The AK47 Podcast Season 2: Episode 18

Aaron and Kyle come together to discuss various issues in politics, discussion, arguing logically, the state of discourse, and more.  Aaron tells us about his recent radio appearance and work at a private Christian university, we talk about everyone's desire to control others, Kyle expresses an unusual amount of frustration with how stupid and evil people are, we talk a little about the Mueller Report, and the recent backlash that Nathan Pyle, the creator of the Strange Planet comics, experienced over a tweet a couple of years ago.

Listen to the episode here.

To learn how to support our podcast, click here.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 36

This is part two of our conversation.  In this episode, Aaron and I go through a "white fragility" test by Ally Henny, answer the questions, and give our thoughts on things like white fragility, privilege, racial issues, and the like.  Do Aaron and I exhibit "white fragility?"  Do you?  Take the test with us!

Listen to the episode here.

To learn how to support our show, click here.

Books Mentioned in this Episode

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl.

The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness by Timothy Keller.

Other Sources Mentioned on the Show

The Argument with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg, and David Leonhardt

What is the Point of Debating Online?

I came across this picture on FB that I think makes a very good point.  

Earlier this year, I was debating abortion with some people on my FB page and I was in several other debates on that topic over the period of a couple of months. During that time many people have said to me that we should just ignore pro-choice commenters, especially ones that are more emotional and do not give cogent arguments. They won't be convinced, so what's the point debating them? Not everybody says this, but it is something I hear relatively often.  Sometimes, you hear cynical people in any controversial discussion say "What is the point in arguing about this?!  No one is going to change their mind!"

I definitely understand that issue. It is very unlikely that they will be convinced by any arguments we give on this platform. In my experience, they often just repeat the same things over and over again without considering what my pro-life friends or I argue. I do, however, think that entering these debates with pro-choicers on FB is a worthwhile endeavor. I don't necessarily enter these debates to convince these people, though it would be nice if they were convinced. Here is why I engage them

1) It may at least help them understand why people are pro-life beyond "You just want to control women's bodies!"
2) It may help them become pro-life ten years from now.
3) It helps a brother out. If a friend of mine is debating the abortion issue with multiple people, I don't want to leave him alone. I want to help him out. I also appreciate it if people help me out and don't leave me alone.
4) I don't want these people to be so confident in their assertions. I don't want them to get away with saying what they want without being challenged.
5) The audience may be genuinely helped and educated by seeing your contribution to the debate.

I'm not saying that all pro-choicers are bad arguers or closed-minded. I am also not saying that there aren't legitimate times avoid engaging with some people. I just don't like the categorical charge that engaging them is always pointless because they won't be convinced.  This doesn't just go for the abortion debate.  This applies to any topic of debate online.  

Needs and Rights

We have been emphatic in the past that the topic of our show is not guns.  We do this as a bit of a running gag because of the name of our podcast.  The theme of our show is Christian commentary.  However, that theme is wide enough to allow for a wide variety of topics to be discussed, including the topic of guns.  It's an interesting and important topic, so it has and will likely come up in our episodes and writings.  I had an interview with a philosopher about gun rights and this article is going to be about guns.

In this article, I want to address a particular argument or phrase that people who are for more gun control like to say.  This is an argument/phrase that more sophisticated defenders of gun control probably don't use, but I do see it frequently in the popular-level discourse on social media or protests.  Because of this, I like to call it a "meme-argument."  The phrase, or question depending on how the person says it, is basically "Why do you need this?!"  There isn't really an argument here, but there are implicit premises and conclusions in there if you think about them or draw them out.  Defenders of more gun restrictions (or complete gun bans) will talk about features of certain guns, like the AR-15, and say that there is no reason to have a gun like that because you don't need those features for whatever purpose.  The question is: What conclusion is supposed to be drawn from this?  For this post, I'm going to focus on the AR-15 since that's the gun I usually see being referred to when I hear this.

