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 Parshall.
S1: When you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner.
S1: Those are people who give every single month at a
S1: level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool,
S1: but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter
S1: that includes my writing and an audio piece just for
S1: my partial partners. So 877 Janet 58 or the website
S1: in the market with Janet Parshall. Consider becoming a partial
S1: partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you
S1: 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 one of.
S4: The Americans worshiping government over God.
S1: Extremely rare safety move by a mage 17 years.
S4: The Palestinians and the Israelis negotiated a.
S1: Truce. Hi, friends. Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall.
S1: Very happy Friday to you. I noted last hour. I
S1: think it's only fair to do it again this hour.
S1: This is the official first day of summer. Congratulations. You
S1: made it. It's also, by the way, the longest day
S1: of the year. It has something to do with the
S1: sunshine out there, so it's probably perfect timing as you
S1: go into a weekend. We're thrilled you're going to spend
S1: the hour with us. Craig Parshall is with me. On Fridays.
S1: We take out our glasses, put them on. It's the
S1: lens of Scripture, and take a look at the world
S1: around us and we'll see things. Fair warning a bit differently,
S1: because we do look at things through the lens of scripture.
S1: We get lots to talk about this hour. We're going
S1: to do a little I conversation very often on Fridays.
S1: Craig and I will dive into this topic because there's
S1: so much happening there. It's not the future, it is
S1: the here and now. There was a report in one
S1: of the alphabet soup networks this week about some of
S1: the dangers of AI. Here is ABC's take. Have a listen.
S5: This morning Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called godfather of AI, has
S5: a new warning about the technology he helped create.
S6: I often say 10 to 20% chance they'll wipe us out.
S5: In a new interview with podcast host Steven Bartlett, Hinton,
S5: a Nobel Prize winning computer scientist, says superintelligent machines could
S5: one day decide humans are no longer needed.
S6: It's smarter than us, right? There's no way we're going
S6: to prevent it getting rid of us if it wants to.
S6: If you want to know what life's like when you're
S6: not the apex intelligence, ask a chicken.
S5: Hinton, also warning of the many threats artificial intelligence poses
S5: right now, including massive cyber attacks, bioengineered viruses, lethal autonomous
S5: weapons and mass unemployment.
S6: If I was someone like a legal assistant, a paralegal,
S6: they're not going to be needed for very long for
S6: mundane intellectual labor. AI is just going to replace everybody.
S5: His advice for safer path.
S6: I'd say it's going to be a long time before
S6: it's as good at physical manipulation as us. Okay. And
S6: so a good bet would be to be a plumber still.
S5: Hinton believes there's hope, saying despite the risks, AI holds
S5: immense promise.
S6: It's going to be magnificent in healthcare and education, and
S6: more or less any industry that needs to use its data.
S6: It's going to be able to use it better with AI.
S5: But he warns the window to make sure AI is
S5: safe is closing fast.
S6: We have to face the possibility that unless we do
S6: something soon, we're near the end.
S5: Hinton predicts. AI will become better than people at most
S5: tasks in the next 10 to 20 years.
S1: What a way to start a Friday. Thanks, Janet. Well, Mr. Hinton,
S1: the godfather of AI, said that there's going to be
S1: some issues. Well, let me bring this home. Okay. I'm
S1: not sure of the rise of the machine is going
S1: to happen this weekend. But let me tell you what
S1: is going to happen. And it's been one of my
S1: stated concerns all along. I'm all for human flourishing. It's
S1: a biblical principle, and I want to see my fellow
S1: man have the opportunity to put bread on his table
S1: and to look well to the ways of his household. Well,
S1: you get this now from Amazon, the CEO. There is
S1: a fellow by the name of Andy Jassy, and he
S1: said that generative AI is changing the company's workflow. He
S1: said that in addition to efficiency gains, he expects that
S1: I could mean that white collar jobs are going to
S1: be cut. It's unclear exactly how widespread the reduction in
S1: force could be or when it will happen. And so
S1: he had a very blunt message saying it's going to
S1: reduce the company's workflow for the next few years. And
S1: he said this, and I'm quoting him as we roll
S1: out more generative AI and agents, it should change the
S1: way our work is done. We will need fewer people
S1: doing some of the jobs that are being done today,
S1: and more people doing other types of jobs. It's hard
S1: to know exactly where this nets out over time, but
S1: in the next few years, we expect that this will
S1: reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains
S1: from using AI extensively across the company. Right now, Amazon
S1: currently employs about 1.5 million workers, according to its website,
S1: and it's kind of unclear how many employees or in
S1: which sectors that would be affected by AI driven jobs. Now,
S1: this just underscores something, Craig, that I had said long ago,
S1: that I'm not applauding the fact that AI is going
S1: to come in. I mean, the idea of having a
S1: receptionist be a robot just absolutely amazes me why anyone
S1: would think that that was a step up rather than
S1: a step backwards. And now you're going to take people
S1: away from a job that is going to be. And
S1: no job is menial if it puts bread on your table.
S1: So people are going to say, well, you took my
S1: job away and you gave it to a robot instead.
