Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS
If you read the Mama Bear Apologetics book, you are likely familiar with the term “linguistic theft.” Hillary wishes she’d been able to include much more on that topic in the book, so in today’s podcast, Hillary and Amy are going to address the subject, because this is something that is taking our kids (and us) captive. In addition to teaching our kids Scripture, we need to be sure that we’ve all got our definitions biblically correct.
Let’s talk about linguistic theft:
-
- Chapter 4 of Mama Bear Apologetics
Has linguistic theft been increasing as a problem?
-
- Wolves in sheep’s clothing
What’s the difference between linguistic theft and the evolution of language?
What do we mean by “intersectionality”?
Three steps with Linguistic Theft:
- Identify a core value that people universally agree or disagree with.
- Frame the arguments for your agenda in terms of promoting the things that people agree with.
- Claim that anyone who is against your agenda is for the words that people universally agree upon are bad, and against the universally agreed upon words.
Disagreement is no longer disagreement. Disagreement defines a person as evil.
People and Resources Mentioned:
- Mama Bear Apologetics book
- Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky
- Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America by Noah Rothman
- Modern Educayshun (YouTube video)
- “10 Things to Pray Every Day in September 2020” (blog post)
Unfamiliar Vocabulary:
Linguistic Theft: Linguistic theft occurs when people take a concept, virtue, or idea that most people already agree with, and then change the definition to promote their own agenda. Without understanding that this change has taken place, many people swallow an agenda to which they might normally object.
Intersectionality: finding your identity in different oppressed groups
Scripture References:
2 Corinthians 11:3-6
2 Corinthians 11:12-15
Romans 12:1-2
Matthew 7:15
Quotable Quotes:
“Trust but verify.”
“It’s those subtle shifts you don’t quite notice that can really trip people up.”
A wolf and a sheep can look identical. We need to look at their message. Share on X
Disagreement is no longer disagreement. Disagreement defines a person as evil. Share on X
Questions or ideas? Send us an email at admin@mamabearapologetics.com.
Donate to the podcast on our website.
Join The Den! The Den is a place where like-minded mama bears can perfect their ROAR’ing skills with other mama bears so that we can all help our children understand why the biblical worldview best reflects reality and how many worldly “solutions” fall flat. Learn more here!
Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. She is the chief author and editor of Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies and Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design. Hillary has her masters in Biology and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for 17 years. Don’t let her cook for you. She’ll burn your house straight to the ground.
I read your comments but haven’t watched the podcast.
The example that I see a lot is “person.” We all know what “person” means–the image that pops to mind might be your spouse, child, boss, someone in a meeting or coffee shop, and so on. We all respect their rights to health and safety. But by extending “person” (or “baby”) to include the single fertilized egg cell, pro-lifers hope to take those assumed rights to the zygote.
(Did my comment get recorded? I’ll retry.)
I read your comments but haven’t watched the podcast.
The example that I see a lot is “person.” We all know what “person” means–the image that pops to mind might be your spouse, child, boss, someone in a meeting or coffee shop, and so on. We all respect their rights to health and safety. But by extending “person” (or “baby”) to include the single fertilized egg cell, pro-lifers hope to take those assumed rights to the zygote.
Bob, do you think it is a good idea or bad idea to put into law that a human being can be discriminated against based upon their level of development? If so, why. We are not debating this arbitrary line of person. As we’ve seen from history, that concept can be changed on a whim. I am talking about human beings and human rights. Again, do you think it is a good idea to legislate discrimination against a human being based in their level of development. If so, why?