Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Young Woman Holds to Her Convictions


When I heard the name, "Carrie Prejean," I thought to myself that the name sounded familiar. While texting with my daughter this morning, she reminded me that they had become good friends while they both played on the same softball team years ago. She wrote, "Mom - check out the softball photo of the team in red on the shelf above your computer desk. She had brown hair back then."

Yep...now I remember her! When I have some time (and guidance on how to do it) I will scan and upload that softball team photo.

For now, I want to share a link to the video of Carrie's answer to the homosexual man (who called her a very cruel and ugly name afterwards in his own video), and how very proud we all are of her for standing up for her convictions and not sacrificing them for the pageant crown.

Miss California loses for supporting marriage between a man and woman.

Excerpt:


“Good for Miss California,” said Johnny Franks in The Chattanoogan. She was asked a loaded question by an openly gay judge, and held to her morals when it would have been so easy to “sacrifice them for the crown.” Shame on everybody who booed her—“since when do we live in a pink Nazi society that sensors free speech.”




Some good comments there:



JoAnn
Posted April 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm Permalink
Everybody pray for her, she stood up for her cinvictions, I believe God will bless her. We will be put down for anything against the gay agenda but consider the source, they are serving satan and not God. It is a very different world we live in and it isn’t going to get any better so hang in there for what the Bible stands for and we will win in the end.

John Kehoe
Posted April 20, 2009 at 5:36 pm Permalink
My 18 year old grandson and I watched the tournament, and Miss California had won hands down, but when that flaming gay judge asked that question, and she gave a courageous and correct answer we turned to one another and said she was washed up, because she stood on principle. In any event, I thought the Miss USA pageasnt was on looks and not on politial correctness. When did this change? John Kehoe

james dome
Posted April 21, 2009 at 4:28 am Permalink
She is a winner to God and that’s where it matters. Man’s ways are not God’s ways. This life is temporary.

Karen
Posted April 21, 2009 at 10:55 am Permalink
Kudos to Miss California for being a true American, one who stands for her belief in the face of adversity and even at the cost of a crown. Boo to Perez Hilton for being such a hypocrit, not a champion against bigotry. Boo for the Miss America committee who chose the judges. Miss California’s courage will long outlive the Miss America Contest.


Lastly, isn't it ironic that Miss California is getting all of the attention because of her determination to not be "politically correct?" I don't even know who actually won the pageant!

Hat Tip:

Alliance Defense Fund

Also see:

Fox News: Exclusive: Carrie Prejean Says 'God Was Testing My Faith' With Gay Marriage Question

32 comments:

Matt W. said...

Obviously I don't follow this kind of contest, but from what I've heard, it is pretty much impossible to determine exactly what factors the judges use in scoring, so while she may have lost because of her answer, we can't know that for sure. But that aside, I think she handled herself very well, she was calm, articulate and not even remotely hateful. Good for her.

Christinewjc said...

That's very true Matt. We can't know for sure whether or not her answer caused her to come in second.

I agree with you that she handled herself very well. The fact that she was, as you wrote, "calm, articulate and not even remotely hateful" is 180 degrees opposite of what that gay judge did in his hateful video response to her STATING HER OWN OPINION! Just as the article I cited states:

She was asked a loaded question by an openly gay judge, and held to her morals when it would have been so easy to “sacrifice them for the crown.” Shame on everybody who booed her—“since when do we live in a pink Nazi society that sensors free speech.”Right in the middle of this comment, Carrie was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on Fox News. There are new developments in the story. First, it is now known that one of the other judges marked her down for her answer. He (or she?) stated that if he/she "could have marked her down to number 51 (don't we have 50 states???), he/she would have!"

Isn't that incredible!!??

She was right (Carrie) when she stated that her answer cost her the crown. There is no doubt now.
In fact, several of the previous CA pageant judges are irritated with her. Carrie says that she is very disappointed that they are not supporting her. She even stated that if they don't think that she is representing CA the right way ( to the contrary, she is!!!), they can take her crown (for Miss CA) away!

She stated that in pageantry rules, winners are encouraged to stay "neutral" as much as possible. However, the fact that she was asked this loaded question leads me to believe that perhaps they knew she is a strong Christian and wanted to trap her? Did they find a way to disqualify her just because they disagree with her opinion on this issue? It is looking more and more like that.

