This Community is dead.

Long Time No Post

Well Ladies and Germs its been quite a while since I've done any serious posting so I might be a bit rusty... I have a few things to say to pagans about Jesus. He was not a good man. If he wasn't God incarnate he was a dreadful Liar, and anyone who says he didn't claim to be God hasn't read the Gospels. Secondly, I swear the next time I hear a nonbeliever call Him Jesus "Christ" I will them on their lnees, really. If they are willing to call him messiah and yet don't recognize his lordship they ought to get used to feeling like a foot stool, and I'm ready to assist. As far as, "If I were at the crucifixion I would have helped him off of the cross" goes, thats a lie straight from hell. First of all those who have been swept up in the modern atheists movements are just as much mindless followers as a mob of first century Jews, and anyone who calls for Hitchens or Dawkins would be even more likely to call for Barabas. Secondly, it is an arrogant lie to say that the modern atheist would be the one noble soul in the crowd when even His disciples deserted him. These are just a few thoughts I have concerning the critical thinkers of our time. Happy Easter. May a true knowledge of Christ gladden your heart.

Whoops!

Well that last post went over like a lead balloon... so here 'tis: ylou guys tell me what you want to hear, and I'll write about it.
Thanks
T

Enviromentalism

Heres another little tasty morsel...enjoy

Lets say however that you let the attack against religion go. The theories of Utilitarianism and Consequentialism cannot produce traditional morality. Really, it produces a morally so strange that, if it were truly applied, it would leave anyone pining for the evils of religion. Utilitarianism, the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is peculiarly impaired by environment. Rape is a serious sin and would not be used to prove a point if one were dealing with a morality that made sense, however it is important to demonstrate how heinous the morality of Utilitarianism can be. Imagine two thugs in an alley, who decide to rape a woman. Two thugs, one woman, this action justified by Utilitarianism inside the environment of the alley. Now extend the environment farther, and the two police officers who walk by the alley and are decidedly unhappy about the situation, now push morality into the woman’s favor. Two thugs, two policemen and the woman, two vs. three. Suddenly violent rape is wrong again. The environment can continue to extend outward until we reach humanity as a whole (which as has already pointed out tends towards sadism, favoring the rapist) but one way or another, environment hardly seems like a condition that should be applied to morality.

Ironic...

I strongly dislike it when people use their blogs to express their self-loathing and inadequacy and as a ploy to get others to tell them their special and that everything is just fine. So this is me not doing it.

lets just say I came close...

T

Sadomasochistic morality

Though you all might enjoy another chunk of thesis so here it is

It is the cry of the Atheist that religion is the bane of man’s existence. It “poisons everything,” it is an opiate for the masses, a podium for pig-headed fundamentalists to inflict emotional and physical pain on the bleating masses. Lets grant this overblown, but not uncommon, description of religion and see what it does to atheism. Whether you believe that the world is six thousand years old or fourteen billion, religion has existed as long as humans have. Concerning the choice to be religious of not Hitchens points out that, “For the greater part of human existence, it must always be stressed, this ‘option’ did not really exist.” This dread institution is inseparable linked to humanity. Yet (most formally propounded by Thomas Hobbes, and held onto by Atheist past and present) human activity and morality is based on pleasure and pain, “the greatest happiness for the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.” (according to Jeremy Bentham and repeated by Richard Dawkins .) If this is indeed the case, and if religion is as omnipresent throughout human history, then we are a very sadomasochistic race indeed. Humans have held on to an institution, which is, according to the modern atheist, only good for inflicting pain or being tortured with. Yet the great majority of humanity has found happiness in the heinous belief in God. Surely therefore, the Utilitarianism or Consequentialism of Bentham and Dawkins can’t be the foundation of moral. For the greater part of human history men have been esteeming as good and true a monster which can only lead to guilt and pain. Therefore the greatest happiness for the greatest number is found in this peculiar sadomasochism, making religion a good thing, or there is something genuinely wrong with religion, making Consequentialism and Utilitarianism an incomplete description of morality (keep in mind that these options are only necessary if you assume the bloated accusations listed against religion).

