S1: Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
S1: and I truly hope you hear something that edifies encourage, equips, enlightens,
S1: and then gets you out there in the marketplace of ideas.
S1: But before you go, I want to tell you about
S1: this month's truth tool. It's called Have You Ever Wondered?
S1: And I absolutely love this topic because if you're like me,
S1: going out into the night sky and looking up and
S1: seeing a million stars, don't you just stop and think
S1: about God? And are you not in a moment of
S1: awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse
S1: of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man,
S1: that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you
S1: wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense
S1: of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful
S1: book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written
S1: from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or
S1: a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have
S1: this sense of awe through the work that they do.
S1: In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as
S1: it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse
S1: because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you
S1: to walk through the chapters written by people who all
S1: have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes
S1: to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an
S1: amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount,
S1: just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask
S1: for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll
S1: send it right off to you as my way of
S1: saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or
S1: you can go online to in the market with Janet
S1: Parshall and you're also on the website, consider becoming a
S1: partial partner. Those are people who give every single month
S1: at a level of their own choosing. You always get
S1: the truth tool, but in addition to that, you get
S1: a weekly newsletter that includes my writing and an audio
S1: piece just for my partial partner. So 877 Janet 58
S1: or the website in the market with Janet Parshall. Consider
S1: becoming a partial partner or asking for this month's truth tool.
S1: Have you ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast.
S2: Here are some of the news headlines we're watching.
S3: The conference was over. The president won a pledge.
S4: Americans worshiping government over God.
S5: Extremely rare safety move by a major.
S4: 17 years the Palestinians and Israelis negotiated.
S5: Today is not over. Hi, friends.
S1: Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. A very
S1: happy Friday to you. And if you're counting these things,
S1: today is the official first day of summer, and it
S1: is the longest day of the year. Hey, look, if
S1: it's got to be long day, it should be a Friday, right?
S1: Because we're about to go to a weekend, so I
S1: think that's great. We have so much news to talk about.
S1: And when I do say we, I'm not interpreting Queen Victoria,
S1: who always spoke in plural pronouns before pronouns were a thing.
S1: I'm saying it because Craig Partial is with me as
S1: he is on Fridays, and today is particularly important because
S1: he brings not a width and depth and broad knowledge
S1: of the United States Constitution and American jurisprudence. But I
S1: would say that his knowledge of the word, that precious
S1: word that changes everything. Well, his knowledge is much greater
S1: in that area as well. So he's just the perfect
S1: person to have on these Friday conversations. Because what we
S1: do is this we take a look at what they're
S1: selling in the marketplace. A lot of this stuff really
S1: good truth with a capital T, a boatload of stuff
S1: that's shabby goods. Okay. Makeup. Makeup. Makeup ideas. Fake ideas.
S1: Counterfeit ideas. Vain and hollow philosophies. Don't you love that?
S1: Love the language of the word that comes. I wish
S1: I'd come up with that myself. I didn't, but I
S1: borrowed it from a better place. Comes right out of
S1: the book of Colossians. And so we take a look
S1: at some of those vain and hollow philosophies. Why? Because
S1: we're growing up. We're going to get some spiritual heft
S1: on our bones. We're going to get off that diet
S1: of milk, moved to a diet of meat. Know what
S1: we believe, why we believe it, and then better contend
S1: for the faith. Can I get an amen? Thank you.
S1: And if you look at the headlines around us, I
S1: think the time for mature saints willing to suit up
S1: and get up and get out and influence and occupy
S1: until he comes is now. Now more than ever before.
S1: So put your seatbelts on. Keep your hand inside the
S1: ride at all times, because we are going to go
S1: round robin on a whole bunch of topics, including a big,
S1: I mean biggie that came down from the United States
S1: Supreme Court earlier this week in a case entitled The
S1: United States versus Skrmetti. I turn now to my great
S1: friends at CBN news. They put together a great package
S1: that serves as a summary. Have a listen.
S6: In A63 decision, conservative justices ruled in favor of Tennessee's
S6: ban on health care workers providing transgender procedures to minors,
S6: such as hormone injections and puberty blockers, in an effort
S6: to change a teenager's sex. Those who wanted the Tennessee
S6: law struck down argued it violated the constitutional right to
S6: equal protection by discriminating against transgender people in denying them
S6: certain medical care. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for
S6: the majority, said it does not violate the equal protection
S6: guarantee of the 14th Amendment. However, in her dissent, Justice
S6: Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling authorizes untold harm to transgender children.
S7: The Supreme Court looked at the Science.
S6: Alliance defending Freedom helped Tennessee's defense.
S7: They did point to the studies coming out of England
S7: and even some things here in the United States showing
S7: the harm that these drugs and surgeries do.
S6: The ruling reinforces similar bans on transgender procedures in 26
S6: other states.
S8: This means that the two dozen states that have put
S8: in these kind of bans are safe now from any
S8: kind of challenges. So when it comes to minors, this
S8: issue is settled.
