0:00

Hello friend. Thank you so much for downloading this

0:02

broadcast, and it is my sincere hope

0:04

that you will hear something that will encourage, equip,

0:06

edify, enlighten and then get you out

0:08

there in the marketplace of ideas. But before you go

0:10

and start listening to the broadcast, let me

0:12

take one moment and introduce you to this month's Truth

0:15

Tool. It's a book called misled,

0:17

and I chose this book because when you start listening

0:19

to some of the things that are being taught from the front

0:21

of the church today, it's disconcerting.

0:24

Legalism, overemphasis on prosperity,

0:26

a warped sense of grace, harmful

0:29

ideas that will turn people off from

0:31

the gospel and lead them away. That's

0:33

why I've chosen the book misled. The

0:35

purpose of this book is to help you learn how

0:37

to identify false teachings, while at

0:39

the same time finding joy in the gospel.

0:42

With all its power and its simplicity.

0:44

We're listener supported radio. These truth

0:46

tools are my way of not only helping you grow up

0:49

in him, but they help our program as well financially.

0:51

So simply call 877 Janet

0:53

58 877 Janet

0:55

58. Give a gift of any amount and I'll send

0:57

you as a way of saying thank you. A copy of the

0:59

book misled. You might also want

1:01

to go online in the market with Janet parshall.org

1:04

scolded the bottom of the page. There's the cover

1:06

of the book misled. Click it on make

1:09

your donation. Take you less than two minutes and

1:11

I'll send it right off to you again as my way of saying

1:13

thank you. While you're on that website, linger for

1:15

just a moment longer. Just below misled

1:18

is a description of what it means to be a partial partner.

1:20

Those are people who give every single month at

1:22

a level of their own choosing. They always

1:24

get the truth tool each and every month, but they get something

1:27

else. I put out a newsletter every

1:29

single week that includes a copy of my radio

1:31

transcript, and the only people who get that are my

1:33

partial partners, as well as an audio piece just

1:36

for those who are partial partners. So if

1:38

you want to support this program on a monthly basis,

1:40

again, you choose the level. My way of saying

1:42

thank you is sending you a copy of each and every

1:44

month's truth tool and a weekly copy

1:46

of our newsletter. So in the market with

1:48

Janet parshall.org, scroll to the bottom

1:50

of the page or call 877

1:52

Janet 58 877

1:55

Janet 58. Again this month's truth

1:57

tool misled to help you better

1:59

contend for the faith. And now please enjoy

2:01

the broadcast. Hi,

2:08

friends. This is Janet Parshall, and I want to welcome

2:10

you to the best of in the market. Today's

2:12

program is prerecorded so our phone lines

2:14

are not open. But I do hope you'll enjoy today's

2:16

edition of the Best of In the Market with

2:18

Janet Parshall.

2:19

Here are some of the news headlines we're watching.

2:21

The conference was over. The president won a pledge.

2:24

Americans worshiping government over God.

2:26

Extremely rare safety move by

2:28

a male 17 years.

2:29

The Palestinians and Israelis negotiated

2:32

a.

2:32

Deal is not predictable and

2:35

even.

2:48

Do you think that religion holds us back?

2:51

Well, considerably, yes. I

2:53

think religion does hold us back because

2:55

it's it's it's belief systems

2:57

which are outside ourselves. They're

2:59

not dealing with who we are. We're dealing

3:01

well, if God says this and God does that and

3:03

you go, well, what is God? We've

3:05

created that idea of God and we've

3:08

created it as a control issue.

3:10

You know, it's Adam and Eve. Eve

3:12

is I mean, the propaganda goes right

3:14

the way back. The Bible is one of the worst books ever

3:17

for me from my point of view, because it starts

3:19

with the idea that Adam's rib, you

3:21

know, out of Adam's rib, this woman was created,

3:23

and they'll believe it.

3:26

Welcome to In the Market with Janet

3:28

Parshall. I bet that's caught your attention. Now, if you

3:30

recognize that voice, it's because

3:32

Brian Cox does videos for a gazillion

3:34

products, including that hamburger

3:36

that has the double arches. But a lot

3:38

of you know him as Logan Roy, most

3:41

recently his success in the series succession.

3:43

But what you probably didn't know is obviously

3:45

he's got a raised fist toward God. So he

3:47

was interviewed on something called the Starting

3:49

Line podcast, and

3:51

he had some rather scathing words to talk

3:54

about religion. Now, I want you to hear this

3:56

one more time, because this sets the stage for our

3:58

conversation. Now he's entitled to his

4:00

opinion. Obviously, I subscribe to an all

4:02

comers policy. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.

4:05

But let's just see if there's any gravitas,

4:07

any heft, any merit to

4:09

what he is saying. Or is this

4:11

just an emotive rant that

4:13

this actor is dealing with? So once

4:15

again, Brian Cox aka Logan

4:17

Roy from succession in a podcast

4:20

he did recently listened to what he says about religion.

4:22

Do you think that religion holds us back?

4:25

Well, considerably, yes. I

4:27

think religion does hold us back because

4:29

it's it's its belief systems

4:31

which are outside ourselves. They're

4:33

not dealing with who we are. We're dealing

4:35

well. If God says this and God does that and

4:37

you go, well, what is God? We've

4:39

created that idea of God and we've

4:42

created it as a control issue.

4:44

You know, it's Adam and Eve. Eve

4:46

is I mean, the propaganda goes right

4:48

the way back. The Bible is one of the worst books ever

4:50

for me from my point of view, because it starts

4:53

with the idea that Adam's rib, you

4:55

know that out of Adam's rib, this woman was

4:57

created, and they'll believe it.

4:58

All right, so much to unpack there. And I certainly can't

5:00

do it by myself. I'm thrilled that we get to spend the

5:02

hour with Abdu Murray. This is a man

5:05

whom God designed to think and to

5:07

articulate and to contend for the faith, and

5:09

then called him to do the same thing

5:11

by teaching us to do just exactly that.

5:13

Abdu Murray is the president of Embrace the Truth

5:15

Ministry. He speaks all over the

5:17

globe. By the way. He's a marvelous apologist.

5:19

He's an attorney by training, getting his law

5:21

degree from the University of Michigan Law School.

5:24

But when he's not speaking, he's also writing,

5:26

and he's written several tremendously impactful

5:28

books. There are oh, so many I love

5:30

to pick every time he comes to visit, but this time

5:32

I've chosen his book, Saving Truth Finding

5:35

Meaning and Clarity in a Post-truth

5:37

world. There isn't a book that Abdu has written that I wouldn't

5:39

recommend, but this one I think, is germane to our conversation

5:42

because our focus this hour is going to be putting

5:44

under the microscope, if you will, the argument

5:46

of the atheist. We don't retreat. We're not fearful.