Prop. 8 passed in CA!!! That means that 52% of Californias believe the same way that she does!! Why are these pageant workers (that's all that they are - they aren't God!) are taking it upon themselves to punish a woman who sticks to her faith, integrity, and convictions???

I think it's disgusting and very cruel!

Carrie was asked what she will do now. Her answer was beautiful - "wherever God takes me."

P.S. I wonder how the winner would have answered that question? She's from North Carolina, right? What if she has the same convictions as Carrie? I would love to know that.

Christocentric said...

Christine, if I were Miss North Carolina, I'd step down and let Miss California reign - if their beliefs are the same. And besides, if she did that THEN her name would be in the news! That is, if she was a news hog and needed the attention! lol!

But I finally broke down and wrote about her too. As much as I hate beauty pageants, Carrie's courage was just a bit too much to pass up on. She particularly got me with the new catch phrase that's spreading like wildfire: "not politically correct but biblically correct!" Wow, this young lady took a stand and she's being blessed because of it! Rick Warren, Barack Obama and a slew of others could certainly take some lessons from her!

I agree with the unfairness shown towards Carrie and I've even heard on some news shows that she has a case of discrimination against Miss USA for her treatment by Hilton and the Miss USA directors.

It will be quite interesting to see how this all turns out! No matter what, God is definitely getting the glory here!

Oh, can't wait to see your pics of your daughter and Carrie together!

Christinewjc said...

Hi Carlotta,

Thanks for stopping by to comment! Appreciate it!

I doubt that Miss U.S.A. would step down. I also doubt that she would express any other opinion except the "status quo" at this point. I'm sure that she is seeing all of the terrible things being said about Carrie by "the world"; yet I hope that she (and other contestants who rolled their eyes backstage) will also see the powerful witness for Jesus Christ that Carrie has became because she placed her faith in God's Word rather than the words of sinful man.

I agree - that statement of "not politically correct but biblically correct" was truly awesome! I read an article on WorldNetDaily that shared her statement. That same article also stated that Carrie would have a good case against the pageant for discrimination. I wonder what she will choose to do?

Just from her initial responses, God glory will continue to be uplifted in all of this.

I was just reading a devotional from C.H. Spurgeon that fits perfectly with, and prophetically speaks about, what has transpired through this incident!

Quote:

Faith's Checkbook by C.H. Spurgeon
Wednesday April 22, 2009
http://bible.christiansunite.com/devotionals.shtml


Power to Raise

The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind: the Lord raiseth them that are bowed down. (Psalm l46:8)

Am I bowed down? Then let me urge this word of grace before the Lord. It is His way, His custom, His promise, His delight, to raise up them that are bowed down.

Is it a sense of sin and a consequent depression of spirit which distresses me?

Then the work of Jesus is, in this case, made and provided to raise me up into rest. O Lord, raise me, for Thy mercy's sake!

Is it a sad bereavement or a great fall in circumstances? Here again the Comforter has undertaken to console. What a mercy for us that one Person of the sacred Trinity should become the Comforter! This work will be well done since such a glorious One has made it His peculiar care.

Some are so bowed down that only Jesus can loose them from their infirmity, but He can, and He will, do it. He can raise us up to health, to hope, to happiness.

He has often done so under former trials, and He is the same Savior and will repeat His deeds of loving kindness. We who are today bowed down and sorrowful shalt yet be set on high, and those who now mock at us shall be greatly ashamed.

What an honor to be raised up by the Lord! It is worthwhile to be bowed down that we may experience His upraising power. /quote

Christocentric said...

AMEN!

Ken McKnight said...

I am genuinely surprised that you are giving this young Christian's tepid response such rave reviews. She seemed rather embarrassed to say it and almost fell all over herself trying to say she didn't want to "offend" anyone. Shouldn't she have stood right up to the interviewer and told him in no uncertain terms, "You are going to Hell, Perez Hilton!" Why, she didn't even mention that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death! What a wimp! That's what you would have done, right, Christine?

Gary Baker said...

Ken,

"I am genuinely surprised that you are giving this young Christian's tepid response such rave reviews."

That's because you really don't understand Christians. You spend so much time building them into nightmare monsters which have no compassion, and then you criticize them for having compassion.