S1: I mean, it might be great for the bottom line
S1: for the corporation, and I'm sure that Amazon, who I
S1: hear is not really struggling with money, uh, is going
S1: to put robots in place. So they throw human beings
S1: on the ash heap of history and say, bring in
S1: the machines instead. I have a problem with this morally
S1: and ethically.
S7: Yeah. There's a new phrase now that I've been reading,
S7: as I've been following, uh, the AI regulation proposals, both
S7: here at home and abroad and the global community, meaning
S7: all of the nation states that are technologically advanced are
S7: dealing with. What do we do with this? Because it's
S7: racing out of control in terms of innovation being way
S7: ahead of regulation. Um, and really, there are scant regulations
S7: right now, but a lot of proposals, the phrase is
S7: digital sovereignty. In other words, you know what national sovereignty means?
S7: It means human governments, uh, having sovereign rights and authority
S7: over its land, its borders, its people, and the way
S7: in which it governs. And that's an element that's been
S7: recognized for millennia. Well, digital sovereignty means that we are
S7: allowing to digital computers and digital processes and programs to
S7: make decisions that are sovereign, meaning final, authoritative and controlling. Uh,
S7: and that's a problem. Now, the speed at which AI
S7: is being developed is subject to some limitations. Not many,
S7: but some. Number one, it's limitations of energy because these
S7: AI systems use such huge amounts of energy, uh, to
S7: develop these, uh, that now the hunt is on for
S7: sources of energy that can fuel the continuing education, as
S7: they call it, machine learning for these AI systems to
S7: become not self-aware, because I believe awareness is something that
S7: God has given to humankind, rather its ability to master
S7: more data and let's just call it what it is.
S7: It's a machine that we feed with data, and then
S7: it spits out some kind of result based on how
S7: it's been coded by human beings, hopefully to solve problems.
S7: But the speed at which it's being taught could take
S7: over large amounts of our economy, large amounts of our
S7: work population. So who's going to put the brakes on
S7: and when are they going to do it right?
S1: And the love of money is the root of all evil.
S1: I'm not putting it down. I'm a great believer in
S1: the free market. I take the capitalist system over any
S1: other system on planet Earth right now. But again, when
S1: you're going to take a man and replace him with
S1: a machine, there's an ethical component to that, not strictly
S1: a financial one who's going to make sure that that
S1: ethic reigns supreme? By the way, you want to know
S1: what sovereignty is? It's the name of the horse that
S1: won the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont. Back after this.
S1: The questions that matter most often come while watching a sunset,
S1: or listening to music, or looking into the night sky.
S1: That's why I've chosen. Have you ever wondered, as this
S1: month's truth tool? God draws us to himself through a
S1: sense of awe and wonder, and this book will help
S1: you discover how. As for your copy of have you
S1: ever wondered when you give a gift of any amount
S1: in the market, call 87758. That's 877 58 or go to.
S1: In the market with Janet Parshall. So glad you're joining
S1: us on this hour's edition of In the Market with
S1: Janet Parshall. So we were just talking in fact, you've
S1: heard the ABC story about Mr.. Um, Hinton, who is
S1: deemed to be the Godfather, the creator of AI, and
S1: he's got some serious concerns and he doesn't use this phrase,
S1: but I think we understand it in common parlance, culturally,
S1: is that he's concerned about the rise of the machine,
S1: in other words, that I will get smarter than human beings,
S1: and we're going to build them so that they're smarter
S1: than us, by the way. Well, I don't know if
S1: that's going to happen or not, but there are several
S1: more prescient concerns as far as I'm concerned. Like what
S1: Amazon just said, where they're going to be losing all
S1: kinds of jobs. And Amazon's not the only company, by
S1: the way, in America. A lot of companies are saying,
S1: we're going to replace you as the human being with
S1: a machine. And you know what? Then they don't have
S1: to pay employee tax. They don't have to provide benefits.
S1: They don't have to do a 401 K. You don't
S1: get time off for being sick. And it's all about
S1: the bottom line. This is what happens when, as a culture,
S1: you step away from seeing the image of God in
S1: your fellow man. It is all so much more than
S1: the pro-life movement. So I get it. If you're Mr.
S1: Corporate right, and you want to make sure that you
S1: just bring in as much money as possible and that
S1: your outlay is a whole lot less than your income,
S1: then you're going to replace it with machines. And when
S1: you're a mega company like Amazon, you've got the the
S1: bucks to be able to do it. And in so doing,
S1: you're going to have all kinds of people going to
S1: lose their jobs. You also heard Mr. Hinton say, you know,
S1: I feel sorry for paralegals, for example, we're going to
S1: get them to do their research by using ChatGPT and, um,
S1: all of these other kinds of programs that are out there. Well,
S1: I got news for you. There's a new report. I
S1: just love it. In fact, there's a study that was
S1: done that basically said using AI makes you stupid. Okay,
S1: I'm not surprised about any of this at all. Artificial
S1: intelligence chat box. Apparently risk making people less intelligent by
S1: hampering the development of critical thinking. Something we have set
S1: up in this program. Memory and language skills is all
S1: according to the research that they found. So it was
S1: done by none other than MIT. Okay, no slouch organization
S1: when it comes to tech Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And
S1: they found that people who relied on ChatGPT to write
S1: essays had lower brain activity. This is so not rocket
S1: science than those who use their brain alone. You think
S1: the group who used AI also performed worse than the brain.