5:49

We engage. In fact, we ask the Lord

5:51

if it be his good and perfect will, that he might open

5:53

the door of opportunity for us to engage someone

5:56

who makes the declaration that what

5:58

is God? We created God. The Bible

6:00

is one of the worst books out there. Now I understand you have

6:02

an emotional response, but

6:04

remember what C.S. Lewis said. The will precedes

6:07

the emotion and the emotions are the caboose in

6:09

our train. It is fact, faith, feeling

6:11

in that order. So pushing your

6:13

emotions down, how would you, if you were

6:15

given the opportunity to sit down with Logan

6:17

Roy, aka Brian Cox?

6:19

If you had the opportunity to talk to him, what would

6:21

you say? So Abdu, the warmest of welcomes

6:24

I get it, he feels passionately about it.

6:26

But he was. It was a shotgun. It was scattershot,

6:28

if I can use that phrase. Because he talked

6:30

about religion holding us back. He said, What is

6:32

God? He made the God sound like it was a human construct.

6:35

And then he segued into the whole idea.

6:37

I assume he was talking about patriarchy without

6:39

using the word that somehow if Eve came

6:41

out of Adam's rib, well, it's malarkey and it's

6:43

propaganda that goes all the way back.

6:46

Uh, good sir, I leave to

6:48

you to unravel this yarn ball. Where would

6:50

you.

6:50

Start, boy? Uh, well, thanks, Janet, for

6:52

having me on, as always. It's such a privilege

6:54

and a pleasure. Um, uh, especially

6:56

to talk about this and to respond

6:58

to, uh, Brian Cox's, um,

7:01

uh, I think emotive, uh, uh,

7:04

rant. Essentially. I think the

7:06

first thing I would do is to, um, actually

7:08

ask a couple of follow up questions. Um, because

7:11

you made a lot of claims, he made a lot of statements.

7:14

Um, and the, the

7:17

method I proceed from as an attorney, based

7:19

on my training as an attorney, is that

7:21

you have to actually put the burden of proof where

7:24

it properly belongs. And there's

7:26

an easy way to respond to something like

7:28

this, which is to start a conversation as opposed

7:30

to, you know, competing statements. He says

7:32

the Bible is the worst book. I say, no, uh, here's

7:35

a bunch of reasons why it's great. Um, now,

7:37

now we're just having competing statistical

7:40

claims to each other, um, as opposed

7:42

to actually having a conversation. So I think opening

7:44

up with questions, um, and

7:46

part of the reason. You open up with questions

7:49

as you sort of diffuse the emotion

7:51

and the the emotional heft, because there's

7:53

not a lot of intellectual heft to what he said, but

7:55

there's a lot of emotional heft. There's a lot of existential

7:58

heft there. So opening up with questions

8:00

and the I think primary

8:02

question I would ask him

8:04

at every one of his statements is,

8:06

how do you know? Because he kept

8:09

on saying things like, we

8:11

made this idea of God up,

8:13

or it's the propaganda is right

8:15

there, you know, Adam's rib, which

8:17

wasn't really an argument. It was just a couple

8:19

of statements. So the first thing I would do

8:21

is to say, how do you know?

8:24

Because we make we mistake

8:26

statements for arguments all

8:28

the time. And an argument is made up

8:30

of statements. But a raw, naked

8:32

statement isn't an argument. An argument?

8:34

A good argument is a series of statements or

8:36

premises which if if both

8:39

true and logically connected, will lead

8:41

to a conclusion. He didn't make an argument,

8:43

he just said a bunch of stuff. Uh,

8:45

it has religion held us back? Yes, it

8:47

has most definitely. And he goes

8:49

on to watch a thing. So I would ask him, what

8:52

do you mean? What do you mean by some of these things? But

8:54

really, the heart of the matter is how

8:56

do you know that stuff? You made a bunch

8:58

of statements about religion,

9:00

the most powerful social

9:02

force, even outside of its truth, the most

9:05

powerful social force for change in

9:07

the history of the world. You made a bunch of statements

9:09

about that. You bear a significant

9:12

burden to prove what you just said, and then

9:14

let him prove it and see what he says.

9:16

Mm mm.

9:17

Great way to start the conversation. When

9:19

you think about it, we've never had a bad conversation

9:22

with Abdu Murray. This man teaches us how

9:24

to think. If I can borrow from the book of Jude,

9:26

which comes up often when we talk to Abdu Murray,

9:28

this is about contending. I love

9:30

the athleticism of that word, by the way.

9:32

It means putting some heft, some muscle, some preparation

9:35

into our ability to

9:37

respond, not to engage in

9:39

an argument. But as Abdu just taught us,

9:41

to start with a conversation open with

9:43

questions, burden of proof. We're going

9:45

to continue. We're going to look at those typical questions

9:48

that atheists ask. So you and I can

9:50

be prepared to give a reason for the hope that resides

9:52

within us. Abdu is with us the entire hour.

9:55

He is again president of Embraced the Truth Ministry

9:57

back after this. The

10:12

Bible tells us that in the latter days there will be

10:14

more and more false teachers, and we are hearing

10:16

from so many of them today. That's

10:18

why I've chosen misled as this month's truth

10:20

tool, learn how to recognize false and

10:22

harmful messages so rampant in the church

10:24

today. As for your copy of misled, when

10:26

you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call

10:29

eight 7758. That's 877

10:31

Janet 58 or go to in the market

10:33

with Janet parshall.org.

10:38

Arguing against the

10:40

existence of God is sort of pointless

10:43

in most circumstances, because

10:45

it's not so much that people believe in God

10:47

as they believe in belief in God. And

10:50

in fact, more people believe in belief in God than

10:52

believe in God. How do I know that?

10:55

With very few exceptions,

10:57

people who actually believe

10:59

in God also believe in belief in God. That

11:01

is, they think it's a good thing. They're all for

11:03

it. They're proud of the fact that they believe in God.

11:05

They're they think it's good. All

11:08

those people believe in belief in God. And then the people

11:10

who don't believe in God, they believe

11:12

many of them in just believe in belief

11:14

in God. So there's more, all told, and

11:17

the more I thought about it, the more I

11:19

explored this. I discovered how true that

11:21

is.

11:22

Hmm.