This "tepid" response has already cost her a great deal in personal support from her "open minded" friends. It's likely to cost her a lot more before it's all over, simply because of the liberal mindset that anyone who disagrees with them is not just wrong, but stupid and evil as well. Miss California will be featured prominently in many prayers, not just thanksgiving that she kept to her integrity but that will be comforted in the days ahead.

Christinewjc said...

Ken,

Yours is so typical of the rebellious types of responses that I have gotten here at this blog for the past five years.

Your "solution" ignores the fact that we all deserve death. The Bible tells us that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Until a person humbles themselves and repents before the Lord (realizing their fate due to sin), he/she cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus told us, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."

So you see - without Christ, we are each condemned already. Jesus told his followers, "In this world, you will have trouble. But take heart, for I have overcome the world."

Jesus defeated sin, evil and death at the cross. Those who believe in him will not perish (see John 3:16) but will enjoy eternal life with him in his kingdom. His kingdom is "not of this world."

Those who reject his sacrifice for sin will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Accepting (or rejecting) Christ as Lord and Savior is the choice that every person has to make during their entire life. Jesus asks each of us, "who do you say that I am?"

We all die physically.

Perez Hilton will not die (spiritually) because of homosexual sin. If he dies without Christ he will die eternally separated from God because he has chosen to reject the only provision provided by God for the forgiveness of his sins.

You have the same choice.

Ken McKnight said...

Gary,
Let me get this straight: Because you don't like it when people unfairly stereotype your Christian beliefs, your response is to unfairly stereotype my beliefs. Hmmmmm. That's good Christian logic. I've encountered it many times.

I've never considered Christians "nightmare monsters [who] have no compassion" (with the possible exception of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church). I have many Christian friends and colleagues who are full of compassion and wonderful people. Here's the crucial point: That fact doesn't make their belief system true. I know many atheists who are equally compassionate and self-sacrificial, but, again, that doesn't prove the truth of atheism either.

I have noticed that your and Christine's compassion seems to be limited to your own kind and NEVER extends to President Obama.

Christine,
Once again you side-step the point I was making and lapse into your usual proselytizing boilerplate. You need to take a class or something, because you really come across as a close-minded non-thinker.

Christinewjc said...

Ken,

Jesus is the point!

Jesus is the answer!

Just because you refuse to recognize that fact doesn't make you any less of being the "close-minded non-thinker" that you called me.

Ken McKnight said...

So your deeply considered response comes down to, "Nyah, nyah, you're one too!"? Like I said, you need to take a class.

Christinewjc said...

No I don't Ken.

I've got the best book in history to show me the Truth.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Ken McKnight said...

A stifled mind is such a terrible thing to behold. The Bible is the codified wisdom and ignorance of Bronze Age cattle-sacrificing primitives who knew nothing of germ theory and believed the sun revolved around the earth. Science has banished so much darkness from our world, but you cling to the darkness like a security blanket. It is very sad.

Christinewjc said...

WorldNetDaily's "Beauty and the Beast" poll:

What do you think of Perez Hilton's role in the Miss USA competition? (6474 votes)

He's an immature little creep who never should have been anywhere near the pageant 23% (1478)



He should be permanently banned from such events 21% (1356)



He's obviously an anti-Christian bigot 16% (1054)



I don't know why a homosexual blogger is a Miss USA judge to begin with 10% (618)



He inadvertently served God's purpose by helping Miss California take a stand for principle 9% (607)



His mouth should be washed out with the same soap as Anderson Cooper 7% (475)



He made a bigger celebrity out of Miss California than if she had won the pageant 6% (386)



These pageants used to be all-American, respectable events, but no longer 2% (127)



He needlessly politicized this pageant, which is an American institution 2% (117)



The questioning was fine. His obscene comments about Miss California were totally inappropriate 2% (109)



Other 1% (70)



His input is a prime example of why beauty pageants should be eliminated 1% (58)



He's a hero for standing up for same-sex marriage 0% (10)



It was fine. He asked a simple question about an important social issue 0% (9)

Gary Baker said...

Ken,

"Because you don't like it when people unfairly stereotype your Christian beliefs, your response is to unfairly stereotype my beliefs. Hmmmmm. That's good Christian logic. I've encountered it many times."

