CLOSING SHOP (and other stuff)

Continue to support awesome writers such as IrishFarmer, Mariano, Antipelagian, and Croath.

On Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean hits home because the church she's affiliated with (The Rock in San Diego) did some inner city ministries I attended. There they got kids off of gangs and drugs. So, I was surprised Prejean was involved with this church.

Given the circumstances, I must be blunt (like I always am), I believe Prejean is a hypocrite. However, despite her flaws I think what she's doing is noble. Just because she believes in traditional marriage doesn't mean her hypocritical lifestyle makes it false. That's like saying since a child-molester teaches that 1+1=2, it would be false since he's a pedophile.

What's at issue here is whether Carrie Prejean has been discriminated against because of her stance on traditional marriage. Liberals are trying to make it look like she wasn't discriminated against and that it had everything to do with her lying about her topless pictures, or for not attending some events. I don't buy that for a second. You'd have to be a lame-brain to think that's the case. So, let's get to that. But first, let's introduce the people involved in this fiasco:

Victim:
Carrie Prejean

Enemies:
Keith Lewis (director of Miss California)
Shanna Moakler (co-director of Miss California; also Miss USA 1995)

Low-life loser:
Carrie Prejean's ex-boyfriend

A few things you should know about Keith Lewis:

Keith Lewis is known for intimidating and taking back crowns from winners. No really, that's what this fool does. And he did it to Christina Silva who won Miss California 2008... well, she actually didn't win, you see, it was an "accounting error" (Yup, it's really tough counting points by 5 judges). Christina Silva actually went on national television to speak of her dilemma and she did not have kind words with Keith Lewis, check it out (also here). What's interesting then is that Carrie Prejean was not meant to be Miss California 2008. Either way, Lewis is known for screwing people over. And I don't believe for a second that he's a professional. Of course he gives out partial-transcripts of his involvement with Prejean to see how unprofessional she is.

Keith Lewis also hooked Carrie Prejean up with a modeling agent. And it's this same agency that had Carrie Prejean do pictures where it was revealed later that some of her pictures were topless! It's simple, no Keith Lewis, no Carrie Prejean topless pictures. When models do pictures they may actually expose their bare chests even though the advertisements may have the nudity covered up (for instance, a piece of furniture or the model's hands may cover their exposed chest - in fact, Prejean had a picture like that). Mr. Lewis had to know this. So when he had a picture of a topless Prejean he knew he could use that to take her crown away if she gives him trouble. And that's exactly what happened. He tried to get Prejean fired after she made her controversial statement on gay marriage and he used the picture as leverage. And you can imagine how angry he was when Donald Trump reinstated her crown. But that didn't stop Keith Lewis from finding a way to get Prejean fired again - like telling her to go to events - gee, one of those events required was doing a Playboy one! - for which Prejean refused. I think the fact that Keith Lewis wanted Prejean to go to a Playboy event proves that he's a hypocrite. Why wouldn't he have a problem with Prejan doing Playboy but have a problem with Prejean doing topless pictures? It just doesn't add up.

Keith Lewis is an out-of-the-closet gay man and produced a documentary on gay relationships. To me, this is motive. He suspected Prejean of being a homophobe and he tried to hurt her. Of course, after he had her fired he got a pro-traditional marriage Miss California to taker her place, lest people suspect that his motive in firing Prejean was about gay marriage. The new Miss California is a guinea pig.

A few things about Shanna Moakler:

This is hilarious, after winning Miss USA, Moakler became a Playboy playmate. So, this idea that the staff and Keith Lewis (and yes Shanna Moakler) were outraged that Prejean did topless pictures is a complete joke. What's with their fascination with Playboy?

Shanna Moakler is not only pro-gay marriage (there's motive, again) but her rambunctious life-style isn't hard to see since she was among the few to do a reality TV show.

