Repent Labs

When creation denies the creator
  • 0.0(0개의 평가)
  • 기독교
  • 매월 업데이트

When creation denies the creator www.repentlabs.com

  1. 2월 24일

    There is NO 'Ethical' IVF

    TL;DR IVF is wrong, even in its most carefully constructed “ethical” form. Even when only one embryo is created, immediately transferred, and none are frozen, discarded, or genetically screened. The problem with IVF is foundational, not merely executional. At its core, IVF replaces God’s design for conception, allows humans to own other humans, and voluntarily increases a child’s risk of death by 10X. Repent Labs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Is IVF Necessary? IVF, or in vitro fertilization, is a medical fertility treatment where eggs are retrieved from a woman’s ovaries, fertilized with sperm in a lab, and then an embryo is implanted in the uterus to achieve pregnancy. It’s commonly used when natural conception fails due to issues like blocked tubes, low sperm count, or ovulation problems. Embryos undergo preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), where a cell sample checks for chromosomal issues or genetic diseases to select healthy ones. Viable extras (often several from 8 to 10 embryos) are frozen via cryopreservation for future use. The first thing to understand is that IVF is not the necessary and exclusive fix for infertility. For those that are struggling with fertility, yet still want a biological child (if God wills), there are great alternative treatments, the best of which is NaPro. IVF operates like a numbers game: spend $12K to $30K per attempt, plan for 3 to 4 cycles minimum, intentionally create dozens of children knowing most won’t survive, and hope “probability” works in your favor, all while insurance fights you at every turn. Costs can easily exceed $100,000. It’s a high-tech, high-stakes gamble that assumes your body is broken beyond repair and needs to be bypassed entirely. NaPro works like actual medicine: it investigates the root cause and restores what’s not functioning properly. It costs (at max) roughly what one IVF cycle would, except it’s treating you as a patient with a medical condition rather than a customer buying lottery tickets with human embryos. The “Perfect” IVF Scenario Christians who oppose IVF typically focus on the industry’s most obvious ethical violations: frozen embryos warehoused indefinitely, genetic screening that reduces children to quality-control metrics, the routine creation of dozens of embryos knowing 91% or more won’t survive, and gay couples purchasing children through surrogates. These objections are valid. They’re also insufficient. Because even if you stripped away every one of these problems, even if you constructed the most carefully constrained IVF scenario imaginable, the procedure would still be categorically sinful. The issue isn’t merely how IVF is practiced. The issue is what IVF fundamentally is. Before addressing the core problem, let’s acknowledge what most Christians already reject. If you’re freezing embryos, you’re incarcerating your children. If you’re doing genetic screening, you’re treating image-bearers like defective products. If you’re creating ten embryos knowing nine will die, you’re responsible for their deaths. If you’re using surrogates or donors, you’re bypassing God’s design for procreation. But some Christians push back here. They ask: “What if we avoid all of that? What if a married Christian couple uses only their own gametes, creates a single embryo, transfers it immediately without freezing or screening, and implants it in the mother’s womb? Wouldn’t this be ethical? After all, we’re just using technology to overcome the effects of the fall, the same way someone might use surgery to save their life.” It’s a reasonable question. It deserves a serious answer. The Fantasy of “Ethical IVF” A truly “perfect” IVF setup (one that creates only a single embryo, transfers it fresh immediately, never freezes or discards embryos, never uses genetic testing, and operates this way as standard practice) essentially does not exist in today’s market. Why? Because the entire IVF industry is built around the assumption of multiple cycles. Biologically, IVF depends on ovarian stimulation to retrieve multiple eggs because attrition is massive at every step. Not every follicle yields a mature egg. Not every egg fertilizes. Not every embryo develops normally. Not every transfer implants. Forcing the system into a “one egg, one embryo, one transfer” model makes success rates catastrophically low and cancellation rates high. The mechanics work like this: when a clinic retrieves eggs, they don’t know which ones will successfully fertilize. If you start with five eggs, perhaps