S1: Only participants in a series of tests. Those who had
S1: used AI also struggled when asked to perform tasks without it. Reliance.
S1: This is what the paper said. Reliance on AI systems
S1: can lead to a passive approach and a diminished activation
S1: of critical thinking skills when the person later performs tasks alone.
S1: Researchers also warned the findings raise concerns about long term
S1: educational implications of using AI, both in schools and in
S1: the workplace. It adds to a growing number of work
S1: that suggests people's brains switch off when they use A.I..
S1: So this is just and there's so much about this
S1: that just goes on and on and on. So it's
S1: MIT again, who's immersed in the world of technology and
S1: their research says, you're dumbing down. I said this to you, Craig,
S1: in the multiple conversations we've had about AI is that
S1: I think believe, number one, it stifles creativity. Number two,
S1: I've said this as well. I think it's cheating. I
S1: think it's cheating when a pastor uses AI to write
S1: their sermon or a law, a lawyer uses it to
S1: write their brief for their case, or a student uses
S1: it to write their term paper. You didn't do the thinking.
S1: Some programmer behind a screen somewhere put the zeros and
S1: ones into a machine, and the machine spit it out.
S1: You know, it's when you and I went to school. Yes,
S1: we're going to date ourselves. You could go to the
S1: bookstore at college, and if you didn't want to read
S1: the novel for your English Lit class, you could buy, quote, CliffsNotes.
S1: I can even remember the colors yellow and black at
S1: the cover of these books. And they were quick synopses
S1: of whatever the book was that you were supposed to read.
S1: So rather than reading the 258 pages of the book
S1: you were assigned to read for that semester, you went
S1: to the CliffsNotes. Who did the thinking for you? My world.
S1: This is the Cliff's Notes in modern technology. AI is
S1: giving you your cheat sheet. It comes as zero surprise
S1: to me that this is dumbing down. And by the way,
S1: the last time I checked, I don't think America suffers
S1: from too much critical thinking. That's why in this program
S1: we say we're going to teach you how to think
S1: critically and biblically.
S7: Yeah. When I went through the shadow of the valley
S7: of the Shadow of Death in three years in law school, um,
S7: we we knew where we could go if somebody wanted
S7: to get what we called a canned brief, uh, of
S7: the next day's readings of cases. And by the way, um,
S7: we had a whole lot of cases that we had
S7: to read, and then we would sit there and wait
S7: for the professor to call our name. You stand up
S7: and you recite the facts properly, analysis properly, and then
S7: he will go into the Socratic method and go Q&A
S7: with you until you're thoroughly embarrassed by what you forgot
S7: about the case. But there were those who said, well,
S7: they know how to get a canned brief that some, uh,
S7: former law student supposedly summarized the cases for you on
S7: 2 or 3 paragraphs. That's all you need to know
S7: rather than read a 20 or 25 page complicated case,
S7: and then turn to the next case and then have
S7: another 25 cases to read until 2:00 in the morning.
S7: Let's just use a canned brief. Well, I have to
S7: tell you, that's a poor way to study the law,
S7: and it's a good way to flunk out of law school.
S7: By the way, um, and as you pointed out, there
S7: are all kinds of little cheap tricks that supposedly will
S7: make life easier for students of whatever educational tier they're in, uh,
S7: to quicker and more easily and with less sweat equity
S7: to be able to learn what they're supposed to learn.
S7: But that's not true. It's the sweat equity of getting
S7: into information and finding out how to think. Education is really, uh,
S7: as my grandfather told me. And he was a accounting professor,
S7: by the way, I didn't inherit those kind of math
S7: skills or accounting skills. Believe you, me and my wife
S7: knows this. Um, but he said education is the process
S7: of learning how to learn, not learning what to learn.
S7: And so the process of learning is the critical thinking
S7: that you and I talk about on this program. And
S7: for followers of Christ, whether it's discerning what the Bible
S7: has to say in context rather than out of context
S7: or matching what the world is saying with what the
S7: Word of God has to say, or reading the newspapers
S7: and figuring out what's happening in your government. Government is
S7: a gift from God, particularly a constitutional republic. You ought
S7: to know how it's being run and who's running it,
S7: and whether you agree with the policies or not. All
S7: of that requires a little bit of digging, a little
S7: bit of education, a little bit of sweat equity, but
S7: I think it's worth it.
S1: Yeah. I couldn't agree more. I think there's a reason.
S1: One of the first verses you memorize in Awana, right?
S1: Study to show yourself approved unto God.
S7: John 119. That great chapter.
S1: Doesn't say use ChatGPT. We've got more to talk about.
S1: This is in the market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial
S1: is with me. We're going to turn the page another
S1: topic and keep those thinking caps on, will you? Biblically, critically.
S1: That's how we work back after this. So let's move
S1: to the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. An interesting story.
