggest issue of them all. When we read about the gospel in the

Bible, we see the gospel everywhere. The gospel is plainly, clearly, succinctly stated in First Corinthians 15.

So I love it when I have the campus crusade people now called crew come up to me on college campuses while preaching.

And, you know, you always know when it's them because they come up to you and they stand there and they're like, hey, you know, as soon as you get off the box, right, your buddy gets up.

Oh, you know, we just want to say we're glad you're here and glad you're here for Jesus. But you're doing it all wrong.

OK, well, you mean I'm doing all wrong. And, you know, I was going to be it's because you're not teaching about God's love.

And so, of course, the first thing you do is say, well, what's the gospel? And you go to First Corinthians 15 because you read the first Corinthians 15.

Paul writing to the church Corinth says, this is the gospel I preach to you unless you believe in vain. Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.

He was buried. He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. That's the gospel. Rauschenbusch, as I said earlier, back in 1917, his book said that the gospel is not about Jesus' death and resurrection atoning for sin.

It was to make the world a socially just place. The exact same thing that is being said today.

Well, they also take it in this other direction. They say, well, you know, you can't actually have true repentance unless you do something dual.

So that works to repentance. And and specifically, they say that that's a white man.

You must repent of your generational quote unquote institutional sin.

And only once you repent for institutional sin, you also must pay money in order for your repentance to be effectual and for the gospel to be able to be applied to you.

I mean, this is this is absolutely ludicrous. So, of course, they go to the kiosk and they say, well, look, he has paid back people four times the amount that he was given or that he had stolen.

And of course, we go and look at the Bible historical account of Zacchaeus.

And what do we see? That Zacchaeus himself was a defrauder. Zacchaeus himself was the one who defrauded people.

And Zacchaeus himself went and paid back fourfold the people he actually defrauded.

That is so very different than what is being taught today about the social justice movement and what we are supposed to be doing.

So they believe that reparations are to be paid because of slavery, but also in general to whoever they consider to be minority, which is all the oppressed groups based on the fact that it's our fabric society that has oppressed them.

Yeah, I mean, the thing you see with Zacchaeus, because they always use that, and yet Zacchaeus voluntarily gave back because of what he did wrong, not what someone else did wrong, what he did wrong.

That's the other big portion. Thank you for saying that. It was voluntary, which is what they're doing with the reparations.

They want to demand people who never owned slaves and never had anything to do with it. They should have to pay.

So let me I'm going to bring in Andrew from down under.

So, Andrew, welcome. He's from Australia. You can see it's still light there because the the earth is flat and the sun is just on his side of the

Catholic. No. No, no, no.

No. Far from it. And I got you confused. Sorry, my apologies. What are you asking?

I thought he was the Catholic guy that's. Oh, no, no, no. Yeah, no, no, no.

We don't allow the traditional Catholic in anymore because I forget what he he wouldn't answer a question.

I think he called me a liar and he wouldn't he wouldn't support the case. So he just said, that's it. He's done.

He was abusing at times. Yeah, just kept asking everyone the same question going, no,

Calvinist can answer my question. And every single guest apologist answers it.

And he goes, no, Calvinist can answer. Are you ignoring that? Everyone's answering it. But anyway, go ahead.

Yeah, I was going to say, if they're going to try and compare it to Zacchaeus, what about the rich young fool that runs away when he realizes he's going to have to sell everything he owns?

That's another dead comparison we could give. Yeah. Yeah. Would it not?

Yeah. No, I mean, because yeah, because Jesus doesn't condemn the rich young ruler because of the fact that he's got money.

He says to give away everything. It's clear in the context that this guy's trying to say,

OK, how do I have it get eternal life? And Jesus is saying, well, what does the law say? Obey the law.

And he's oh, I've kept all of it. So he's never lied. He's never stolen nothing. And so Jesus goes to the heart of the original.

And so it's not an issue of he's saying, oh, you money is the problem. You get rid of your money and you go to heaven.

That's not what Jesus was saying there. Jesus being omniscient can also say things like that and understand a little bit more.

You and I don't have the advantage of omniscience to know what someone's going to say, you know, and do so.

Any other questions? Beth Moore, not familiar with her.

Where is she on the scale of the prosperity doctrine? If there is such a scale,

I don't fully understand it. OK, so Beth Moore is a Southern Baptist convention. She's part of Southern Baptist Convention.

She is I'll tell you why I think Beth Moore is so dangerous is because she's in conservative

Christian circles. And so she is someone who is in the conservative circles.

And yet she is hanging around with, you know, Joyce Meyer.

And what's her name? Schreier, Priscilla Schreier.

Yeah, yeah. Priscilla Schreier. So you see her hanging out with word of faith people and call and calling friends and giving credibility to him.

And yet she's doing that, you know, while saying she's still conservative.

So she says she's a humanitarian, but yet she's really defends egalitarian.

So, you know, it's one of these things where you have to you have to sit there and realize that she's always playing games with her words.

And she's never found a Bible in context. Like ever. Like a cake and eat it too.

Yeah. Which if you've been listening to my podcast, my rap report podcast,

I asked that of Al Moller because he's trying to have his cake and eat it too with Beth Moore. And that would actually,

Andrew, if you haven't listened to the rap report podcast, check that out because I do have one there about having your cake and eating it too.

You trying to share your screen? Yeah, I was. And the

Flat Earth map, if he could get a zoom lens for us, because you see right.

You would be right about here, right? So maybe you can maybe you can zoom in for us to the edge of the earth.

The water's falling off. Well, can

I point out the curve right away? Can I point out the curve?

Absolutely. Right. Gravity. Andrew, do you have any other questions? So let me say this about Beth Moore as well.

I mean, I call her in the prosperity movements. Her bigger issue is she's in that movement. No doubt.

