But what I have a more serious problem with are the young Earthers that want us to deny what we know from science.

And as a result, they want us to ignore scientists when they tell us things like, take a vaccine for the pandemic.

And guess what?

The science, the science supported not getting the vaccine.

Over six minutes later, we heard her say this.

Now you don't want to even talk.

So, you know.

Well, because it's because you've brought up a topic that I was not prepared for.

If I had known that this was going to be the topic, I would have brought facts and figures with me, but I did not know that this topic would come up, and so I did not bring any facts and figures with me, and I'm not prepared to defend that position.

But you brought these topics up.

I didn't.

Well, okay, you're right.

I did.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving For Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapaport.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your most challenging questions you have about God in the Bible.

No matter how hard the question is, no matter how difficult to mo.

How challenging you think it is, here at Apologetics Live, we can answer any question that you have about God and the Bible.

And if you doubt that, my challenge to you then is to go to apologeticslive.com go to the bottom or near the bottom where you have the streamyard icon.

It's the duck icon.

Join us, ask us your most challenging question.

Just remember, I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

I didn't say it'd be a satisfying answer for you.

We are glad to be back.

I am Andrew Rappaport, the host, president, executive director of Striving for Attorney Ministries and also the Christian podcast community, of which this live stream becomes a podcast, and we get to air there.

Tonight.

We're going to be talking about Chuck.

He's a regular here with us.

He comes in often and watches.

But Chuck Carpenter was on The Godless Grandma YouTube channel.

If you remember, back some time ago, we had Godless Grandma on here.

And you actually got to hear her there in the beginning where she was telling me how she wasn't prepared to bring up a topic that she brought up.

That's right.

That was how the conversation ended.

I don't think it went well for her.

She got to a point where she just completely shut down.

We'll discuss that a bit tonight, but I'm going to.

I want to bring Chuck in.

Chuck, welcome to Apologetics Live.

Hey, thank you, Andrew.

I'm very honored to be here tonight.

So you, you heard.

Did you know about Godless Grandma before she came on this show, or was that the first you heard about her?

That was the first time I heard of her.

Right.

And which is sort of surprising because I'm, I'm pretty tuned in to, you know, the atheists that are out there.

So, yeah, I was kind of surprised.

Well, I.

And I'm going to remove the banner so everyone could see your Twitter.

Your Twitter handle is Atheist Nightmares.

I love that.

I do have a lot of fun with it.

But, you know, over the past, like, year or two, I've seen that, you know, the content coming from the atheists has dwindled quite a bit.

And I kind of think that quite a few of them are gonna.

I've seen a couple of them saying that they're.

They're leaving Twitter, you know, after the election.

So, yeah, it's.

It's sad that, you know, after 2020 election, they kicked us off of Twitter.

People set up their.

A replacement Twitter and that got shut down just because of telling the truth.

Because, I mean, the things that they got, the conspiracy theories that they supposedly did, turns out there wasn't conspiracy.

It actually came out to be true.

And then they, they said, oh, and I'm referring to Parlay.

Parlay was.

They were like, oh, Parlay was used to.

To create an insurrection on January 6th.

And yet most of the people were communicating through Facebook and Twitter, but those groups were shut down on Facebook and Twitter.

So, yeah, that's just a walk down memory lane.

But, yeah, it's amazing how they just can't.

You know, I just wish one thing, Chuck, seriously, for all of the celebrities who promised us they would leave this country if.

If Trump got elected, leave, please leave.

Stop making this promise every year and not do it.

I mean, every year a Republican wins, they don't leave.

In fact, violation of the ninth commandment.

Do you know, Let me.

I'm going to test you, give you a pop quiz here, Chuck.

Do you know how many Republicans since Barry Goldwater were called Hitler?

How many Republicans ran for president that were referred to Hitler since Barry Goldwater?

All of them.

Nope.

All except George H.

Bush, the most liberal of them.

Yeah, right.

But yeah, they were everywhere.

So when they say Trump is Hitler, what else is new?

Do you have anything else?

Oh, but it is a refreshing day for those of us who, who like freedom, true democracy.

We're not, look, we're not kicking anyone off or even encouraging anyone to be kicked off at Twitter.

You know, we're not, we're not, we're not asking for censorship, but they're upset with, you know, with, you know, Musk, because he actually cared about free speech enough to put his money where his mouth is.

I mean, yeah, and, and you know, we, we as Christians, it seems that we've been given a four year reprieve of freedom of speech to, to go out and take the gospel to a lost and dying world.

That's the way I see it now.

I'm trying to figure this one, Andy from down under.

Andrew said.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say.

Andy, Andrew says Trump was labeled Hitler by a German born woman who was once my doctor.

I'm curious who that is, Andrew, but I do find it interesting that, you know, one of the people that has been supportive of calling everyone Hitler and who funded a lot of that is a Jewish born Nazi.

Yeah, his name is George Soros.

George Soros is, was Jewish as far as the religion, but his family were supporters and members of the Nazi party.

So one of the few Jewish survivors of Germany there.

So just a tad bit of history and that's who affects most of our elections.

Okay, so he just says her name was Karen Cockman.

So I don't know who that is, but.

So.

All right, so let's get into Godless Grandma.

I, I did grab just, you know, when Drew and I are here and we take some video that we're gonna clip.

We, we try to do like a 20 minute video and we never get through it.

So I figure I gotta like it is less than five and a half minutes, so I think we can make it through the video I have planned.

But I first want to ask you, so how did it come about that you got onto Kelly's program and how did that come about?

Okay, so if you remember, I was a guest on your talk with her, you know, came in and got to ask her a couple of questions.

And then after the, after that show, I, I found her contact info and I contacted her and I said, hey, you know, I'm the one that was on there as well and you know, would you like for me to come on and you know, have a discussion?

And she asked, well, what do you want to talk about?

And I said, well, I'm really interested in learning why, why people reject Christianity to become atheists.

She goes, yeah, well, I can do that.

And so then we set it up for a few weeks later that I would come on and yeah, that's how it happened.

That's the first time I've ever done anything like that, like an online verbal dialogue slash informal debate.

So I was a little rough I'm sure and I've gone back and watched it a couple of times and thinking well I could have answered that better but overall I think I stepped away feeling that I did pretty good.

We always do that.

No matter, no matter how many times you do it, you're going to walk away going I could have done this better, I could have done that better.

I mean for folks who don't know it's, especially if it's a formal debate it's hard, it's not easy to.

Because when a formal debate you have a fixed amount of time and especially when you have like okay, you got two minutes to answer a question and they ask you this really wide open ended question.

It, you know, I mean folks try that sometimes just try to do a two minute answer.

I, I have if you go back I haven't been recording them recently but I have my Andrew Rap Reports, Daily Rap Report and it was two every, it's fixed two minutes but with the intro outro I have like a, a minute 47 seconds, something like that.

And yet I'm going through topics and answering apologetic questions or giving the history of we did one series, went through all the kings of or all the judges I should say I think we did or and we did the kings and we did go.

You know we went through every like giving an overview of every book of the Bible in a minute 47 seconds.

That is really hard to do to be that concise.

And when you're, when you're being asked it live, I mean when I'm doing that the reason I stopped doing that one and not my, my weekly wrap report is because that 2 minute 5 day a week which is only 10 minutes of air time takes me longer to prepare for than a one hour weekly show where I don't have to have everything scripted right Because a minute and 47 seconds is like you gotta have it so scripted so you know exactly what you're gonna.

And then you gotta, if you get it wrong it's like well let's redo it.

It's only a minute 47 seconds and, and so that's really hard to do.

So when you're in a debate and you're asked a question, you don't know what the question's gonna be and it's usually some very Open ended question, 2 minutes, go ahead answer.

That's not easy.

So I say that to say when you, when you're like, oh, I could have done better.

Don't feel bad that.

I mean all of us have that when we listen to how we, we engage with things like this.

I mean, I, if I go back and listen to when Kelly I would there's a whole lot of things I probably.

Well, I know for a fact I would answer differently.

I just don't remember what they would be now.

But that's the reality.

So, yeah, that's, that's expected.

So let's talk about how that went.

Before we get into how, you know, I want to talk about some of when she was on our show, you did something different on there.

You went on to her program really to interview her, to ask her about her, you know, conversion D Conversion story.

What story?

Why did you want to focus there?

I wanted to do that because it plays in to the, the way that I approach apologetics with unbelievers, especially atheists, because I know what they're going to do eventually is criticize Scripture.

And my approach is, I'm sure you remember my favorite Martian and his two antenna would come up.

And so my two antenna are coming up.

I'm listening for two topics, right.

Either they're going to be talking about logical fallacies in the Bible or they're going to talk about morality.

Right.

And once they do that, I'm going to attack that and demolish their worldview because they have no grounding for either of those two topics to be universal or authoritative.

Right.

And so and I was, to be honest, I was kind of surprised that she said, yeah, I can do that.

And she probably didn't know what I was going to do with that, but it played perfectly into what I wanted to do.

Yeah, you know, we didn't get to it when she was on and you and I talked about this when she came onto, onto this program.

We did not get to where I wanted to get to.

I asked her share a little bit about herself, how she claimed she was a Christian and her deconversion.

What I wanted to get to there is part of what she has in her public reference to her suffer bio is that she's the parent of a trans child.

And one of the questions I really wanted to ask is, you know, did she denounce her faith before or after her child came out trans?

I, I'm curious, genuinely curious how much that influenced her decisions to reject Christianity, you know, whether it was, you know, out of a love for her child, that, that, that her, you know, wanting to encourage or I'm trying to think of a Good word.

But, but encourage her child and ah, trying to think of what the right word would be.

I want to say satisfied, supporting.

But yeah, I mean, to, to even, I don't know, justify.

That's not really the right word.

But yeah, you know what I'm saying, it's like to support, support her child over.

Because I also want to know, you know, where is her husband?

Is he in the picture or has he passed away or.

Yeah, I wanted to know, I wanted to ask where he was, whether he was a profess to be a believer or not still, like, and if he's not in the picture, when did you know, is it he walked out or did she walk out on him?

Like, there's, there's a lot of questions there that I'd be curious of, but we never got to get there and we really, I mean, the purpose of it was she was criticizing Leighton Flowers.

She thinks the gotcha for Christianity is that somehow Christianity can't answer God's, you know, sovereignty with human responsibility.

And we never really got there because as I, I tried to explain it, she actually just kind of distracted and I tried twice or three times to get back to the main thing to answer and she just went in a different direction each time.

And I don't know if it's purposeful.

I don't want to, I don't want to, you know, assign a motive, you know, but that would be something I, you know, I, and folks, I did invite her.

I did let her know, although I will admit I let her know today.

So it was last minute.

That was my fault.

I've just had a really, really busy few weeks and I forgot this was coming up in enough time to notify her.

But I did notify her that we're doing this and that maybe she'll, she'll end up listening and responding.

But she's always welcome, as anyone, anyone is always welcome to come in and talk about anything on this show.

So she's always welcome to come in and we can, we could discuss it.

So, you know, I think though that I genuinely felt I never got to answering the main thing, but I think the issue of God's sovereignty, human responsibility, she sees it as a gotcha because she thinks it's a mutually exclusive thing.

Like there's got to be only one or the other.

Yeah, false dichotomy.

Yeah.

And, and so her argument, it seems to be, as I heard her on the show where she's criticizing Layton is, you know, as Layton is against Calvinism.

She's pointing out the, the fallacies that Layton's arguing because you know, you're, you're denying that God says he's sovereign.

But then her argument is, well, man is sovereign, essentially.

Man is, you know, there is no God because of free will.

And yet she hasn't really thought that through, I think because when you think about what she argues, it's really.

Is God sovereign?

