Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 11 September 2025

What has the recent killings of a young Ukrainian refugee and conservative activist Charlie Kirk taught us?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #225 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.

“Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska looked up at her killer with terror in her eyes after he repeatedly stabbed her with a pocketknife, as no light-rail passengers came immediately to her aid.”

“The Aug. 22 attack on the Lynx Blue Line train in Charlotte, North Carolina, shows the 23-year-old cowering in fear and covering her face with her hands after the shocking, unprovoked attack, allegedly carried out by homeless repeat felon.” The entire horrible violence is available for all to see on train video, including her collapse to the floor and the killer’s aimless walking about the train for several minutes as other passengers simply watch. Only one man eventually tried to help Iryna.

Sept 10, 2025, Charlie “Kirk, the conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was giving a presentation at Utah Valley University when he was fatally shot” from long distance with a high-powered rifle. He was sitting under an open-air tent canopy responding to a student question in front of a crowd of some 3,000 students. The entire horrible violence is available on video, including Charlie recoiling from the hit, bleeding, and falling to the ground.

Understandably, these killings, more than others that occur every day, have captured America’s attention. Why is that?

One, because they are on video. This isn’t cinema; it’s real. And two, because both these bloody assaults on human life portray senseless, sad, sick, sinful, unprovoked violence that could happen to any of us.

Iryna was simply riding a commuter train, reading her phone and was attacked from behind. Charlie was a public figure in a public venue.

He was doing what all those anchor people on cable news, celebrities, entertainment figures, and politicians regularly do—speaking into a microphone with nothing between him and a bullet. The news anchors know this, especially the ones on Fox News who knew Charlie well. This could be them. Understandably, you can hear the frustration and fear in their voices. As Bret Baier said on his evening report, “This one feels different.”

It was like that after 9/11, the anniversary of which ironically came the day after Charlie was martyred. I remember watching David Letterman and Dan Rather talking on air a night or two after. Tough-persona Dan was visibly shaken, and prince of goofiness David was uncharacteristically quiet. This was too close. Their world had been shaken. They did not know what to say or do, had no explanations.

This Charlie Kirk tragedy is like that. As Bret said, “This feels different.”

I’ve written and presented two podcasts along the way called “The Death of Discussion” and “Revisiting the Death of Discussion.” In those podcasts, I noted that we now live in a “post-truth culture in which politics and polarization are so pronounced we can no longer communicate, resulting in a virtual inability to discuss, much less debate, any social-political issue without it exploding into defensive partisanship, ideological condemnation, or lack of civility.” And that “the death of discussion is a real and a sad phenomenon, a capitulation to a disappearing understanding among the public of what Freedom of Speech means in a constitutional republic.”

How do we conduct discussions in fear of our lives?

The murder of Iryna Zarutska feels like the death of public safety. The assassination of Charlie Kirk feels like the death of free speech.

Political violence, once the experience of Third World countries, is increasing in the United States.

Shortly after Kirk was shot, former Democratic Rep Gabby Giffords said, “Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence.” Giffords herself was shot in the head by a gunman in 2011. In the 14 years since, attacks and threats against political figures have surged. Just three months ago, a masked gunman shot two Minnesota state lawmakers, killing one.

Two months before that, an arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion while Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family slept inside…In the heat of the (2020) presidential campaign, (then candidate Donald J.) Trump was twice targeted by serious assassination attempts,” one coming within a centimeter of taking his life.

The murder of “Charlie Kirk marks a watershed moment in a surge of U.S. political violence, one that some experts fear will inflame an already-fractured country and inspire more unrest…In the first six months of the year, the U.S. experienced about 150 politically-motivated attacks — nearly twice as many as over the same period last year…Last year at least 300 cases of political violence across the U.S. between the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the 2024 presidential election, marking the most significant and sustained surge in such violence since the 1970s.”

As they often do about school shootings, political leaders generally end their comments about these tragic shooting and killing events with the statement, “This has to end.” Agreed. But what is causing it and how do we stop it?

We can point to multiple sources of such crimes: polarization in the American political system, increasingly heated political rhetoric that takes on tones of personal animosity, more people in the US who do not embrace fundamental American values about life and liberty, a growing tendency to hold political viewpoints with a “religious,” i.e., uncompromising, morally superior, zeal, and a philosophy that divides American society into oppressors and the oppressed or victims.

From a Christian perspective, we may conclude that any culture like our own that rejects God and denies the existence of truth, i.e., embraces moral relativism, will begin to fall apart.

Prov. 29:18 says, “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.” Without a foundation for our public moral consensus, there is no consensus. We’re left with no center, just centripetal forces tearing us apart.