three become actual embryos. Of those three, maybe one or two develop properly. This uncertainty is why clinics retrieve multiple eggs in the first place. Even if a couple requests “only one embryo,” the cycle success rate drops to 5-20% (just for this stage). This means paying for a new cycle over and over until you successfully can move on, which could take 5-10 cycles. Economically, clinics survive by spreading high fixed costs (labs, embryologists, equipment, accreditation) over many embryos, transfers, and add-on services like frozen embryo storage and genetic testing. A clinic that never generated surplus embryos, never froze them, and never used screening would sacrifice most of the revenue and success leverage that keeps it profitable. Even if one couple chose an ultra-restrictive protocol, the clinic’s broader business would still rely on conventional IVF practices just to stay solvent. At best, a couple might negotiate a more constrained version for themselves inside a system whose default remains multi-embryo creation, freezing, and selection. But a clinic structured and committed to operate exclusively under “ethical” constraints? It’s a pipe dream. But let’s be generous. Let’s assume such a clinic existed. Let’s grant that you could find a way to do it profitably. Would IVF then be permissible? No. Even in the “perfect” scenario, IVF remains objectively sinful. Here’s why. 1. IVF Replaces God’s Design Instead of Restoring It God’s Word is clear: there is one exclusive path to creating and receiving children. The marital union. In Genesis 1:28, God blesses Adam and Eve and commands them: And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Immediately after, in Genesis 2:24, we read: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. This one-flesh union is personal, bodily, and exclusive, so the “fruit” of the marriage naturally proceeds from the embrace God ordained. In other words, the Bible weds the “what” of multiplication to the “how” of marital intercourse. The child is received as the gift that comes from husband and wife cleaving to one another. To seek offspring apart from that union severs what God joined, whereas receiving children through conjugal oneness honors the shape of creation. Psalm 127:3 reinforces this: Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. You can actually take this imagery further. The seed (man), the tree (the woman’s womb), and the fruit (children). God designed one process for procreation, and He embedded it in the covenant of marriage. Sexual intimacy within marriage is the means. The womb is the location. Children are the gift. IVF fundamentally alters this design. Conception Begins in the Lab, Not the Womb The objection here is predictable: “But we’re still married. We’re still using our own samples. We’re just using technology to help the process along. Isn’t that dominion? Are you saying cars are sinful too?” The issue isn’t technology, but what technology does. IVF doesn’t start with marital intimacy. It starts with samples. The sperm and egg are retrieved separately, brought to a laboratory, and combined by a technician under fluorescent lights. Day zero for that child is not in the mother’s womb. Day zero is in a petri dish. You can’t appeal to the marital act that produced the samples (even though most IVF sperm samples are taken sinfully) because those samples were not connected together in the mothers body via the one flesh union. Instead, you have a technician who combines these samples and creates an embryo. Now, the child’s existence has begun, not through the one-flesh union of husband and wife, but through a mechanical procedure in a lab. Dominion vs. Demonic Technology The purpose of technology matters. Doug Wilson put it well: “In order to evaluate a tool, we have to account for the telos, the end, the purpose. Hammers are used to build both brothels and barns.” Dominion technology works within God’s design to restore what the fall has broken. NaProTechnology, for example, investigates the root cause of infertility and treats it medically. The goal is to restore the body so that conception can occur naturally: through the one-flesh union, in the womb, as God designed. The process hasn’t changed. The design hasn’t been circumvented. IVF does the opposite. It doesn’t fix what’s broken. It abandons the original design entirely and substitutes a new process. The end result may be a child, but the means by which that child came into existence is fundamentally different from what God ordained. Consider pornography. The technology that makes porn more accessible isn’t neutral. It’s being used to provide sexual pleasure (a good thing) outside of God’s design for marriage. The ef