S6: The high court's ruling signals a significant setback to the
S6: transgender movement, and comes as the Trump administration seeks to
S6: ban transgender people from female sports and the military, while
S6: defining the sexes as only male and female. Lorie Johnson,
S6: CBN news.
S1: Like I said, it's a biggie. Now I've got some
S1: more I want to fold into this. I want you
S1: to hear some of the things that were said from
S1: the High Court. And then I want you to hear
S1: a confused parent who's been taken captive by vain and
S1: hollow philosophies predicated on this world, rather than on the
S1: Word of God. But Craig. Okay. There were so many
S1: things in that CBN package that I want to pull
S1: out to let our friends understand why we're celebrating this
S1: decision from the High Court. First of all, thank you God.
S1: It was six three. I'd love A90. But there were
S1: three female justices who were in the minority and said no,
S1: they made up the three, which is very interesting. But
S1: also what we heard was that 26 states have been
S1: dealing with this. So when people hear a case that
S1: comes out of Tennessee, one of the first questions they
S1: have is, okay, well, does the ruling just affect the
S1: people who live in the state of Tennessee?
S9: No, this is national. It's national in the sense that
S9: if a state passes a an An identical or similar.
S9: And by the way, those other states used very similar language,
S9: similar provisions in their statutes than Tennessee did. So that's
S9: why it was a big win, in my humble opinion,
S9: for rational legislation dealing with this burgeoning movement to subject
S9: children to these mutilating procedures and also hormone therapies that
S9: can cause permanent damage. Um, what the Supreme Court said
S9: was very important. First of all, they they approached it, uh,
S9: from a preliminary, uh, aspect of how high a hurdle
S9: are we going to set for states that want to legislate?
S9: And that's an important issue. Uh, I would I enjoyed
S9: my time as a member of the high school track team,
S9: and I remember and I didn't run hurdles, but there
S9: were high hurdles and low hurdles. Uh, and low hurdles
S9: mean you can get over faster left less, uh, energy,
S9: less of a requirement to jump over a higher amount
S9: than a high hurdle. So the original question was, was
S9: this a high hurdle or a low hurdle bar that
S9: we're going to set for states that want to regulate? Now,
S9: the other side, represented by the United States government at
S9: the time, under the Biden administration, they accepted this case
S9: that originally was some plaintiffs, some parents and children. Um,
S9: but the United States, uh, was asked to intervene. They did,
S9: and they took over the case and argued it vehemently that,
S9: in fact, there ought to be a high bar, uh,
S9: that any legislation should cross. And by the way, they argued,
S9: and it can't get over that high bar. Now, the
S9: Supreme Court said a low bar. And here's the reason
S9: why a low bar works for almost all state legislation
S9: of any kind, unless it's discriminatory in the sense that
S9: it violates fundamental rights. We'll talk about that in a
S9: couple of minutes. What a fundamental right is. But there
S9: are only a handful of fundamental constitutional rights. And if
S9: you impair those, well, then you better have a high
S9: bar to justify your legislation. The other aspect is that
S9: if a law impacts negatively on protected classes of individuals
S9: like race or religion, national origin and so forth, then
S9: it has to meet a high bar. But the court said, no,
S9: it doesn't deal with those categories. Let's use the low
S9: bar and analyze it under that kind of scrutiny.
S1: Okay. And there's more that I know you want to
S1: talk about. Again, this is a very significant case. And
S1: once again, one has to hope and pray that maybe
S1: this is the pendulum of the culture rectifying itself from
S1: this bizarre blind. And I do mean spiritually blind adherence
S1: to the ideology of transgenderism. Back to common sense. We're
S1: going to give you more on the USV Skrmetti case
S1: that got handed down six three this week. Everybody within
S1: the sound of my voice.
S5: Were all.
S1: Under the umbrella of this protection. Now. Back after.
S5: This.
S1: God uses so much in the world around us to
S1: point to him. Our sense of wonder is really about
S1: knowing him. That's why I've chosen. Have you ever wondered,
S1: as this month's Truth Tool? This book is for all
S1: who have looked up at a million stars in the
S1: night sky and just wondered. As for your copy of
S1: have you ever wondered when you give a gift of
S1: any amount to in the market, call eight 7758. That's
S1: eight 7758 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall.
S1: This is in the market with Janet Parshall. Craig Parshall
S1: is with me as he is on Friday. And we
S1: take a look at some of the stories making headlines.
S1: But we got a pair of glasses on. It's the
S1: lens of Scripture, and we're taking a look at the
S1: world around us, starting with this. Thank you Lord. Majorly
S1: important decision handed down mid-week this week, 6 to 3 U.S.