Carrie Prejean's loser ex-boyfriend:

Knowing how he hurt her like this just shows how badly he got hurt when she dumped him - although I have no proof that she dumped him, but c'mon, it's obvious, look how bitter this idiot is. I don't know why they aren't together but if Prejean's ex was a real man he wouldn't make an effort to destroy someone's life like this - giving out pornographic material on her?! I mean, wow! He should have given back those tapes to her. He says in an interview that Prejean likes to present herself in a way that would win approval with people. Maybe so, but I find that hard to believe. Do you think she won approval by saying gay marriage should be between a man and a woman on public television?

Further proof that Prejean's ex-boyfriend isn't a man is the fact he won't reveal himself in public. Not a picture or a name. He's "courageous" enough to show a hidden side of Prejean, but he's not courageous enough to show his hidden identity. I think the fact that he's proud and happy that he destroyed someone's life says a lot about him. He's a loser and a low-life. No wonder Prejean broke up with him. For good reason to.

Now, Carrie Prejean:

I feel sorry for her on one hand but on the other I don't.

I feel sorry for her because she obviously got hurt for taking a stand on her faith and her view on gay marriage.

I don't feel sorry for her because she was dumb enough to make a video tape of herself masturbating. Carrie has to understand something: God will not be mocked. I find it hard to believe she made this tape when she was 17. I believe she was a Christian when she made it. I only suspect this. I hope I'm proven wrong though.

I thought it was a big mistake that she settled. This video tape proves that there was a smear campaign to destroy her, why settle after that? Was it because she feared more material of herself will get out? Knowing the internet world, it's going to get out anyway. So why stop there? She should have toughen it through. But she didn't.

Conclusion:

It's obvious, a bunch of bigoted, sick-minded, low-life, cowardly, and lying individuals (ie Keith Lewis, Shannan Moakler, Prejean's ex, and then some) set out to destroy Carrie Prejean because of this:



I mean, is it any wonder that they are currently producing a segment that ridicules Prejean? Wow, when people hold a grudge. And Keith Lewis said that Prejean had mental problems? And again, the idea that Prejean was fired for not sticking to her contract for going to events (one of them involving Playboy, which Prejean told Keith Lewis she cannot go to) is bunk, and a way to corner Prejean. How would Keith Lewis (or Shanna Moakler) like it if he was required to go to a conservative and pro-traditional marriage rally?

However, I'm afraid Christians must distance themselves from Prejean until she gets things straight between herself and God. And after learning this big lesson, something tells me she will.

Better thinking Atheist admits "New Atheists" are a complete disaster

Atheist Michael Ruse tells us what we needed to hear: the new atheists are a complete "bloody disaster."

Richard Dawkins is in love with chunks of matter

Sometimes I wonder if Dawkins is serious about some of the stuff he says. Check it out:

"On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter. We now understand essentially how the trick is done, but only since 1859."

- Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, p. 366-367

Many atheists who have read my blog were not happy with the fact that I've told them they're nothing but matter and motion, or just bits of pieces of protoplasm, etc. But I was never wrong about it. Dawkins vindicates me!

Richard Dawkins finally admits the truth!

And that truth would be the fact that he cannot prove Darwinian evolution:

"Richard Dawkins has publicly admitted: 'I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.'" [1]

Source:

1. “Dawkins made this remark in response to a question posed by the New York Times to a number of prominent scientists: ‘What do you believe what you cannot prove?’ The published responses on January 4, 2005.” Quoted in Robert Royal, (February 17, 1984), 12. The God that Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), xii, 277.

Richard Carrier corrupts the atheist youths. And we love it!

The good thing about Richard Carrier is that he has no idea how stupid he's making his fans look (yes, indeed, Carrier calls his followers his "fans"). There's at least two atheist morons (one of them goes by the name of Tom Verenna) who have written self-published books that haven't sold. No surprise, but most of Carrier's books are self-published too. Atheist groupie and shallow-thinker Christopher Hallquist from "Uncredible Hallq" also had a self-published book done. He's yet another gullible student who's fond of Carrier's works (he's actually crazy enough to think he's a good enough debater to take on William Lane Craig, too - after listening to this, trust me, you'd disagree with Unreasonable Hallq). What is this trend with unworthy and un-sophisticated and young-as-hell-and-in-desperate-need-of-more-education atheists who think they have the smarts and sophistication to write books? I think it has a lot to do with Carrier's own arrogant and smugness. After all, this idiot wrote:

"I am no less a philosopher than Aristotle or Hume. My knowledge, education, and qualifications certainly match theirs in every relevant respect."