First, we need to figure out what they mean when they say that we don't need an AR-15 because of whatever features it has.  Are they saying 1) that we shouldn't have that gun or are they saying 2) that the gun is unnecessary, so there's no reason to have one?

The conclusion of (1) does not follow.  The fact that something is not needed has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal to obtain or whether or not is it moral to own.  If you want to argue those conclusions, you need to do more work than that.

If they mean (2), that its unnecessary, then I agree, but that doesn't mean that the gun isn't sufficient.  What I mean by this is that, yes, you do not need an AR-15 over other guns.  You could have a shotgun, a glock, a beretta, or any number of other guns.  However, the AR-15, like any other gun, still does the trick.  It still does what a person who wants a gun wants the gun to do: it provides a means of self-defense and recreation.  So, the fact that an AR-15 is unnecessary does not mean there is no reason to own one.

This article is not an all-out refutation of arguments for more gun control.  I am showing that this meme-argument, like all others, is insufficient to give any good reason for that viewpoint.  People at the popular level, even on social media, need to give more comprehensive and relevant arguments for their position that require more context and critical thought.  In the case of the phrase that I have talked about and its implicit argument, it does nothing to show that the AR-15 should be banned or that there should be more gun restrictions.  It also does nothing to address the positive arguments for less gun restriction based on a person's right to defend his or her life from danger.

Listen to the interview I linked above for the arguments for less gun ownership restrictions.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 20

Aaron and I talk about a dialogue that happened between Pastor Timothy Keller and Dr. Jonathan Haidt called The Closing of the Modern Mind.  Keller and Haidt talk about living in a pluralistic society and what resources their viewpoints have to offer to help people live in and foster a pluralistic society.  Aaron and I talk about the issue of civility when living around and talking with different people, the strengths Keller has as a speaker and representative of Christ, and the problems with identity politics.

Listen to the episode here.

This is the article Aaron mentions about Jim Jefferies and Jordan Peterson

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 6

In this episode, Aaron and I have a discussion about public debates.  We discuss their structure, the issue or persuasiveness, and if Christians are way too "nice."

This is my (Kyle's) first time hosting and uploading a podcast, so I don't know how to add an intro or outro yet, so I'll need to figure that out as we go along.  Forgive the lack of music!

Listen to the episode here on Anchor.

Things I like: Part 2

In this series, I will recommend things that I happened to come across that I like.  That's about as simple as it gets.

Political Discourse in America

David French writes a good piece on the bad state of political discourse in America today.  People overreact to the smallest things, especially as people replace religious commitment to political commitment.  Political Overreaction is the New American Way.

The SJW

Nathan Robinson writes an interesting piece giving criticisms and concerns about the extreme leftists that are often pejoratively known as "Social Justice Warriors."  Nathan considers himself a leftist, but is critical of this more extreme group.  I don't agree with everything he says, but I find his post fair and balanced for the most part.

Slavery in the Bible

J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective and apologist, answers a question on the issue of slavery in the Bible, which is often used to undermine the moral legitimacy of the Bible.

Apologist Recommendation: Timothy McGrew

In this series, I will recommend certain scholars and apologists to our readers and listeners.  These are people that I believe are worth listening to because they are informed and give good arguments and insights into the subjects that they study, which helps intellectually equip Christians so that they can grow in their own faith and their outreach towards non-Christians.  I am not claiming that these scholars and apologists have everything correct, but I think they are intellectual powerhouses that we can learn much from.

Timothy McGrew

Timothy McGrew is a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University.  His philosophical specialties are epistemology, probability theory, logic, and the history and philosophy of science.  When it comes to Christian apologetics, he frequently speaks and writes on the meaning of "faith" and the possibility and actuality of miracles.  Don't let his credentials as a philosopher fool you, however, he is also very competent when it comes to biblical studies.  Dr. McGrew has spent years researching the reliability of the Bible and he has shared his knowledge in numerous talks and debates over the years.  In the next section, I will provide resources on the various topics McGrew has been involved in over the years.

