A Warning
With much help, Maph, and others, are performing typical communist subversion.
A founding member of the Viet Cong, in telling of his experiences, explained how the Viet Cong originally was a massively diverse collection of people. But, the communists played one against another until the communists were in charge. Then everybody danced to their tune... or else.
In his most recent subversion, Maph has created a post supposedly crying a warning about the threat to the (non-existent) separation of church and state by local law enforcement giving prostitutes a choice between christian rehab programs and jail.
One of the citations used in the article gave the whole thing away. It cited Al Jazeera. A publication, to be generous, with a distinctly Islamic orientation.
Hmm... an atheist site trying to agitate, colludes with an islamic publication to denigrate both of their biggest threats; Christianity. Threats to their agenda.
That's not the warning.
The warning is for you Objectivists who are also atheists. If you go along with this shit, if you continue to allow this campaign to go along unchallenged, you're going to lose conservatives. Objectivism will eventually become just another fringe cult philosophy, dismissed and ignore, effectively neutralized by Maph and his evil ilk.
Although khalling didn't deign to respond to my question, I posed her a dilemma:
You can support Christianity, you can become Moslem, or you can die horribly (which will probably happen if you become Moslem, anyway...). Which do you choose?
And yes, the wording is intentional so as to reflect the real world choice you *are* going to have to make, whether you want to or not.
if you continue in the delusional fantasy that Christianity is the real threat... you'll lose support along with your credibility. You'll be associated with antagonistic nutbars like Maph, and or islamic fundamentalists. Christians, agnostics, people otherwise open to Objectivism will associate you with the intolerant collectivist crowd and you will be marginalized. And Maph will smile his evil little smile and find some other chink into which he can drive a wedge.
He doesn't care, and I'd place MikeMoretta right alongside him, whether there's any rational basis for his arguments, he doesn't care whether he wins them or not, that's not his purpose. His purpose is to agitate, antagonize and alienate. Polarize. How many countless 'fronts' are there that started out as sincere coalitions or movements that have since been subsumed into the leftist agenda to destroy western society?
So, make your decision. I've lost my patience.
A founding member of the Viet Cong, in telling of his experiences, explained how the Viet Cong originally was a massively diverse collection of people. But, the communists played one against another until the communists were in charge. Then everybody danced to their tune... or else.
In his most recent subversion, Maph has created a post supposedly crying a warning about the threat to the (non-existent) separation of church and state by local law enforcement giving prostitutes a choice between christian rehab programs and jail.
One of the citations used in the article gave the whole thing away. It cited Al Jazeera. A publication, to be generous, with a distinctly Islamic orientation.
Hmm... an atheist site trying to agitate, colludes with an islamic publication to denigrate both of their biggest threats; Christianity. Threats to their agenda.
That's not the warning.
The warning is for you Objectivists who are also atheists. If you go along with this shit, if you continue to allow this campaign to go along unchallenged, you're going to lose conservatives. Objectivism will eventually become just another fringe cult philosophy, dismissed and ignore, effectively neutralized by Maph and his evil ilk.
Although khalling didn't deign to respond to my question, I posed her a dilemma:
You can support Christianity, you can become Moslem, or you can die horribly (which will probably happen if you become Moslem, anyway...). Which do you choose?
And yes, the wording is intentional so as to reflect the real world choice you *are* going to have to make, whether you want to or not.
if you continue in the delusional fantasy that Christianity is the real threat... you'll lose support along with your credibility. You'll be associated with antagonistic nutbars like Maph, and or islamic fundamentalists. Christians, agnostics, people otherwise open to Objectivism will associate you with the intolerant collectivist crowd and you will be marginalized. And Maph will smile his evil little smile and find some other chink into which he can drive a wedge.
He doesn't care, and I'd place MikeMoretta right alongside him, whether there's any rational basis for his arguments, he doesn't care whether he wins them or not, that's not his purpose. His purpose is to agitate, antagonize and alienate. Polarize. How many countless 'fronts' are there that started out as sincere coalitions or movements that have since been subsumed into the leftist agenda to destroy western society?
So, make your decision. I've lost my patience.
Not only that, they all ACT in the same manner. Many of them will willingly lie, distort facts, misrepresent a person's position, make false accusations, etc.