    51분

  2. 2025. 09. 30.

    Apostate: The Consequences of LGBT, Transgenderism, Abortion, IVF, Surrogacy & Feminism

    For the last century, America has been conducting a massive social experiment, tearing down every boundary that held society together for thousands of years. "Love is love," they said. "My body, my choice," they insisted. "Gender is just a construct," they declared. Well, the results are in…and they’re ugly. The statistics don't lie, the bodies don't lie, and the broken families littering our streets don't lie. When you look at the data - not opinions, not feelings, but hard numbers - you see a nation bleeding out from self-inflicted wounds. Mental illness at unprecedented levels. Suicide rates that would have been unthinkable two generations ago. Children turning to crime and addiction at rates that should terrify us all. Murder, disease, anxiety, abuse…and so much more. * What happens when you break up the family and "liberate" women? * What happens when children don't have their fathers? * What happens when homosexuality spreads like wildfire? * What happens when children cut off their g******s in exchange for a “new gender”? * What happens when parents decide that having sex does not mean “consenting to pregnancy”? A nation once built upon Christian principles, America has now become an apostate, and God has given us up to our own destructive desires. As it is written: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”Romans 1:28–32 For the non-Christians in America…some of the most sobering proof that Christianity is true is seeing what happens when society rejects its principles. If everything is just stardust bumping around, then none of these things matter. But if God designed creation in a specific way, and everything he made is interconnected (family, relationships, society)…changing even one detail has catastrophic consequences. This is a wake up call to everyone in America. * For the Christians; we need to be bold and teach our nation the whole counsel of God and what it says about all areas of life. * For the non-Christians; Repent and turn to God. Look at what’s happened to our society when it’s built on godless principles, and put your trust in the King of the cosmos; Jesus Christ. TABLE OF CONTENTS * The Consequences of Feminism * The Consequences of Homosexuality * The Consequences of Transgenderism * The Consequences of Surrogacy and IVF * The Consequences of Murdering Children via Abortion 1. THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEMINISM The first area I’m going to cover is women’s liberation; basically, when we decided that women didn’t need to be attached to a family unit, and that they really aren’t any different from men. To be clear: this isn't going to be a comprehensive history of feminism (there are plenty of substacks that cover this). I want to focus on what's happened to our country as a result. The Feminist Blueprint of Death Kate Millett, a huge feminist influencer in the 1960s, laid out the plan clearly. As Joy Pullmann notes in her book False Flag, Millett's "feminist catechism declared that the feminist goal was to make cultural revolution by destroying the American family, which they would accomplish by destroying monogamy." How would they do this? By "promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion, and homosexuality." Right from the start, second-wave feminists declared these things were connected. They argued that patriarchy was historical, not natural, that femininity and womanhood were not biological conditions but socially constructed ideals that could and should be reconsidered. They wanted nothing less than the eradication of patriarchy. But here's the thing: if gender roles and family structure are just cultural constructs with no biological basis, then there shouldn't be any consequences for changing them, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. Commitment Destroyed The statistics tell a devastating story: * In 1960, only 5% of US babies were born out of wedlock. By 2010, that number had risen to 41% * The number of children living with only their mother has doubled in the last 50 years * The United States has the world's highest rate of children living in single-parent households: 23% When you're not married, the commitment isn't there. People can argue "it's just a piece of paper," but if it's just paper, then get it. You're making a covenant before God to be with this person for life. Children pick up on this. They understand the difference between parents who are committed and those who always have one foot out the door. Children Being Abused by Predatory Men & Their Own Mother Here's where it gets dark. Children with two married biological parents have the lowest rate of domestic abuse by far. It's not even close. The worst rates of abuse (mental, physical, sexual) occur when children live with one parent whose unmarried partner is in the house. Think about it: biological mom, dad leaves, she gets a boyfriend who's not married to her. That's the worst-case scenario for abuse. These men aren't committed to these children. They're dating the mother, maybe for sex, maybe for a relationship, but the children aren't their primary concern. When you remove the natural protector, the biological father, you leave the household as sitting ducks for predatory men. But here's what will flip everything you thought you knew: mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers. According to 2021 data from the US Department of Health and Human Services: * 38.0% of child victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone * 23.9% by the father acting alone * 20.0% by both parents (co-perpetration) The feminist agenda has pushed this narrative that mothers are always the safe option, the default parent. But look at what actually happens. When you remove the balancing influence of a father, mothers are more likely to abuse. That quarter of American children in single-parent households? They're not just susceptible to abuse from random unmarried partners. They're more susceptible to abuse from their own mothers. The testimony of one woman, Maggie, raised by a single mother, captures it perfectly: "The absence of my father in my life has led to so many awful things. I constantly felt unloved, unworthy, and abandoned. I craved a father figure and protection. This led to me seeking out unhealthy and abusive relationships with men who simply didn't care about me. Men cannot mother. Women cannot father. Kids need, crave, and benefit from having the right to both." Broken Home = Future Degenerate Adults Joy Pullmann's research reveals the broader impact: "People who do not grow up in the homes of their two married biological parents make, on average, worse citizens than people who do. Children afflicted by their parents' and communities' lack of sexual self-discipline have more trouble regulating their emotions, refraining from violence, following logical arguments, providing for themselves, achieving their potential, and respecting others' rights." Think about that list: * Can't regulate emotions * More violent * Can't follow logical arguments * Can't provide for themselves * Don't respect others' rights Sound familiar? Turn on any news channel covering a riot or pride parade. You've seen these people. These children are also: "far more likely to demand public resources than to contribute to them and to accelerate sexual chaos. Look into the background of a transgender person and you'll almost always find parental divorce or another serious childhood trauma.” When you have a large portion of America full of complacent, lazy people relying on the state, completely dependent on what the government may or may not do, that's the fruit of broken families. They're looking for mommy and daddy everywhere, including in their voting booth. It’s simply natural law that men and women are different and have specific, distinct roles. We all know this because God designed it that way. If you decouple women from the family unit, you break down the family unit. If you do that, you destroy the child. The child grows up broken, demanding the state be their parent, supporting authoritarian policies that promise safety like a "substitute mommy”, and functions as a consumer citizen, not a producer. 2. THE CONSEQUENCES OF LGBT So we’ve seen how "liberating" women destroyed the American family. Children without fathers. Mothers overwhelmed and abusing. A quarter of our nation's children living in broken homes, susceptible to predators and dysfunction. But that was just the beginning. Think of liberating women as step one. We still had the potential for a heterosexual unit. Sure, women were "liberated," roles were confused, divorces skyrocketed, but at least there was still the possibility of a man and a woman together. Even if it wasn't ideal, even with step-parents and broken homes, there was still some semblance of the natural order. Step two asks a darker question: If women are exactly like men, if they should be "liberated" to do the same things with no distinct family roles, then what about sexual relationships themselves? Must you have a man and a woman to form a family unit? Or can you have woman and woman, man and man? And if you have a gay relationship, which obviously cannot procreate biologically and exists outside God's design, what do you do? Try to have children through surrogacy or IVF? Just not have children? Marry someone who already has a child? This is step two in the destruction of America: degrading the sexual ties

