Greg Koukl Talks Owning Atheist Celebrities/Converting Lady Gaga/20th Century Horrors
Be sure to check out The Babylon Bee YouTube Channel for more podcasts, podcast shorts, animation, and more. This is the Babylon Bee Interview Show. In this episode of The Babylon Bee Podcast, Kyle and Ethan welcome back Christian apologist Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason. He is the author of Tactics and The Story of Reality. They analyze celebrity quotes about God and religion, discuss the horrors of the 20th century world wars, and reveal how Greg would convert Lady Gaga in 30 seconds using his tactics. They also get into the concept of "wokeness" and how awful a lot of modern worship songs really are. To watch or listen to the full podcast, become a subscriber at https://babylonbee.com/plans. Topics Discussed The Greg Koukl Vs. Deepak Chopra faceoff Celebrity quotes about God (Woody Allen, Penn Jillette, Ricky Gervais, H.P. Lovecraft, Lady Gaga) Running the Gauntlet Douglas Axe's book Undeniable The Strawman Fallacy Religion causing more war than atheism? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler Indoctrination and reading non-Christian books Illiberal bullying and bludgeoning Christian schools excluding non-Christians 'Practical suicide' (Being what you condemn) "LGBTQ Christians" Converting Lady Gaga in 30 seconds using Tactics Critical Race Theory infiltrating the church Intersectionality and social justice Greg's book Tactics Greg's book The Story of Reality Subscriber Portion Stephen Colbert and atheists/agnostics Jordan Peterson's tactics on this interview On not being good enough or virtuous enough to become a Christian? What the Bible says about "wokeness" Subscriber-submitted questions Is God's love reckless? And other thoughts on modern worship songs Miscellaneous heresies The Ten Questions
I just have to say that I object strenuously to your use of the word hilarious.
Hard-hitting questions.
What do you think about feminism?
Do you like it?
Taking you to the cutting edge of truth.
Yeah, well, Last Jedi is one of the worst movies ever made, and it was very clear that Brian Johnson doesn't like Star Wars.
Kyle pulls no punches.
I want to ask how you're able to sleep at night.
Ethan brings bone-shattering common sense from the top rope.
If I may, how double dare you?
This is the Babylon Bee interview show.
Hi, everybody.
Welcome to the Babylon Bee Interview Show.
Kyle.
Ethan.
Greg.
Wow.
That's the fastest.
And we're into it.
We're in.
Let's go.
Hit the ground running.
I remembered my own name.
That doesn't always work so quickly.
I hesitated.
Have you been a longtime fan of the Babylon Bee podcast?
You remember Greg?
Yeah, Greg was in just before we went to video.
Oh, that's right.
That's weird.
That wasn't that long ago.
Yeah.
What do you mean, longtime fan?
You got a lot of old people out there.
I can't remember.
Longtime means a year.
But it was just January, right?
Just before the whole COVID political thing that happened like that.
Shut the half the world down.
Yeah, because the podcast just turned on.
20 years old.
You're old.
So recently.
You're six months ago, then you're a longtime fan.
Oh, I gotcha.
Okay.
Half the existence of the enterprise.
Right.
I was showing Kyle that video where you scramble the brains of Deepak Chopping.
I was going to mention your name.
Oh, yeah.
A lot of people refer to that.
Anybody has ever seen that?
Just YouTube, Greg Cochle, Deepak Chopra, and just watch the Twitch in Deepak Chopra's eye, just kind of going like, this is cool.
I want to make a comment about that because I want to hear all about it.
There is a lot of, there are a lot of interactions that we see between opposite points of view.
And they are largely gladiator events.
Who can draw the most blood quickest?
And I don't like that style.
And it's in a lot of spiritual conversations with Christians and non-Christians.
This is the way it's become too.
And this was not my desire with Dr. Chopra.
In fact, I called him Dr. Chopra the entire time out of respect.
Plus, I didn't want to call him Deepak because I don't want to play into his brand.
He's one of the few people in the world that could be recognized.
No, but he's one of the few people in the world.
You can recognize him by just his first name.
It's like Oprah.
It's just a weird name.
Deepak and Lucy.
And, you know, maybe that doesn't work so much anymore.
But Rush, you know what I'm talking about.
So this guy's a huge brand.
But I, anyway, so I treated him with a lot of respect.
However, Deepak Chopra does not get opposed in hardly any place that he's the thing.
You could see.
We're trying to write a book with this character who's like Deepak.
And he's getting confronted and he's starting to get a lot of people.
He's kind of like I'm a pacifist and then he gets murdered and mother's beating him up.
So we pulled up videos and it was perfect because he's like, you can't see the way it is.
And it wasn't that you were trying to own him, but you were.
You were just being very calm.
It drove him nuts for you.
Well, this is what he was.
He put his ideas to review.
We were laughing really hard.
Yeah.
He was, he did not know what to do.
Yeah.
It was so obvious.
And this is about a 40-minute national TV event.
And probably about 30 minutes into this event, this conversation, Deepak was, Dr. Chopra was completely at a loss.
And in fact, one time when Lee Strobel asked a question, he said, oh, I don't know, ask the other guy.
Well, you never give up airtime in a situation like that, especially when you have a limited amount of time to the opposition.
But he didn't know what to say, and he wanted to be somewhere else.
And it's really obvious at the end.
But he got fairly opposed, and I treated him with respect, which is, you know, that's our model.
It's standard reason.
And it didn't go so well for him.
But the reason it didn't go so well for him is because he has bad ideas.
And most of the ideas actually are very hard to even understand.
When he talks, it's like this is why he doesn't get opposed because people don't know what to say.
Well, he says certain things that he takes for granted that you can't oppose.
Like, there is no real findable truth.
Like we all must find within ourselves.
Like he says the kind of things that most people won't challenge that idea.
But there's no way to challenge it.
But there is the quantum fluctuation reality in the ever-changing universal consciousness.
You know, stuff like that.
And you're thinking, what does that mean?
No, so people are taken with that.
It's called like blinding with science.
You have so much of this stuff that he must be right.
I don't know what he's talking about.
But when it comes to these kind of issues, you want to be clear or you want to be precise because there's so much importance to them.
And in our situation, I pressed him on that.
And he didn't have any place to go, as it turned out.
Again, I wasn't trying to draw blood, but it was not a pretty picture for him.
He wanted to be somewhere else towards the end of that.
It was very, pretty obvious.
You're certain, and I'm not, I'm, I'm comfortable with my uncertainty.
You seem to know the truth.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We were taking notes.
Well, you know, here's the irony of a comment like that because he was, this is a standard thing.
You Christians in particular, you think you know the right way.
Okay.
The irony is that he was promoting a book on that show, okay, that was titled Love is the Way.
That was the title of the book.
I wish I had it in my lap.