S1: The FCC chair, a fellow by the name of Brandon Carr,
S1: is moving to reform broadcast rules. And what he wants
S1: to do is constrain big media, curtail Big Tech, and
S1: boost local journalism. This is a great segue out of I,
S1: by the way, because remember, a lot of the tech
S1: stuff comes is fostering these forms of artificial intelligence that
S1: are dumbing us down as we go along. So, Craig,
S1: why does he want to do this and explain they're
S1: going to issue something called a pen. It's called a
S1: public notice. Uh, and it is giving the The opportunity
S1: for people to weigh in on this particular topic. This is,
S1: you know, and I'm glad people are hearing this because
S1: the government doesn't work in isolation. There are points where
S1: the public is allowed to weigh in. The problem is,
S1: if you don't know, you don't weigh in, or you
S1: don't know that this opportunity for your expression in self-governance
S1: is allowed. So I think this is really a great idea.
S1: And they just issued this, and it's going to give
S1: the opportunity for the agency, the FCC, to get comments
S1: on reforming the national broadcast television ownership cap. That's a mouthful.
S1: But I give you George Soros as an example. So
S1: go ahead and talk to me about this.
S7: Yeah. First of all, I'm a great admirer of Brandon Carr,
S7: who had a chance to to meet with him when
S7: he was being proposed as a commissioner. Now the FCC
S7: has five commissioners, but one is the chair of the
S7: of the FCC. So you got four others, and, uh,
S7: two are appointed by the Republicans and two by the Democrats.
S7: And then the, uh, the chair of the FCC is
S7: appointed by the president. So elections have a lot to
S7: do with that. Obviously, when a president comes in, he
S7: or she will nominate a person. And in this case,
S7: when President Trump was elected, Brandon Carr, who was already
S7: then had served as a regular commissioner among the four,
S7: was elevated and appointed um, as uh, as the chair
S7: of the FCC. Now, here's why I think this makes
S7: a lot of sense. Let me just boil it down. Uh,
S7: the Federal Communications Commission, uh, is created by Congress and created, uh,
S7: 100 years ago, basically when radio was first the, uh,
S7: the brand new thing for information and then the television
S7: became the newest communication thing. But radio, television, to some extent, telephone, uh, regulations, uh,
S7: and very limited, uh, ability to regulate what goes on
S7: in terms of satellite communications through the internet. But communications
S7: is their business to make sure that America's communication systems
S7: work efficiently and fairly. Because after all, information I call
S7: information the intellectual infrastructure for everything that happens in our
S7: nation and in our lives and in our families. Information
S7: is key. So the free flow of information has to
S7: be kept open. We don't want a few entities, whether
S7: it's government or private big tech companies, to control what
S7: I like to call the choke, the choke point of information.
S7: In other words, be able to, with a flick of
S7: a switch, turn off a certain avenue of information so
S7: we can't get all avenues of information. Why is it important?
S7: Because it helps us know what's happening in our government.
S7: When we don't like it. We can tell our legislators
S7: exactly what we believe. When elections come, we want to
S7: know what the positions are of the people who are
S7: elected and if there's only a few mouthpieces of information,
S7: then we may not get the full facts about what's
S7: out there for us to vote. So, uh, open, diverse, uh,
S7: multiple channels of information is what the FCC wants to achieve.
S7: And big tech for some time now. And I say
S7: big tech. I mean companies like meta, which used to
S7: be called Facebook, Google, uh, and uh, just 2 or
S7: 3 others, Amazon, Microsoft are really controlling the vast majority
S7: of what we can see online. And most people are
S7: now turning to online sources like what's on our iPhone
S7: or what's on our laptop to get information, uh, to
S7: find out what the weather is, uh, to check on
S7: political candidates, uh, to get our news and information in
S7: addition to radio and television. So the FCC is saying
S7: and by the way, this is an old story. Um, um,
S7: I think it was probably about 15 years ago. Uh,
S7: I had the privilege of testifying in front of the
S7: FCC when they were saying, we need an investigation into
S7: a proceeding on the impact of the internet on Americans
S7: opportunity to have a full, unfettered media. And the internet
S7: was challenging a traditional radio and television. By the way,
S7: I am a believer in radio. I don't think it's
S7: going anywhere soon. And the death of radio has been,
S7: you know, predicted, uh, decade after decade after decade. It
S7: is radio is here to stay. And I believe so
S7: is television, although television has been merged into internet platforms.
S7: So the point is this FCC is saying, are we
S7: allowing some big tech companies, a handful of them, to
S7: really have oversized, uh, input into, uh, what we read
S7: and what we see and where we get our news,
S7: as opposed to traditional media like radio and television, newspapers
S7: and so forth. And so this investigation, I think, is
S7: a renewed effort to make sure that we have a
S7: multiplicity of avenues of information, not a centralized hub of
S7: a couple of Silicon Valley companies calling the shots on
S7: what we can read.
S1: So second quick FCC story, Craig. And that is apparently
S1: the FCC wants to review a policy that was under
S1: the Biden administration and it had to do with cybersecurity programs.
S1: And they're launching an investigation to ensure alleged, quote, deep
S1: ties to China don't threaten or undermine national security. What's
S1: this all.
S7: About? Well, during the Biden administration, a private entity was
S7: kind of appointed as the company that would set standards, uh,
S7: to evaluate cybersecurity of federal agencies. Oh, that sounds okay.
S7: That's what government does. Except the entity, the business entity,
S7: the experts, so-called who would be developing the standards to
S7: determine cybersecurity of federal agencies and the federal government had
S7: deep connections to China and China. In case you haven't noticed,
S7: it is not our friend.