Of course, you won't find this quote from Carrier anymore since he deleted it from his website (it ends up that smarter atheists told him to - obviously, they know that this isn't true). But Carrier's fans think of him as another Aristotle and Hume. And as such, he's blessed them with his knowledge. These fans of his felt so overwhelmed they've decided to write crappy books. Little do they know that the joke is on them. And as long as more people follow Carrier, they'll look like jokes. I can only hope he has more fans then. If not, maybe Carrier can get more literally out of his butt.

William Lane Craig on Richard Carrier here.

Liberal L. A. Times knows how idiotic the New Atheists are!

I love this article:

Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

Superstar atheists are motivated by anger -- and boohoo victimhood.

By Charlotte Allen
May 17, 2009

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

First off, there's atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists' failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.

In his online "Atheist Manifesto," Harris writes that "no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that ... God exists." The evidence? Antique clauses in the constitutions of six -- count 'em -- states barring atheists from office.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled such provisions unenforceable nearly 50 years ago, but that doesn't stop atheists from bewailing that they have to hide their Godlessness from friends, relatives, employers and potential dates. One representative of the pity-poor-me school of atheism, Kathleen Goodman, writing in January for the Chronicle of Higher Education, went so far as to promote affirmative action for atheists on college campuses: specially designated, college-subsidized "safe spaces" for them to express their views.

Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: "They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do." Thanks, Richard!

Dennett likes to call atheists "the Brights," in contrast to everybody else, who obviously aren't so bright. In a 2006 essay describing his brush with death after a heart operation, Dennett wrote these thoughts about his religious friends who told him they were praying for his recovery: "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" With friends like Daniel Dennett, you don't need enemies.

Then there's P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota's Morris campus, whose blog, Pharyngula, is supposedly about Myers' field, evolutionary biology, but is actually about his fanatical propensity to label religious believers as "idiots," "morons," "loony" or "imbecilic" in nearly every post. The university deactivated its link to Myers' blog in July after he posted a photo of a consecrated host from a Mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and thrown into the garbage ("I hope Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date") in an effort to prove that Catholicism is bunk -- or something.

Myers' blog exemplifies atheists' frenzied fascination with Christianity and the Bible. Atheist website after atheist website insists that Jesus either didn't exist or "was a jerk" (in the words of one blogger) because he didn't eliminate smallpox or world poverty. At the American Atheists website, a writer complains that God "set up" Adam and Eve, knowing in advance that they would eat the forbidden fruit. A blogger on A Is for Atheist has been going through the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse in order to prove its "insanity" (he or she had gotten up to the Book of Joshua when I last looked).

Another topic that atheists beat like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin commercials is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwin-o-mania stems from the fact that this year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, but haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God's way of letting his living creation unfold? Furthermore, even if human nature as we know it is a matter of lucky adaptations, how exactly does that disprove the existence of God?

And then there's the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn't exist but is evil to boot. Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion," accuses the deity of being a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak" as well as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... bully." If there is no God -- and you'd be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he's good or evil?

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger -- anger that the world isn't perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith. The vitriol is extraordinary. Hitchens thinks that "religion spoils everything." Dawkins contends that raising one's offspring in one's religion constitutes child abuse. Harris argues that it "may be ethical to kill people" on the basis of their beliefs. The perennial atheist litigant Michael Newdow sued (unsuccessfully) to bar President Obama from uttering the words "so help me God" when he took his oath of office.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

Charlotte Allen is the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus" and a contributing editor to the Minding the Campus website of the Manhattan Institute.

A. N. Wilson becomes a born-again Christian!

He once criticized Christianity, and wrote many books against it, but he has come to embrace it (see also here). As I understand it, the UK can be quite anti-religious. Yet in the midst of this, AN Wilson became a Christian!