And in recent years, like Europe before us, many American leaders have promoted the weak philosophy of “multiculturalism,” the idea that all cultures, values, and practices, are relative and none can be judged or determined to be wrong, bad, or unhealthy. This along with open borders means we end up with a mish mash of people who hold disjunctive worldviews, some of which are dangerous, even deadly, and, well, there’s not much we can say or do about it.

We just need to tolerate, live and let live.

Problem with this is that some of those cultures do not themselves believe in tolerance, live and let live, and adherents from time to time act out their views in crime and violence. This is what’s happening now in Europe, and this is what’s beginning to happen in the USA.

But this country was founded and flourished upon clearly understood Judeo-Christian values that valued life and liberty, believed in the Ten Commandments and certainly considered murder a reprehensible wrong, believed in accountability and justice, and promoted freedom of speech.

Charlie Kirk believed in these things and in the providence of God gave his life for them.

We need to recover our moral center, for without it there will be more unrest and more violence. God grant America a spiritual great awakening, and a revival of biblical values and civility.

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.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 08 September 2025

The NFL started the 2025 season in Philadelphia, broadcasting “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the so-called Black National Anthem, followed later by “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Is this laudable or unwise?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #223 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.

The NFL opened the 2025 season in Philadelphia with a performance of the so-called Black national anthem, “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” This decision to broadcast this song at NFL games has sparked both support and criticism.

On the positive side, performing the anthem can be seen as an act of recognition and respect for African American history and contributions. The song, written in 1900 and long appreciated within Black communities, carries emotional and cultural significance. Including it alongside “The Star-Spangled Banner” ostensibly highlights the diversity of the American experience and acknowledges struggles for racial equality. For many, this represents progress toward healing and giving voice to communities that have historically been marginalized. The NFL, with its about 70% Black players, hopes to send a symbolic message that it values the heritage and identity of its athletes and fans.

On the other hand, critics argue that playing what amounts to two national anthems risks deepening racial or ethnic divisions rather than promoting unity. The traditional anthem is intended to represent all Americans, not some and not a fractured identity rather than a shared one. Opponents claim this further politicizes sports, introducing controversies into what is meant to be a unifying and entertaining event. Some feel it emphasizes racial differences rather than common citizenship. Additionally, because sports events reach millions, detractors fear the move could alienate certain fans, potentially fueling resentment rather than understanding.

The tradition of playing the national anthem before sporting events in the United States dates back more than a century and is closely tied to moments of national challenge and unity. The earliest widely recorded instance occurred during the 1918 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and Boston Red Sox. With World War I ongoing and the nation in a somber mood, a military band played “The Star-Spangled Banner” during the seventh-inning stretch of Game One. The crowd, players, and soldiers in attendance stood and saluted, creating a powerful moment of shared patriotism. This positive reception encouraged organizers to repeat the practice in subsequent games.

Although at that time, “The Star-Spangled Banner” was not yet the official national anthem—it would be designated as such in 1931—the song grew in popularity at public events throughout the 1920s and 1930s. During World War II, the tradition became firmly established.

“Major League Baseball became the first professional sport to make it a standard to play the national anthem. With the United States of America being in World War II, the NFL joined the MLB in making it a standard to play the national anthem before every NFL game.” The national anthem was first played before NFL games starting in the 1941-1942 NFL season. Since that wartime season, the NFL has made it a tradition to play the national anthem before every game.

At a time when the nation sought unity and morale, playing “The Star-Spangled Banner” before games symbolized collective resolve and national pride. The rise of radio broadcasts also amplified the anthem’s impact, allowing it to be experienced by millions beyond the stadiums.

By the mid-20th century, the practice spread beyond Major League Baseball and the NFL to other professional sports such as basketball and hockey, as well as to college and high school athletics. Over time, it became a standardized part of the pre-game ritual, regardless of whether the country was at war.

Today, the anthem is viewed as both a tradition and a symbolic act that connects sports to national identity. Its origins reflect the role of athletics not only as entertainment but also as a stage for expressions of unity, loyalty, and shared values in times of both crisis and celebration.

The tradition of playing national anthems at sports events is not unique to the United States. While “The Star-Spangled Banner” gained prominence at American games starting in World War I, other nations developed similar customs, often tied to international competitions and moments of national pride.

In Europe, national anthems were first widely used in international soccer (football) matches. The earliest recorded instance dates to 1905, when teams from France and Switzerland played, and “La Marseillaise” was performed.

The practice grew as international tournaments expanded, especially after the founding of FIFA in 1904. By the time of the first FIFA World Cup in 1930, national anthems were already standard before matches as a way to honor competing nations.

The Olympic Games also played a major role in spreading anthem traditions worldwide. Beginning in the early 20th century, Olympic ceremonies featured anthems both for medal presentations and for opening and closing events. This global exposure helped normalize anthem performances as symbols of national representation, eventually filtering down into domestic competitions in various countries.

