I noticed that the NCAA, NFL and NBA have been very energetic at promoting the gay agenda, lately – ramming gay rights down the throats of Christians and conservatives in states like Indiana, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. Not a problem for me, since I don’t watch American professional sports of any kind, nor do I have a television. I don’t give them a dime. And a new story reinforces my no-sports policy.
Schilling shared a photo of a portly man dressed in women’s clothing – wearing a wig and holding a purse. The man’s ample bosom protruded from two strategically-placed holes. Alongside the eyebrow-raising photo was a message:
“LET HIM IN! to the restroom with your daughter or else you’re a narrow minded, judgmental, unloving, racist bigot who needs to die.”
Schilling followed up with statement of his own:
“A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”
Schilling’s common-sense post sent liberals scampering for safe spaces all across the fruited plain.
The left-leaning sports network swiftly gave Schilling the heave-ho – much to the delight of LGBT activists and their cronies in sports journalism.
“ESPN is an inclusive company,” they wrote in a statement to The New York Times. “Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated.”
ESPN is an inclusive company, which is why they need to exclude Curt Schilling.
Last year, Schilling was suspended from ESPN when he tweeted something against radical Islam.
ESPN says commentator Curt Schilling won’t appear on the air for the next month in the wake of his anti-Muslim tweet.
ESPN said Thursday that Schilling won’t be on telecasts for the rest of the regular season or the American League wild-card game on Oct. 6.
The Daily Wire had a list of 5 people who were not fired for making comments critical of Christians and conservatives.
Consider this one:
Tony Kornheiser. Kornheiser still co-hosts his leftist propaganda sports program Pardon The Interruption with fellow approved opinionsayer Michael Wilbon, despite the fact that in October, he compared the Tea Party to ISIS – on ESPN Radio. Speaking with Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman, Kornheiser said of Tea Partiers in Congress, “Are they like ISIS trying to establish a caliphate here?!” No problem. Kornheiser was suspended for two weeks back in 2010 for ripping an outfit worn by Hannah Storm: “She’s got on red go-go boots and a Catholic school paid skirt…way too short for somebody in her 40s or maybe early 50s by now. She’s got on her typically very, very tight shirt.”
Yeah, that’s not a firing offense, because it’s OK to insult conservatives, but not Islamic State. Because come on, Tea Party is much more evil than Islam State, right? That’s what ESPN thinks.
Seems to me that it’s pretty clear that ESPN supports the gay agenda and radical Islam, since they go after people who criticize them. Why are you watching ESPN on TV, and why do you have a TV at all? Be a good steward of your money, don’t hand it to the people who want to punish you for your core values.
I had friends who have been trying to get me to move to Georgia. Sure glad I didn’t listen to them – it’s turning out to be a very bad state for liberty.
Here’s the latest from religious liberty hero David French, writing at National Review.
He writes:
This morning, the First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit in federal court that makes chilling claims against Georgia’s Department of Public Health, claims backed by a host of damaging documents. The Institute represents Dr. Eric Walsh, a California physician and former director of public health for the city of Pasadena, Calif. Walsh is also a devout Christian, a Seventh-day Adventist who sometimes preaches in his spare time.
Walsh, a former member of the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, had accepted a job in Georgia as a district health director when Georgia officials became aware that he’d delivered a number of “controversial” sermons on his own time — sermons where he articulated orthodox Seventh-day Adventist positions on, among other things, human sexuality, Islam, evolution, and the corrupting influence of pop culture.
In California, Walsh had been attacked by student activists who objected to his selection as a commencement speaker at Pasadena City College. To these activists, working for former president Bush and President Obama to combat AIDS, serving as a board member of the Latino Health Collaborative, and starting California’s first city-run dental clinic for low-income families dealing with HIV/AIDS wasn’t sufficient to overcome the horror at Walsh’s Christian views. Under fire, Walsh canceled his commencement speech — while the city, incredibly, put him on administrative leave. The college replaced him with a gay screenwriter.
When Georgia officials learned of Walsh’s California controversy, they responded by immediately violating the law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits government employers from considering an applicant’s religion in employment decisions, but Georgia officials not only evaluated Walsh’s religious views, the director of human resources wrote an e-mail to department employees giving them the “assignment” of listening to his sermons.
And so they did. E-mails indicate that health-department employees split the sermons up, listened to Walsh’s religious views, and took notes. Walsh asserts that one department official called and told him that “you can’t preach that and work in the field of public health.”
[…][T]wo days after health-department officials carried out their “assignment” to watch his sermons, they terminated Walsh — informing him through a mocking voice-mail message that a termination letter was on its way.
Previously, I wrote about how Georgia fired their highly-respect Fire Chief, because he wrote a book in which he supported moral views consistent with the Bible in areas of sexual behavior.
Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran lived the American dream. That is, until he was fired from his childhood dream job for writing a book during his own private time.
Cochran’s book, published in 2013 and called “Who Told You That You Were Naked?,” expresses a biblical view on marriage and addresses homosexuality from his Christian perspective.
[…]Fast-forward a few months, and Cochran received a 30-day suspension without pay, after an LGBT activist group started to protest the book.
[…]After 34 years as a firefighter, Cochran’s fairy-tale career came to a halt in January due to his personal views on gay marriage.
[…]Cochran had worked his way up, and out from the poverty he grew up in, to be named Atlanta fire chief in 2008. In 2009, he was appointed administrator of the United States Fire Administration under President Barack Obama. Less than a year later, he was back to his position as chief in Atlanta.
Investigation into Cochran found that he did not show discrimination against anyone during employment, yet he was terminated anyway.