Richard Dawkins the Christian?

We're reported about this before, but we found the video:



Personally, I find it strange that Dawkins would call himself a Christian after calling us delusional. But, hey, that's the "rationality" of Dawkins for you. But since Dawkins loves singing Christmas carols, we hope that he will also join Christians in celebrating Easter as well :)

As for all you atheists, I would urge you to follow Dawkins' example. The blind and mindless flying spaghetti monster demands that you do!

Fighting Against The Lies of Tom Verenna

In response to "Fighting Against the Slander" (by Thomas Verenna aka Rook Hawkins):

Verenna says, "Frank Walton is a pseudonymous name and he often attacks the person rather than the argument."

I'll let the people judge whether they think I'm just attacking the person and not the argument. But my real name is Frank Walton. I've told people over and over again there is an atheist pretending to be me around the net while posting immature remarks. I wrote about that here. Yet Verenna never acknowledges this. But I think it's quite hypocritical of Verenna for accusing JP Holding for using a "pseudonymous name" - I mean, Verenna called himself "Rook Hawkins" at one point!


Verenna says, "Frank also runs several hate-blogs dedicated to nothing but slander and libel. One such blog, http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com, is directed towards me."

That site is not run by me. The person doing that blogsite has linked to many of my blog articles though. Personally, I love the blogsite. It really does show Verenna for who he really is: a phony.


Verenna says, "Frank claims I lied about being named Assistant Director of the Jesus Project."

I never claimed that. (But, yes, I do think that Verenna is a liar). Everything he says in that section has no bearing on me. But it does look like Verenna is no longer a part of the "Jesus Project" fellowship.


Verenna says, "Do Scholars 'Distance' Themselves From Thomas? There is a claim made that I often talk of scholars who I know, but when questioned these individuals 'distance' themselves from me. Thomas Thompson is listed as an example. But this is not the case. Frank is being dishonest."

No, I'm not. I've responded to the "Thomas L. Thompson" fiasco here (look particularly under "Frank Walton has been caught lying?! Say it ain't so!"). Thompson was lied to by Verenna when he suggested I was "Tim O'Neill". Later on, I've emailed Thompson myself. But he hasn't responded.

If Bob Price thinks that Verenna is a "resourceful scholar" then he can sing that to the hills if he wants. But Price is wrong because even Verenna himself said that he's not a scholar:

"I would not call myself a scholar."

[rationalresponders.com/forum/14034]

Anyway, Verenna doesn't mention the fact (nor does he even bother replying to) that Price did say this,

"...I fear Rook gave the wrong impression..."

He said this NOT too long ago. Verenna won't even bother giving his readers the full story.

Also, realize Verenna does not mention Eric Schumacher who has decided to distance himself from Verenna (read all about this here). So, I'm still vindicated. Many scholars want nothing to do with Verenna.


Verenna says, "Did Thomas Have Anything to do with the Dawkins Claims? Frank and others have insisted that I am partially responsible for the incident where Richard Dawkins had been accused of certain unethical allegations. "

I didn't say Verenna had been partially responsible. So, I don't see how that section has anything to do with me. I specifically pointed fingers at Brian and Kelly - I wrote about that here. However, Verenna was still with the Rational Response Squad during the time, yes, even when they made the allegation that Dawkins had an affair with another woman. I don't recall if he castigated Brian or Kelly for that remark.


Verenna says, "I never said I served in Iraq."

Well now he tells us! Verenna knows full well that he's been keeping his military duty and the Iraq War very ambiguous. Look what he says here,

"I may not have served in the Iraq War, but I'm ready for a war know. [sic]"

- 4 Mar 09, 04:10:18 AM

You "may not" have served in the Iraq War? If you didn't serve there, you'd say, "I did not fight in Iraq." This is the type of ambiguous and dishonest statements Verenna makes.


Verenna says, "Frank claims that I have plagiarized."

