Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 23 June 2025

With the forever war in the Middle East, have you wondered why war is necessary?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #212 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Recently, the Israeli government surgically bombed the nuclear bomb preparation facilities of Iran. Israel argues it is fighting an existential fight, even as many in the international community criticize or condemn Israel as the wrongdoer, initiator, or perpetrator of war.

Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman famously said, “War is hell.” He knew whereof he spoke. He’d seen thousands wounded, mangled, and killed.

War involves death and destruction, the subjugation perhaps annihilation of the enemy, if not for your own forces, and sadly, the inevitable death of civilians. It’s not pretty, nor is it preferrable, except for demented souls, and therein lies the problem. Demented souls exist because evil or sin exists.

We know this because God told us in Genesis 1-3 about the Creation of humanity in God’s image, followed by what’s called the Fall from grace after Satan, masquerading as a Serpent in the Garden of Eden, tempts Eve then Adam into sin. Only one generation later, one chapter in Genesis, brother Cain rises up and kills his brother Abel.

War exists because evil exists. People act against others out of greed, lust, envy, desire for power, hate, so they go to war. Think Hitler, the personification of a warmonger in the past century. But wait, didn’t others rise up against Hitler and the Axis powers? Yes, they did.

The Allies mounted a concerted and remarkable effort involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors, eventually landing on the beaches of Normandy, D-Day, June 6, 1944, and pushed all the way to Berlin. Meanwhile, other Allied forces in 1942 began island-hopping, pushing back the Empire of Japan in the Pacific.

Why did the Allies fight? Did they want their young people to die in battle? Of course not. They fought because the evil that was presented to them would not stop and could not be stopped in any other way. Today, we thank God, and we thank both those who served and those who gave the last full measure of devotion for our freedom.

Back to the question: why is war sometimes necessary? Because evil exists.

God used war and warfare in the Old Testament to hold evil civilizations accountable, and he even used it to discipline his own children the Israelites.

In the New Testament, God said, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:1-5).

While God clearly states that murder is a sin, nowhere in Scripture does God forbid self-defense or use of weapons or even warfare. War is never labeled immoral or ungodly. While Jesus taught love for enemies (Matt. 5:44), turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), and peacemaking (Matt. 5:9), and the Apostle Paul emphasized living at peace with everyone, as far as it depends on us (Rom. 12:18), Scripture does not forbid all war.

Diplomacy is a noble art. Wouldn’t we rather engage in strategic arms limitation talks with Russia than shoot at one another? But diplomacy works only when the sides are either exhausted by war or truly desire peaceful coexistence.

Arguments for ceasefires may be useful diplomacy and are not ipso facto naïve or wrong, but ceasefires agreements with governments and militaries driven by ideologies like Nazism and Hitler’s megalomania, or present-day Islamic jihadism, will not likely be fruitful.

This is one of the challenges in Western capitals. Western secular leaders do not now seem to comprehend the level of ideological religious extremism that hates, that celebrates not only the death of the enemy but welcomes their own death in the service of their fanaticism.

Extremist Islam is a culture of death. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Houthis, and the Taliban are examples of groups associated with Islamic extremism and terrorism. These radicals are not interested in finding consensus, breaking bread and living happily ever after. They do not want peace; they want the annihilation of Israel. The Hamas charter says as much. Their drive is to exterminate Jews or the Great Satan America that they consider the dark oppressors of the world.

So, by noting the dark side of the jihadist extremists am I advocating war? No. But I recognize that in this fallen world, war is unavoidable, inevitable, and at times necessary to protect and preserve the lives, freedom, property, and well-being of innocent citizens. If you do not believe this, take some time to read world history.

In the late 1970s-early 1980s, during my days in graduate school studying political science our concern was what was then called “thermo-nuclear war.”

The primary foreign policy America pursued in this nuclear context is still called MAD, “Mutually Assured Destruction.” The assumption is if we build our devastative military power to a point, we can destroy the enemy and they’ve built theirs to a similar level, any use of nukes by them will result in use of nukes by us, or vice versa. Boom. Everyone is destroyed.

Mutually Assured Destruction assumes no one wants to commit suicide and no one will blink.

But MAD also assumes rational actors, meaning an enemy that thinks logically, wants to live, and cares about its future. Will MAD work when the enemy are fanatic ideologues, death cultists, people who religiously believe that their path to glory goes through bombings, attacks on civilians, assassinations, elimination of Jews, and destruction of America? Talks, treaties, timeouts clearly don’t work. So, we’re left with the prospects of eventually going to war to preserve peace and a future for our children.

This is what Israel, and the United States, face with the jihadist government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. “Iran has waged war on Israel and the West for over 45 years. As it repeatedly broadcasts its calls for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” it has been pursuing the development of nuclear weapons and stockpiling missiles to use against Israel (and potentially the U.S. homeland). It has hidden behind its terror proxies Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis to attack both military sites and civilians. And egregiously, it fully supported Hamas’s detestable actions against civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, on October 7, 2023, and refused to call on them to release their hostages. And last year, on two occasions, it directly launched missiles into Israel.” It’s doing so now.