    3시간 9분

  3. 2025. 04. 23.

    Playing House: How 'Liberating' Women Destroyed America

    Today in America, our culture wants nothing to do with God. Although we live in God’s universe, we are quick to make up our own rules, and feed our flesh, even when our decisions fly in the face of reality. God will not be mocked. A man reaps what he sows, and if you sow destruction in this life, you will get destruction in return. What happens when you break up the family and “liberate” women? What happens when children don’t have their father? What happens when homosexuality runs rampant in the streets, and even props up its own parade? What happens when children are mutilated by “doctors” to artificially change their biological gender because their parents want to “support them” in their decision to deny the body that God gave them. What happens when parents decide that having sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy, and their defenseless child is ripped apart or starved in the womb as an offering to Moloch. A once Christian nation, America has become an apostate, and God has given us up to our own destructive desires. As it is written: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:28–32 Will we continue to deny reality, or will we submit to the way, the truth, and the life; Jesus Christ? What We’ll Cover * The Destruction of the American Family * Feminism and Its Impact on Society * The Consequences of Family Breakdown * The Role of Fathers and Mothers * The Christian Perspective on Family and Society Sources The Courageous Radicalism of Kate Millett False Flag by Joy Pullmann children living with only their mother has doubled in the last 50 years US Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Children & Families Repent Labs is a reader-supported podcast. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

    36분

  4. 2025. 03. 26.

    The Lie That Killed 70 Million People

    If there is one lie responsible for more innocent blood in the past 50 years, it’s this; the baby in a mothers womb is just a clump of cells. Its a fetus. We care about real, living humans, but those embryos aren’t real people yet! This lie, who’s origin resides in the deepest pits of Hell, has justified nationally sanctioned child sacrifice, what we moderns call “abortion.” This child sacrifice is no different in spirit as was the rituals of the ancient Canaanites. These tribes would place their newborn baby on a molten statue, hoping that this false god would bless them in return. The child would be burned alive. God even says this in the book of Jeremiah: “…and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind” The scene was so horrific, that the tribe would play loud drums to drown out the cries of the helpless babies burning on the scorched hands of the Moloch statue. Legend has it, if you perk your ear up to the abortionists door, you can still hear the drums of Canaan in the distance All of this evil, resting upon the shoulders of one single lie; human life does not begin at fertilization. It’s time to execute this ideology without pity. To do anything less would be ignoring the cries of the dead children who have been sacrificed in our country. What We’ll Cover * The Non-Existent Debate on Life's Beginning * Scientific Evidence for Life Beginning at Conception * The Nature of Human Value * ‘Personhood’ and Its Absurd Implications Repent Labs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

    23분

  5. 2025. 02. 15.