Her bigger issue is she believes she gets direct revelation from God and she teaches that. So Justin Peters has videos of her where she claims

Jesus is sitting next to her, calling her honey and babe as he's about to tell her new revealed information.

I mean, it's it's it's Looney Tunes, literally. And and people buy into this stuff.

I like I like what Chris says here. Chris on holds from Voice of Reason radio. Beth Moore is conservative.

I am Santa Claus. Yep, yep.

And we know Santa Claus doesn't exist because mom and dad always told us they gave us the presents.

And we knew the Easter Bunny didn't exist because after age 12, our grandfather bought us the Easter eggs.

Chris has proof. Here you go. Anyway, it's not flat. If Chris says if the

Earth were flats, you know, he always corrects my grammar. I'm going to have to call it was flats.

Cats would have knocked everything off of it. That's true. All right.

Yeah. The other way to prove it is you just go watch a Russian Air Force clip where they let you go up into me.

Twenty nine. Actually, there's there is an easy way to test for a flat Earth. Very easy way.

No, I'm being serious. I'm being serious. If the Earth was flat and you had the sun going around a disc, you you would not be able to see two sunrises.

What do I mean by that? Go watch a sunrise. Stand up. Watch the sun just as it gets over the horizon.

Lie down on the ground and you can watch a second sunrise. Now, what changed? If it was if it was a point, you wouldn't have that.

Only if it's a sphere. The other thing you could do is go to a mountain range when the sun is rising and you'll see that the the the sun gives it.

You'll see the shadow and you'll see the sunlight hitting the peaks of the mountains and it slowly comes down.

If it was a disc going, you know, you'd see it horizontal or sort of vertical, not horizontal.

But I'm going to put you into the backstage here, Andrew. And I think next up was the

Dunn's. So now their camera is off.

I don't know if they're still there now. Oh, there they go. They can't figure out if they're right side up.

And they think they're in down under with Andrew there. They think they're in Australia. So they're just upside down.

OK. Yeah. Are we upside down? You are. Is that a shower?

Videos right side up. Oh, no. You're upside down. She thought the video was upside down.

Hey, we were having some technical difficulties anyway. So is it a camera like a camera on a computer or is it a phone?

Yeah, that's what she she she thought the camera was upside down. Yeah. Well, we're just on a phone.

Well, we're on the phone. Are we really? No, we're not. OK. Now you're upside down.

That's OK. I told you they were telling the truth. All right. Well, there you go. All right.

Always listen to your wife. So what question do you got for for Anthony?

Can you guys hear us? OK. It's a little bit choppy for us. We might have slow Internet. Sounds fun.

So I'm a little bit. OK. I'm a little bit hung up on intersectionality. My husband,

Cameron, was telling me about different things and I was listening. And there's sounds like kind of like a point system.

And some things I was a little bit confused about, like, you know, if you're black or transgendered or Muslim, like there's different points.

And or even points based on kind of going back to the heritage thing. Like, I don't know if my family's been here since the

American Revolution. I know my mom's side of the family was in the north. My dad's side was in the south.

And so I'm kind of hung up on if there was a white man. That didn't kill himself, kind of like Epstein, where he fall on point system.

Essentially, you're asking who killed Epstein? Yeah. Anthony. Well, let me make sure

I don't have any guns pointed at me. Oh, I don't know, because I don't want to be number 50.

Oh, I've got a gun. That's not real. He lives in Jersey. You're not allowed to have them still fake.

Well, Andrews, Andrews can't be loaded anyway. If he were to put the bullets in the gun in the same place, same time in his state, he'd probably be in trouble.

Oh, yeah. You know, his state is so restrictive that if you you can't drive in your car with a gun unless you are going to and from a gun range, a show or to or you just bought it and bringing it home.

You can't transport. It's ridiculous. And yeah, we're limited to 10 round magazines.

That's it. That's it. No more. Because actually, the governor tried in our state to get.

See, I mean, yeah, there's only 13 rounds. So, yeah, it's just a little, little small thing.

Is that the is that the forty three o 'clock? Forty three. No. Forty five caliber

H and K USP. Oh, that's nice. But I know she did have another question.

I want to ask the other question. Hold it. Meyer thing or what was it? Beth Moore.

Oh, no. You know what else we're not allowed to have in this state? Yeah. Trust me.

You have no idea how many people I hear about get offended, get offended about Beth Moore stuff. And a lot of people are in shock about it.

I. Yeah. Yeah. I offend my family. Yeah. I'm like, so actually, or churches, churches we've gone to.

I'm like, that's probably not. She's a heretic. But. Oh, the conversations ended up.

Bye. No. That's the answer. Just be distracting. As a girl, even. Yeah.

No. You know what? And the thing is, there are good female teachers out there. Yeah. There are good female teachers out there.

You know, Susan Heck and Martha Peace are two of them. Amy Spreeman is good with discernment. So there's people that females, if they want females to learn from, they're out there.

Beth Moore just isn't one of them. She is. She is the darling now. She's the darling of the

Southern Baptist convention. And. And. And she's been the darling for a long time.

Beth Moore hasn't. Well, and it's kind of the same thing. It's like. Like why. Why. If you're a woman and you want to do a woman's

Bible study. Why do you have to learn from a girl? What, what, you know, what makes the difference?

You could learn in a woman's Bible study from a woman teacher or a man teacher. I don't see why they're like, well, if we're ladies, we won't learn from a lady.

I guess sometimes. It could be helpful for a certain point of view, but I don't know why it's so important.

I'm with you. I think that's a, I don't think it's a hundred percent necessary. You know, but whatever, one of those things, you know, with the issue, the issue is, is that the lot of the times what you see with someone like Beth Moore, the reason they're so popular is they are not actually teaching the

Bible. They're teaching emotionalism. And for a lot of ladies, they prefer the emotion.

It's, it's more of how it's being said than what's being said. It's my, my wife doesn't like going to lady ladies

Bible studies because she's like, they're all full of fluff. Give me a pastor's conference. You know, that's what she'd prefer.

