While some believe that the sentencing of Karmelo Anthony wasn’t harsh enough, others — including rapper Cardi B — are outraged that he got sentenced at all.

“Wow! Just freakin wow! DISGUSTING… This is not justice, this is trying to make an example!!!” Cardi B wrote in a post on X.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is disturbed by the rapper’s response, especially considering that it is shared by many on the left.

“What are you even saying?” Stuckey asks. “Not that I expected Cardi B to understand what due process is or to have this solid moral compass, but also, like, if Nicki Minaj can do it, I feel like you could too, Cardi B.”

“I feel like if you just tried and you turned your thinking cap on for a second, you could see that yeah, murder is bad and you should go to jail for murder,” she continues.

“He’s not getting the death penalty. He’s not getting life in prison. He’s going to get out when he’s in his mid-30s. He could get married. He could have kids. He could probably get a job,” she says, noting that Austin Metcalf will get none of that.

“And yeah, we should make an example out of murderers. That’s part of the reason for the justice system. It is preventative in that way. It is saying, ‘Hey, if you do this, you will also get this punishment, so don’t do it.’ Like, that’s a good thing. We want people who are potential murderers to see the justice system actually working and saying, ‘I’m going to think twice before I kill someone because I’m mad that they threatened to touch my backpack,’” Stuckey says.

“It’s not just rappers like Cardi B. It’s not just these random activists. It’s also representatives. It’s also congresspeople,” she adds, playing a clip of Jasmine Crockett responding to Anthony’s sentence.

“Black women, especially black women who have black male children, live in fear and agony every single day. A fear and agony that, I promise you, the Metcalfs probably never spend a day living that way,” Crockett said.

“Why? Why do they live in fear and agony?” Stuckey asks. “Why do moms of black boys, black men, live in fear and agony? Has nothing to do with Austin Metcalf. Has nothing to do with the police. Has nothing to do with white people.”

“If black mothers fear for their sons’ lives, the fear should be toward other black men, because statistically, black men are the ones killing black men,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Karmelo anthony, Cardi b, Blazetv, Nicki minaj, Jasmine crockett, Austin metcalf, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

I’m in a particularly good mood as I write this. I’m on vacation, you see.

And not just anywhere; this is a very special destination. It’s not particularly luxurious or fashionable; I’m pretty sure most of the beautiful people are in St. Barth’s or the Hamptons. If you want a four-star resort experience, look elsewhere.

Unlike in our country, here it’s only customary to check in on the news once or twice a day. So people tend to focus less on what they can’t control.

But something about being here always puts my heart and soul at ease; when I return to normal life, it’s with a sense of deep contentment.

For one thing, I love the people. In many ways they are poorer than we are; they’re certainly not as technologically advanced. And yet the average person on the street seems to take special pride in his appearance. Good, presentable clothes; careful grooming; even posture is somehow straighter.

Continental breakfast

Welcome to the great nation of “Midcentury America.” They say the past is a foreign country. If so, the United States as it was 50 to 80 years ago is one of my favorite places to visit — if only via old photographs.

I love to explore all of its different regions. The 1960s is a favorite, closely followed by the ’50s. I also enjoy stopping by the ’40s every now and then.

And I have to admit there’s a special place in my heart for the ’70s. Avocado couches? Burnt orange blankets? Deep shag wall-to-wall carpets in Harvest Gold? Bring it on! It’s all part of the charm.

And the cars! Tesla and other marvels of modern automotive design haven’t gotten here yet. But take it from me, you barely miss them. How could you? When you’re on safari, you don’t long for the petting zoo. So many magnificent species of Detroit engineering and design: Lincoln Continentals, Pontiac GTOs, Chevy Impalas. I still remember the awe on my minivan-raised children’s faces the first time they encountered a Ford Country Squire.

RELATED: The one word that can help you use technology — without letting it use you

VCG/Getty Images

Peace and prosperity included

Despite how unusual many of the sights here may seem to visitors, Midcentury America somehow feels like home. No smartphones or flat-screen TVs, but you wouldn’t call it “backward.” Everything is modern, without collapsing into that flat, gray “spaceship” style we’re so fond of in 2026.