S1: versus Skrmetti. And it said that the Tennessee law doesn't
S1: violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. It was the
S1: Tennessee Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, hence the name that defended
S1: the law before the High Court in December, saying it
S1: was a matter of, quote, protecting kids from the consequences
S1: of decisions they cannot fully understand. Now, even if you
S1: have just a passing interest in what the courts do,
S1: you have to understand that the 14th amendment has kind
S1: of become a dumping site for a lot of cases,
S1: because some people don't understand what the 14th amendment means.
S1: Some judges think it's elastic. Some judges think that if
S1: they really can't get clarity, they'll just pull everything out
S1: of the, quote, equal protection. Let me give you a
S1: classic example of this. So one of the dissenting judges,
S1: and as I noted before, all three were women Kagan,
S1: Sotomayor and Justice Jackson. When oral arguments were taking place,
S1: she made a very interesting and I'll give you a hint.
S1: Very flawed comparison of sex changes for kids as being
S1: the equivalent of banning interracial marriages. Have a listen.
S10: The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied
S10: to both races, and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever. But,
S10: you know, as I read the statute here, the excuse me,
S10: the case here, um, you know, the court starts off
S10: by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states
S10: which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications.
S10: And when you look at the structure of that law,
S10: it looks in terms of, you know, you can't do
S10: something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort
S10: of the same thing. So it's interesting to me that
S10: we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether
S10: Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here
S10: by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee
S10: is in this case.
S1: Now she's referring to the famous loving case that came
S1: out of the state of Virginia that dealt with the
S1: idea about a black man or, excuse me, a white
S1: man and a black woman being married. And whether or
S1: not that was prejudicial and wrong under the Equal Protection
S1: clause of the 14th Amendment. But it also, if you
S1: picked up on what she was just saying, goes back
S1: to what Craig was saying in our first segment together,
S1: which is this idea of kind of groups and protected categories. So,
S1: you know, it's apples and skyscrapers here, Craig. Again, this
S1: is why I say it's kind of a dumping site
S1: now with the 14th amendment, because that's all you have
S1: to say. Say it's not equal protection. Wait a minute.
S1: What Tennessee was arguing was you have to protect kids
S1: who can't make decisions for themselves. I don't know what
S1: that has to do with interracial marriage. So take that apart.
S9: For us. There's no relationship whatsoever between loving versus Virginia
S9: and this case. Uh, in skrmetti, the state of Tennessee
S9: was saying, look, uh, the at best, the evidence is
S9: hotly debated and, and very divisive of, of two different
S9: groups saying whether or not, uh, this gender affirming care,
S9: so-called is in fact child abuse and doesn't work and
S9: is regretted by the child later on. Um, and the
S9: science is lacking in it. So there's the big contest
S9: on this, um, as to whether or not a child
S9: really ought to be subjected to this as a form
S9: of child abuse. And by the way, states have a
S9: constitutional right, because whatever rights are not granted by the
S9: federal government, by the Constitution, to the federal government, are
S9: reserved to the states and to the people. So the
S9: states have what we call police power. Um, child welfare
S9: is a is a penultimate, uh, area of a state's
S9: interest to protect. So, uh, the evidence simply didn't support it.
S9: But two adults, first of all, marrying each other with
S9: different races. What possible correlation that could have to a
S9: minor being subjected to a controversial and sometimes irreversible treatment
S9: based on a mental condition of the child, not a
S9: consultant consenting adult, but something that a child, a minor
S9: says is in their mindset about how they feel about
S9: their gender. Not only is one that is loving versus
S9: Virginia an objective test? Are they adults? Are they a
S9: different races? They should have equal protection. Isn't it adult? No,
S9: it's a child. Uh, are we talking about, uh, an
S9: adult decision about marriage or that kind of an institutional decision? No,
S9: we're talking about medical care that's hotly divided in terms
S9: of the camps and potentially harmful and based on an
S9: emotional problem. Uh, gender dysphoria.
S5: Yeah.
S1: Well, let me. I was talking about vein and hollow philosophies.
S1: I want you to hear a dad who, in fact,
S1: he's an Illinois dad, and he claims that his child
S1: was two and a half years old. When they knew.
S1: When this child knew. I think he was a boy.
S1: Defined defining himself as a girl now. But either way,
S1: the point is this particular child at two and a half,
S1: two and a half. Now think if you've had children,
S1: remember where your child was at two and a half.
S1: Listen to this, dad.
S11: Most trans kids know that they're trans between the ages
S11: of three and seven. My daughter knew around two and
S11: a half. She knew. I didn't. I often tell my
S11: kids that I'm not smarter than you. I just know
S11: different things and the things that our kids know that
S11: we don't. Those are the things that make all the
S11: difference and the ones we should really listen to. My
S11: child is not mentally ill. To begin gender affirming care,
S11: she had to speak to more health care professionals than
S11: probably anyone in this room ever has.
S1: Well, no, dad, you do know more things than your child.
S1: That's why you're the dad. That's why your son is
S1: your son. And so I think it's important we understand that. But, see,
S1: this is an example of what it means biblically to
S1: be caught by vain and hollow philosophies. No. Two and
S1: a half child, Craig, are kids at two and a half.