Are we sovereign?

Well, of course she denies the faith.

She thinks she's sovereign.

Right.

Because that was a big part of her testimony that you, you really brought.

That out to be, to be a bit less sophisticated of an atheist than, than most of them that I've run across.

Of course, I didn't know much about her, you know, before I had my interaction with her and she, she was kind of slippery.

You know, she hadn't thought much about the, the law of non contradiction and, and you know, she kept, you know, in my talk with her, you know, there were some things that she had said she hadn't thought about.

And, and so that.

A little bit more difficult for me.

Yeah, I, I will admit I heard about her because I had someone who sent a video with Leighton Flowers, her responding and they said you, you really should react to this video.

And instead of reacting to the video, I just figured I'll reach out to her and have her on.

Why react to a video when you could talk to the source?

So that's what I, what I look to do.

I knew that she was part of the Atheist and Christian Book Club and a friend of mine, Bill, who's the, the atheist founder of that there's an atheist and Christian founder.

If you go back in past episodes of Apologetics Live, actually the week, I think it was a week or two before Godless Grandma was on, Bill was on.

And Bill spoke very highly of her.

She's very educated.

She is an attorney.

You know, he really, he really spoke well of her.

So I was actually like you expecting much more intelligent and better arguments.

I was actually kind of surprised as an attorney.

Now granted, she's trained as an attorney, but does contracts.

So there's a difference.

People think of an attorney and they think of them going into court and arguing cases.

And that is different than the attorney who is writing contracts.

Contracts.

Because when you're, when you're working on a contract, it like we were just talking earlier about debating and the debates.

Well, when you go into court, that's more of like the debate you have.

You, you have to be quick.

You got to think real time.

You got to respond to things.

And so when he told me she was an attorney, that I was expecting someone, like, in a courtroom, she's quick on her feet.

She's going to be ready for argument.

She's going to recognize fallacy.

She's going to, you know, call me out if I say something wrong.

That's what I was expecting.

Instead, I saw someone who quoted a lot of sources that she didn't seem to actually engage with.

Well, like, I mean, she kept bringing up Bart Ehrman.

And it was interesting because I've actually studied Bart Ehrman.

I've read a lot of his books.

You know, I do textual criticism.

I look at this stuff.

She doesn't do that.

And.

And what she does is every time she's cornered, she would just say, you know, that she's not an expert on it.

It was a way out for her.

We'll get to a clip on that later.

But, you know, she just.

She says, you know, well, this person says.

This person says.

So she's.

She's not an expert on it, but what she'll do is talk as if she is until challenged.

Now, I did find it refreshing.

I mean, she was, I think, honest.

Like, when she doesn't know something, she doesn't play games.

She says it.

Now, she caught herself in the clip we played in the beginning where I'm like, but, Kelly, you brought up the COVID And she's like, I didn't.

Oh, you're right, I did.

So she caught herself and I.

Commendable.

Yeah.

Yeah, that is very commendable.

I mean, I appreciated that.

I was.

I was surprised how our show ended.

But.

Yeah, but we'll get to that more toward the top of the hour.

So.

So let's.

So how do you think your discussion with her went?

What do you think she.

What do you think she presented?

Well.

And what do you think that she presented?

Poorly.

Let's see.

So first, how did it go?

I think it pretty.

Went pretty well because.

Because my.

My objective is, number one, to.

To.

To.

To sort of attack the.

The other person's worldview and it's.

And their authority.

Right?

And then to try to get to the law and gospel.

And so I think I did a pretty good job of demolishing the.

The stronghold of her.

Of her atheism.

And, you know, I kept saying that the.

The logical conclusion of your atheism is that you and I are nothing more than flesh bags of chemicals reacting like, well, I don't believe that.

And I'm like, well, it doesn't matter what you say.

You believe that's the logical conclusion.

And what she's doing is she's suppressing the truth and unrighteousness.

She wants to have her cake and then eat it too.

Right.

So I, in my opinion, I think I did a pretty good job at that.

But, you know, what did she do?

Well, probably her strongest suit was attacking the sovereignty of God, I would think.

And her coming up with the topic of talking about when she was studying history and she was saying that history doesn't confirm the Bible concerning the flood and then civilizations coming back 100 years or so later and rebuilding, she's saying that, you know, none of the modern history that we know of teaches that.

And I wasn't prepared well enough for that.

And if I were to do that today, I would say, well, first of all, we have the testimony of Scripture.

Right.

And so that's.

You're going to have to disprove Scripture first.

But secondly, we also have all the, all the, various worldwide flood stories from all the different cultures that, you know, they're varying in what they say, but they're all coalesce around the topic of a worldwide flood.

And so I think the worldwide flood is outside of Scripture, very well attested to.

Yeah, so.

So let's dig into that a bit so folks can understand why you do what you do and how you do it.

Why do you attack their worldview?

Why that approach?

So folks understand how you do apologetics, right?

Yeah.

So, yeah, I'm working on a system that I like to call simplified apologetics or easy apologetics, because a lot of times the topic of apologetics for when I say, like the layman Christian or everyday Christian, I don't want to say that there are super Christians out there, but there are Christians out there that maybe just simply don't have the time to study apologetics.

And that topic can be overwhelming when you're looking at it.

You know, creation science, philosophy, the history, you know, all that can just be overwhelming.

So I'm looking for a way to simplify all this for the, for the Christian who maybe wants to have one conversation with an unbeliever and then know, understand, or hope that they've.

They've done what they've been called to do and then hand it off to a more experienced Christian for further discussion.

Discussion.

Right.

And so, yeah, I do want to demolish their stronghold.

And we see here second Corinthians 10, four through five, the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.

On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

We Demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself against the knowledge of God.

Right.

And so that's the first thing I want to do.

And especially when it comes to atheists.

They are like monkeys trying to live, some submerged into the swamp waters of materialism.

And eventually they do have to come up to breathe air, to breathe God's air.

And whenever they appeal to logic or they appeal to morality, they're breathing God's air.

And what I'm going to do is when they poke their head out of the water, I'm going to put my hand on their head and push them back down into it and challenge their grounding for either of those, for morality or logic to be universal, unchanging and authoritative.

And so that's what I'm going to do.

First, I'm going to attack their worldview and its authority.

And secondly, I want to put the fear of God in them.

That's something we don't hear about hardly enough these days within the Christian circles, especially when it comes to evangelism.

It's almost a taboo topic.

But I can read a bunch of verses here about the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and beginning of wisdom.

And our chief end is to fear God.

But we don't hear it.

And when we see what happens out in the world outside of our church walls, I can hearken back to the Olympic opening ceremonies and you the blasphemy that they did, that these people do not fear God.

And why is this?

I put the onus squarely on the church.

And I like to quote your good friend Matt Slick, is because we have been presenting the world with a blond haired, blue eyed, Caucasian surfer Jesus wearing a women's night robe, tapping on the door of a person's heart, asking permission to come in.

Right?

And that is not the Jesus of scripture.

And so they do not fear God.

So yeah, secondly, I want to put the fear of God in them by talking about sin, judgment, righteousness and taking them through the moral law.

Yeah, I mean that's the thing I love about precept is that it's simple.

You don't have to know a lot, you just know scripture, so you have it.

We have a challenge here.

I've been trying to keep some questions going, but there's a challenge here from someone mighty Sarlacc.

I'm not sure what that is referring to.

I'm sure it's something pop culture that I don't get.

But they say why attack someone else's worldview?

How about defending your own worldview?

Right.

Because we understand a person's worldview has a hold on them.

And if their worldview is not based on the 66 books, the old and New Testament scriptures, that worldview is going to result in logical absurdity and, or evil.

And it is going to result in that person.

If they die in their sins, they're going to go to hell.

And so yeah, I'm definitely for defending my worldview as well.

And so when you're having a discussion, it is a back and forth.

But I'm going to start out attacking the worldview.

And I would answer it this way.

It's not so much, it's not that our worldview needs to be defended because they already know it's true.

They're the one coming up with a worldview that they want to demand.

We have to start with the fact that God doesn't exist and then prove he does exist.

But to do that, to argue for anything, to make an argument requires immaterial things like an ability to reason, laws of logic, knowledge, truth, morality.

These things can't exist without God.

So what they, the reality is they want to argue for an absurdity.

They want us to start from their position and argue for something they already know to be true.

It has to be true, otherwise their, their reasoning makes no sense, period.

So it's an issue where, you know, the defending of our, of our faith, our worldview.

So it's not that we have to defend it, it's what they already know.

Are you talking about the worldview, our worldview?

Did God exist or specifically?

Well, the Christian worldview.

Well, I would say they're both in the same mean.

The Christian worldview is, you know, the God exists, the God of the Bible.

Everyone knows, According to Romans 1, the God of the Bible, not the Catholic God, not the Mormon God, not the Jehovah Witness God, not the Muslim God, it's the God of the Bible, the one that actually exists, that they're suppressing an unrighteousness.

Yeah, I'm with you, but I'm sort of a little bit different.

And so in studying the way the Master Living Waters, you learn that a person has a conscience.

They have an internal sense of right and wrong.

And, but our conscience, our heart can become seared, which means it's hard on the outside, but it's still tender on the inside.

And using the moral law, what you're doing is you're penetrating that and making that conscience come alive.

So I take that philosophy and apply it also.

I'm not trying to prove God exists, but I'm that, you know, they're suppressing the truth and unrighteousness.

And so that truth has sort of become seared as well.

And so, yeah, I'm a presuppositionalist.

I'm not 100%.

I've been following your series on the different methods of apologetics and, and so I would say I'm mostly pre sub.

But I'm okay with some of the evidential stuff because I think I'm not trying to prove God exists.

I'm trying to awaken that internal knowledge that they know that God exists that they've been suppressing.

Yeah, that cumulative one was kind of interesting because it just kind of accepts all of them.

Calculus man says it's, it's both and to show the inconsistency of the unbiblical worldview while pointing back to the biblical one.

And he also pointed out that the name has something to do with Star Wars.

So there you go.

I, I was right.

So, so the mighty CX says, no, it's from Return of the Jedi.

Is that a Star wars reference?

I guess that's pop culture from a long time ago.

So, okay, but he did say this.

He said, yes, it's absolutely needs to be defended, otherwise it's just an assertion without justification.

Now hold that.

Because his next thing he said was this.

Why don't you hold to your presuppositions that the Bible is true so that that doesn't apply to us atheists.

Let's go back to what he said just before that yes, it is absolutely needs to be defended, otherwise it's just an assertion without justification.

And then after that he told us that he doesn't.

He basically, we have to prove our point because it doesn't apply to him as an atheist.

Well, I, it'd be very simple, Mighty sir lax.

And if you come in here, I'd be happy to, to discuss it with you.

But it'd be real simple.

If you want to argue there is no God, I want you to argue not using any immaterial things like truth, knowledge, laws of logic, morality, or your ability to reason.

And if you could do that, I'd be impressed.

But once you make an argument, you're no longer in your worldview because you are not a bag of chemical reactions.

So you're, you don't even.

You can't live in your worldview.

It's, it's the absurdity.

And then you want us to have to justify something that has to be the fact.

Why would we have to Justify an axiom.

God's existence is required for you to have an ability to reason.

And I think this is what Chuck, you did on Godless Grandma show was to show that you were putting her in a position where she had to try to argue from her worldview.

And what, really, what I saw you do is kind of pinpoint her down to that.

She wasn't so clear in her thinking of her own worldview, let alone to address ours.

Yeah.

And my favorite part of that whole interview was when I was asking her, well, what are you?

And she ended up saying, I don't know what I am.

Yeah.

And that, that plays into, you know, when I'm asked, when I'm asked like, how.

How do I prove that the Bible is true?