I could show it to the camera.
This is my own story of reality, but I wish that I could have shown it.
I said, but Dr. Chopra, your book's title is Love is the Way.
Why are you accusing me and faulting me for thinking I know the way?
How does he define love?
Yeah.
Well, that's another part of it.
You know, that's if you define love.
Is that just another way of saying, I don't know.
It's messy.
How do we get into chopra, man?
I just wanted, I forgot to talk about it last time.
So we sat down.
We had a party where we just watched this video.
Oh, I got you.
So anyway, I think the whole thing's available on YouTube.
It is worth watching.
We'll put it in.
Maybe we put a small clip or something.
I don't know how.
I don't know how it works.
Dan, everything we do, Dan, has more work to do.
We'll try.
I disagree with Mr. Coco that the four gospels were written at the time of Jesus' existence.
When you think they're written, well, according to all scholarly research, anywhere from 60 AD to 100 AD.
Yeah, at 62 AD, the book of Acts was finished.
That was the account of the early church.
And Paul was in prison at that time.
We know when he was in prison by secular history, it was in 62.
Okay.
The book of Acts was written by Luke after he wrote his gospel.
That means the gospel of Luke had to be written in the late 50s.
All scholars say the Gospel of Luke was not the first gospel, but rather Mark was the first gospel and possibly Matthew.
So you have two other accounts written before the end of the second decade after the death of Christ.
So by that reckoning, within 15 years, you have writings circulating about the life of Christ from people who experienced the very thing.
That's good scholarship, and that's standard scholarship.
Are there people out there on the fringes that say differently?
Certainly, but that's not sound scholarship.
I just gave a very good argument for early dating, and it's sound.
Okay, I read the recent news week issue, which differed quite different quite a lot from your tongue.
Consider the source, Newsweek and the Jesus Seminar.
Even those people who are considered very, very radical, even by liberal academic scholars on this issue, they don't draw from the right sources, quite frankly.
Okay.
Well, do we want to do some celebrity quotes about God?
Do you want to dive right into that?
I already want to save that.
Yeah, we can do something else.
We got some celebrity quotes about God.
We want your analysis.
Great response.
Okay.
All these.
It looks so reluctant.
This is going to be fun, man.
Yeah, you ready to take on the greatest minds of our era?
Well, sometimes it's not fun.
It's sad.
We'll see what you come up with.
Okay.
Okay.
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
Woody Allen.
Well, cleverly put, obviously.
And what he's going after is the problem of evil kind of thing.
But here I got to, I have to ask a question because he's making some presumptions, all right?
What's a typewriter?
Well, that typewriter has a certain function, and it isn't to gobble up someone's tongue.
Typewriters are made for something that doesn't involve, actively involve tongues, you know.
But see, both of that presumes a certain mind involved in the typewriter and a mind involved in the tongues.
Tongues don't belong in typewriters, you know.
And this is why it's funny.
You know, he's kind of bringing up broadly the problem of evil in his kind of clever way.
I don't believe in an afterlife, but I'm still going to bring a change of underwear.
You know, that kind of thing.
You know, that's another one of his lines.
So it's clever the way he does that.
But even in doing it, he is betraying an awareness that things are made for purposes, obviously typewriters, but also tongues.
And this isn't the purpose of a tongue.
Now, a thing can only be made for a purpose if there is a purpose.
So here it's kind of ironic in his quip, he is acknowledging implicitly that the function of the tongue is intended by the one who made the tongue.
It's implicit in the statement.
Tongues don't belong there.
Really?
If a tongue is just a piece of meat, yeah, it's not so much even an authority kind of thing, like who are you to say?
It's more of an ability to look at something and know it's made for something else.
Okay, a computer is made for certain things.
There's a phone, there's a cup.
That computer is not meant to hold the water that that cup is.
This is pretty obvious.
We look at it, we see the shape, we infer a purpose there.
By the same token, he's inferring a purpose to tongues.
Those are for something else than feeding typewriters.
So we're going to move on from all this stuff eventually.
Putting your tongue in a typewriter will be accepted.
Maybe.
Once we progress.
We were talking about something.
New standard.
Sometimes when you parody something, it becomes the new normal.
All right.
Well, Woody Allen owned.
We got a couple of pendulats in here.
You ready to take on the magician pendulot?
Oh, yeah, pendulum.
Sure.
I saw him.
Talk like him like this.
I saw him once.
I passed him when he was sitting at first class in an airport.
You went back into huh?
You went back into coach.
I was back in Steerage, man, actually, on stage.
Oh, that's right.
Why didn't he conjure me a seat there in first class?
That would really impress me.
Incidentally, I know he's an atheist, but he did say, I saw it.
He said, if you believe that God is real and Jesus is necessary for salvation and rejecting God's mercy through Christ means you stand before God in judgment, and that's not going to be a pretty picture.
Those are my ways of putting it.
But he's talking about hell.
He said, you better be telling people about it.
I have no respect for Christians who don't tell people about Jesus.
That's Pendula.
Yeah.
That was pretty cool.
He's one of my favorite atheists, actually.
I like him.
Okay.
There's no God.
I'm not going to do his voice.
That's the simple truth.
If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again.
There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense.
If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.
Well, I'm not sure exactly what to do with this because this is what if I just saw that, yeah.
Exactly.
What would I said?
You know, there is no pendulum.
There are just a bunch of leprechauns that are conjuring up an image of a man.
And if Penn and a whole bunch of other magicians, if all the magicians of the world were wiped out, then something else would happen and we would never remember there were magicians in the past.
And there would just be leprechauns.
I mean, I don't mean to be disrespectful to his comment, but the content is no different than that.
So the fact that something couldn't be recreated once it's wiped out doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't true.
Well, what he's doing is assuming evolution.
Okay.
And Stephen Jay Gould, I think famously, the famous evolutionist from Harvard, now gone, but he said, you know, if we rewound and start at the beginning, we would get a whole different scenario because circumstances would likely be different.
And so we wouldn't necessarily have human beings.
We'd have something else.
Well, notice that the whole thing presumes a particular view of reality and that is a physicalist view of reality.
And, you know, he's kind of got a point.
If his view is true, then if we rewound the whole thing and started with a different set of conditions, we'd have a different set of results.
Okay, well, okay, that's not profound.
Of course, if your view is true, but you haven't given us any reason to take, pardon me, you're seriously that your view is actually true.
And so this is the flaw in a lot of these kinds of statements is that they turn out to be bold assertions of a worldview that isn't defended.
And then the person who differs, the Christian, for example, in this case, the theist is going to say, oh, man, why don't I say to that?
Well, here's what you say to that.
First, you can say, what do you mean by that?
That's in the tactics book, by the way.
It's the first step of the game plan.
I need a little bit more clarification because it is a little bit unusual way of putting it.
