Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt launches series ‘Beyond and Back’ to show 'proof of Heaven'
By: Jeannie Ortega Law
This is a great article! There are things that happen that science as humanists know it can’t explain or understand. Deleted proselytizing - sandy This great Fox News series explores things humans can’t understand that have happened to a variety of people. Ainsley Earheardt is a co host of Fox and Friends which is the best morning news show on tv. Fox News is about to celebrate 25 years on the air. Thank you Ainsley for making this series to cover the unexplainable Deleted proselytizing.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt launches series ‘Beyond and Back’ to show 'proof of Heaven'
As the Fox News Channel approaches its 25-year anniversary, a fixture at the network, Ainsley Earhardt, is taking a look into the great beyond with her new series, "Beyond and Back."
The current co-host of the No. 1 morning show in cable news, "Fox & Friends," is a professing Christian who is very vocal about her faith and its role in her everyday life.
She launched the new series on Fox Nation to uncover intriguing stories of both believers and non-believers who can't explain how they survived death.
Each story is beyond scientific explanation. The five-part series begins with the first episode, "Proof of Heaven. " It tells the story of a man of science (a neurosurgeon) who did not believe in the afterlife until his own experience with the "beyond."
"God is giving us these experiences all over the world for a reason, and the five different stories in this series are just a small glimpse into the bigger plans that God has for us all," Earhardt shared with The Christian Post.
The TV host said she wanted to release the series to give viewers a sense of "hope and faith in the afterlife" following a tumultuous year in which many suffered loss.
The following is an edited transcript of Earhardt's entire interview with CP, where she shares her thoughts on the afterlife and explains why she wants to bring these stories to viewers.
Christian Post: Can you share with us the inspiration behind your new series "Beyond and Back"?
Earhardt: The pandemic has forced everyone to deal with the uncertainties of life on a more accelerated level. From illness to loss of a job or loved one, Americans are searching even more than ever to know if there really is God or something more out there. We wanted to release this series to give viewers a sense of hope and faith that there is something more after this life and to find comfort in knowing that our loved ones are not alone when they die.
CP: What can viewers expect from the series?
Earhardt: The series uncovers five intriguing stories of believers and non-believers who overcome adversity after traveling somewhere beyond this life. Most of them can't explain how they survived death, were lifted from Hell and went to Heaven and back. But what they experienced has transformed their lives forever.
CP: Can you give us a sneak peek into the testimony of a believer who we can look forward to seeing on the show?
Earhardt: Entrepreneur and a family man of faith, Jeff Fusco, had a life most people strive for until he became severely sick with COVID-19 in 2020. After multiple surgeries, the doctors told his family that he had two hours to live. Fighting to stay alive, Jeff experienced something out of this world. He was transported to a place that brought him total peace and comfort, with stone walls and gates leading to what he believes was Heaven. But Jeff was faced with a choice … to enter this beautiful city of God or to return home with his loving family. What happens next is truly incredible.
CP: Did filming this show teach you anything about the beyond?
Earhardt: The beautiful testimonies in this show have validated everything I've been taught about this life and the next.
CP: What do you believe lies beyond?
Earhardt: I believe the Bible, which says there is a Heaven and we get there not by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Heaven is God's dwelling place and a realm where everything operates according to God's will.
In 2 Corinthians 5:8, the Bible teaches us, "We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." This explains why all of those who say they have died and gone to Heaven want to stay. In Ephesians 2, we learn, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And, this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Jesus said in Romans 10:9: "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. For, 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"
CP: Would you consider these survival stories divine intervention?
Earhardt: Yes, they all seemed to have that element of going beyond this life and experiencing something else, something unexplainable, but yet wonderful and life-altering.
CP: What do you want others to take away from the series?
Earhardt: I want others to walk away knowing that miracles do exist. Science can't explain everything. God is giving us these experiences all over the world for a reason, and the five different stories in this series are just a small glimpse into the bigger plans that God has for us all.
CP: Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Earhardt: The Fox News Channel has been broadcasting around the world for 25 years and I have had the distinct pleasure of being a part of the team. Waking up America each morning and bringing our friends — the viewers — the news has been one of the greatest pleasures of my life. Thank you for your loyalty, support and love throughout the years. I'll see you all in the morning.
"Beyond and Back" with Earhardt is now available to stream.
Jeannie Ortega Law is a reporter for The Christian Post.