And, and it's really simple. Why? Because she, she wants to get truth. And if you're interested in just fluff, then you're going to like Beth Moore because that's all she is.

I mean, Beth Moore hasn't found a Bible verse that she ever found the context to, you know, not even back in the old days.

I don't know. I mean, yeah. I mean, she's just like always finding like,

Oh, let's, let's grab this verse up and we'll grab a meaning over here and just slime it together. Like we'll just make it up out of thin air.

Now, now she just gets revocation. I feel like I'm hearing. Yeah. Anytime I've ever heard her talk,

I've never thought it was, you know, even, you know, that great at all. Every time it's always been something where it sounds like something

I could hear from any Joe Schmoe Bible study where they say, what does this mean to you?

And it's just Beth Moore. Here's what this Bible verse means to me. I've never found her.

I don't know. Intriguing at all. Anytime I've like ever listened to her to see what craziness she said.

You're a robot. And girls who are tuned into emotion are very easily manipulated by the stories she uses and using the emotion with those stories to then tack on a

Bible verse. And then they go, Oh, you're so right. Oh my goodness. That emotion is exactly what

I felt as a mother. It's like, she gets points talking kind of about the point system. She's a woman.

She uses Bible verses. That's what I'm supposed to be doing. Motherhood and, and Bible. So she's got everything I need.

And it's so well organized, I guess you would say. So like, Hey, this brings you step by step.

My sister, right? Sorry, random cat in the back. My sister recently was promoting her book and I was trying to talk to her about it, but she really didn't want to hear it.

She's like, no, she has a book about John and it's really, really good. So I haven't read it, but of course, but maybe

I should. I like what Jess says. Jess says the only thing I know about Beth Moore was when she was told to go home from John.

A little out of context too. Yeah. Yeah. But all right.

So, so Cameron, you have anything else? Any other questions?

All right. Well, I'll put you in the backstage. Let us know if you want to come in again. All right. All right.

Next up was Mr. Watkins. Whoa. And it's a look.

He doesn't have his camera. So I guess he's a big white dot.

All right. Well, while we wait for him to turn his camera on, we could talk about him. So, you know, he's sideways.

What? And beardless. Well, because Frank looks like him. Yeah. His we can't hear you, though.

James. Oh, he said enough. Yeah. He said enough by shaving his beard.

What it is, is Frank Mullis wanted to look like him. So he now shaved his beard so he could look different than Frank. That's what

I think. Did you lose a bet? Did you? What happened? So.

I didn't think there'd be a day that I would have more facial hair than James Watkins. Yeah. Well, he figures out how to get his mic to work because we can't hear him.

I don't even think I recognize him. We didn't say his name. I don't think

I would know. So we had the Duns were upside down. He's sideways. So he got an interview. I don't know if you heard the story about this,

Anthony, but he got an interview at G3 with James White. Did you hear how he got that interview?

Yeah. Yeah. He told me a little bit and then Frank filled me on the rest of the details today. And that was hilarious.

How did Frank know Frank wasn't there? So what what happened? Yeah, we can't hear you.

So, but it allows us to tell a story about you without you interrupting us. So, you know, listen, people are going to have to understand this part of, of this.

So James White needed to use a restroom. And one of the things that an event like G3 is, you know, it's hard for certain guys, you know, and you've seen this with, with Justin Peters, it's hard for them to walk around anywhere without people stopping, wanting a photo, wanting to share how much their, the ministry impacted them.

He, you know, James White really needed to get to the restroom and he didn't want to be stopped by anybody to take a photo or something until afterwards.

So he stopped by the striving fraternity booth and he saw James and he just said,

I need someone big and ugly to get me to the bathroom without anybody bothering me.

And James went, I'm your man. So he was big and ugly and he took

James to the bathroom and there's probably too much information right there, but no one did stop him.

No one, no one bothered for a photo or anything like that. And, and so he came, you know, when he came out of the bathroom, you know,

James just said, well, you think that was worth an interview? And they went back to the table and started recording.

So James thinks you have him muted. Do you have him muted? No, I don't have him. He's he's not muted on my end.

It's it's user error on his end, but try. Okay.

He went out. So he'll come back in. I'll add Aaron in. So Aaron, welcome.

Well, hello. Oh, see, now he sounds really good. He's what, what kind of mic are you using? This is a positronic gaming headset.

Ah, there you go. See, you sound better than Anthony. Now I have a little bit of reverb of myself.

I'm not really sure. That's why I'm hearing too. Yeah. Are you still hearing it? I still hear you, but there's some reverb on that.

Huh? Okay. I'll figure it out. Anyway. So what's your question?

Well, you figured it out. I don't think I'm going to be able to figure it out. Cause I have no idea what's causing it. But I was wondering, cause

I, you know, I'm a, I'm a relatively new to the scene YouTuber in this sort of Christian YouTube community.

And I focus on the sort of science and philosophy barriers that a lot of the atheist

YouTube communities battling against. So I was wondering what your guides of thoughts are on that and how that's relevant to the sort of,

I guess you could call it the culture war with respect to the politics side of it, because I know those are technically separate issues, but they seem to go hand in hand.

A lot of the, the secular community uses those two tools as their justification for rejecting theism and Christianity.

Well, I mean, presuppositionally, I'm going to say that you can only do science because of God and that they borrow from our worldview in order to do science.

And so that's my, that'd be my first thing. When I talk to people as college students, professors, whomever, who, who talks about science and they try to pit science against the

Bible, I will kindly point out how they can do science. And so I usually will walk them through the issues of, you know, why is it you can do when we do science and use the scientific method, we have to be able to do tests that are, that we observe something, right?

We do tests, we repeat the tests and we verify tests in order for a hypothesis to, to become a theory.

Well, here's the issue is that in order to do that science in tests, you have to assume laws of nature, like laws of chemistry, laws of math, laws of physics.

