i am a scheming swindler.

I Don't Understand Atheistic Humanitarianism

2009-09-22T08:09:00.000-07:00

I love satire. Even if what's being ridiculed is something I hold dear I still appreciate it. Everyone and everything needs to be put into a fresh perspective once in a while, and anything of worth should hold up under scrutiny.

I recently stumbledupon the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you are unfamiliar with The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarians enlighten yourself, or the short story is that this "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" was started as a way to poke fun at the idea of Intelligent Design when there was a move to teach it alongside the theory of Evolution.

While I disagree with the views held by Pastafarians, I appreciate people believing in something enough to take action. In fact it would seem that something positive has come out of this satirical movement (RAmen?). The believers and followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have not only formed their own Kiva group , but have donated nearly$100,000.

If you don't know what Kiva is, it's a microloan organization putting those who have money to loan in touch with people in developing areas who need small business loans.

While I greatly appreciate what Pastafarians are doing for business owners in impoverished areas, I am a bit confused by their motives, which seem to me a contradiction in beliefs. What confuses me is the fact that a group that supports the theory of evolution would begin their own Kiva group.

I think I should mention that I'm making somewhat of a dangerous leap here and am assuming that most people who would call themselves to be follwers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are in fact Atheists. Maybe this is an unsafe assumption, but it would seem that the belief in evolution typically goes hand in hand with Atheism. I apologize if these assumptions are unfounded and wrong, if there are individuals that fall outside of this generalization, or if you genuinely worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

At the core of the theory of evolution lies the key principle of natural selection or "survival of the fittest". I don't understand how someone who would hold this as truth would consider financing a microloan to someone in the developing world.

If I whole heartedly subscribed to the idea of evolution I certainly wouldn't want to give a competing member of my species an advantage at the limited resources of our planet. With overpopulation looming on the horizon what good would it do me to support those people? Even if you bring up the point of developed nations having lower birthrates, you are still supplying a competing member of your species. Clearly if you are in the position where you have money to give you have made it to the top of the food chain and should only be worrying about perpetuating your own victorious genes. I would be interested to know if there are any other species of animal that gives up its resources in order to support other nonlocal members of its species.

The only reason I can imagine for doing this is some sort of moralityor human decency which seem to me to have no place in the theory of evolution.

Why would a group of people dedicated to satirizing theists end up behaving in the very way perscribed by the major branches of theism to act? Isn't that alone worth investigating the possibility of ID? After all, human behavior is much more tangible and quantifiable than evolutionary biology.

Again I appreciate the sentiment behind this satirical movement, not to mention the fact that I love whole heartedly each individual who subscribes to it, but I think the contradiction of ideas shines light on true reality.

For some reason we care about each other, not to mention that we have the need to belong and feel important. It's hard for me to believe that the impulses I feel to help people would be something that I gained from natural selection.

The Problem with Atheists and Christians

2009-09-22T08:06:00.000-07:00

One of my friends recently posted a link on Facebook to a blog post called "Then What Do You Believe?" written by an Atheist criticizing Christianity and attempting to lay out a broad sense of what it means to be an Atheist.

Setting aside the condescending tone of the piece, I have a few problems with the points made which reflect problems I have with Atheism on the whole.

The first problem I have is that the writer makes the claim: "...atheism has no doctrine, set of core values, or even shared vision of the world..." and that "...atheism implies nothing besides a lack of theistic belief..." Now, this may all very well be true. I understand that "Atheist" is a simply a label and that any people group falling under such a broad label is going to be diverse.

I think the writer's line of thinking here fails to recognize something very important though: Atheists DO have at least one core value.

If you consider yourself an Atheist you subscribe to the fact that there is no deity or higher power. Obviously this still includes a wide spectrum of people, but rather than putting one's own faith into a higher power it is being put into one's own self. Clearly it is easy to have faith in one's self and one's own understanding, they are things we experience on a second to second basis, but faith is most definitely still involved.

This brings me the second problem I have with the piece. At the end of the entry the writer makes a list of values to better help the reader understand what values make up their worldview, one which is a link to an entry called "Secular Humanist First, Atheist Second."

In this post the writer discusses that logic and reason has led them to Atheism via a firm belief in secular humanism and goes on to talk about how science confirms his faith in Atheism.