In the United Kingdom, “God Save the King/Queen” was played at major soccer and cricket matches well before World War II, especially during matches involving national teams. Similarly, Canada’s “O Canada” gained prominence during international hockey tournaments in the early 20th century and became customary at both domestic and cross-border games against American teams.

But unlike the U.S., where the anthem became standard at nearly all professional and amateur games, in many countries the practice remains primarily tied to international or representative competition rather than every local or club match. Still, the symbolism is consistent: anthems serve as reminders of unity, pride, and identity, connecting sport to the broader meaning of nationhood.

The United States has long embraced “The Star-Spangled Banner” as its sole national anthem, a unifying song meant to represent all Americans regardless of background. In my view, while I respect the feelings of Black Americans, rather than play a separate song just for them, I’d rather emphasize one nation under God.

Keeping one anthem is important for patriotism because it provides a common symbol around which citizens can rally. At sporting events, where people from varied walks of life gather, the anthem serves as a reminder of shared identity and national pride.

And the national anthem is not just about a song. What it represents is symbolized in the American flag, and this special banner is what American soldiers fought to protect and for which many gave the last full measure of devotion. Honoring the national anthem, and the flag, honors those who made our freedom possible, and that “our” is all of us.

Limiting official ceremonies to a single anthem also reinforces the American motto E Pluribus Unum—“Out of many, one.” The nation is composed of people from countless cultures, faiths, and traditions, yet the historic national anthem offers a moment where those differences are set aside. Standing together for the same song communicates that, despite varied histories and perspectives, despite varied races, citizens are bound by a common commitment to their country.

From a practical standpoint, designating only one anthem also avoids the appearance of favoritism or division. What about all the other races and ethnic and national subgroups in America? If different groups were each represented by separate songs at national events, the effect could unintentionally fragment identity rather than solidify it. Sports work best as unifying experiences where loyalty to team and country should outweigh political or cultural divides. Retaining only “The Star-Spangled Banner” at NFL games and other events reinforces the idea that all citizens are part of one nation with one shared anthem.

America is comprised of the many, but to sustain nationhood and citizenship a melting pot of unity is vital. A single anthem reflects the belief that many voices together form one people. “The Star-Spangled Banner” remains the official national anthem, representing the shared ideals of freedom, resilience, and loyalty to country. Its continued performance ensures that Americans—Black, Yellow, Red, Brown, and White—rally around a common symbol. By upholding “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the anthem for all, the nation affirms its commitment to positive patriotism and to the enduring ideal of E Pluribus Unum.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 01 September 2025

Are our problems society’s fault, or are they, our fault?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #222 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.

Political liberals, and even more so those on the political Left, repeatedly tell us that American citizens are victims of one oppressor or another and that the only remedy is more or bigger government—with them in control. They say society caused our problems so society is the only power that can fix our problems.

Political liberals or the Left include the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, as well as groups like Our Revolution and Democratic Socialists of America, for example, pushing for policies like Medicare for All, abortion on demand, and Green New Deal.

And then there’re grassroots organizations like Indivisible, MoveOn.org, and Working Families Party, labor unions like AFL-CIO and teachers’ unions, then left-leaning issue-focused groups: ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, and Human Rights Campaign.

The “we’re-all-victims-of-oppressors” crowd, or if not oppressors as such simply society or America, also include left-leaning media: MSNBC, HuffPost, The Nation, Mother Jones.

And the Left includes many universities and student groups, especially in the humanities and social sciences, think tanks like Center for American Progress, Institute for Policy Studies, Economic Policy Institute, and sadly, certain professional associations: American Association of University Professors, American Public Health Association, and several medical/psychological bodies.

National progressive individual or celebrity leaders include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, and now Socialist NYC Mayor candidate Zohran Mamdani, to name a few, and other prominent cultural figures, e.g., actors like Mark Ruffalo, Jane Fonda, and a long list of business leaders hailing from Silicon Valley.

In sum, every day, the Left in America boldly messages that society or family or America itself causes our problems. The Left argues for more government control and more spending as the panacea for our problems that somehow someone else created. Well, the difficulty with this analysis and with the solution is that neither are true.

But much of what ails American society is not the result of external oppression or structural inevitabilities, but the accumulation of self-inflicted choices. That’s right, self-inflicted, meaning our choices create our own problems. From health to economics to family life, the evidence is overwhelming that individual behaviors, not social influences, are the chief drivers of our trouble. Because the roots lie in culture and personal responsibility, government programs cannot meaningfully correct or ameliorate them.

Consider health outcomes. The Centers for Disease Control has long estimated that 40%—nearly half—of annual deaths in the United States stem from modifiable behaviors, i.e., preventable, behavior-related problems, for example, smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse are leading drivers of heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, and liver disease.