[…]“The part that got me in trouble was the fact that in the book I dealt with sexual challenges that Christian men have and spoke of biblical marriage and biblical sexuality,” Cochran said in August while speaking at a religious liberty rally in Iowa.
Pretty every day now I am getting a message from someone who is asking me how to have an alias, whether they need an alias, and so on. I hope that these cases show you that no amount of excellence in education or ability or work history will protect you from the fascists of the secular left. They don’t care whether you are the best at doing this job or that job – it’s more important to them that you share their personal opinions on moral issues. Specifically, it’s more important to them that you believe that when it comes to sexuality, there are no rules. That is, that the selfishness of the adults must override all moral rules, especial moral rules around sexual behavior. There are no marriage rules, there are no children’s needs, there is no chastity, there is no fidelity, there is no self-control.
When it comes to expressing your views in order to have an influence, my advice is simple. First, don’t listen to anyone who is reckless about the consequences and is more interested in prancing around praising their own supposed bravery. The object of this game is to share your views with the right people as persuasively as you can, and not to find yourself silenced or sidelined because the other team hammers you and undermines your ability to be effective. Handing the other side your real name, real address, and so on, undermines your effectiveness with no compensating increase in effectiveness. It’s a net loss, and not one that you should choose to take.
Both cosmology and philosophy trace their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contemplated the universe. The ultimate question remains why the universe exists rather than nothing. This question led Leibniz to postulate the existence of a metaphysically necessary being, which he identified as God. Leibniz’s critics, however, disputed this identification, claiming that the space-time universe itself may be the metaphysically necessary being. The discovery during this century that the universe began to exist, however, calls into question the universe’s status as metaphysically necessary, since any necessary being must be eternal in its existence. Although various cosmogonic models claiming to avert the beginning of the universe predicted by the standard model have been and continue to be offered, no model involving an eternal universe has proved as plausible as the standard model. Unless we are to assert that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of nothing, we are thus led to Leibniz’s conclusion. Several objections to inferring a supernatural cause of the origin of the universe are considered and found to be unsound.
Here’s an excerpt in which the author, Dr. William Lane Craig, explains the Big Bang cosmology:
The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe “was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable.”{8} But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble’s measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies,{9} which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science. “Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries,” exclaims John Wheeler, “was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?”{10}
As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,
An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.{11}
The popular expression “Big Bang,” originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no “outside,” just as there is no “before” with respect to the Big Bang).{12}
The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,–and this deserves underscoring–the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.“{13}
[…]On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.
Every theist should be able to understand and defend this argument. It is a scientific refutation of materialism, and it is supported by six lines of scientific evidence – all of which emerged as science has progressed.
Scientific evidence:
Einstein’s theory of general relativity (GTR)
the red-shifting of light from distant galaxies implies an expanding universe
the cosmic background radiation (which also disproves the oscillating model of the universe)
the second law of thermodynamics applied to star formation theory
hydrogen-helium abundance predictions
radioactive element abundance predictions
Those are the scientific discoveries that have led us to the beginning of the universe, which support’s Dr. Craig’s argument.
Until the early 1900s, most people had assumed that the universe was fixed in size. New possibilities opened up in 1915, when Einstein formulated his famous general relativity theory that describes the nature of space, time, and gravity. This theory allows for expansion or contraction of the fabric of space. In 1917, astronomer Willem de Sitter applied this theory to the entire universe and boldly went on to show that the universe could be expanding. Aleksandr Friedmann, a mathematician, reached the same conclusion in a more general way in 1922, as did Georges Lemaître, a cosmologist and a Jesuit, in 1927. This step was revolutionary since the accepted view at the time was that the universe was static in size. Tracing back this expanding universe, Lemaître imagined all matter initially contained in a tiny universe and then exploding. These thoughts introduced amazing new possibilities for the universe, but were independent of observation at that time.
Why Do We Think the Big Bang Happened?
Three main observational results over the past century led astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang. First, they found out that the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. This led them to deduce that everything used to be extremely close together before some kind of explosion. Second, the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. Third, astronomers could actually observe the cosmic background radiation—the afterglow of the explosion—from every direction in the universe. This last evidence so conclusively confirmed the theory of the universe’s beginning that Stephen Hawking said, “It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.”
The article goes into detail about each of these three evidences.
This is the kind of evidence I expect all Christian theists to be using when discussing the question of whether God exists. Scientific evidence. When talking to non-Christians, we first need to show that we understand science, because science is a reliable and respected way of getting knowledge about the universe. Non-Christians do not accept the Bible, but they do accept science, so we begin evangelism with science. Science (experimental, testable, repeatable science) should set limits on what anyone can believe – including non-Christians, who might otherwise not be inclined to listen to Bible verses and theology.
The Big Bang is not compatible with atheism
According to the Secular Humanist Manifesto, atheism is committed to an eternally existing universe, (See the first item: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”). If something non-material brought all existing matter into being, that would be a supernatural cause, and atheists deny that anything supernatural exists. The standard Big Bang theory requires that all the matter in the universe come into being out of nothing. This falsifies eternal models of the universe, which are required by the atheistic worldview.
You should definitely print out both articles and get familiar with the arguments and the evidence. I have tried this argument out on atheists, and the response I usually get is that scientific discoveries will soon emerge that falsifies all of these six scientific discoveries. That sounds more like faith than reason to me. And we have to make it clear to others who are still deciding that there is a conflict between science and religion. Just not the one they’re expecting. Let’s make our decisions about what to believe based on what science is telling us today. Let’s hold accountable people who want to have a worldview that is based on speculations.
WINTERY KNIGHT 