It all makes for a certain optimism that is all too rare where we live. And it’s a real, earned optimism; Midcentury’s proximity to two devastating world wars — not to mention a depression — means its citizens have no illusions about the fragility of life. And maybe that’s why they never seem to take what peace and prosperity they have for granted.

Yes, there’s the Cold War and nagging fears about nuclear annihilation. But unlike in our country, here it’s only customary to check in on the news once or twice a day. So people tend to focus less on what they can’t control and more on the people right in front of them.

This is a place where the future is always brighter. No wonder they have so many children!

Bring the kids

The more I visit, the more I’m convinced that the children are the key to it all. Each kid a family has is like a small “buy in” to their society; an unspoken, shared belief that this will all continue as one generation yields to another.

Trips to Midcentury America always seem to end just as you’ve really gotten the hang of the place; that’s the nature of a tourist visa. Leaving is always bittersweet, but the country always leaves its mark. I like to think that each time I return, I bring with me some of their gratitude and indefatigable optimism. Back home, a little of that goes a long way.

​Lifestyle, Travel, America, Nostalgia, Midcentury, Men’s style, The root of the matter 

A group of lawyers were caught red-handed by a judge who said she is tired of the courts being burdened.

What started out as a mundane case of a lawyer claiming he was owed legal fees turned into an embarrassing ordeal for both the municipal government and the lawyer seeking remuneration.

‘A prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp.’

Last October, a court in Aberdeen, Mississippi, awarded lawyer Tom Withers III attorney’s fees and expenses stemming from a previous case he worked on. Legal documents accessed by Blaze News stated that attorneys for the city, rather than the city itself, were held responsible for the payment of the fees.

This meant that those involved in the case included Withers, his attorneys Kathleen M. Wilson and Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway, and the city’s lawyers Kathryn Y. Williams and Mark C. McClinton.

Both parties filed submissions, and within a two-week period the legal process was ready to continue — until a review of the submitted briefs showed that both parties had submitted documents containing nonexistent citations that were hallucinated by AI.

Withers’ lawyers signed off on a filing that contained citations described as “hallucinatory,” while the city lawyers signed off on two filings that contained fake citations on behalf of the jurisdiction.

The court then asked the attorneys from both sides to show why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for their behavior.

RELATED: iPhone’s debut crushed young women’s fertility, new study says

Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images

Both parties eventually admitted that their citations resulted from unverified use of artificial intelligence.

In January, all the attorneys were in attendance for a hearing where they “expressed embarrassment and apologized to the Court,” the filing read.

Lawyer Williams admitted to using an AI tool to do legal research, while Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her filing. Neither verified their work before submitting it.

The other two lawyers, Ridgeway and McClinton, admitted that they did not review the filings before submitting them to the court, but signed off on them electronically anyway.

RELATED: Even if you don’t choose to use AI, you’re probably interacting with it

Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

This all fell on the desk of Judge Sharion Aycock, a senior U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Mississippi, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Aycock wrote that the lawyers essentially had wasted court resources and called out the two local attorneys for their behavior.

“In an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp when acting as local counsel.”

Additionally, Aycock described the “unusual scenario” as one in which “attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct.”

Judge Aycock added, “This Court is yet again ‘burden[ed] [with] addressing AI hallucinations in court filings.’ … While ‘[g]enerative technology can produce words,’ it cannot attach ‘… sincerity, truth, or responsibility to what it writes. That remains the sacred duty of the lawyer who signs the page.'”

On X, lawyer Rob Freund reported that among the sanctions placed on the lawyers, they were handed fines ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 and a disqualification from practicing in the district for two years.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Mississippi, Artificial intelligence, Tech, Court 

We feel it at the grocery store. We feel it when we pay our utility bills. We feel it every time we check our bank accounts and browse house listings. I especially feel it when just two bags of groceries cost me more than a hundred dollars.

America’s affordability crisis is real. Inflation is hurting families. Housing costs are through the roof. The American dream feels increasingly out of reach for many young people.

Our story isn’t unique. For most of history, families have built stability and wealth together rather than waiting until they had already achieved it.