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
Only if they have some emotional need to fill or lack objective rationality. "Miracles" are nothing more than fortuitous outcomes when such outcomes is statistically unlikely (but not with certainty or 0% probability). There is no objective measurement to validate so called miracles.
Because such events either have natural phenomenon or laws to help explain them, are exaggerations of other stories, or are just flat out fables.
Eye witness accounts are also notoriously unreliable and is one of the weakest forms of evidence.
Not quite. Science is the path to knowledge and facts.
So basically the brain came up with a comforting image to cope with the severity of his illness. Or maybe he was doped up on medications. Possibly a hallucination cause by delirium or an effect of an infectious organism infecting the central nervous system. Perhaps a combo of all of the above? It's both funny and sad how some prefer to go straight to the emotionally appealing explanation over other possible explanations.
Since there is no proof of god how can there be proof of heaven?
Exactly! There is none! For either.
[DELETED]
Another breathe of fresh air
I’m glad that you liked the seed! Its content is a source of hope in hard times.
It's content is a source of continued propaganda and lies throughout time.
Which preys on peoples ignorance, emotion, and/or gullibility.
No it’s not. Heaven and getting there and how to do so is The Whole point of what we believe, who we are, and why we will never be silenced about it.
religious hypocrites won't be making the trip... ... repent while you still can.
What if you are wrong?
I’m sure we will soon see a seed in another group describing the “fallacy” of the Biblical accounts of and description of Heaven in Job, Daniel, and Revelation. Fortunately, Heaven is very real.
There sure are lots of fallacies. Many do have objective and natural evidence to explain them too. New evidence was just discovered which blows a big hole in the religious "explanation" of the Sodom & Gomorrah story.
That's nice. Prove it!
I did already in post #7. Nothing more need be said to prove that it is real.
Where? All you did was use biblical stories to prove it, which is just circular reasoning. It's not proof of anything, except intellectual laziness.
You've said nothing to begin with and offered even less.
Actually, folk who believe in mythology and superstition are very disturbed and can't be trusted.
That post expresses a complete and total closed minded position that expresses an intense dislike like bigotry and intolerance toward others who have different beliefs based on a rational faith.
An oxymoron. Faith by definition is not rational.
Utter nonsense. Faith is neither rational or irrational.
For my taste, Newstalkers is far too anti-religious. There is no balance in this place.
I would have to say that is false. In general I would trust someone who believes in God no more or less that I would trust an atheist.
on this issue we are in total agreement. You are exactly right and that lack of balance is rigidly enforced by the other side to make sure there’s no equal exchange of ideas on the subject. Thanks for pointing that out.
It’s all about content of character that matters regarding who we trust or not.
What bullshit. You trust everything Trump states. Content of character; what a joke.
You are so right. That is total bullshit. Unbelievable.
That quote reveals a complete misunderstanding of the Christian religion. From the time of the earliest Christian thinkers it was understood that faith is required because the tenets of the religion, such as virgin birth and life after death, are not subject to rational proof. There is no rational way to prove any of it, thus, in order to believe, faith is required. This has been a primary topic of religious discourse throughout the ages. Every knowledgeable scholar of Christianity for millennia, including the most devout believers, know this for a fact.
Is someone knowledgeable were to use the phrase "rational faith" in the context of Christian beliefs, that would indicate the phrase is being used for propagandistic purposes.
Or maybe than not there are more people here who do not care for proselytizing BS and baseless religious claims!
See post 2.2.11. But if you don't like it, you do not have to be here either.
Wrong! Faith is believing (or accepting) something without evidence or any objective analysis. That is irrational. Rational means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." There is neither reason or logic in religious belief.
Why? Are you assuming religious people are inherently more trustworthy? Seems rather biased to me.
You are showing your own bias and irrationality . I said no such thing.
I said. In general I would trust someone who believes in God no more or less than I would trust an atheist. How do you get out of that that I think religious people are inherently more trustworthy?
I am no friend of bible thumping , I have ridiculed it here more times than I could count. I don't believe that the Christian religion or any religion demands constant proselytizing. Nor do I think that endless discussions of how "irrational" belief in God is are appropriate either. Some of the most brilliant minds in human history have believed in God. Was there something wrong with all those people?
Newstalkers appears to be generally an atheistic group. People attack religion on this site like a pack of hungry animals. I dont think that is an attractive aspect of this site.
As far as faith being irrational, is there nothing in your life that you have faith in, that you accept as being or becoming in spite of no complete evidence for it?