I'm not trying to prove the Bible is true.

It's opening salvo to open up, you know, get someone thinking, I'll say that any religion or worldview not Based on the 66 books of the Old and New Testament result in logical absurdity and.

Or evil.

And just as we saw in Sarlacc here, he's, he's logically, he's being logically absurd.

He can't see it.

Yeah.

So I think when, when Kelly was on here, I think she was being honest when she'd say, I don't know.

I don't know.

But when I watched your interview with her, because you were actually interviewing her, I almost wonder.

And I'm not saying this is the case because it'd be judging her motives, you know, So I don't know for sure, but it seemed like she was using the I don't know to get out of answering things.

It seemed that way.

It, you know, it could be wrong and mighty Sir Lacks, if I'd love for you to come in so we could actually dialogue, it'd be a lot easier.

But he says that's begging the question.

When you don't have to justify something that has to be a fact.

It's called an axiom.

You could go look up that word, an axiom.

An axiom is something you can't prove because it is a fact.

But if you really believe this, and I'm just going to go back to what you first said and say, why don't you have to prove your worldview of atheism?

Because my guess is he's going to go, I don't have to prove atheism because it's a lack of belief.

That's begging the question.

Prove you lack the belief because a belief is immaterial and needs an immaterial source.

So you need to prove that immaterial things can exist without a God.

That would be kind of hard to do because you got to show chemical reactions can produce the immaterial.

So, so he's saying that I didn't beg the question, which is a logical fallacy.

I agree that begging the question is a logical fallacy, but you know, come on in and we'll see whether you're begging the question, whether you are in fact arguing that you don't have to prove your worldview, only we do.

I'm going to ask him, I'm going to ask him.

Is, is begging the question universally wrong?

Authoritative?

Is it universally, authoritatively wrong?

And if so, how do you back that up?

So he's saying I don't have to prove mine, but I'm not making the claim it's created.

Well, I guess my question is why I prefer that you come on in, go to apologeticslive.com join us and we could discuss.

It'd be a lot easier discussion because when you're saying that you're not claiming it's created, what's created?

The universe.

Because if you're going to claim it's not created, what are you claiming?

Are you claiming that the universe eternally existed?

It never had a beginning?

Because the first law of thermodynamics disproves that.

It proves that matter had a beginning.

If you're going to argue that the universe created itself, well, that violates the second law of logic, the law of non contradiction, because it couldn't it have to first exist to be able to create itself?

So it can't not exist and exist at the same time.

So you're only left with one option, sir or ma'am, I don't know.

The only option you're left with is someone or something created it.

If you think there's another argument, come on in and point it out.

Show us.

But why would I have to prove the only thing that makes logical sense?

Why don't you prove that it wasn't created?

Oh, that's right.

Because you say you don't have to prove your position because you can't.

I bet, yeah.

See, what I'm gonna stick my, my teeth into like a pit bull is that he's appealing to the laws of logic.

And, and so when he's appealing to the begging the question fallacy, he's assuming that if someone is begging the question when they make an argument, they are automatically, every time without question, judge is being wrong on that particular matter.

Now I'm going to ask him, by what ultimate authority would he declare that he has no grounding for that whatsoever?

And this is the logical absurdity that atheism results in.

And that's, that's what they end up doing, right?

And this is the thing, folks, what you're seeing, even with this mighty Sirlox, if I'm pronouncing that right, what you see the atheist, the professing atheist wants to do is to get us to def.

To argue from their worldview, from their position.

They do not want to ever step into our worldview to attack it.

They attack it from their position.

And, and godless grandma did that.

She, she's arguing for things that we wouldn't hold to and then saying that we have to accept it, right?

And that's not the.

But what did I do with her on the show?

What I do with every professing atheist that says they used to be a Christian?

I asked her to step into the Christian worldview that she said she believed to defend what this, The Christian worldview says that when someone like herself goes out from among us, this is First John 2:19.

They went out from among us because they were not of us.

Or some translations say never of us, but they went out, out of us to show that they were not never of us.

So the fact that she denies Christ is not the proof that she once believed.

It's the proof she never believed.

And you know, when these guys want to argue for logic, I think what you end up seeing is you are, you're stuck when you argue for logic to have to defend where logic came from.

Because most often what you hear is logic.

And you know, Chuck, you've heard this, I'm sure, plenty of times, because I've, I watched the way you argue.

So I know you've, you've had this.

Because I've had it, right, that people will say, well, logic is the product of the human mind.

And so when I hear that, folks, what I, what I want to do with that argument is say, okay, can I, can I take them to a point where we can argue for the reality of the laws of logic outside of a human mind?

So what do I do?

I ask this question before man existed, right?

Because every single person believes there was a time before human beings, whether you believe it was five days or billions of years, millions of years, whatever number you want to give it to it.

But we all believe there was a time before the human mind.

So I'll ask the question, and I always go to A simple one for us to understand.

The second law of logic, which is the law of non contradiction.

Let me give it to technical and then I'll explain it.

Technical.

We would say something cannot be A and not a at the same time in the same manner.

So in other words, as an example, I can't have $20 in my wallet and not have $20 in my wallet at the same time.

Now, I could have had $20 in my wallet, but I gave it to Chuck.

Well, now it's not the same time, right?

It was there, but it's not there now.

And the same manner would be.

Well, I can't tell chuck I got $20 in my wallet, but I'm really talking monopoly money and he's talking US Currency, right?

So that's the same manner, the same way.

So you can't have something and not have something in the same manner and the same time.

So I hope that's simple enough to understand.

So why do I approach that?

Because I will go back and ask, before there was a human mind, whether it's five days or millions of years, could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time in the same manner?

What am I doing?

I'm removing the human mind from the argument and asking whether the law of logic applies at that time.

There's only one of two answers.

One, they say, yes, okay, they say it.

Well, they'll either say it, no, it couldn't, it couldn't have existed in the same way at the same time.

In which case it's not the product of a human mind.

You've just, you've just exposed that it's not the product of a human mind.

Now, does that mean they're going to go, oh, you're right, God exists?

No, no.

They'll usually double down and make other claims like, you know, well, it's just the reality of the universe.

What makes that a reality, right?

I mean, you go the way Chuck is saying and just you keep it.

But by what standard?

Right now, the more fun one is when they say yes.

When they say yes, what they end up doing is arguing for the fact that the universe could have existed and not existed in the same way at the same time.

I've, I've had someone that argued for that and he said, well, I just don't understand, you know, the quantum physics where you can have something that is existing at two places at the same time.

And the issue there is, is it really existing at two places at the same time, or is it, we don't have Enough technology to understand how it seems to be in two places.

You know, what we're talking about is in quantum physics you have these courts that seem to, you know, in, as they, they move around, it seems like they pop out of existence and pop into existence.

But keep in mind, we don't have the technology to dig up deep enough.

Remember, people used to think the atom was the smallest, but actually they first used to think the cell was the smallest thing you can have.

And then we discovered the atom.

And now we talk about subatomic particles like quantums.

Well, that's the reality.

So when they argue for that, they argue that, you know, the universe could have existed and not existed at the same time in the same manner.

I like to just go, you're wrong, and then pause for a fact.

Because when you pause, they're going to go, no, I'm right.

I had this with the guy, he's like, I'm right.

I said, no, no, no, you're wrong, I'm right.

I said, no, no, no, you're wrong and you cannot argue against it.

He's like, I'm right.

Why can't I argue against it?

I said, because you accept contradictions.

We're both right.

But if you think I have to be wrong and you have to be right, you're not arguing from your worldview, you're arguing from mine.

You believe in the law of non contradiction, but you're saying for the universe that doesn't apply, then you watch their head spin, you know, because they, they don't know how to deal with that.

Yeah, and again, when they're appealing to the, the law of non contradiction or any other laws of logic, they're breathing God's air, right?

When they claim God's air doesn't exist.

And the great thing about apologetics, there's multiple different ways you can attack a subject or defend a subject for that matter.

And so what I like to do is if I'm talking to an atheist and we're talking about the, the laws of logic, and they'll come up, oh, well, they're actually descriptive rather than prescriptive or vice versa.

But oftentimes they'll say, well, it's just a product of the mind.

And I'll say, yeah, but according to your worldview, the mind is nothing but a skull vat of brain chemicals, right?

And there's 8 billion skull vats of brain chemicals out there that have been pre programmed differently with different DNA and different life experiences, different biology, and they come up with different answers and different Logic.

How can you.

How can you possibly say that one person's logic is better or right or wrong, you know, versus the other?

Yeah, you know, you can't.

I love.

You know, folks who aren't watching this live, if you're listening on the.

On the podcast or watching it later, you.

You really want to be in here live for the chats because it's always fun.

I see there's some discussion on the Spaghetti Monster, and Daryl here says, andrew, I would like to eat the spaghetti monster.

To.

To which I see I ended up seeing a response from Melissa saying, stop talking about spaghetti.

You two are making me hungry.

That Daryl is one of my peeps from our church.

So he's just having fun.

One comes up, says, what about this flying spaghetti monster?

You know, you know, defend that worldview?

Well, that's just.

Yeah, I can attack that worldview because the spaghetti monster is made out of material made out of spaghetti.

There you go.

So boom.

Roasted.

Yeah.

I mean, I read Charles Darwin's Origin of the kinds.

And if.

Sorry, Origin of Species.

If you actually read that.

First off, folks, that book is an insanely boring, well, poorly organized book that never actually answers the question it sets out to do.

It's talking about the origin of species, but the whole book assumes species exist, never gets to the origin.

Why?

Because Darwin knew, as every atheist does, that they can't account for where life came from.

They cannot argue.

An atheist cannot argue for the existence of life.

They argue for the fact that life already exists.

So they have to start from our worldview.

That's what finds me so funny about.

What was his name?

Mighty Stalactite or whatever his name was.

He.

He.

He's wants us as Christians to defend our worldview, but he doesn't want to have to justify his own.

And yet his own.

You're holding up book.

What do they Believe?

So, yeah, Daryl, someone was talking about it.

Daryl puts in it.

Put in the chat.

Andrew Rapp, love your book.

Which book?

Well, he said, what do they Believe?

So you are holding up the book.

The copy of my book, what Do They Believe?

Which I appreciate the plug folks want to get that.

What do they Believe is a book on the major Western religions.

It is from their source author, their sources.

We look at what the.

The ones we look at is Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, and Christianity.

And we look at six doctrines.

What's their authority, Their view of God, specifically Trinity.

What's their view of Christ specifically as deity, man's sinfulness, salvation and end times.

So I'm not trying to disprove them.

I'm actually trying to give you how to know what they actually believe.

Sin, misrepresent them, which is always important because as we talk about, like, even with these atheists, it's important to not misrepresent them, even though they constantly misrepresent, well, us.

So I should mention, I meant, I keep forgetting to mention this, but folks, if you like this, especially if you're watching it live, would you mind sharing it out for others to watch?

Share it on social media or maybe text it to folks or email so that others will watch and maybe get help.

Maybe they're going to argue with atheists, someone who might call themselves a godless grandma and be proud of that.

And how would, how best to argue with that.

So let me look at some comments we got in earlier.

So, so Melissa asked this question, Chuck, at what point do we stop casting our pearls, especially with atheists?

So she's referring to a Bible passage, not to cast our pearls before swine.

At what point, Chuck, do you think we were doing that?

Yeah, that is a great question.

And so my approach is like when I started talking about, you know, what, what are my goals, I, I wanted to demolish their worldview and its authority and then put the fear of God in them, which would include taking them through the Ten Commandments, Allah, way of the Master.

And then if I've taken to the Ten Commandments and I've dialogued with them some and they're still just being obstinate and the law hasn't at least doesn't seem to appear to be working on their heart at that point is when I back off.