You have to assume those from the get -go. It doesn't make sense in random chemical chance universe. We have a very orderly universe, orderly human bodies.

Why? You know, we have an ability to use our sense of reason and our sense of touch and sight and hearing all these things are necessary to be able to do science only in our worldview.

Can we trust those senses in order to do science? And so this is now

I'm kind of putting everything that I would talk about over a five or 10 minute period of time into a 20 second sound bite.

But, but the point is, is this is what I would talk to somebody about is that you can't separate the Bible and science. Okay. No.

So that's pretty much my perspective. I I'm new to your guides, a stream. So I've liked what I've seen so far. So I kind of joined right at the politics part.

And I had a conversation with, have you guys seen street epistemology on YouTube?

It's like this kind of growing thing where people will live interview people walking past them on the street.

And usually they'll ask them what they want to talk about. And most people in the States, if you want to talk about something like close and personal to you, it ends up being religion.

And most people are Christians. So that's the vast majority of them are. And I saw this guy, his channel is called street knowledge.

And I really liked his format. I mean, he he's an agnostic. So I reached out to him like, Hey, I'd like to talk to you, but I'm not going to see you on the street.

So we talked over stream yard and I pretty much did a lot. What you said is their approach and their sort of I guess you could say evidentiary standard for why they say they don't believe in God is based on a sort of empiricism and expectation that God would be like the natural world where there's this sort of deterministic expectation where you can make predictions, but God's not like that.

And that's sort of my argument point. You guys can, if you, I don't know if you guys ever get the chance, but if you want to check that out, just search my name and YouTube.

And we talk about the rationality of theism, but that's why I was wondering what your guys' thoughts are on that. Well, so the problem with evidences and why

I won't dispute evidences, typically, I'll talk about them a little bit, but I don't like disputing them with the unbeliever because the issue of evidences isn't about the evidence itself.

It's about how we interpret it. And so, you know, one of the examples I love to use because it was one that really changed, flipped my mind about eight years ago was at the creation museum.

They had a dinosaur bone, two different scientists looking at it and the videos playing about the scientists.

And so the secular scientists looking at dinosaur bone and says that, you know, I know this world to be billions of years old universe to be billions years old dinosaurs lived between 65, 220 million years ago.

Therefore this bone must be at least 65 million years old. And then the creation scientist looks at the same bone at the exact same time and says, you know,

I believe that the Bible teaches that's my starting point. And that the earth is only about 6 ,000 or so years old.

Dinosaurs are created on day six. This bone can't be over about 6 ,000 years, right? So it's, it's two different worldviews that are used to interpret the exact same evidence, exact same time, and come up with vastly different conclusions based on that.

So what I, what I won't do is get into a battle of evidences with, with the unbeliever because it's the worldview issues that are, that are the problem.

So instead, what I'm going to do is I'm going to go after the worldview and talk about that. Okay. They don't have a ground to stand on.

I am very new. So I might be wrong, but that sounds like a precept. Is that what that is? That's correct.

Okay. That's a good, I guess segue. Cause that's what led to the conversation between me and this street epistemologist guy is that he did a video that was online with a precept.

It was called presupposing gods, the title of the video. It's in the description of mine, mine's Aaron Aquinas. And I'm like, well,

I liked his format on that. So I reached out to him like, Hey, do you want to, I'll talk to you about it now? I'm not particularly a precept. So I approached it a little differently.

Not so much, I guess on an evidentiary standard, but that's kind of how that started. But that makes sense because you're right.

There are assumptions in our background information that will cause us to interpret the data differently. And the first thing

I went over, it says, okay, what are the assumptions we agree on? And then we need to see where we differ. And he said, well, we should all have, we should have all the same assumptions.

Like, well, no, because we probably have the same conclusions. If we did. Well, that's something to keep in mind with precepts.

So you understand it may be a little better. Presuppositional apologetics is not saying, okay, what are the things you pre suppose as much as it is this, the starting point is that we will not give up God and his word.

So God exists. He has spoken. Those are my two presuppositions that I'm not going to give up on. What is it?

The atheist wants you to do? Well, let's, let's put the Bible aside and now discuss whether God exists.

Right? So let's get ready. It's like, so that's like saying, okay, let's, let's talk about your beliefs in evolution, but we'll put all your science books aside.

Now let's discuss it. They're not going to agree to that. No, I, no, I'm not,

I'm not arguing against Christians having a presuppositional approach to their, like that's, that's totally fine.

I like in, in that particular interaction, cause he already did a preset interview. Mine was like, okay, what if we didn't now there's a, there's a diversity, obviously among the, like the sort of Christian community, like some people are precepts, some are not.

I, I am myself in the strategy that I'm approaching and the sort of demographic

I'm going after with my audience is not the precept crowd. At least generally speaking.

I mean, not every single topic addresses precepts relevance. I don't think, but for the ones that I've done so far, like we talked about just the rationality of these and first without considering scripture.

And then I had a, we talked about young earth creation is creationism with a different guy from something called the arc ministry.

We had two separate ones on that, but that one didn't, I guess need, well,

I guess we, in a sense did precept cause we agreed on our basic assumptions about the authority of scripture and obviously all that.

But for the first guy, yeah. I mean, like you said, they're not going to set their, their background information aside any more than you guys would.

Yeah. And, and keep in mind that when you're speaking with them they, it's not an evidence issue that they have a problem with.

It's a spiritual one. I agree with that. Yes. And I think I think a lot of evidentiary style apologetics that approach it that way, isn't doing so out of a sort of evidentialist perspective, at least.

I mean, maybe some people do. I'm not, I think it's more of a, I still think the Holy spirit has that work, but the

Holy spirit can use pretty much any tool it needs to work. And I think a lot of people use the evidentiary standards as their excuse, like the sort of bona fide excuse.