    Darwin's Fairytale: A Thorough Refutation of Evolution & Atheism

    Introduction Many atheists claim that evolution is a proven scientific fact. If you disagree, they usually laugh at you. You’re seen as one of those Bible thumpers who believes Noah and the arc, talking donkeys, and resurrected men really existed. “They didn’t teach you this in high school?” they’ll mock. “Are you one of those anti-vax home schoolers with social issues who was taught about a sky daddy?” Because of comments like these, many Christians are very fearful of the theory of evolution. Heck, the Bible is clear that all creatures in creation were made in 6 literal days, but secular scientists who are “smarter than us” are saying otherwise. What do we do? In fact, some Christians are so terrified of the prospect of disagreeing with mainstream science, they run as fast as they can towards a figurative interpretation of Genesis to play both sides. “Maybe it wasn’t literally 6 days” “Maybe there’s a gap of time between the beginning and creation” “Maybe the first few chapters of Genesis are just figurative, a sort of “mytho-history” Most of these Christians trust scientists so much, they consider their work as an extension of God’s revelation. Some swallow the “14-billion year old universe” pill & “65 million year old dinosaur fossils” without a second thought. The evolutionary story is the bedrock for modern atheism. What once might have seemed to be a ridiculous worldview, now appears to finally have a cosmetic of respectability. If we concede to some of these claims, we are also conceding that the Bible might be wrong? But what if I told you that evolution wasn’t a proven scientific fact? What if I told you that evolution wasn’t even a good theory? What if I told you that evolution was such a bad theory, that if an 8th grader presented it for his final project, he would get expelled from school for how irrational it was. After a closer look, the theory of evolution is found to be nothing more than a fairy tale. Religiously motivated scientists simply rush to defend it so that it maintains a veneer of credibility. Enough is enough. Christians have been beat down long enough with this theory. We have not boldly fought this dragon at all, in fact we’ve put our weapons down altogether with a hand-waive. In this piece, I’m going to show you that given the raw observable scientific evidence, coupled with God’s word, the theory of evolution is nothing more than an adult fairy tale that helps unbelievers sleep at night by suppressing the truth that they already know deep down; God’s righteous judgement will be revealed. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse…Claiming to be wise, they became fools… Romans 1:18–22 Table of Contents * The Religion of Evolution * Big Bang Billions-of-Years Nonsense * 2,000 Zeros Between Life & Non-Life * The True Terror of the Fossil Record * Dinosaurs Less Than 10,000 Years Old * Sex for No Reason * Natural Selection Kidnapped * The Death of Atheism Chapter 1 - The Religion of Evolution Evolution Defined First off, let’s define our terms. The evolution I’m talking about is what most call macro-evolution. This is the view that one species of animal transforms completely into another. Imagine a dinosaur turning into a bird over millions of years in order to survive. That’s what I’m talking about. We are not talking about micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is when there’s a change of form or function within a species. Imagine a species of bird gets a sharper beak based on having kids with sharp beaks, that would be micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is just what happens when some species of animals have more kids. But what about macro-evolution? From Fish to Philosopher When we talk evolution, most people think of Charles Darwin. But evolution did not come from Darwin, it was already present in ancient Greek philosophy. Anaximander, one of the earliest ionian philosophers was an evolutionist. “For Anaximander (611 - 546 B. C. E) believed the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish…” Evolution was, and always has been, a philosophy, not a scientific theory. Nobody observed something in nature scientifically and said “That’s it, its gotta be evolution!” The truth is, every human from birth understands, without question, that God created the universe. We are without excuse: 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. With Darwin’s work coming to a finish, later scientists had to work day and night to give the theory a cosmetic of respectability. If they could just make it look legit, they could go to bed at night telling themselves that God didn’t exist. Evidence? Do you remember science class when you were in high school? Do you remember some of the things that make a scientific theory a strong one? Well, firstly, you would need evidence, right? If I went to my teacher and said “I think germs don’t exist, its all just a lie”, would he take my word for it? Of course not, he would ask me for evidence. To the embarrassment of the evolutionists, there is no evidence for macro-evolution. It’s simple, we’ve never observed a species turn into another species. We will explore this deeper later, but let’s take the fossil record for example. Do we find evidence of gradual development of species? No, on the contrary we find: * Sudden appearance of a fully complex life-form (no simpler versions prior) * Stasis - that species stays the same form and doesn’t evolve or change. In fact, there’s no evidence for the other parts of evolution either (we’ll get to that). But that’s no fun is it? I thought we had something? I thought we had a way out of that whole “I have to obey God because he made me” thing. So what are the evolutionists to do if science can’t help them? Politics. One great example of evolution politics in high definition is the British natural history museum. In 1981, the museum created an exhibit around Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The label included in the text that it was "one possible explanation" for the origin of life, as well as "not strictly scientific because it has not been empirically demonstrated" Because of those 2 expressions, enough political pressure was produced that the museum had to remove any acknowledgement of the problems with Darwin’s theory. That’s right, they were bullied into shoving Darwin’s sacred religion into everyone’s brains, as if it were actually a proven scientific fact. So right off the bat, we’ve begun to see that the theory of evolution begins with the human desire to craft a natural explanation of origins, so that we can be justified in doing what we want without consequence. This is nothing new, in fact, Paul was dealing with this in the first century. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. With that foundation laid, let’s begin to move onto the observable evidence for evolution and the atheistic worldview as a whole. We’ve got a billions of years old universe, Big Bangs, random life, dinosaurs & pointless mutations to deal with, so let’s get started. Chapter 2 - Big Bang Billions-of-Years Nonsense Going deeper into our journey, I’m going to follow a framework to help you understand the folly of evolution. I’m going to start at the beginning, and go through each step of evolution in order. At each leg of the journey, we can look back and see if evolution is still holding up. The first step of our journey is the Big Bang. Most evolutionists hold to the Big Bang theory, and couple that with the universe being 14 billion years old. However, in this chapter we’re going to see that the evidence points to a young universe, not a 14-billion year old one. Violating the 1st Law The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances. Basically you can’t create energy, you can only use energy that is already there. So where did our universe come from? Well, in secular models, the #1 rule is, you cannot have a creator or any purpose behind the beginning of the universe. In other words, our universe must come from nothing. The problem with this model? You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics at the largest scale at the beginning of your model. Not only is this theory absurd because it claims something came from nothing, it’s claiming that everything came from nothing. So the largest amount of energy in the history of the universe is created from nothing, but then for some reason, after that it’s impossible to do? Violating the 2nd Law The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases. Basically, hot things cool off. Imagine you walk into a room and a hot cup of coffee is on the table. How long has the coffee been there?