And I won't, but I won't even say, oh, well, you know, you need to hear the gospel.

You know, it's, you know, that's what Ray Comfort teaches.

Like, you know, we do hold their feet over the flames of hell for a while so that the gospel can do its work maybe at a later time.

And I definitely trust in the sovereignty of God that I don't have to, you know, give the gospel proclamation.

I think that if I've taken the person through the law and praying through the Holy Spirit that it's doing its work, then to me, I think that I've been successful and I can stop the conversation at that point.

And I've done it several times.

Yeah.

And I mean, when it comes to casting a pearls for swine, I love to tell a story of a friend of mine because it was just so bizarre.

But it was God's providence.

So we were in Huntington beach, and I'm with a friend of mine.

We're doing some.

Some witnessing.

And he just.

He did something that he's never.

I've never seen him do before.

He's.

He's generally a kind of guy that likes to answer questions.

And what was interesting was there was this guy that was just coming up to him and just kind of.

Kind of in.

In his face and just being arrogant and rude.

And.

And so, you know, my friend just looks at him and is sitting there and goes, no gospel for you.

I was going to give you the gospel, but no gospel for you.

No soup for you.

And this guy just got up and walked away.

And we get done preaching, we're packing up.

And I just said to him, I'm like, dude, what was with that?

He goes, I don't know.

He goes, I just.

I felt like I was throwing pearls before swine with.

He was just so arrogant, arrogant.

And I just was like, you know, I didn't.

I just didn't feel right letting you know, like, I didn't want to give him the gospel.

I felt it would be a waste of time.

And, like.

And literally, as he says that the same guy walked up to him, totally different demeanor, and goes, why can't I have the gospel?

And my buddy's like, now you can.

Now you can.

Because God resists the proud, gives grace to the home.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And so, you know, that.

That was the thing.

You know, some of you actually may know the name of that guy.

He used to work.

Chuck.

He used to work at Living Waters.

His name is Chad Williams.

He's a.

What, a Navy seal?

Yeah.

And so it was just him and I out that day.

And so, yeah, Melissa says to you, Chuck.

She said, chuck, thank you, sir.

I appreciate you answering my question.

You're very welcome, Melissa.

So let's see.

So let's see.

Jesse said earlier, I wonder what her ultimate authority is.

To determine what is true or false, good or evil.

And.

And Jesse, that is exactly what Chuck was kind of pointing out to her over and over again.

He just was hammering on the authority and the standard that she has, and she really didn't have much of an answer.

Yeah, she.

She was.

A lot of other atheists do.

Why do I have an ultimate authority?

Well, there's always an ultimate authority.

It's either God or man.

And this is what we learn in Genesis 3, right?

Who's going to be the ultimate authority to determine, you know, if I pick the fruit or not.

Right.

And so that's the question.

And I'm, you know, I do appreciate the, by what standard?

Approach and I get it and I understand it and it's right.

I just don't think it cuts deep enough.

And I think a more fundamental question to ask, which is what I kept asking her is by what ultimate authority?

Because it's the authority that determines the standards.

Correct.

I just take it one step deeper in my approach and I think it's much more effective.

And so let's see, we have which one here?

So Melissa had said, referring to Kelly there, she couldn't really defend her own position.

And that was true both on, when she was on this program and when you were on her program, she was having trouble defending her position.

And then what she would do is just say, well, I don't know which, you know, again I will, I'm gonna assume the best of her and assume that she was not saying it to avoid answering.

But there, there are some people that, what they'll do is say I don't know, to sound like they're, they're being honest and conciliatory and you know, really trying to answer.

Well, when really what they're trying to do is avoid answering.

So, so Andrew from down under says that she, she was an expert in lying.

See now Andrew, I don't know if I would go that far.

Right, because I guess for, for her to lie she would have to know what she was saying was false.

At least I think the things that I remember coming up when she was on this show and when Chuck was on her show and I've only seen, there's three, three interactions I've had.

It was when she was here, when I listened to the one where Chuck was on her show.

And then a friend of mine, Eric Hernandez and her did some interactions on the Atheist Book Club and then they both kind of dueled it out on their own YouTube channels for a bit.

But I don't think I, I don't know if I think she's lying.

I think she may be self deceived, but I don't think she's lying.

I, I, I want to think and believe that she's trying to be genuine with what she was saying and, and she was saying she doesn't know when she doesn't know.

I think she just, I really think it's not a matter of her lying as really what Chinese Chuck had said.

I don't think she's as clear of a thinker as people think.

It's very easy to Be a clear thinker when you're doing a monologue, or at least to make people think you're a clear thinker.

But it is very different to be clear thinking.

You really know if someone's clear thinking when they're in a debate, when they're in a discussion, when they have to defend it and someone's asking them, you know, oh, so, so all right.

Oh, go ahead, go ahead.

Yeah, in my conversation whether, you know, something came up and she, and she was like, are you saying I'm lying to you?

And I said, no, you're lying to yourself.

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot about that comment.

Yeah, but I told, I said this to you and I said, yeah, but you're self deceived and you're lying to yourself and which goes along with what scripture says about unbelievers.

Yeah.

So the truth of God for a lie.

Some people were asking about seven day Apollo, seventh seven foot, seven day seven foot apologist Dan Kraft, who's one of our speakers here at Striving Fraternity, asking how he was.

And he, he said this, he asked if he's doing okay and he said yep.

At a multi day speaking engagement, teaching the Book of James to a group of a dozen young adults.

Now that's not the part that made me laugh though.

It was the later comment he had.

And he says this, Andrew Rappaport, is your wife still gone or did she cut her hair?

What he's referring to folks, is the fact that I have a beard still that he knows, he knows my bride and I and knows the agreement we have that I don't have the agreement we have.

She keeps her long hair long and I don't have a beard.

She had been gone for a month to take care of her daughter and grandson and she did come back.

Just so you know, Dan, she's back but she has not forced me to take to cut the beard yet and she hasn't cut her hair yet.

So right now I'm in a win, win position.

But I think, I think, because I think she could even hear me saying this, but I think that soon either she's getting her hair cut short or I'm losing the beard.

I did say to her, hey, one, you know, if you want cut, cut your hair short.

And so I, I did give her that, that out there.

But we, we will see.

So yeah, and so Dan, Dan is one of, one of the speakers, if you guys haven't heard, you could go out to.

Haven't heard Dan's talk on the view of.

His view of abortion.

It is something he did when we're out in Arizona.

It was not something he was comfortable with.

He did an absolutely great job with that talk and has opened up a lot of doors for him speaking on that subject.

More so.

So let's see, what is it your buddy Daryl is saying here?

Your wife is who.

I mean, rap.

So now I must have missed an earlier.

Oh, here he.

He's saying, is she suppressing the truth in her unrighteousness?

Well, Daryl, I will have to ask my bride later if she is suppressing the truth and unrighteousness of wanting me to shave my beard or not shave my beard.

I don't know which one's the truth there.

All right, so two more questions that I had.

Start here.

Andrew from down under says, what is the tool that the atheists use to do science?

And I think really what he's getting at here, Chuck, which is right up your alley, is by whatever tool they use to do science, no matter what, however they answer that, whatever their tool is, Chuck, how would you then address that issue?

Well, I would say that the science is actually sort of a child of theology and philosophy.

Right.

And so I have to need more info what you mean by the tools of science, but probably the induction.

Right.

The atheists cannot account for saying that the future is going to be like the past because you can't say, oh, it's always been like this in the past.

I've passed driving down the road, I've passed 10 White Houses and saying, oh, the next house is going to be white and it turns out to be blue.

Right.

They have no grounding for induction into the scientific realm.

And that's exactly where I was expecting you to go.

Right.

It's.

Whatever they answer is their tools for science.

Their tools are grounded in the reality of what God has said.

And it's immaterial.

Yeah.

I mean, because they're going to argue for something that they can't argue from their own worldview.

So, like, why would we have to defend our worldview when they, when they live in it?

They, they are totally living in our worldview and stealing from us, stealing from our worldview while they want to deny it.

So calculus man says, Andrew, their brain and mind, but unfortunately corrupted by sin in an unbiblical bias, a worldview bias.

And that's the problem that they have.

The problem that the atheist has is that they're.

Well, Chuck, as you said, they deceive themselves.

Right?

Yeah.

And any, any worldview that's not based in God's reality is just gonna.

So it's just gonna logically be illogical.

Yeah.

For lack of putting it a better way.

And Andrew says they're, they're evolving brain.

Why should they trust it?

Yeah.

I mean, if, if your brain is still evolving, why would you assume that just because it says something's true today, it's going to be true tomorrow?

Right.

And godless granny brought this up with me.

Well, how can you trust your brain?

I said, well, because my mind is not just my brain.

My mind is as a part of my soul.

And the brain is just a conduit into the physical realm.

And understanding that, you know, there can be issues with the brain that can, that can cause miss thinking.

But I'm, I told her I'm talking about the normative.

Right.

Not when things can go, you know, go massively wrong like a Phineas Gage incident or something like that.

I'm just, I'm talking about the normative.

Yeah.

And when they always want to go for like the extreme like that, it's.

It's because they're, they're struggling, grasping.

Dan says this just.

I'll put this out here.

He says he'll be.

Be.

He's going to be delivering the presentation on abortion that I referred to at a Missions contact conference Admissions Con Context in Portland in January.

So Dan, if you could shoot the.

That information to me so that I can promote that when we talk about where we're speaking.

So that would be wonderful.

So I could let folks know where they can hear you, especially that specific talk.

So, yeah, teaching that important lens is pretty brave.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I gotta, you know, I'll have to try to see whether I can make it out for that because there's, there's someone out there in Portland that was trying to get me out that way.

So maybe I could do both.

All right, so with that, let me, Let me just give a word from our sponsors because, well, they help us continuing to do this.

We're glad to be sponsored for the show by MyPillow, if you need to get yourself a good night's sleep.

And right now, actually, I don't know if they're still doing it.

So MyPillow had a major retailer that pulled out of a deal and they were.

Had a huge stockpile of standard MyPillows that they had to get rid of.

And so, so they were selling them for less than $15, which is the lowest price I have ever seen it.

So if you ever wanted to try a Mypillow now would be the time go to mypillow.com use the promo code SFE.

That will get you the discount.

It also lets them know that you've heard about them from us so that they continue sponsoring us here.

But as I always say, they have a lot of other products.

One of my favorite products that they have is their 3 inch mattress topper.

I love that thing.

Changed my sleep.

Really helped me to get a good night's sleep because I only used to sleep well.

I used to force myself to get three night, three hours a night.

I could just couldn't get more.

And that mattress topper helped me.

I'm up to about five, sometimes six hours because it is actually good to get more sleep.

I hate to admit it, but it is true.

So.

So if you want to get a good night's sleep, I would encourage you to go to mypillow.com, use promo code SFE.

And in the morning, what I suggest you do is get a good cup of coffee from Squirrely Joes.

You can go to strivingforeeternity.org coffee and get some good Squirrely Joe's coffee.

And if on your first purchase you use the code SFE you will get 20% off that first purchase.

So be like me and make sure that first purchase you order everything.

I probably should have ordered the 5 pound bags instead of the 12 ounce bags so that I had enough coffee for like a year.

But I didn't do that.

I should have.

But for your church it's a good thing to do is get their five pound bags and that way the church will get some good coffee.

Who knows, you could be known as the church that actually serves good coffee.

Because I haven't found a church that has good coffee.

I think it's like an unwritten rule churches have to have bad tasting coffee.

I don't know why.

We have a brother in the Lord who I just met at this, the Fight Laugh Feast conference.

Met him there and we had a great time.

And yeah, he makes good coffee.