Well, I try very hard not to unfairly stereotype people. However, when I considered these statements:

"Shouldn't she have stood right up to the interviewer and told him in no uncertain terms, "You are going to Hell, Perez Hilton!" Why, she didn't even mention that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death! What a wimp! That's what you would have done, right, Christine?"

My estimation of your attitude doesn't seem too far out of perspective. For example, your assumption of what Christine "would have said" definitely seems like the product of someone with no sense of either Christian views in general or Christine's responses in particular. If this seems like a stereotype, it certainly has more than a grain of truth in it. I wish that I had a dime for every time a liberal had taken a statement that I made, and then turned it upside down while preceded with "What you really meant to say is..." If you want to engage in an intelligent debate, how about sticking to what you mean. You have demonstrated that you have little to no idea what Christine or I mean.

I also received a great chuckle at your comments. As you complain about being stereotyped by me and insist and go on to explain how you do not stereotype Christians, you end your first paragraph with stereotypes. ("That's good Christian logic. I've encountered it many times.")

I'll take the "good Christian" logic over your lack of any logic at all. As an engineer I recognize the darkness that science has banished, and like to believe that I have helped in some small ways myself in that regard. As a Christian, I am also aware of the results of the "enlightened" people's attempts to banish God: Twelve million Russians killed in purges. Countless people essentially enslave in Asia and Eastern Europe. Who knows how many killed and sent for "re-education" in China and Southeast Asia. For all of the barbarism that Christians get accused of, they really can't compare with atheists for good old fashioned repression and death.

Interesting thing about your point of no knowledge of germ theory: Quite right. Isn't it "miraculous" then that with God's help the ancient Jews came up with religious laws that still form a marvelous basis for cleanliness, protection against food contamination, healthy diet, etc. Kind of the same way that long before science had any idea there might have been a "big bang" the Genesis creation story spoke of light before the sun, moon, or stars.

You might want to hold a little tighter to your copy of "Origin of the Species" Ken. I think your security blanket is slipping...

Ken McKnight said...

Gary,
On the contrary, my comment exactly mirrors the attitude expressed by Christine in posting after posting. She consistently upbraids others as not being "true" Christians (Mormons, for example) and has repeatedly mocked those who do not stand up decisively for the hard truths of the Bible. I was merely asking why she was giving this particular lukewarm Christian ("I think I believe. . .") a pass. Funny how you didn't choose to comment on the Bible's clear command to execute homosexuals.

"Let there be light" anticipates the Big Bang? Surely you jest! Do you also believe horoscopes predict your future? Show me in the Bible where it says that pi is 3.14159 and maybe we'll have something to talk about. And as for those "miraculous" hygiene laws, tell me what is the scientific support for quarantining women and treating them like lepers during their menstrual periods? Exactly what function did that serve?

Origin of Species? I am prepared to abandon my acceptance of evolution as soon the scientific evidence clearly contradicts it. Unfortunately for you, exactly the opposite is occurring. Are you prepared to abandon your faith in the Bible if the evidence contradicts it? Science is not perfect, but it is self-correcting. Religion stays mired in the same error forever.

Any dogmatic belief system can produce mass bloodshed. The only reason there was less killing in the Middle Ages is that the religious zealots didn't have our weapons of mass destruction.

Gary Baker said...

Ken,

"I was merely asking why she was giving this particular lukewarm Christian ("I think I believe. . .") a pass."

Well, let's see: Could it possibly be that was in front of a national audience and made a stand that she knew was probably going to cost her a lot of friends, make her a lot of enemies, submit her to public abuse and ridicule, and cost her a lot of future opportunities? I understand that most liberals think nothing is worthwhile unless it's PC, but no matter how you take issue with the wording, I would call that a pretty bold move. As for your evaluation of how Christine treats others, let's just say that I don't see things the same way you do.

"Funny how you didn't choose to comment on the Bible's clear command to execute homosexuals."

Well, considering that command was only given to Jews under Mosaic law, I didn't really think a comment by a Christian gentile was relevant. However, if you exist. Biblically, homosexual behavior is clearly against God's word. I haven't been directed to try to penalize people for it, so I won't. I also will vigorously oppose anyone who claims that it is good or moral.