While no one wants endless war, not going to war can be more irresponsible and result in greater death than going to war. Sometimes we must fight because we aspire to higher purposes.

As John Stuart Mill observed long ago, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. . . .A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

People advocating ceasefires under any condition and no war at any cost seem to have forgotten this.

Wars will only end when someday the “Prince of Peace” returns. “He shall judge between the nations and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Is. 2:4).

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 16 June 2025

Has it dawned on you how much social change has occurred in your lifetime? Do you sometimes wonder if people younger than you really have a clue?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #211 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Sometimes I hear middle-aged or young adults talk about contemporary events and politics and I think, do they understand how much has changed since I was a kid?

I guess the older you are the more that question hits home. I know that even thinking this way is an “old guy” thought. You know, “things just aren’t what they used to be.” But then again, they’re not.

I am older now, a Boomer, so I have memory and perspective reaching back sixty years to when I was a little kid. Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, and Gen Alpha have their own cultural moment and perspective, but by definition, it’s a shorter frame of reference.

Allow me to illustrate some of social changes that have occurred in my lifetime.

Without question, the most important shift is a culture-wide embrace of the idea that Morality, or if you prefer, truth is relative, the idea truth does not exist. When a culture rejects absolute truth, it is rejecting God who is truth and with this comes moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Part of this shift began with a century-long acceptance of evolution, or the theory life begins by chance, not from a creative act of God. Then facts give way to feelings as the source or definition of truth. Not absolute truth no matter if no one believes but just relative, malleable, socially constructed truth. Your truth, my truth, subjective truth.

All this may sound rather like vague philosophy, but the consequences of the assumption truth is relative are profound and easily now demonstrable for they are happening all around us.

If there is no absolute truth, there is no right and wrong, thus no evil. If there is no right and wrong or evil, then justice, law and order, the courts break down.

If there is no absolute truth, then education falls apart for it is all preference or meaninglessness, and loses its purpose, credibility, and incentive. Why pay tens of thousands of dollars for a degree in opinions? Or maybe worse, a degree based upon indoctrination rooted in what’s called Cultural Marxism, the reduction of everything to victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed?

If there is no truth, then hard science, real science disappears, and we’re left with “Believe the science” as political slogan. Why should anyone believe or trust science that is biased or partisan?

Without truth, an anchor over time and civilizations, words loose established meanings. Even the word truth itself can be bent for Orwellian reasons.

If moral certainty is no longer possible, and with it a rejection of common sense, we hear biased news agencies telling us not to believe our “lying eyes.”

Without moral absolutes, truth that guides us toward the better angels of our nature, we no longer possess parameters or guardrails for debate and discussion.

Any idea, no matter how morally bereft (and by the way, “moral” is one of those words that has lost all meaning, dependent upon the eye of the beholder), then we no longer possess the ability the debate. Now, to disagree is to hate. This leaves us with moral and intellectual nihilism, cul-de-sacs of our own making.

If no one can tell anyone else, including children, there is a better or morally uplifting way to do things, we get what we see now in the generations, perpetual adolescence. Thousands of youths don’t seem to grow up. When they hit the wall in life, and eventually everyone does, they have no back up, no safety net, nothing they believe in that forms a foundation for dealing with adversity. So, we get increased depression, anxiety, drop out, suicide rates.

Let’s consider some other things that are different now from when I was coming of age.

Conservation and responsible environmental stewardship have given way to the hocus pocus, bad science, globalist climate change. We should care for creation, and there are things human beings do, like littering or industrial waste, that degrade, but there is no existential threat. Climate change is far more about anti-capitalism and pro-government control than it is saving the environment.

Roe v Wade (1973) effectively legalized abortion nationally, which continued until it was overturned in 2022 by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, returning the authority to regulate or ban abortion to individual states. But abortions still take place. This resulted in a give or take 1 million abortions per year to the current total of 63 million plus.

When I was a kid, and into my college years, we experienced the Civil Rights Movement, led early on by Martin Luther King, Jr. Now, with Black Lives Matter and other racist advocacy groups, we’ve turned MLK, Jr. upside down. No longer are we interested in the content of one’s character but only in the color of one’s skin. This has yielded a new wave of desegregation and identity politics.

Since the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, intended to help a few native tribes, legalized, commercial and sports gambling have taken the country by storm. So, it’s difficult to believe that liberal Democrat, then US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, made a major policy speech on the evils of gambling and its threat to the general welfare. We’ve come a long way from this, now seeming to believe gambling is no big deal.

This goes along with our culture’s ever-increasing flirtation with debt. There was a time not long ago when leaders understood budgets must balance or there will eventually be bad times, but this is not the case in government.