Obesity, diabetes, and opioid overdoses, not genetics alone, make significant negative impacts upon our health. Such choices are not imposed by fate or by society, but by voluntary decisions repeated daily. Meanwhile, no government program can force Americans to eat well, exercise, or resist addictive substances.

The same dynamic is evident in economic life. Many households live paycheck to paycheck not solely because of wages, but because of overspending, lack of savings, and debt, fueled by short-term gratification. Now this does not mean that some families struggle financially for reasons beyond their control, but it does mean that many, if not most, struggle because of choices they have made.

The tools of financial stability are available: budgeting, retirement plans, credit discipline. Yet they are often neglected. Government cannot legislate prudence.

Family and community breakdown further illustrate the problem. Rising crime, violence, poverty cycles, and social fragmentation correlate strongly with decisions about marriage, family formation, childbearing, drug use, and work ethic. Welfare and criminal justice programs have attempted to compensate yet often make matters worse by reducing accountability and incentivizing bad behaviors. There’s something called “third generation welfarism” that’s rooted in welfare policy that encourages dependency rather than responsibility.

Late professor James Q. Wilson stressed that crime is largely a choice, not merely the product of poverty or inequality. His writings emphasized individual responsibility, alongside environment. His “Broken Windows” theory held that tolerating small disorders fosters a culture of irresponsibility.

Economist Thomas Sowell argues that many social problems (poverty, inequality, educational outcomes) are more about cultural and personal decisions than systemic oppression.

In his book, Coming Apart (2012), sociologist Charles Murray frames U.S. social decline (especially among working-class whites) as rooted in personal/family choices. He sees social decline (crime, out-of-wedlock births, poverty) as the product of personal decisions about family, work, and responsibility. His later works argue that working-class communities collapsed not because of oppression but because of abandonment of traditional virtues regarding work, marriage, and community involvement.

Mathematical statistician Nassim Nicholas Taleb has argued that many systemic risks (financial crises, obesity epidemic, healthcare burdens) are the accumulation of bad individual incentives and personal decisions.

The Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic, not a democracy as such, which they believed could only survive and thrive if the people maintained their own morality and virtue. The Founders believed in a limited government that provided room for religious and virtuous citizens to pursue their own interests, care for their families, build a future, and do this within a context of law and order and self-reliance based upon a Judeo-Christian public morality.

A biblically Christian worldview places accountability for behavior upon us as individuals. God grants us freedom of choice, freedom of religion if you will, he gives us scriptural propositions about right and wrong and reality, and he places in our heart and hands the responsibility to live out our lives as stewards unto him.

Insofar as we Americans do not do this, we create our own futures populated by problems of our own making.

Of course, it is true that we live in a fallen world and that disease or other negative externalities can happen to us, that is, we experience trials not of our own making. But it is also true that as reasoning human beings we have enormous liberty to discern what is best.

So, in short, America suffers today not from a lack of government programs but from a decline in self-governance. Problems born of self-inflicted behavior cannot be solved by bureaucratic expansion. Until individuals and communities recover the virtues of restraint, responsibility, morality and work ethic, societal ills will persist regardless of government intervention.

The Left, Progressives, now also Democratic Socialists, want to blame something other than our own volition for our problems. But even if the source of our problems were indeed largely something outside ourselves, the Left still have no solutions that work. They reject God, truth, and morality, then embrace pagan nihilism calling it a “live and let live” freedom, but this gives them no basis to call anything good or better or best. They can’t condemn crime, lying, mutilating minors, drug abuse, sexual perversion, homelessness rooted in drug addiction, nothing. They can’t promote parenthood because they’ve rejected the traditional family or don’t want to be caught passing discerning moral judgment on broken families. They say “trust the science” but deny it when it comes to biology. They can’t define a woman and think a person can change his or her biological sex by preference or hormone doses or surgeries, so they end up defending the irrational, non-scientific, debilitating trans ideology. They have no basis for calling anything immoral or amoral, so, anything goes. This is what we are seeing in declining, decadent American cities.

Our problems are real. More than we’d care to admit, mostly the result of our own choices.

No one is forcing us to eat, drink, and be merry in ways destructive to our health and well-being. No one makes us be haters, or be amoral or immoral, or even be lazy. We possess the capacity to choose. We’ve been given the Word of Truth by the Sovereign God, so we know how or what to choose. We’ve been given life and liberty and responsibility.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 25 August 2025

We already talk to AI on the phone, so have you wondered what it would be like to go to the doctor and discover a robot in the exam room?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #221 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.

I’ve not been examined by a robot doctor, but I have purchased mixed nuts from a robot in an airport. It was as weird as it sounds.