My problem with this is that over the course of history science has proven itself wrong time and time again. In the past thousand years alone there have been frequent paradigm shifts showing time and time again that we know very little about anything, yet within every paradigm there is the thought that science is done and that we know everything there is to know.

I've been through a process where I logically weighed out what I believe, and I agree with this writer's thoughts on secular humanism for the most part, but to me it would be illogical to put my faith in science because it is so fickle.

(I also have a problem with the place where science coupled with Atheism leads, which I will address in another entry).

Now, the writer does touch on some very excellent points: most Christians (in my experience) have no idea what they believe or why they believe it and even if they do their actions would not reflect their beliefs, Christian Extremeism is dangerous, "Christians" are often intolerant of other faiths (especially Atheism), and science, reason and logic are important.

It's interesting to me that this writer picks out Christianity specifically to frame this piece. I would imagine that this is because the writer is in the United States and has had little to no contact with other faiths (understandably so), but I have to wonder if the writer's disdain for Christianity is stemming from a specific experience which would definitely alter their perception.

It breaks my heart that so many people misrepresent Christ, and I apologize on their behalf to any Atheist who has ever been mistreated because of their faith, but it also frustrates me that most Atheists feel that their faith is the superior one because they feel they have the market on logic and reason cornered, which isn't so (thanks to those who don't have this complex).

The problem with Atheists and Christians is that I have seen very little sincere conversation or attempt to build relationships. Both seem to be talking past the other thinking to themselves that the other is ignorant and naive.

At any point in a line of reasoning so complex as a belief system one must take a leap of faith in subscribing to whatever it is they believe. I've read books, researched and come to the logical conclusion that there must be a God. Another line of logic brought me to the conclusions that Jesus Christ is who he said he is.

Obviously in these conclusions science and logic could only bring me to a certain point and then I had to decide. I suppose I could have just as easily put my faith in Atheism, but even then science and logic would only bring me so far and then I still would have that same choice to make.

The Switch

2009-08-31T11:26:00.001-07:00

I switched over to wordpress: anthonytimlin.wordpress.com

Submission

2009-01-23T12:53:00.000-08:00

I am currently reading a book called Why We're not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. While I don't consider myself to be anti-Emergent (or Emergent for that matter), I thought it wise to examine this perspective as quite a bit of the media I take in is from people that could be considered to be a part of the “Emergent” movement. I have come across many excellent points in this book so far (though I think the book should have been titled Why We ARE Evangelical) but one point I came across really stood out to me.

DeYoung at one point is arguing against the Emergent church's portrayal of truth to be unstable as he feels they are constantly questioning doctrine and other foundational Christian truths. I believe the term he used to describe their version of truth was “squishy”. While I'm not sure if I agree with his point, he went on to say something that struck me as deeply profound. He explained that without strong convictions about who God is we are unable to submit fully to him.

We are unable to fully submit to something that we don't believe in.

Submission is a bad word in our culture. It has been abused time and time again in order for one person to gain power over another. Scripture about submission has been referenced in order to justify heinous acts against humanity. We need to be clear that when one person says to another “You must submit to me” that this is not submission. This is oppression. Let us no longer confuse the two: Submission is voluntary, oppression is not.

What would it look like to fully submit to God? What would it look like for Christ's bride (the Church) to fully submit to her spouse? What would it look like for us to submit to one another in such a way that we would put other's needs at the level of our own?

I don't think the answer to the problems we are facing as a church are going to be solved with a new movement or and old movement, but a unified submission to the will of God. I mean, that's what Jesus was all about right?

Of Love and Abortion

2008-11-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

So I know this issue has been more or less talked to death, but I merely see arguments about how you should feel about the issue. I have yet to see a well thought out plan of how to address the situation. Because of this I am going to attempt to put together a praxis dealing with the issue.

If we could set aside our different approaches to the issue I think we may actually be able to agree on a solution. That is what I am going to work towards. I don't think I will have the answer but I would at least like to start the discussion.