From the 2000s onward, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax cuts, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, produced major surges in both absolute debt and debt-to-GDP ratio. The U.S. national debt is over $36 trillion, with a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 120%, approaching WWII levels.

But it is more than this, the real reason debt has surged is that it has become accepted, no longer considered much of a threat, a can that can be kicked down the road in perpetuity. If you don’t believe debt has been accepted, think about how much criticism has been leveled at DOGE, an effort to identify waste, fraud, and abuse. Pro-debt is a philosophy of big government profligacy, the same dangerous view that motivates problem gamblers, the idea that the piper will never have to be paid. Problem is, this defies all we know about debt in human history wherein many great empires were brought to their knees as much by crushing debt as by barbarians at the gate.

There was a time when marijuana was considered as much a drug as any other narcotic, maybe not as threatening as cocaine or now fentanyl, but a drug nonetheless, so it was regulated. As of February 2025, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories have legalized recreational marijuana.

Problem is, recreational marijuana is still a drug with negative effects like memory impairment, reduced attention and concentration, impaired judgment and coordination increasing risk of accidents, e.g. while driving, risk of anxiety, paranoia, or panic attacks, increased risk of psychosis or schizophrenia, depression and motivational issues, threat to brain development in adolescents.

When I was a kid Dad talked to me about the birds and the bees. He did not struggle speaking of the differences in a man and a woman, nor did Grandpa up on the farm. Sex was straight forward, a creation of God, a blessing but something that if ill-used could bring hurt to people’s lives. Now we live in a supposedly non-binary world wherein LGBTQ+ individuals pursue same-sex marriages, even legal adoptions. The confusion this introduces in our society is near limitless, and I’m not sure we’ve yet seen the extent of its negative repercussions.

We seem to think our ideas have no consequences, that we can ignore eternal principles and verities that have guided all previous civilizations. This is foolish, even arrogant.

When I was a kid, common sense made sense. Now, we live in a theater of the absurd that celebrates irrationality. So, now more than ever we should remember,

“So, Jesus said…“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (Jn. 8:31-32).

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 10 June 2025

Well, it’s June, so we must determine how we will respond to people proclaiming their sexual choices, “Loud and Proud,” for all the world to know.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #210 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

It’s June, so Pride month is upon us. It’s that time when those who choose to pursue Gay and Lesbian, Trans, and a list of 72 other gender identities and lifestyles seem bent upon demanding everyone else not only allows them to make this choice in a free society but must accept and affirm and endorse and promote and proclaim and celebrate their immorality with them.

If 72 choices don’t do it for you, there’s now something called “seasonal gender” or “genderseason.” Yes, you heard that right. Humans can now change their gender with the earth's tilt and its orbit around the sun. According to one authority, “'genderseason' comes as part of a growing expansion of gender identities and sexual orientations, including 'ecosexuality,' which is centered around the seductiveness of nature. The term ‘ecosexual’ is the state of finding nature sexually appealing, whether that means feeling at one with nature’s ‘energy’ or physically caressing nature.” So here we are at Pride Month.

Why? You may ask. Who proclaimed June Pride Month? There is no law passed by Congress establishing Pride Month as a federal observance. Pride Month in the United States was originally authorized primarily through presidential proclamations.

1999 & 2000: President Bill Clinton was the first to officially recognize Pride Month by proclaiming June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.
2009 onward: President Barack Obama expanded the recognition to include the broader LGBTQ+ community and began issuing annual proclamations declaring June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.
President Joe Biden and President Obama continued the tradition with annual presidential proclamations.
President Donald Trump did not issue official proclamations for Pride Month during his first administration.

“President Donald Trump's second administration has officially declared that June will now be recognized as Title IX Month — not Pride Month…Fox News reported, "Dept of Education labels June as 'Title IX Month' in wake of trans athletes winning girls' competitions. Title IX is a federal civil rights law enacted as one of the Education Amendments of 1972. The main function of Title IX is to prohibit discrimination based on sex.”

“For the last several years, Pride Month was a splashy marketing event for big brands. Stores adorned windows with rainbow flags, displayed LGBTQ-themed t-shirts and coffee mugs at their entrances, changed their logos on social media accounts, and spotlighted donations to LGBTQ rights groups. But in June 2025, many retail chains and brands are going quiet. Companies are treading lightly, avoiding prominent campaigns and visible public support. Thirty-nine percent say they plan to scale back public Pride Month engagements this year, according to a survey of more than 200 corporate executives by Gravity Research, a risk management advisory. That includes sponsoring Pride events, posting supportive messages of LGBTQ rights on social media and selling Pride-themed merchandise.”

This is not the case in Major League Baseball where a Pride night is scheduled this month for 31 of 32 teams. Only the Texas Rangers have opted out, saying they provide baseball entertainment for everyone. Individual states, cities, and institutions have issued their own declarations or recognize the month independently, some to sidestep their states or now possibly this federal proclamation. For example, Salt Lake City – the home of Mormonism – and Boise passed city resolutions making Pride flags official city emblems, thus skirting state flag ban laws.