I know what he's talking about.
A lot of people who have not been exposed to that may not know.
He'll clarify for me.
Let's get down to the nuts and bolts here.
So what are you actually saying?
And then, second question, okay, why would you think that's the way it is?
Based on what?
What are your reasons for that?
Okay.
And incidentally, if what he says is true, then there would be an entirely different moral picture too, because on the atheist view, morality is a function of evolution that could have been different.
Right?
Right.
All right.
So fine.
So you're complaining about all of these moral harms in the world.
And I don't know if he does, but I'm just presuming because most atheists do.
How could a good God allow this, that, and the other thing?
Donald Trump, look at that.
Tongue in the typewriter.
Hey, or your tongue in a typewriter.
There you go.
How could God?
Okay, well, in a different world, that couldn't be wrong.
So, so that objection that the magician here, Penn?
Pendillette, yep.
Pendillette offers could be leveled at his own complaint about whatever evil he complains about.
Oh, don't worry about that, Gillette, because if we write behind the whole thing, this is all going to be different.
And you would be complaining about the opposite, probably, because the whole moral scene would be different.
Okay, so, and the point is what?
The point is that we both have really good imaginations.
That's all it is at that point.
It doesn't tell us anything about the real world at all.
Yeah.
So, what would the Christian equivalent be?
Like me saying, if we wiped out all the religions and we started again, then God would reveal Christianity and that would be true.
And that would be the only thing left.
Yeah.
So that's just what I would assume because that's what I believe.
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
But I didn't believe that.
They're for what?
They're for, well, you've got a good imagination.
That's what they're for.
I do.
I do have a good imagination.
And so does Penn.
Yeah.
You know, Pendillette sounds like a pocket-sized deodorant.
Like a little pendillet.
I don't know.
May Jillette pen, I guess.
All right, do we have another?
This is another Gillette.
Yeah, we're going to go to order, whatever.
Nobody that has seen a baby born can believe in God for a second.
When you see your child born and the panic and the amount of technology that saves the life of the two people you love most in the world, when you see how much stainless steel and money it takes to fight off the fact that God wants both these people dead, no one, no one can look into the eyes of a newborn baby and say there's a God, because I'll tell you, if we were squatting in the woods, the two people I love most would be dead.
There's just no way around that.
If I were in charge, no way.
We need technology to fight against nature.
Nature so wants us dead.
Nature is trying to kill us.
Boom.
All right.
There's so much going on there.
I mean, my approach to things like that, this is what I call running the gauntlet because one guy is laying out all kinds of things.
The gauntlet is that kind of military punishment.
So the offender has to run between a line of soldiers who are beating him with sticks and hopefully gets to the other side without going unconscious.
Bang, This is a gauntlet.
So this is a series of challenges, bang, that is meant to hit the Christian, the believer, the theist, whatever, you know, and the multitude of them is meant to wipe the Christian out before he gets to the end of the run.
Doesn't get to say anything.
But there's so, and so you got to break it down into the parts.
And you got to look at, okay, there's this, and then respond to them.
Notice how he equated, for example, nature with God.
Well, that's not the Christian worldview.
God isn't nature.
Right.
All right.
God made nature.
All right.
And nature became hostile to human beings after human beings rebelled against God.
Now, you don't have to believe that actually happened to be fair enough to say, well, that's the Christian worldview and not the way Penn characterized it.
All right.
So that's the first problem.
There's kind of a straw man going on, a misrepresentation of the view.
Secondly, you know, for him to say that no one could look at the birth of a baby and conclude that there must be a God is so odd because everybody who watches the birth of a baby sees the unbelievable wonder in it that they it's a transcendent moment for them.
So what he's doing is he's trying to gainsay the obvious.
You say, I know it looks really wonderful and like there's God there, but there's not.
And here's why.
Because if the woman was squatting in the woods, she'd be dead and the baby were dead.
Now, what he means is having a birth without the aid of technology.
I don't know.
Last time I looked at world history, technology is a very basic, recent event.
And so for like tens of thousands of years, women have been squatting in the woods making babies that grow up to squat in the woods making more babies that end up squatting in a hospital and making a pen.
Gillette.
A Pendillette.
I always want to call him Penteller, but that's Penteller's.
He's the quiet guy.
Pendillette.
So his comment is patently false.
Okay.
Thirdly, notice that all the technology that is being used to save children that might otherwise have died in a more extreme situation is made by intelligent human beings.
Okay.
So now you have incredible technology, which we know are artifacts because we can recognize when something requires know-how to make it.
But the ones who made this incredible technology with their incredible capability are not artifacts.
They're the product of chance over time.
I mean, this is patently ridiculous when you think about the nature of it.
And Doug Axe, the intelligent design advocate, is the guy who kind of turned me onto this concept.
His book is called Undeniable.
Turned me onto the concept that we have the ability to recognize when it takes know-how to make something.
Computers, obviously.
Even that glass right there that holds whatever it is you're drinking.
Coffee.
Thank you for clarifying.
We know it takes know-how to make that.
But when it comes to a human being who can make those kinds of things, why does it not take know-how to make those kind of human beings?
But this is what somebody like Pendillette wants us to believe.
It's counterintuitive.
Now there's more there, too, I could probably speak to, but I'm just isolating a couple of things that I remember.
But this is the key to dealing with the gauntlet is you got to break it down to individual pieces and then talk about those pieces and see if they work.
Can you rattle off all the fallacies that happen there?
Strawman.
I'm thinking we could get a grounding at absurdum.
Actually, that's one of the most common common fallacies.
And, you know, it sounds like this is philosophical hocus pocus and whatever.
But just keep in mind, these are things that happen every single day in conversations about really important matters.
And one of them is when people say, well, like you're twisting my words.
That isn't what I meant.
Okay.
Well, that's a straw man fallacy.
Somebody erects like a scarecrow, a misrepresentation of a real human being, and then can beat the crap out of the scarecrow.
Well, that's no big deal.
You know, why don't you deal with somebody, pick on somebody your own size?
You know, somebody could fight back the real point of view the other person holds.
So when you distort the other person's view to make it easy to attack, that's a strawman fallacy.
We see that here, and we see it all the time.
It's what people are referring to when they say, you know, you're twisting my words.
That's not my view.
So do you think after he said this, he pulled the microphone out of his, like out of nowhere and he made it appear, and then he dropped it?
I don't know.
And then it turned into a dove.
And then flew away.
I don't know.
What's next?
Oh, good old Ricky Gervais.
Who's he?
I like the second one that he does.
So that's a good one.
Okay.
Enjoy that one.
He's the British comedian.
He created the show, The Office.
The original office.
The original office.
Was there one of the things that I've been doing?
It's very funny.
He's the most obnoxious atheism because he's very smug when it comes to atheism.