    1시간 24분

  6. 2025. 01. 21.

    No Ethics On Atheist Worldview

    Repent Labs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. In this episode, I discuss the inconsistencies in ethical claims made by atheists, particularly in relation to gun violence and morality. I argue that without a belief in Jesus, atheists lack a solid foundation for their ethical standards. We’ll explore the differences between atheistic and Christian worldviews, particularly in how they approach morality, human flourishing, and the justification for ethical claims. Chapters * Introduction to Ethical Claims and Worldviews * The Atheist Perspective on Gun Violence * The Basis of Ethics in Atheism vs Christianity * Human Flourishing and Objective Morality * The Role of Worldviews in Ethical Discussions * Conclusion: The Need for Objective Moral Standards The comment thread I’ll be analyzing can be found here Takeaways * Inconsistencies in ethical claims must be addressed. * Atheism struggles to provide a basis for ethics. * Human flourishing lacks objective justification in atheism. * Christianity offers a unique & exclusive foundation for objective morality. * Subjectivism leads to moral relativism. * Objective morality is rooted in God's character. * Gun violence discussions need a moral framework. * The importance of understanding the 'why' behind ethics. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

    21분

  7. 2025. 01. 14.

    Faith or Reason? Christian Responds to Atheist

    Repent Labs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Today, I wanted to provide a loving rebuttal to my new substack friend Michael Doane. He’s a professing atheist exploring Christianity, and wrote an article regarding his view on faith. He also has a nice looking substack color scheme 🔥 The Original Quote This to me is the perfect example the type of faith that is dangerous to Christianity as a whole. He clearly outlines that the evidence is not the foundation, the faith that the Bible is the word of God is. And that is not subject to change by evidence. This type of thinking is precisely the reason Christianity is losing followers. What happens is that issues are presented purely as a dichotomy. In the case of Answers In Genesis and Ken Ham, it’s that either evolution is true, or the Bible is true, with no room for other options in between. And so kids are being fed this information, growing up and being presented evidence for evolution, and as a result leaving the faith entirely. Because they were never prepared to handle the evidence, they were raised to have faith, and then given poor evidence to support it. Everyone Has Faith Evidence, and science, assume the uniformity of nature, meaning that our universe is repeatable. You need to have faith in that first before you even present evidence. On the christian view, we have an accounting because God has promised that the universe is and will be upheld by him, but on the Atheist view, we don’t have any reason to trust in this at all. In fact, every second of the day is a miracle on the atheist view. Wanting evidence to be your leading source of truth is indeed a religious position from a materialist / empiricist worldview. Historical vs Observable Science Historical questions are not answered by observable science. All of the “evidence” that is tried to be brought up to support the Big Bang, evolution etc. are all based off of assumptions that flow from a materialist worldview (uniformitarianism). Historical questions are solved by eye witness accounts. God’s already revealed to us exactly how the universe began, He is the ultimate eye witness. Stepping onto the christian worldview for a second, why would unbelievers guessing at timelines using non-eye-witness accounts be more authoritative than God himself saying what happened? This is the same reason you would reject the bible because your foundation being on evidence / empiricism. At best, we can conclude that Christians are being consistent. Going further, I’ve written 9 articles about how the observable evidence itself does not support an old universe, abiogenesis, macro evolution, etc. I wouldn’t just swallow the pill that people were “never prepared to handle the evidence.” We’ve taken a look at it, it’s not convincing. Religion, Not Scientific Theory Moving further, evolution is not a strict scientific theory, it’s a philosophy, and has been around since 500’s BCE. Many times, evolution is tossed around as if “its a closed case.” Interestingly, observing a bowling ball drop at the rate of gravity (an observable scientific fact) is not the same as a secular philosophy invented to escape the reality of God’s judgement. For more on this, check out my article here The kicker is; if we assume the evolutionary worldview to be true, metaphysically, then nothing in our day to day life is justified. Ethics, uniformity of nature…in fact, the very act of you writing this article is just your brain fizzing atheistic chemicals, and my response is me fizzing Christian chemicals, we’re all just stardust. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.Romans 1:18–19 Primary vs Secondary Knowledge Observable science is a grace from God to explore his creation, as a secondary vehicle of knowledge, but it cannot be idolized and become a primary source of knowledge, else everything leads to absurdity. When you use observable science in its appropriate context, it opens the floodgates of technological advancement, and thinking God’s thoughts after him. It can be seen as one of the most intimate things we can do in the natural realm, to glory in Gods wondrous design and find out more about just how finite we as humans are. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Romans 1:24–25 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.repentlabs.com/subscribe