Yup, you sure did. And I prove it here. Also, notice that Verenna won't bother showing you the article that he plagiarized. He won't show you the article he wrote nor the quotes from Dennis McKinsey. Figures. Also, I emailed Dennis McKinsey (after he wrote to Tom Verenna), and by then he even acknowledged that Verenna may have indeed plagiarized him! He wrote to us (in 2007) saying,

"If Rook did that then he should not only apologize but refrain from such activity in the future."

Verenna will not tell anybody about this letter we received from McKinsey. Verenna has accused people (who actually do their homework) of plagiarism (like JP Holding), yet the irony of it all is that Rook is in fact the plagiarist.

Here's Rook's writing: "It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus, but only affirms the existence of Christians."

And now here's McKinsey's writing: "...the passage proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus. It only affirms the existence of Christians."

Notice the similarities? The, uh, plagiarism done by Verenna? Why won't Verenna show his readers these quotes? You can't hide from the evidence, Verenna.


Verenna says, "A choice slander that Frank uses is that I’m a pervert."

Yes, you're bad writing about making out with a girl is perversion. (And this video you made with your ho is perverted too). Notice, that Verenna won't bother to show you guys his fictional writings. Seriously, guys, it sucks. Hmm, maybe that's why he wont' show it to you. Verenna also won't tell you how he asked someone to provide him with "cum". Read about that here. But, again, Verenna doesn't show the evidence I've presented.


Verenna says, "On his site, he lists several quotes which he claims mean that I am a fascist."

Notice again, that Verenna won't even show you guys the quote. This is typical "Verenna" stuff. He's afraid the other side will read the whole story. Anyway, Verenna wrote,

...let this be a reminder that this is what the [Rational Response Squad] is fighting for - to free minds and rid the world or [sic] irrational people like Frank Walton...

If he didn't mean violence, fine then. However, I find it hard that Verenna is a pacifist when earlier in the "Fighting Against the Slander" article he mentioned how he enlisted in the army and was at one time "gung ho" to go to war. But whatever. If he had a change of mind, great. However, if Verenna wants to rid the world of people like me, one things for sure then, he would rather that I not exist at all. To me, that's just as bad as fascism. I, on the other hand, am glad that people like Verenna exist. People have to know how incredibly irrational people like Verenna are, especially when you deny God.

That's all that needs to be said I suppose. All the stuff Verenna says about me (being a stalker, being psychologically damaged, etc.) doesn't hurt me in the least. C'mon, can a shallow mind like Verenna's get the best of me? Of course not. After all, he was voted the most stupidest atheist in his former club. People can go to the biased and dishonest "Rational Response Squad" run blogsite "'Atheism Sucks' Sucks" to see if any of that stuff is true (that dipstick site claims "I'm my own stalker" while saying they have proof that I have been using false names with the same IP addresses - yet they don't even provide the proof or evidence or the IP numbers). But for what it's worth, I still am vindicated about Verenna. Verenna as oyou can see from his "Fighting Against the Slander" article is filled with damage control, while not showing his readers the full truth. Because he knows he has everything to hide. Oh, and, Verenna, give Richard Carrier my blessing. I hope he does get the FBI involved. By then, they'll find out I'm not responsible for any sock-puppery at all. And you've been telling everybody that you intend on suing me, but, so far, I've received no lawsuit (what, it's been like 3 years now!). You got nothing on me, goatee boy. Don't insult your readers, Tommy, by thinking they don't know you're a fraud. Perhaps the best thing to do is to actually study the stuff you criticize. Maybe then you'll be taken more seriously. Thanks and God bless.

Richard Carrier is THE most stupidest atheist (with a PhD.) EVER!

Now, I know that sounds harsh. But, trust me, dear readers, it's the truth. You won't find a more stupid atheist (with a Ph. D.) than Dr. Richard Carrier. And we have smoking gun proof to show you that he fits the title.

