The conference just happened, and we don't have access to any recordings right now. Can't answer that question, though that's not really the point of this episode. We will, however, being doing more investigation into the conference itself, to learn more about what did/didn't happen at it.

"Indoctrinated with extremism," what does that even mean? About what? Abortion? And that supposedly came to me from the SBC? What are you even talking about? I'm not SBC, nor are the other members of the Enemies Within the Church team. Me being an abolitionist (and Enemies Within the Church as a whole) has nothing to do with the SBC, whose leadership fights against abolitionists. I'm still not sure what part exactly in the episode you're calling "extremism," but you need to provide some evidence and clarification for why'd you say that. Additionally, how is it "not hermeneutics," whatever "it" specifically is. Please don't make assumptions and lob accusations. Clearly state your objections, and provide reasons and evidence for said objections.

100%

Yes, Trump is a great example of crony "capitalism," and that's another issue with him. No, pro-choice RFK is not the way.

So your logic here is: I agree that Trump has failed the economy, the constitution, the people, the church, and especially the unborn, yet I will reward him with my vote? What is your standard for saying that? No, not for saying "Biden is worse," but for saying that you can vote for Trump. If the logic is simply "I will vote for anything that isn't Biden," then you will eventually side with Stalin to defeat Hitler. A decision that cost the lives of 10's of millions. And what happens if Trump wins? Will the nation move left as fast as during his last presidency? Which is apparently something you agree with us on? How will that help to turn things around? That really is the main issue. You cannot support evil, and reap goodness. If we want our country to change, we need solid evangelism and discipleship, in conjunction with actually principled political engagement.

​​@@ewtcnewsI should have phrased myself better. I do not agree with you on every issue. I agree with you on his character flaws and that your critiques are valid and worthy of discussion. I do not agree with your conclusions. I'm glad to address your response. Trump did not fail the economy. Prior to COVID we were on the right track and had meaningful tax reduction on payrolls across the nation. Biden has fully failed us on the economy. He and the DNC squandered an amazing economic recovery and instead we have record inflation, insane spending and more wars than when Trump was in office. The constitution? Still intact and far less negatively impacted than what we experienced through George W or Biden. The unborn.. He appointed conservatives, it went back to states, and that's that. I think it's a secondary battle. We can't legislate morality. Even if it's illegal, it will continue. The church needs to minister to those women who have had or are seeking abortions. Otherwise the church is just thinking falsely that abortion prohibition is going to do the work of the Gospel. If that's the hill you want to die on, go for it. This is a presidential election, not an Elder or Deacon nomination. Regarding the country moving left if Trump gets elected, that is such a dumb point. "Vote for Biden so that the country will become more considerate through terrible policies, persecution and the enablement of LGBTQ policies in every facet of government." That is so incredibly stupid. "Don't vote for Ronald Reagan. Do you have any idea how far left the country will move if you help elect a conservative?" The country and society as a whole are moving to the left. Always have and always will. Revelation tells us that the world and the persecution of the church will get worse all the way until the end. There is no political savior coming. The church does not have a victory until the resurrection. As much as I dislike Trump, he is the front-runner. It's disheartening and embarrassing that the GOP couldn't get a better candidate, but here we are. I disagree with your statement that Trump is "evil". I would counter that Biden and the DNC are indeed evil. The Democratic party and Biden, not Trump, are fully aligned with every enemy of the Gospel.