I mentioned earlier the 72 and counting gender identities. I say “counting” because once the divinely created binary door is opened, there is no end to experimentation and a pursuit of happiness that morphs into a pursuit of sinful invention, along with the desire of so many to become an online sensation or influencer, to maintain one’s relevance by signaling you are stepping into a brave new world. Think Kourtney Kardashian recently declaring herself “autosexual,” defined by a therapist as “a trait wherein one is turned on by engaging in their own eroticism.” Or think singer Ariana Grande saying she did not feel the need to label her sexuality but she likes men and women, thus sparking bisexuality rumors. Or think singer, rapper Janelle Monáe, confirmed she is nonbinary and identifies as "beyond the binary," not seeing herself solely as a woman.

The inbred drive to be “other” can be seen in the evolution of the original Pride flag that coopted the biblical rainbow to feature 8 colors declaring sexual independence. Then the flag was expanded to represent people of color, those lost to HIV/AIDS or facing stigma or marginalization, the transgender community, and now intersex individuals. The latest Intersex-Inclusive Progress flag features 13 colors.

In his book, Our Civilizational Moment, Os Guinness quoted Fyodor Dostoevsky, who “wrote in The Brothers Karamazov, If God is dead, everything is permitted.’ You can be as free as you desire to be. The only limits are the limits of your own thinking.”

But demeaning the biblical rainbow, which God created and set in the sky after the Great Flood as a promise to Noah’s family that God would remain committed to his creation, is the center of audacity of the Pride movement. As Guinness noted, “Whatever humanity does, the rainbow is the reminder that God will keep faith with humanity. God's faithfulness will overshadow the worst that humanity can ever do. For the sexual revolution, on the other hand, the rainbow stands quite literally as the symbol of Pride. It stands for the revolution and its stated objective of repudiating the Jewish and Christian understanding of the created order. Which understanding of the symbol is to prevail? The rainbow as a reminder of God's promise? Or the rainbow as the assertion of human pride?”

I’ve addressed the Pride Month issue no less than three times before: Speaking to June Pride Issues, June Pride—What Really Is Being Celebrated?, and What About Pride Month? Frankly, I did not want to talk about this again. I am tired of the topic, weary of seeing same-sex couples in commercials, sickened by the debauchery and vulgarity I read about or see in Pride parade videos, and do not want people, including LGBTQ+ individuals to think this is the only behavior I think God addresses in the Scripture.

But how can we avoid this topic when it is literally everywhere? There are nearly 150 days in the calendar year with LGBTQ “observances.” This includes not one but three full moths: Pride Month, LGBT History Month, and Trans Awareness Month, plus 60 other days. Meanwhile, we celebrate those who gave the last full measure of sacrifice to secure our freedoms on one day, Memorial Day, and those who served on one day, Veterans Day. So, no, we cannot just keep our head down and ignore the unignorable.

In his 2015 book, We Cannot Be Silent, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., says, “This is a revolution of ideas—one that is transforming the entire moral structure of meaning and life that human beings have recognized for millennia.”

“We are facing nothing less than a comprehensive redefinition of life, love, liberty, and the very meaning of right and wrong.” “Yet explicit Christian truth-telling is the church’s reason for being.” “People seem to have lost their identity. They’ve lost their sense of belonging.

They’ve lost their awareness of their Creator.” How else can we explain this irrational, inane and insane promotion of mangled language, erasing women, denying biology, redefining family, butchering young bodies in and out of the womb, forcing speech, yet all the while demonstrating an insatiable desire to be “seen,” accepted, affirmed or validated, included, allied, and more. Those who pursue these lifestyle choices reject traditional and biblical values re sexuality and family but want all the blessings biblical reality and God’s best affords. The movement rejects the moral will of the Sovereign God yet yearns for what he provides those who follow and obey him.

“We are told that to be kind, we must affirm. But Jesus never affirmed sin to make sinners feel safe. He loved sinners enough to die for them and call them to repentance. That is the model.”

“To those in the LGBTQ+ community: we do not hate you. We are not better than you. We are beggars pointing to bread. You are not beyond hope. But there is only one Name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved. It is not tolerance. It is not affirmation. It is Jesus.”

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 02 June 2025

I would not want to witness the death penalty being administered to a person, but that said, if indeed the person was a murderer, then I still think this is moral justice.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #209 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty – taking a life for a life – has been employed by virtually every civilization since creation.

In the modern era, many countries have ceased implementing capital punishment even for the most heinous crimes because these countries have concluded the state should never take life. Yet, of course, it is interesting to note that many of these countries have also legalized abortion, and some have experimented with euthanasia. But those are issues for another day.

The death penalty is an oft-debated ethical and legal issue, with arguments on both sides touching on justice, deterrence, morality, and religion.