Now, you guys know that Rook Hawkins has come out with his real name: Tom Verenna. He's probably using his real name now that he distanced himself from the Rational Response Squad (probably, because Brian J. Cutler is a loser, or that Kelly O'Connor is now a prostitute in Nevada: this is not made up - this mother of 3 boys is now a whore at the infamous "Bunny Ranch", using the pseudonym "Kasey Grant"*). To this, I say, good for you, Tommy. However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that your intelligence is as dead as road kill. I can't even begin to show you, dear readers, the super super super idiocy with people like Tom Verenna. I mean, you google "Rook Hawkins" and you'll see how stupid the guy is. Incidentally, someone made a blogsite on Verenna's dishonesty here. Both Christians and atheists know how full of crap Verenna is. I mean, it's just common sense.

Anyway, how does Richard Carrier fit into all of this? Well, would you believe that Carrier actually defended Verenna. Now, I already knew of this because of said reasons, but Carrier has really put his neck out on this one. He has now legitimized Tom Verenna!

A reader of my blog emailed Dr. Carrier after hearing news that he was working with Verenna on the Jesus Project. The reader wrote the following:

Dear Dr. Carrier,

While going through the "Jesus Project" website, I was taken aback that a one Thomas Verenna was listed as one of the contributors. If you didn't know, Verenna was once known as "Rook Hawkins." He was a part of a group called "The Rational Response Squad" that accused Richard Dawkins of having an affair with another woman! Verenna has a history of plagiarism and lies! You can read about him here:

www.myspace.com/thomasverenna

Apart from that, he has no College degree. He only has a high school diploma.

How did this teenager become a part of your group there at "Jesus Project"? Do you support Verenna? Surely, you realize this man is an embarrassment.

BTW, the myspace site that you see there has been taken down because of Verenna. Obviously, the guy is into censorship. But the same info at the myspace site (as I understand it) can be found here.

But this is Richard Carrier's whole and unedited response:

You've been lied to. Unless you are a sock puppet for the liar (he's done that before, so I can't be sure you're not another instance of him doing that), Tom is a staff member and editor for the project, his scholarship will be peer reviewed, he has not committed plagiarism, and had nothing to do with any claims about Dawkins.

Now, the blogsite relied heavily on my articles. I can only guess that Dr. Carrier is talking about me when he speaks of "he"? But, if I lied, Dick, can you tell me where I lied? I never pretended to be someone else, an atheist did that to me (and, incidentally, many of your friends support him). So, there's no sock puppet. But Verenna did commit plagiarism, since he obviously copied off of Dennis McKinsey, and you know what? Dennis McKinsey had his suspicion of Tom Verenna! And, although Tom Verenna may not have had anything to do with the Rational Response Squad's spreading the rumor of Richard Dawkins having an affair with another woman, I haven't read anything by Tom Verenna condemning them (I hope he does). But where's the lie?

But seeing how Dick made an unsupoorted claim against me without showing any proof of the contrary, proves that Dick will lose all sense of reality to defend and legitimize a known con-artist like Tom Verenna.

But this is what I find funny, Dick Carrier just said that Tom Verenna has "scholarship." That's odd, not even Tom Verenna would call himself a scholar. He said so himself:

I would not call myself a scholar.

[rationalresponders.com/forum/14034]

But, if Dick gets his kicks calling the works of Tom Verenna "scholarship" then go nutts! It appears that Verenna would disagree with him. Some of you atheists are probably aghast that Dick would use the word "scholarship" to describe Tom Verenna's work, but, hey, that's how some atheists are, you know. I wish I can say I can feel your pain, but I'm not an atheist. Honestly, I'm a Christian, and I just about laughed out loud when Dick called Verenna's research "scholarship."

Now, this does make Richard Carrier an idiot... and a stupid ass. Think about it. If someone as stupid as high-schooler Tom Verenna, like, say, oh, I don't know, Benny Hinn (yeah, I know, Hinn is probably, just probably, smarter than Verenna but let's just use him) wrote an article on the historical Jesus, would that really impress an academically trained scholar? Of course not. *SHRUGS* But Verenna impressed Carrier.

Now, say that as-stupid-as-Verenna Benny Hinn gave Dr. Gary Habermas his article. Do you think Habermas would be stupid enough to actually take it seriously? Of course not. Habermas knows better. *SAD SIGH* But Carrier doesn't.