Miracles

Dr. McGrew has said a lot over the years on the possibility and actuality of miracles and the rationality in believing miracles.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a fantastic source for learning philosophy, features Dr. McGrew's helpful article on miracles.  McGrew has given helpful talks on how to think about miracles and has participated in debates on the rationality of believing in miracles.  I also highly recommend this talk on the history of the discussion of miracles among philosophers over the centuries.  Many people make it seem like David Hume basically closed the issue of miracles, but Dr. McGrew shows that Hume has had his critics over the centuries.  Tim and his wife, Lydia, who is also a scholar, also have an article defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (chapter 11).

Faith

Many people claim that faith is believing without evidence.  Being a philosopher who regularly thinks of evidence and rationality, Dr. McGrew has spent a lot of time showing that faith is not against the evidence.  In Tom Gilson's book, True Reason, Dr. McGrew and Dr. David Marshall respond to the charge that faith is unevidential belief by giving a historical perspective on how faith was understood and defined by thinkers in the church (chapter 11).  McGrew has also debated the atheist Peter Boghossian, who wrote a book arguing that faith is an unreliable way of knowing things because it doesn't rely on evidence.

The Reliability of the Bible

My favorite stuff from Dr. McGrew is his material on the reliability of the Bible.  He has spent a lot of time researching the subject and has helped to resurface an old argument for the Bible's reliability that, while good, has been forgotten for some time.  Dr. McGrew has an excellent series responding to alleged historical errors and contradictions in the Gospels.  He has debated the well-known biblical critic, Bart Ehrman, on the reliability of the Gospels.  The most interesting thing that Dr. McGrew has brought back into the apologetic discussion is the issue of Undesigned Coincidences.  An undesigned coincidence occurs when two or more people give completely different details about the same event, but despite the details being different, they fit together and explain each other like pieces of a puzzle, which gives a full picture of the event.  Undesigned coincidences are marks of reliability and truthfulness because they are subtle and unlikely to be made up or planned by the group of people giving the details, but despite this, the details still fit together well.  The kicker is that these undesigned coincidences are found all over the Bible.  Tim McGrew has spoken extensively on these things, but it is actually his wife, Lydia McGrew, who has put the most work into bringing this argument for biblical reliability back.  Lydia's book, Hidden in Plain View, explains undesigned coincidences and details a massive number of them in the Bible.  You can also find a number of her posts on various undesigned coincidences in the blog, What's Wrong With the World.

The Existence of God

I have not seen Dr. McGrew talk as much about the arguments for God's existence, but he does have some material on it that I think is worth looking into.  Here is a talk by him giving three arguments for God's existence and answering questions and criticisms from people.

I hope Dr. McGrew's materials are helpful to you all.

Abortion and the Death Penalty

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

I recently published a post on Twitter and Facebook that went something like this:

People often claim that pro-lifers are being inconsistent for being against abortion, but supportive of the death penalty.  Not everyone who is against abortion is for the death penalty, of course, but some are.  It is not clear to me, however, what the inconsistency is, because people usually don't explain what it is.  Here is my best attempt at two propositions that anti-abortion, pro-death penalty people believe:

1. It is never justified to take the life of a human being that is innocent of any wrongdoing.

2. It is sometimes justified to take the life of a human being that is guilty of wrongdoing. 

What, exactly, is inconsistent about believing these two propositions?  Keep in mind that I'm not asking if (1) or (2) are true, I'm asking what is inconsistent about believing them both.

I posted this because I frequently see people accuse pro-lifers of being inconsistent in being against abortion, but in favor of the death penalty.  This objection can come from pro-choice people who want to criticize pro-lifers for being hypocrites and it can come from pro-lifers who believe that the “pro-life” label can only apply to people who are against both abortion and the death penalty.

