All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Is the hate speech of the secular left inciting violence against Christians?

Leave a comment

Transgenderism is promoted by many groups: WPATH, GLAAD, hospitals like the Boston Children’s Hospital, big tech companies like Google and Facebook, left-wing groups like the Human Rights Campaign, corporations like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, etc. Is all this advocacy for transgenderism causing violence against people who disagree with it, such as Bible-believing Christians?

The concern that Christians have is that when powerful groups promote gender dysphoria as natural and normal, then anyone who tells the truth about that can become a target. And it’s not a stretch to see someone who is having mental issues turning to violence to get the approval and celebration that they feel will make their lifestyle choices work out for them – in the sense that compelled affirmation makes them feel good about their own choices.

By now, everyone has heard about Audrey Hale’s attack on the Christian school in Nashville.

Newly released pages purportedly from the Nashville Covenant School shooter’s manifesto indicate that the shooter was strongly fixated on gender ideology and deeply held anger against Christianity.

In the pages, released Wednesday by The Daily Wire, trans-identifying shooter Audrey Hale condemns her parents, harshly criticizes Christians, and fantasizes about her “imaginary penis.” The pages come after months of stonewalling from authorities, who refused to confirm or deny a previous set of manifesto pages commentator Steven Crowder released in November.

On Wednesday, there was a new shooting by a new transgender shooter, this time targeting a Catholic school.

Daily Signal reports:

The man who opened fire at a Minneapolis Catholic school Wednesday identified himself by two names, and those names match a court record for a name change in 2019.

Two children, ages 8 and 10, died in the shooting, and the shooter injured 17 others. Authorities found the gunman dead at the scene. The FBI is investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X.

“The shooter has been identified as Robin Westman, a male born as Robert Westman,” Patel wrote. “The FBI will continue to provide updates on our ongoing investigation with the public as we are able.”

Law enforcement sources confirmed the suspect’s identity as Robert Westman or Robin Westman in speaking with Fox News. The New York Post also reported that police identified Westman in a news conference and said Westman “has been identified as a transgender woman.”

Just regarding the motive, the shooter did not like Jesus, and presumably followers of Jesus.

The Post Millennial explains:

The alleged shooter in Wednesday’s deadly attack at Annunciation Catholic Church and School in Minneapolis… appears to have posted a chilling video on YouTube before the massacre that makes several pop culture references as well as references to other shooters. In the footage, Westman can be seen displaying multiple firearms and ammunition magazines, as well as a target board with an image of Jesus Christ taped to it.

Now, you might remember that Minnesota is famous for their seculalism and leftism. These people aim to be “good without God”, so let’s see some “objective morality” from the secular left.

Here’s an article from The Post Millennial:

In the wake of a devastating mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School that left two children dead and 17 others injured, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey preached about transgender rights during a press conference after it was revealed that the trans male killer identified as a woman.

“I have heard about a whole lot of hate that’s being directed at our trans community,” Frey told reporters at a press briefing Wednesday afternoon.

The mayor of Minneapolis, MN is – of course – a Democrat. He has nothing good to say about Christians, but lots of good to say about transgenders. Does he think that the shooting was justified, because of disagreement with transgenderism? It’s almost like he is telling Christians (the victims) not to cause more shootings by disagreeing with his transgender agenda. This certainly is an escalation from the traditional response of “don’t disagree with me, or I’ll end myself”. Now it sounds like “don’t disagree with me, or I’ll end you”. There were some voices saying similar things about the Nashville shooting, that it was provoked by those hateful Christians.

And in another article from The Post Millennial, the mayor says:

“Don’t just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now, these kids were literally praying.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey delivered a statement on Wednesday after a deadly shooting at Annunciation Catholic School, rejecting “thoughts and prayers.”

Andy Ngo, who follows the violence of “Trantifa” and other leftists pretty closely, tweeted this:

We don’t know the shooter’s motive yet. A full investigation is needed to find out whether the motives are anti-Christian. But, there are several anti-Christian quotes from the shooter, such as the saying “Where’s your God now?”