S1: That's exactly right. All right, we've got more. In fact,
S1: there's a pretty good segue coming up here from China
S1: to Israel. We're going to talk about that when we
S1: get back. This is in the market with Janet Parshall.
S1: Craig Parshall is with me. If you don't yet have
S1: a copy of Have You Wondered? It's yours for a
S1: gift of any amount. A577 Janet, 58, or online at
S1: In the Market with Janet Parshall. Jesus told us to
S1: go into the world and not run away from it,
S1: and he didn't say it would be easy. In the
S1: market with Janet Parshall is a program designed to come
S1: alongside and walk with you into the marketplace of ideas.
S1: Partial partners are those friends who support our program on
S1: a regular monthly basis. They know the mandate of influencing
S1: and occupying until he comes. So why don't you become
S1: part of the inner circle of support? Call 877 Janet
S1: 58 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Well,
S1: I don't know about you, but I think this is
S1: one of the most interesting and exciting times to be
S1: a follower of Jesus. And if you are going through
S1: life with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper
S1: in the other, boy, I tell you what, you are
S1: beginning to see some pretty interesting things happen. Now look,
S1: let's just lay out the facts, okay? Jesus is coming again.
S1: I don't know when he's every promise he's ever made.
S1: He's kept. So I'm pretty sure he's going to absolutely
S1: keep his word on this one as well. And the
S1: Bible says there's no warning. It just boom. It happens
S1: in an instant. No man knows the hour or the day.
S1: Not even the son. Only the father knows he's going
S1: to come like a thief in the night, the scripture says,
S1: but because God loves us, he tells us to start
S1: looking for some of the signs. Like a woman in
S1: labor right before the baby's born. There's these labor pains.
S1: So the Bible lays out with clarity some of the
S1: things that are going to happen. And one of the things,
S1: of course, is that we watch the nation of Israel
S1: because the Bible tells us that before he returns, there's
S1: going to be a whole lot of stuff happening. Remember
S1: that after the rapture, the rapture, the tribulation begins. And
S1: what happens? There's three and a half years of false
S1: peace with Israel. Well, thinking people have finally figured out
S1: that if there's a false peace, there has to be
S1: a war that precedes what's going on with Israel. Because otherwise,
S1: why would you have a false peace? So it suggests
S1: that there might be some kind of a treaty that's made,
S1: but it'll be false and it won't last for long.
S1: And we could go on and on and on. But
S1: let me just stop right there on the eschatological timeline
S1: for a little bit. So when you see what's happening,
S1: when the nations rise against Israel, when Iran makes the
S1: declaration that they're going to annihilate the little Satan, and
S1: the United States being the Great Satan. By the way,
S1: yesterday in the news was, now we know that China
S1: is backdooring with Iran a little bit. Wow. Well, remember,
S1: China hates the United States. We are the biggest encumbrance
S1: to their global hegemony. So naturally they're partnering with Iran.
S1: Makes sense. Russia is a little bit occupied right now
S1: with Ukraine. So they're not going to be Johnny on
S1: the spot. But that doesn't stop China from providing who
S1: knows what, including Chinese ships in the area that some
S1: are saying are offering Intel to what's going on with
S1: the rent, I don't know. It's absolutely fascinating just from
S1: a geopolitical perspective. But it also is interesting when you
S1: start looking at it from a spiritual perspective. Something is
S1: happening in the nation of Iran. The people are crying
S1: out for regime change. I don't care what the talking
S1: heads in Washington have to say. I believe what the
S1: Iranian people are saying, and I trust sources like Thomas
S1: Harriot who said that the people have had it. Muslim
S1: Islam hasn't answered their questions. They're tired of the ayatollahs.
S1: They're tired of the boot of theocracy on their neck.
S1: They want something different. They've tried Islam. It didn't work.
S1: A lot of them moved to atheism that left them
S1: empty headed and empty hearted. And now so many in
S1: record numbers, the fastest growing number of evangelicals in the
S1: world is happening in the country of Iran. That's a headline,
S1: whether CNN appreciates it or not. And you also understand
S1: when you pick this verse that talks about a lion rising,
S1: it's about this is what Netanyahu from the Book of
S1: Numbers chose this as what this particular operation is called. Well,
S1: the lion is also on Iran's flag as well. So
S1: I don't know all that's happening. I just know that
S1: something is happening. And so for a lot of us
S1: who are believers in Christ, we sit, we watch, we wait.
S1: We don't know, but we are paying attention. And that's
S1: exactly what the scriptures told us to do, which is
S1: to pay attention. Well, you knew this had to happen
S1: sooner or later. And I'm actually thrilled it did, because boy,
S1: does it give us something to talk about in the
S1: marketplace of ideas. So there's this woman by the name
S1: of Jennifer Welch. She's the co-host of a podcast called
S1: I've Had It. She gets on CNN. And without further ado,
S1: you're going to we're going to talk about it. But
S1: I just want you to hear what she had to say.
S1: Have a listen.
S8: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. He's a rapture prepper.