Economy: Trump added almost $8 trillion to the debt, with the fastest rate of increase of any president ever. This includes the insane "stimulus" bills he signed, that flooded the country with money from nowhere (aka: kickstarted rapid inflation) The constitution: Fauci, lockdowns, and threatening to override states who don't lockdown. The unborn: Every law deals with morality, and we don't judge laws by peoples willingness to break them. The church ministering to women is not mutually exclusive to good law, and this conversation was about the civil realm. Go learn church history, and how hard the early church fought abortion and infanticide... and won. Child sacrifice is a hill I'm willing to die on, and I stand on that hill with the multitude of saints that have come before me. Now, answering your red herrings aside, that all has nothing to do with Trump. Trump has come out against abortion bans, criticized a state for going too far (despite saying it's up to the states), said that a six week ban "is a terrible thing," so on and so forth. Deal with the issue at hand. Moving left: You just slapped that strawman with a red herring right there. Those things weren't said or implied, what are you going on about? We never said or suggested voting for Biden, we even said the opposite! Biden is wicked and evil, but that doesn't make Trump a conservative hero. The country rapidly moved leftward under Trump, and the only question there is to what extent Trump is responsible. We have not always been moving left, but it has been the trajectory of the past 150 years, yes. You're putting forth a defeatist strawman here. Yes, the end will eventually come, but we're called to fight for righteousness while we're here. Not sit around like the Thessalonians. No one is looking for a "political savior," which is not something we argued for. In fact, we argued against that idea... How is the fact that Biden is evil, mean that Trump is not evil? You did the thing I asked not to be done, and defended Trump by saying "Biden is worse." No where in what you said did you establish a standard, then compare Trump to that standard. I'm not trying to be harsh, but please look at how you're analyzing your vote, because it's not grounded.

I never said Dawkins supported eugenics, as that's something I just don't know one way or the other about him. (Well, there are certain things I could say about that, but those are usually handled as separate topics) I did, while I was connecting him to the classical secular humanists of the 19th century, go on a tangent where I mentioned the types of beliefs those men had/spawned from their camps. Yes, without spending the time to clarify and support why I said that, it leaves it as a hanging comment. For that reason, it would have been better saved for a different conversation. From what I understand, the view that Darwin was fully against the burgeoning eugenics movement, is a minority opinion. The majority, again from what I understand, accept that he was sympathetic to, or even embraced to one degree or another, the eugenics movement. Keep in mind that his thought was evolving rapidly before Origin of Species, and especially after. The modern eugenics movement wasn't a thing until AFTER Origin was published, so it's unreasonable to pull quotes form that to understand how he viewed a movement that did not yet exist.

@@ewtcnews hi thanks for clarrifying. I suggest you read his autobiography. Eugenics is actually very anti Darwinian. Darwin was well aware of the problems of inbreeding. He knew because he not only carried out breeding experiments to establish the plasticity of hereditary factors and knew what happened if inbreeding went too far but he knew from the death of his own daughter that inbreeding likely had a part in his own daughters death. He knew evolution was brutal. And while for his era he was positively enlightened he did have views we'd now consider racist. Although he was against slavery and thought more of most indeigionous people than many like to believe. He thought one tribe was brutal when he witnessed a boy in the tribe beaten to death for dropping some eggs. However Darwins theory was distorted by the eygenesists Dawkins also has been widely criticised for suggesting we should be selfish because he titled a book the selfish gene. Reading the book you see a very different interpretation. He actually spends most of the book explaining that genes cooperate for thier own benefit. Unfortunately all sorts of businessmen and the likes failed to read the book beyond the title. If you really want to understand where he is comming from i suggest you read unweaving the rainbow or the greatest show on earth. Cheers

Not only was this conversation getting a bit long for KZbin comments, but you brought in several additional points. So please forgive me if I don't dive into everything. I'm also struggling to grasp why you're making certain statements, as I don't see them connecting. Are you saying Darwin seeing problems with inbreeding is proof he was opposed to the eugenics movement? Also, by whose metric is eugenics "very anti Darwinian"? I'm feeling your applying a modern standard to say that? As in "it is opposed to modern Darwinian thought." Though that doesn't make sense either. There's obviously some disconnect between how I'm reading what you wrote, and what you are meaning. We're not going to resolve this via comments here (just setting an expectation), but if you can clarify any of what you meant with regards to eugenics, I'll try to keep responding when I can.