"Let there be light" anticipates the Big Bang? Surely you jest! "

Hmmm...A huge release of energy coming prior to the existence of all matter in the universe. Why yes, I do! Why don't you list some other possibilities?

As for Pi, congratulations! You got it right to six significant figures. The ancient Hebrews had little use for it considering their state of technology, yet despite their limited science, the first recorded mention of the Earth as a ball is in psalms, a long time before others considered the possibility.

No, I don't believe in horoscopes predicting the future, though Christ made many predictions. At least one, the destruction of the temple must have been quite upsetting to the apostles, something like a man walking around the construction site of the World Trade center and telling the workers that it was going to melt into piles of slag.

"And as for those "miraculous" hygiene laws, tell me what is the scientific support for quarantining women and treating them like lepers during their menstrual periods? Exactly what function did that serve?"

I have never claimed that I understand all of the reasons God has, therefore it is hardly reasonable that I would know all of them. You, however, claim that he does not exist. That being the case, you should have no idea explaining how the Hebrews developed so much beneficial knowledge while the rest of the cultures did not. Why don't you explain how, absent divine guidance, they knew that cleanliness, separate dishes, and proper cooking techniques were essential to maintain health, how isolation was required and useful for spreading disease.

"Origin of Species? I am prepared to abandon my acceptance of evolution as soon the scientific evidence clearly contradicts it."

It already has on several occasions, yet acceptance is never abandoned. The believers just figure out a way to "shoe-horn" the latest inconsistency. A wonderful example has been quite a topic of discussion this week: Gay marriage.

Under the theory of evolution, species evolve and develop in such a way that gives their particular genes the best chance of surviving. That is "survival of the fittest." What has been discussed essentially this week? Gary marriage. I can think of just about nothing that will do more for a sub-group to ensure that their traits do not survive that coupling of pairs that cannot reproduce.

"Unfortunately for you, exactly the opposite is occurring."

Talk is cheap (as was your diploma evidently). Come up with a few good examples where scientific evidence CLEARLY contradicts, as in you have verifiable facts that disprove, Biblical teachings if you can. Please. No doubt it will be great fun poking holes in your examples.

"Science is not perfect, but it is self-correcting."

Their was a time when it was. That was when free and honest debate was encouraged. That seems to be the exception, rather than the rule these days.

"Religion stays mired in the same error forever."

Fortunately, it holds to the same truths forever.
"Any dogmatic belief system can produce mass bloodshed. The only reason there was less killing in the Middle Ages is that the religious zealots didn't have our weapons of mass destruction."

Congratulations! You have defeated your own argument. If what you said was true, then Christians in modern times would have killed more people in the name of Christianity than atheists have to institute atheism. What actually occurred (see my previous comment) was that atheists killed more by several orders of magnitude.

Keep it coming. I'll be here all week.

Ken McKnight said...

"I understand that most liberals think nothing is worthwhile unless it's PC"--Yes, I can see how hard you work to avoid stereotyping people.

So the fact that I cite evidence for Christine's judgmental opinions and you have none means we just agree to disagree?

So your god has one set of rules for one group and time and another set for the others? Answer this simple question for me, will you? Do you believe that there was a time when executing homosexuals solely for their sexual orientation was moral? I don't mean today. Was it ever moral?

Ever hear of confirmation bias? It's when people look for evidence that supports their beliefs and ignore that which contradicts it. It's a perfectly natural human trait. It explains why people think their horoscopes are accurate and why you see similarities between Genesis and the Big Bang. (You realize, of course, that Moslems make similar claims of divine knowledge for the Qu'ran.)

Did God intend the Bible only for the ancient Hebrews? Don't you think that burying the value of pi in there would have been a neat little piece of validation for future generations? Was God talking down to the primitive Hebrews or does the Bible just reflect their limited knowledge?

"Gary marriage." Interesting Freudian slip. Are you trying to tell me something?

My "cheap" diploma came from Purdue University, which I'm sure you recognize as a top-notch engineering school and alma mater of several astronauts. Smug, arrogant, condescending--you're the whole package, aren't you, Gary?

And it just wouldn't be a Christian debate without the standard "We can't understand everything God does."