We have already established that there is no "default position" that applies to discussions of the existence of God. So atheists are irrational then? Because an atheist has no proof that God does not exist, he has "faith" that there is no God.
You dont have to be here either, or do you think majority rules?
this is a definition of faith. What is irrational about it? There are people who have faith that at some point the human race will travel to far distant places in the galaxy . Are they irrational?
Here is an extreme example. Flat Earthers have a strongly held belief or theory that the Earth is flat. Or this: YECs have a strongly held belief or theory that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and all extant life was populated from an ark which included dinosaurs.
The belief itself is what one uses to gauge rationality.
The belief that there might be a sentient creator that we know nothing about is rational. In contrast, the very specific beliefs with attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, perfect, eternal, loving, etc.) and stories (i.e. direct human interactions with the grandest possible sentient entity) backed by zero evidence and countered by contradiction is irrational.
Belief in God is a philosophical endeavor, not a scientific one . There are historically theologians that have offered "proofs" of the existence of God that are entirely based on reason . Maybe they are wrong, but their beliefs are not irrational.
On another level we can see what is commonly called a creation, otherwise known as the existence in which we live. Where did it come from? It is not irrational to believe it was created by an outside force. It may be wrong, but it is not irrational.
Then why dont you pledge your political loyalty to someone who has some? You have probably , in the last few weeks , stated 50 times that Trump is a great American. That is absurd. Among all his other crimes, he tried to steal the last election.
You bring shame on Christianity.
Yes, and?
The blind acceptance of it sans evidence or worse, in contradiction to established evidence, usually because some authority or majority simply says so. TiG's reference to Flat Earthers is a perfect example.
They are unrealistic maybe. But considering we are a spacefaring species, it is not inconceivable that we will be able to travel to distant places as technology improves over time.
I'm not the one complaining about NT.
Then it's dishonest to make claims of certainty regarding god or think one's beliefs are superior to others because one thinks they know the "truth."
Yes, they were wrong and irrational because their "proofs" were anything but proof.
The honest answer is we don't really know. Where irrationality comes in is when one tries to insert "god" as an explanation. It's irrational because the "god did it" answer is merely an emotionally satisfying answer to satiate curiosity or as a simple means to answer a question. There is no evidence to support it, no further thought is required to explain it. It's one which many people, especially religious authorities, use and which others simply accept because of that.
That depends on how one defines that "outside force." The belief is little more than an attempt to answer the question and is wishful thinking.
That's why I posed it as a question.
Your statement implies atheists are not as trustworthy as theists, based on nothing more than religiosity.
Yes, and some still do.
They were products of their respective societies.
I do not see that.
No, people generally scrutinize or challenge the claims religion makes. Challenging one's claims based on religion is not attacking religion itself, even though certain individuals might feel otherwise. Even some theists here challenge one another or disagree.
I don't go by faith.
I have lost count as to how many times I've seen that absurd argument. Both atheists and theists are being irrational when either makes a claim of certainty regarding god. Both ends of that spectrum are logically indefensible. Most atheists do not believe in a god or accept claims for one sans evidence. But they are willing to reconsider once evidence is presented. That conspicuously does not happen with theists. A lack of faith is not a faith in itself. And proving the nonexistence of something is a logical fallacy.
An understatement. And it is not even entirely philosophical (i.e. the logical reasoning that there must be a god with certain attributes). It is also (and I would say substantially) based on human psychology and, in particular, fear of death and the need to an explanation for that which we cannot comprehend (e.g. why volcanoes erupt, why famines occur, why tornadoes and floods and ... occur).
I have yet to find a single sound philosophical proof of a god. Do you have an example of one you consider sound?
As noted in my earlier comment, the rationality of the belief depends upon the belief. If you have an example, let's explore it.
It is not irrational to believe that it might have been created by a sentient entity. The more specific the belief, the more it will approach irrationality unless supported by sound reasoning (and that means based on facts and valid logic).
... and on the R party. Trump supporters are inflicting heavy damage on the R party and it may take a decade for it to recover.
You might like that (maybe not) but that would be a horrific blow to our nation. We need three or more largely equal parties (or none at all). Devolving to one dominant party is the road to authoritarian rule.
Trumpism and America First are growing the GOP, not shrinking it.
Trump and his sycophants are a cancer of the GOP.
That is completely counterfactual.
The facts:
From NBC News 2/7/21
"In the weeks since the January riot at the Capitol, there has been a raft of stories about voters across the country leaving the Republican Party. Some of the numbers are eye-catching and suggest that the GOP may be shrinking before our eyes, but a closer look at the numbers over time shows that a larger change has been working its way through the party for some time.