And, do you think that Dr. Habermas would be even more stupid to have Benny Hinn edit a book with him, let alone call his works "scholarship"? Of course, Dr. Habermas wouldn't do that. *SHAKES HEAD* But Carrier would.

And, do you think that Dr. Habermas would put an anti-intellectual like Benny Hinn to his scholarly status? Of course not. *SCOFFING* But Carrier thinks that Tom Verenna's only-high-school educated brain peeks most people's research.

Boy, Dr. Carrier, are you stupid!

But, Christians, be of good cheer. It's official! Main-stream atheists and scholars will legitimize people of low moral character, and people of little to no intelligence. According to atheist Richard Carrier, PhD., Tom "the plagiarist" Verenna will be getting peer reviewed! Obviously, the people who are dignifying Verenna by peer reviewing him are just as stupid as he is... so maybe it's not a real "peer review"... but whatever.

To me, knowing that Carrier would defend an obvious joke like Tom Verenna speaks wonders about him. Namely, that Carrier isn't all that smart, and would stop at nothing to show how wrong someone is no matter how strong the evidence is against him. I mean, Carrier truly is an imbecile!

But why is the fact that Tom Verenna being peer reviewed such good news for Christians? Well, this goes to show how desperate and incredibly shallow some atheists are. Peer reviewing Verenna is like peer reviewing Kermit the frog (or the aforementioned Benny Hinn) for historical assessment. Verenna's historical knowledge is as in depth as a pimply faced teenager's (which is ironic since Verenna only holds a high school degree). Indeed, thanks to people like Carrier, this is smoking gun proof that atheists like him are just plain bad when it comes to scholarship. Mark my words, this move by Carrier will make skeptics and atheists move towards Christianity. I praise God this happened! As long as atheists and skeptics and "scholars" attach their names to Tom Verenna, Christians can sit back in ease knowing that the material these idiots produce is bound to be pure trash.

But, in a way, I guess this is good news for shallow-thinking atheists. That's right, maybe, you should be of good cheer too! In the atheist academic world, if a dimwit like Tom Verenna can get peer reviewed (let alone have their works called "scholarly"), then anybody can! Just find a gullible, desperate, pea-brained atheist like Richard Carrier and you'll do just fine. You don't even need a college degree. Heck, who needs high school?!

UPDATE

Oh, shucks! It looks like a non-Christian isn't a part of the "Jesus Project" because of Tom Verenna. Can't you atheist just praise Tom Verenna? Do what Dick does, call Verenna's unsophisticated homework "scholarship". I encourage you guys to do that. It's making Christianity look better and better!

UPDATE

Darn, you stupid atheists! The last thing Christians need you to be is smart. But hey, you're a dime a dozen. Mother nature farted and out you came, and so what do we have? Well, it looks like you guys decided to let Tom Verenna go. He's no longer a fellow with "The Jesus Project." Verenna got canned. The fellowship of "The Jesus Project" saw Verenna go like golum. See Verenna's link is dead now. Verenna's name was taken off from the website (his name is not present on the list). But drats! This leaves me no more excuses to show how stupid skeptics are by defending people like Verenna. Well, Dick is still with Tom. And that doesn't seem to be doing Dick any good. Anyway, Tom Verenna is like a cancer. Any time he latches on to someone (or uses someone's name) for his prestige he hurts not only that person but himself. Let this be a lesson to you, Tommy. Your only friends are literally whores and money-grubbing con-artists like Kelly and Brian Cutler. Although you distanced yourself from them, you're just as bad and stupid as they are.


==============

* - in all seriousness, please, pray for Kelly. This self-destructive act will make her worse.

Kelly,

I know you don't want to hear this, but God loves you. Deep down in your heart you know atheism did you no good. Look what it turned you into! And look at the Rational Response Squad: they're pretty much done and over with. Hardly anybody contributed to you guys at all.