S8: This guy is waiting for the rapture, just like Ted
S8: Cruz is. So you have this whole sect of MAGA
S8: that they support Israel because they want the Jews to
S8: be in Israel so that Jesus can come back for
S8: the rapture. And that's a very real thing that's in Congress.
S8: And that's not not foreign policy. That's magical thinking.
S9: So, Alex, what do you think about this? I mean, I.
S10: Support Israel for religious purposes, but I also don't believe
S10: the United States should be in a prolonged conflict. There
S10: are a lot of Christians in this country who support
S10: Israel who would say, let's be judicious. I understand that,
S10: but the point I'm making is that shouldn't be a
S10: lot of policy. But but a lot of people can
S10: separate their religious views from foreign policy decisions. And so
S10: I wouldn't, you know, castigate a negative against people who
S10: have religious views.
S1: Now, thank goodness for the clear thinking individual who said
S1: that and said, I support Israel for religious reasons. You know,
S1: the idea. I don't know where I come from. You
S1: can walk and chew gum at the same time. These this,
S1: this woman who was rude and kept interrupting and now
S1: gave me a term I'm never going to get. I am, yes,
S1: unembarrassed without any hesitation I Janet partial m a rapture prepper.
S1: I am always going to be a rapture prepper and
S1: you know how you prepare. You invite Jesus Christ into
S1: your heart as Lord and Savior. Boom! That's it. You
S1: are prepared if you confess with your mouth that Jesus
S1: is Lord and believe in your heart that God has
S1: raised him from the dead whenever that moment happens when
S1: Jesus comes Harpazo is the word in first Thessalonians. It's
S1: the same word that's used when Philip is transported after
S1: sharing the gospel with the Ethiopian eunuch. It's a fabulous word,
S1: and it just means this, this idea of being moved. Okay,
S1: when Jesus comes and takes us up in the air
S1: with him, there is going to be no warning whatsoever.
S1: So you better be prepared. And I've got a word
S1: for you. If you are not a rapture prepper now,
S1: then God have mercy on your soul, because the only
S1: people who are alive today who will be taken up
S1: in the air with him, are those who have made
S1: the profession of faith that Jesus is exactly who he
S1: said he is the way, the truth, and the life,
S1: and no one comes to the father but by him.
S1: So what this poor woman does is she tries to
S1: conflate the idea of the rapture going. Mike Johnson believes that, yep,
S1: he happens to be a born again professing Christian. Ted
S1: Cruz believes that, yep, he happens to be a born
S1: again professing Christian. If those born again professing brothers don't
S1: believe that the rapture is going to come. We're going
S1: to have a conversation. But I have to tell you also,
S1: this is bad. It's sloppy thinking on her part to
S1: say that those Christians want the Jews in Israel. So
S1: Jesus will come. Hmm. Not quite. I mean, we saw
S1: in 1948 she's a little late that 1948 was the
S1: fulfillment of prophecy. When the Jewish state was created in 1948.
S1: The Jews are in Israel. For the record, they've been
S1: there for thousands and thousands of years. This is the
S1: Jewish state. So the statement about they want the Jews
S1: back in Israel so that Jesus will come close, but
S1: no cigar, as they say.
S7: Now, I normally agree you and I agree on almost everything,
S7: but not even not even close, Janet. This is. It's
S7: so ludicrous. But I'll tell you. Let's let's put the
S7: flashlight on this problem. The reason that's such a ridiculous statement.
S7: And by the way, um, at the turn of the century,
S7: from the 20th into the 21st century, Entry. You and
S7: I remember that, um, there was a lot of talk
S7: about an apocalypse coming, and and Israel was sort of
S7: on a heightened alert because there had been some suggestions
S7: that there might be people who were going to try
S7: to hasten some, some, you know, bad prophecies, some bad
S7: ideas about prophecy in the Bible. Um, and of course,
S7: nothing happened but this idea that just because two things
S7: seem to have a correlation means that one is causing
S7: the other. You can be a supporter of Israel and
S7: not do it because you want to hasten the coming
S7: of Christ, by the way.
S1: First of all.
S7: The timing is up to God, not us. Well, there's
S7: nothing we can do to hasten to slow. He's God's
S7: got it. His own time schedule here.
S1: Yeah. There's nothing that we as mortals can do to
S1: hasten his return. Right. So, point number one. Know your Bible. Okay.
S1: There's nothing. We're not pulling the levers. We're not. If
S1: we do this Abracadabra, we can make God do that.
S1: Even Jesus doesn't know. The Bible tells us only the
S1: father knows. And there's no sign that has to come
S1: before he takes us up in the rapture. There's no
S1: other prophecy that needs to be fulfilled.
S7: Which means we're closer now than we were yesterday.
S1: Hence the word imminent, which means we don't know. But boy,
S1: it's close. And then if you look at some of
S1: those birth signs, they're all over the place. So slaying
S1: Dragon number one, mortals don't do anything to get God
S1: to make his return of his son anytime soon, right?
S7: But when Christians support Israel, it doesn't mean that the
S7: Christians are saying the more we support Israel and all
S7: that it does, the quicker Jesus is going to come.
S7: That's first of all, that's that's a secular and delusional
S7: idea about what Christians believe. Because if they'd ask us,
S7: we'd tell them, no, that's not it. We support Israel
S7: because the Jews are who God Chose. And the story
S7: is right there in the Bible. We can read it together.