He's just convinced he's so right.
I guess a lot of them are.
Free speech.
That's okay.
I'm not free speech.
I know Deepak Chopra is bugged when people think they're right, unless it's him who thinks he's right, and everybody agrees with him who thinks they're right.
But it doesn't bother me at all if a person thinks he's right.
That's true.
Everybody thinks they're right.
Everybody thinks they're right.
You kind of expect that.
Yeah, and if they didn't think the release were right, they wouldn't believe them.
Just read some of his tweets.
You'll see.
Okay.
I guess we'll read one right now.
Oh, wait.
Oh, so the second one.
Alex.
I see atheists are fighting and killing each other again over who doesn't believe in any God the most.
Oh, no, wait.
That never happens.
That was my horrible English accent.
You're right.
It doesn't happen for that reason.
Okay.
But the fact is, the 20th century.
Over who doesn't believe in any God the most?
Right, exactly.
So this is kind of any way of saying about how religion is the cost or the cause of more bloodshed and evil in the world than anything else.
Okay.
Notice, by the way, those religious deaths that he's referring to, and they have happened, but much less than what people make them out to be, just on their own merits, just to be fair to the facts.
They're much, much less than what people have made them out to be.
Whether it's the Crusades or Turquada, you know, in the Spanish Inquisition, or whether it's witch burnings in the United States, which nine people died before they got that squirt away, you know.
Well, it's terrible that nine people died, but it wasn't like a Holocaust.
All right.
But even so, they did these things because they had a worldview that they were committed to that informed the decisions.
Now, I want to be careful to say that the Christian worldview doesn't justify this.
So it's hard to hold somebody responsible for the some religion responsible for the crimes of its heretics.
Okay.
Jesus never taught this.
So why is this laid at Jesus' feet?
Okay.
But the complaint is: okay, they're killing each other over God and who has the wrong view of God.
Okay.
Some worldview thing drove the killing.
Now, with that in mind, think about the 20th century, the bloodiest century in the history of the world.
And we're just going to set aside 30 million deaths in the First World War, 60 to 80 million deaths in the Second World War, which, by the way, were not religiously motivated.
So there you got bloodshed on a monumental scale that had nothing to do with religion.
They absolutely, completely, and utterly dwarf any kind of religiously motivated war like the 30 Years' War or something like that in Europe in the 16th century.
There's no comparison.
Okay.
So when somebody says, well, religion has caused more bloodshed and wars and everything, this is nonsense.
It's absolute and complete nonsense.
It has no bearing to the facts whatsoever, even though there has been religious killing.
Okay.
However, the 20th century, apart from those two conflagrations, it was the bloodiest century in the history of the world because three men were responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people.
And this is a conservative estimate.
I'm not making these things up.
I'm just kind of on the conservative side.
And those three men were Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zitung.
Mautzitong by himself, 60.
Wait, so Hitler's not even in there?
Hitler's, you know, I got to be careful how I say this.
Oh, can't say that.
How dare you?
I have said that and have been chastised twice for sailors, smelled potatoes.
Yes.
And I've been chastised twice.
I said exactly like that.
I'm trying to think for the German word.
German word for peach chop liver.
I'm going to Google it.
I can't think of it.
It's right on the tip of my tongue.
But anyway, I said that.
Hitler's small potatoes.
And I had a philosopher come up to me in Kansas at a university there, and he said, I'm offended.
Why are you offended?
Because you said Hitler's small potatoes.
I said, Wait, did you understand my?
I didn't actually say this to him because there's a whole audience there, and you got to be careful how you say it.
But he's a philosophy professor.
Okay, this is an argument from the lesser to the greater.
Okay.
And a superiore or something like that.
In other words, if you think Hitler was bad, he's nothing compared to these.
And Hitler was bad.
I think we focus so much on Hitler.
This is distracting a little bit, but I always think about that.
Like, I mean, Mao and Stalin, and these guys, their numbers are so much higher.
Right.
It's unfortunate.
I've seen people with Mao flags in their house, like decorations.
When I was eHarmony dating, this girl just had like Mao decorations.
Like, oh, I went to China.
Where did you end up being paired with a girl with a Mao thing?
She was a Christian.
She's had this picture.
She's like, I just thought it was pretty.
No, here's the key.
She enjoys long walks on the beach, dictators.
Mom's little red book here.
You got your Bible.
She's got her Mao's little red book and quoting back and forth.
And Kyle Gibraltar somewhere.
She bought it as a tourist thing in China and she thought it was cool looking.
It was Mao, but she's like, yeah, it's Mao.
But you'd never do that on a trip to Germany or whatever.
Be like, oh, it's just a really cool picture of Hitler.
I got it.
Yeah.
Well, according to some people, there are massive numbers of homes all over the country in America that have pictures like that, apparently.
So in any event, though, I want to make the comparison with worldviews here because these guys were atheists and they did it as atheists because they were communists and atheism is the official religion, if you will, of communism.
Now, so this just goes to the point that worldviews have consequences.
So you have Christian groups in light of their worldview, they are faulted for the harm that they commit.
And on the grand scale, it's very small.
Okay.
And they're doing it inconsistent with their worldview.
But when you've got on the atheist side, you have massive loss of human life, taking of human life that is completely consistent with their worldview.
And I'm not saying that everybody who's an atheist is going to approve of this thing or do this kind of thing.
That's not my point.
I'm asking the question: what moral principle inherent to atheism disqualifies genocide?
And the answer is there is no inherent moral principle because there are no inherent moral principles in atheism to begin with.
And so what these guys are doing is acting out their worldview too.
And that is the greatest genocide.
Not those who acknowledge they have somebody that they have to be accountable to, but rather the ones who say, I have no one to be accountable to but myself.
You want to hit him with that Lovecraft, a beefy one?
Oh, yes.
But I was going to say baby potatoes are cartoffel chips.
Kartoffel, right, right.
Did I say that right?
Yeah, cartoffel.
Kartoffel.
This is cartoffelchin.
Kartoffelkin or something.
Those are baby potatoes.
Maybe that's poor.
Small potatoes.
Kartoffelkins.
So you were saying Hitler is cartoffel.
Cartoffel.
Yeah, small.
Well, that's right.
Kartoffelkin would be small potato, I guess.
I don't know.
I don't speak German, but I do know the cartole.
Because you got to order fries if you go to Berlin.
Sooner or later, you're going to eat fries, so you better order cartoffels.
Cartoffels.
All right.
So one of my favorite authors, H.P. Lovecraft.
If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their youth into an artificial conformity, but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.
With such an honest and inflexible openness to evidence, they could not fail to receive any real truth which might be manifesting itself around them.
The fact that religionists do not follow this honorable course, but cheat at their game by invoking juvenile quasi-hypnosis is enough to destroy their pretensions in my eyes, even if their absurdity were not manifest in every other direction.