And this, I think that the, and this is what other apologists have said. Not, not everyone agrees with this, but I think can use that sort of, um, apologetic to knock that barrier out of the way for them, so to speak.

So let me say this. Hold on a second. I want to ask a question before you. So just, just for clarification.

So don't forget what you're going to say, Anthony. Yeah. You, and I don't know if this was done on purpose. So I'm just curious.

Cause first time you're coming into the show referred to the Holy spirit as it, and not he like, so it's a, well, if I did,

I didn't mean to, but I think the, I was trying to refer to is the mechanism. Okay. Like, you know, I, I, I'm a,

I'm a Trinitarian. If you're asking me, that's what I wanted to get down to. Okay, go ahead. I'm pretty, I'm pretty orthodox, so to speak on essential.

I'm not sectarian. I'm not a cult. No, I'm a pretty Christian, I guess. I don't, I don't really, um, it is precept common with, uh,

Southern Baptist convention. I'm just, I'm just, I'm not sure if that has any relation. it's common with reformed guys, which were formed.

Well, Southern Baptist commission is reformed, isn't it? Not completely. Southern Baptists aren't completely reformed.

They kind of half and a half. Um, but Anthony, actually that's an art precept being reformed as an argument that reformed guys make.

Well, I don't want to make it as a causal way. I just mean like, is that, is it, does it tend to be the case that precept, there's a lot of people who are, yeah, there's a lot of people who are not reformed that would, would still argue, uh, precept.

And, uh, because of course they'd be inconsistent though. So, yeah,

I, so here, here's what I would say is, um, something to consider and, and why I think precept is the way to go.

Okay. Um, we, I'm assuming that, that you believe the

Bible to be God's word, completely true, right? Yeah. You sort of in there and see, are you asking me about?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, basic questions. And I would see you. So we, we, we read in Romans one, everybody knows the true

God that exists by his creation and the things that have been made. Right. So Romans one would say, would say that every single person we walk up to every single person we talked to, they know

God exists, not just a generic God, but the God of the

Bible exists. Um, the, the, that same passage talks about them knowing his divine attributes.

And so when people don't acknowledge the one true God that they already know exists, they suppress the truth about him and their sin.

So you'll find this in Romans one verses 18 to about 22. And as we run across people, the thing we have to always recognize is they know

God exists. We don't have the burden of proof to prove to them God exists. And, and that's why

I'm not a fan of, of a pure evidential or classical approach is because they believe fundamentally that you've got to take somebody at, at ground zero, give them enough evidences and build them up to theism, general theism.

And then you have to give them enough evidences to get from theism to the God of the Bible. Yes. Yeah.

Where the Bible clearly teaches the opposite of that. The Bible says that they already know the God exists.

They suppress the truth about him and their sin. They're going to be held without excuse. You read further.

And it says that when they deny God or they don't acknowledge God, they turn to images resembling mortal man and birds and animals, creeping things.

They literally turn to idols and they create false gods that they follow. This is exactly what we see with people, right?

And so even the atheist or agnostic is, is religious, right? They believe in whatever they believe in. I have faith in what they believe in and that's their idol.

So we see it among everybody who suppresses the truth about the one true God that they turn to idols.

We see in Romans two, that the moral laws were in everyone's heart. The, the conscience testifies to the facts.

So they understand an absolute sense of right from wrong because of said

God in Romans one. Okay. So what's that? Yeah. So that's where our starting point is going to be as a precept is that we don't, we don't have the burden of proof.

We come in and our job is to expose the fact that they already know. So I'm not going to say that evidences, evidences are evil.

I still enjoy answering questions because I, I look at second Corinthians 10 and first Peter three 15.

And I think we are to give answers to questions that they have legitimate questions, sincere questions that they have, but we can't use evidences in a way that we are trying to prove to them.

God, we are trying to use evidences to show them that their worldview is fallacious and they can't account for their worldview.

And that the reason why they can do things such as, so let, let me say this one other thing.

Okay. And then, and then I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll be interested to hear what you have to say.

The, I would say that the, that the person who doesn't acknowledge

God typically is the evolutionist, right? These, these are people who believe that they are the result of random chemical reactions over billions of years that have done nothing but obey the laws of chemistry and physics, right?

So that person, and I walk through this all the time with, with, with evolutionists, they are literally a bag of random chemical reactions sitting there doing nothing but obeying laws of chemistry and physics.

Now I tell them, look, I'm not going to ask you where the laws of chemistry and physics come from because those are orderly laws of nature.

They can't come from randomness, but let's assume they're there. So you now evolutionist are a bag of random chemical reactions, doing nothing but obeying laws of chemistry and physics.

Um, where are your thoughts coming from? Do you have an ability to control your, your ability to reason and you have ability to control the words are coming out of your mouth.

See somewhere along the line, this evolutionist has to believe that they are the product of pure materialism and somehow out of materialism, we get immaterial things that are absolute.

Laws of logic, laws of nature, um, the ability to use our senses and trust them ability to have reason and trust it.

Right? So this is the approach that I'm typically going to take is that the person that we are talking to in general is somebody who can't support their world view.

Like they can't account for their ability to even argue with us from their position.

Yeah. I'm familiar with precept. I mean, in fact, the, uh, the presupposing God video that sparked mine was pretty much all about that.

And I'm not, I obviously didn't come prepared to speak specifically to this. I'm not here to try to like dismantle priests up, but I think people are totally fine with it.

And by the way, you mentioned a lot of things. I don't know if I'm going to be able to respond to all of it. If someone else wants to come on, feel free to kick me out.

I feel like I'm taking a lot of time, but, uh, can you quote the verse?

I didn't catch it. The one where he says, everyone knows God exists. Like what, what verse? It's Romans one, um, between 18 and 21 or just the, what's that specific line that you're referring to?

That says like, I say maybe it doesn't verbatim say everyone knows there's a God. I mean, it's probably says in different words.