S1: I'm not sure. Well, I can tell you definitively they
S1: didn't know their alphabet. They couldn't read. They didn't know
S1: the colors shapes we were working on. But to say
S1: I'm trapped in the wrong body, I would have thought
S1: that an alien had moved into our house at that point,
S1: because it was beyond the realm of understanding of an
S1: average two and a half year old. So when these
S1: parents and it's so many, because a lot of them
S1: were standing outside the steps of the Supreme Court on
S1: the day the decision was handed down, and there were
S1: parents of and my heart breaks for these parents, by
S1: the way, who were saying, my child knew. One woman
S1: said from birth, really? Did your child talk at birth?
S1: Because I think there's a bigger problem there. So we've got, again,
S1: these parents who are downstream of this deadly I'm going
S1: to be bold, demonic ideology and they are taken captive.
S1: And the sadder part is, while they're taking captive, their
S1: children become irreparably damaged from people who understand that there's
S1: a lot of money to be made. And an ideology
S1: like this, which has, by the way, at its roots course.
S1: A lot of ties into Marxist-leninism. If you begin to
S1: see all of this, it's the children who become the
S1: pawns in this very ugly game of cultural clash. More
S1: right after this. We're going to spend just a couple
S1: more minutes on this significant decision, handed down six three
S1: by the United States Supreme Court this week, the United
S1: States versus Skrmetti. You have to understand that this is
S1: a case that came out of the state of Tennessee
S1: based on a law there. And as a result of
S1: this decision, it extends also to 26 similar bills passed
S1: in other states. Now, just put your thinking cap on
S1: for a minute. If the decision had gone the other way,
S1: that would have meant in those 26 states plus Tennessee,
S1: all of those bills would have been wiped out. And
S1: that just sounds like a lot of legal jargon. Black
S1: ink on white paper, high falutin stuff at the court.
S1: But you need to translate that into the lives of children.
S1: Children who would have been irreparably damaged mentally, emotionally, spiritually,
S1: physically as a result of this wicked, wicked ideology. This
S1: is a spiritually. It's a rebellion against God. God doesn't
S1: make mistakes. He doesn't put you in the wrong body.
S1: It is, for whatever reason, a part of this whole
S1: rebellion that we're going through as a culture right now.
S1: We're in our hubris and arrogance. We're having a Nimrod
S1: kind of moment where we're raising our fists figuratively toward
S1: God and telling him he's wrong. I mean, you know,
S1: be careful. You know, God is not mocked. But the
S1: bottom line is there are broken people who are being
S1: manipulated in the midst of all of this. So here's
S1: what Chief Justice John Roberts said. He wrote the majority
S1: opinion and he said this case carries with it the
S1: weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, safety,
S1: efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.
S1: Our role is only to ensure that it does not
S1: violate the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment, having
S1: concluded it does not. We now leave questions regarding its
S1: policy to the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process. So,
S1: and they acknowledge the fact that they weren't doctors, they
S1: just looked at whether or not legally, this fell under
S1: the canopy of protection of the 14th amendment. And they decided, no,
S1: it does not. Justice Thomas ended his concurrence in Skrmetti
S1: with a final salvo. Experts, we should point out, are
S1: not always correct. Remember, a lot of the information that
S1: the support of this ideology comes from a group called warpath.
S1: It's made up of transgenders. So it's like the fox
S1: guarding the chicken house. They've already reached their conclusion before they, quote,
S1: put out their research, which is scant, not peer reviewed,
S1: sloppily done, but it's a juggernaut of ideology. And so
S1: it becomes an easy sort of third source site when
S1: you're promoting this kind of stuff as a defense for
S1: this wicked ideology. And I have to tell you that
S1: parents live and breathe gender ideology, who live and breathe
S1: this business know it better than anybody else, and they
S1: understand what's going on in their child's life. Which is
S1: why when you get states like California who draw a
S1: wedge between mom and dad and the school, it's just
S1: it's evil, very evil. So here's what he said. The
S1: court today reserves to the people their elected representatives and
S1: the democratic process, paralleling Roberts's language, the power to decide
S1: how to best to address, how best to address an
S1: area of medical uncertainty and extraordinary importance. That's sovereign prerogative,
S1: does not bow to major medical organizations. Experts and elites
S1: have been wrong before, and they may prove to be
S1: wrong again. And then he has a bunch of legal
S1: sightings to support that. It's a brilliant point by Thomas,
S1: in other words. In fact, it was interesting. We were
S1: talking in the Covid age. One of the things that
S1: came out of that, and I think it was my
S1: conversation with Rod Dreher, who said, one of the outcomes
S1: of that is what we've got now, the cult of
S1: the experts. So somebody mostly self-appointed, calls himself an expert.
S1: And then we don't question, we don't push back, because
S1: after all, you're an expert. Well, I got news for you,
S1: mom and dad. You're an expert. You were not elected
S1: to the position of mother and father. You were divinely appointed.