Most (not all) of the people who are activists in the below groups fall into this category:
Islam
Atheists
Homosexual Activists
Hindus
Liberal Christians (the ones who don't believe the Bible is the infalliable Word of God)
Buddhists
Communists
Socialists
Nazis
Fascists
Environmentalists (the extreme ones anyhow, we're all "environmentalists" as far as it makes sense to be one)
Liberals
etc...
They all have one thing in common, and only one. They *hate* the God of the Bible. Period.
Suppose for a second that in your mind you fully believed there was a God, the creator of the universe, the one whom we owe everything in our entire existence to. And that God had clear, concise direction on how you were to live your life, and how you were to hold Him and His name in honor. And that if we did not live our lives perfectly (because none of us do), that God has already decreed the punishment for that is death, and eternal separation from Him. But that same God also sent his very own Son to take your punishment in his place, and to be declared "not guilty", you simply had to turn your entire life over to his Son and live every moment for Him. Not perfectly mind you, but a genuine change of heart.
Would you in fact do a complete change in your life and follow him?
The answer to that, is "no", you wouldn't, because *I wouldn't either*. I was born the same way as every other human being on the planet, utterly and completely opposed to God. Though I would never admit it at the time, I hated the God I described above, the God of the Bible. I had invented my own concept of what God was, and loved that. But it wasn't the God of the Bible.
That's what I mean, everyone who's not a follower of Christ, at their core, hates the God of the Bible. They can't have it any other way, unless God opens their hearts so that they can do so. I was the same way, and so I can't hold it against anyone, because had He not done that for me, I'd still be the same way I was (which wasn't all that "bad" humanly speaking).
BUT, despite what I just said above, I can and will still point out the Truth that explains why people are they way they are.
I call myself a "shirt-tail Christian".
I was agnostic most of my life. Then, about 20 years ago I went through a self-inflicted bad patch, and threw up my arms in surrender. Surprise... things got better.
Then, a number of years later, for some reason or other, maybe I was in another internet argument, I started thinking about Christ on the Cross... and had an epiphany (just because others know something doesn't mean it's not an epiphany to yourself, y'know...)
Christ on the Cross, in my thinking, was not an apology to God for my sins; as an agnostic, I long railed against the idea that He should offer to pay for my "sins" without consulting me.
No, my reasoning went... it was a message to... me. Also billions of others. Actually, I think I now know where the epiphany came from....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv-67DFl...
Rand touched on it herself in the John Galt speech:
"To love a thing is to know and love its nature."
Logically, if God loves each of us, so much that He'd do that on our behalf... we have to have something going for us.
Christ on the Cross wasn't an apology to God, as I'd always believed it to be, but a message to us:
"You deserve this; be worthy of it."
Maybe it's because I've talked to a lot of women on the internet (a LOT of women), and you'd be surprised at how much otherwise shy women will open up with the anonymity of the internet. And I noticed how so many, many, *many* of them had low self esteem. Accomplished women. Intelligent women. Compassionate women. Industrious women. Physically beautiful women. Sometimes I wanted to grab them, give them a shake and shout, "LOOK at yourself! You're not the person you think you are! You're better than this!"
And while many here oppose Christianity on principle, I would like to point out that the first weapon used to enslave and oppress free individuals is to assault their self-esteem, their self-respect, their self-worth. Again, Rand demonstrated this time and again in both AS and The Fountainhead.
And here's a piece of a philosophy that says, "you're better than you give yourself credit for; be better."
(Irony; in spite of years of being a "shirt-tail Christian", it's only in recent weeks that I've begun acting on it on my own behalf.)
Anyway, that's when and how I became a shirt-tail Christian.
Edit: actually, I vaguely recall that I thought the ending to Saving Private Ryan reconfirmed my opinion, which means the epiphany preceded the movie... oh well.
There are tolerant atheists on here, and they were primarily the ones I was addressing.
The warning you sounded (Objectivists, you're losing the Conservatives) will be ignored. religion=mysticism=guilt trip laying zeros, don't you know. Religion is just as responsible for the sad state of society as the power thug enforcers of socialism, you see. That viewpoint went out over 50 years ago and immediately lost the Conservatives and Objectivists cared not in the least. Ayn Rand told people not to vote for Ronald Reagan because of his religious viewpoints. To the Objectivist crowd, you're either "pure" or an idiot. Then they divide up the "pure" group into "purer than thou" and "the enemy". They're doing a fine enough job subverting themselves without Maph's help, if you ask me!