Podcast: Reproduzir em nova janela | Baixar | Incorporar
Inscreva-se: 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 é a fundadora da Mama Bear Apologetics. Ela é a principal autora e editora dos livros *Mama Bear Apologetics: Empoderando seus filhos para desafiar as mentiras culturais* e *Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empoderando seus filhos para compreender e viver o desígnio de Deus*. Hillary possui mestrado em Biologia e está casada com o Dr. John D. Ferrer há 17 anos. Não deixe que ela cozinhe para você. Ela vai incendiar sua casa até o chão.
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?