More from that article: no mention of a father in the home, but:

Fox News reported that his mother, who worked at the school before retiring in 2021, signed off on his gender transition as a minor.

Many leftist women today are transing their children, divorcing fathers in order to get a free hand from the family courts to do it. I’ve blogged several examples: this one and this one and this one. I have a friend whose ex-wife is transing his kid against his will. She is making him pay for it, too. I am left to wonder if the ejection of the father from the home (69% of the time the woman initiates divorce), and then the use false accusations to get full custody, causes the child’s mental issues. Children need their fathers.

By the way, be careful what corporate news sources you rely on, because they can distort the truth for their own leftist agenda.

Daily Caller explains: (archived)

CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez inaccurately claimed Wednesday that semiautomatic firearms could fire “dozens of bullets” with a single pull of the trigger while covering a Minneapolis shooting.

[…]“What has incorrectly been termed an ‘assault weapon’ is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun — which continues to shoot until the trigger is released),” the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said in a fact sheet.

And another one from The Federalist about ABC News:

Few moments best capture ABC News’ reputation as “propaganda press” better than anchor Aaron Katersky’s misleading coverage of the alleged anti-Christian, anti-Trump Minneapolis school shooter — who Katersky effectively portrayed as a Trump supporter on Wednesday.

[…]“We’ve also been going through [the video manifesto] and can tell you there are crude diagrams of the church. There are also photos of the weapons, and they include all sorts of writings, the names of past mass shooters, criticism of Israel, the name of President Trump written on the guns,” Katersky said Wednesday.

[…]Katersky omitted the actual full inscription related to Trump revealed in the videos, which was: “Kill D*****d T***p.” Casual listeners who didn’t see the footage of the weapons themselves or read the manifesto could easily walk away thinking Trump’s name on the weapon meant allegiance to him, not homicidal rage against him.

The Federalist also has a post entitled “CNN, NYT, USA Today All Publish Stories About Shooter Without Mentioning His Trans Identity”.

Would you like to see federal law enforcement do something about hate speech from the secular left that incites violence against Christians and conservatives?

News

Creature design videos from the 2025 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith

2 Comments

I have been trying so hard to get in a weights session and a cardio session on BOTH days of the weekend. On Saturdays, I get to watch sports and funny men’s videos. On Sundays, I’m watching sermons or videos on apologetics. This past Sunday, I watched two videos on animal design from the 2025 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, and Tuesday night I watched two more.

First, I should say that Denton Bible Church is the best church in the United States for Christian apologetics. They have been doing apologetics events featuring people like William Lane Craig as far back as I can remember. The do apologetics conferences. And they do science and faith conferences. If you live near Denton, you should by all means attend this church. And if you like sermons, they have sermons, too. I’d be more inclined to trust these guys for sermons, because of their long, long, long record of apologetics.

So, on the past Sunday, I first watched this lecture with Eric Hedin on the design of the honeybee:

This lecture is only 35 minutes, but it talks about a lot of the strange behaviors of the honeybee, including their weird message-conveying dancing.

I found an article about it at Science and Culture (formerly Evolution News):

The famous “waggle dance” that a scout bee performs back at the hive after discovering a food source communicates to other bees (by touching, since the inside of the hive is dark) both the distance and the direction of the food in relation to the current position of the sun. Bee keepers have found that if they reorient the honeycomb on which the bee is dancing, the undaunted bee will adapt its dance so that it still correctly communicates the proper direction to the food source. Sometimes the dancing scout bee will continue its dance for more than an hour, and over this time, the position of the sun has changed. In response, the bee will compensate for the sun’s movement across the sky by gradually adjusting the angle of its dance.

So, the next one I watched was by Paul Nelson, and he was talking about the Monarch butterfly:

This one is only 30 minutes. Once, when I was at an intelligent design conference in the early 2000s, Paul Nelson came up to ask a question at one of the microphones. My foot was pushing out into the aisle, and he pinched it and said hello, and he knew my real name, because it was on my name tag. I have remembered it all these years. He is one of my favorite intelligent design people.