S1: And if you've got God's guiding light in his word
S1: in front of you, and your child comes home and says,
S1: I think I'm in the wrong body. It's time to
S1: get on your knees and have some very long conversations
S1: with the child, with each other, most importantly with the Lord.
S1: And to find a good Christian counselor to figure out
S1: why that delusion has take up residency in the heart
S1: and mind of their child. So that's the parent part
S1: of this. But again, the legal part of this is
S1: I'm so glad that what the justices didn't do is
S1: play doctor.
S9: Yeah. This battle of the experts, I can tell you,
S9: you know, after spending most of my career as a
S9: trial lawyer, you get in front of a jury and
S9: you have an expert witness. If the evidence calls or
S9: the facts, you know, require that you have an expert
S9: witness and the other side has their own expert, and
S9: the jury has to decide, as a matter of fact,
S9: which expert is more reliable. Which conclusion fits the facts
S9: in the case? But the Supreme Court role here is
S9: not to decide disputes between experts. Instead, the legislature for
S9: Tennessee had that right under the Constitution to make that decision.
S9: They were the jury in effect, because they were elected
S9: by the people of the state of Tennessee to make
S9: those kind of policy judgments. So the Supreme Court's role,
S9: by and large, is not to distinguish fact expert versus
S9: fact expert. Who's got more credentials? It's to say, what
S9: does the law say? And the law says unless you
S9: can show these narrow categories where the Equal Protection clause
S9: has been violated, suspect classification. No. Having a a mental
S9: intention that you're in the wrong body is nowhere in
S9: any of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. In fact,
S9: they're one of the cases, the Claiborne Case that was
S9: cited in the brief I filed. And a lot of
S9: other lawyers, uh, said that a mental condition doesn't qualify
S9: as an equal protection suspect classification. So take that off
S9: the list. Were they targeting trans people? No. What they
S9: were doing is saying, look, it is our job to
S9: protect children. Now, by the way, the primary job for
S9: protecting children belongs to the family, belongs to the parent.
S9: But the state steps in when when there's evidence of
S9: neglect or abuse of a child, then the state has
S9: what's called parens patriae authority. That is to say, we're
S9: the substitute parent. If the parents can't do it or
S9: the family refuses to do it, or they're, you know,
S9: tricked into this fantasy of this delusion about transgender ideology
S9: for some 13 or 14 year old, then the state's
S9: going to step in and stop this harm from happening.
S9: And that's what they did here in Tennessee.
S1: So to all those moms and dads who understood after
S1: a long day that going to a school board meeting
S1: was not their favorite thing to do, but did it
S1: because you were looking well to the ways of your household.
S1: Good for you. You are the unsung heroes of the
S1: culture today because you are doing just that. You're fighting
S1: for your families. And the words of Nehemiah, when you
S1: hear the sound of that trumpet, you fight for your families.
S1: That's what you've been doing in this six three decision
S1: this week. Is the pat on your back for the
S1: good work that you've done for staying the course and
S1: sometimes swimming upstream with the culture, but you listen to
S1: that sweeter, stiller, more powerful voice. Good for you. Back
S1: after this. Are you the sort of person who likes
S1: to have the inside scoop? Who wants to be informed?
S1: When you become a partial partner, you're not only keeping
S1: this program on the air every weekday, you'll also receive
S1: exclusive benefits like personal emails from me. I'll help you
S1: learn how to look at the headlines with a biblical perspective.
S1: Become a partial partner today by calling eight 7758 or
S1: go online to. In the market with Janet Parshall. Oh.
S1: So there's an old argument and it could say twisted argument,
S1: by the way, that says that somehow that faith and
S1: reason are at war with one another, or put in
S1: more common parlance, that science and religion are at odds
S1: that you either are a person of faith or you
S1: are a person of reason, but the two are mutually exclusive,
S1: I would say. AU contraire. In fact, the history of
S1: science in the world tells us some of the greatest
S1: scientists in the world were those who very much believed
S1: that God was there, putting things in order, offering form
S1: and substance and reason. What I want to give you
S1: a more recent bit of evidence. If I were pleading
S1: my case that there is no conflict there. I want
S1: to introduce you to a man by the name of,
S1: and I'm going to quote it now Jung Hoon Kim.
S1: He is from South Korea, and he happens to have
S1: the world's highest IQ. That has been confirmed by a
S1: group that does this. He's the official world record holder.
S1: His IQ is two 276. Now, most people think they're
S1: doing good if they're around 119, 110, 115, 276. He
S1: is the founder of Neuro Story, and he is a
S1: person who has just made a profound announcement on his
S1: X platform, and I am quoting it as the world's
S1: highest IQ holder. I trust that Christianity offers the clearest
S1: way to understand and experience God. Through the teachings of Jesus,
S1: we can find the most complete and true knowledge of
S1: God who is love and salvation. Now I want you
S1: to hear because the Bible says, out of the overflow
S1: of the heart, the mouth speaks. Here is Jung Hoon
S1: Kim talking about quantum physics and how God used that
S1: in his life to bring him to the foot of
S1: the cross. Listen.