11:22

Daniel Dennett, by the way, was

11:25

an American philosopher and cognitive

11:27

scientist. He is research centered

11:29

on the philosophy of the mind, the philosophy of science,

11:31

the philosophy of biology, etc. and

11:33

now, sadly, Daniel knows beyond

11:35

a shadow of a doubt that God is very real because

11:37

he stepped into eternity mid-April

11:40

of 2024. But this speaks

11:42

beautifully into our Abdu Murray was taking

11:44

us. Abdu again, remember, is the

11:46

president of Embraced the Truth Ministry

11:48

and there's a parallelism between what you heard with

11:50

Brian Cox and what you just heard with Daniel Dennett.

11:52

And it really, again, is this idea

11:54

of the burden of proof. So he makes

11:57

this sort of circular. And if I might be so bold

11:59

that this is Dennett now makes this rather circular

12:01

and vacuous argument about

12:03

God and belief in God. I don't know how

12:05

you would separate the two other than

12:07

to say, I suppose as an atheist, I

12:10

believe there's a God and I don't believe in him, which

12:12

is kind of a nonsensical statement. But there

12:14

is yet, I think, again, the opportunity

12:16

for us to approach this with the burden of proof

12:18

argument. So is it the wrong question,

12:21

Abdul, for somebody to say, prove to me the existence

12:23

of God?

12:25

Um, well, it's interesting because I don't

12:27

think it's the wrong question to say, prove to

12:29

me that God exists because I understand

12:31

where they're coming from. The question I

12:33

always have back is when you say prove.

12:35

What do you mean? Because if you mean

12:37

that, prove to me with a degree

12:40

of certainty that that

12:42

that leaves absolutely zero

12:44

room for questioning, let alone

12:46

doubt. Well, then I'm not going to be able to do that,

12:48

because I can't prove to you that I actually

12:50

am a real person and not some kind of a

12:52

hologram, and that you're not in the matrix

12:55

and that you're not being, you know, your

12:57

brain is in a vat that's being

12:59

stimulated by some mad scientist to think you're

13:01

actually alive. I couldn't prove that

13:03

to you. Beyond. Any

13:05

possible questioning because of course that's

13:07

possible. But it's not. It's highly

13:10

unlikely. So I always ask, what

13:12

do you mean by the word prove?

13:14

And also what do we mean by the word argumentation?

13:17

Because as I said before,

13:19

argumentation has to have a certain level

13:21

of logic that flows

13:23

from it. I hear the clip from Daniel Dennett, for

13:25

example, and he said that belief in

13:27

God is more prevalent. Sorry. Belief

13:29

in belief in God is more prevalent than

13:31

actual belief in God. And it sounds

13:34

a little bit like gobbledygook. And I don't want to

13:36

say that because he's actually quite a powerful thinker.

13:39

But that particular line of thought

13:41

doesn't really mean anything to me, because

13:43

I always have this question of, well, so what

13:45

if belief in belief in God is

13:47

more prevalent than belief in God? Does

13:49

that mean that belief in God is? I don't see the connection.

13:52

It's a non-sequitur. It doesn't get anywhere right.

13:54

Because then I can also say that belief in neuroscience

13:57

is actually more common than

13:59

belief in belief in neuroscience.

14:02

Um, and he was a neuroscientist, a cognitive

14:04

scientist. Um, so where

14:06

do we get we we get nowhere with that.

14:08

So it really comes down to what do you mean

14:10

when you say, prove to me that God exists?

14:13

Um, I can offer you evidence that

14:15

God exists and to

14:17

a certain degree of certainty. And

14:19

that doesn't mean absolute 100%

14:22

uncontroverted certainty, because such a thing

14:24

does not exist. Um, uh,

14:26

it with many, many things. I know certain

14:28

things to be true. Like the fact that I'm thinking

14:30

right now, um, that thinking

14:32

exists, uh, is proven

14:34

true, but the fact that I'm actually thinking about thinking.

14:36

So there are certain things we know that are

14:39

almost 100% certain. But

14:41

this idea of proving God, we have to ask the question,

14:43

what does that mean? And what are the levels of burdens

14:45

of proof do I have to meet? Because that's

14:47

really important key thing to because people say, prove

14:49

to me God exists. Well, to what degree,

14:52

by a preponderance of the evidence, beyond

14:54

all reasonable doubt, beyond all possible doubt.

14:56

What do you mean by that? And that's really important

14:59

because it sets the stage

15:01

for what a reasonable conversation actually is.

15:03

Yes. By the way, for friends

15:05

who don't know, you just use several legal standards

15:08

that are always used in the law about proving

15:10

innocence or guilt. You also have pointed

15:12

out that really, in some respects and all,

15:15

and this is a preface that I will say

15:17

as often as is needed, but the preface exists

15:19

whether I say it or not. This is always through a

15:21

grace narrative. You're not trying to

15:23

convince them that they're wrong. You're

15:25

trying to be an ambassador for Christ and cause them

15:27

to do the thinking so they might be receptive

15:29

to the gospel, but in some respects,

15:32

is it not the burden of proof? Rather,

15:34

again, using another legal term doesn't fall on

15:36

me, the believer. But doesn't it fall

15:38

on the non-believer? Could I not likewise,

15:40

just say you're asking me to provide

15:42

vacuous though it may be because you haven't told me

15:44

what constitutes the validity,

15:47

the proof that you're looking for. Could I not

15:49

turn that around and say, and I don't know, I would use this

15:51

as a technique, but I'm just thinking this through critically.

15:54

Couldn't you flip that and say, but where is your

15:56

burden of proof that he doesn't exist? In other words,

15:58

the onus doesn't necessarily fall on me. Where's

16:01

your evidence to the fact that he doesn't exist because

16:03

you don't believe in a belief in God,

16:05

right?

16:06

Yeah. Right. Well, this is this is, uh,

16:08

interesting because what would they what they would

16:10

say back and I've seen this, uh, oftentimes

16:12

is there's two ways to define atheism or

16:15

to express atheism. You can

16:17

say, I believe there is no God.

16:20

Um, so that's a positive statement. You're actually

16:22

you have a, have a belief statement. I believe

16:24

God does not exist. Or you could

16:26

say I lack belief in God, which

16:28

sounds like the same exact thing, but it's not exactly

16:30

the same thing. So when I say I believe there

16:32

is no God, it's like me saying I believe there are no

16:35

unicorns. Um uh, I

16:37

don't have evidence of the unicorns

16:39

existence. And if they

16:41

did exist, you'd expect there to be evidence for

16:43

them. And so I currently

16:45

don't don't believe that unicorns exist because

16:47

there's not enough evidence to convince me of that.