Saying "I'm open to X being true/false" does not mean a person actually believes that. Now, I cannot judge what's in his mind, but as many (on both sides) have pointed out, he does not behave consistently with the traditional meaning of "agnostic." Likewise, "atheist" does not mean you are closed off to being proven wrong, only that in your current state you believe there is sufficient evidence to reject the existence of God. This is why he is billed as an atheist, even by his own publisher, as the definition you provided "...he doesn't believe in god he sees no evidence for gods." fits into both historic and modern usages of the term. (Yes this is being a little nitpicky and getting into the weeds. No, I'm not trying to say "you're wrong" or "well actually." Simply clarifying why he is most commonly described as an atheist)

@@ewtcnews hi quite happy genuinely to go to the weeds. Agnostic means literally not gnostic. It doesnt mean 50/50 fence sitting it means Im not gnostic. Atheist means not thesist usually means believes there is no god. Dawkins explians as he cant know there is no god he is technically an agnostic not an athiest. He makes this clear in the God delusion. A book he likely would never had written if creationsts werent trying to get religion taught in science classrooms. But yes what the public means is not necessarily what the words origins imply. But you dont need to read Richards mind because he devoted a chapter of his book to what he believes and how exactly he defines himself.

No one said it's 50/50 fence-sitting, but the historic meaning and usage of agnostic (without knowledge, or we cannot know) has been "neither affirm nor deny." It is a skeptical position, aka to suspend judgment. Dawkins does not use the word that way, nor describe himself (specifically in function) that way. He's taking a "deny until there is proof for" position, which is a novel take, and one he's been called out for by peers. Atheism is the position of denial, even if someone is open to their denial being disproven. My point about "not knowing what's in his mind" was in regard to my statement that "he does not behave consistently with... agnostic." The point is, that you can state whatever you want, but simply stating something is not proof you actually believe it.

I (Kyle) appreciate this feedback, and appreciate you watching the podcast. I do try to make an effort to accurately represent people and arguments. That's why this situation motivated me to talk about the way we interpret (and misinterpret) things. I would challenge you to look at Galileo, as I don't think you have a very three dimensional understanding of his life, work, and the trouble he got into. It's all a lot more complicated and fascinating than you may realize.

@@ewtcnews oh no Ive gone right into that one. I was being brief ive read a lot about the trial. Im aware of the political contexts. Im also aware he was an arrogant sod. However I dont think that means the church was right to threaten a then old sick man with torture. Im also well aware Tyco had cobbled together an alternative model to try to keep ptolomy's system alive. I also think the principle that he was fighting for is not anti christian. If you assume god made the universe then what is there is because of him is his creation. So if natute appears to contradict dogma you need to be prepared to accept that the dogma may be wrong. Especially as no where in the bible is it said the earth is the centre in any way that couldnt be open to interpretation. Anyway im subcribing to you channel i like honest disagreement. Keeps me on my toes and makes me think. Much appreciated.

Appreciate the sub, though most of our content is aimed directly at a church audience, and goes over church issues. AKA: it makes significant assumptions about the watcher's knowledge.

@@ewtcnews thats okay Im a former church goer and after a brief period of angry athiest phase (i was a member of a pretty insane church). I decided Id been unfair and re read the Bible quran and other theological stuff far from an expert but familar with many texts and interested in religion in general on all sides. Ill pick and choose what i watch but I appreciate any honest religious person. Some of my best friends and all that. I listen to a few religous vodcasts from time to time. Ta again.

Dawkins did none of these things you allude to. He never said he hated Christian belief: he just noted that he couldn't legitimize it. He had no part nor would he contemplate having any part in "accelerating the destruction of cultural outgrowths" unless you are trying to accuse him of destroying Notre Dame which was a disaster but unrelated to any malicious intent except the possibility of gross maintenance negligence on the part of those entrusted with its welfare.

He's very much a guest that will be back time and time again.

Many jabs but no substance. If you have substance, we'll hear you out, but if you just want to throw Swedish Fish, then there's not much we can do here.

@@ewtcnews Indeed

@@ewtcnews Why Benny Hinn?

This is the new era of apologetics. Not responding to atheists, but to neopagans and "Christians."

The term, yes, but not the theology. That's another thing he's relying on, and using to manipulate. He tries to set up an idea that the early church didn't talk about atonement, and the idea of atonement was developed over time.

@ewtcnews the theology is virtually nonexistent until the seed planted by Anselm which is based on medieval social culture. You need to distinguish between some of the fathers speaking of substitution vs PENAL substitution.