S12: In this video I would like to share my idea,
S12: my thoughts thought about afterlife. I think our consciousness continues
S12: beyond death. Definitely. Our consciousness is not just brain activity,
S12: but it is something deeper. I think you believe this.
S12: Science says that when the brain stops, then our consciousness disappears.
S12: You believe this now. But quantum physics says that information
S12: never disappears. Never. It only changes in forms. If our
S12: consciousness is quantum information, it may continue after the body
S12: is gone. For example, like computer data Are stored in
S12: the cloud. Our consciousness may not be trapped in the brain.
S12: Quantum entanglement suggests that our consciousness is part of a
S12: bigger system. Beyond the physical world. Some scientists and philosophers
S12: believe that our world may be a simulation created by
S12: a higher dimension of being, which I believe. If this
S12: is true, then the death is not the end, but
S12: a shift to another reality. Just like a video game
S12: character disappears, but the player still exists. Our consciousness may
S12: continue in a higher dimension like this. Many people with
S12: near death experience says they saw their bodies from above
S12: or felt warm light and the peace they felt. They
S12: say they felt warm light and peace. These experiences seem
S12: like moving from one system to another. I think so.
S12: If reality is part of something bigger, then death is
S12: not the end. But it is a transition shift to
S12: another reality. Science is growing now and we are learning
S12: more about consciousness and reality. Our death is not destruction,
S12: but change and shift. Humanity will keep searching for the
S12: truth about what comes after, after life.
S1: Mm. Well, I have to tell you, something's happening in
S1: the scientific community. Because this harkens back to a conversation
S1: I had June 3rd with Doctor Michael Egnor, who is
S1: a neuroscientist, and he wrote the book The Immortal Mind
S1: A Neurosurgeon's case for the existence of the soul. And
S1: what I find so interesting is that not unlike Mr. Kim,
S1: this man, this neuroscientist, and you can go back to
S1: wherever you find podcasts and download that episode again. It
S1: was on June 3rd. Doctor Michael ignore Egnor. He studied
S1: the brain. He's fascinated by the brain. And it is
S1: very much these near-death experiences that have captured his attention.
S1: So here is Mr. Kim, who's into quantum physics, by
S1: the way, who he realizes that when you have these
S1: near-death experiences and people are saying what they're saying, you
S1: can dismiss some of them. You can't dismiss all of them.
S1: Lee Strobel writes about this in his new book, The
S1: Case for the supernatural. And I find it interesting because
S1: it really harkens to the heart of God. It makes
S1: me actually get a lump in my throat when he
S1: makes the declaration that he's not willing that any should perish.
S1: I think God and his creativity and his absolutely unconditional
S1: love is using every means at his disposal, and he
S1: has every means at his disposal to draw people to him.
S1: So he pierces the mind of a of a man
S1: who's into quantum physics to talk about the fact that
S1: memory doesn't go away, it's stored, there's a shift, there's
S1: a new life. And like I said on his X site, uh, Mr.
S1: Kim said point blank. He said through the teachings of Jesus,
S1: we can find the most complete and true knowledge of
S1: God who is love and salvation. By the way, let
S1: the record reflect that Mr. Kim lives in South Korea,
S1: which is the largest evangelical church on planet Earth. So
S1: who knows if someone's been sharing the good news with him.
S1: But then you take Doctor Michael Egnor, who comes to
S1: faith in Christ as well and sees the magnificence of
S1: the brain and all of these things that these people
S1: are saying, and it makes you stop and say, wait, wait.
S1: There has to be something more. Well, I don't think
S1: there's a person within the sound of my voice who
S1: doesn't know at their core that there is something more.
S1: How do I know that? Because God has placed eternity
S1: in our hearts. He designed us for another country. We
S1: long for something else, something more than this. But I
S1: love it when God brings people like this forward on
S1: an international stage and says, I'm into quantum physics, no
S1: one can argue with his credentials. They're through the roof.
S1: The largest IQ on planet Earth 276. And guess what?
S1: I found the answer in Jesus. That's pretty spectacular.
S9: Yeah, I'm so glad you brought this issue up and
S9: had a chance to listen from the words of this
S9: intellectual giant, because it really brings into focus a debate
S9: that's been around for hundreds of years, ever since the
S9: so-called Enlightenment in Europe, the the collision, supposedly, that exist
S9: between faith and reason. But faith properly understood and articulated
S9: just a few minutes ago in this clip, faith, appropriately
S9: and properly understood, does not collide with or clash with
S9: the exercise of reason. And if you read the Bible
S9: and you accept what God has to tell us there,
S9: it becomes very clear. I'm glad you mentioned the heart,
S9: because ultimately the decision for or against Christ as Savior
S9: and Redeemer and a relationship of God that flows from
S9: that decision is a matter of the heart. But is
S9: the mind at odds with it? Not necessarily. In fact,
S9: if the Apostle Paul, perhaps one of the most brilliant
S9: men who ever walked the earth himself, had to deal
S9: with this issue and, uh, second and, uh, second Corinthians
S9: chapter three, verse three, he talks about the Spirit of
S9: God working in us, us meaning those who have made
S9: that faith decision in Jesus Christ and have received literally
S9: and actually and and metaphysically, the Spirit of God. Uh,
S9: God now writes on our hearts not like tablets of stone.