It is not clear to me what the inconsistency is, so I posted this tweet to see what people would say.  I was not asking if the anti-abortion or pro-death penalty viewpoints were right or true.  I was asking if a person is being intellectually inconsistent by being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.  I am also aware that not all people who are anti-abortion are pro-death penalty.  The question is whether or not those who are both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty are being intellectually inconsistent .  I didn’t get any conversation going on Twitter (I still have a very small following), but I got a lot of interaction on Facebook.  There was a big discussion, but the best answer came from a Catholic philosopher named Ron Belgau, who writes for a blog called Spiritual Friendship.  With his permission, I decided to share his response here.

Are pro-lifers who support the death penalty morally inconsistent? In order to answer this question, it’s important to consider alternate ways of understanding the right to life and the nature of personhood.

A. Regarding life:

1. One view would be that the life of a human person is always sacred, and that it is always wrong to intentionally kill a person.

2. Another view would be that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person, but that in certain circumstances–war, or the punishment for very serious crimes, for example–a person forfeits their right to life, and may be killed in order to protect the right to life of other innocent human persons.

B. Regarding persons:

1. One view would be that every human being is a human person from the moment of conception; that is, that they are a person simply because they are a human being.

2. The other view would be that personhood requires something more–a certain kind of self-consciousness that is typical of normally functioning adult human beings. On this view, certain human beings are not human persons, or are only “marginal persons,” and so are not protected by either version of the principle about the sanctity of human life.

A person who holds both A1 and B1 would oppose abortion and the death penalty. Holding A1 and B2 would entail opposition to the death penalty but could permit abortion; and holding A2 and B1 would entail opposition to abortion but could permit the death penalty. Holding both A2 and B2 could permit both. In other words, B1 is the essential conviction for pro-lifers, while A1 is the essential conviction for those who oppose the death penalty. In order for it to be logically inconsistent for pro-lifers to support the death penalty, it would have to be logically inconsistent to accept B1 and also accept A2. Or, to put it another way, accepting B1 would have to logically entail accepting A1. I do not see why it would be logically inconsistent for someone who supports B1 to accept A2; but at the very least, if opponents of the death penalty want to argue that pro-lifers are logically inconsistent, they need to show why the belief that life begins at conception is logically inconsistent with the belief that societies can kill in extreme circumstances to protect themselves from those who are a serious threat to the lives of others

Side Note: When I say that A2 could permit capital punishment, and B2 could permit abortion, I do not mean that they must do so. Consider A2 and the death penalty. To say that people may be killed to protect society against war or murder is not to say that they must be killed. It only means that if there is no other way to defend life except to kill those who threaten it, then killing them is permitted. But if there are non-lethal methods of protecting society from war or murder, these are preferable. In a society with a relatively low level of social development, it may be a serious burden to keep criminals locked up, and may be difficult to establish jails secure enough to protect against escape. So I think such a society could be justified in executing murderers after a serious effort at verifying guilt. But in an advanced society like the United States, it may be possible to adequately protect society without putting murderers to death. In which case, A2 may not provide an adequate justification for the death penalty. Nevertheless, if an unborn child is a person (B1), then A2 provides a much stronger reason for opposing abortion than for opposing the death penalty, because the child is innocent and is not threatening anyone; therefore, killing it cannot be self-defense in the same way that killing can protect society from war and murder. (This principle might be used to authorize abortion in cases where continuing the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother.)

I hope Ron’s response helps everyone think through the logic or this issue.

Ambiguity, Context, and Biblical Interpretation

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Definitions in Context

The SAT is a standardized test that many students have to take.  One type of question in the reading section is called a vocabulary in context question.  These questions will ask the reader what a particular word in the passage “most nearly” means and it will provide four different answers to choose from.  The tricky thing about these types of questions is that, often times, all four options are legitimate definitions of the word in question.  To know which meaning of the word is being used in the passage, the reader has to read the context that the word is in, usually by reading a few lines or even an entire paragraph of the passage.  Only by looking at the context can the reader figure out which of the answer choices provides the correct meaning of the word in that passage.  Context is important in everyday life too.  If you walk into a room and hear me say “I killed that guy” to a friend, that may sound like I committed a crime.  However, if you heard the whole context, you would know that I’m talking about a video game I played earlier.  By “kill” I didn’t mean “murder,” I meant that I took out the avatar that he was controlling.  The phrase takes on a whole new meaning in your mind when you learn the context.  Context is also important when it comes to the Bible.  As many people have pointed out when teaching hermeneutics (the art and skill of proper interpretation), one must know the context of a word or verse in the Bible to really understand it.  This helps with apologetics and our personal devotions.