"Its Nice to be appreciated...These here paupers in this here parish don't appreciate me! Antiparochial they are ma'am antiparochial, we've given away a matter of twenty loves and a cheese and a half this very blessed afternoon, and still them paupers in not content."
- Mr. Bumble

It is unequivocally nice to be appreciated. Thank you.
T

Valentines Day Eve

Valentines day is not a celebration of love between, a man and a woman, God and mankind, or love at all. Its a battle of the wills. Valentines day provides the battle ground for some of man and woman's most important fights. We stand in the middle of warring Ideologies. Most of all its a time of brotherly griping where all men come together and form a band of brothers, all fighting against the violent rule of yes, you guessed it, ROSES. They last the three days, max, what kind of a representation of love is that. plus no matter how good of a florist you go to, at least two of the roses in your dozen will be sub-par. If you should run into another guy buying flowers on Valentines Day Eve, you'll meet eyes and both immediately get a sheepish look, roll your eyes, and let the complaining commense.

This is ME!

Hey everyone, I had to turn in a cast biography, written in the third person, for the Oliver! pamphlet and my dad actually wrote one for me, which I was a lot more comfortable with. Thought you all might like to read it and tell me if its an accurate picture.
T

Tyler Antkowiak’s parts have gotten bigger with every play. A mere 5’ 4” in his brief role in Music Man, in Oliver-his fourth play -he stands 6’ 6” and intends to Bumble around the stage to the best of his ability. Interests include art, music, and sports – where if he can catch you, you’re in big trouble. Tyler thanks Mr. McKenna for working him so hard, and Mrs. Horst for healing the wounds. His greatest goal at the moment is also his saddest moment… leaving Rockbridge this year. After graduating at 17, Ty plans to attend New St. Andrews in Moscow, ID -- but a large part of him will remain… he’s leaving his shoes.

thanks dad

The Razor

Hey everybody, how bout something with a little substance? Here a little first taste of the thesis paper.


The dictionary describes Ockham’s Razor “the philosophical and scientific rule that simple explanations should be preferred to more complicated ones, and that the explanation of a new phenomenon should be based on what is already known.” Originating with the fourteenth century logician William of Ockham, this “rule” was first formulated as “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity” and has often been employed to cut God out of the picture. Ignoring the fact William was a Franciscan and thus would have never utilized this theory against the existence of God, does this theory even benefit the Materialist? Ockham’s razor seems to be governed by an even more fundamental rule (deeper magic you might say) formulized for generations by wise fathers, “A tool is most dangerous when you use it for something it wasn’t intended for (so stop trying to cut that sheet of paper with the chainsaw)” and the “rule” is clearly true, for the Materialists who reference the razor are the ones who are most likely to be cut.
In a debate with Francis Collins Richard Dawkins was asked to compare the Genesis account of creation with Darwinian evolution. He employs an informal expression of the razor argument:
“Yes. For centuries the most powerful argument for God’s existence from the physical world was the so-called argument from design: Living things are so elegant and apparently so purposeful they could only be made by an intelligent designer. But Darwin provided a simpler explanation. His way is gradual incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings and working up step by tiny incremental step to more complexity, more elegance, more adaptive perfection. Each step is not too improbable for us to countenance, but when you add them up cumulatively over millions of years, you get these monsters of improbability, like the human brain and the rain forest. It should warn us against ever again assuming that because something is complicated, God must have done it.”
It indeed should warn us, but not to reject God. The Christian understanding of creation is that an omnipotent, all good Deity created the world by the word of his power in six days and on the seventh day he rested. This is a very loaded statement, but it is simple enough. Neo-Darwinian Evolution claims that a universe-spanning supernova (the Big Bang) created the universe as we know it, sparked life on this planet and that over the course of billions of years by incremental steps life forms emerged from a “primordial soup” and eventually grew by Natural Selection into infinitely complex organisms, like human beings. Perhaps the most profound thing that Dawkins uttered was the phrase “monsters of improbability.” After Ockham’s razor has done its dirty work it is clear that the Materialists conception reality is the improbable monster.
Creationism claims one entity in the creation of the world: God. Materialism and Darwinism necessitate at least three: primordial soup, natural selection, and billions of years. Surely this is an example of entities multiplied beyond necessity.
These arguments from simplicity do give a good cursory look at a theory, but ignoring its obvious ability to show curb appeal, Ockham’s razor doesn’t actually prove anything. It in and of itself is only a theory, but it is not one that the Materialist ought to employ. If anything the convoluted nature of evolution should cause the Materialist to shy away from this dangerous razor. A tool misused is often hazardous to its handler.