Connect with Point of View   to get exclusive commentary and updates
left_flag Thursday, April 20
Thursday, April 20, 2017

First hour of the show today Kerby speaks with Dr. Phil Fernandes, senior pastor of Trinity Bible Fellowship and president of the Institute of Biblical Defense. Frenandes will be speaking about The Jesus Myth Hypothesis.

In the second hour, Dr. Diane Medved, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and columnist for USA Today discusses her book, Don’t Divorce: Powerful Arguments for Saving and Revitalizing Your Marriage.

Kerby Anderson
Kerby Anderson
Host, Point of View Radio Talk Show

Kerby Anderson is host of Point of View Radio Talk Show and also serves as the President of Probe Ministries. He holds masters degrees from Yale University (science) and Georgetown University (government). He also serves as a visiting professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and has spoken on dozens of university campuses including University of Michigan, Vanderbilt University, Princeton University, Johns HopkinsRead More

Guests
Dr. Phil Fernandes
Founder - Institute of Biblical Defense
Dr. Phil Fernandes is the senior pastor of Trinity Bible Fellowship and the president of the Institute of Biblical Defense. Fernandes founded the Institute of Biblical Defense in 1990 to help train Christians in their defense of the faith. He also teaches Bible, philosophy, and world religions at Crosspoint Academy and the Gateway School of Ministry in Bremerton, WA. He has completed doctoral work in both philosophy of religion (Greenwich University) and theological studies (Columbia Evangelical Seminary). He has authored several books dealing with the defense of the Christian faith.
Bible Was Not Borrowed from Pagan Myths
In an age of uncertainty, can we still have confidence in the Jesus found in the Bible? Can we trust the New Testament text we have today? How do we know that Jesus of Nazareth was not just another myth or legend? Why aren’t the Gnostic writings in the New Testament? Why were they left out of the New Testament canon? Dr. Fernandes will respond to these recent arguments against the true Jesus of the Bible.
Diane-Medved
Dr. Diane Medved
Clinical Psychologist | Columnist | Author
Diane Medved, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and a columnist for USA Today, is the author of five previous books. Her groundbreaking The Case Against Divorce (1989) challenged the consensus that divorce is a healthy remedy for troubled marriages. The mother of three grown children, she has been married for thirty years to the nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved and lives in Seattle.
Don't Divorce: Powerful Arguments for Saving and Revitalizing Your Marriage
If you're in a troubled marriage, divorce might seem like a reasonable option. But in most cases, it's a calamity. Shows like Bravo's Girlfriends' Guide to Divorce and HBO's Divorce normalize the dissolution of marriage, making couples feel that divorce can be a happy new beginning. Celebrities suggest a norm that divorce is not only acceptable but advisable. Gwyneth Paltrow's "conscious uncoupling" makes divorce seem trendy and enlightened. Today, couples are even throwing "divorce parties"—complete with invitations and caterers!

Enough, says psychologist Diane Medved. If you're hurtling down the road to divorce, the first thing to do is to put on the brakes. Don't let your spouse, your friends, or the "divorce industry" rush you into ending your marriage. Take a deep breath and read this book. Drawing on three decades of clinical and personal experience, Dr. Medved will show why you should save—and revitalize—your marriage. She expertly unmasks the threats to marriage, including hookup apps that promise non-committal sex, and legions of professionals who are financially invested in your divorce. She punctures one-by-one the arguments in favor of divorce, proving that "the good divorce" is a myth.
Politics Disguised as Science
This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.

If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.

How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.

“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?
  •  

     

     

  • Clarity in Chaos