16:50

And therefore, I think that these

16:52

mythical creatures that we can trace the origin of

16:54

them and all that stuff, they don't exist.

16:56

Um, versus the different claim, which is

16:58

to say, I lack belief in unicorns because

17:00

I would believe if you gave me enough

17:02

evidence. But since you haven't given me

17:04

enough evidence, I don't have to, uh, prove

17:07

anything because I'm waiting for you to prove it

17:09

to me. So if the Christian says

17:11

God exists, the burden rests

17:13

on the Christian to prove that God exists.

17:16

If an atheist says God does not exist,

17:18

it now is on the atheist to

17:20

prove the statement they just made. But

17:23

if they say I lack belief in God

17:25

until there's enough evidence, then they can say there's

17:27

no burden. Now that isn't actually true.

17:29

We can prove that there is still a burden

17:31

on the atheist, even if he says I lack belief

17:34

in God, and we can get to that in a minute. But

17:36

there's a way around that.

17:37

Good. Let's pick it up at exactly that point.

17:39

When we come back, Abdul Murray is with

17:41

us. I've got a link to his website, by the way. He's

17:43

got a fabulous podcast that he

17:45

does wonderful, brilliant pieces

17:48

done on video that get you to think he

17:50

reacts to the culture and the world around us. Again,

17:52

a wonderful author, just one of his books,

17:54

Saving Truth Finding Meaning and Clarity

17:56

in a Post-truth world. And I have a link to embrace

17:59

the Truth Ministries. It's easy. Embrace

18:01

the truth. Org back after this.

18:12

There is no big brother in the sky.

18:14

It is a horrible idea

18:17

that there is somebody who owns us,

18:20

who makes us, who supervises

18:22

us, waking and sleeping,

18:25

who knows our thoughts, who can convict

18:27

us of thought crime just for

18:29

what we think, who can

18:32

judge us while we sleep for things

18:34

that might occur to us in our dreams?

18:36

Who can create us sick

18:38

as apparently we are, and then

18:40

order us on pain of eternal torture

18:43

to be well again, to demand

18:45

this, to wish this to be true is to

18:47

wish to live as an abject

18:49

slave.

18:51

Christopher Hitchens, a man who wrote

18:53

over 18 books on faith, culture,

18:55

politics and religion. He was a

18:57

contributing editor to Vanity Fair. He's

19:00

Oxford educated, and

19:02

I have to tell you, I had the privilege of

19:04

having my Pilgrim's Path cross his multiple

19:06

times here in Washington, D.C., and there was

19:08

not a time where I engaged

19:11

Christopher, where I didn't walk away brokenhearted.

19:13

He has now stepped into eternity, and

19:15

all of his arguments against God have come

19:17

to an end. And that's where our heart should

19:19

be. Our heart should break for these people. Again, it isn't

19:21

a matter of picking up a stone. It's a matter of

19:23

asking God to break our hearts so that in a winsome

19:25

fashion, remember our charge

19:28

as ambassadors for Christ, to know how to winsomely

19:30

engage those who make the kind

19:32

of statements. And if you can't hear the heart pain

19:35

in what Christopher just said, you're not listening with the

19:37

ears on your heart. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth

19:39

speaks. And this is a man who's very,

19:41

very angry at God. And that comes through again

19:44

and again and again. Abdu Murray is

19:46

helping us figure out if you and I had the opportunity

19:48

to talk to someone like a Christopher Hitchens or someone

19:50

who has this same worldview, how would we

19:52

then respond? Abdul, of course, has

19:54

done this on multiple occasions. In his own

19:57

Pilgrim's journey. He is the president

19:59

of Embraced the Truth Ministry, a marvelous

20:01

author, and just does a tremendous job

20:03

of teaching us the church how to contend for

20:05

the faith. But there's a continuum here

20:07

between Brian Cox and Daniel Dennett and

20:09

now Christopher Hitchens. The declarative statement

20:11

yet again, there is no God. And

20:13

then, of course, what Christopher would often

20:15

do in both his writing and his public speaking,

20:17

he would personify God, a God he

20:19

alleges to not have believed in, but

20:22

gave God characteristics all the time,

20:24

like quote, creating us evil, judging

20:26

our thoughts, thoughtcrime, etc. he

20:29

impugns all of these characteristics and

20:31

no one ever really challenged

20:33

him on a regular basis to say burden

20:35

of proof. So pick it up from that point, Abdu, because

20:38

I want to know. I hear this again, a

20:40

lot of vitriol, a lot of pain particularly.

20:42

And there's a distinctive there between Dennett and Hitchens.

20:44

I think Hitchens is just immersed

20:46

in so much pain. Um, how

20:49

do you begin to respond to the things that he said?

20:51

Yeah. And there's so much, uh,

20:53

that's actually a responsible,

20:55

uh, in that in a way that I think

20:57

speaks to the things that he cares about. You know,

20:59

you look at someone like Hitchens and

21:01

others, and they have this outrage about

21:04

the what they would call the immorality of God.

21:06

In fact, in God is not great. Um,

21:08

which is Hitchens most popular book, I believe,

21:10

or at least one of his, uh, recent ones.

21:12

Before he passed. Um, I

21:15

think it was called God is Not Great How Religion

21:17

Poisons Everything, which actually runs

21:19

contrary to the to the data. Uh, Christian

21:21

religion, for example, has benefited

21:23

everything. It's touched, um, outside

21:26

of the foibles of the various Christians who

21:28

have messed up over time. But the message

21:30

itself has changed so many good, so many

21:32

things for the better. Um, there

21:34

is this outrage about evil

21:36

and about suffering and about the morality

21:39

of, of of controlling people

21:41

or judging them for their thoughts.

21:43

Um, but so my question then comes

21:46

to this, uh, even if you're trying

21:48

to claim you don't have a burden to prove

21:50

that God exists, doesn't exist,

21:52

you do have the burden to prove what you

21:54

do actually claim exists, like objective

21:57

morality, the very morality you're

21:59

using to judge the God of the Bible as being

22:01

a terrible, to quote Dawkins,

22:03

a terrible character in all of fiction.

22:06

Um, you're using a morality to judge

22:08

him. And so you believe in the existence

22:10

of objective moral values and duties,

22:13

but you don't believe in a

22:15

a referent. You don't believe in a transcendent

22:18

source of those objective morality

22:20

and duties, uh, more

22:23

values and duties. And so the burden

22:25

does rest on you. No matter how you shake it.