Most recently, capital punishment once again rose to the forefront of international news, at least for a day, when Pope Leo XIV was appointed as successor to the recently deceased Pope Francis.

The late Pope Francis made statements opposing the death penalty, marking a significant development in the Catholic Church's stance. Pope Francis said, “The death penalty is unacceptable, however serious the crime... the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.” And he criticized not just executions but also life imprisonment, calling it a “hidden death penalty.”

Pope Leo has only been in office a short time, but he has publicly reaffirmed that the death penalty is “inadmissible,” emphasizing that it contradicts the Gospel's message of mercy and the inherent dignity of every person. He views capital punishment as incompatible with a truly pro-life ethic, stating that seeking “blood for blood” is not the proper path to justice.

My problem with these calls for abolition of the death penalty is that I believe they contradict biblical theology.

Now lest I be misunderstood, I am not arguing for capital punishment as the result of a summary judgment, kangaroo court, lack of evidence, due process, or conviction, or as a political statement.

Capital punishment is not fun, not something to be celebrated, and not for the squeamish. It is, after all, punishment, death by lethal injection, the electric chair, or firing squad. It isn’t pretty and it isn’t trivial. But it is necessary and appropriate.

Taking human life in revenge is not the province of individuals. Taking human life as a form of justice is the province of government. The death penalty is extreme, but so are the limited number of crimes that demand it.

I have always supported the right of duly appointed governmental authorities to exercise the death penalty. I assume this position, not so much because I believe the death penalty is a deterrent to crime (though it might be), but because I believe crimes like murder and rape are an ultimate transgression of the law of God.

In the Old Testament, Genesis 9:6, God said, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man.” In the New Testament, Romans 13:3-4, God says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

God vested in governmental authority the right and responsibility to establish order and restrain evil. Nowhere in Scripture does he rescind this mandate.

While it is true governments have done evil and that men and women in authority have at times acted arbitrarily, ignorantly, and cruelly, this does not change God’s design for human government. In most cultures, capital punishment for the most heinous crimes has always been the purview of government to protect individuals and preserve their civilization.

Yet in recent years public support for the death penalty has declined precipitously. As of 2025, capital punishment has been abolished in over 100 countries for all crimes, including almost all of Europe, seven countries in the Americas, and thirteen in Africa and the Asia-Pacific. In part, this is due to new technology and DNA testing that has demonstrated that a few innocent (at least of the crime in question) men have been consigned to death row.

I recognize this. My support for capital punishment does not mean that the criminal justice system through which we arrive at such ultimate sentences should not be evaluated or reformed. DNA testing is a significant advance in forensic science and should be used in every appropriate opportunity. Generous and thorough appeals processes, though often lengthy, should be made available in this most serious of decisions. Clemency, the legal means through which state governors may show mercy to inmates, is and should be exercised when extenuating circumstances warrant unmerited grace.

All these lawful protections—guilt determined by evidence, opportunities to appeal, and potential clemency—were instituted to help assure the American criminal justice system is as fair, conscientious, and ethical as humanly possible. Capital punishment for guilty individuals only results after all these avenues of legal redress have been exhausted.

As of May 2025, 1,626 individuals have been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, following the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia.

Capital punishment in the U.S. is generally reserved for aggravated murder, often with additional circumstances that make the crime especially severe. Each state has its own laws, but common aggravating factors include:

Multiple victims
Murder during another felony (e.g., robbery, rape, kidnapping)
Murder of a child
Murder of a police officer or public official
Torture or extreme brutality
Premeditation and planning
Murder-for-hire

Some political leaders have recently called for harsher penalties, including the death penalty, for child pornography, child trafficking, and sexual abuse of adults. Life imprisonment is at times offered as a substitute for individuals whose crime warranted a death penalty. But does it make any sense that Sirhan Sirhan, the man who assassinated Bobby Kennedy, June 5, 1968, is yet in prison in San Diego? Or Mark David Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon, Dec. 8, 1980, is yet in prison in Beekman, NY? The average annual cost of maintaining a prisoner on death row is $60,000 to $70,000, about twice the cost of an inmate in a general prison population.

Arguments against capital punishment include wrongful convictions, injustice and bias. Opponents say race, class, or location can influence who gets sentenced to death, Then, cruelty and inhumanity, wherein opponents say it is degrading and violates human rights and the dignity of life, and finally moral objections: people claim killing is inherently wrong, even by the state. Arguments for capital punishment include deterrence, retribution as justice, closure for victims’ families, and prevention of reoffending. Christian perspectives on capital punishment often differ across denominations and individuals. While Christianity emphasizes forgiveness, mercy, and the sanctity of life (e.g., Matthew 5:38-39, “turn the other cheek”; John 8:7, “let him who is without sin…”), still, the Scripture is clear that murder is a violation of the Ten Commandments and other clear statements of Scripture about the value of human life.