But what if part of the problem isn’t just economic? What if it’s cultural?

What if it’s that more and more of us are postponing — or outright rejecting — the very milestones that once allowed our country to thrive?

For generations, marriage and family were some of the biggest building blocks of financial stability and success. Today, marriage rates are declining, family formation is delayed, and birth rates have fallen so low that we can’t even replace ourselves. At the same time, Americans are marrying later than ever, and first-time homebuyers are now 40 years old on average.

These aren’t isolated trends. They are interconnected signs of a culture that has turned family from a foundation for building a good life into a finish line that many feel they must reach only after they have “made it.”

Foundation, not finish line

I didn’t grow up in affluence by any means. Things were often tight at the Thorman household with nine children (yes, all from the same parents), though none of us went “without.” My parents and their friends welcomed kids into the world with open arms even though they had no idea how they were going to afford us.

When my older siblings were born, things were so tight that they mostly lived on beans and rice and a whole lot of prayer. My dad worked extremely hard, and with smart financial decisions coupled with his integrity and strong work ethic, his salary increased over the years — just as the data has long predicted.

But one thing my parents didn’t have was Pinterest-perfect homes, luxury vacations, or every financial box checked before starting a family. They just did it. They just got married young, committed to one another, welcomed children, and built a life together.

I’m not advocating for irresponsibility, but we need to regain knowledge that was once intuitive: Marriage and family don’t stand in the way of financial success; they help create it.

Having it all

Our culture has it all backward. The expectation that we have to travel the world, have perfect-looking homes, and “find ourselves” before settling down has not made us happier or more financially savvy. Rather, it has only made us more miserable, lonely, and empty.

The very lies society feeds us about delaying marriage and family in order to “have it all” often undermine the very things people are seeking: financial stability, purpose, belonging, and long-term happiness. These are not obstacles to marriage and family; they are the fruit of them. We have convinced an entire generation that family should come after success, when for much of human history, family was the primary way people built success.

The data bears this out. Marriage and stable two-parent households consistently produce better economic outcomes: higher household income, greater wealth accumulation, lower poverty rates, and greater financial stability for children. Imagine that. The family structure God designed not only benefits individuals spiritually and emotionally, but also creates some of the strongest economic outcomes for families and society alike.

Having a family will alter your priorities, and rightly so. For my husband and me, having two kids (with more to come, God willing) has changed how we spend our money, where we spend our time, and what we value the most. We hardly get to take vacations, let alone the kind “influencers” brag about on social media, and that’s OK. I’ll take my kids over luxury experiences every day. So yes, kids change your lifestyle — and that’s a good thing.

For me, I get to do life with my best friend and make carbon copies of us, and it’s exceptionally awesome. I want everyone to experience it, because my family isn’t the obstacle to a meaningful life; it’s the source of one.

My story isn’t unique. Social science has been documenting the economic benefits of marriage and family for decades.

RELATED: How to bring Charlie Kirk’s vision to life — starting in your own family

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Marriage: The great anti-poverty program

Washington politicians love to debate tax credits, subsidies, and government programs, yet one of the strongest predictors of economic stability isn’t a government policy at all — it’s marriage. Certainly, government policies matter. Washington can lower taxes, reduce burdensome regulations, and make housing more affordable. But no government program can replace what strong marriages and families provide: stability, sacrifice, belonging, and a purpose larger than ourselves.

Research from the Institute for Family Studies found that among Millennials who graduated high school, worked full-time, and married before having children, 97% avoided poverty altogether by their mid-30s. Far from being obstacles to financial stability, marriage and family are often among the strongest predictors of it.

My husband and I are a testament to that reality. We got married in our 20s with very little to our names. No trust funds or other “head starts”; nor did we have every financial box checked. We simply started building our life together anyway.

Since then, our careers have grown and our incomes have increased. After living in a small apartment and saving as much as possible, we purchased our first home — including a nice yard to play in — after welcoming our first child. Our story isn’t unique. For most of history, families have built stability and wealth together rather than waiting until they had already achieved it.