Finally, I didn't say Christians today are as murderous as they were in the Middle Ages. Luckily for the planet, Christians fell under the civilizing influence of the Enlightenment and evolved into a less violent entity. There are, however, Christian extremists who would love to get their finger on The Button today. Atheism is no protection against dogmatic zealotry and neither is Christianity. Stack the bodies as high as you like, it still isn't one iota of evidence for the objective truth of either idea.

You know, the skeptical community has often remarked on the somewhat puzzling tendency for engineers to be suckers for creationism. Over 90% of the top-tier scientists are atheists, but engineers seem to be an anomaly (I know; again with the stereotypes). My theory is that engineers see design everywhere, but can't seem to grasp that natural selection mimics intelligent design. I could be wrong.

Gary Baker said...

Ken,

"So the fact that I cite evidence for Christine's judgmental opinions and you have none means we just agree to disagree?"

In the first place, you made a broad, general statement, which is evidence of nothing. Cite some specifics, and we will discuss it.

In the second place, I know of no one who does not have "judgmental" opinions. You have certainly shown that you are no stranger to them. Christ, who proclaimed that he had not come in his previous incarnation to judge was never short on his opinions as to what is right or wrong. We are called as Christians not to execute judgment on people, as in taking either the law or God's prerogatives into our own hands. On the other hand, you seem to feel that there is something wrong with expressing these judgmental opinions. Since I fully intend to answer your questions, I would like an answer to these: If you consider it wrong for Christians, why is it not wrong for you? And if it is wrong for you, why do you engage in it so freely?

"Answer this simple question for me, will you? Do you believe that there was a time when executing homosexuals solely for their sexual orientation was moral? I don't mean today. Was it ever moral?"

The answer to the question as you asked it is "no", though considering your displayed ignorance on the subject I don't think that you asked the question that you wished to. Under Mosaic law, orientation was not the issue. Action was. So if a person was guilty of the action, then execution was the penalty. Since the penalty was established by God, the source of all moral authority, it was by definition "moral."

"Ever hear of confirmation bias?"

Hear of it? You're providing marvelous examples. For example, you still haven't provided an alternate example of what it could have been. How about answering the points that you are avoiding.

"Did God intend the Bible only for the ancient Hebrews?"

Apparently not, since more directly traceable copies of the Bible exist today than all of the other ancient manuscripts behind.

"Don't you think that burying the value of pi in there would have been a neat little piece of validation for future generations?"

The question is irrelevant. In the same way that people who write books today on history and philosophy or any particular subject matter, the Bible has a particular purpose: To show people their need for God and how to restore and have fellowship with him and lead a Godly life. This in itself is a matter of great study. To cloud it with subject matter not related would be as inappropriate as a discussion of the theory of relativity in a child's coloring book.

"Was God talking down to the primitive Hebrews or does the Bible just reflect their limited knowledge?"

God was talking "down" to everyone. He's God. We're not. His thoughts are high above ours.

""Gary marriage." Interesting Freudian slip. Are you trying to tell me something?"

Yes, I'm trying to tell you that, while your snarky comments are amusing they have little to do with the subject at hand. How about actually addressing some of the comments rather than deflecting them around sarcasm.

"Smug, arrogant, condescending--you're the whole package, aren't you, Gary?"

Much as I try not to be, I often do fall into the pattern of addressing others as they address me. If you want to break that cycle, give something of substance. Otherwise, well, I have friends that went to Purdue. It would break my heart to tell them of the caliber of student they are graduating these days. By the way, was your degree in engineering, or did you just bring that up to try to give your sarcasm an air of credibility.

"And it just wouldn't be a Christian debate without the standard "We can't understand everything God does."

You seem unable to intelligently address any of my points, and I'm just a person. What chance do I have of understanding everything from a truly superior being such as God? You certainly haven't brought out any citable evidence to back up your points.

"one iota of evidence for the objective truth of either idea. "

I would call the fact that peoples under the influence of Christianity have steadily progressed toward human rights, reduced violence, and civilized behavior, while atheists and other religious groups have continued in violence, slavery, etc., very compelling evidence. To account for all of the murders that atheist regimes have done of their own citizens in peace time, I would have to stack the bodies very high indeed. What were you saying about confirmation bias? Apparently you were taught some lovely terminology. A pity that your ability to analyze and support your opinions, as demonstrate here, is so weak.