All human beings are made in the image of God, so to take life wantonly, without due process of law or a duly appointed government agency, is, for me a debasement not only of human dignity but also of God’s sovereign will. I therefore consider capital punishment a morally appropriate response to particularly heinous crimes such as murder and rape, and I’d add kidnapping and terrorism.

The Bible consistently links murder with judgment and consequences, whether in the Old Testament's legal system or in the spiritual realm. 1 John 3:15 states that anyone who hates their brother or sister is a murderer, highlighting the seriousness of hatred and its consequences.

The point here is not that a murder’s life is of no value. It is that the murderer took human life and thus directly affronted our righteous and sovereign God. While it is sad when a murder’s life is taken by capital punishment, it is nevertheless a community message that reminds all who care to listen that God is Sovereign, Holy, Righteous, Just, Merciful, Loving, and Immutable.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 May 2025

Robots in our homes and lives are closer than most of us realize, so are we ready for machines that imitate human thinking and behaviors?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #208 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Robotics in 2025 is witnessing rapid advancements across various domains, including humanoid robots, soft robotics, and industrial automation. Robotic humanoid development is the field of robotics focused on creating robots that resemble and mimic human form, behavior, and capabilities. These robots are designed to interact naturally with humans and function in environments built for people, such as homes, offices, and factories.

For example, Tesla’s Optimus: Tesla plans to deploy thousands of its humanoid robots, Optimus, in its factories by late 2025, aiming for an annual production of one million units by 2029. Figure AI introduced Helix, its next-generation humanoid robot, and announced the BotQ manufacturing facility, aiming to produce 12,000 humanoids annually.

Soft robotics is a subfield of robotics that focuses on building robots using materials that are flexible, compliant, and often similar to those found in living organisms—such as silicone, rubber, and fabric—rather than rigid materials like metal or hard plastic. MIT’s CSAIL is developing soft robots inspired by animals, such as robotic sea turtles and eels, for applications in marine monitoring and non-invasive surgeries. Researchers are exploring robots that grow like vines or plant roots, allowing them to navigate through constrained spaces, with potential uses in exploration and medical procedures.

Cobots, or collaborative robots, are robots designed to work safely alongside humans in a shared workspace. Unlike traditional industrial robots, which are usually caged off to prevent accidents, cobots are built with safety features that allow them to physically interact with humans without posing harm.

Robots are not just coming. They are here now and soon will be more apparent in the everyday lives of not just Elon Musk but the average citizen. The question is, are we, the smart humans, ready for smart machines that imitate our learning, thinking, and decision-making? How does a Christian worldview suggest we respond?

First, the question of whether robots will ever become sentient touches on deep issues in philosophy, neuroscience, theology, and artificial intelligence. Sentience generally means the capacity to have subjective experiences — to feel, to be aware, or to have consciousness. It’s distinct from intelligence or even human-level cognition. For a robot to be sentient, it would need to experience things, not just process information.

Modern AI can simulate conversation, recognize patterns, and even mimic emotion or intent — but do not have subjective experiences, self-awareness, or feelings. They operate based on algorithms and data, not consciousness. The bottom line is that robots might become more human-like over time, but they won’t become human — biologically, emotionally, or existentially. The difference between imitation and identity is still vast.

Second, robots will never develop a soul —not in any traditional, spiritual, or metaphysical sense as humans understand it. The soul is an immaterial, eternal essence that connects to God. The soul refers to core of consciousness, self-awareness, and moral agency. While robots are sophisticated tools, they don’t have feelings, awareness, or an immaterial essence. Meanwhile, humans are uniquely created in the image of God. Souls are God-given; robots, being man-made, cannot possess one. A robot, built from hardware and software, does not possess consciousness, emotions, or subjective experience — let alone a soul.

Third, the ethics of humanoid robotics is one of the most important and complex areas in the field. As humanoid robots grow more advanced and more human-like, the questions we face become less technical and more philosophical, legal, and social. Humanoid robots look human — and may eventually act human — but:

Do they deserve rights? Not in my book. If a robot behaves like a person (talks, pleads, expresses pain)—remember C-3PO—should we treat it with respect? If a robot harms someone, who’s responsible — the robot, the maker, the user? Most agree that current robots are not sentient and don’t have moral capacity. OK, but who is responsible for robot aberrant behavior or harm?

Humanoid robots often include cameras, microphones, facial recognition, thus location tracking and behavioral data collection. Will your robot assistant record private conversations? How is personal data used, stored, or shared? Can robots be used for constant surveillance in homes, stores, or public spaces?

Humanoid robots can simulate emotions and personalities and possibly now form bonds with users (especially the elderly, children, or lonely people). The dangers here are emotional manipulation, e.g., users thinking the robot “cares,” or people developing unhealthy attachments to machines. Think of the movie, Her (2013), wherein a man falls in love with an AI operating system named Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson.