S1: So let's also talk about this. Supporting the nation of
S1: Israel doesn't have to mean I support everything they do politically.
S1: I love you dearly. I don't support everything that you do, okay?
S1: You don't support everything that I do. I love the
S1: nation of Israel. Do you know that Tel Aviv is
S1: one of the number one gay spots in the globe
S1: to go visit? That breaks my heart. I'm sure it
S1: breaks God's heart too as well. There are decisions that
S1: have been handed down by the Supreme Court in Israel
S1: that I would disagree with, so I don't have to
S1: support every governing decision in the current moment that they
S1: are making. Now, can I draw a distinction between the
S1: nation of Israel and the Jewish people? No. The Zionist
S1: state is the Jewish state. It's made up of Jewish people.
S1: Can I love the Jewish people 100%? Do I have
S1: to agree with all of the decisions that are made
S1: by their government? Absolutely not. But apparently there's this idea
S1: out there that again, Christians must be poor, uneducated and
S1: easy to command. Even though we just talked last hour
S1: that the man with the highest IQ in the world,
S1: 276in into quantum physics has just come to know Christ
S1: as his personal Saviour. So apparently not all Christians are dumb.
S1: But apparently this promulgation of the idea of stupidity is. Well,
S1: you have when you say that you support the nation
S1: of Israel, it means that you're blindly supporting every political
S1: decision that we're.
S7: Being forced into a binary choice. Either accept everything about
S7: Israel and you're doing it for the wrong reason because
S7: you want to hasten Jesus coming, or you should oppose
S7: everything Israel seems to be doing. And it's inconsistent. And
S7: regardless of where you are biblically, the idea of supporting
S7: Israel for a Christian is different than someone who doesn't
S7: follow Christ. Now, by the way, there are geopolitical and
S7: political reasons. As an American, why, even if you don't
S7: follow Christ as your Savior. As a matter of faith,
S7: it's still smart to support Israel for a whole number
S7: of logical reasons, because in a very troubled region. They
S7: have been the best friend of the United States of
S7: America and vice versa.
S1: Yeah, well, this subject is too rich to leave unfinished.
S1: And I want to continue to talk about this. But
S1: now we've got a new word in our vocabulary, Rapture Preppers.
S1: So I'm going to remember that. And this poor woman
S1: conflates this, throws in a little MAGA. I don't know
S1: what Donald Trump has to do with the return of
S1: Jesus at all under any stretch of the imagination. But
S1: her declaration again, this podcast co-host said that Christians believe
S1: that if Jews are going to be in Israel, then
S1: Jesus can come back. Well, no, sorry, but but she
S1: tried to make that a political red herring. And that's
S1: what we call a straw man argument. And also being
S1: biblically illiterate. So this rapture prepper is going to take
S1: a break and we'll be right back after this.
S8: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. He's a rapture prepper.
S8: This guy's waiting for the rapture, just like Ted Cruz Cruz's.
S8: So you have this whole sect of MAGA that they
S8: support Israel because they want the Jews to be in
S8: Israel so that Jesus can come back for the rapture.
S8: And that's a very real thing that's in Congress. And
S8: that's not not foreign policy. That's magical thinking.
S9: So, Alex, what do you think about this? I mean, yeah, I.
S10: Support Israel for religious purposes, but I also don't believe
S10: the United States should be in a prolonged conflict. There
S10: are a lot of Christians in this country who support
S10: Israel who would say, let's be judicious. I understand that,
S10: but the point I'm making is it shouldn't be a
S10: lot of policy, but but a lot of people can
S10: separate their religious views from foreign policy decisions. And so
S10: I wouldn't, you know, castigate a negative against people who
S10: have religious views.
S1: That poor woman was in tall cotton and she was
S1: just out of her league. But the separation of church
S1: and state. How ridiculous.
S7: But the rebuttal, I thought was right on, which is look,
S7: I he said, for religious reasons, support Israel. And it
S7: doesn't mean that I have to be tied into some
S7: kind of eschatology that says, I'm trying to hasten Jesus coming. Um,
S7: and I can also separate it from foreign policy issues. Now,
S7: I just said a couple of minutes ago, I think
S7: there's some very solid, uh, public policy and foreign policy
S7: reasons why it's in America's best interests to generally support Israel.
S7: That doesn't mean that we support all of those decisions.
S7: And when it makes decisions that we disagree with. As
S7: a matter of policy, we can articulate that. Um, but, um,
S7: as followers of Christ, there's a, you know, the Bible
S7: is a theological tome. It's it's God's word to us,
S7: but it's also accurate history. And Israel's place in that
S7: land is documented in this document called the Bible without Question.
S1: You know, I find this interesting because as as much
S1: as she kept throwing these straw man arguments into it,
S1: that this shouldn't be in Congress. Listen, everybody who sits
S1: all 435 people that sit in Congress, 100in the Senate,
S1: 345in the House, all of them have a worldview. Oh,
S1: that every one of them was a professing follower of
S1: Jesus Christ. And we can pray to that end, because
S1: Paul told Timothy we should be praying for those in authority.