In fact, when one takes into account shifts in the composition of the Democratic Party, the real story seems to be more about a deeper remaking of the nation’s two major political parties.
To be sure, the headlines from the last few weeks have been striking, with multiple states reporting large declines in Republican voter registrations ."
From The Washington Post 4/7/21
"Perhaps pastors or friends can convince MAGA cultists that the election really was not stolen and that left-wingers did not storm the Capitol on Jan. 6. Maybe family members can prevail upon the zombie audience of right-wing media that the former disgraced president has been lying to them since he rode down the golden escalator to join the 2016 presidential race. It is a daunting task to convince people that they have been living in a parallel universe. The good news is that this is not a precondition for the rest of America to repair its functioning democracy.
Breaking down those totals, 30 percent identify as Democrats (19 percent lean Democratic), while only 25 percent identify as Republicans (and 15 percent lean Republican). The percentage of those who do not identify with one of the two parties (leaners plus independents with no partisan preference) is up. But Gallup reports that “[i]ncreased independent identification has mostly come at the expense of the Republican Party, with the 25% of U.S. adults currently identifying as Republicans down from 29% in the fourth quarter. Republican Party identification has not been lower since early 2018 and is just a few points above the low of 22% in the Gallup telephone polling era.”
From The Week 7/6/21
"A new deep dive into the 2020 electorate by Pew Research contains mostly bad news for Republicans, whose approaching demographic doom is less racial than it is generational. While it shouldn't be news to anyone at this point that young voters are a solidly blue voting bloc, the more worrisome developments for the GOP are the unexpectedly elderly nature of the party's coalition and the unyielding Democratic lean of younger voters as they age. If Pew's numbers are to be believed, the only solidly Republican age demographic last year was 75 and over, meaning that every time the sun comes up, the GOP's struggle to win a majority of American voters gets harder."
From New York Magazine 4/8/21
"From Gallup comes news that its regular polling on party affiliation shows the largest quarterly gap in major party affiliation since 2012, with 49 percent of U.S. adults identifying themselves as either Democrats (30 percent) or as Democratic-leaning independents (19 percent), while 40 percent call themselves Republicans (25 percent) or Republican-leaning independents (15 percent)."
Does anyone remember the little boy who claimed he went to heaven and returned? After his parents made a shit load of money off of his claim, it was proven to be a hoax.
Ah, a "classic" religious hoax. It's right up there with people claiming God/Jesus spoke to them.
There are hoaxes perpetrated by all kinds of people on all sorts of topics and interests. We aren’t perfect or sinless.
You only reinforce what I said and prove my point. Thanks
So enter organized religion to invent an answer and encourage gullible people to believe what they invented.
Is that not what religion does? When something is unknown or not understood, religion uses the "God did it" answer. It's simplistic, emotionally satisfying, and requires no further thought or question.
The condescending arrogantly gullible believe that science has all the answers to everything and that there’s no place for religion in anyone’s life and that it can’t provide anything of value to anyone.
Who specifically says that? No one claims science has all the answers. Science searches for answers and gathers evidence. But it doesn't invent answers for the sake of having an answer, unlike religion. As for religion having a place or value, that's entirely up to the individual.
There is no such belief. You demonstrate yet again a profound ignorance of science. If anything, 'science' holds that the more we learn the more questions we uncover.
But science has answered most questions that used to be 'answered' only by organized religions. Organized religions continue to diminish as the authorities of knowledge. The only question they can 'answer' are those where there is no scientific answer (i.e. based on solid evidence and continuous formal verification) and thus they are free to invent an 'answer' and present it to the gullible as truth.
You have noted in the past that you believe the bullshit from Ken Ham that human beings are not the result of evolution and have only been around for <10,000 years.
That's nice. Prove it...
Hey, that's my line!
Imitation is the highest form of flattery...
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
You are the only person on this site that tries to post Bible verses to promote your religious belief.
Talk about Christianity without using Bible verses and you probably wont have any problem.
I found this from Ben Carson’s church that is a personal account of it. Perhaps you will like what she saw better…,
"Visions" do not prove the existence of heaven.
All of the stories in Ainsley’s series are basically visions people have had. Visions are the only way humans are going learn about what Heaven is like outside of reading biblical descriptions of it that God the father or the son showed those inspired to write the various books of the Bible.