"Over 90% of the top-tier scientists are atheists, but engineers seem to be an anomaly (I know; again with the stereotypes)."

Engineers get paid to analyze facts and deal with what works, rather than what they believe should work. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by top tier scientists. I do know that facts are completely independent of "scientific consensus," particularly when the consensus is based on dismissing contrary evidence rather than examining it. The dogmatic views and actions of the modern "scientific" community with regards to evolution is well documented. My degree was environmental engineering. I had a rather large percentage of classes related to biology and biodiversity and evolution. I get it all. I just have a fine appreciation for all of the hole in the theory and all of the crap workmanship that goes into papering over them.

So, back to you. Would you like to actually try to engage on the issues, using evidence, or are you satisfied to continue just being the snarky idiot?

Gary Baker said...

BTW Ken,

While you are whining about Christine's attitude, you might consider this: Your comments go up and stay up. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to comment on websites run by "tolerant" people only to be banned or have comments delete because "tolerance" is fine as long as you agree with them. Some of them are Christians, and some visit this site regularly. Frankly, I hope their ashamed. It takes courage to give people the right to disagree, and it's that kind of courage that most modern liberals are lacking.

Ken McKnight said...

". . .are you satisfied to continue just being the snarky idiot?" Very Christ-like. I'm sure Jesus is very proud of you.

One of my major goals in cruising these Christian blogs is to puncture the smug self-righteousness of people like you. As you can see, I'm very good at it. I certainly have gotten under your skin.

Since you seem capable of spewing out non sequiturs like a Roman candle throws sparks--and, apparently, constitutionally incapable of responding directly to logic and evidence--I'll limit myself to a couple of parting shots.

You seem to be under the impression that I got my degree recently. I graduated from Purdue in the mid- 70's. I spent 1 1/2 years in mechanical engineering before switching to a major I found more interesting. I got my MA from the University of Chicago (another no-name institution). When did you get your degree? The evidence for evolution has grown exponentially in the last ten years. Let me guess: I bet you're a big fan of Expelled. It did have one notable accomplishment; it contained more lies, distortions, and logical fallacies per minute than any movie ever made.

That you assume all atheists are equivalent to Stalin and Pol Pot is about as fair (and logical) as it would be for me to say that all Christians are like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (something I never did, you'll notice).

Finally, that it makes a difference to you if homosexuals are executed for their behavior rather than orientation alone tells me all I need to know about you and your Bronze Age religious beliefs.

Ta,ta, Gary. I hope you and your ego will be very happy together.

Ken McKnight said...

BTW Gary,

On at least two separate occasions I have complimented Christine on that very point.

It's not just liberals. I tried commenting on the Miss America controversy on the Alliance Defense Fund site. I was extremely polite, yet my comment was cut because I didn't parrot the party line.

Gary Baker said...

Ken,

"Very Christ-like. I'm sure Jesus is very proud of you."

I try to minimize speaking for Christ beyond what he specifically said in similar situations. He might be in this case, however. Contrary to liberal pop-Christianity, he was an extremely blunt man when the situation demanded it. If not, I will endure his discipline for that, as well as my other failings.

"I graduated from Purdue in the mid- 70's. I spent 1 1/2 years in mechanical engineering before switching to a major I found more interesting. I got my MA from the University of Chicago (another no-name institution)."

Translation - Couldn't hack the course work.

"You seem to be under the impression that I got my degree recently."

I had hoped. That would make you simply a victim of some of the garbage that is frequently put out these days as scholarship. As it is, I guess you have no excuse. So what was your major? Psychology? Sociology? Something equally lacking in rigor or reproducable data which will allow you to publish op-ed pieces and call it scholarship?

"That you assume all atheists are equivalent to Stalin and Pol Pot is about as fair (and logical) as it would be for me to say that all Christians are like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (something I never did, you'll notice)."

Something that a reasonable person would notice is that I never said anything remotely like that either. I simply observed that when major killing and repression occurs in modern times there are generally two choices in the government: Muslim or atheist.

I was expecting you to withdraw from the discussion. Generally happens to liberals of your intellectual caliber when repeatedly pressed for facts, evidence, and logic which neither their education nor mentality has prepared them for. I must confess disappointment however. You didn't even try to come up with reasonable replies, so I guess that makes you lazy as well as cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine.