If you know of any other praxes that I may have missed please let me know. Life is important to me and it is a very very complex issue. I'm just one voice in the discussion, but as soon as we speak we must act or we should shut our mouths.

praxis
–noun, plural prax⋅is⋅es, prax⋅es /ˈpræksiz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [prak-seez] Show IPA Pronunciation . 1. practice, as distinguished from theory; application or use, as of knowledge or skills.
2. convention, habit, or custom.
3. a set of examples for practice.

It's like glass when we break

2008-11-01T22:36:00.000-07:00

It breaks my heart to know how fragile relationships can be. I know that I don't know much and that I don't help the process of life along all the time, but I wish we could all just see how much we need each other.

I am here for you. Anyone whoever reads this ever please know that in whatever capacity I can serve you I will to the best of my God given ability.

I love you. Please try to love someone else as if they were you in another body, even if it's just one person. We can put this broken mess back together.

What I want my wedding to be like.

2008-10-20T10:16:00.000-07:00

Wedding:

/>

Also, I want my reception to be like the final scene from Return of the Jedi.

How Christians Should Vote

2008-10-15T21:54:00.000-07:00

Ok, this is version 3.0 I actually turned it in today to be workshopped by my nonfiction class, hopefully I don't get crucified:

I would imagine that, at the time, every single election seems like the most important one to date, but the upcoming election seems to be more momentous than usual. Phrases like “uncharted territory” have been popping up which really raises the stakes and makes this upcoming election seem like it just may carry a little more weight than others. Not to mention the fact that we are embroiled in a war we can’t escape with a couple more potentially on the way[1][2]. For most Christians this election is more than just an economic or leadership issue, it’s a moral issue. The big question is how they should vote.

I only have one election under my belt, so this is only my second experience with media during campaign season. It truly is a sight to behold. It really drives the point home that politics have far removed the election process from what it should be. Essentially, the public should be presented with a group of candidates who should explain how they would govern the nation. The public then should choose which candidate they think would be best for the job. Instead, vast sums of money are spent trying to win the election, trying to convince everyone that one guy is wrong and the other guy is right. In fact, the amount of money spent campaigning for this election has surpassed an unprecedented one billion dollars[3]. Think of how many college educations that could pay for. There is definitely something backwards about what we think is most beneficial for our country.

Maybe we could reach a point where we could function as a society without government, or at least without so much government. Maybe that money could pay for food, homes or education. Because really, no matter whom we elect to govern us, they aren’t going to be able to make us beneficial members of society, only we can decide.

Unfortunately, during election time churches react in a similar way to the media. There is always this push to elect the right candidate, the Godliest candidate. Typically, if not always, this is the Republican candidate. If they would have had the foresight to pick the donkey as their mascot they could parade Jesus around all day. This focus removes the purpose of the church from what it should be. Rather than being a place for broken people or people in need it becomes a campaign center.

Whatever your beliefs are, you cannot ignore the Christian vote. It will affect you.

A little more than three quarters of the United States population identifies themselves as being associated with some form of Christianity[4]. From a candidate’s perspective that is a big chunk of votes ripe for the taking. Whether or not a person identifies with their faith above their citizenship, playing the God card probably doesn’t hurt a candidate’s chances of getting elected (in fact not playing the God card would probably destroy a candidate’s chances for election).

Whether you are a Christian or not, this should trouble you. Most of the people in America are going to vote based on who they think the Godlier candidate is, and those running for office understand this. They will identify themselves in some way with Christianity, which is really just pandering to voters because in no way do either of our two major presidential candidates represent Christ.

In fact, I can’t imagine Jesus having anything to do with a political system. I wonder what Jesus would have to say about democracy being equated with sacrificial love.

I have only been pursuing Christianity seriously for a few years, when I started I didn’t really know what I was getting myself into. Since then I have been trying to figure out what it is exactly.At first it was presented to me as a moral shock collar that we needed to put around everyone's necks. It was for the good of mankind that we let everyone know how wrong they were, and how right we were. We had to vote to keep God in office and sign petitions to keep homosexuals from ruining the sanctity of marriage (It breaks my heart now to think that petition was in a church, let alone the fact that I signed it).I'm a little more educated on this guy Jesus that we are supposed to be following now. Because of what I have learned I no longer believe that Christianity and Democracy can coexist. If you participate in one, you abhor the other, whether you are aware of it or not. Unfortunately, I think that most Christians think their main duty as so is to make sure that the right candidates are in office. If you can get someone representing your morals elected then you have done your job and you can sleep soundly at night in your heated home with a two car garage and fully stocked refrigerator.