22:27

The burden does rest on you whenever you

22:29

employ morality, whenever

22:31

you employ logic to

22:33

prove or disprove something's existence,

22:35

you're implicitly arguing that

22:37

logic and morality actually exist.

22:40

And so you still are making a positive

22:42

statement about something's existence. So now

22:44

the burden that goes to the atheist goes to

22:46

Hitchens, goes to Dawkins, goes to

22:48

Dennett. Uh, to prove that rationality

22:51

makes any kind of sense if God doesn't exist,

22:53

that moral values and duties exist,

22:55

if God doesn't exist, or that

22:58

the universe exists and it makes

23:00

any kind of sense, its existence makes any kind of sense

23:02

absent God. So the burden

23:04

always goes back because everyone's got a

23:06

worldview. And Christopher Hitchens in,

23:09

in that, um, uh, segment. Just

23:12

espoused a worldview. A worldview is

23:14

simply how you view the world, and you have to

23:16

actually provide reasons

23:18

for why your worldview actually

23:20

makes any kind of sense. So no matter how you try to

23:22

get out of it by, you know, skeptic, by sort

23:24

of sleight of hand by saying, oh, I don't believe

23:27

there is no God. I lack belief in God.

23:29

But you do believe in some things, and

23:31

those things have to be explained. If God

23:33

doesn't exist, you still have to explain

23:35

it.

23:35

I would not use this technique in engaging

23:38

an atheist, but it's something just to think about internally

23:40

in preparation. Prayerful preparation if you're

23:42

going to have one of these conversations. I'm

23:44

wondering, just as a thought, if

23:46

somehow the question of

23:48

Is God real presupposes

23:51

that there's going to have to be a response. So if you

23:53

make the declarative statement, no, he does not,

23:55

then you're quote off the hook. If he does,

23:57

uh oh, now you're going to have to make a series

24:00

of decisions. So I wonder sometimes, particularly

24:02

when the kicking against the goads is so evident

24:04

in so much of the clips that we're hearing and in the writing

24:06

of these atheists is that they think that

24:08

somehow it gives them a pass. If there is a God,

24:10

something is going to be required of me. If there's a

24:12

God, I'm going to have to decide what my relationship

24:14

is going to be. If there's a God, if there's a moral

24:17

code giver, there's a moral code. And now

24:19

I have to decide whether or not I'm going to subscribe to

24:21

that moral code or not. Let me just leave that

24:23

lingering there and get your take on that when we come back,

24:25

Abdu. Because again, you know,

24:28

uh, you study motive in the law, but I'm

24:30

wondering if sometimes that pushback,

24:32

particularly the ardent pushback, is don't

24:34

make me have to acknowledge that he exists,

24:36

because in so doing, I will

24:38

have to make some choices that are uncomfortable.

24:42

Abdul Murray is with us. We are talking about

24:44

how you and I would answer questions from

24:46

atheists. Abdu, of course, president of Embraced

24:48

the Truth Ministry and I want you to check

24:50

out and know their ministry well and go

24:52

to this website often. Embrace the truth.org

24:55

back after this. Tired

25:07

of the endless, biased spin you hear on mainstream

25:09

media and in the market. We're using God's Word

25:11

as our guide as we examine today's events, and

25:13

we want you to be informed and bold about his

25:15

truth. This is a listener supported program,

25:17

so if you value what you hear and you want us to continue

25:19

on your station, become a partial partner with your

25:21

monthly support, call 877

25:24

Janet 58. That's 877

25:26

Janet 58 or go online

25:28

to in the market with Janet parshall.org.

25:36

I didn't seek to disprove

25:38

God. I was

25:41

convinced that I had a sincere obligation

25:43

right there in first Peter 315 that

25:45

demands that every Christian be ready at all times

25:47

to provide the reason for

25:50

the faith that you have. And when

25:52

I read through, that reason

25:54

doesn't mean testimonial.

25:57

The Greek word that's used there is actually logos.

25:59

And while there are some apologists that will spin

26:02

that as Christ is the word and just point to Christ,

26:04

I looked at it as look, no, no, no,

26:06

if there if my God is real and I'm convinced

26:08

that my God is real and this is

26:11

demonstrable, God interacts with

26:13

reality. God answers prayer. God helps

26:15

us. God guides

26:17

us, and everything happens according to God's will.

26:19

There was not a doubt in my mind that this

26:21

was true, even if we couldn't always

26:24

pin God down. You know thou shalt

26:26

not put the Lord thy God to the test. And

26:28

God had his reasons. And and

26:30

somehow or another, these reasons made

26:32

sense to me at the time, and now

26:35

they are beyond absurd.

26:37

Matthew Dillahunty he is an

26:39

American atheist activist. He's

26:41

former president of the atheist community

26:43

of Austin. That was a position he had from 2006

26:46

to 2013. And then between

26:48

2000 and 5 and October 2022,

26:50

he was the host of a televised webcast called

26:52

The Atheist Experience. This

26:54

goes back again to this burden

26:57

of proof, and I'm so thankful that you're hearing

26:59

all of these different variations of the same

27:01

real baseline issue.

27:03

You believer have to provide a burden

27:05

of proof. And so Abdu Murray is teaching

27:07

us how you and I should, could and will

27:09

respond when we get asked questions like this. And

27:11

if you're out in the marketplace, you will most assuredly

27:14

get these kinds of questions. Abdu is

27:16

president of Embraced the Truth Ministry. He

27:18

speaks all over the world. He answers

27:20

questions. He contends for the faith. He does

27:22

exactly what he's teaching us how to do today,

27:25

and that is really how to winsomely

27:27

engage for the cause of the cross,

27:30

being ambassadors for Christ and helping us

27:32

understand the nuances of the argument.

27:34

Not to fall in the sand traps and the straw man

27:36

arguments rather, but to really understand

27:38

what's being said. Now, I want you to take apart Dillahunt's

27:41

statement in a minute, Abdu, but I. I left

27:43

a question on the table and again, I think it's just

27:45

part of us as believers reasoning together

27:47

for a moment. And I've often wondered if

27:49

sometimes the atheists pushed back with

27:52

such athleticism because

27:54

they're afraid that if the answer to the question

27:56

does God exist? Is yes, it's

27:58

going to require something of each

28:00

and every one of us. It's a price some of

28:02

us are willing to pay. It's a price. Others don't

28:05

want to come anywhere near having

28:07

to ever pay. So it's just easier.