And let's be brutally honest, upon intellectual grounds you could not defend yourself philosophically against competent Christians (you have got to be kidding me if you think Kirk Cameron counts as an apologist!). And look at what you're doing to yourself. Have you no self-respect? You aren't thinking straight. God forgives you for all the radical claims (like "Christians have a mental disorder", etc.) you've made against Him and His church. It isn't too late. And it isn't hard. You can get help. Please, don't think this is condescending. But you can get help, and it's easy. Just go to a Christ-loving Church and I'm sure they won't hesitate to help you. Remember, you have three sons! Do this for them. Your no good lazy boyfriend (Brian J. Cutler) did you more harm than good. I don't know if you guys are still together but if he truly cared for you, he shouldn't have allowed you to prostitute yourself like this. Believe in Jesus, Kelly. He'll do you good. Be a mother to your children. Be a rational lady. You'll have peace of mind. Your sinful past will be blotted out by the blood of Jesus.

And, Kelly, Jesus actually did/does exist. You know you've been covering up Tom Verenna's lies and falsehoods at the Rational Response Squad website. And so you know that his homework only adds up to zero. And, consequently, you know a historical Jesus did exist. Jesus loves you, Kelly. Be more open to the evidence.

If you don't care for this plea, just remember, practically, every single atheist that visited your website their at The Rational Response Squad website and forums, preferred you as a whore than a real woman. They will hurt you, Kelly. And they don't really care for you. You are made in the image of God, and that won't be tainted with the blood of Jesus.

Dan Barker, AGAIN, says rape could be moral!

I can't recommend the debate between Kyle Butt and Dan Barker enough. What I like about Kyle is the fact that he actually did his homework on Barker's past debates and books - and it shows! The result? Kyle read Barker like a book. As much as Barker tried to refute Kyle with an onslaught of alleged Bible contradictions, moral atrocities done in the name of God, etc., he couldn't break Kyle. Barker was forceful in his presentation (so forceful as a matter of fact that it made him look desperate), but Kyle exhibited grace, patience, and coolness. Consequently, this made Barker look insecure. Kyle lived up to a Christian example, and his generosity made you proud to be a Christian. This was an easy victory for Kyle.

By far, my favorite part in the debate was when Kyle cross-examined Barker and questioned him about morality and rape. Barker has mentioned on occasions that rape could be a moral act (we mentioned that here; heck, Richard Dawkins says rape is morally arbitrary). Kyle exposed this and showed that his moral justification is similar to the Nazis. Check it out:

Jeffery Jay Lowder did not tell the truth about naturalists

In his debate with Dr. Phil Fernandes, atheist and infidels.org co-founder Jeffery Jay Lowder said the following:



Guess what? Lowder is not telling the truth! Some naturalists do indeed accept that the universe popped into existence out of nothing. Lowder should have known better. He is after all familiar with naturalist Dr. Michael Martin's works. Dr. Martin said the following (in his own debate with Dr. Fernandes):

According to Dr. Fernandes the Kalam cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of God. This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God. I am willing to grant (1) although I believe that this premise is much more controversial than Dr. Fernandes supposes. The other two premises I do not grant. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible.

There you have it. Naturalists do believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing. Personally, I don't have that kind of faith.

Atheist admits Country needs God!

***UPDATE***

"Continent" and "Country" mix up.

Well, jiminy jillickers, I got Africa mixed up as a country, when really it's a continent! Gee, it only consists of over 53 countries, but calling Africa a country is tootttaalllyyy out of line! *SHRUGS* I'll restate it then: "Atheist admits 53 countries need God!" Whew! "Friendly" atheists have taught me a lesson, didn't they? Thank you, atheists, for making things easier for me :) Anyway...

===========================

From a Times Online Article:

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset

Matthew Parris (December 27, 2008)

Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. “Privately” because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: “theirs” and therefore best for “them”; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? “Because it's there,” he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

Happy New Year, guys and gals!

Richard Dawkins admits rape is morally arbitrary!!!

First Dan Barker says rape could be moral, but now we have Richard Dawkins who says rape is morally arbitrary! Check it out:

Justin Brierley: When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good. And you don't have any way to stand on that statement.

Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.

Justin Brierley: So therefore it's just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.

[source]