Worthy inheritance

The financial advantage enjoyed by married households extends to the whole family. Children raised in stable two-parent homes are far less likely to experience poverty and far more likely to move up the economic ladder. In 2021, just 9.5% of children living with two parents were in poverty, compared to 31.7% of children living with a single parent.

Strong families provide stability, support, and opportunity in ways that no government program can ever replicate. If we truly want to reduce poverty, expand opportunity, and strengthen our nation’s long-term prosperity, we must acknowledge the indispensable role marriage and family play in human flourishing.

Whatever efforts Washington makes to ease Americans’ financial burdens — whether through tax cuts or education reform — lasting change must start with us. Too many young people who tell themselves they’re putting off marriage and children for financial reasons are in fact mistaking risk for impossibility. Building a life has always required a leap of faith.

It’s a leap more of us have to make if we want to keep the American dream alive. Can we afford to have children? The better question is can we afford not to. If we want more prosperity, opportunity, and stability, we should start by strengthening the institution that has helped make those things possible for generations: the family.

​Marriage and family, Faith, Affordability, Lifestyle, Motherhood, Children, Christian living 

A UFC Freedom 250 event on the South Lawn of the White House — with a 5,000-seat temporary stadium and 85,000 tickets for viewing on massive screens on the Ellipse — has sparked controversy. The event is unprecedented, and it falls on President Trump’s birthday.

Put aside what you think of Sunday’s extravaganza. There is still a good reason to embrace June 14: Flag Day.

Those allergic to all things Trump should remember that Flag Day existed decades before he was born and, God willing, will endure for generations after.

Flag Day has a long tradition. Yet if not for its coincidence with Trump’s birthday, it would likely pass with little notice. That is a mistake. This is not a call to worship a colorful banner. It is a call to remember that Americans — left, center, and right — are united by founding principles from the Declaration of Independence, represented by Old Glory.

On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress approved a resolution establishing a uniform national flag. The 13-star flag, commonly associated with Betsy Ross, became a rallying banner and a source of pride. It was not yet revered as it would be later, but it symbolized the freest nation in world history.

Then came the Civil War and the lowering of the flag over Fort Sumter. That image triggered an outpouring of love for Old Glory.

Jonathan Flynt Morris, a banker and strong Republican Unionist, urged Charles Dudley Warner, editor of the Hartford Evening Press, to write about the need not merely to respect the flag, but to revere it. On June 10, 1861, Warner followed that advice and proposed a new holiday: Flag Day.

“This flag is our dearest symbol of nationality,” Warner wrote. “It stands for civil liberty on this continent. To keep it full high advanced is our highest pride; to strike at it is to arouse all the passion of the nation to defend it, and to punish the perpetrators of the outrage.”

Flag Day celebrations began in Warner’s home state of Connecticut. They slowly spread to schools in Wisconsin in 1885, New York schools in 1889, and then to Philadelphia and public buildings in New York state in 1894. An American Flag Day organization was created to further the movement.

President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, issued the first federal recognition of the holiday on May 30, 1916. Wilson’s proclamation called for patriotic exercises that would “give significant expression to our thoughtful love of America” and our understanding of “the great mission of liberty and justice to which we have devoted ourselves as a people.”

RELATED: Damning poll reveals what Democrats ACTUALLY think of America ahead of its 250th birthday

Stan Grossfeld/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

He also called Americans to rededicate themselves to the principles of “independence, liberty, and right,” which no person “can corrupt” and no influence could draw away from their ideals. Finally, on Aug. 3, 1949, President Harry S. Truman, also a Democrat, signed an act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day.

Flag Day exemplifies our shared American creed. It was the brainchild of Republicans, spread outside party politics, and was instituted nationally by Democrats. Its purpose is to recommit us to the founding principles declared in the Declaration of Independence and embedded in the Constitution: equality, limited government, the rule of law, unalienable rights, the social compact, and the right to alter or abolish oppressive government.

America did not fully live by those principles in 1776, and we do not perfectly live by them today. But belief in those principles has inspired generations of patriots to move us closer to their fulfillment. Abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movement all called upon America’s first principles to push the country toward its promise. At its best, our flag stands for liberty and equality.