All right.
So this is one of those gauntlets again.
There's a whole bunch of things.
I started taking some notes.
I thought I can't even keep up with it.
It's very Lovecraft.
It's notice that he thinks that religious education is an act of bludgeoning.
But if you educate your own children as atheists, which I presume he does with his children, or maybe not.
I mean, maybe he has a thing.
I'm not making any case for anything else.
I want my kids to follow the truth.
In the name of open-mindedness, we're going to read some Bible right now.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
Family devotions today.
Once a week, just on Sunday morning, what the heck?
Just so we can have a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
We'll give the Christians their due.
But just the way it's characterized, it's not an accurate characterization of the way religious education is done.
Although, obviously, he's made this comment, and lots of atheists talk about it this way too.
Richard Dawkins talks about it as child abuse, for example.
But when you look at the families that have this kind of education, let me back up.
When you look at families that have genuine child abuse, you see the darkness in the lives of the people where this is happening.
You see the dysfunction.
When I spend times with Christians whose families are richly engaged in Christianity and the Christian worldview, I don't see any darkness.
I see light.
Now, there are groups that claim to be Christian that are, I think, maybe characteristic of this, and that would be LDS and say Jehovah's Witnesses.
Maybe I should back up and say not characteristic, but I see characteristics like this in those families.
And I do think there are Christian families that are really abusive in the way they treat things, but that's because they're not practicing the kind of Christianity that the New Testament promotes, you know, because there's a lot that they're said about how you deal with family, how you pass things on.
And none of these quotes amount to bludgeoning, okay?
And for myself and many people that I know in the business that I'm in, apologetics, making a defense, making the case for Christianity, it is our attitude that people, you read whatever you want.
Let's talk about it.
LDS won't let you read whatever you want.
You can't read anti-LDS books.
As far as I'm concerned, my kids can read anti-Christian books.
Good.
Let's sit down and talk about them.
All right.
There's no problem with that.
Also known as books.
Yeah, it's like regular books.
No big, you know, it's fine because, and I remember, and I'm not telling tales out of school here because this has been described publicly.
Sean McDowell is a very close friend of mine, and Sean is Josh McDowell's son.
And there was a time when Sean, as a young man, told his father that he wasn't sure Christianity was true.
And his dad, Josh McDowell, all right, Josh McDowell said, I am glad that you care so much about truth that you're willing to question what you've been raised in.
And that's fine with me.
I want you to pursue the truth.
I don't want you to reject Christianity because your dad's a Christian.
That would be a mistake.
I want you to reject it because you don't think it's actually true.
So you go out and you do your homework.
And now, Sean's a very good apologist.
So that's the direction he ended up going in light of his own studies.
But notice the attitude there.
I thought it was great.
Some of us could be informed better by that attitude.
I understand that as Christian parents, even myself.
You know, I've made some blunders in this area, but it's not characteristic.
It isn't like people only believe the truths of Christianity because they've been bludgeoned into them.
Much like the truths of leftism is being bludgeoned into people.
I mean, that phrase would apply much more to leftism, you know, because if you don't, you know, toe the line, you get punished in all kinds of different ways, much worse than any religious person gets punished.
So you get disowned, you get disinherited, you get, you know, you're off the reservation.
You get shamed publicly.
You can lose your job, for goodness sake.
And more of that is happening now.
So I think that's a more adequate description of the behavior of leftists than it is of Christians.
However, notice, though, in neither case does that behavior speak to whether or not the views in question are true or false.
So you can look at bad behavior of Christians.
All right, shame on us.
You can look at bad behavior of leftists.
Shame on them.
It doesn't tell you anything at all about whether the underlying worldview is accurate.
That must be assessed on something different than anthropology.
All right.
H.P. Lovecraft owned.
You should have been doing that for no.
Yeah.
You had to try to make as much work for Dan as possible.
He adds the muzzle flags some special effects.
I'm going to skip.
We have so many here.
We're probably going to do them all.
Let's take on Lady Gaga.
Let's.
Who I think did an unbelievably magnificent job in that movie she did, you know, Starsborn.
I was mesmerized.
I see it.
And I, okay, just confession time.
I had no idea who Lady Gaga was before that movie.
I recognized the name and I thought she was famous for being famous.
Poker face.
You know, but when I mean, when I saw her do that number on the stage, you know, she's beckoned out and she does that thing with that other actor who learned to sing for this part.
It was magnificent.
Bradley Cooper, wasn't it?
Bradley Cooper.
Yeah, the killer guy is the sniper guy.
Oh, sure.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Rocket raccoon.
Anyway, so she says, she says to Mike Pence, and I can't remember the exact context.
Maybe you guys remember.
It's like a homophobic thing.
You, Mike Pence, are wrong.
You are the worst representation of what it means to be a Christian.
I am a Christian woman, and what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome.
So you can take all that disgrace, Mr. Pence, and you can look at yourself in the mirror and you'll find it right there.
Is there an argument there?
Let me see what she is.
So it's saying that his views on in what sense everybody's welcome.
In what sense is her attack on Mike Pence not an example of the thing that she's objecting to?
About everybody being welcome.
I guess Mike Pence is not welcome.
By that language, that's pretty strong, right?
So she's a pensophobe.
She's a pensophobe.
I mean, this happens all the time.
It doesn't go to the question of his convictions.
It just goes to the nature of this attack.
And this happens all the time.
I say that these kinds of attacks commit suicide because what they represent Are perfect examples of the very thing they're complaining about.
Now, she may have a legitimate complaint.
Here's the context I found it just real quick.
Earlier in the week, Pence's wife Karen revealed she would resume teaching at a Christian school that barred LGBTQ students and employees.
So, the fact that she decided to work at a Christian school that would have the gall to do that, this was her reaction.
Okay, well, okay, my kids go to a scripture Christian school, and when it says Christian school, it means something.
It means that it's taught by Christians about Christianity to Christians.
So, if you're not a Christian, well, they're not going to put you in the school.
There's a lot of Christian schools like that.
It doesn't mean they hate non-Christians, it means that they have a particular focus, and the particular focus is to train Christians.
What if Lady Gaga started a music school and she wanted to train vocalists?
I guarantee you, if she had a school, she would have criteria for entry.
If you can't sing, you can't be a part of what we're doing because what we're doing is training people who can sing to become better singers.
That's the point of our enterprise.
Okay, so in that case, she would be discriminating against non-singers, which so what?
It's inconsistent to have that kind of person in her group given the goal of the group.
And in Christian schools, not all Christian schools, but certain Christian schools have a goal of discipling Christians.
The school that my daughter goes to now, that's their goal.
We are building disciples.
You can't build a disciple of a non-Christian.
It's not an evangelistic school like some might be.