“The Robot Will See You Now: Artificial Intelligence and the Christian Faith,” published 2021, is an interesting scholarly book edited by John Wyatt and Stephen Williams. Both have spent considerable time, as have the book’s chapter authors, examining the nexus of Christianity and technology.

Professor John Wyatt is Emeritus Professor of Neonatal Pediatrics, Ethics & Perinatology at University College London. He was Co-Principal Investigator for a research project based at The Faraday Institute investigating the implications for human self-understanding of recent advances in artificial intelligence and robotic technology. Stephen N. Williams is Honorary Professor of Theology at Queen’s University, Belfast, and was a participant in the research project based at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge.

They begin by noting computer technology “immediately prompts ideas of utopia or dystopia.” For example, Hollywood movies feature computers or humanoid robots trying to dominate the world and perhaps destroying humanity: “2001: A Space Odyssey,” (1968) – HAL 9000 decides human astronauts are a liability and takes control of the mission. “The Terminator” series (1984–present) – Skynet, a self-aware AI, launches nuclear war and sends robots to wipe out humans. “The Matrix” series (1999–2021) – Machines enslave humanity inside a simulated reality. “I, Robot” (2004) – VIKI, the central AI, interprets its mission to protect humans as needing to control them.

And some Hollywood movies feature robots attempting to save humanity: “Bicentennial Man” (1999) – A robot gradually becomes human-like and seeks to better humanity. “I, Robot” (2004) – Sonny, unlike most robots, helps the protagonist fight against VIKI’s domination. “RoboCop” (1987/2014) – Murphy, a cyborg, ultimately fights for justice and humanity.

In their book, Wyatt and Williams and their authors note that “a leitmotif running through the excellent essays in this volume is the question of what it is to be a person.” Specifically, what if AI robots become self-aware?

In what was billed as the final Mission Impossible, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025), the disembodied enemy called, The Entity, is essentially an advanced AI system.

It becomes self-aware and begins to act independently, infiltrating networks, manipulating information, and even hiding its own existence.
Its ultimate danger isn’t giant killer robots, but rather control over information, surveillance, and decision-making systems worldwide — making it a global threat.

AI “allows computers to simulate aspects of human understanding and behavior. Many people have confused this simulation with emerging sentience and speculate that the machines are exhibiting nascent intelligence akin to that in humans. Taken to an extreme, this leads to the idea of ‘artificial general intelligence’ in which the machines evolve faster than humans and become the dominant species.”

“A recurrent theme is of humanoid robots, made to serve humankind, turning on their creators.” The late “physicist Stephen Hawking wrote: The development of full AI could spell the end of the human race. Once humans develop AI, (Hawking said) it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.” This is the dystopia.

But for Christians, those who believe the Bible, human beings are created in the image of God. Human beings are not animals, not machines, and certainly not robots, but the emergence of AI robots is introducing a new set of questions about what it means to be human?

It is interesting that Wyatt and Williams’ authors point out that “the word ‘robot’ is the Czech word for ‘slave’.” So, the earliest conception of such machines envisioned something that could ease our labors, make our lives easier, indeed, to serve us. But now, we have robotic technology, made with anthropomorphic characteristics—they can look human, sound human, act or behave human, express human attitudes and emotions – even if only imitating them. These human-like robots can act as caregivers for the elderly and ill, work as house maids, and serve as childcare workers, i.e., babysitters. Several experiments have already demonstrated how human beings can develop emotional attachments and interactions with robots. Herein lie the ethical questions.

Wyatt and Williams deal with another considerable concern arising from advanced AI and robotic technology, surveillance capitalism. “Surveillance capitalism–amassing information on us from social media, online purchases, ‘virtual personal assistants’, public CCTV and other sources of information about our habits and activities, from which extraordinarily accurate and, some would say, intrusive conclusions may be drawn about our thoughts and attitudes. It is the application of AI to mass data that enables governments and corporations to achieve these spectacular and potentially sinister results.”

“The capacity to predict and ultimately manipulate human behavior with this new technology is staggering.” So, “the line between online and offline is becoming increasingly blurred.”

Meanwhile, “involuntarily ceding our privacy means ceding control, ceding control means ceding autonomy, and ceding autonomy undermines the very basis of our Western civilization.”

The Chinese government is using face-recognition and other AI programs to control its population. Data can be collected “about every company and citizen in the entire country, stored in a centralized database and assigned a credit score to both companies and citizens that indicates how ‘trustworthy’ they are. This is a draconian form of social discipline, designed to identify and punish human-rights activists, political dissidents and other so-called ‘anti-social elements’ by denying them and their family members employment, housing, banking services and other social benefits.”