He's a believer, solid believer.

So why not support him while getting a good cup of coffee.

Go to Stripe to get coffee from Squirrely Joes.

So that will be greatly appreciated.

I also want to mention, just so folks know the we've talked about this in past, one of our speakers here, Aaron Brewster, AM Brewster.

We have started a crowdfunding for him and you can support the Brewsters.

They were affected by the Hurricane Helene and it wiped out.

Just did a lot of damage.

It wiped out their H Vac system, their RV where they lived in their, in, you know, they lived.

I can't, I keep forgetting whether it's his parents or her parents.

I think it's his parents.

But they, they live with them and they lived in the RV while the RV was filled with water.

So that's toast.

Everything in it toast.

Everything.

Everything in their basement toast.

I mean all of it was affected by the water.

But now that we've, we've raised enough money to replace their H VAC system, but now they're having to deal with mold and the water damage.

And when we talk about water damage, I don't want to get too graphic, but he did explain to me that when there's a hurricane like this and you think of water rushing into your house, you tend to think of clean water.

Maybe you think of the water from the lake, you know, as, as happened when the hurricane hit by my, my dad's place in Florida and people were on the street showing fish that were coming in from, from the Gulf of Mexico into the, you know, just swimming on the street.

Well, what he discovered is, and he never thought of is that what's coming in through his house is, well, the sewage water and that's now all through his house.

So not only did they have to deal with the smell and things like that, but they also have to deal with the fact that that is all through their house and so they do not have the money.

Aaron is and his family moved in with his family because they are on a meager income for the purpose of being in full time ministry and making that choice meant that he cannot have, he just doesn't have much income.

He has his own 501C3 ministry, Evermind Ministries that supports him a little and that's why he moved in with his family.

And we brought him in with us to be a speaker to help him get known so that others will invite him to speak and help him that way.

But this is something he didn't plan for.

They don't have insurance, they were hit pretty hard, still hasn't recovered.

And so they are now trying to deal with the mold.

His wife has health issues, they can't stay in the house.

So even though we the H Vac got replaced, they're still struggling with issues now with the mold.

So if you can give it would be a great help.

I know a lot of people have forgotten about it and the election kind of distracted folks, but we set up a thing at give send sendgo.com SFE SFE stands for Striving for Eternity.

So give sendgo.com SFE to help support them.

We greatly appreciate anything you could do to help them out.

Just remember that is being donated to Striving for Eternity, which is a 501C3 or organization for one of our own speakers.

So that money will be a tax donation.

In fact, what we're actually doing is we're transferring it to Evermind Ministries that will take care of them.

So that, that's how that is, is happening.

So if you guys could be of help, that would be marvelous.

So let's, let's chuck anything else that you want to talk about from your time on Godless Scrambled show there.

Let me think.

Yeah, it was for people who watched it.

That's the first time I've ever done anything like that.

You know, going on live and talking in real time and looking back, I think there's some things that I could have answered better.

But for the most part I think it pretty well.

And first and foremost, I'm an evangelist and I would just say, you know, let, let's pray for Kelly, that's her name.

Let's pray for the, that the Lord.

Would save her because she wasn't saved before and so she needs to get saved.

Yeah, without a doubt.

Yeah.

Because she was.

She was.

Yeah, I can say that.

You know, I took some notes here from your, from your interview with her.

She said that that was something that I could not accept.

That a loving God would choose for a minimum of 2/3 of the world to be damned to eternity.

Right.

And so when she says that was a God I cannot accept, that shows that she was a false convert.

Right.

So a true, a true born again regenerate Christian is going to take in God's word for what it is.

Right.

And so, and then looking back, there were some of her quotes from her discussion with me.

She said that when she came to Christ she realized there was something missing in my life, which a lot of times you'll hear this, oh, there's a God shaped hole in your heart.

And then she said when she came to Christ she felt different.

But our feelings do not dictate whether or not we're true Christians because the Mormons will say the same exact thing.

They'll say they prayed about the Book of Mormon, they got a burning in the bosom.

Right.

And so they had this feeling.

And so to them that feeling is what convinces them that the Book of Mormon is correct.

So that's false.

She says that she asked Jesus into her Heart, that's nowhere in scripture that someone comes to Christ asking them into their heart.

Let's see.

And then she said at one point she had a stillborn child and that's when she started questioning her faith.

You know, questioning like, you know, why would God do this?

Well, you know, at least a mature born again Christians gonna understand that.

Yeah, you know, God's ways are not my ways and that, you know, we love God for, you know, having the pregnancy and you know, even though we couldn't, you know, have the child, you know, we've been blessed with it.

And if I recall correctly, Matt Slick had to go through that with, you know, one of his children.

One of his children didn't make it.

His son.

Yeah, his son was born and died and they knew that the son was going to die shortly after.

Yeah.

And then she says something about like that didn't sit well with my idea who God is.

Right.

She's, she's committing idolatry there.

Right.

Because she has her own idea, but she should latch on to the Bible's idea of who God is and go with that.

So those are probably my comments that I would have from that discussion.

So yeah, go check it out.

It's on Godless Grandma's channel.

It's I think discussion with theist Chuck Tx or something like that.

So let's, let's play some clips from when she was on this program and I, I created a video if I can find it.

There we are.

So I just want to play some of this and, and we could respond.

It does look weird because there you and I are.

I'm on top, you're on bottom, and there on the left you're is the same.

So we didn't plan it that way.

I did realize that, you know, even though I dressed up better than last time, so did you.

So you're wearing a jacket and tie where last time you just had a jacket.

I felt like I should go get dressed up, but.

So let's, let's listen to some clips of this and engage with it.

It's the fact of I'm sharing you with you.

What I would see as good news.

You wouldn't.

I get it.

But the thing is there's a difference between saying this is the, the freedom of speech to say this is what the Bible says.

I'm not telling you.

You have to believe it.

See, I'm not forcing you to be a Christian.

I'm not.

And, and there's no, no Christians are trying to legislate to force you to Be a Christian or go to go to church.

Have you seen Project 2025?

Did you see Act Blue 2025?

No, I have not.

Okay.

There's not much to talk about that one.

It's complete Marxism, but that's, that's, that doesn't get spoken of.

Yeah.

So, yes, I, I've seen parts of, of what shared about Project 2025.

Where does that, does that legislate that people have to be in church?

I, I don't know if it does that, but.

Okay, so I want you to see what she did there.

Okay.

And, and this is why I want to talk about this is what you see that, that she did was when, when she was making an argument that Christianity is just so wrong because of how it does things.

Her, her ultimate thing that she thought.

And, and this, this, I think this is because she's kind of in an echo chamber.

And so everyone she talks to, they, they believe the Boogeyman of Project 2025.

So I didn't get into it in detail, but let me just give you some things.

Every think tank comes up with every four years a list for the Republicans and the Democrats of a.

What they, what they think the new administration or continuing administration should do.

Okay.

They always do that.

Just as the Heritage foundation has done it for every election that they've been doing.

There was also a Act Blue 2025, and had she read that, she would realize that that is, they want to completely censor Christians because remember, what was the context?

The context was whether Christians are forcing her legit through legislation to be a Christian.

Well, Act Blue 2025 does the reverse.

It argues for trying to get Christianity out of society, using legislation to not allow Christians to have a voice on social media.

But did you notice what she said there at the end when I said, okay, what in Act Blue is forcing you?

Because she brought it up, I said, are, you know, is there anywhere where.

It's where Christians are legislative notice.

Christians aren't legislating.

We're not trying to force people to go to church or saying, you know, through legislature, you must believe.

And her response was, have you seen Project 2025?

Now, I want you to notice what I did, right?

We don't want to just do apologize.

We want to explain it so you understand how to do it.

Why did I go to the, to the fact that I asked the question, what in Project 2025 is forcing you to be a Christian or go to church?

Because that was the, that was her response.

She.

So I think she thought just by saying Project 2025, I'd be like, oh, no, let me cower in fear.

Oh, I have no response.

But the reality is she revealed.

She hasn't read it.

She doesn't know what's in it.

And so when I asked her, okay, what, she brought it up, we're going to see that common theme, by the way.

She brought it up, but she wasn't ready to answer it because her answer is, well, I.

I don't know.

The answer is nothing.

There's absolutely Nothing in Project 2025, even though I haven't read the whole thing.

That is arguing that people must go to church or that people must believe in Jesus Christ because if they're a Christian organization, they don't believe.

You can legislate belief in Christ.

Okay?

And so I just, I found it quite interesting because here what you see is her bring something up and then her not knowing the topic that she brought up.

It's going to be a theme.

All right.

We heard that in the.

In the beginning clip for those who, who came in later.

But by the way, Humble Clay said I missed the first of the show.

Was she respectful?

I think she was respectful when she was on the show.

I think that'd be very fair to say until the end.

You're going to see that in a moment.

But I want to point out, since Chuck was coming on, I told Chuck I wanted to discuss a little bit about the why I did what I did toward the end, let you guys know a little bit of, of, you know, what was going on.

So for folks who didn't know and you, there'd be no way you would know because I haven't said it publicly, and I doubt she did.

But before Kelly, we, Before we went, before she.

We were live, before she came in and we had the discussion on the fact that I gave her an opportunity to stream the live stream on her YouTube channel as well.

One of the things Stream Yard lets us do is we could stream it on both at the same time.

She said she.

She didn't know how to do that, and it was close to the start of the show.

So she said, I don't want to do that, but would I be able to use this?

Because I need some content for this week and I don't have anything prepared.

Would I be able to use it and play it after, afterwards, and to download?

And I said, sure.

So she had permission, and the plan was, is that she would take it, she would use the content, put it on her show, and I would mark it so that it wouldn't, you know, she wouldn't get a strike for it because it was with my permission.

And so that was the plan.

Now, she never did that.

And I think what happened.

My theory again, can I say this for sure?

No.

And folks notice what I do here.

I'm not saying what things for absolute that I just don't know.

But I say what I think and then, you know, is it possible?

Sure.

I think what happened was, is she realized as that discussion continued that it did not go well for her.

And I think that as the conversation went, I think what she was looking to do is play the victim.

And she made some attempts, and this was the first of them, to use Project 2025 as if that's the, the boogeyman that is forcing her to go to church and be a Christian.

But I don't get notice I didn't jump into a whole political thing.

Could I answer about Project 2025?

Yeah, I could.

There's a lot that I understand about what it says, and I didn't get into it.

I just go back to the.

Because what is it?

It's a red herring.

A red herring is when someone throws something out to distract you from the real issue.

So what did I do?

I went right back to the first question I asked.

So always remember to do that when they throw that red herring out, that means they don't want to answer something.

So stay on it, double down on that, jump on that, sink your teeth in at that time, because that's when.

When you know what's happening.

Let me bring in.

We got Ann Brewster backstage.

Now he's on stage.

And so now would be a great time to ask the question.

When I was mentioning the go.

The crowdfunding we have for Aaron, Calculus man asked, was am Brewster able to file a comprehensive claim under his RV or parents auto policy for the water damage?

So I was going to say I don't know, but now you're here.

So I know he contacted me in which I put him in contact with you.

And so we do.

I will say this, Calculus man, we really, really appreciate when believers help other believers.

When you contact me and I can put you right in touch with Aaron and you guys could talk.

Talk.

And that's, that's a wonderful thing.

And, and it's.

And he says, he goes, FYI, I have a background in insurance.

Yeah, he said that in the email.

So Aaron, was, was that helpful to you?

You know, was he able to help you with that?

First of all, I feel extremely underdressed.

Thank you, sir.

For me.

Normally, I'm the one who dresses up, you know, and things like this, but not today.

Okay.

I'll come with full disclosure.

I am wearing jeans.