It is rather a discipleship-oriented school.
So, why would it be a mistake for somebody to teach at a school that disciples Christians?
If you had an ashram in India that was there to make Buddhist monks, would they allow an evangelical Christian to go in there and be part of that who has no interest in Buddhism and actually thinks it's false?
No, it's not the right place for them.
But what she does is she shames the Christian for implicitly shaming non-Christians.
So, there you have the repetition of the behavior that she's condemning in the condemnation itself.
This happens all the time.
I call this practical suicide.
It's in the tactics book.
Oh, I haven't held that one up yet.
Tactics.
I think you did.
You did, yeah.
No, I did Story of Reality, 10th anniversary.
Check the tape.
Check the tape.
Oh, well, all right.
Dog on it.
Well, there we go.
Now we know.
And excuse me.
And this happens all the time.
All right.
Now, this doesn't say that Pence is right or that she's wrong in her views.
All this shows is that the kind of attack that's being leveled is committing the same harm that she claims Pence is committing.
She, I believe, Lady Gaga, I'm not sure what her sexuality is.
It's probably most of the letters, a few of them mixed together, maybe a couple weird things.
Yeah.
But she said, I'm also a Christian.
So are you saying that can't be true?
She can't be a Christian.
Oh, this is another thing.
She's going to be a Christian.
The word Christian means something.
It doesn't mean just anything.
Okay.
And she's under the opinion that a person who, that Christianity means no judgment, no requirements.
It's an open field.
All we do is smile and nod and say, gee, that's great.
We love you.
No matter what it is you're doing.
Although, once again, she's not doing that towards the Pence's, you know, if that's her commitment.
But that isn't what Christianity is about.
The most famous passage on love in the world is 1 Corinthians 13.
All right.
Because this is where Paul quantifies what love actually looks like.
And this verse is repeated countless times in weddings.
And many people know it by heart, okay?
But one of the lines in there is that Paul says, love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.
So if you have a child who's a racist, would it be inconsistent with loving your child to affirm that child's racism?
Who would say that?
That's not loving.
That's a vice in that person's life.
The loving thing to do is say what you're living is a vice that is going to destroy you and destroy other people.
The tough love thing to do is say that racism is wrong.
Okay.
And that's what Paul's saying.
Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.
But when the unrighteousness that is in question is a politically correct unrighteousness, even though the scripture speaks very clearly regarding sexuality and the intention that God had, God made him male and female.
And, you know, one man with one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime.
That's Jesus' summary in Matthew chapter 19.
When that goes against the grain, oh, then that's not loving.
All right.
But I'm just pointing out, by the way, that that's Jesus' statement in Matthew 19.
So Jesus did have something to say about gender and sex and implicitly about homosexuality and all the other sexual variations.
He said, no, that is not God's purpose from the beginning.
So if you're going to be a Christian and a follower of Jesus, it seems to me that means you probably should hold the same views that Jesus held.
And if not, then I wonder what it means when you say you're a Christian.
You get locked in an elevator with Lady Gaga.
You've got about 30 seconds.
It's just you and her.
It's going up.
How do you convert her to Christ?
Well, I don't think I'm going to convert anybody to Christ in 30 seconds.
So you're welcome to try, but I'm not going to try that.
What's the tactics?
What's the 30 seconds tactics you can do?
Well, it depends.
You know, my tactical thing is to start asking questions, draw a person out.
But people who've read the book and heard me talk about this know that I believe in gardening, not harvesting, okay?
Because if you don't garden, you're not going to have a harvest.
If you do garden well, the harvest takes place all by itself.
So Lady Gaga, what am I going to do?
I'm going to think, do I have an opportunity to do a little gardening there?
Probably not.
I don't think that every meeting is a divine appointment.
And if I were to jump right in and hand her a tack and track rather and tell her about Jesus or try to get something like that, I'll get the gospel.
Well, Jesus died for your sins, you know, Lady Gaga.
And she's going to say, based on this, I'm a Christian.
So now what am I going to say?
Here's what I'm going to say.
I'm going to say, what do you mean you're a Christian?
Tell me what you mean when you say you're a Christian.
That would be the question I would ask.
Because based on what she's just said here with the penses, I don't know what she means.
Well, I believe in Jesus.
Meaning what?
That's still kind of vague for me.
And I'm not trying to beat you up here.
Lady Gaga, is that the way he addresses her?
Or does she have a name?
Miss Miss Gaga?
Ms. Gaga?
I mean, I don't mean rude, but I was like, do people call her Lady Gaga?
Or do they say, hey, like, or does she have a nickname or anything like that?
LG.
Okay.
So when you say you're a Christian, what does that actually mean?
I'm confused now.
I am genuinely confused based on quotes that I've heard you offer in the public.
Help me to understand it because I don't want to misunderstand.
So you wouldn't have enough time.
You would just say, nice duet with Bradley Cooper.
Yeah, I might say, yeah.
But see, that's the kind of thing I probably wouldn't say that either, partly because she probably hears that from every single person, and all it would sound like was hero worship, you know, which I don't want to actually give her.
I respect her for her craft.
And it is a magnificent, it was a magnificent performance, but I just probably would lead with that because it would just seem, you know, obsequious or something like that.
We got any more celebrity quotes?
You want to talk about critical theory?
Okay.
Let's do critical theory.
Critical theory.
So this is something that I hear people throwing around, you know, church is being infiltrated by Marxism and critical theory.
And I don't know.
I mean, what do I think about this?
Well, see, this is something that's been around for a long time.
And every college student at virtually every college or university in the country has been weaned on this concept for the last eight to ten years and even in Christian schools, even though or even if the language of critical theory wasn't used to describe it.
This is what they are being weaned on.
And we've seen an explosion of the sentiment or the fruit of this in the last four or five months since the events in Minneapolis in May.
And quite frankly, I think even though it was what appears to be a racially, how could I put this?
Freighted, let me do it that way, racially freighted event, this was really just a trigger point to put this entire thing on display for the world, but not on display in a way they understand it, on display of using an opportunity to talk about oppression, which is a problem in every country.
All right.
And therefore have the pretext for the violence and the demonstrations that we've seen in the last few months.
Okay.
Now, just to a very, very brief tutorial to help people understand what's going on here, because there's a lot more going on than meets the eye.
And there are lots of virtuous people that are deeply concerned about oppression and appropriately concerned about oppression and about racism and appropriately concerned about racism.
Okay.
Who are being drawn in, especially Christians, into a vortex of a worldview that is explicitly anti-Christian.
Okay.
Now, there's, I tell you, the Colson Center has a couple of very good five to seven minute infographic things.
You know, it's like video with cartoons and stuff like that, real easy to follow that really lays this out.
But basically, critical theory divides the world into two different groups, the oppressed and the oppressors.