Those allergic to all things Trump should remember that Flag Day existed decades before he was born and, God willing, will endure for generations after. It is not about one man. It is a call for all Americans to unite around the principles that made the country possible.

We should answer that call.

​Charles dudley warner, Civil war, Jonathan flynt morris, Opinion & analysis, White house, Woodrow wilson, Harry s truman, Flag day, American founding, Donald trump 

Augustine of Hippo is one of the most influential philosophers and Christian theologians in history, and he had a stark warning for the Western world: “A man has as many masters as he has vices.”

And Seth Gruber, CEO of White Rose Resistance, is relaying this warning, explaining that it means “by promoting vice, the regime promotes slavery, which can then be fashioned into a form of political control.”

“That sentence I just said Allie Beth is the beating heart of libido dominandi: the lust to dominate,” he tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“Dominion becomes domination when man listens to and accepts the serpent’s counterfeit kingdom. And the things that we were called to steward … become the very things we are now enslaved to,” he says.

“Domination is a reflection of your own slavery projected onto others. But dominion is a reflection of your own stewardship exercised on behalf of others. So one is the city of man, and one is the city of God,” he continues. “But in each case, it reveals who or what we really worship.”

“Vice,” Gruber explains, “is contagious.”

And like anything contagious, it’s easily spread.

“Tyrants work very hard to spread the infection,” he explains, “because they know that a virtuous populace cannot be controlled. So they have to corrupt, seduce, blackmail. They have to weaponize lust.”

Gruber likens this to Jeffrey Epstein, because if “you cannot defeat militarily, you can always corrupt through sexual enticement.”

“Maybe that’s why the Epstein list will never get released,” he adds.

Stuckey agrees, adding, “What a fascinating, very disturbing connection … Epstein, you can just see it.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Allie beth stuckey, Augustine, Christian theologians, Jeffrey epstein, Libido dominandi, Seth gruber, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

For years, AI elites like Sam Altman, Jensen Huang, and even Elon Musk touted a future in which AI stole all the jobs and humanity simply accepted a life of meaningless unemployment while receiving a meager allowance of universal basic income until our dying days. Something changed recently, though, and several of those same elites are suddenly backpedaling on their promises of the past. What changed? There are a few possibilities.

Seemingly all at once, the CEOs of the world’s leading AI platforms, particularly OpenAI and Anthropic, both reneged on their opinions on artificial intelligence in the workplace. Where AI was once prophetically decreed to replace everyone’s jobs, now these bots are being positioned as tools to enhance human productivity instead.

But why? For what reason would the AI CEOs, who once plotted workplace domination, suddenly turn back on their greedy aspirations? Did they suddenly remember that humanity must somehow live on after all the jobs dry up? That their companies will lose money if consumers don’t exist to buy products and services? That it’s actually evil to force people into unemployment amid a hostile takeover of the entire economy?

Public sentiment around AI is at an all-time low, and it continues to bottom out.

Maybe. Or perhaps something is forcing their hands.

Four reasons the AI job apocalypse is finished

It’s IPO time

Both OpenAI and Anthropic are at pivotal points in their meteoric rise to ubiquity. Neither company is turning a profit, and as time drags on, venture capitalists, who will never get a return on investment with generative AI, are more likely to reduce or even pull their funding. That means AI companies looking to survive the impending bubble have to find funding elsewhere. The answer is to go public.

The two AI giants plan to launch IPOs this year, and they need strong public support to drive value. If the companies are perceived as harmful or even complicit in obliterating the workforce and killing the economy, their IPOs will tank. As a result, they have pulled back on the dystopian warnings of mass unemployment as they tidy up their reputations to portray benevolent corporations bent on helping humanity instead of hindering it.

Reality check

While the AI CEOs promised a workplace revolution on the backs of their LLMs, the real-world applications for these platforms have fallen short of expectations. In May, Starbucks retired its AI-powered inventory system, despite supposed “improved product availability in stores” ushered in by the service. Employees responded by praising the change, saying, in effect, thanks for discontinuing automatic counting! The thought behind it was great, but the execution was proving difficult.