Finally, here is the one with Ray Bohlin, talking about the design of woodpeckers:

This one is only 15 minutes long!

I have a couple of red-headed woodpeckers in my backyard, and they had been pecking on my guttering very early in the morning. I got so mad at them, that I started bringing the bird feeders in at night, and putting them out in the late morning. That worked. I’m having a lot of fun watching these amazing little creatures, the older I get. I am putting out water, seeds, nuts, fruits, and nectar (if the hummingbirds are around) every morning, and taking it all back in at night. Next I have to build nesting boxes.

The last animal design video from this conference that has to do with design in nature is the one on plants, which is done by Emily and Daniel Reeves. It’s called “Plants are Creatures, Too!”

Daniel is the biologist, and Emily is the biochemist.

I remember in the old days, I would have order videos like this on VHS tapes through a web site, or by mailing in an order form and a check! And then, because I watched them over and over, I would have to rewind them over and over. Things are so much easier now. I would really like it if more young people knew how to make a case for design in nature by watching these videos over and over. What I would like is for Christians to be thinking about their faith. Not just having feelings, not just having community, but really thinking “could this really be true?” and “how would I explain what I believe to someone who doesn’t accept the Bible as inspired by God?”

Do you all have something to watch during your workouts? I stopped going to pay gyms, and made a home gym in my living room (I have no furniture), and that allows me to watch wholesome constructive videos while I work out and cook meals. It encourages me to work out and cook my own meals, because I can learn something and keep my skills up.

Polemics

Most Americans think cohabitation leads to a stable marriage, but what does the data say?

Leave a comment
Men who cohabitate are not certain that the relationship is permanent
Men who cohabitate are not certain that the relationship is permanent

If there’s one thing that ought to lead people to Christianity, it’s the proven ability of the Christian moral rules to guide believers away from the sins that destroy them. A lot of modern “Christians” have reduced Christianity to being about their feelings and their community, while allowing the culture to determine their goals and moral boundaries. But that won’t protect them from danger.

Cohabitation describes the situation of a couple moving into the same home and being sexually active, but without any legally-recognized commitment. It’s extremely popular among young people today, and even Christians.

Consider this article from The Federalist about cohabitation:

A new Pew Research Center study shows Americans both cohabitate (“live with an unmarried partner”) and find cohabitation acceptable more than before.

[…]More young adults have cohabited than have married. Pew’s analysis in the summer of 2019 of the National Survey of Family Growth found that, for the first time ever, the percentage of American adults aged 18-44 who have ever cohabited with a partner (59 percent) exceeded the percentage of those who have ever married (50 percent).

I thought this was very interesting, especially for the Christian parents and pastors who imagine that their lovely pious daughters all have a Christian worldview just because they sing in the church choir:

Just 14 percent hold a view consistent with a biblical sexual ethic, that cohabitation with an unmarried romantic partner outside of marriage is “never acceptable.”

Just to be clear, in my life I’ve met about 6 non-Christian men who cohabitated with women, and every single one of them cohabitated with a Christian-raised woman. That should tell you what young women are being told about relationships in their homes and churches about sex and marriage. “Do whatever you want”.

So what purpose does cohabitation serve?

A majority of Americans (69 percent) say that “it is acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together even if they don’t plan to get married.” They may assume that they can decrease their chances of a bad marriage and increase their chances of a good one by giving the relationship a cohabitation “test run.”

[…]A plurality of Americans believe cohabitating before marriage yields more successful unions. Nearly half of Americans (48 percent) believe that couples who live together before marriage “have a better chance of having a successful marriage.” This view is even more prevalent among young adults aged 18-29 (63 percent).

Another 38 percent of all Americans say cohabitation “doesn’t make much difference” on marital success. Only 13 percent of Americans believe cohabiting couples have “a worse chance” of having a successful marriage.