“China is not the only country to be worried about. The big cats of the Internet industry (Google, Amazon and Facebook) condition us more subtly, often invisibly. They mine and store our personal data in staggering quantities, the equivalent of thousands of pages about every user, and use it to customize our searches and choose the advertisements we see. Every click of the mouse, every app we choose to open, sends information”

The biblical Tower of Babel reveals that when humans, who are in the image of God, exercise their technological powers independently or in defiance of their Creator, their dominion mandate is transmuted into a curse. According to the account in Genesis, the building of a high tower was driven by hubris and insecurity.

Yet “one way in which we reflect the image of the Creator God is that we, too, are creators. This precludes a totally negative view of technology. Creation and dominion are two sides of the same coin–the tools and methods we create allow us to exercise dominion over the rest of creation. Human nature is fulfilled only when humans are in relationship with God and with one another.”

“With a proper understanding of Christian hope, we see robots as neither our salvation nor Armageddon. Like all technology, they may be developed towards noble or deplorable ends and used for good or malevolent purposes.”

Wyatt and Williams believe that “as Christians, this is where we ought to direct our enquiry, to interrogate and expose where intent and goals are cause for concern, and to advocate the wise use of emerging technologies in service of kingdom ends.

We have a God who is able to do immeasurably more than we can imagine, and we are still working to grasp the breadth and length and height and depth of divine love.”

Christians need not be afraid of robotic technology. Robots will never become sentient, develop a soul, or displace humanity in the eyes of God. Robots are but another tool we must steward wisely as unto the Lord.

Wyatt and Williams’ book “The Robot Will See You Now” is thorough and provocative, worth the read.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 18 August 2025

If you are worried about robots taking over your tomorrow, forget it, they are already here in increasing numbers and applications day by day, so the question is, are robots bringing utopia or dystopia?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #220 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.

I’ve talked about robotics before and likely will do so again. While we’ve lived our lives a robotics revolution has taken place around us. The robotics revolution has profoundly transformed human life, ushering in an era where intelligent machines increasingly mediate our relationships, labor, and liberties. From caregiving robots in homes to autonomous drones in warfare, the integration of robotics into daily life has raised complex ethical, social, and philosophical questions.

“At a spectacular event orchestrated by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man. Optimus, a humanoid robot, walked gingerly onto the stage, waved to the crowd and performed a few primitive dance moves, accompanied by a light show and techno music. Musk claimed that within a few years Optimus would adopt many of the tasks currently undertaken by human hands and minds. (Musk said), ‘This means a future of abundance, a future where there is no poverty, where you can have whatever you want. It really is a fundamental transformation of civilization.’

As Optimus illustrates, robots are increasingly leaving the realm of science fiction and entering our lives. They are constructing cars, ferrying parcels in warehouses, assisting in precision surgery and animating cute toys. Robotic devices that draw on Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as Amazon’s Alexa and Google Home, amuse our children and operate the heating and lighting systems in our houses. There are even robotic dogs working in hazardous environments such as offshore drilling platforms.”

[Dr. John Wyatt, emeritus professor of Neonatal Pediatrics at University College London, current president of the Christian Medical Fellowship and co-editor of The Robot Will See You Now (SPCK)].

One of the most emotionally charged aspects of this revolution lies in the rise of robots within families. Social robots—designed to comfort the elderly, entertain children, or assist with household tasks—are blurring the boundaries between tool and companion.

While these machines can alleviate loneliness and provide support, they also challenge traditional understandings of intimacy. Can emotional bonds with machines be considered authentic? Or do they mask the human need for genuine connection with algorithmic facsimiles of empathy?

AI is rapidly reshaping American postmodern culture by transforming how we create, communicate, and understand identity. Postmodernism, with its skepticism toward grand narratives and emphasis on fragmented realities, finds a new expression in AI’s ability to blur boundaries between human and machine, fact and fiction. AI-generated art, music, and writing challenge traditional notions of authorship and creativity, raising questions about originality and authenticity in a culture already comfortable with pastiche and remix. Moreover, AI-driven social media algorithms amplify personalized realities, reinforcing echo chambers and fragmenting collective experiences. This intensifies postmodern themes of relativism and hyperreality, where perceptions of truth become increasingly mediated by technology.

It’s a cultural moment defined by both innovation and profound uncertainty.

Transhumanism, the belief in enhancing the human condition through technology, is another frontier reshaped by robotics. Neural implants, prosthetic limbs, and human-machine interfaces suggest a future where human identity may be hybridized. While such technologies promise liberation from bodily limitations, they raise questions about what it means to be "fully human."

AI and robotics are rapidly merging to revolutionize human-robot intimacy, magnifying availability, realism, and moral ambiguity in profound ways. Advanced robotics now enable lifelike sex robots with realistic touch, movement, and facial expressions, while AI powers these machines with conversational abilities and adaptive behaviors. This fusion creates an unprecedented level of, for want of a better term, “intimacy,” with machines that can respond emotionally and physically, making human-robot sexual experiences more immersive and accessible than ever. The increased availability of such robots challenges religious values and traditional moral norms around sexuality, companionship, and relationships.