Oh, okay.

Good, good.

So am I.

We have that in common.

Yeah.

It's better than when you cut.

When you have a suit jacket, jacket, tie, suit, and you're wearing shorts because, you know, no one can see it.

I, I could.

I, I could not.

I will not confirm or deny if I ever have done that.

Yeah.

So, calculus man, thank you so much.

Or as it is on here.

Dd and by the way, hold on.

And, and, and Dan, seven foot.

Apologies.

Because I'm just glad to hear that they're both.

We're here.

That they're both wearing pants.

Amen.

Why does your mind go there, Dan?

He's always, you know, Dan is always looking down on us.

You know that, Aaron.

He's always looking down on us.

It's because he's seven foot tall.

Yep.

We always look up to him.

I actually had a new respect for him because I had to look at him at an angle that is similar to the angle my wife has to look up at me.

And I had this thought, Is this what my wife's neck always feels like?

But to the question.

Thankfully, my dad's car did have comprehensive on it.

So that's good.

Our cars, my wife's and my.

We were able to cram our cars all the way up.

And it was a pretty amazing parking job.

Like just like half an inch from the.

From the garage door.

We pulled ours up and we still got water in ours.

Thankfully, our.

Both of our cars still ran.

Actually, we have a lot of issues going on with our cars.

But it wasn't because of the flood that has happened.

My dad did have comprehensive on it.

And it's hilarious.

I mean, everyone's just moving so slowly down here.

We are over a month out from this thing and we still have the car sitting in our driveway because it hasn't.

All the stuff hasn't gone through yet for us to get it towed away.

And it's just.

It's crazy.

Now.

The RV was a very different situation.

The RV was one where we really didn't fully intend to ever drive it.

We knew a lot of work was going to have to be put into it in order to get it, like, really road worthy.

And so we primarily used it as that extra living space on the side of the house.

So that was not something that could.

That could help us.

That that coverage just wasn't there in order to help with that.

So I will say though, that I just want to say thank you to everyone who has participated in this Give Send Go.

It is just absolutely overwhelming that some people, I know, many people, I don't a lot of anonymous givers.

It is humbling and it is just, it just is so encouraging that God's people rally around other people to try to serve them and help them in their time of need.

And so I just want to say thank you to everyone who has given and to anyone who's thinking about giving.

We at this point, we couldn't do it without you.

There's still a lot of bills outstanding.

Still a lot of things that need to be done with the house I'm having.

So my wife, I'm having more and more of an allergic reaction.

There's only one thing in the world that I'm really allergic to, and that's mold.

And it started raining here a lot recently after that hurricane blew through.

We didn't have rain for over a month, which is crazy around here because we actually live in a rainforest.

But it has started raining a lot more.

And it's interesting is that unlike ever any time before when it's been raining, I've been getting this allergic reaction more.

So that's definitely something that we are still in the midst of taking care of.

Yeah.

So if folks want to help out, give send go.com SFE that's give send go.com SFE if you want to help the Brewsters out, they would appreciate it.

So let's, let's continue with a little bit more from our time when we had Kelly on here.

This next clip.

Chuck, I kind of.

Well, let's just roll it.

But what I have a more serious problem with are the young earthers that want us to deny what we know from science.

And as a result, they want us to ignore scientists when they tell us things like take a vaccine for the pandemic.

Now, I know not all young earthers did that.

You know, some of the young earthers did very much support, you know, going out and get your.

And guess what?

The science, the science supported not getting the vaccine.

Over six minutes later, we heard her say this.

Now you don't want to even talk.

So, you know, well, because it's because.

You'Ve brought up a topic that I was not prepared for.

If I had known that this was going to be the topic, I would have brought facts and figures with me, but I did not know that this topic would come up.

And so I did not bring any facts and Figures with me.

And I'm not prepared to defend that position.

But you brought these topics up.

I didn't.

Well, okay, you're right.

I did.

You know, that almost never gets old.

Honest.

She was honest, though.

She admitted it.

Yeah.

I swear, so many talking heads on the Internet say things and then they go and they deny it later.

It's like, you do realize you're on the Internet, right?

Yeah, like we could.

We could go back and rewind this.

So, yeah, I mean, she caught herself.

She.

Their reaction was self defense.

I didn't.

You're right, I did.

But, yeah, and what I find interesting in that clip is that she did a bait and switch, right?

So she goes, she talks about the, you know, the scientists talking about, you know, the young Earth.

Well, she's talking about historical sciences.

And then she flips the switch over to the modern day practical sciences of doing what she call it, the, The.

Not the injections, but the vaccine.

Right.

And so that's the bait and switch.

Those are two.

Two very different fields of sciences.

And she's trying to conflate the two.

Well, it was very interesting.

I actually think it was pretty good she did that because what she did was like, these people, these flat Earthers that don't accept the science and like getting a vaccine.

Now this is where I say, I personally believe at this point in the show, this was toward the end of the show.

I think she was trying to play the victim.

She.

The plan was for her to play this for her audience on her program.

And I think she was trying to play the victim so she can go, oh, look how mean they were to me.

And I think the re.

I personally think the reason she didn't put it on her show is because not only were we not mean, but she came off at the end being kind of mean.

Like, she's just shutting everyone down.

I don't want to talk, you know, and here what she's doing is saying, well, it's, you know, she's a.

She's trying to equivocate denying evolution, being a young Earth creationist with denying the science of vaccines.

Now, Chuck, you mentioned the difference of the science.

I get it.

But here's the thing.

What I.

And I.

And if you go back and rewatch, just watch Drew's face, because that was classic.

When.

When she mentions the vaccine, his eyes, Liz.

His eyebrows go up like, oh, really?

And then as she continues talking, he just puts his head in his hands like, wow, okay.

Because the science doesn't support that the vaccines helped.

Now this isn't me talking.

This is the CDC and their own reporting of vaccine harms.

Okay, The VARS database.

And if you look at the database, you see that, yeah, they had to come clean and admit that, yes, the vaccine is doing more damage and more harm than any other vaccine they've ever done.

In fact, whenever they get a vaccine that does more than a few cases of, Of.

Of harm, they usually take it off the market.

This one, they just didn't show the data for, for years.

But the data's out there now, folks.

I'm just saying.

And, and so where she, when we'll get to this, where she says, I'm making claims.

What was I citing?

I'm citing somewhere she could go.

The cdc, the VARS database.

You could go there.

That's, that's, that's what we'd call actual science.

Like you, you get a, you know, a place where you could study it, research it, and then you, you document it and you show it.

Right?

It's.

It wasn't just a claim.

Okay, so Dan is saying, but then they argue that VAR's data isn't patrol, paroled, patrolled and curled for accuracy.

Okay, I, that's fine, but it is still the official database that they use for all the other vaccines.

Why is that argument never used for any other vaccines?

Right.

Aaron, you posted something here.

Why don't you just share it?

Yeah, it's just if you, you rarely ever see this because it can't happen and generally it won't happen.

You've got two sides debating.

Generally speaking, one person is coming at it from more of a logical premise, research premise, and the other person who plays the victim card isn't a lot of emotions, a lot of opinions.

You rarely have two people playing the victim at the same time.

Because, I mean, her playing the victim, you could have just as easily played the victim with and probably had even more of a reason to do so than she did.

But you're above that, right?

Oftentimes the conservative or the Christian within the debate is not going to do that.

But oftentimes in those types of things, if I happen to be there and I'm one of the only other people, I will, I will play the victim, but I'll do so in a.

Not a.

Not a sarcastic or sardonic way, but I'll do so in a.

Oh, the word just completely left me in such a way where it's clear that I actually could play the victim.

But you're not.

But I'm not really doing it because it's foolish.

Yeah.

Exaggeration doesn't.

Is that the word you're.

It's for hype, for hyperbole.

It doesn't actually move anything forward.

So I like to do that.

I mean, I don't, I don't recommend it.

You have to do that just the right way so that they understand and you're communicating the right way.

You're not making fun of them.

And you know, we'll see.

But I did do that.

And we'll get to that clip.

I did that in a very, very subtle way.

In a, in a very subtle way because I used the left, the leftist language against her.

And I got that clip that's so.

Beautiful when you start using their argument because their arguments are so empty when you use it against them.

And then they start denying the exact same arguments that they were just using.

Oh, it's gorgeous.

Yeah.

And so this is what you could do, folks, like notice what I did in that clip.

She brings up young earth creationists.

Now, again, I've seen her, Chuck.

She did this with you.

She did it with Eric.

And Eric, I don't think is a young earth creationist.

So that was kind of funny.

But this is her like go to like is those young earth creationists don't believe in science.

Said no young earth creationist ever.

I know Dan isn't here, but Dan's listening and I know there's the delay, but Dan, you are a young earth creationist.

Do you believe in science?

We'll wait for his answer to come up and then we'll put it on screen.

I think I know what his answer is going to be.

I know what mine will be.

I don't want to say it because I could, you know, prejudge, you know, Dan, and he might just say it because I said it.

We wouldn't, we wouldn't want that.

So, but you know, she's, she equivocates young earth creationism with the danger, you know, he's going to go.

Depends upon how you define it.

Well, I'm going to say that we agree to that.

We do science.

The, the, the right science, you know, the not this made up science of we just say, okay, let me go, I'll board it this way.

We have to recognize that nowadays, and I think I said this to Kelly, unfortunately, nowadays truth doesn't matter.

The narrative matters.

And so, you know, so yeah, like he's saying operational science is good.

Yep.

And we would use that.

We have no problem with that.

That's different than the historical science that Like Dan is saying, scientism is bad.

That historical science that Chuck referred to.

I will say here though real quick, just in case everyone anyone hasn't caught this.

That scientism concept really has shown how scientists have become the priests.

And as the priests would claim to speak for God.

Therefore, regardless of what I say or how contradictory it may be or whatever the case may be, I'm ordained to do this and you just have to do what I say.

That's really.

Science has become a religion.

To the degree that I'm a scientist, I can just make a claim.

Oftentimes it's unresearched or it's just my opinion or it's really just literally falsified.

And you absolutely have to bow to that claim because I am the scientist.

Yeah.

And Andrew says, making it up in her as her, as her brain evolves.

So, so, yeah, so I mean, you know, note where.

So my thinking at this point is she's starting to play the victim for her audience to, to put it on her, her channel.

And I want to now take this and kind of expose what she's doing or you know, kind of call it out.

So she brought up the young earth creation.

She brought up the, the vaccines.

Well, you know, this is something I have actually researched now.

Remember she, she brought up the, the Project 2025, but she wasn't ready to talk about it.

She brings this up, but she's not ready to talk about it.

You know, well, if I knew this was going to be the subject, I would have been prepared.

Well, you know, I think I said to, I don't know if I have the clip of it, but I said to her I wasn't ready to talk about it because I didn't bring it up.

She did, but I wasn't ready to talk about it.

But I could, so I did.

Why did I do it?

Because I wanted to show that where she's saying, oh, you young earth creationists have a problem.

You don't believe in science like vaccines.

Well, the vaccines are false.

Like she's trusting a faulty science because that science was out of a political agenda.

And so she's trusting a political science and then attributing that to her evolutionary science, which also comes from an agenda.

See.

So I actually see that they're not a little bit different in the sense Chuck than you had brought up because I think they actually are the same.

They're both an agenda driven science, not a evidence driven science.

Never, I never use those language, that type of language before.

Never thought of it.

That way, but I think it really fits well, and I may start using that more so what we believe in.

To get to what Dan was saying earlier, right.

When he.

He said defines.

Depends how you define science.

When we're talking evidence based science.

But that's different than their.

Than with their biased based science.

They start with their conclusion and then want to prove it.

Right.

And they.

And they.