Also in May, a Gartner study revealed that 80% of companies that replaced employees with AI did not see better returns. Meanwhile, companies that added AI to their workforce to enhance the productivity of existing employees without eliminations saw the strongest gains, highlighting the need for skilled employees to coexist alongside AI platforms.

RELATED: Google’s new daily helper knows all about you. Just how creepy is it?

Google’s new daily helper knows all about you. Just how creepy is it? Marina113/Getty Images

Lastly, some companies, like Meta, are learning the hard way that AI isn’t a replacement for human intellect. As we reported in early June, hackers tricked Meta’s AI customer support bot into changing the passwords on high-profile Instagram accounts with little security to stand in the way. This was a massive blunder for Meta — which recently laid off 8,000 employees in favor of AI — in what became the company’s largest account breach ever.

Public protests

Public sentiment around AI is at an all-time low, and it continues to bottom out as time goes on. Just last month, numerous videos surfaced of college graduates booing commencement speakers for merely bringing up AI. Young people looking to enter the workforce, where entry-level positions are among the first to dissolve in the AI race, seemingly appear to hate LLMs. Since this demographic is the future customer base for AI giants, OpenAI and Anthropic would be stupid to continue to ruin young people’s lives with more promises of job replacements.

Another point of contention among the people focuses around data centers. Not only do these massive buildings devour local energy, there are also growing reports that they generate loud noises that have caused some unsettling health effects, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, sleep disturbances, and more.

Hefty price tags

Finally, companies are learning that AI is expensive to run at scale. Microsoft, one of the leaders in the AI space, canceled its Claude Code licenses for employees just months after starting the program. Although no official reason was given, the high cost and volume of Claude tokens required for sophisticated projects is believed to be the culprit. At the same time, Uber’s chief operating officer cited concerns over the high cost of AI that made it difficult to justify. Even AI GPU maker NVIDIA admitted that human employees cost less than AI bots.

During a recent event, Sam Altman was asked about the sizeable AI costs for businesses. He feigned ignorance, stating that “the issue never came up” in the past when setting the prices for companies. “People were totally happy with the amount they were spending.” That appears to no longer be the case.

​Tech 

When Jase Robertson found himself in a movie theater featuring “Project Hail Mary,” he thought he was about to watch a football movie or a film on the Virgin Mary.

What he actually saw stunned him so intensely that it now ranks among his “top five” most shocking experiences ever.

“The reason I was shocked is there was so many spiritual vibes to this movie,” he said on a recent episode of “Unashamed.”

Between the main characters being named Grace and Rock, several nods to the idea of a “savior of the world,” and themes of self-sacrifice and redemption, Jase was astonished that Hollywood produced such a film, especially in this age.

But then the real stunner came.

“There is a Phil Robertson quote in the movie,” Jase exclaims.

After the movie ended, Jase set out with a mission to discover the “story” behind how a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster managed to slip a Phil quote into the script.

Artificial intelligence gave him a strange answer: The line in “Project Hail Mary” was not a Phil Robertson quote, even though it is “a universal accepted fact” that he coined the phrase.

But Jase doesn’t need AI to confirm what he knows is true. “There is a Phil Robertson quote in there, and I didn’t think that was an accident based on everything else I had seen.”

Jase, calling the movie “top-notch,” praises the directors for allowing the film to “play both sides” of the spiritual argument.

He recalls a scene in which Ryland Grace (played by Ryan Gosling) has a spiritual conversation with Eva Stratt, the no-nonsense administrator who gets tapped by world governments to lead Project Hail Mary.

Grace inquires whether or not she believes in God, to which she replies, “It’s better than the alternative.”

“It was just like, well, I know which side of the production that line came from,” says Jase, calling the film “a wonderful experience.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Unashamed with the robertsons, Jase robertson, Project hail mary, Unashamed 

One of the most common objections to Christianity is simple: The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians believe it?

Christians believe the Trinity because it is the inevitable conclusion of what Scripture teaches about God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism.

The story begins in Genesis.

The Jewish Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament, taught something unique among the religions of the ancient world. Pagan nations treated their gods as physical beings within the universe. Israel taught that God created the heavens and the earth. God was not part of the system. He brought the system into existence.