S1: So she tries to make it a separation of church
S1: and state. Like if you hold that particular worldview, you're
S1: disqualified and then throws in a Trumpism by calling it
S1: it's a Maga thing. Well, I imagine there's all kinds
S1: of people who never voted for Donald Trump who believe
S1: the exact same thing.
S7: Well, you know, the Constitution has this little phrase in
S7: there that says that you cannot it's illegal to apply
S7: a religious test.
S1: Yeah, exactly.
S7: So she was trying to put her own imprint on it.
S1: So take the chaos and confusion. And by the way,
S1: God is not the author of confusion. Take the confusion
S1: of the world. Just push it aside for a minute
S1: and let's bring it a little bit closer to home.
S1: What I find interesting is that what's happening between Israel
S1: and Iran right now is causing an even more robust
S1: conversation in the church, and now the Twittersphere is loaded
S1: with conversations about whether or not replacement theology is the
S1: theology du jour. That's somewhere between Malachi and Matthew. God
S1: changed his mind. And Israel, the nation is no longer Israel,
S1: the nation in the New Testament that it has been
S1: replaced by the church. And I'm watching some pretty fierce
S1: debates going back and forth with people who say, wait,
S1: it's the same message from Genesis to Revelation. And those
S1: who have said, no, it's those dispensationalists that are causing
S1: all the problems. Well, I raised my hand. I'm a
S1: very happy dispensationalist, thank you very much. And I make
S1: no apologies to that in. And that's I see continuity
S1: and I see a continuation in the position of God's
S1: posture on this. But I'm very I'm going to watch
S1: this debate inside the church with great interest. So thankful
S1: we talked to people like Doctor Michael Redlich, who can
S1: walk us through the scriptures to say there's a preponderance
S1: of evidence that God didn't change his mind somewhere along
S1: the way, and that Israel, the nation, is not Israel
S1: the nation anymore. It now is referring to the church.
S1: Your thoughts on this?
S7: Well, Paul had some very straightforward things to say about Israel,
S7: the people of Israel and the Israelites, and the idea
S7: of the nation of Israel in the book of Romans.
S7: And he asked a rhetorical question. And the the answer
S7: was obvious has God deserted Israel? And he said, absolutely not. Uh,
S7: God has a plan, a providential plan for the people
S7: of Israel. Uh, and if you treat the Old Testament
S7: as something that can be discarded because the New Testament
S7: is the newest thing, then you are exercising a very
S7: poor version of theology, because Jesus repeatedly in the New Testament,
S7: in the four Gospels, goes back to the Old Testament
S7: and authenticates and reaffirms what was said there in the
S7: Old Testament. So do the did the apostles Paul, Peter,
S7: and others. So, uh, if you don't understand that this
S7: is a seamless garment from Genesis to Revelation, then you
S7: haven't grasped number one, the Bible as a whole, and
S7: what God's Word as a whole says. And number two,
S7: you'll miss or you'll mistake what God, what his attitude
S7: is about the nation of Israel.
S1: Yeah. Amazing. So how do it raises the question? Thank you,
S1: Doctor Francis Schaeffer, for asking it so many years ago,
S1: because it's a question still worth asking and an answer
S1: still worth pursuing. How then shall we live? What do
S1: we do?
S7: Well, first of all, you have to decide how you
S7: answer the most important question. Where do I stand with
S7: who Jesus Christ is? It's it's simply an interesting historical
S7: person that some people believe has something to do with religion.
S7: Or have you made a personal decision to look at
S7: the claims about Christ and decide where you stand. Was
S7: he the Son of God? Was he an insane man?
S7: Was he a manipulating minister who was trying to gain
S7: a following for political reasons? Who was he? You need
S7: to answer that question first. I believe that the Bible
S7: makes it very clear. The apostles who were there and
S7: saw him and heard him, and saw his miracles, and
S7: saw the Old Testament prophecies about him fulfilled in their eyes.
S7: They were eyewitnesses. As the New Testament says, in a
S7: variety of different ways to who he was as the
S7: Son of God. So face that question first, and where
S7: you'll find out the answer. If you have any questions,
S7: go to the Gospels.
S1: And oh, may God make us quick to hear. You know,
S1: when somebody shows up on CNN, which airs in 127
S1: countries internationally and starts talking about the return of Jesus
S1: and the rapture, that's such a good thing. Even if
S1: she was, if she missed it by a mile. The
S1: point is, she started a conversation that creates an open
S1: door for us to start asking questions and listening with
S1: the ears on our heart, and really engaging in a
S1: culture that, do you really believe in this rapture thing?
S1: And who is this Jesus? And what does the Bible
S1: say about the Jewish people? ET cetera. I mean, you
S1: talk about fertile ground. Oh my goodness, there are more.
S7: An open door for conversation, debate, discussion. So let's be
S7: praying for those who are listening to these stories about
S7: what is this rapture? What is this Israel stuff? What
S7: does that have to do with the Bible? Maybe. Maybe
S7: they be driven to the Word of God and to
S7: who Jesus is. And then may they resolve that by saying, yes,
S7: he is the Christ. He was the one, the professed
S7: one who was going to come.
S1: God open wide the doors of opportunity for us. Have
S1: a great weekend friends. We'll see you next time on
S1: In the Market with Janet Parshall.