And as we had earlier in the show, the guy that's telling us, we're begging the question, well, the science doesn't support evolution.

You have to start with that conclusion to get there.

But let's move on.

And Chuck, did you have anything you want to add to that?

I should.

I think you'll handle it perfectly.

Okay, let's see the rest of this clip that we have from her.

Going to get fun.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, I've had it.

I'm sorry.

I.

I've had it.

What?

What, what have you had it?

With you.

Why?

Because I think you're off the wall.

You know, you're.

You're citing all these things and claiming them to be facts that are not facts.

Well, actually, here.

Here's the difference.

You.

You made a whole bunch of claims that you just made claims over and over.

I told you where you could go.

You can go to the CDC, you can go to.

You can go to Dr.

Fauci and go back and listen and see the things that we said.

But it's off the wall because it's not part of your narrative.

So, like, are you looking for truth or.

Narrative becomes the thing?

And, and you're.

You.

You're now upset just because we said something that didn't support the narrative.

No, that's not it at all.

Then what is?

I'm done.

All right?

Okay.

I.

I really am done with that topic.

I don't want to talk about that topic.

You want to talk about that topic?

Fine.

You guys can talk among yourselves, and I'll leave that.

Well.

Well, we'll end the show.

I just want to.

I just want to point out, you know, Kelly, it is interesting.

I don't.

I don't.

I don't know where all of a sudden it went awry other than the fact that we stated something that you just.

Whether it's a young earther, young earth position or.

Or Covid.

That you just became intolerant about and clearly intolerant because now you don't want to even talk.

So, you know.

Well, because it's because you brought up a topic that I was not prepared for.

If I had known that this was going to be the topic.

I would have brought facts and figures with me, but I did not know that this topic would come up.

And so I did not bring any facts and figures with me, and I'm not prepared to defend that position.

But you brought these topics up.

I didn't.

Well, okay, you're right, I did.

But I did not realize that that was where you would go.

I really had no idea either.

But I'm not being intolerant of you.

I mean, you brought it up.

And I'm not sitting here saying, okay, I'm done, because I don't like what you're saying.

You brought it up.

I gave you.

I gave you facts and gave you places you can go.

You can go and look at the.

The numbers of the death rate around the world and see the statistical.

And can I do that and come back here and have an answer for you in one minute?

No, I can't.

No, I didn't say within a minute.

All right, So I can't possibly defend that.

I wasn't ex.

I.

I wasn't asking you to defend.

I was just.

I was stating.

I was stating a different point of view.

And.

Yeah, and.

And you're entitled to your point of view.

I told you that.

But I wasn't being intolerant of you to say.

Okay, well, you didn't say what I.

Like, I'm gonna shut you down.

So how have I shut you down?

You're able to talk.

I haven't shut you down.

No, you're like, okay, that's it.

I'm done.

I'm leaving.

I.

You know that.

That's being intolerant.

Okay, whatever.

I.

I don't.

Look, so.

So let me get back so we get.

I don't want to get.

So what you see there, that's a longer quote.

And, yes, I just had to include that part where she was like, Wrong one, where she's like, well, you know, I didn't say.

Oh, I did say that, you know, because that's just too funny.

But.

So let me just ask the.

Aaron, what was it that I did?

What.

What word did I use on her?

That's.

That's.

Yeah, you.

I just put it in the.

In the.

The comments.

The left cannot be intolerant.

It's impossible.

It's just like.

It's just like people of a darker skin color cannot be racist.

That.

That's just.

That's just impossible.

Don't you realize that only white people can be racist and only people on the right can be intolerant?

Yeah, they don't like to have that toss out.

As soon as you said it, I was like, nice.

Yeah.

And as Dan says, Andrew dropped the I word.

Intolerant.

Touche.

And.

And that.

So why did I do that?

Right.

I wanted you guys to hear the longer part of it, but what I'm doing is she's.

I think she's trying to play the victim, and she's going to be there and like, oh, well, like, look how bad I was treated.

He's so.

And now listen to the words she used of me.

Right.

I'm being ridiculous.

You go back and listen to the whole thing, see whether I called her names.

You're not going to find that.

Right.

Things in situ.

And of course, going back and looking at this, I'm not saying that I would have said that in this moment, but there have been times that I've had opportunities where I try to do this, where.

And I'm not.

People, folks, listen.

I'm not saying it works, like, to the degree that, you know, oh, they see it every single time, but sometimes they do, and sometimes I've even had people.

People apologize for it.

But just to say, you know, something to the effect of, listen, if.

If you had invited me onto your show and I had brought up the topic of abortion and you started throwing out all of these statistics about it, and then I just basically shut down and said, I'm done talking.

Because.

Because I didn't know abortion was gonna be brought up and I wasn't prepared to talk about it, and I started calling you names.

Do you think that would be appropriate behavior for me now, if she says yes, then that's interesting.

Generally speaking, though, they're.

They're honest enough to go, well, no, or they don't answer.

Right.

Which, of course, is the answer.

You know, they know they don't like that.

And so sometimes the best way in conversations like this is sometimes just to say.

Just to flip it on.

If I did this to you, would you be okay with that?

Oh, you're not okay.

So why is it okay for you to do it to me?

And if nothing else, when the.

When that question is asked, even if they refuse to answer it, they're answering it up here.

And hopefully they're seeing a little bit of their hypocrisy.

Yeah, I mean, so Dan.

Dan had said rhetorical judo, using her vocabulary against her.

And.

And that's.

That's what it.

That.

I mean, so I want you to notice.

So when you're doing apologetics, what was I doing?

Why did I do it?

Right.

That's what this show is about.

Right?

It's not just to do apologetics, but to show and train in apologetics.

Notice what she's doing is she's playing the victim and she's trying to explain that she's.

She's had it because I'm being so unreasonable.

Well, did I then act unreasonable?

That is a tendency we might have, right?

We might get defensive.

Instead, I'm asking, how am I being unreasonable?

Because we said something you didn't like.

And that's.

That's.

That's actually what it was.

Right?

She did.

She brought up the topic of the vaccines, and both, you know, and I clipped it out.

But you could see, because it wasn't relevant to the.

To this conversation.

But both Drew and I answered about the vaccines.

We could explain it, and she just didn't like it because she didn't have an answer.

Now, the defensiveness is what you saw.

She got defensive because it.

Look, folks, all of us have experienced this when someone kind of pushes us, challenges us to give an answer to something we don't know.

Especially when you're.

You're, you know, on a public, you know, live stream and people are watching.

People who follow you are watching.

There is a tendency.

So I'm not gonna, like, let.

Let's be careful not to be too critical, because all of us have this tendency to want to defend ourselves.

And I would hope that in hindsight, she would have went, you know, that really was wrong and how I behaved.

Now, if she really felt she was wrong, I would hope that she'd reach out.

But she's like, you know, do I have time to respond to this in a minute.

Now, notice I want you guys to ask.

Think about this question.

When she brought up the COVID vaccines and young Earthers, did I have time to go and research it and come back within a minute?

Nope, I didn't have that either.

Did I do it anyway?

I didn't do the research.

I brought research I had already done.

But did anyone ask her to give an answer within a minute?

No.

In fact, hey, Kelly, if you're watching, you could come back if you want.

Let's have a long discussion on Covid vaccines, the political, the politicizing of it and how that all worked.

Because I got news for you.

When we look at the evidence, it's not going to be in your favor.

I mean, the Fauci emails are now out.

They've now admitted that they just made up six foot distance.

Why?

Because, well, three foot Seemed too close and nine foot seemed too far.

That was the logic for six feet.

There was no science.

It was politics.

If you want to come on, do your research, come, let's.

Let's discuss it, you know, and then we can go back and get clips.

Another tactic to watch out for, though, from.

From a side that is similar to that, regardless of what the conversation is, is just making these accusations.

Like, you know, because it's.

It does sound irrational.

Like, how dare you just expect me to be able to answer a question, you know, expect me just to go and find this answer right now.

That it's.

It sounds.

It sounds very unacceptable that you would require a person to do that.

Correct.

As if.

As if I'm requiring it.

As if I'm the one forcing that.

Exactly.

You were just having a conversation.

That's how conversations work.

You brought up something.

We talked about it.

Right.

That's so.

It's funny.

Like, you can take a normal conversation between two people and you can reskin it in such a way, like, can you believe that person came up to me and demanded that I answer their question when all they did was like, hey, do you know what time it is?

So by doing, they gotta watch out for that.

Because sometimes I have seen some people in a conversation like that, with the person who's on the right side trying to do it the right way, where they actually start to believe it themselves.

They actually start to feel like, oh, did I do that?

Oh, I was doing.

That wasn't.

I'm really sorry about that.

And they start to apologize.

You can be careful, know that that could possibly happen.

Be on the watch for.

And just try to be.

And go with what was actually said and not just their description of it.

Yeah.

And.

And you saw that's pretty much what I did is to, you know, like, because she's trying to say that I'm the big meanie, I'm mistreating her.

But the whole time it's a subject that she brought up.

And as we're answering, she's getting more and more uncomfortable because she's trying to say, like.

And.

And so I'm trying to put myself in her thinking and saying, until I address that at the end, that she brought it up.

She's thinking that, you know, here we're talking about COVID and vaccines, and she's not ready to talk about that.

She doesn't want to talk about that.

And why are we making her talk about that?

Until she realized, though she brought it up.

And then the doubling down was, well, do you expect me to have an answer, like to go research this and have an.

No, but that's why I pointed out I didn't have that time either.

I mean, I could have said.

And Humble Clay says this.

He said, here's a good answer.

I'm not prepared for this subject at this time, which she has done.

She did it not only on, on my, on the program here, but she did it with Chuck as well on her own program.

And I sort of do it with Eric Hernandez where she.

She would say, you know, I'm not.

I don't know about that.

Or I'm not, you know, prepared for that.

So, so Humble Clay.

That's not outside of the, you know, the realm of what she would do.

Andrew Graham, by the way, says Andrew, the big meanie.

That's going to be the memes, you know.

Yeah.

And Aaron.

Aaron is posting.

Andrew is a big meanie.

We all know it.

Let the memes begin.

The.

The Mimi means.

Mimi means.

Yeah, that's.

That's kind of confusing.

But what we see with Kelly in these, in these clips and her statements and, and the way she's conducting herself is that we see Romans 1:21 coming alive where it says that they're thinking that the unbelievers are thinking has become futile.

And then she's just displaying that over and over and over again.

Yeah.

And it's interesting because.

And I purposely did this next clip because of you, Chuck.

Throughout, throughout your discussion, when you were on her program, the majority of the discussion that you kept pressing for was the issue of authority.

Let's hear her on that subject.

I don't look to scientists for authority on history.

I don't look to scientists for authority on morality.

I don't look to scientists for authority on legal matter.

I only look to scientists for authority on science, you know, affairs.

One looks to the experts in the particular field of their expertise that we don't.

We don't.

I don't take one group of people and make them the authority over everything.

So let me ask a question.

When she appealed to the vaccines and young Earth, you know, pitting young Earth scientists against, you know, those that would hold to the vaccine, and she says not all young.

Some young Earthers were willing to take a vaccine because they were mandated to for many.

But what is she doing?

She's relying on the science to tell us, well, morality, because they were telling us this is, you know, getting the vaccine was loving your neighbor.

That's a morality thing, you know.

By the way, I know someone, someone Andrew Graham, I think, said that the vaccine, yeah, the vaccines got worse when Biden took office.

If, if Kelly does come on, you know what I would do?

I, all I would do is grab the clips of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris before the election of 2020 where they said we can't trust this vaccine.

I mean, the government just rushed this through.

The government.

This is a government funded thing, a government done thing.

Like, you know, we can't just do this.