God is therefore not made of matter, not located at one point in space, and not one deity among many. He alone existed from eternity. Everything else had a beginning.

Israel was repeatedly tempted to compromise with the polytheistic religions around it. Time after time, the prophets called the nation back to the worship of the one true God. Through Isaiah, God declared, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5).

The God of Israel was understood to be eternal, immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. These are not properties material deities could possess.

That raises an obvious question. If Christians inherited this uncompromising belief in one God, how did they arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity?

John opens his Gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

John then tells us that all things were made through the Word. The Word is distinguished from God, yet the Word is also called God. John 1:3 says all created things came into existence through Him. If all created things were made through the Word, then the Word Himself cannot belong to the class of created things.

Then John tells us, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). The eternal Son of God became incarnate as Jesus Christ.

RELATED: Don’t let ‘Disclosure Day’ doom you to spiritual death by discourse

The New Testament repeatedly presents the same pattern. At Jesus’ baptism, the Son stands in the water, the Spirit descends as a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven. The three are clearly distinguished from one another, yet elsewhere in Scripture the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identified as God.

Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Baptism is done in the name of God. Paul gives a Trinitarian benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14. Jesus, the Lamb of God, sits on the throne of God.

Jesus also claimed an existence that preceded Abraham: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). His words echo the divine name revealed to Moses. The Jews understood the implication and tried to stone Him for blasphemy. Elsewhere, they accused Him of making Himself equal with God.

Scripture also attributes personal qualities to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit teaches, speaks, guides, gives life, and can be grieved. He is not merely an impersonal force.

The early Christians therefore found themselves committed to three truths taught by Scripture:

There is only one God.The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another.

Deny any one of those truths, and you contradict the Bible.

Over the first several centuries, as pagan polytheists converted to Christianity or challenged it, the church debated how best to explain the doctrine of God from Scripture.

The Gnostics denied that Jesus was truly incarnate. They taught that He was a spirit who only appeared human. In doing so, they denied the incarnation.

Another early controversy involved Sabellius, who taught what later became known as modalism. According to this view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different manifestations of the same divine person.

The church rejected this because Scripture repeatedly distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit from one another.

Then came Arius, who taught that the Father alone is eternal and that the Son is the first and greatest creature.

As Christians reflected on the biblical evidence, the church clarified its teaching: The Father is eternally unbegotten. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and, in Western theology, from the Father and the Son.

The doctrine can be summarized simply: God is one “what” — one divine essence — and three “whos” — three distinct persons.

The church eventually summarized the biblical teaching as one God in three persons. Not one God and three gods. Not one person appearing in three forms. One God, three persons.

RELATED: Contentious theological debate erupts about Mormons over War Department faith list

Brent Asay/iStock/Getty Images

The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism. The doctrine preserves the full teaching of Scripture and answers the questions Scripture itself forces us to ask about God.

What is striking is how often modern religious movements that spin off from Christianity repeat ancient errors. Some deny the full deity of Christ, as Arius did. Others collapse the distinctions among the persons, as Sabellius did. Still others deny Christ’s full humanity or full deity. Some even teach polytheistic material gods.

What has united Christians across denominations and centuries is their shared commitment to the biblical doctrine of God. By contrast, new religious movements often claim allegiance to Scripture while introducing another authority that corrects, supplements, or supersedes it.

When Jesus called people to believe in Him, He did not require them to master centuries of theological debate. But neither did He leave them free to invent their own Jesus. They were to believe true things about Him and reject false things about Him.

A person may sincerely use the name “Jesus” while holding beliefs about Him that contradict the Jesus revealed in Scripture. The issue is not sincerity but identity. Not, “What do I feel?” but, “What does the Bible say?”

The question is whether the Jesus a person believes in is the Jesus revealed in the Bible or a Jesus drawn from some other source.

The church’s long debates about the Trinity were not abstract philosophical exercises. They were answers to the most important question any person can ask: Who is Jesus Christ in the Bible?

​Bible, Christianity, Doctrine, Genesis, God, Jesus christ, Old testament, Opinion & analysis, Trinity, New testament, Faith