And the oppressors are the ones who have the power, and they always use power to oppress the ones who are oppressed.
So this is the way the world is divided up.
And these groups, the oppressors and the oppressed, are identified by their group identity.
Principally, the oppressors are white people.
They are also males.
They are also, I'm not done yet.
You're worse than you think you are.
Oh, no.
They are also heterosexuals.
They are also gender normative.
They're all cisgendered, I should say.
I'm sure your listeners know what that means.
That you have male genitalia and you think you're men.
Oh, that's cisgendered.
Oh, that's oppressive.
Okay.
Of the people who have male genitalia and think they're women.
Okay, so notice there, the world is broken down into two major groups, and these groups are identified by group identity based on ethnicity, gender, sexual preferences, sexual identities, and there's probably some more there as well.
Okay.
And so notice, by the way, that people are oppressed in virtue of their membership in a group.
It has nothing to do with their individual experience.
It has to do with the fact they're members of a group.
And people are oppressors in virtue of your membership with the group.
Right.
And it has nothing to do with your individual character.
And it's a group as if like you went in the phone book and said, people with the last name that starts with a G or something.
It's not even like your financial status.
Let me put it this way.
The vice that you bear as a member of your group has nothing to do with you, with any moral quality you possess.
It has to do with the fact that you have white skin, male genitalia, and you think that's important for a number of reasons, probably.
How do you feel about Greg making eye contact staring at you?
You have male genitalia.
I'm making an assumption here.
Just so everyone knows.
And also, you're a Christian.
That's another group that is.
Okay, incidentally, this cross-membership of oppressive groups that you are part of is called intersectionality.
So in a sense, your whiteness intersects with your maleness and your cisgendered and your heterosexuality.
And also, it's actually worse because you're heteronormative.
You think that that's the way it's supposed to be.
And your Christianity.
These are all intersections that make you worse and worse and worse and more of an oppressor.
Again, utterly unrelated to anything about you personally.
Yeah.
Okay.
Now, we'll just make you the oppressed here, Kyle.
And you're oppressed because you're a person of color.
Look at your shirt and you've got a good tan here.
And I don't even know what your ethnicity is, and I don't really care.
But the fact that you are darker makes you a category of the oppressed.
And also that you think you're a girl.
That's another kind of oppression.
And also that you are a lesbian girl.
You want to talk about his genitalia?
No, I'm not going to talk about that because this is the point.
Genitalia on your side of the spectrum makes no difference.
That's what it means because you're not cisgender normative.
Okay.
You don't think cisgendered, being the gender that your sex determines, is the right thing.
Okay.
So that's irrelevant in this discussion.
Having genitalia of either sex has nothing to do with the sex you actually are.
So even if I make like more money than he does and I'm less oppressed than he that has nothing to do with it.
I'm still an oppressor.
You're still, no, you're the oppressed.
I'm the oppressed.
That's because you're a person of color and you have these, you have these other intersections.
Not really.
You're making it like.
I'm just pretending.
I'm just pretending that I'm.
Yeah.
I presume your audience knows you, Kyle, and you're not Kyla.
You're Kylie.
You're Kylie.
Okay, whatever.
Okay, you see the point I'm making here.
I'm just making a contrast.
Now, you have to be part of one of the two groups.
So there's no like third group that you're just like, you know what?
You guys can.
No, there isn't.
You're on one side or the other.
Now, I'm going to add one other complication here because the intersectionality creates odd circumstances because you could be, okay, let's just go back to Kyle.
Okay.
Kyle, you're dark-skinned.
Again, I don't know anything about your ethnicity, but so you're more brown, so you're oppressed in virtue of your brownness, but you're a male, so now you're an oppressor.
So you're both oppressed and an oppressor in two different groups that you belong to, that you're identified with.
But how does that work?
Do they weigh against each other and then you get classified based on points?
This is all part of the chaos of this whole point of view.
I'm just trying to lay out here how it works, not the coherence of it.
Where is it supposed to lead?
Do you have any idea of where it's supposed to?
It seems like all the oppressed want to become oppressors, and it's a never-ending cycle.
Okay, so there is a worldview that's behind this, all right?
And the worldview is Marxism.
All right.
And what has happened is Marxism has not succeeded because it started out, it hasn't succeeded internationally because it started out basically on an oppressor-oppressed system.
But the oppressors were the bourgeoisie, with the aristocracy, the landowners, the property owners, the capitalists, really.
It's an economic thing.
And the workers were the oppressed.
Okay.
So that was the big deal.
And sooner or later, the workers are going to overthrow the bourgeoisie.
There would be the dictatorship of the proletariat, you know, and communism would be in place and everybody would be equal, you know, from each according to his ability to each according to his need.
All right.
Oh, that's great.
Everybody's equal.
Equal in end, not in opportunity, but equal in end.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
That's called income redistribution.
Sound familiar.
That's to Marx.
All right.
And it's ironic because it's a standard part of the political philosophy of many people nowadays in government.
All right.
So that didn't work.
After 100 years, there's no revolution of the proletariat worldwide and they're not in charge.
The workers aren't in charge.
Why not?
Well, there's a number of reasons, but this is where the morphing began to happen in the mid-20th century to not just the oppression of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but larger patterns of oppression.
And so the oppression then morphed from classical Marxism into critical race theory or critical theory, which includes race, but now includes more than that.
I mean, the whole sexual dimension has been added on, sexual identity has been added on, sexual behavior stuff and same-sex attraction elements have been added on.
The idea that women are oppressed, this has all been added on.
So what we have now is an enforcement, an attempt to enforce an ideology that's called critical theory that sees one group or one constellation of groups as oppressors and another constellation of groups as the oppressed.
And that's the problem.
And we have to fix that.
Okay, so how do you fix that?
Well, you create equality.
And the way you create equality, you reduce the oppression, is you, in a certain sense, pay reparations.
You give things back to the oppressed people.
And this has been actually happening for a long time.
It's not just reparations to blacks for slavery in America.
That's an obvious example of it.
But there's all kinds of examples of reparations where you could have black dormitories just on the racial side.
You can have black graduations, all black graduations.
No white people allowed.
You know, that's called segregation.
Yeah.
That's like separate but equal.
I thought that was considered unconstitutional by a Supreme Court decision, you know, a hallmark Supreme Court decision.
But now it's all, we're back to that again.
But this is all acceptable for two reasons.
For one reason, it is not possible for anybody of the oppressed group to have the vices of the oppressors.
That is, oppressed groups cannot be racist by definition.
It's impossible for a black person to be a racist because he doesn't have the power that the oppressors have.
Never mind that we had a black president for two terms and all through the cabinet, people of color on the Supreme Court, people of color.
Never mind that we have now a vice presidential candidate that's a heartbeat away from the presidency.
You know, we never mind all of that.