S9: And clearly, Paul was referring to the Old Testament law
S9: and the Ten Commandments, which were never abolished, by the way,
S9: by Jesus. They were fulfilled by Jesus. Um, but on
S9: tablets of our heart. In other words, the heart decision
S9: is the ultimate decision maker. But the mind can either
S9: be used as a barrier to block us from faith,
S9: or something that opens up the avenue to faith. Um, uh,
S9: second Timothy 215 and in fact, I looked it up
S9: to find out what the original Greek was, uh, because
S9: most of us know this verse. Study to show yourself
S9: approved unto God. A workman that needeth not be ashamed,
S9: rightly dividing the word of truth. Meaning, when you go
S9: to Scripture, you don't leave logic and intelligence to the side.
S9: You use it as a guide, and you do so
S9: under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit leading you. And
S9: I looked at the word uh, where it says rightly dividing,
S9: and the word literally means cutting in a straight line.
S9: It's like a carpenter who cuts in a straight line
S9: rather than a crooked line. So you treat the Word
S9: of God with your full attention, your full intelligence and logic,
S9: guided by the Holy Spirit, and then using the Bible
S9: itself as the best commentary on what the Bible has
S9: to say, and revealing to you who Jesus was and
S9: find fulfillment in your walk with him.
S1: Well, it's certainly going to start a lot of chatter,
S1: I think, within the scientific community and if nothing else,
S1: behind closed doors, I think a lot of skeptics and
S1: cynics and self-proclaimed atheists, although I don't think anyone is
S1: truly an atheist, is going to have to say, well,
S1: it's Pascal's Wager. I mean, if if Mr. Kim is right, well,
S1: then I've lost everything. If he's wrong, I've lost nothing
S1: back after this. So I want to linger a little
S1: bit with this story because I think it's hugely significant.
S1: A man alleged to have the highest IQ in the world, 276.
S1: A gentleman who lives in South Korea. A man who's
S1: involved in quantum physics has now made the declaration that
S1: Jesus is the one for whom you can know God,
S1: and that it was through his teachings. He writes on
S1: X we found we can find the most complete and
S1: true knowledge of God, who is love and salvation. Now remember,
S1: this gentleman is into quantum physics. So let me quote
S1: a man who is deemed to be the father of
S1: quantum physics, a gentleman by the name of Werner Heisenberg.
S1: And he said this. The first gulp from the glass
S1: of a natural of natural sciences will make you an atheist.
S1: But at the bottom of the glass God is waiting
S1: for you. That a great sentence. But then I was
S1: thinking also, and kudos to the Babylon Bee for having
S1: picked up on this immediately, because they point out that
S1: the apostle Paul, who was a brilliant man. You and
S1: I are watching a fabulous series on Angel studio right
S1: now called Testament, and it's a modern retelling of the
S1: book of acts and it's sets. It's an all British cast,
S1: and it is absolutely riveting to see this modern retelling
S1: of the book of acts. But there's quite a bit
S1: of time at the beginning about Paul being tutored by Gamaliel,
S1: who was this brilliant rabbi. And Paul, of course, is
S1: his favorite student, and he's brilliant. So Paul had all
S1: the cred. Okay, he was Jewish, he was Roman, he
S1: was a scholar, and he was a terrorist. And that's
S1: about to change. Later in the book of acts, if
S1: you want to know what happens, read the book. It's terrific.
S1: But he also said this. He said the message of
S1: the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but
S1: to those who are being saved, it is the power
S1: of God. For it is written, I will destroy the
S1: wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent, I
S1: will frustrate. So what God is saying, it's wonderful that
S1: he's blessed with the IQ of 276. But God didn't
S1: make it so complex that only people were into quantum physics,
S1: would understand the message of the cross. And then Babylon
S1: Bee did this. And then I want you to react, Craig.
S1: They quoted Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself
S1: have founded great empires as only the narcissist Napoleon could
S1: put it. But upon what did these creations of our
S1: genius depend upon force? Jesus alone founded his empire upon love.
S1: And to this very day, millions would die for him.
S1: I think I understand something of human nature. And I
S1: tell you, all these were men, and I am a man,
S1: but none else is like him. Jesus Christ was more
S1: than a man. Even Napoleon Bonaparte had to answer the question,
S1: who is this Jesus?
S9: Yea, and the men who were marching into war for him.
