All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Physicist Michael Strauss discusses Christianity and science at Stanford University

1 Comment

This is one of my favorite lectures.

The lecture:

Dr. Strauss delivered this lecture at Stanford University in 1999. It is fairly easy to understand, and it even includes useful dating tips.

Here is a clip:

The full video can be watched on Vimeo:

Summary:

What does science tell us about God?
– the discoveries of Copernicus made humans less significant in the universe
– the discoveries of Darwin should that humans are an accident
– but this all pre-modern science
– what do the latest findings of science say about God?

Evidence #1: the origin of the universe
– the steady state model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
– the oscillating model supports atheism, but was disproved by the latest discoveries
– the big bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries
– the quantum gravity model supports atheism, but it pure theory and has never been tested or confirmed by experiment and observation

Evidence #2: the fine-tuning of physical constants for life
– there are over 100 examples of constants that must be selected within a narrow range in order for the universe to support the minimal requirements for life
– example: mass density
– example: strong nuclear force (what he studies)
– example: carbon formation

Evidence #3: the fine-tuning of our planet for habitability
– the type of galaxy and our location in it
– our solar system and our star
– our planet
– our moon

It’s a good lecture explaining a couple of basic arguments for a cosmic Creator and Designer. If you add the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion (Stephen C. Meyer’s arguments), then you will be solid on the basic scientific arguments for a Creator and Designer of the universe.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

News

Why are Christians allowed to eat shellfish but not allowed to have sex before marriage?

1 Comment

Here’s a wonderful article from Peter Saunders.

The challenge:

An argument frequently advanced by those attempting to defend homosexual practice is that Christians ‘cherry pick’ the commands in the Bible – that is, they chose to emphasise some commands while ignoring others.

The Old Testament may forbid homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:2; 20:13) but it also forbids eating seafood without fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9, 10).

So how can Christians then justify upholding laws on sexual morality whilst at the same time ignoring the food laws from the very same books of the Bible? Why may they eat shellfish but not be allowed to have sex outside marriage? Isn’t this inconsistent and hypocritical?

The solution is that God enters into “covenants” with his people, and the terms of those covenants change.

Especially dietary laws:

The answer to this question lies in an understanding of biblical covenants.

A covenant is a binding solemn agreement made between two parties. It generally leaves each with obligations. But it holds only between the parties involved.

There are a number of biblical covenants: Noahic, Abrahamic, Sinaitic (Old), Davidic and New.

Under the Noahic covenant, which God made with all living human beings (Genesis 9:8-17), people were able to eat anything:

‘Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’ (Genesis 9:3).

But under the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant, which God made with the nation of Israel, people were able to eat certain foods, but not others.

Jesus clearly created a new covenant with his followers, where the dietary laws are lifted:

Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the ‘Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:44). He would establish this new covenant with new laws, with himself as high priest based on his own sacrificial death on the cross.

This new covenant would completely deal with sin (Hebrews 10:1-18) and protect all those who put their faith in him from God’s wrath and judgement…

[…]‘In the same way, after the supper (Jesus) took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”’ (Luke 22:20). ‘…we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Hebrews 10:10)

People would come under the protection of this new covenant, not by virtue of belonging to the nation of Israel, but through faith in Christ. In fact the function of the Old Testament Law (Sinaitic covenant) was to point to Christ as its fulfilment.

[…]So what then did Christ say about foods? He pronounced all foods clean for his followers to eat:

‘ “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?  For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them.  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder,  adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.  All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:18-23)

Jesus was making that point that under the new covenant God required purity of the heart. Internal thoughts and attitudes were as important as external actions.

Food is OK for Christians, but sexual immorality – which includes premarital sex and adultery – are NOT OK for Christians.

I think sometimes when you are talking to people whose motivation is just to get rid of any objective moral law entirely, they tend to ask questions without really wanting a good answer. This is especially true when it comes to the morality of sex. They ask the question not to get an answer, but to justify getting rid of the moral rules governing sexuality. The answers are there for people who are willing to respect God in their decision-making to find. The answers are not found only by people who have a reason to not want to find them.

In case you’re wondering, I am one of those Christian men who takes chastity seriously. Marriage is about having a close connection with your spouse. Sure, I could break the rules and have a lot of fun now. A lot of Christians have a hard time turning down fun. But when I look at Jesus, I don’t see a man who is pursuing fun and thrills. I see a man who sees a need and then sacrifices his own interests to rescue others from peril.

