We all breathe.

I agree. Plus, who is to say what is a sin? In the eyes of an Objectivist, religion could be seen as a "sin", selflessness that does harm to the self is a "sin" and collectivism is a "sin". So, by the Objectivist standard, we follow our morals for without morals, what are we? So should this sin that religious people say everyone commits be the "sin" of not being Objectivist or the "sin" of being one? For me, the latter is not a "sin" for it's what I believe is moral. In a world where everyone "sins", whose virtue is the judge?

There has been for probably about 100 years this perversion of Christianity that goes by the euphemism "the social gospel", and when you hear people talk from their viewpoint, it certainly does come across as Communist. However, if Christianity and Communism were really such close philosophical cousins, the USSR wasted a huge amount of time suppressing it.

2 Thessalonians 3
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread!

1 Timothy 5
If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.

in the first line_"we all sin" is the most immoral, a-individual, collectivist statement I could make. I do not make it, I do not accept it. This is an abomination of logic and morality. respectfully-gblaze

Depends on the 'religious' people. Liberalism has infiltrated Christianity as much as our schools. With 'feel good' 'let's all get along' abuse of what the Lord really wanted.

"are we all equally worthy of love? "

No not really, it's really about attitude and that we all sin, someone may desire to do us harm but we should not "return hate for hate" that's a pointless endeavor, now does that mean we will love everybody, not likely, as it's always said, we're a work in motion. It can also relate to Mathew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" It's so much easier to bring down others to make ourselves feel better about ourselves. Even Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Ryan, I am sorry. my opinions of your house and car have lowered.
just kidding :)

Yes, it requires a great deal of reasoning and thinking. Vegetarians and vegans tend to read nutrition labels more often for ingredients and such and so it's also easier for us to take into account the nutritional values of food. We worry more about the food we eat and tend to use our sense of reason to know what contains animal products and what does not.

If you are wondering about leather products, I own none. All of those things are a plastic material, foam, or some form of fabric.

well, I do wonder what Ryan's belts, couches and car seats look like. I'm kinda nosy like that:)

love thy neighbor.
are we all equally worthy of love?

Ryan, I once had a vegetarian friend explain how it is really difficult to be a vegetarian - mainly because everywhere you go, the brutal act of killing is hidden. Walk into a fast food joint, no sign of animals. The implication is that you must use your mind in all decisions as a vegetarian. Reasoned thought with such consistency is a sign of a strong mind indeed.

I am so involved in food (I own a several hospitality businesses, I also have an interesting gig with Whole Foods) that I can not find vegetarianism appealing. But I find the reasoned arguments compelling.

Tolerance is not the same as enabling. Coexisting is possible with tolerance. Without it, you must kill or hide (neither one is productive).

Even though Ayn Rand had zero tolerance of anyone who discards reason (like 90% of her fans). I can tolerate without encouraging. I can tolerate, while trying to change another's mind with reason; and move on rather than punch out those who ignore reason (or those that 'just don't get it').

Galt's Gulch is an ideal metaphor. Tolerance of the world's coercion by walking away. They were leaving the BS of the world, but more importantly, they were creating an environment free of coercion.

I've just noticed that a LOT of religious people support unity and equality under the same morality code. One even stated "it would be better of we were communistic user Judaism."

"Especially with my colleagues (most of which are religious and so support communism)."

I'm at a loss for this statement, I am a Christian and in no form a supporter of communism, and don't know anyone who would be either. I do not believe in pushing my beliefs on others, but will discuss them if and when asked. Again don't see the communist part.

well said. I never get the rationality of veganism though. Did you ever read the book Alive! ?

Democracy = rule of the mob
Republic = rule of law

Agreed.

The words "John Galt is Christ" were never typed my my hands. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum. John Galt was an Objectivist and Christ was a Religious Socialist. The only thing they share is my disbelief that they exist. Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction. No fictional character can leap off a page and save the day. It is a metaphor that I was stating. John Galt isn't simply a person. John Galt is the embodiment of Objectivism. He is all of us. And I simply stated that part about playing by societies rules...I only stated to show people their own hypocrisy. I would never compromise morals. It is against my philosophy. Compromise should be left to business, not on a social scale. Certain people were hinting to a moral compromise and so I was simply showing them a "mirror" and seeing if it would change their hypocrisy.

I never said I wasn't. Until taxation is voluntary, the looters are stopped, and all businesses are privatized, we will not be economically free.

Welcome RB. If you choose to be a vegetarian of your own free will, then there is no need to provide justification. If you choose to share your romantic interest, that is fine, but probably not relevant to why we are all here. Debate is welcome. No one person knows everything (although some act like they do), thus we learn from each other. That doesn't mean we always have to agree. I, for one, would take issue with Saint Ayn herself on a couple of points, but mostly agree with her Objectivist philosophy.

I saw secvet was all. lol

Think this is fitting :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPJPFnes...

wait. how did the argument come to this point? Oh. Christians' intolerance. only some denominations. shoot, I'm WAY more worried about economic freedom. why aren't you worked up about that, ryan?

eeehhhh. yuck. I bet they loved it