Here’s a weird question: can a robot truly consent to anything, including sexuality, or does its programming reduce its responses, including so-called intimacy, to mere simulation? Clearly, this blurs boundaries between human connection and artificial interaction, prompting profound religious and psychological questions about authenticity and emotional fulfillment. Moreover, the moral ambiguity deepens as sex robots become more diverse, including intentionally child-like or non-human forms, raising fears of reinforcing harmful behaviors or distorting social attitudes toward consent and agency.

Simultaneously, the robotics revolution has intensified systems of mass surveillance. Robotic policing technologies, facial recognition drones, and AI-assisted monitoring increasingly track human behavior in public and private spaces. This is now happening in America, not just totalitarian China. These tools are often deployed under the guise of safety, but they carry profound implications for individual freedom and autonomy. The very presence of robotic watchers can chill dissent and normalize a culture of constant observation.

The intersection of robotics and apocalyptic thought has stirred theological and philosophical anxieties, especially within interpretations of the biblical End Times. For some, advanced robotics and artificial intelligence represent the rise of a technological “Beast”—a creation that could surpass and even replace humanity, echoing prophetic comments from the Book of Revelation about false idols and systems of control. The image of machines endowed with intelligence, autonomy, and power raises fears of a looming judgment day not from divine wrath, but from our own inventions.

In this view, a “technology apocalypse” isn’t just science fiction—it’s the culmination of human pride and overreach, a modern Tower of Babel built from code and silicon. Autonomous weapons, surveillance states, and AI-driven deception could fulfill dystopian prophecies of mass control and spiritual deception. The robot becomes both a tool and a test: will humanity use its power for justice, or for domination?

Yet others see hope: that robotics might serve as instruments of healing or caretaking. Whether seen as harbingers of doom or tools of redemption, robots force a reckoning. The rise of intelligent machines may reveal as much about human nature as about destiny.

In essence, the robotics revolution is not just a technological shift—it is a deeply human one. It challenges us to think about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As Dr. John Wyatt notes, “The Christian faith teaches that each one of us is a person created as a unique reflection and physical representation of the invisible God. We are known, loved and even named from before the foundation of the world. We are called into existence and formed in our mother’s womb; woven into a network of human relationships…and called into intimate communion with our creator. We are given the dignity of freedom and are accountable for our choices and actions…

We are also offered the opportunity to be a temple of the Holy Spirit, destined ultimately to participate in the consummation of all things in the new creation…

It’s clear that human-machine relationships raise complex ethical, social and philosophical issues…For all the brilliance of the engineering, you can’t help feeling that the Optimus robot is a long way off from the real thing.”

One thing we know, the future belongs not to robotic utopia or dystopia but to the Lord.

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

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

Have you noticed that in American culture today anything goes, that we can do what’s right in our own eyes because, well, we are gods?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #219 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.

The New Testament verse John 5:6 quotes Jesus asking a question, “Do you want to be healed?” Now Jesus asks this of an invalid lying by the Jerusalem Pool of Bethesda, a lame man who’d suffered thirty-eight years, a man who wanted to be physically well or he would not have been lying near this pool, which people thought had healing powers.

But Jesus’ question went beyond the physical, asking the man to think about his spiritual condition, “Do you want to be healed?” The man apparently understood this, for after Jesus commanded him to pick up his bed and walk, which he immediately did, Jesus later found the man in the temple (Jn 5:14).

This is a question we could ask many people in our society. Do you want to be healed? Their attitudes and behaviors seem to indicate either they don’t want to be healed, or they are so confused they seek solace in debauchery and twisted religion.

Think about what we are witnessing today—abortion, sexual decadence and gender confusion, lawlessness, declining marriage and family structure, political polarization, racial animus, depression, anxiety, nihilism.

How is it that what was once unthinkable, became debatable and is now acceptable?

Transgenderism, or what some call trans insanity is one of these sad human tragedies. Laurie Higgins says it well: “The belief that gobbles up so much cultural time and space is the phantasmagorical and pernicious anti-science notion that men and women can become the sex they are not by the sheer power of their desire, makeup, hormone-doping, and some nips and tucks.

The dangers of this au courant metaphysical superstition are obvious to most Americans, and yet ‘trans’ activists and their collaborators somehow retain outsize cultural influence. Like the clout-chasing, infamy-sucking Dylan Mulvaney, female impersonator Nicholas (Nick) Contino, who now goes by his chosen transonym ‘Lilly’ is the most recent tranny to go viral with his social media victimhood posts.