S9: And by the way, at the very end, things got
S9: bad for him. Um, a lot of those men were
S9: enlisted and they were required to obey. Not out of
S9: love for Bonaparte, the Emperor. Uh, although some may have
S9: been fanatical enough to do that, but a great number
S9: of them were simply doing their required obedience. Jesus has
S9: followers who have Realized the love he has for us.
S9: Such a love that put him as the Son of
S9: God on a cross, to be tortured and killed for
S9: our sins because our death could not achieve that. No
S9: human death, no purely human blood, would ever have redeemed
S9: any of us. So Bonaparte recognizes it. Great men of
S9: science and women of science have recognized the distinctive and
S9: this whole issue of science versus faith science within its
S9: appropriate province, which is the empirical, which, in other words,
S9: it studies that which can be studied empirically in terms
S9: of physical experimentation and observation. But it doesn't mean that
S9: science has the answers to all of reality, because if
S9: there is a spiritual reality, science is unable to determine
S9: because its province doesn't include the spiritual. And more and
S9: more of these scientists are coming out to say science,
S9: properly understood, should stay in its lane. The spiritual. There's
S9: a reality out there that science cannot perfectly explain because
S9: science never was meant to.
S1: Well, the wonderful thing about this is it reminds us
S1: that whether you are someone who's into quantum physics with
S1: an IQ of 276, or whether you're the lowliest person
S1: in the factory sweeping the floors at night when the
S1: workers have gone home, every single one of us is
S1: going to have to face Jesus one day, whether you
S1: believe in him or not. So while you have the chance,
S1: you have this great opportunity to answer the question, Who
S1: is Jesus? Because how you answer that question is going
S1: to have an impact, not just how you live here
S1: on Earth, how you will see things. And I've said
S1: it before, and only those of us who have had
S1: an encounter with Jesus and believe he is exactly who
S1: he said he is. Understand when I say it's like
S1: going from watching a movie in black and white to
S1: seeing everything in Technicolor. I would imagine that's particularly pronounced
S1: for a science who studies form and order and relationships
S1: and science and angles and quantum physics and black holes
S1: and all of those majestic things. Suddenly, now the idea
S1: of randomness gets cast out of the window. It's too perfect.
S1: It works too well. It isn't just a nothingness. It
S1: can't just be randomness. There has to be a divine
S1: intelligence behind all of this that put it together. I
S1: think it's why the scriptures tell us that even the
S1: rocks cry out and the heavens declare his glory. God
S1: means it when he says he doesn't want anybody to
S1: be eternally separated from him. And he made the answer
S1: to that passion his Son Jesus Christ, who made a
S1: way of escape when every single one of us was
S1: condemned to die because of our sin. All have sinned
S1: and come short of the glory of God. There's not
S1: one righteous, no not one. And so this chasm between
S1: God and man wasn't bridged by quantum physics. It wasn't
S1: bridged by intellectual thinking or great ideas. political writings by
S1: Napoleon Bonaparte and other men who created, quote, great empires.
S1: It was bridged by the son of a carpenter who
S1: was the Son of God, who came and paid the
S1: penalty for our sins, and in so doing closed that
S1: chasm between God and man. So, Craig, for someone who
S1: is stepping into the weekend as we have this first
S1: day of summer, and may it be a good and
S1: glorious summer for us all. Something to think about as
S1: we turn the page and start a new season. What
S1: would you encourage people to do?
S9: Think about the people in that first century who followed him,
S9: and their lives were changed and they changed the world.
S9: They were relatively uneducated fishermen, common laborers. And then there
S9: was the Apostle Paul, one of the most brilliant men
S9: that ever lived. But all of them had one thing
S9: in common they encountered the living Christ by faith. And
S9: as a result of that, their lives and eternities were changed.
S9: And ours can be, too. And if you haven't made
S9: that decision, you're still on the fence. Go to his Gospels.
S9: See what Jesus really said. See what happened to his
S9: disciples in real life and in the book of acts,
S9: how their, uh, their timidity was erased when the Holy Spirit,
S9: through their faith, changed their destiny and changed, really, the
S9: future of the world.
S1: Amen and amen. Kind of hearkens back to our truth
S1: tool this month. Have you ever wondered why God creates
S1: that sense of awe? I would imagine that Mr. Kim
S1: had a sense of awe, sending quantum physics and realizing
S1: that there was a transition, a shift. There was something more.
S1: And I encourage you to read this book to realize
S1: that God put awe and wonder in our hearts, not
S1: by design, but by divine appointment. So we would stand
S1: someday in the presence of the one who truly inspires awe,
S1: the living God Himself. If you want a copy, call
S1: eight 7758. We're listener supported radio for a gift of
S1: any amount. It's my way of saying thank you. Have
S1: you ever wondered? We do this for another hour. Hope
S1: you can stick around. If not, download it on your
S1: favorite podcast. Have a great weekend. We'll see you next time.