28:09

And if I might be so bold, more comfortable

28:11

to say God does not exist, even

28:13

though in truth, while there are some great

28:15

thinkers that we've heard from today in these clips, their

28:18

arguments are wantonly vacuous in far

28:20

too many cases. So talk to me about

28:22

this idea of maybe the pushback

28:24

comes from I don't want to have to choose because I'm going

28:26

to have to do something with this Jesus of

28:28

Nazareth if he does exist.

28:30

Yeah, I think that this is.

28:31

Such an important thing. Janet

28:33

and I actually do use this in my conversations

28:36

at the right time, when I've prayed it through

28:38

and I've listened to what someone's actually said,

28:40

I've actually brought this up a couple of times.

28:42

You know, Julie Exline out of, uh, Case

28:44

Western Reserve University, did a study

28:47

a while back, and her original intent

28:49

was not to talk about atheism

28:51

in specific. It was actually to measure anger levels

28:53

towards God across different religious

28:55

systems. But she had to use atheists

28:57

in, in the study, in the sample

28:59

size for control reasons. And what she

29:01

found was surprising because she found that those people

29:04

who exhibited the highest level of anger level

29:06

towards God were those who claimed he

29:08

didn't exist. Um uh,

29:10

and it's not because it's a

29:12

joke. It's actually something real and tangible

29:14

and true, just like you were saying,

29:16

if you don't hear the heartbreak and the anger in someone's

29:19

voice like Hitchens, um, what's going

29:21

on is oftentimes people don't just don't

29:23

disbelieve in God's existence, they

29:25

disbelieve in God's goodness. And so

29:28

it's not that God doesn't exist, it's that God

29:30

is dead to me. Uh, and this is actually

29:32

empirically verifiable. And then I think

29:34

of someone like Thomas Nagel, for example,

29:37

um, a professor of philosophy out of New York University,

29:39

an absolute giant of intellectual faith,

29:41

sorry, intellectual issues. Uh, in an atheist,

29:44

he says this. I want atheism

29:46

to be true. And I made uneasy by the fact

29:48

that some of the most intelligent and well

29:50

informed people I know are religious believers.

29:53

This is the this is the important part. It isn't

29:55

that I don't believe in God and naturally

29:57

hope that I'm right in my beliefs. It's that I hope

29:59

there is no God. I don't want there

30:01

to be a God. I don't want the universe

30:03

to be like that. Um, um,

30:06

this and this translates into real dialogue.

30:08

So a few years ago, I was doing a

30:10

dialogue on what is the good life and how do we

30:12

get there with an atheist professor at

30:14

a major North American university.

30:16

And the first question that was asked of us,

30:19

both of us, to respond to by the moderator was,

30:21

are humans determined or are we free?

30:24

And I think, of course, we have free will.

30:26

And he said, I find the question

30:28

meaningless. It doesn't help us at all, because

30:30

if we're determined, we wouldn't know it. And so you

30:32

might as well act like we have free will. Etc.

30:34

etc. so catch what he said. The

30:37

question is meaningless, or at least not helpful

30:39

about whether we have determination, whether

30:41

we've been determined or we have our own

30:43

free will. That's what he said. At

30:45

the end of the dialogue,

30:47

he said, I find the idea that

30:50

God is in control of my life to

30:52

be completely repulsive, and

30:54

I don't want the universe to be like that,

30:56

that just I find that repulsive. To

30:58

which I asked him, hold on a second.

31:00

The very first question you

31:03

that we were asked was, are we determined or do

31:05

we have free will? And you found the question to

31:07

be unhelpful and kind of meaningless.

31:09

So if we're determined by nature,

31:11

you find that to be not repugnant,

31:14

just simply uninteresting.

31:16

But if God determines our lives

31:18

somehow, it's repugnant now. So

31:20

can you help me with the distinction between

31:23

why you find naturalistic determinism

31:25

to be, you know, sort of morally

31:27

neutral? Yeah, yeah. Theistic to be.

31:30

It was all a matter of cost. He did not

31:32

want the universe to be that way.

31:34

And so I think we can point these

31:36

things out. It's important that we do.

31:39

And that led to a really fruitful conversation

31:41

actually, because you saw it wasn't evidence, it was

31:43

Will.

31:44

Mhm. Wow.

31:46

Amazing evidence. Not well.

31:48

So let me go back to what we just

31:50

heard from Matthew Dillahunty when he said

31:52

he went to first Peter 315 always

31:54

be ready to give. He used the word

31:56

reason. Some translations say explanation

31:59

to anyone who asks you for a reason

32:02

for your hope. So what he did is he superimposed

32:04

his own eisegesis, which meant in his

32:06

case, as he interpreted that verse, that

32:08

reason meant burden of proof. Exactly

32:10

what we're talking about. I'm not sure that's

32:12

what that verse says, number one. And number two, this

32:14

goes as a continuum in our conversation thus

32:16

far. Is he really asking for

32:19

a preponderance of evidence that

32:21

God exists when he said

32:23

he found in the end, his final conclusion?

32:25

And clearly at one point in time he studied the word.

32:27

He knew what it had to say, but now he finds

32:29

it, quote, utterly repugnant. So talk to me

32:31

about his response. And again, if

32:34

we had the opportunity to talk with him, how we could

32:36

deal with him on this first Peter 315

32:38

statement about reason equals burden

32:40

of proof.

32:41

Yeah.

32:42

Um, you know, I had the pleasure of actually talking with him,

32:45

uh, some time ago, one of my first debates ever

32:47

with an atheist that got recorded was with

32:49

Matt Dillahunty. Wow. Uh, on

32:51

Should America Be a nation under God. And

32:53

so we that was our first my one of my first, uh, recorded

32:56

debates with an atheist. Um, uh,

32:58

and so we had an interesting and fascinating conversation

33:01

about this. Um, a couple of things

33:03

is I think there's still a burden of proof

33:05

in Matt Dillahunty talks about burden of proof all the

33:07

time. So we have three different levels of burden of proof

33:10

in the law. We have preponderance of evidence, which

33:12

is the lowest burden. All you have to do is show that it's

33:14

more likely than not with the evidence

33:16

that a certain claim is true, and

33:18

that's good enough to believe it. We do this in civil cases

33:21

all the time, you know, whether it's wrongful

33:23

death or negligence, whatever. Uh, then

33:25

in fraud cases, which sound a little bit more criminal,

33:27

like even in civil fraud cases, we have a higher

33:30

standard, which is the great weight of

33:32

the evidence, which means you have to prove a pretty

33:34

high burden to bring evidence that someone

33:36

committed fraud. And then in the criminal

33:38

context, we have the burden of proof being

33:40

beyond all reasonable doubt. Now,

33:42

the reason we have that those levels

33:45

of burdens of proof that are different is because

33:47

of the consequences and the stakes involved.