However Jesus did not operate in this manner, and as far as we can see in the biblical narrative, neither does God. Jesus led by example and taught to love through sacrifice, not by force. God offers free will, there is no force.Democracy forces the will of the majority on all. This is not sacrificial love. This is not leading by example. This is legislative rape.
No wonder Christianity is losing any relevancy in the modern world. It was started as an alternative to empire, to free the oppressed, yet it now has its boot on the neck of the weak waving an American flag.
Now, I am not saying that if one is a Christian one cannot participate in electing officials. I understand in order to perpetuate this community we live in called America we need people to run it, and by all means vote for whoever you think would do a better job, but if you are a Christian who you vote for is of little or no consequence as it pertains to your Christianity. You can only put your faith in one system or the other. Whichever one you choose forces the other to become a novelty.
In order to make society a better place, to bring heaven to earth, we have to vote every single day with our actions.

Vote pro-life by caring for teenage mothers, single mothers or any mothers who are contemplating abortion. Only if we respond to the situation that creates the seemingly necessary abortion will we ever have a chance of saving lives.If you want to save the sanctity of marriage take yours seriously. Divorce is more common among Christians than non-Christians[5].

Vote for a better economy by giving your money to the poor.

Vote for a better world by taking care of everyone you see in the same way that you take care of yourself. Vote with love.

Vote with your life.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/11/usa.topstories3
[2] http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/3/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html
[3] http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
[4] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0074.pdf

[5] http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Please critique this, I'm turning it in later today for my nonfiction class. (McCarty Part2)

2008-10-14T23:52:00.000-07:00

How Christians should Vote (and why you should care)

I would imagine that, at the time, every single election seems like the most important one to date, but the upcoming election seems to be more momentous than usual. Phrases like “uncharted territory” have been popping up which really raises the stakes and makes this upcoming election seem like it just may carry a little more weight than others. Not to mention the fact that we are embroiled in a war we can’t escape with a couple more potentially on the way. For most Christians this election is more than just an economic or leadership issue, it’s a moral issue.

I only have one election under my belt, so this is only my second experience with media during campaign season. It truly is a sight to behold. Unfortunately, there is a corresponding reaction within the churches I have attended when campaign season rolls around. There is always this push to elect the right candidate, the Godliest candidate. Typically, if not always, this is of course the Republican, which always confused me growing up because Jesus rode on a donkey, so wouldn’t that make him a democrat?

Whatever your beliefs are, you cannot ignore the Christian vote. It will affect you.

A little more than three quarters of the United States population identifies themselves as being associated with some form of Christianity. From a candidate’s perspective that is a big chunk of votes ripe for the taking. Whether or not a person identifies with their faith above other things, playing the God card probably doesn’t hurt a candidate’s chances of getting elected (in fact not playing the God card would probably destroy a candidate’s chances for election). Whether you are a Christian or not, this should trouble you. Most of the people in America are going to vote based on who they think the Godlier candidate is, and those running for office understand this. They will identify themselves in some way with Christianity, which is really just pandering to voters because in no way do either of our two major presidential candidates represent Christ.

In fact, I can’t imagine Jesus having anything to do with a political system. I wonder what Jesus would have to say about democracy being equated with sacrificial love.

I have only been pursuing Christianity seriously for a few years, when I started I didn’t really know what I was getting myself into. Since then I have been trying to figure out what Christianity is exactly.At first it was presented to me as a moral shock collar that we needed to put around everyone's necks. It was for the good of mankind that we let everyone know how wrong they were and how right we were.We had to vote to keep God in office and sign petitions to keep homosexuals from ruining the sanctity of marriage (It breaks my heart now to think that petition was in a church, let alone the fact that I signed it).I'm a little more educated on this guy Jesus that we are supposed to be following now. Because of what I have learned I no longer believe that Christianity and Democracy can coexist. If you participate in one, you abhor the other, whether you are aware of it or not. Unfortunately, I think that most Christians think their main duty as so is to make sure that the right candidates are in office. If you can get someone representing your morals into office then you have done your job and you can sleep soundly at night in your heated home with a two car garage and fully stocked refrigerator.