You know, it's still, you know, the white people have the power and it's all part of the structure.
And therefore, there's a different moral kind of demand on, I should say, lack of demand on the oppressed people.
They have a different moral standard.
They can get away with all kinds of things because of their oppressed status.
This is their way of getting back of rebelling.
No justice, no peace.
And you can begin to see how some of these, the dynamics of the things that we're watching right now kind of fit in these categories.
Well, wait a minute, isn't it racist for them to do this, this, and the other?
No, they can't be racist.
It's not possible by definition.
So they've changed these definitions.
And by the way, the solution of paying back, that has a name, and that's called social justice.
Social justice isn't what people think it is.
It isn't like justice in social circles.
It is a term of art that relates to critical theory, and it means paybacks.
That's what it amounts to.
So if reverse discrimination is a way of evening up the field, paying back for the alleged injustices that's done to the group, well, that's fine.
Even though it's kind of discriminatory, that's fine.
Even if it's segregation, that's fine.
There's no problem.
That's social justice.
And notice how a lot of good people who believe in justice on a social level are getting sucked in by the language into an idea that really is ultimately racist because none of this is ever going to create racial unity.
I don't think it's intended to.
And just an example of that, I mean, I grew up, I was born in 1950, all right?
I was 17 years old when Martin Luther King was assassinated and Bobby Kennedy was killed.
I was 13 when John Kennedy was killed.
I remember the whole civil rights movement.
I was part of the anti-war movement and the riots and gassing and all this other stuff.
I was in Chicago in the summer of 1970 when this massive riot in Grant Park happened and I pulled a young black kid out of the bushes that had a bullet hole in his chest and I patched him up and sent him to the hospital.
I'd been in the military, so I knew how to do that.
But so I've been all part of that, you know, and but I have not seen as much racial hostility in our culture since the 60s.
Things are worse than they have ever been in the terms of racial hostility.
Now, why is that?
Things are getting better and better and better.
Why is that?
Because of the infusion of this idea and the anger that it creates in people who feel that they've been treated unjustly as a group, not as individuals.
And so anything they do in response is considered self-defense.
And by the way, if you're a white person Who figures out this oppressiveness that you are part of as a white person, being a member of the group or being heterosexual or cisgendered or whatever, that means you have become W-O-K-E.
You've become woke.
Now, people have seen this term, but they're not sure what it means.
It means you have been enlightened to your oppressiveness and you are now sympathetic.
And what can I do?
How can I appease you?
How can I fix this?
There's no way to fix it on their terms because the ultimate goal is continued chaos until you have essentially the Marxist goal of a dictatorship of a group of people.
And this is why it's not surprising that you see more and more on the left acts of violence against the status quo and against the people in the status quo.
They are punishing people.
It is dictatorial.
So just a couple of days ago, was it yesterday, the day before yesterday, some broadcaster referred to Kamala Harris as colored.
He got fired just for the use of the word, which was a standard word in the 60s for African Americans.
Very recently, it wasn't like person of color, which I don't know how that's better.
Why doesn't as far as I can see?
She's not even African-American, you know?
She's like West Indies or something like that.
Jamaican, and I think she passed herself off as Native American when she was running for the Senate.
In any event, but notice how if you don't walk strictly according to the rules, you will be severely punished.
And this is just the beginning.
This is a totalitarian movement that is trading off the moral sensitivities of many Americans who perceive genuine injustice in certain areas.
And they're just, it's a Trojan horse.
And they're being drawn into this, something that has a much more insidious worldview.
And it is contrary to Christianity.
Yeah, I'd like to get your take on like, how does the Bible respond to this?
And how should Christians respond, especially because you see a lot of churches maybe that are going to get themselves on board?
But let's do it in our subscriber portion.
Do a what?
We're going to do it in our subscriber portion.
So people have to subscribe to get this answer.
In the meantime, you get the book, Tactics.
This is the updated and expanded version.
10th anniversary edition.
It's about 35% new material from the first one.
10 years ago.
How to sneak up behind people and assassinate them with apologetics.
Well, this really helps you to see the kinds of nonsense that we saw in the quotations that you offered of the atheists.
It's not that atheists can't say intelligent things, but these kinds of challenges were vacuous.
And when you are alerted to some of the tactical considerations, you can see these things quickly and you learn how to maneuver through them graciously.
We talked about Deepak Chopra and actually Lee Strobel wrote the introduction here and he talks at length about that interview because he was there.
He was part of that.
He led the interview and he thought this was, it worked out really well.
And that's why he commends the book.
This one's called The Story of Reality.
And what this does is it gives a characterization of the Christian worldview in a different way than most people have seen it.
The subtitle is How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between.
And the best way I think people can think about this.
It seems thin for that.
Pardon me?
It seems thin when you think about when that's what it's really small.
Right, right.
It's everything important that happens in between, not everything in between.
So that's an important qualifier there.
And I know this, I hope this doesn't sound pretentious, but it was, I love the, love mere Christianity, and I think it's unmatchable.
But there are a lot of people who have said they read Lewis and they can't make sense of him.
Is too hard.
And so, my goal was to try to cover similar ground in a similar way, in a kind of affable, accessible way with soft apologetics in a new work to give an overview of the Christian worldview like Mere Christianity did.
And that's what the story of reality amounts to.
There's only one C.S. Lewis, there's only one Mere Christianity, but I think many people have said this does the same kind of work in their life.
And you can read on Amazon and what they've said about that.
Are there any cool stories in there?
One cool story.
Okay.
Page one.
Well, we're going to page 199 or whatever it is.
We're going to go into our subscriber portion.
Greg's going to tell us what the church should think about Wilkes and what the Bible's answer is.
And then we're going to answer some of our subscribers' questions that they sent in.
Did we do the 10 questions with Greg last time?
I don't remember.
We have them on here.
Okay.
Or something weird like that.
Did we?
Maybe we already did it.
I'll have to go back and see.
Anyway, freeloaders, kicking you off the bus.
See you later.
Bye-bye.
Coming up next for Babylon Bee subscribers.
That questions that begin, why didn't God or why did God almost can never be answered?
There could be conjecture, but those are questions about what's in the mind of God.
And if God isn't going to tell us about those things, then we can't know.
The scriptures are so sublime and so unique that there's nothing else like that.
That's all.
Theological thoughts on this hymn.
If you could hide to kolob in the twinkling of an eye, Calvinist or minionist.
If God is real, how come I have to pee every hour or two?
Enjoying this hard-hitting interview?
Become a Babylon Bee subscriber to hear the rest of this conversation.
Go to BabylonB.com/slash plans for full-length ad-free podcasts.
Kyle and Ethan would like to thank Seth Dylan for paying the bills, Adam Ford for creating their job, the other writers for tirelessly pitching headlines, the subscribers, and you, the listener.