Ken McKnight said...

Yes, this is the Christian version of winning a debate: Keep babbling long enough to be able to write the last comment, then call your opponent a coward and declare victory. The fact that you are incapable of recognizing a "reasonable reply" when you see one really isn't my fault. It's no fun having a battle of wits with an opponent who is unarmed. Learn some humility and grow a sense of humor and maybe you'll turn into someone worth talking to.

(BTW, I've noticed you never got around to telling us what rigorous institution of higher learning you attended.)

Gary Baker said...

Hi Christine,

Ken is such a sad specimen. Incapable of completing a useful curriculum or contributing to a conversation. Now in his declining years, at an age when most people look back fondly on accomplishments, he finds his only solace in interrupting others. I would certainly engage him in conversation if he ever answered my queries directly as I answered his. Alas, he is both too ignorant and too cowardly for that. As it is, he sits back, content that he comes from good schools. As I learned in my environmental courses, so does raw sewage, proving that it's not the name on the sign, but the quality of the product that counts.

I congratulate you on your patience. It must truly be God given. Even though I consider myself a staunch support of the first amendment, posting his drivel as he as much as boasted that his only desire is to disrupt would test me sorely. Continue your good works, and I shall attempt to improve my patience.

Ken McKnight said...

Still won't reveal the source of your diploma? OK, I'll guess. Bob Jones U.? Liberty U.? Regent U.? I suppose that would explain your inability to grasp evolution.

Gary Baker said...

Ken,

You will get complete answers to your questions as soon as you provide answers to mine. Or you could take off your shoes and count past ten...

Ken McKnight said...

Good grief, is it really that bad? Community college?

Gary Baker said...

Ken,

While waiting to find out if you were going to answer my questions like a human being, I thought I would do some research. Interesting thing about the universities you mentioned you attended. While I found nothing adverse related to the engineering school (which you dropped, or so you say) the liberal arts college is quite a bit different. Lots of emphasis on limiting freedom of speech, particularly of a conservative nature. Limited demonstration zones, sued for not allowing a Christian women's group to to specify the members need to be Christian, infringing on student posting rights, heavy on indoctrination in socialism and Marxism. This explains a great deal about your argument style. You were never taught to think, just to name call and get indignant. Have you considered deprogramming?

Ken McKnight said...

I don't know anything about that stuff. I was there in the 1970's. I remember there was a big Christian presence on campus (Campus Crusade for Christ). I know there is some kind of freethinkers society there now, but that's relatively new. Personally I was never attracted to Marxism or Christianity; they both seemed a little nuts to me. Your obsession with my background is becoming a little creepy. I've certainly told you much more about myself than you have revealed to me.

Never taught to think? Name calling? Getting indignant? You do understand that I'm Ken and you're Gary, right? You've been pwned my man. Deal with it.

(Oh, no--CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOL???? I'm sorry you're so ashamed of the school you went to, but remember that you started it with that low-class crack about my "cheap diploma." BTW, I neglected to mention that I was Phi Beta Kappa at Purdue. I'd be happy to fax you a copy of my certificate if you don't believe me.)

Gary Baker said...

Hey Ken,

WoW! Phi Beta Kappa! That's impressive, especially in a liberal arts degree. I bet you made head cashier really fast!

No, seriously that's something. I went to their website and was impressed by the statements listed there, especially the note of "tolerance" on other views. So, rest assure that I and my Tau Beta Pi, Summa Cum Laude (3.96, first in class), and Phi Kappa Phi have taken suitable note of your accomplishments.

Here's an idea: If you really need recognition that much, why not recite your alphabet soup to your children (assuming you managed to procreate). If you were a major part in raising them, I am certain they are easily impressed.

Ken McKnight said...

As I said, you started this whole exchange with your asinine remark, a point which you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge. Just as you still can't bring yourself to identify the name of your school.

Your remarks have now become so viciously personal that I wonder if you have not become a little unhinged. What a marvelous specimen of the Christian temperament you are. I can't imagine why people aren't lining up to join your noble cause.

I'm done with you, your ad hominem attacks, and your humorless vitriol. You should probably look into some anger management classes.