Context in the Bible: Apologetic Usefulness

This graphic claims to show all of the contradictions in the Bible. Here are two verses that contradict each other according to this graphic.

Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
(Isaiah 40:28)

Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
(Isaiah 1:14)

One verse says that God does not get weary.  The other one says that God is weary.  Is this a contradiction?

If we pretend that these passages are in an SAT test and it asks us “What does the word ‘weary’ most nearly mean in the passage?” what would the right answers be?  If, in both cases, “weary” means “fatigued,” then we do have a contradiction.  However, it is clear that “weary” is being used in different senses in each passage.  In Isaiah 40, it is saying that God does not get physically tired.  We can tell this because the next few verses say

He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.

In Isaiah 1, when God says He’s “weary” of bearing Israel’s religious festivals, He most nearly means that He cannot tolerate them.  The popular English phrase “sick and tired of” fits best in this passage.  This becomes clear when we look at verses 11-13

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats.
“When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.

Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be if, say, an atheist used the two verses above as an example of a contradiction in the Bible when just reading a couple of verses of context reveals that there is no contradiction?  That is exactly what the graphic does.  How many more mistakes does it make?

Context in the Bible: Devotional Usefulness

There are many verses in the Bible that people use for inspiration and knowledge of God, but they may be using them incorrectly.  For example, Philippians 4:13 says “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”  People often think this verse means that God will help them accomplish any goal as long as they have enough faith, like win a football game or get the girl.  However, this verse is talking about something else.  Look at the context

I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me.  You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.  Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.  I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound.  In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.  I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (v. 10-13)

When we look at the context, we see that v. 13 has less to do with God helping us accomplish goals and more to do with God helping us through whatever situation we are in, whether that situation is joyful or tough.  This verse is still just as inspirational and comforting when we know the context, but our inspiration and comfort is based on the truth of what the passage says instead of a misunderstanding and it gives us more accurate knowledge of God.

Context is Key

The chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bibles are very helpful for us because they allow us to find content easily.  The drawback, however, is that people tend to isolate each verse from their contexts.  Issues like this are why the popular apologist, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, say “Never read a Bible verse.”  This provocative-sounding phrase tells an important hermeneutical truth: one should never simply read a verse of the Bible if they want to know what it means, they should at least read a paragraph in order to understand it.  Context helps illuminate meaning.

The lesson here is clear: If you want to understand the Bible, do not just read each verse in isolation.  Reading chunks of the Bible instead of individual verses is one of the most important and simplest rules in hermeneutics.  Recognize that everything that is said in the Bible is part of a whole and understanding context can help clear up ambiguities.

Reading Recommendations for the Winter Break

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Many of our readers may be students who are still in college.  The nice thing about the university is that there is often an entire month off during this time of year.  This gives one time to read books that one does not have time to read during the semesters.  Even non-students like people working in ministry will be benefited from reading.  These are my top apologetics book recommendations.  I will be focusing on beginners material, but I will also suggest higher level books to move onto once you finish these books.

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller

This book, written by the well-known pastor in New York, is a good introductory apologetic for people who have not exposed themselves to the topic before.  In the first half, Keller responds to various criticisms of Christianity like “How can a good God send people to Hell,” “There can’t be just one true religion,” “How could a good God allow evil,” “Science has disproved Christianity,” and many more.  In the second half, he gets into some arguments for the truth of Christianity.  This book will challenge readers who have never exposed themselves to apologetics before, but it is incredibly readable too.  Those who are more familiar with apologetics may be aided by this book because, as a pastor, Keller can put things in a way that is understandable and relatable to many people.