    17분

  8. 2025. 01. 02.

    My Response to Lee Lumley's Post About Me

    Become a paid subscriber and get early access to content and support my work! A couple weeks ago, my co-worker in Christ Lee Lumley had posted a note regarding our need to help adopt children who were unwanted by their Mothers. Here’s his original post: I had an issue with the way that it was framed, so I made an entire episode responding to the 2nd Victim Narrative that I felt was assumed at the start. After this, Lee quickly drafted a response to my episode where he systematically dealt with my objections that I brought up. I thought it was well written, easy to follow, and a good read all in all. You can check it out here: However, I had several issues with Lee’s response that I wanted to deal with, and since we have agreed to publicly debate the issue, I wanted to be thorough so that you can come to your own conclusions. Connecting Adoption and Abortion Joe says, “If we tie [adoption] to abortion it sounds like unless we have [adoption] the mom has no other choice but to get an abortion” In other words, it is fine to talk about the need for adoption, just not in the same conversation as abortion. His reasoning for this is it would imply abortion is acceptable if adoption is off the table. This is a very weak argument designed to deflect attention away from a very real problem.…First of all, when would adoption be off the table?…The only time I can conceive of adoption not being an option is if the adoption system is so overwhelmed there is literally no room for more children… In the book of Romans Paul spends the first few chapters laying out the reality of sin. Then he makes a marked shift and begins talking about grace saying, “but we have been delivered from the law” (Romans 7:6). By Joe’s line of reasoning, Paul was in error here and should not have had a conversation about being freed from the law in the same letter he was addressing sin because some would take that to mean we are free to sin. * My point isn’t that you can’t mix topics in one body of communication. My point is, framing a smaller issue at odds with a bigger issue can be deceptive to readers (more on that below). * To be specific, if adoption agencies have no room, and no parents that the Mom knows personally are willing to adopt the baby privately, the Mom is still responsible for raising her child because she is the baby’s Mom. If we tie adoption to abortion in the way Lee has, that means if there was no one willing to adopt, even if they had the means to do so, they could be seen a partially responsible for the abortion. That would be crazy obviously, they should only be responsible for not being willing to adopt if God has called them to that. We don’t owe Moms adoption as a wage, it’s a grace we ought to give when we can in light of the grace Christ has given us. If we merely ban it and ignore the underlying causes of why women choose abortions, we are putting a band aid on a severed head. So no, you cannot separate the discussion of helping women who consider abortion from adoption. I never said to ignore the underlying causes of why women want to sacrifice their baby, I’m saying we should ban it regardless of how caught up the adoption system is. According to him only 3% of women have an acceptable need for abortion which includes life threatening medical issues, rape, or incest and the other 97% percent simply don’t want to “face their consequences of their actions”. I have a huge problem with this broad stroke assumption. It is a very smug attitude and shows no compassion for those women who, whether real or perceived, are scared to death and have been told abortion is their only option… Joe operates on assumptions the 97% are purely selfish but I prefer to operate on facts. * First off, I never said 3% of women have an acceptable need for an abortion. There is no justification for child sacrifice. See this article I wrote going through the most common objections. I said 3% have a very good case to use adoption services. * Since there are no justifications for any baby murder, that means that 100% of all Moms considering abortion are accountable to not murder their child in the face of God. * Individually, 100% of Moms have something going on in their life, but none of them can use that hardship (that the church ought to help with) to justify the idea that child sacrifice is okay. I’m not saying don’t help a particular Mom in a particular situation, I’m saying don’t use those situations as ammunition to water down the horror of babies being ripped apart legally. Our culture has already watered down child sacrifice, we don’t need more of it. * 97% of abortions are powered by intentional decisions leading up to conception. They made a choice to have sex, sometimes in an already bad situation (that also came from intentional decisions), and instead of facing that decision and living their life how God intends it, they murder their baby. * The other 3% are dealing with something out of their control (rape, incest), absolutely, but they’re still not justified to kill their baby. However, my point is, these situations are the cases where I think adoption is really crucial since its truly out of the persons control how the baby was conceived. This is not the case of the other 97%. Finances In a 2013 study it is reported that 40% of abortions are because of financial instability with 4% of those women being completely unemployed and having little or no income coming in*.