It says it in different words. Yeah. I'm wanting to know exactly what you're referring to there. Yeah. Yeah. So you want me to read it?

Yeah, go ahead. If you got just that little bit, I don't know. I know the context. I just curious what that, that line here.

Yeah. This is what it says. Romans one 18, uh, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who buy their unrighteousness suppress the truth for what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them for his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world.

In the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Okay. Yes.

So that's the passage I thought you were referring to the, the clearly perceived as eternal power and deity and all that.

Yeah. I'm familiar with that. And obviously like, that's just what the text says. I agree with that. Now that the text doesn't like say in the same language that you did, everyone knows that guy.

Cause I think that grammar has slightly different. This is just my opinion has slightly different implications because I, I, I've have,

I don't call them friends. I said, but I have people like acquaintances that will say, I know, or believe in God, but they're more pantheistic, more of a

Spinoza style. So like the grammar and the language will imply different things, depending on like who you're talking to in the context of what you're saying.

And there's a few different, I know that's the precept understanding of that.

There's a, in the sort of evidentiary, which I wouldn't consider myself. They see that as the, not having an excuse to tell before God that you are not neat in meeting of justification, so to speak.

Now I don't really hold it either. Like I'm not interested in the, the sort of objective, like that's an in -house debate as far as I'm concerned.

That's not really a, this bridge that unbelievers need to try to get over understanding that passage. But I do believe that.

Yes. I do think like where it talks about the fool has said, there is no God. That source, same sort of grammar implication does imply that there are people who say there are no

God. And I think that could be sincere, but whether that be true or not,

I think what we would agree on is that it's the Holy spirit that convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

So I think the conviction comes by the work of the Holy spirit. And I'm, I just believe in a sort of, um, both on a textual basis.

And I think rationale that the Holy spirit can use any means to bring people to faith. Um, and that's the sort of,

I guess that's the sort of not necessary precept approach. Cause I'm not saying don't precept. I'm just saying,

I don't know if it's always necessary because there's a lot of, I don't want,

I don't like a lot of the things you were describing to me, um, I think are going to be, um, cause

I can't respond to all of them. There's quite a few points, but that's okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, the, uh, the, the sort of precept, um, understanding of the arena in which this sort of dialogue takes place,

I don't think is always the case. I think there are cases where I don't want to say the word evidence, because I think that has a certain empirical connotation to it, but reasons

I think giving reasons, um, we, in that sense is, is the sort of basic level of the word evidence can be clearly both justified and is the example of not only the sermons in the book of Acts and even in the gospels, but also is a lot of people quoting the sort of apologetics word origin phrase in first Peter about being prepared to give a reason.

So I think those can go hand in hand. So let me, let me just clarify something just so you, you can understand because, you know,

Anthony said he uses evidence. It's not that a presuppositional list doesn't use evidence.

I, there are some, I know, you know, one person would say, Oh, evidence is a sin. However, what is it that Christ used when

John the Baptist followers came to him? He didn't say, you know, they said, are you, are you the

Messiah? He didn't say yes. He didn't say no. He went and healed a bunch of people and said, go tell John what you saw.

Right. However, John is someone that's believing in God, right? So there's a difference there.

So what Anthony was, yeah. And so what you see though, is what Anthony was saying is we don't use evidence to prove

God exists. Cause so you give some evidence. It's great evidence. It convinces the person

God exists. And then they see someone else come up with some arguments that say he doesn't.

Right. So evidence itself just isn't the real.

And this gets back to the issue. The real issue is a spiritual problem, not an evidence problem.

So because of that, we're going to bring them back to the Bible, right. To the word of God.

And it's not that, you know, look, someone comes up and Anthony and I will use evidences all the time.

When people challenge us, we're going to give answers when, when people say, you know, they want to argue for evolution.

I have no problem pointing out that evolution is scientifically impossible.

You, you, you for evolution to be true, you have to have a gain of information that's beneficial and reproducible.

And we don't see that. So that is not proving God exists. What's that doing? That's attacking their worldview and showing the problems within their worldview.

I can use evidence for that. That's, that's not an issue. The, the issue that, you know, Anthony was saying was, were you, we're not going to use evidence to prove

God exists because think about this, any evidence. If there was something other than God that can prove

God, that would be greater than him. There is nothing greater than God. So that's why we, we, there, you're not going to have anything that you can turn to.

What a lot of people are going to turn to is, Oh, give me the sign, give me a scientific way of proving God exists. Well, that's a category error in logic because.

Hmm. Oh, I think, I think I hit myself reverting. So sorry if I seem like I'm interrupting, but, uh, we're actually on the same page here, even though I don't call myself a precept,

I would never use the language of proving God, like with some kind of certainty or demonstrable, repeatable, like empiricism that people, like you said, people want a scientific

LA. Yeah. That's, it's not even merely a category error, which it is. I think you're right about that, but it's also just, um, it's a sort of non sequitur, like the proposition isn't suggesting a naturalistic, deterministic, testable hypothesis.

That's like, it's not what it's doing. Um, I don't even know why they would. Well, I do know why actually,

I think it's mostly out of incredulity. Yeah, they don't, they don't care about the answer anyway. Yeah. I'm not trying to speculate on their psychology, but the, the point

I was going to is, yeah, I wouldn't, that's why I, the word evidence gets so tied up with the empirical connotation, improving like we expect with science, because we do have a presupposition of the natural world being the same everywhere.

Like that's, that's sort of uniformity of nature. Like that is, I don't think it's an unjustified assumption, but it is an assumption that we have when we do science, but we're not offering a scientific proposition when we're talking about God.

And I think that's, that's where we're agreeing, whether it's a precept approach or, I guess you could call what

I was doing an evidentiary approach. I don't know. I know. You sound like you may be more of a classical apologetics.