There is also now a concern for violence, abuse, and what might be called “moral decay.” Studies show people often mistreat robots: hitting, yelling at, or “testing” them. The movie, I, Robot (2004), features a future where robots serve humanity, a detective suspects a robot of murder, and there is widespread exploitation, robot servitude, disregard for their assumed autonomy or emerging self-awareness. Could repeated abuse of human-like machines lead to desensitization and more cruelty toward real humans?

As robots — especially humanoid and emotionally responsive ones — become more realistic, something that’s happening rapidly, their use in human sexuality raises a mix of ethical, psychological, social, spiritual, and legal issues. The movie, Ex Machina (2014), tells the story of a programmer invited to administer a Turing test (can robots think?) to Ava, a humanoid robot with striking human features and advanced intelligence. The film involves seduction, manipulation, and ethics of creating a sentient machine.

Humanoid robots designed for intimacy or companionship (often called sex robots) are already being developed and sold. They are not just sex toys — many include AI, speech, and facial expressions to simulate emotional interaction.

This raises a host of key concerns and questions, first, dehumanization and objectification. Sex robots, especially those modeled as submissive women or children, can reinforce harmful stereotypes. Critics argue they may normalize dominance, control, and violence toward real people, especially women. Some countries have banned or restricted childlike sex dolls. Philosopher Kathleen Richardson leads the Campaign Against Sex Robots, arguing they promote social harm and disconnection.

Some users may form deep emotional bonds with robots and prefer them over real relationships. This could increase social withdrawal, loneliness, or detachment from human empathy. Think of AI companions like Replika, where users already report emotional or romantic feelings for a virtual “person.”

For example, RealDoll X is an AI-enhanced sex doll that talks, reacts, and forms “relationships.” Harmony AI is a customizable personality for romantic or sexual interaction. Robot Companion Apps are text-based companions that flirt, role-play, or simulate relationships. Many experts believe this area must be strictly regulated due to the moral and psychological risks.

At this point, few clear laws exist governing robot “personhood” or consent, ownership of humanoid bodies for sexual use, or privacy and data collection during intimate interactions. What happens when a robot records intimate moments and that data is leaked?

China is the major manufacturer of sex dolls and emerging AI sex robots. Regulations are minimal, though there are bans on certain extreme or “immoral” content.

In the U.S., states like Florida and South Dakota have moved to ban childlike sex dolls, but no federal law governs adult sex robots. Debate centers on freedom of expression vs. public safety and morality. Clearly, the U.S. should establish ethical guidelines (especially in design and marketing) and ban childlike and violent robot models.

Robots are just another technology God has allowed us to develop. But given humanity’s fallen nature, pray we will seek God’s wisdom on how to use robots for good.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 19 May 2025

Habemus Papam, the world’s Roman Catholic Church has a new pope, Leo XIV, and “just like that,” as Forrest Gump would say, “we have a whole new ballgame,” as the baseball-loving American pope’s White Sox fans might say.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #207 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Habemus Papam, the world’s Roman Catholic Church has a new Pope, Leo XIV. While I am not Catholic, I nevertheless watch this transition with interest because it is not only steeped in history, tradition, and Catholic theology, but because the new pope immediately becomes a leader with global influence. Who is he really? What are his theological, social, economic, and political views, and how will he articulate them?

This occasion was precipitated by the death of Pope Francis, Apr. 21, 2025. “Pope Francis was known for his politically progressive stance on issues like climate change and immigration, while also maintaining traditional Catholic views on matters like abortion and same-sex marriage…Throughout his papacy, Francis was noted for his humility, emphasis on God's mercy, international visibility, commitment to interreligious dialogue, and concern for the poor, migrants, and refugees. Francis believed the Catholic Church should demonstrate more inclusivity to LGBTQ people, and stated that although blessings of same-sex unions are not permitted, individuals in same-sex relationships can be blessed as long as the blessing is not given in a liturgical context.”

“Concerning global governance, Francis was a critic of trickle-down economics, consumerism, and overdevelopment; he made action on climate change a leading focus of his papacy. He viewed capital punishment as inadmissible in all cases, and committed the Catholic Church to its worldwide abolition. Francis criticized the rise of right-wing populism and anti-immigration politics, calling the protection of migrants a "duty of civilization."

In a word, Pope Francis positioned himself and his influence on the Church as a political liberal.

While I can salute Pope Francis’s genuine concern for the marginalized, I have to say respectfully that I disagreed with most of what Pope Francis represented, and at times I longed for what we had with Pope John Paul II, a conservative who aligned with Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher to help bring down the Soviet Empire in their day.