[…]Most Americans believe cohabitating couples raise children just as well as married couples. Pew also surveyed people’s opinions about cohabiting couples raising children, and 59 percent of Americans declared that cohabiting couples “can raise children just as well as married couples.” Again, the younger respondents were most likely to have a favorable view of cohabitation: among adults aged 18 to 49, 67 percent agreed cohabiting couples do just as well, while 32 percent said: “Married couples do a better job raising children.”

Yes, cohabitation is seen as a test run, and it’s supposed to make stable marriage more likely and not be harmful to children at all.

But why think that a test run should be part of getting married? After all, when I buy a parrot from the pet store, I don’t expect to later return that parrot. Why not? Because I am not buying the parrot to enhance MY life. I am buying the parrot to make a commitment to care for the parrot. Whether the parrot fulfills any of my needs is irrelevant to me. I want the bird in my house so that I can decide what it eats, what it drinks, and invest myself into making it happy, according to its birdish nature. This is because I think that parrots have value in and of themselves, and they deserve a certain quality of life. When I buy the parrot, I am guaranteeing a permanent commitment to the bird to provide for its needs, physical and emotional. And that commitment carries forward to the time (now) when the bird is elderly, and can’t even fly up to his cage or down to the floor. He calls for me, and I go over and pick him up and move him. That’s commitment.

Cohabitation, on the other hand, is the practice of saying to another human being: “I am going to try you out as an entertaining commodity in my home, but if you don’t fulfill my needs then I’m going to send you right back.” That’s not a commitment. That’s self indulgence. It’s defining a relationship as entertainment that is designed to meet my needs and make me happy. And that’s because the concept of commitment in relationships is not presented to young people at any time in their lives. Not from parents. Not in churches. Not in the secular left culture as a whole. Everything is a consumer good designed for the purpose of entertainment – including people. It was only the Christian worldview that had a view of people as creatures made by God for eternal life, so that marriage was about guarding the other person’s faith, and building them up to achieve all the things that God wanted them to achieve for his purposes.

But does cohabitation really work to create stable relationships? After all, anyone can find a partner when they’re young and pretty. The real question is whether that partner will stick around when you’re old and ugly and can’t be as “fun” as you used to be.

Here’s a recent (2018) study on cohabitation and stability:

A new study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family finds that the “premarital cohabitation effect” lives on, despite what you’ve likely heard. The premarital cohabitation effect is the finding that those who live together prior to marriage are more likely, not less, to struggle in marriage.

[…]Michael Rosenfeld and Katharina Roesler’s new findings suggest that there remains an increased risk for divorce for those living together prior to marriage, and that prior studies suggesting the effect has gone away had a bias toward short versus longer-term effects. They find that living together before marriage is associated with lower odds of divorce in the first year of marriage, but increases the odds of divorce in all other years tested, and this finding holds across decades of data.

Strategy advice to those who debate this issue: just be aware that Team Secular Leftist is using papers that have short-range samples, which don’t show the instability problem, because they deliberately cherry-pick recently married couples.

And what about children raised in cohabitating relationships?

While Americans are optimistic about the ability of cohabiting couples to raise children, a study published by the American College of Pediatricians in 2014 reported that children whose parents cohabit face a higher risk of: “premature birth, school failure, lower education, more poverty during childhood and lower incomes as adults, more incarceration and behavior problems, single parenthood, medical neglect and chronic health problems both medical and psychiatric, more substance, alcohol and tobacco abuse, and child abuse,” and that “a child conceived by a cohabiting woman is at 10 times higher risk of abortion compared to one conceived in marriage.”

I’m just going to be blunt here. The majority of young people are progressives, and they vote for candidates who believe in abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and even after birth. Why? Because they don’t want to have their right to seek happiness impacted by the needs of other people. Progressives believe that children, if they exist at all, should enhance the lives of their adult owners. No one should be surprised that people who think that killing inconvenient children is moral are willing to inflict other bad outcomes on them by raising them in an unstable cohabitation environment.