* One unemployed woman with a monthly household income of a little over $1,000 stated “[It was] all financial, me not having a job, living off death benefits, dealing with my 14-year-old son. I didn't have money to buy a baby spoon.” The cost to care for a baby today on the low end is about $9300 annually. That only leaves this woman with $225 a month for groceries, gas, housing, clothing, and food for herself and her 14-year-old son. This is a very real difficulty, not a simple selfish desire to not face her consequences. For the sake of being conservative, let’s say 50% of these women find a way to keep the baby themselves, that leaves 229,926 babies who will most likely be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year. * Why is she pregnant? Did the baby pop into existence Big Bang style, or did she have consensual sex with someone? * Children are a blessing from the Lord, regardless of the situation. Throwing out how “expensive kids are” only implies that if you don’t have enough money, you can’t have one, and if you have sex with someone and do have one, you should be justified to kill it. * We can trust God with any situation and be obedient to him. God never puts us in a place where we must sin Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Matthew 6:31–33 Abusive Spouse So, let’s say half of these abusive men get gloriously saved and the mother decides to keep the child, that leaves 17,244 babies who will most likely be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year. Or…none of them are saved, and the Mom and Dad both need to repent, and God works in their life to do so. Maybe 4 years later, after experiencing parenthood, they both find Jesus. The baby still lives, isn’t put up for adoption, and now the baby can be brought up in a Godly household. Alcohol and Drug Addiction But for the sake of argument let’s say after an abortion ban, half of these women do get sober and live wonderful lives with their child, we would still have 34,488 babies who will most likely be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year. Someones life situation has no correlation with another persons value or the requirement to give them away to someone else. The parents are accountable to clean up their act, turn to Jesus, and from the inside out follow his commands about being a good parent. Killing their child so they can keep using drugs is a bad argument. Mental Illness and Adolescents In addition to all these issues there were 12% who cited mental illness as the reason and 8% under the age of 17. Again, if half of these women decide to keep their baby, despite these struggles, that leaves us with 114,963 babies who will either be placed in adoption or aborted illegally every year. Why are they pregnant? “3 Million Babies” So, with all this, using extremely conservative and outrageously hopeful numbers, we would have on average 396,621 babies a year whose mothers will either put in the foster care system or abort illegally. To put that in perspective there are currently 391,000 children in foster care in the U.S. and only 115,353 adoptions occur annually. At that rate, in ten years there could be around 3 million orphans in the system, assuming they do not get aborted illegally. Even if we cut those numbers in half to compensate for women who fall into multiple categories we are still talking around 1 million orphans in the system in 10 years. So yes Joe, we will have a crisis on our hands and the orphanages will be inundated with an astronomical influx of kids unless we come up with a plan to how we are going to respond. All this math assumes an arbitrary number of children must be put up for adoption if the alternative isn’t a perfectly easy situation. This is a false dichotomy. The ministries I’m involved with have seen countless stories of Moms keeping their babies in horrible situations. Are we trusting God or man? “Are These Women Ignorant?” Referring to those who get an abortion Joe says, “They know they are committing murder”. While that is somewhat true, it is not looking at the entire picture from a biblical sense because the unregenerate mind is incapable of seeing the complete trut

    1시간 1분
모두 보기(31개)

소개

When creation denies the creator www.repentlabs.com

정보

  • 제작진
    When creation denies the creator
  • 방송 연도
    2024년 - 2026년
  • 에피소드
    31
  • 등급
    전체 연령 사용가
  • 저작권
    © Repent Labs
  • 웹사이트 보기
    Repent Labs