33:49

So the state is required to prove

33:51

something beyond a reasonable doubt and not a

33:53

preponderance of evidence when it comes to criminal

33:55

guilt, because freedom is at

33:58

stake, and we want the state to have to

34:00

really prove its case before

34:02

someone gets locked up, either for life or

34:04

the death penalty or whatever we want that we

34:06

we naturally would want that burden to be

34:08

higher. Uh, but in a civil case

34:10

where money is involved, typically we don't

34:12

require that high of a burden of proof because

34:15

it's just money and there's no huge

34:17

stakes involved. So here's

34:19

what I would say is that in a situation

34:22

where I have to prove to you to show

34:24

that God exists or provide a reason for

34:26

the hope that I have, and I don't have to provide

34:29

all the reasons, just a reason, just

34:31

a just a reasoned sort of response

34:33

to why the Christian faith makes sense of the world.

34:36

I can show you that by preponderance of

34:38

the evidence, because the stakes for you

34:40

believing if you believe and you're wrong,

34:42

the stakes aren't that high. Because

34:44

if there is no God, you just wink out of existence

34:47

anyway. So the stakes

34:49

for me proving God exists

34:51

aren't nearly that high. So I have a

34:53

lower burden of proof, which is a preponderance of the evidence.

34:56

You would be completely reasonable to

34:58

believe that God exists. If

35:00

God is the best explanation for the

35:02

things you already believe exists, like

35:05

morality, the universe, all these

35:07

things. Conversely, however,

35:09

as an atheist, if you're trying

35:11

at some point you have to show that

35:14

God does not explain human

35:16

rationality, the universe, um,

35:19

uh, moral standards, all this stuff, you

35:21

you believe those things exist, but

35:23

you don't have an adequate explanation for

35:25

why they exist. And so

35:27

your burden is higher than my burden

35:29

because the stakes are huge.

35:31

If there is a God and he

35:33

wants. Relationship with me and

35:36

I don't believe in him and therefore lose

35:38

that relationship. The stakes could

35:40

not be higher, which means that the

35:42

atheist, in order to prove

35:44

that morality and reason

35:46

and science and rationality exist

35:49

and make sense absent God,

35:51

his or her burden is so much

35:53

higher than mine, they have to prove it

35:55

beyond a reasonable doubt, and they can't

35:57

do that. So that's how the burden

35:59

actually shifts, because we're not about

36:02

talking about what the

36:04

what does God exist? We're actually asking

36:06

the question, what best explains

36:09

reality as we know it, God

36:11

or no God? And I think the

36:13

preponderance of the evidence, and I would even venture

36:16

to say beyond all reasonable doubt,

36:18

is that God explains the universe

36:20

better than anything else does. And

36:22

now the atheist is left with having to counter

36:25

that. And that, to me is a very

36:27

high burden indeed, with great stakes.

36:29

Absolutely. Why God didn't make a mistake

36:31

when he called you to be trained as an attorney, because you

36:33

are such a good advocate for the faith.

36:36

Abdu Murray is with us again. I want to lead

36:38

you to our information page at In the Market

36:40

with Janet parshall.org. There

36:42

isn't a book Abdu has written that I wouldn't recommend

36:44

this time around. I've put up saving Truth,

36:47

finding meaning and clarity in a post-truth

36:49

world. And also we'll link to his website so you

36:51

can see the great podcast that he does

36:54

as well. We're going to take a break. Come right back.

36:56

More with Abdu Murray right after this.

37:05

Since this is a

37:08

Christian institution, since I know

37:10

that Dinesh D'Souza is a Christian, and

37:12

since we are living in a society that

37:14

is Christian in its culture,

37:16

I'm essentially going to talk about the Christian

37:19

or the Judeo-Christian conception

37:21

of God. And that's

37:23

the being that I think I can claim

37:25

does not exist. There may be other

37:28

things in the universe people can talk about,

37:30

you know, some vague life

37:32

force or whatever, which it's

37:34

much more difficult to prove or disprove.

37:37

It's the existence of such a being,

37:39

but of the Christian,

37:42

the Judeo-Christian God. I think

37:44

we can be clear that that being

37:46

does not exist. And the reason we

37:48

can be clear about that is by

37:50

looking at the world around us.

37:53

The world around us contains

37:55

an immensity of suffering.

37:58

As far as we know, it always has

38:00

contained as long as there have been sentient

38:03

beings, which goes back many millions

38:05

of years and immensity

38:07

of suffering, can

38:09

we really believe that a God who is described

38:12

as all powerful,

38:14

all knowing, and all

38:16

good, has created

38:18

such a world? I

38:20

think this is the the

38:23

major stumbling block to belief in the Christian

38:25

God. It's always been for me, the thing

38:27

that has made it impossible for

38:29

me to believe in such a God.

38:32

A God who created, who deliberately

38:34

and knowingly created a world like this

38:37

one, could not be a good

38:39

being. We might say

38:41

either this

38:43

kind of God was evil

38:46

or this God was

38:48

a bungler. There

38:50

are no other options.

38:53

But Christians, of course, deny

38:55

either of those alternatives.

38:59

Pete singer. Doctor Pete Singer, Australian

39:01

moral philosopher, ethicist. By

39:03

the way. He was Professor Emeritus

39:06

of Bioethics at Princeton University,

39:08

and this raises a very important

39:10

topic that weaves its way, I think, continually

39:13

through the worldview of most atheists.

39:15

It certainly was predominant with

39:17

Christopher Hitchens, who I think struggled with this issue

39:19

quite a bit. And that's the idea of evil

39:22

and suffering. And honestly, believers struggle

39:24

with this issue as well. So since

39:26

we've walked out of the garden, the sin sick

39:28

world brings with it suffering and pain

39:30

and sorrow and tears. And so therefore,

39:32

God cannot be a good being. If we have

39:35

all of these things that are happening in the world and that stymies

39:37

some believers, how then do we engage the

39:39

atheist who puts that as the argument for the non-existence

39:42

of God before us? Abdul again is president

39:44

of Embrace the Truth Ministry. And Abdul,

39:46

this is a tricky one because before believers

39:48

engage in the marketplace on this with an

39:50

atheist or a skeptic or a cynic, they

39:53

need to resolve this in their own mind

39:55

as well. First. So talk to me about the problem

39:57

of evil.

39:58

Yeah, and.