Yeah, I guess so. I haven't really put a whole label on it because I'm just kind of doing things. I'm not like a type of ministry.

And I think, I think it's good the way you worded it to say, this is, you know, this is, um, instead of saying evidence using reason, um, we, we are going to,

I'm going to give you the last word just so that you know, but we're going to, I want to, we have 10 minutes left in the show. I want to bring James in, but, and we're here every

Thursday night, Aaron. So any, any Thursday night you want to jump in. We're, we're usually here.

Yeah. Well, I will, um, I will definitely be returning. This is a very good time. It was very educational. I haven't even had a good chance to read some of the comments and response, but I'll, I'll go back and look at it.

And then with your guys's permission, I want to try to clip my spot and I'll put it on my channel. Like the P the part

I appeared in, but also, uh, yeah, what I'll leave with is the current work

I have. Cause I'm still really new. I've only got like eight videos or something, but the current work I have has been called, um, it's not a precept approach, but we talked about the rationality of theism.

We, it wasn't even, is theism true? It wasn't. Can you prove theism? Is there, it was like, is theism a rational option for the thinking person?

And it's sort of rational permission, which will allow them. I think to be more open to the gospel, because obviously you're going to have a hard time believing

Jesus rose from the dead. If you don't believe God exists, that that's not in your background information, then that's just impossible.

Like the natural world tells you it's impossible, but if theism is a rational option, like if they don't have the excuse of their presuppositions on the natural world and logic and their sort of metaphysical framework that prevents them from having

God in that background information. That's what mine was. Um, it's literally called is theism rational question mark.

And then there's a part one and two in response to the guy who talked to the, this precept guy, it's really interesting stuff.

But, um, yeah, I don't want to take up the whole stream. We appreciate you coming in and, uh, yeah, come on back in, but we're gonna, we're gonna,

I'll put you in the backstage and, uh, hold on until the end of the show. We'll, we'll, uh, talk a little bit more after the show.

All right, cool. Thanks for having me. All right. So let's bring in the beardless one. Man, I don't even recognize him.

It is a little bit different, right? Oh, now we can hear you. Yeah. I'm going up to my podcast that, uh, you know, tell, tell

Anthony, is it me or does he look like a child now? You know, baby face.

That's we're going to have to call him baby face. He's going to last long. It'll, uh, hopefully by the weekend

I'll have a, uh, I'll have something going. I started, I started my new job tomorrow, so I wanted to get all nice and cleaned up.

Oh, is that why you shaved? Yeah. Wow. But I, uh,

I had two comments that I wanted to, uh, come on and make a number one. Ant Antony, Shelby and I would love to have you and Julie over for dinner.

And number two, uh, Andrew, I got an interview with James White and you did it. Yeah. I mean, no, that's, that's fair.

I mean, you're, you got, you got 10 minutes and I'm going to have an full hour. I did. And I'm working on some other big ones right now.

Yeah. I don't know how that's going to pan out, but you haven't had, you haven't had

Sylvester on. So I recorded with him at G3. He's really three. Yeah. I know.

Somebody started whining that we're taking too long. Who is that? Once you let Anthony start speaking, it's like, you know, you can't, you can't shut them up.

So, you know, all of a sudden your timetable of, okay, the people who are going to use the equipment at this time. And this time,

Anthony is just like hogging it all. You know, what's funny is that, is that every time I'm on a box,

I make sure I get on right before Andrew, you know, for street preaching so that I can keep them at bay for a while.

And it just so happens that I was on the box before him for the interviews.

So we, I got to stymie him there too. Like, this is great. Happy, squeaky clean face.

That's a good one. So, so what are we going to have? Steak? Should we bring some salad or what?

Oh man. Steak. Oh, we'll go buy the steak. We'll grill that. Us Southerners, up here in Ohio.

This is perfect grilling weather. Yeah. So did you, you, you were, so folks that don't know, you're originally from Georgia.

You moved up to Ohio and in Anthony's area because you really, uh, hate nice weather and decided you want some snow.

And so you got it now. Yeah. Well, it was even worse for me.

I went from G3, which was Atlanta, Georgia down to Florida, which was even nicer weather.

Only to come back to Jersey. And it's, what was it when I landed? I think 20 degrees. That was not fun.

Not at all. I think the day we got back in Ohio, the, uh, the temperature up here was like 12 degrees.

Yeah. That's a pretty different from the 60 that it was whenever. Yeah. Yeah. So it's supposed to be getting the mid forties tomorrow here.

So yeah, no, it's like we come up North in the, in the, we're just not having like a winter that we want it now.

Yeah. Oh, don't worry. It's coming. It's coming. So, uh, so James, you on your podcast, right.

It's five solas. So, um, you've, you've gotten a couple new episodes that you've dropped.

You had one, the most recent one with, uh, Jeff, Jeffrey rice. That was really a very good interview that you had down there.

G3. Um, you know, you, you bribed him. You, you made him give you a

Bible for an interview. What's up with that? I don't know, but, uh, he's got a real interesting background, doesn't he?

He does. You know, it was one, it was one of those things you talk to him individually and you're like, you know, I don't, uh, how do

I, I don't know how this is going to come off in an interview. Cause he was one of those guys where, uh, where it's, it's, it's like, you're just sitting at a kitchen table, having a conversation.

You don't know how it's going to go across on, on a podcast, but once you get going with him, you don't want to stop.

Yeah. Well, it's, I mean, you, you, you ended up seeing, his background, he, he was kidnapped, uh, by,

I think it was a neighbor. Like I think he was 11 years old and, uh, and basically told that he was going to be, his parents were going to be offered to up to Satan if he didn't stay with this person.

And so to protect his parents, you know, in his mind for 11 year old, he's, he, he ends up staying, he escapes from there, uh, and ends up getting into gangs, uh, 14.