Again, that's simply not true. Terminology developed, specifically to clarify the difference from Catholic teaching, and that's where we get the more blatant use of "penal." Different descriptions have been favored more or less by different cultures, but the theology is not a modern invention. For example: “In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” -Eusebius "For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression" -Athanasius "He was put to death by God for their sins, who was humbled for us. For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross" -Jerome And so on. It's there, inescapably it's there. Beyond that, it's there Biblically.

@@ewtcnews I think you need to read the fathers themselves and not quote mine. Again, there is a reason no eastern tradition teaches Anselm's innovation. And there is a reason its not found in the west until anselm.

I don't think there's anything that will come from this conversation. All you are doing is making the same statement over and over, while rejecting evidence that disagrees with you.

It hurts to see how undervalued the OT is. Even truly theological conservative Christians don't study it enough.

I (Kyle) wasn't saying "it's not the Bible," but saying that you shouldn't argue from the translations choices in it. Just the same, you shouldn't argue from the English. Translations are translations, and though God is good to preserve His word accurately for all people at all times in all places, that does not mean we go to the meanings or choices of translated words to build a case about the meaning of the words.

​@@ewtcnewsThank you Kyle for the clarification!

We did an episode about that. It's on the old podcast channel, along with the rest of the podcast (many of which will be moved over to this channel over time) kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3fLaahrmbt2Ztksi=pM5xpQwj77NPBR3y

​@@ewtcnews Thanks! I'll check it out!

You'd probably like our full documentary, "Enemies Within the Church," available to stream or purchase at enemieswithinthechurch.com It doesn't focus solely on seminaries, but we do go over the "wokening" of many seminaries, and who's funding that.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm guessing English isn't your first language? Try focusing on one point, and state it in one sentence.

You just slapped a strawman with a red herring right there. It's also a self-defeating statement. Why? Well, because the core of the statement rests on the idea that a moral restriction on something is "creepy" (aka: wrong). If it is wrong to impose moral restriction, then the statement itself is wrong for imposing it's own moral opinion upon Evangelicals. The only way to make it valid, would be to reject the existence of morality, but since the statement is a imposition of morality, that cannot be the case. You may say "but I'm only saying it's wrong Evangelicals to do it." But that's shockingly arbitrary, would require significant additional argumentation to prove out, and isn't found in the statement itself. Which brings us back to you slapping a strawman with a red herring.

@@ewtcnews you don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you. Your words solid doesn't mean anything. And you can try and label me with the straw man or whatever you want. But it doesn't take away from the fact that you have given yourself over to a fictitious entity, a magic bean in the sky, which you have absolutely zero proof for. Is that straw man enough for you?

Not much we can to irrational attacks. If you have an actual argument, we're willing to hear it though.

@@ewtcnews Christians dig into the lives of other people. They vote to interfere with the lives of other people. They inflict their views and convictions on other people. And it's crazy. Want to know how I know? Because I was an Evangelical Christian for 35 years. There is no evidence of your Jesus. There is no evidence of a god. And as one who used to speak in tongues and believe in that God with all of us, heart, mind, soul and spirit, I assure you I know what I'm talking about. You can continue to live in your fantasy. Or, you can question. Your god believes in absolute truth, right? He shouldn't mind you asking a few honest questions then. A ton of questions that you should have asked a long time ago. Walr in your faith. But that's all. It is a pig and a waller. There's no truth there. No honesty there. It makes me sad that I was part of that for so long and so effectively I might add. I know that when people like you talk to me like you do that. You're not honest. You're not on us with yourself. You're not honest with the facts around you. Ask for the honest evidence of a god and see if it materializes.

Casting your pains and bitterness onto others is never going to help others nor yourself. I'm sorry to hear about your personal pains and burdens. I don't know your story, but as for me, I don't think there's a question you could come up with that I haven't asked (or at least haven't asked a similar one). But having contest of "who's asked what question" or "I've been a Christian X years," is ultimately meaningless for answering the ultimate question: "What is true." I can see you've gone through a lot, and I'd love to hear about what brought you to where you're at. Please reach out to me at [email protected], and let's have an actual conversation.