39:59

I think that you're you couldn't have said it better

40:01

in terms of the way we all wrestle with it, which is

40:03

why such a powerful argument, because

40:05

it's not something we can't identify with.

40:07

We can't identify with this one.

40:09

Uh, and if you haven't gone through

40:11

some level of suffering, you know, someone who has.

40:14

And if you don't know someone who has and you haven't

40:16

done it, just wait a while. It's going to

40:18

happen. Um, so we have to contend

40:21

and all of us ask, uh, it's interesting

40:23

that, uh, Doctor Singer started off with

40:25

this idea that we can disprove God's

40:28

existence in terms of the Christian conception,

40:30

much easier because of the problem

40:32

of evil versus some vague notion

40:34

of a divine being or some impersonal

40:37

force, um, of other religious

40:39

systems or whatever it might be. And

40:41

I think it's funny because it's

40:43

exactly the opposite. That's true.

40:45

And what I want to, uh, hopefully

40:47

get to by the time I finish my remark here

40:50

is that, um, it's actually suffering

40:52

that proves the existence of the Christian God

40:55

as opposed to disproves the existence

40:57

of the Christian God in distinction to all

40:59

other conceptions or even other

41:01

possible conceptions of who

41:03

God actually is.

41:05

Uh, the first thing you have to contend with,

41:08

uh, when when dealing with this subject,

41:11

is whether or not there's an inherent contradiction,

41:13

uh, an inherent contradiction or a

41:15

logical contradiction means that it's it's

41:17

logically impossible for a being

41:20

who is all good, all powerful, and all

41:22

knowing to exist in a world where

41:24

suffering exists. Now, um,

41:26

most folks don't agree with this.

41:28

Atheists don't even hold to this idea anymore

41:31

that it's logically impossible for

41:33

God to exist in a world where suffering

41:35

exists, because they acknowledge that

41:37

an omniscient being could possibly

41:39

have reasons, um, beyond

41:41

our Ken, beyond our ability to even know,

41:44

uh, for allowing suffering to

41:46

exist in a world where people have freedom

41:49

that we can't possibly fathom. And

41:51

so it's not logically impossible for

41:53

a being who knows everything to realize

41:55

that suffering may actually result

41:57

in some greater possible good in some way.

42:00

So their argument actually isn't a logical

42:02

one. It's more of a probabilistic one.

42:04

And what singer is trying to argue is

42:06

that it's highly unlikely that a

42:09

God who is described in the Bible exists,

42:11

given the amount of evil and suffering

42:13

that's happened, it's unlikely. And there's

42:15

a difference there. It's an important difference. But

42:18

still, uh, the

42:20

the issue is there because you're actually saying

42:22

that it is objectively bad

42:24

for human beings or any beings,

42:27

whether animals or human beings, to suffer.

42:29

It's objectively bad. And

42:31

so you've created an objective good,

42:34

a standard of goodness and badness

42:36

of of good and evil that

42:38

you have to now justify if God doesn't

42:40

exist. Because if God doesn't exist,

42:43

then all we have is human opinion.

42:45

And that's the very definition of subjective.

42:47

It's like saying I like vanilla ice cream more than

42:50

chocolate ice cream. Well, okay, I believe

42:52

that chocolate and vanilla ice cream exists, but

42:54

really the the differentiator

42:56

is simply my opinion of these two things.

42:59

Um, as opposed to good and evil,

43:01

which would objectively exist

43:03

even if there were no people to

43:06

to agree on these things, or if everyone

43:08

thought that killing babies for fun was

43:10

good, it would still not be okay even

43:12

if everyone thought it. So you have to. He

43:14

has to justify the existence of the standard

43:17

he's using. But ultimately,

43:19

I think the big issue here for the Christian

43:21

is that in the Christian message,

43:23

we have a God who could allow suffering

43:25

for a greater possible good. And that's logically

43:27

true. And every atheist would say that. But

43:29

in the Christian message, we don't have a theory.

43:32

We have an actual history that

43:34

God didn't just allow some theoretical

43:36

evil to exist for a greater possible

43:38

good, but God allowed the suffering of

43:41

his own son to happen as a matter

43:43

of history, so that the greatest

43:45

possible good, the salvation of

43:47

the world, could happen. So do I believe

43:49

in a God who can use suffering for a greater

43:51

purpose? Absolutely. Because he already has.

43:54

Yes.

43:54

And through that suffering, by his

43:57

stripes, we are here. Yield, if I can put

43:59

it in that context. Wow,

44:01

this hour went far too quickly. Abdou. That

44:03

was tremendous conversation and I hope

44:05

for our friends listening. It gave you

44:07

courage. It gave you the confidence

44:10

that we can contend

44:12

for the faith we stand on bedrock,

44:14

solid proof. We know the word.

44:16

It can be applied to all people in all times and

44:19

all places. It's just a matter, I

44:21

think, of learning to listen to the question

44:23

behind the question, being quick to

44:25

hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, to understand

44:27

the whole idea of the burdens of proof

44:30

that are out there and to care enough

44:32

to engage. That's the starting point

44:34

that you have to care about people

44:36

who share the same worldview as Dennis

44:38

Dillahunty, Christopher Hitchens,

44:40

the list goes on. Because if we don't,

44:43

the problem starts with us, not with them. We

44:45

should care enough to say, I want

44:47

to engage. So God teach me, prepare

44:49

me so I can go and tell Abdou

44:51

thank you for another fabulous conversation.

44:53

I'm already looking forward to our next one. Thank

44:55

you friends. We'll see you next time on In the Market

44:57

with Janet Parshall.

45:01

Retractable claws up to.

45:03

1.5in.

45:04

Long, capable

45:06

of.

45:06

Jumping 36ft. A

45:09

roar that can be heard five miles away.

45:13

The lion King of the beasts.

45:15

Picture yourself surrounded by several.

45:17

Like Daniel, he determined

45:20

to prey, though he knew he

45:22

would pay. Are we willing to face

45:24

the lions of our culture? Be

45:26

a Daniel. A challenge for Moody

45:29

Radio.

45:31

How long have you been a part of the Moody Radio

45:33

family?

45:34

Well, I've been listening to Moody since 1983,

45:37

and, I mean, I get

45:39

up with Moody, I go to bed with Moody, and I just.

45:41

It's been a blessing in my life for all these

45:43

years. The teaching and the

45:45

worship. And Moody is a station

45:47

that is really rooted in

45:49

the Word of God. In the series about

45:52

who is God.

45:53

Serious about God? That's us.

45:55

And we're seriously grateful for listeners

45:58

like you.