One extreme to the other. Yeah. And, uh, and then get saved. And I think that's why it's, it's, you know, he does, uh, the

Bible rebindings does great work. Um, well, I mean, what's incredible is, you know, the reason why he got into the

Bible rebinding was because of a medical issue. Yeah. You know, if something like that happened to me,

I would be devastated. Like with the vertigo passing out, it's like, Oh man, I can't work now. What do I do? But it's really a

Testament of God using, using, uh, something that he didn't even know he was good at for, for his good, you know, working it out for his good.

Yeah. And, and, uh, I'll, I'll put a plug this way. So we'll go listen to five solos podcast, but the, uh,

I, I really liked when you asked him to share the gospel and, uh, I'll just put it this way. The, the way that, uh,

Darrell ended up saying, I don't need to listen to Paul Washer now. So, so essentially, if you haven't gotten to listen to five solos, you may want to go listen to that.

I'm excited about, you know, I kind of gotten that, that vibe after my mom passed, it was just like, I didn't really have a desire to do anything.

And that, you know, my desires are finally starting to come back. And, uh, the conference helped out greatly with that.

So, uh, I've got like a lineup of people already, and I'm going to start kind of promoting the release dates, uh, talk with somebody at the conference.

And they said that's helped them out a lot to promote the upcoming episodes. So, okay. Yeah. I, I, I try to do that.

Now, you know, the thing is, is you're a lot of people down at, uh, at the

G3 conference. I mean, we got to run into a lot of people that we know online, you know, who we didn't see there.

We, we did, we did not see Chris Han holds from voice of reason. He just was absent, you know, well, captain

America. So he, he wasn't able to be where we were the entire time, but he was able to come right across from Jeff rice with all those nice butterly soft, uh,

Bibles, you know, and you know, I could reach up and grab some here.

All done just in case, in case Scott hunt is, is you know, this, these nice, uh,

Scott wants one of these, you know, goat skin heirlooms. Mine, mine doesn't have your, you know, the, the, the, the post

Texan Luke's on it. But, uh, you know, Scott hunts watching, this is what you want.

Nice, soft Bible. Yeah. He gave me a, a journaling Bible and I actually got my first notes in it last night at the

Bible study. So I decided to be able to use it. Okay. So what were your first notes?

Genesis one, one Anthony's favorite verse or something. We were actually in a first Peter.

We were, it was actually biblical submission. Uh, and so that was a, you know, great perspectives given last night.

You know, it made me look at things a little bit different, not necessarily different, but from other perspectives that I haven't looked at the text from yet.

Well, I know we got to wrap up, but I'll tell you this, you know where Anthony would go in a, if you're discussing that Genesis, of course.

Okay. Cause he doesn't know any other books exist. All right. Bible is this thick.

Yeah. Bible contains one book and it's Genesis. All right. Actually just part of a book, 11 chapters worth.

All right. He was saying, so I cut him off. Well, cause we're going to end, but for folks, uh, just to let you know something you can do, we were giving something away at G three.

Um, and that is a free introductory class on hermeneutics. And so we are going to offer it to you guys.

Here's what you can do. Um, so, I, I should, let's see if I can create a banner for this really quick.

Um, so what you, what we're going to do is if you, if you send a text to four, four, two, two, two, and text to that G three conf and I'll put a banner up really quick.

So there you go. So text four, four, two, two, two. And that's the number.

And then what you want to put in the message is G three conf. It'll ask for your, uh, for an email address.

And then you will start getting some, uh, emails one a day. I think it should send you five short, uh, basically it's a short hermeneutical introduced introductory class.

Give you a deal with each day is going to deal with a different topic. Harmonically of how to interpret the scripture.

So if you want to get that, just text four, four, two, two, two. And the message is G three conf.

And you will get that. Uh, other than that, I can, I'll mention, uh, for those who, uh, have not, maybe you're new watching or listening.

Um, you can join us in Israel. Anthony and I will be speaking in Israel, March, 2021.

You can go to 2021 Israel trip .com. Get all the details there.

Uh, and if you prefer listening to podcasts, you can, uh, check this podcast out.

This will be, this video becomes a podcast tomorrow and it'll, it'll drop there.

You can go to Christian podcast. We need to check out all the podcasts that we have. Uh, Anthony, anything you, you want to share?

You got, you're going to be coming to New York this weekend to speak, uh, at a

Lutheran church there. Um, while I'm in Pennsylvania. So you have any other events?

I'm just trying to look in our trivet to see if you have anything else. Um, you know, the big one is plug the apologetics, the creation apologetics teachers.

Yeah. So, you know, the big one that you'll be coming to this year will be, uh, the five -day course that, uh,

Mike Riddle, pastor Jim Harrison, I teach, um, down in this, this year, it'll be at Arizona Christian university.

It's a five -day course. And you learn not just creation apologetics, but you get precept training and you also get, um, different social issue training.

So there's a, there's a social justice message. There is a sanctity of life message, um, an hour long teaching.

And it's, it's not just teaching, but also how you go out and teach. Cause the, the thing that we really enjoy doing is teaching people how to teach, to bring this to your local church and to be able to teach within your church.

Um, what's fascinating about this course is and why it's different than most others out there is you're actually going to get a chance to, to, uh, to demonstrate your abilities to speak and to use the, uh, hand motions and voice inflections and that type of stuff for us to grade you on and coach you through to become a more effective teacher and a communicator.

So this course is normally a 17, $1 ,800 is about what it costs us per person.

It gives you a five nights hotel. Um, it gives you 15 meals and, uh, all the training and, because of donors, the cost per person is only five 90.

It's really cheap. So I encourage people to, uh, to sign up, go to see, uh, creation training .org.

And you can actually read all about it and sign up for it. All right.

And so with that, we're going to go off air. Uh, I don't know. Uh, we'll have to find out.

I don't have anything scheduled for next week, so I don't know who will be the guest apologist who might be a

Matt, maybe coming in, but we will, we'll see until next time. Just remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.