Tackling the Tough Issues, and Making Our Lives Count

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown gets your thoughts on some of the toughest cultural issues of our day, gives updates on the latest cultural madness, and brings a personal word of encouragement. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.


Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I’ve said it over and again, but it remains the same, when you deviate from God’s standards at creation you open the door to massive confusion.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is a blank piece of paper with your life; fill in the blank; make it count for the Lord!


This week, get Heidi Baker’s life-changing new book, Birthing the Miraculous, highly recommended by Dr. Brown, along with her interview on the Line of Fire for $25! Postage Paid (US ONLY)!

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Is It Time to Change Our Strategy?

Five Words of Hope and Encouragement

Is It Ever Right to Challenge or Blame God?

  1. Dear Dr. Brown,

    Please listen to this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9KQ4_uH1RA

    Maybe you could get this Christian rapper on your radio show, wow what an song! I hope it blesses you to know that the same message you are spreading in your circles are being spread in other Christian circles and cultures too!

    God bless.

  2. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic but I am finally getting around to the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate.

    My initial impression is that Ken Ham uses language like cult members do.

    You know what I mean — some cult member will say, “I believe Jesus is the son of God” but you really have to drill down on them to get them to admit that they are not using the title “Son of God” in the usually understood way. (or maybe “believe” and “Jesus” too!)

    This frustrates me to no end and, I believe, is intentional lying.

    It seemed like Ken Ham was doing this with scientific terminology.

    After awhile, I had to ask myself what he even meant by “science”!

    Ham’s big re-defined term seems to be “historical science.”

    He seems to have re-defined the word to mean “an event you didn’t personally observe, therefore you can’t prove.”

    Of course, this is so much nonsense.

    Truthful people don’t have to twist the language around. They can just use words in the normal way.

  3. Greg,

    You wrote:
    “Truthful people don’t have to twist the language around. They can just use words in the normal way.”

    So why do you twist Paul’s language around to make it mean that the Bible would approve of homosexual marriage?

    If we put baking soda and vinegar together, we get a chemical reaction. If we heat gold hot enough, it will melt. These things we can observe in the present. They fall into the realm of observational science. We cannot observe a dinosaur in the present. We can observe and test its fossilized bones. It is a guess what exactly it looked like or what it usually ate for dinner. It is a guess how long ago they lived. We cannot observe them living in the present.

    The difference between observational science that can observe and test the fossils in the present and historical science that attempts to date and reconstruct the unknown is a very vast difference. The fossil is found in rock that used to be mud. We do not know if the dead animal died in that location or if it was transported there after it died. We do not know when exactly it died and exactly when the mud turned to rock. We find the rock layers one on top of the other. It is pretty safe to guess that the lower ones are older…most of the time. What if there is a fossil protruding through many rock layers that are supposedly representing millions of years. There are some of these. Did the dead animal die slowly or fossilize slowly over the millions of years, or did the rock layers only take a short time to deposit?

    The nonsense is in assuming things that are unknown, not in using words to describe the difference between what can be observed today and what is only a guess about the past.

  4. Everybody listen to the song Eric posted. It’s a wonderful gospel message. It’s what this generation needs to hear.

  5. Bizzle’s response to Macklemore’s “Same Love” is a perfect example of how not to talk about gay people. It’s exactly the kind of language that alienates gay and lesbian people, and turns them and other people off from Christianity. Some of the lines that caught my attention were:

    “And you say it’s about rights but you lying though – domestic partnerships gave you rights a long time ago.
    God created marriage when he did he defined it though so why is it that you want what he created but denying no.
    It’s not wicked enough switching the definition you want it done by a Christian in a church he worships in?”

    “You were never oppressed, the devil was a liar
    The only thing oppressed was your sexual desire…
    It angers you if I compare you to a pedophile
    Because he’s sick, right, and you’re better, how?”

    Wow, so gays are no better than pedophiles? Yes Ray, this song is clearly a “wonderful gospel message”. Gay people everywhere will be dying to receive the saving message of Christ after listening to this truly wonderful, inspiring and loving message that Bizzle has to share about gay people.

  6. James, I hope you are right. I hope they do come to God’s saving grace after listening to the gospel message of Bizzle. It’s a good one.

  7. James,

    Did you even listen to the rest of his song? The message is that *no one* is better than a pedophile. I agree with that. It is very easy to look at another person’s sin, and say that we are better than them, but the problem is, we are all sinners, and all equally deserving of the wrath of God. Until you see yourself as wicked as a pedophile, you will never truly understand the grace of God. I say that of myself. There seems to be a relationship here between this thread, and Van the humanist on the other thread, in that you think that man is inherently good. The only reason pedophilia does not occur in every human being is because of the grace of God restraining it in the hearts of each and every one of us. That is the wickedness of fallen humanity, and the blindness of humanism. Until you see yourself in the place of a pedophile, with nothing lovable about you, and Christ nevertheless placing his love upon you, taking away your sin, and redeeming you unto himself, you will never truly understand the gospel because you think that you are okay the way you are. You are not, and I am not. I need the grace of God daily to turn from sin and turn to Christ.