News

Can taxpayers trust federal law enforcement to adhere to “the rule of law”?

Leave a comment

I don’t know if people in federal law enforcement are familiar with the concept of the rule of law. It’s an important pillar of Western civilization, that teaches that everyone should be equal before the law. We want federal law enforcement to believe that, and defend that. But in a Democrat party administration, it doesn’t seem like they understand it. Let’s take a look at some evidence.

This article from Matt Walsh was published in Daily Wire. He’s going to contrast a Democrat meme poster with a Republican meme poster, and their punishments.

Here’s a Democrat meme maker telling Republicans to vote one day after the 2016 election day:

November 8th, 2016 was Election Day… that morning, a Left-wing activist named Kristina Wong decided to play a practical joke on all these Election Day voters. She went on Twitter, writing, “Hey Trump Supporters! Skip poll lines at #Election2016 and TEXT in your vote! Text votes are legit. Or vote tomorrow on Super Wednesday!”

Wong also uploaded this video on Twitter, telling Trump supporters once again that Election Day, in reality, was on November 9th — a day later than the actual Election Day.

That video is still available on Kristina Wong’s Twitter feed.

Matt Walsh notes that “the DOJ never charged Kristina Wong with any crime”.

And here’s a Republican meme maker telling Democrats to vote one day after the 2016 election day:

 On social media, [Douglass] Mackey used the online alias of “Ricky Vaughn.” And exactly one week before Kirstina Wong posted her meme on Twitter, Douglass Mackey posted this meme…

As the image reads: “Avoid the line. Vote from home.” Douglass Mackey posted this image on social media a full week before Election Day. At the time he posted this on his Twitter account, Mackey’s profile picture depicted a man in a MAGA hat wearing a Bane mask. So it was not exactly a credible announcement about the upcoming election. Nor was it trying to be.

At the time, everyone recognized this. More than four years went by, and no one said a word about it.

Then, in late January 2021 — just a week after Joe Biden was inaugurated, and his handlers took control of the federal government and the DOJ — everything changed. Douglass Mackey was suddenly hit with federal charges.

So, the Democrat meme maker got no charges, but the Republican meme maker got charges. And worse, the Republican meme maker got a federal prison sentence:

The Biden DOJ put Douglass Mackey on trial, more than a half-decade after his allegedly illegal memes.

[..][P]rosecutors never produced a single piece of evidence to prove that a single vote was actually lost due to Mackey’s meme. The jury did not hear from a single witness who testified that they texted their vote and then didn’t vote for real because of it. In other words, there was never any evidence, or any reason to believe, that any actual real world harm was caused by this meme.

[…]Nothing happened. There was no harm done. And yet, predictably, Mackey was convicted and the other day he was sentenced by this federal judge to seven months in prison.

Matt notes that this is not how federal law enforcement treats Democrats who commit much worse crimes:

To put that sentence in context, seven months is longer time in prison than a BLM rioter received in 2020 for threatening to murder a police officer with an AR-15. That officer was guarding a courthouse that the rioters were setting on fire. But this rioter, named Dakota Means, was sentenced to probation, meaning no time in prison whatsoever. Dakota Means went on to murder his infant child.

As horrifying as that story is, there are many more like it. Pretty much every BLM terrorist from 2020 received a lighter sentence than Douglass Mackey did for posting a meme.

Now, just this week, secular left protesters invaded the Capitol in what can only be described as a literal “insurrection”. Will these literal insurrectionists be given 20-year prison sentences? They did much more than move a barrier.

Matt predicts that they won’t be punished at all:

The other day, pro-Hamas protesters stormed a Senate office building, demanding a ceasefire in the Middle East. They obstructed lawmakers on their way to work. They prevented media reports from taking place. It was an insurrection.

Not a single one of those rioters will be placed in solitary confinement by Joe Biden’s DOJ. They won’t face 20-year prison sentences. Just like the women who stormed Capitol buildings during the Kavanaugh hearings, none of these pro-Hamas degenerates will face any consequences whatsoever.

Is Matt Walsh right? Time will tell. But just make sure that you vote in 2024, and make sure that you get all of your family and friends to vote, too. Now is the time to keep them informed about news stories like this one, so that they understand what’s at stake. We’ve produced a generation of poorly-educated, immoral, secular left fascists who don’t even understand the meaning of “rule of law” – or any other basic legal concepts. And sadly, they’ve found their way into government, and into federal law enforcement. We’re paying them to be stupid and evil. Maybe we need better people?