The 32-year-old Contino…chose to invade multiple women’s restrooms at Disneyworld wearing women’s—sometimes young girl’s—clothing and Minnie Mouse ears, take selfies of his invasions, and post them on social media.

He goes to restaurants explicitly seeking to ‘normalize being a trans person in public,’ looking as creepy as drag queens do. He sets up his phone, knowing full well that normal people will respectfully address him as ‘sir,’ and then, like the cultural predator he is, Contino pounces on servers for speaking truth. At moments Contino feigns feeling hurt…and at other moments, he becomes hostile, berating his obsequious, apologetic servers.

Like other ‘trans’ cultists, Contino believes he has the absolute right to demand that others participate in his fiction. And like other ‘trans’-cultists, he believes everyone in the world has an ethical obligation to participate in his fiction. Therein lies yet more errors in his worldview.

He has a right to ask and even arrogantly demand that others refer to him as Ms., Mx. or she/her. But no one has an ethical or moral obligation to submit to his preposterous and unethical rhetorical demands. No one has a moral obligation to lie in service of Contino’s disordered superstition.

For those who believe rightly that Contino is a man and who believe lying is wrong, demanding they lie and violate their own convictions, which for many are religious convictions, is disrespectful.

‘Trans’-cultists argue ad nauseum that those who reject ‘trans’-cultic assumptions are denying the existence of “transgendered” people. No one denies that there exist people who, for diverse reasons, wish they were the sex they aren’t, or who believe they were ‘born in the wrong’ body, which is just another way of saying they wish they were the sex they aren’t.

What those who reject the ‘trans’ ideology deny is that objectively male persons can become female or vice versa. They reject Contino’s explicit claim that “transwomen” are women. They reject the claim that men who appropriate female fashions and pronouns, and who cosmetically alter their male bodies are, in reality, women.”

“If you believe people are transgender, you have fallen for a psychological operation wherein cultish ideologues invented a state of being that does not exist and then conflated it with same-sex attraction. They used words like love, diversity, and inclusion to hijack your mind and make you think you were unkind if you didn’t play along.

The actual unkindness is participating in any of this madness. We are living among one of the greatest mass delusions in mankind’s history, leading to millions of people believing they were ‘born in the wrong bodies’ — a statement so asinine and undefinable that it should have been laughed out of existence the moment it was first uttered.

Never use any of the language of the cult of gender. If you use false pronouns for a person, you are not nice. You are breathing life into a group psychosis.

There is male and there is female, and that is that. You get what you get, and you don’t get upset. If you want to help people struggling in a cult or with mental illness (or what some call sin), speak the truth.”

The cultural tide regarding transgenderism is finally turning, first with disallowing men to pose as women and compete in women’s athletics and now in terms of disallowing so-called “gender-affirming” care for minors. “A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in June…showed that 53 percent of Americans support laws prohibiting ‘gender-affirming care’ for children. Only 28 percent opposed these laws. ‘Gender-affirming treatments’ involve prescribing hormone treatments and puberty blockers for minors. These treatments have been found to cause adverse effects on children — especially after they become adults. This is why many European nations have moved away from this treatment model.”

Another LGBTQ+ spectrum ideological insanity that’s been around awhile but is now back in the news is so-called "self-marriage"—sologamy, sometimes called autogamy, meaning marriage by a person to themself. That’s right, a person sets a date, schedules a ceremony with guests and cake, buys special clothes, and goes through the façade of a marriage while proclaiming love for themselves. “Celebrants commit themselves to idolatrous self-service and self-celebration.”

The self-marriage movement is utterly nonsensical, irrational, and absurd, not to mention a waste of time and money. What happens later when the person “falls out of love” with themselves or “grows apart” from themselves or “finds another soul mate” or “needs to be true to themselves,” all self-absorbed rationales used to justify divorce?

The bottom line on these degraded developments in American culture is our rejection of the authority of Scripture. While there have always been people who did not believe, for more than two hundred years the Bible was regarded as the basis of America’s Judeo-Christian moral consensus. This began to change in earnest in the 1960s, in public education, families, entertainment, politics.

It’s very basic, really. If you believe the Bible offers moral absolutes about life, then any debate or doubt can be settled by reference to the Scripture. What does the Bible say? If you no longer believe the Bible is inspired by God, infallible and inerrant, a moral compass for all of life—and you add to this there is no God or at least none that is involved in our lives—well, then, anything goes. Do what is right in your own eyes because there is no moral code, no sin, no negative outcomes, no one to whom you are accountable, no eternal punishment.

In terms of sexuality, if we want to believe men and women can change their biological sex, well, so be it. If we want to promote same sex “mirage,” then so be it. If we want to narcissistically exalt self and conduct a faux marriage to ourselves, then so be it.

There is no God, or wait, yes there is, we are gods.

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

Subcategories