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl

This book isn’t so much about apologetic content as it is about apologetic skill and strategy.  This book is all about how to engaged in a winsome and intelligent way with skeptics of Christianity by asking good questions that help guide the conversation.  Greg also gets into how to deal with people who are much smarter than you, people who are rude and condescending, and other challenging situations.  The content in this book is valuable for everybody and for every discussion you will have, even if you are discussion issues with other Christians, like whether Calvinism is true.

On Guard: Defending your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig

Dr. Craig is one of the most well-known Christian apologists of our time.  He has been in countless debates and has written countless books on the defense of the Christian faith, so any book by him is going to be worth looking into.  This book is his most accessible.  He gives several arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for Christianity in particular.

After this: Read Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig

Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan

Many objections to Christianity are aimed at the apparent moral depravity of the Old Testament.  What do we do about the conquest accounts, slavery, treatment of women, and countless other moral problems in the OT?  Even many Christians avoid the OT because they don’t know how to handle it.  Paul Copan looks at each one of these moral challenges and responds to them.

After this: Read Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan

I hope these resources can get you started.  God bless.

Do Not Dismiss What Someone Says Simply Because of Lack of Experience

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

The Internet Dismissal!

Something that I have noticed in this age of online discussion and debate is that people often dismiss what others say because of certain facts about them, whether that’s facts about their race, life experience, gender, or other things.  If you have experienced something in your life that is persistent and at least sometimes very difficult to deal with, such as infertility, depression, singleness, unwanted pregnancy, divorce, unjust discrimination, or a myriad of other struggles, it can be easy to dismiss the wisdom, advice, or arguments of people who have not gone through what you have gone through.  In this tense political and racial climate, I often hear people dismiss each other’s arguments because of their race.  Some black Americans will dismiss anything a white person says about racial injustice.  In the abortion debate, it is common for women to dismiss pro-life arguments because the arguments are coming out of the mouths of men.  I certainly understand this mentality and see where it comes from. As someone who has been single for a longtime, it can be easy to dismiss the things people who have been married since their early 20’s say to me about singleness. One one hand, it makes sense, since they have not experienced the particular trials of long-term singleness and don’t understand what it is like.  Personal experience does give a person valuable insight into the circumstances they have experienced, so it makes sense to think that the lack of that experience means that the person also lacks that insight.

I don’t, however, think that people should always be dismissed if they do not or have not personally experienced certain circumstances in life. Just because someone hasn’t experienced something you or I are struggling with doesn’t mean that person has nothing good, true, helpful, wise, or valuable to say. There are a couple of reasons why I think this is the case.

Don’t be so hasty to Dismiss out of hand

One, there is often overlap of experiences between people who are dealing with different struggles, life stages, conditions, and other things. A couple struggling with infertility struggles with at least some similar things as the single person, since both desire a really good thing that is just not coming. They have both experienced the wait, unfulfilled longing, and disappointment of each thing, so there can be an understanding between them even though they are going through different things.

Second, when you have been dealing with something for a really long time, you often become very emotional about that thing. Those emotions can often cloud your ability to see your trial from a different perspective or see all of the facts of the situation. A person who has never gone through what you’ve gone through likely does not have that emotional clouding, so he may be able to see facts or perspectives that are valuable, but you cannot see.  So, while someone being an “outsider” about a certain struggle is often used as a reason to dismiss anything that they say, I think the fact that a person has not experienced a certain trial in life actually gives one reason to at least listen to and consider what the person says because they may have a perspective on the situation that the struggler does not have.

What I’m saying is that if you are struggling with a particular thing and an “outsider” about that struggle gives their insight, it is worth at least considering what the person says to see if it is true or helpful.  Don’t automatically dismiss the wisdom, advice, or general thoughts that they give simply because they’re an outsider. They may actually be getting at the truth.