Pope Francis’s legacy upon the Church and the world is, therefore, debatable. In the U.S. Roman Catholic Church, “divisions, which mirror more generalized political polarization in the U.S., are evident in a host of issues: immigration, same-sex couples, climate change and the role of women in the Church, among other issues. The split has grown wider in recent years as a growing segment of conservative Catholics becomes increasingly vocal and assertive. Pope Francis…saw his popularity decline in the U.S. over time as the conservative influence helped shape opinions: in 2024, about 75% of U.S. Catholics viewed Francis favorably, down from about 90% in 2015, according to a Pew Research Poll…In their politics, U.S. Catholics have swung more conservative, with right-wing media and Trump-era culture wars combining as powerful influence within the church. Catholics voted for Trump 59%-39% over Democrat Kamala Harris in the November presidential election, a 12-percentage point swing from 2020.”

“The share of Americans who describe themselves as Catholic has changed little over the last decade, hovering around 20%, according to Pew Research. During that time, the Church has been rocked by sex abuse scandals that have resulted in costly legal settlements and bankruptcies, while dragging on church attendance and donations. A number of U.S. dioceses, including in (Pope) Leo's hometown of Chicago, have been forced to close churches, while others have fallen into disrepair. Despite (Pope) Francis' cost-cutting efforts and financial management, the Vatican faces an $94.22 million budget shortfall…and a much larger funding gap in its pension fund.”

The question now is, will Pope Leo XIV continue and solidify Pope Francis’s ideological program, or will Pope Leo opt for a different path, perhaps one that, if not conservative as such, then is at least more centrist in his views? And will he present his views differently, perhaps choosing to make comments in homilies as opposed to public political pronouncements and criticisms of other leaders? At the moment, we only have clues from Pope Leo’s time as a priest, bishop, and cardinal.

But one word of caution: there are many examples of appointed leaders who believed and acted one way before their appointment but turned out to be quite different in high office. More than one American president has been disappointed by what his Supreme Court appointees became.

“In a 2012 address to bishops, (then Robert) Prevost accused the news media and popular culture for encouraging “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel.” Among those “beliefs and practices” he cited were the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children…While bishop of Chiclayo in northwestern Peru, Prevost opposed a government initiative to promote gender ideology teachings in schools. He said, “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.” On social media, Prevost strongly supported the Catholic Church’s anti-abortion stance. In 2015, Prevost posted a photograph from the March For Life rally in Chiclayo, exhorting his followers: “Let’s defend human life at all times!...

Prevost has expressed opposition to capital punishment, reflecting the Catholic Church’s position and Francis’s commitment to see the practice ended worldwide. In 2016, Prevost reposted a Catholic News Agency article in which citizens of Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, urged Canadians not to support legislation that would allow for assisted suicides. “’Don’t go there’ – Belgians plead with Canada not to pass euthanasia law #Prolife,” read the tweet that Prevost shared. In October 2017, Prevost retweeted a call for new US gun control from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) after a gunman murdered 60 people in Las Vegas. “To my colleagues: your cowardice to act cannot be whitewashed by thoughts and prayers. None of this ends unless we do something to stop it,” Murphy wrote in the tweet shared by the new pope.”

Meanwhile, it appears “Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV are committed to social justice and environmental stewardship. Pope Francis was vocal about the need for action against climate change and emphasized the Church's role in advocating for the marginalized. Similarly, Pope Leo XIV has signaled alignment with these priorities, advocating for stronger Church action against climate change and emphasizing a reciprocal relationship with the environment.”

Pope Francis made critical remarks about the Trump Administration’s attempt to make the US southern border safe, emphasize legal immigration, and return illegals to their homelands. “Pope Leo…has been openly critical of current immigration policies and has expressed support for social justice movements, including those addressing police brutality.” Hopefully, the new Pope understands the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

Given the number of misguided leaders who in recent years declared climate change the number one existential threat – Biden, Kerry, Pope Francis, more – and given Pope Leo’s leaning toward climate change concerns, I was pleased to note that his comments in his first mass highlighted AI as posing "new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor. And he drew parallels between the AI and Industrial Revolutions, saying the Church must lead in confronting AI's threats to workers and human dignity. AI is a big unknown that, like any innovation, offers pros and cons, so I’ll take this from Pope Leo, glad that he did not throw himself on the altar of climate change religion.

I was also pleased to note that Pope Leo said, “It is essential that we too repeat, with Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). It is essential to do this, first of all, in our personal relationship with the Lord, in our commitment to a daily journey of conversion. Then, to do so as a Church, experiencing together our fidelity to the Lord and bringing the Good News to all.” With all this I agree.

But then Pope Leo ended his mass with “May God grant me this grace, today and always, through the loving intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church.” While this is traditional Catholic doctrine, with this I cannot agree, for the Scripture clearly says in 1 Tim. 2:5-6, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” And Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6).

While Mary, the mother of Jesus, not the Church, is respected and honored in the Bible, and there is much to learn from her obedience and humility before God, nowhere in Scripture is she considered divine, nowhere is she called an intercessor.

To be open and dispassionate about this, we will need to give Pope Leo XIV time to speak. I pray he will know the truth in Jesus Christ and make Him known, that the Pope will point to the Gospel, not the Church per se, and that he will focus more on applied theology than ideological or partisan politics.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Subcategories