    Humanism is an exaltation of man’s pride, as I said before. It takes real humility to see yourself and your own sin in the place of a pedophile. In fact, a pedophile who has violated multiple children, but has turned and repented by the grace of Jesus Christ is in a far better position than you who refuse to repent of your homosexuality. The point of this whole song is this:

    Luke 18:10-14 Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

  8. Adam, where does Bizzle say in his song that no one is better than a pedophile? If Bizzle had in fact attempted to make that point clear then it wouldn’t have been so bad. But listening to it again I fail to see where exactly he attempts to put that out there.

    Adam, please try to understand where I and other gay people are coming from. It’s incredibly offensive and demeaning to be compared to pedophiles. It’s like one of the worst kind of things you can do to a person’s character, by comparing and linking them with those who would harm or abuse children. This is the kind of harmful rhetoric that has been used to deny us rights and spread fear among the public. The notion that gays are likely to molest or harm children is used constantly against us when it comes to our abilities to parent children or teach kids in schools. Just listen to what the caller Susan had to say on this show. Notice how she almost immediately goes to the “it’s about children” argument, and then gives a horrific example of a gay couple molesting a child. What she clearly has burned in her mind is the idea that gay people are prone to abuse children, and that’s why we shouldn’t be allowed to raise them. This is what this kind of rhetoric does? It poisons what would otherwise be decent loving people with ignorance and lies about the gay community. It gives them a reason to fight us against us and make us their enemy. And who can blame them? If they genuinely believe their protecting children then of course their going to fight against those they perceive as harming them (ie. gay people).

    Your other comments are a distraction Adam. I do not in fact see man as inherently good, nor do I care about the niceties and usefulness of using reprehensible examples of mankind like pedophilia to make a theological point on mankind’s fallenness. Bizzle was not making such a theological point. He was literally comparing our worth to that of a pedophile, being “sick” in the same light. It would be like someone comparing your sin of getting angry to that of an angry person who murdered and raped a bunch of women. You would not at all appreciate the comparison, nor would you find it welcome if someone then came along in that instance to point out to you how we are all theologically like murderers and rapists. It’s the exact same with us. I hope you can understand.

  9. It’s amazing that Bizzle, the Christian rapper who made the response to mainstream rap artist, Macklemore’s song, “Same Love” is receiving death threats just for pointing out a different perspective.

    As Dr. Brown and others have said many times, the ones who were in the closet are coming out and trying to push others in the closet.

    See here: http://www.charismanews.com/culture/42782-death-threats-target-christian-rapper-who-opposed-macklemore-s-same-love

  10. James, Bizzle says several times that we were all born in sin though. If a man born in sin is better than a pedophile…how so?

  11. James,

    What Ray is saying is exactly right. You seem to be holding on to one last bit of self-righteousness that is in you: “I don’t abuse children!” Well, remove God’s hand of restraint, and you will. I would too. That should not be an insult to you; it should force you to get on your knees in repentance.

    I can’t believe that anyone would not seriously suggest that the abuse of children is not a problem within the homosexual movement. More than one person who has come out of the movement has said that it is, and that they have been the victim of it. I am not saying all homosexuals do it, only that you would do it too if the restraint of God was taken off of your own lust. I would too, if God’s restraint were taken off of me. That is why the solution to your sin is not heterosexuality. It is repentance of your sin, but also faith in Jesus Christ. You can have a heterosexual who does not trust in Christ, and he is perfectly capable of raping a child as well. It is only the gospel of Jesus Christ which can save a person from this kind of destruction, and as long as you hold onto that last bit of self-righteousness that you have, you will not be able to understand the incredible grace that is offered to you in Christ Jesus-grace so incredible that it is infinitely greater than all of the pleasures you might experience as a homosexual.

  12. Here’s a good verse to consider if ever we think that anything is of ourself:

    Heb 12:9
    Moreover we have had the fathers of our bodies which corrected us, and we gave them reverence:
    should we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits, that we might live?
    (1599 Geneva)

    I find so much in that verse to think about.

    Though we live in a physical body, we live in a spiritual world.

  13. Bo,

    I don’t “twist” Paul’s words. I make the effort to understand what issue he was really addressing. … and it wasn’t’ modern gay marriage.

    If I understand you… you are claiming that we really can’t know anything. There are simply too many “un-knowns” to conclude anything about the past.

    I simply disagree. I believe that science can determine some things… including the fact that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

  14. James,

    It’s willful ignorance.

    Thirty years ago it may have been excusable if someone confused homosexuality with pedophilia.

    But not now. Not after all we’ve learned about the nature and causes. of homosexuality.

    Anyone with even a passing respect for the truth knows that homosexuality is not pedophilia.

    So, anyone who conflates the two is being purposefully dishonest.

  15. Greg Allen,

    “But not now. Not after all we’ve learned about the nature and causes. of homosexuality.
    Anyone with even a passing respect for the truth knows that homosexuality is not pedophilia.”