However Jesus did not operate in this manner, and as far as we can see in the biblical narrative, neither does God. Jesus lead by example and taught to love through sacrifice, not by force. God for free will, there is no force.Democracy forces the will of the majority on all. This is not sacrificial love. This is not leading by example. This is legislative rape.
No wonder Christianity is losing any relevancy in the modern world. It was started as an alternative to empire, to free the oppressed, yet it now has its boot on the neck of the weak waving an American flag.
Now, I am not saying that if one is a Christian one cannot participate in electing officials. I understand in order to live in this community we live in called America we need people to run it, and by all means vote for whoever you want, but if you are a Christian who you vote for is of little or no consequence as it pertains to your Christianity. You can only put your faith in one system or the other. Whichever one you choose forces the other to become a novelty.
In order to make society a better place, to bring heaven to earth, we have to vote every single day with our actions.

Vote pro-life by caring for teenage mothers, single mothers or any mothers who are contemplating abortion. Only if we respond to the situation that creates the seemingly necessary abortion will we ever have a chance of saving lives.If you want to save the sanctity of marriage take yours seriously. Divorce is more common among Christians than non-Christians.

Vote for a better economy by living apart from the empire.

Vote for a better world by taking care of everyone you see in the same way that you take care of yourself. Democracy and Christianity are incompatible, only one can be followed seriously at a time.

McCarthy would have me for this one.

2008-10-09T23:15:00.000-07:00

About five years ago or so I was intrigued by this whole Christianity thing. It seemed like the thing to do so I started doing it, not really knowing what I was getting myself into. I just felt that moral pull from inside you know? I just had to do the right thing or whatever. Since then I have been trying to figure out what Christianity is exactly.

At first it was presented to me as this moral shock collar that we needed to put around everyone's necks. It was for the good of mankind that we let everyone know how wrong they were and how right we were.

We had to vote to keep God in office and sign petitions to keep homosexuals from ruining the sanctity of marriage. (I regret signing the petition, I'm sorry)

Now, I'm a little more educated on this guy Jesus. I no longer believe that Christianity and Democracy can coexist. If you participate in one you abhor the other, whether you are aware of it or not. Unfortunately, I think that most Christians think it is their duty to God to make sure that the right candidates are in office. However Jesus did not operate in this manner, and neither does God. Jesus lead by example and taught to love through sacrifice, not by force. God allows us the decision to either love him or to turn away, God does not force himself upon you.

Democracy forces the will of the majority on all. This is not sacrificial love. This is not leading by example. This is legislative rape.

Now, I am not saying that if one is a Christian one cannot participate in electing officials, but you can only put your faith in one system or the other. I understand in order to live in this community we live in called America we need people to run it, and by all means vote for whoever you want, but if you are a Christian who you vote for is of little or no consequence.

If you want to vote pro-life vote with your actions. Care for a mother who is contemplating an abortion. Care for all single mothers. Only if we respond to the situation that creates the seemingly neccessary abortion will we ever have a chance of saving lives.

If you want to save the sanctity of marriage take yours seriously. Divorce rates are above fifty percent, higher among the church than outside the church.

Democracy and Christianity are incompatible, only one can be followed seriously at a time.

unified theory the basis for absolute moral truth?

2008-10-07T23:35:00.000-07:00

I know that the existence of a universal moral code is a debated topic, but as far as I can tell there seems to be quite a bit of evidence pointing to the fact that it exists. However, despite my inklings that the moral code is there I have no proof that would end the debate (nor does anyone).

I had been thinking about this when I was watching a TV show about black holes and in the program unified theory was brought up. Now, I suppose that not everyone would subscribe to the fact that there is a single unified force, but there are those who are searching for it. This idea that somewhere out there beyond our current knowledge there is some absolute idea that exists and we have but to discover it and name it seems to me to point back to the idea of a universal moral code.

Unified Theory seems to be saying that something out there beyond our existing knowledge is driving us and seems to be pointing to the idea that there is something that binds us all together in some way. Now, if there is a single force that exists everywhere in the Universe connect all living (and non-living) things doesn't it seem obvious that there would be a way in which we all would have to conduct ourselves?

Ultimately, this sounds a little bit like [I AM] to me.