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

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 35

Aaron and I ended up recording for over two hours, so I divided that recording into two episodes.  This is part one.  In this episode, Aaron and I give brief updates on our lives and Aaron talks about some interesting things he's learned from Dr. Hellerman about the ancient world's and early church's view on poverty and homelessness and how that applies to today.

Listen to the episode here.

To learn how to support our show, click here.

Books Mentioned in the Episode

Early Christian Care for the Poor by K.C. Richardson.

The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff.

Them: Why We Hate Each Other and How to Heal by Ben Sasse.

12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson.

You are Not Your Brain by Jeffrey Schwartz and Rebecca Gladding.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 34

Aaron and Kyle talk about "woke" Christianity, social justice, critical theory, intersectionality, and their compatibility with the Christian worldview.  We get into issues of politics, freedom, the Gospel, and some book recommendations.

Listen to the episode here.

McArthur's social justice statement.

Find the Neil Shenvi articles cited on the show here and here.

Click here to learn how to support our show.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 33

Aaron and Kyle discuss some logical, apologetic, and epistemological issues that are brought up by the Kavanaugh case.  The reliability of eyewitness testimony and memory, how that applies to the Gospels, thoughts on "believe all women," and more are discussed.

Listen to the episode here.

If you want to support our show, click here to learn how.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 32

Aaron and Kyle talk about some recent controversies surrounding the famous preacher and apologist, Ravi Zacharias, and his academic credentials and experiences.

Listen to the episode here.

Click here for the article by Randal Rauser.

To learn how to support our show, click here.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 31

In today's episode, Timothy Hsiao (Ph.D candidate in philosophy at the University of Reading) returns for a third interview.  This time, we talk about the ethics of immigration.  Why is illegal immigration impermissible?  What laws should change?  What about compassion and love?

Listen to the episode here.

Listen to my other interviews with Hsiao: Episodes 25 and 26.

For more from Hsiao, including his articles, go to his website.

To learn how to support our show, click here.

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.