    *What* have we learned about the nature and causes of homosexuality that would rule out what the Bible says about both homosexuality and pedophilia, namely that, like all other sins, they are deserving of the wrath of God? Could you please point me to a specific study?

  16. Greg,

    You wrote:
    “I don’t “twist” Paul’s words. I make the effort to understand what issue he was really addressing. … and it wasn’t’ modern gay marriage.”

    Paul never addressed anything modern. He didn’t address modern crack cocaine use. He didn’t address modern internet fraud. He didn’t address modern adultery.

    He addressed age old sin. Homosex is homosex. fraud is fraud. He was dealing with sexual sin in general. Adultery, fornication and homosex. The committed part of a homosexual couple is what he is dealing with. The Greek indicates that he is speaking of those that continue in these sexual relationships. By your definition, we can say to those that are in a loving, committed adulterous relationship…”Paul was not speaking of this modern kinder gentler socially accepted adultery.” Hogwash! The hogs are going back to their wallowing in the mire with your help. You promise liberty that is really corruption and bondage to sin which brings down YHWH’s wrath.

    2 Peter 2
    19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
    20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
    21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
    22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

    You are not trying to understand what Paul was addressing. You are justifying sin that will rob people of their inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. You are deceived.

    2 Timothy 3
    13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
    14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
    15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    Paul believed the Holy Hebrew scriptures that make us wise to salvation and you do not. You teach that Paul and Moses did not cover all kinds of homosex. You are waxing worse and worse. Hardening your heart to the truth.

    2 Thessalonians 2
    10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
    11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
    12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

    You have been sent strong delusion because of your disregard for the truth. You simply can not make your mind line up with what the scripture actually states. Your mind will not be subject to YHWH’s law on homosex and unborn baby murder…and who knows what else?

    Romans 8
    6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
    7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
    8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

    Wake up Greg.

  17. Greg,

    You wrote:
    “If I understand you… you are claiming that we really can’t know anything. There are simply too many “un-knowns” to conclude anything about the past.”

    No you do not understand me. We can know many things about the past. We cannot do science in the past. We do science in the present. Observational science can help us guess what happened in the past and how long that past was. There are flaws in the radiometric dating methods that have been calibrated to confirm evolutionary assumptions. There are many scientific studies that would suggest a much younger age of the earth, but I am guessing that you either have never heard about them, or that you reject them.

    There are astronomers that believe in a young universe/earth. In the debate, one was interviewed. There are flaws in the big bang theory that cannot reconciled with what we observe in the present, but that doesn’t stop evolutionist from claiming that it is proven and that it is science. Their historical science does not line up with observational science. The same is true of the fossil record and the magnetic fields of the planets and the distance that Niagara Falls has eroded and the helium in the atmosphere, and the oldest trees, and the distance the moon is from the earth, etc.

    My dad and I were eating lunch on a jog site and when he finished his sandwich, he put a small stone in the ziplock and tossed it into the ditch we would soon be filling in. He looked at me and said, “A 1000 years from now someone will dig that up and say, ‘Well looky there, men used to eat rocks.'”

    The way we each put 2 and 2 together depends upon our worldview and our assumptions. Historical science is not the facts like observational science is. It is an interpretation of the facts that is based upon our beliefs. Secular humanistic naturalism will not come up with the same interpretations as Biblical, YHWH honoring scientists.

    If you are interested in the other side of the argument:




  18. Bo, I humbly submit that you do not know what you are talking about regarding the nature of science. There is nothing called “historical science” in mainstream science (see below for a qualification).

    There is the study of evolution of living things, that are now extinct, but once lived, for example precursors to Homo sapiens, or humans as we call them. And, the age is no “guess” as you suggest – dating techniques are quite accurate given the long expanses of time involved. And, it is no guess as to what it looked like. Very smart and experienced paleontologists working with artisans can put together a complete animal with just a few key bones.

    Regarding that, a model of what Jesus most probably looked like has been constructed using these modern techniques. I’m sure you’ve seen it in National Geographic magazine. He looks nothing like the blue-eyed white European Jesus that the various churches turned him into. He was about 5’6″ tall, sturdy build, dark complexion, wide nose, brown eyes, curly black hair, and probably had a beard as was the Jewish custom of his time.

    You really have no idea of what you are talking about when it comes to science. I am a scientist and I know of what I speak.

    A definition of “historical science” is on RationalWiki, but it notes its misuse by creationists like you. It is not a term used in mainstream science. If anything, it should be defined as “science as practiced in the distant past.” Of course it wasn’t called science then, as science as we know it today developed with the Enlightenment (Bacon, Descares, et al).

    And, please don’t quote the Bible on science; it is one of its weakest areas. I like the Bible and I have read it cover to cover many times and read it often, but I know what I am reading and thus am not confused or lead astray by taking its legends and myths as facts. I take them as legends and myths; that’s what they are for the most part.

Comments are closed.