And then soon as they get elected, suddenly it's like, we gotta mandate this because you have to do this for, for the betterment of everything, you know, so, oh, so mighty Sarlacc says my worldview doesn't entail an ultimate authority.

That may be mighty Surlac, but we do know you're, you're too cowardly to come in and discuss that where you'll probably be like Kelly here and just having to backtrack.

But hey, if you want to come in, you know, I know the show is going to end in four minutes, but we'd love to have you on and we could discuss your ultimate worldview, because you have one.

Everyone does.

The difference is your ultimate worldview is the same as ours.

You just suppress that in unrighteousness.

So.

And we'd be happy to show that to you.

So what I think is interesting with what Kelly said was, you know, it's.

What's her authority?

And she's going to say, well, she only looks to, you know, the scientists to talk about science.

Right?

That's her.

So authority is the scientists.

Chuck, let me ask you a question.

Have scientists ever been wrong about their science?

I think that's axiomatic.

Yes, they are.

Yeah.

That's why science keeps changing.

And so, you know, so in that case, guess what?

That they, we can't trust that science, by the way.

So mighty Sirlox says it's not cowardly.

I'm at work.

I had to go earlier.

So, mighty Sirlax, how about we set up a time you come on in and let's have the discussion.

We have some open dates in January.

I would be happy for you to do that.

Just, you can email me info@restrivingforeeternity.com Let me put it up on screen.

There you go.

Nope, that's the wrong one.

Hold on.

There we go.

One just below it.

Contact us at info at striving for eternity.com info@restriving for Eternity.

Calm, mighty Sirlax.

Show me you're not a coward.

Show me that you will email me we will set up a time so that we can have a nice long discussion about your worldview.

We'll even invite Chuck back on so that Chuck could enjoy the discussion as well.

So that would be mighty fun.

So I did mention that I would let you know where Dan is speaking.

So actually I could just share this on screen even.

Because we could do that sort of thing.

So here is the website that is hosting it.

So it is at.

So it's Mission Connexus.

So the website itself is Mission M I S S I O N connection is C O N N E X I O N.

So instead of T it's an, it's an X there.

So mission connection dot global.

And this is January 17th and 18th at Sunset Church.

I'm not quite sure where that is because I look to see.

Let me see the about us.

If it tells where they're at.

I don't.

That doesn't look like that tells it.

So trying to see if they have maybe on their contact page.

So this is in northwest somewhere we know in Portland area.

So Sunset Church, Portland may be the best place to go.

And, and just look that up.

And so Dan is saying Portland, Portland.

Like you know, here's the thing.

Like I'm on the other window so I can't see.

But Dan says Portland, Oregon.

But then he's got to yell at me.

Portland.

And a separate one, Portland.

Then he says look at me because.

There'S only one place in Portland.

Yeah, he's obviously there.

You, everyone in Portland just go and.

Look for some seven foot guy.

He's standing above.

He's looking down on all of us, you know, little people, people, you know, he's, he says I need more monitors.

I, I don't know that I need more monitors here, sir.

Let's see, do I have, do I have the picture still of my monitor?

Let me see.

His monitor is just 7ft tall.

So yeah, let me, let me.

You know, I, I don't, I don't see why I need more monitors.

Let me.

So I'm gonna present what my setup here.

And what you're going to see is my monitor.

On the right to of my monitor is a 27 inch MacBook.

Okay.

So if you think how big a 27 inch MacBook is.

We had a.

Someone that a supporter of the ministry donate my monitor and there it is.

That is a 55 inch gaming monitor that someone gave to us and so on.

That is my logos, my logos software right there.

And this is all of First Corinthians 12:13 and 14 on one screen.

So, Dan, I'm like you.

I just like everything big.

His response?

Too small.

You need more.

Yeah.

To Dan, everything is too small.

When you're seven foot tall, everything's too small.

So, Chuck, thanks for coming in.

I want to give you a chance to promote any way that folks can get a hold of you.

Yeah.

So I run the Twitter account Atheist Nightmare, so you can contact me through there.

And, and if you don't have Twitter or you want to contact me another way, you can contact me with through atheistnightmaresmail.com and if you're in the League City, Texas area, I'll just give a promotion for my church.

It's a good solid Reformed church.

It's a 5 Solas Church of League City, Texas.

And so if you're in the area, come by and visit.

And at the end of this month, November 30th, group of US are going down to Galveston for the art walk and we're going to be doing some street witnessing and so say hi.

That would be good.

Aaron, anything you have coming up other than getting rid of mold in your house?

Yeah, I've.

When.

When I took a step back from the podcast in order to deal with the aftermath, I was like, man, I don't know how long it's going to take me to get back to this.

And it looks like very easily through the end of the year at the bare minimum, before I'm able to get back to podcasting weekly.

I'm trying.

I did.

Recently a gentleman invited me onto his show to talk about my new book called Quit.

And I plan on.

You broke up there for a moment.

What's the new book called for folks?

My book called Quit.

How to Cure.

Sorry, how to Stop Family Strikes For Good.

So I was on that show.

I'm going to put out on my podcast, but right now the Lord is just kind of pressed me into a pause and said, there are other things I want you working on right now, so be praying for me.

I love to get back to traveling and speaking and podcasting as soon as possible.

All right.

And so I think that I am done traveling for the year, which I'm glad for.

I, I will admit I, I should.

I could have mentioned this earlier in the show.

I was at the Fight Laugh Feast.

It was really enjoyable, Aaron, because no one recognized me.

I walked around like a normal person at a conference.

Like, no one came up and asked for a photo.

Nobody, nobody was like, it was really hysterical because.

And I, I shared this on a couple different podcasts that I was on.

But, you know, we.

I.

I was talking to one of the guys that helps us out here.

He runs let's Church, Ken Powers.

And I saw him, and I'm like, hey, Ken.

And I'm talking to him.

He's being super polite.

And.

And then he came by where we were, and I'm talking to him again, and.

And I thanked him.

I said, hey, thanks for the.

The T shirt you sent me.

I really like that.

I like that you.

Your bag has.

And I should go grab it.

But his bag, he's got his.

The.

The.

The bag that he put stuff his materials in says let's Church.

So he's really got the branding down.

And he looks and goes, oh, wow, I just realized who you are.

We're talking for 20 minutes, and he's just being polite and realized, like, because the beard, it threw him off.

It was so hysterical.

I had one guy that he was talking to me, and we have never met, and he's talking to me, but he follows the ministry, and he's.

As we're talking, I just.

He.

And he told this on his podcast that he's interviewing me because he goes.

He just.

You know that I just introduced myself as Andrew because that's kind of my name.

And so later, someone's walking and they.

And they go, hey, Rappaport, I just waved.

And he goes, wait, you're Andrew Rapoport?

Because all of a sudden, I got a beard.

I haven't had a beard in all these years, and it only took me a few weeks to suddenly have a beard.

So I want you to know, first of all, I'm super jealous, right?

It's like I'm crossing the line into.

Into, like, envy.

So there's that.

You.

You juju can pull off what this gentile just cannot do.

But.

But then what's even worse.

What's even worse is that I know that you love your bride enough that when the two of you are back in the same state.

We are.

We are in the same.

Oh, yeah.

And I still have it.

Yeah.

D.

You missed it earlier.

You'll have to go back, dad.

See look on his face.

She has.

She has not made me sure he.

Would get hacked off.

And like, oh, man, he's back to.

I even.

I can't even do it.

I even told her that she could.

She could cut her hair short, and she hasn't done that either.

Dan is saying scandal.

It is.

I cannot believe she's home.

Yeah, well, I will have to make her watch this so she could see the look on your face when she, when you found out because, well, she.

Just realized what the rest of us realized.

You know, he looks nice and rugged and manly and maybe she's coming around.

So I was on, I was on, we did a joint podcast with Keith Foskey from your Calvinist podcast.

And really, I think really it was on, it was on Dead Man Walking podcast Greg Moore and we were just all doing a talking together and it was really funny because Keith, Keith ends up going, they talk about my beard and Keith is like, Mrs.

Rapaport, if you're, if you're watching, like, let him keep the beard for our sake.

It covers up his face.

So, so I sent it to my bride and I said, here, listen.

At the 44 minute mark there, there's a message for you.

I think she knew exactly what she, she started at the beginning.

Did it, yeah.

She didn't jump to 44 minutes.

She actually listened to the whole thing.

I hadn't gotten there.

So while we're eating dinner, I, I jumped to the 44 minute mark and played the, the whole thing for her.

And she listened to, to Keith Fos encouragement to her.

I, I, I would like to think it's wearing down.

Like she's starting to get used to it and like liking it.

But yeah, no, no, at some point, either her, her hair is getting cut short or my beard's going off.

So we'll see.

Thanksgiving's coming.

I, I'm gonna try to have it for Thanksgiving for my family.

Really would be fun is to show up at, in February at Jeffrey Rice at the Open Air Theology Conference on, yeah, the war conference is what they're calling it basically the war against our flesh.

And so, yeah, it's gonna, it'll be fun to be there.

It was, it was fun being at, you know, Fight Laugh Feast, this Reform Presbyterian Conference.

And, and I kind of fit in.

I had the beard like they have and, and everything.

But see, now look, we all have beards.

It's just that now you're the one with the least facial hair.

That's true.

And I'm the one with the most.

Very much so.

My wife tolerates with my beard.

She just wants it to be shorter.

That's the struggle.

I keep it, I keep it so short that people think I don't have a beard.

That's typically what I do.

I just, I have a beard.

It's just extremely short.

So Dan is calling me John Calvinist Rapiford.

That's.

You are the third person to Say that, that I look like Calvin or.

I don't know what it is about my beard that, you know, I just am glad that there's enough white in it that people don't think I look like Mel Gibson anymore.

Last time I had a beard, people thought I looked like Mel Gibson because it was only white in the front.

Like, he had that.

So, but.

All right, so next week, what do we have on the agenda?

Next week's show, the plan is I will be reaching out to this guy that I can't remember if it was Facebook or Twitter.

His.

His name was Andrew, but he wants to debate the topic, is God, Is Jesus God or the Son of God?

I found that interesting.

I said, I, I offered to debate, is Jesus God or not?

And he wants to debate is God, is Jesus God or the Son of God?

And I said, you do realize those are both the same, same thing, right?

Yeah, I mean, yeah, like, I'm gonna.

Say yes to both because Son of God is a title of deity.

So I don't.

Like.

Okay, I think we're first.

Like, so, so I'll.

In case he's watching, I'll tell you my game plan for next week.

I'm gonna show that the title Son of God is a claim of deity, like Son of Man is a claim of humanity.

And then I'm just going to agree with both, you know, like, so.

And when.

What I'm gonna do is since he didn't want to debate whether Jesus is.

Is God or not, he wants to debate whether he's Son of God or God.

And I'm just going to say both.

And he's going to want to deny the deity.

I'm going, well, that wasn't the topic you wanted to debate.

The only argument he can, can possibly try to do from a biblical perspective would be that there were other people who were referred to as sons of God, other.

Other creatures referred to as sons of God.

And, and, but that.

I don't know what else he can do.

Andrew, is this person a Jehovah's Witness?

I.

I don't know.

We.

Okay, so.

And wrong one.

So mighty Sirlax says to Jesse, I get you're desperately trying to put me in your script because they're having a whole conversation.

This is what happens for live stream if you don't watch live in the chat, you know, on YouTube, you're missing out.

You're trying to put me in your script.

But let, let have an honest conversation where you try to understand my position.

That's why we would love to have you come on the program so that we could discuss your position.

That would be a wonderful thing to do.

I look forward to you sending an email inforvingforeeternity.com and with that, we'll see you next week.

Remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

See you next week.