A Quick Introduction

Posted by deleted 12 years, 8 months ago to The Gulch: Introductions
119 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I truthfully know not what to say. I am part of this site, so I am Objectivist. And since you are too, that needs no explaining. I am a proud homosexual and a vegetarian. I feel as if I wouldn't hurt a human, so why use force against an animal? I mean, unless they strike first, which Objectivism says is alright to use force against those who use it against you. I believe that humans are animals and so animals deserve at least humane treatment (although they don't understand morality, rationality, philosophy, and money and so shouldn't be ensured with those expectations). I play the viola and love to play it when I feel stressed. Classical music is my favorite. My favorite thing to do? Debate. Especially with my colleagues (most of which are religious and so support communism).


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
    I hope you're not one of those people who have a "Coexist" sticker on your vehicle. Question: How does one "coexist" with a civilization who's bent on killing you simply because you don't believe them? If you think I'm talking about Christianity, you're way off course. Christians tolerate, to the point they die for it. Just ask the Coptic Christians in Egypt. Ask them how the Religion of Peace is tolerating them.

    Anyways, you and I don't have much in common. Welcome to the Gulch anyway.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
      I am not a hippie...no, I refuse to coexist with non-Objectivists...for, a truly Objectivist society cannot exist if we must compromise our morals with the non-Objectivist. That is a contradiction to Objectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
        ryan. I imagine that is hard road to hoe. more isolationist than heteros who are Objectivists. then throw in the vegan-well...;)
        I do not know what a hippie XD is. the Objectivist co-exists every day with the non-Objectivist. There is a tipping point, however. and I believe we have reached it
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
          Sorry, the "XD" part was my iPhone and its annoying autocorrect feature. Yes. Until the whole world accepts Objectivism, we are forced to coexist and compromise morals...though that hurts the morals of any Objectivist. For, where else is there to run for fellow Objectivists? Communism is controlled by the government, a republic is controlled by the rich, a dictatorship is controlled by one man, and democracy is controlled by the majority. So, where is there for an Objectivist? There is no place yet, and so, I wait for our utopia to come, and when it does, we will be free of moral compromise! And that day, that day which Ayn Rand would have loved in the deepest recesses of her mind, Objectivists will flock to our utopia, our real-life John Galt, and be free of those that constrain us.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
            All democracies end in tyranny. That's why our Founding Fathers created a Republic. It's not about the "rich" ~ stop believing in the spoon-fed communist crap from college. A republic is about checks and balances ~ something Ovomit does not respect and is diligently destroying. Please, no utopia's.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
              Ah, but a republic is not much better. For whose morality do we follow? Even if an Objectivist wished to gain improved individual right, the majority would still deny and thus would be useless. Unless it is a society in which the Objectivist rules of morality can be freely applied without compromised morals, then it will not be a "good" government.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
                This republic was founded on Christian principles. I'm not going to tell you the thousands of examples in the journal and/or diary entries of the founding fathers in which either "creator" or God was mentioned. Do your research. If you still drown in denial, I'm not going to help you.

                Our civilization and it's morals have been Christian based. Why? Christianity doesn't change. Why's that? Because the Bible doesn't change. Why's that? Because the Lord said the Bible can't be changed. Where does it say that? Read Revelations, Chapter 22 verses 18 and 19.

                That's why the Lord is sometimes called our "Rock" ~ meaning solid, firm. Any morality that's not based on Christianity is built on shifting sands. Those 'morals' will change. Just ask any tyrant.

                Getting back to 'tolerance'. Christians tolerate a lot. Even people who do not agree nor believe in Christ. Objectivist? Great. I'm not going to kill you and I'm pretty sure you're not going to kill me. That means we can work together and get on with life. I dare you to try this with Islam, I'll have my Springfield on backup when they freak out on you.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rozar 12 years, 7 months ago
                Republics are ruled by the law and as an objectivist your goal should be using reason to explain the proper role of government and individual rights. From those two blocks grow a healthy republic, one based on the correct morals to sustain human life and happiness.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ kathywiso 12 years, 8 months ago
            Ryan, I don't think it is just going to show up. Who is John Galt?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
              Yeah, Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction. Maybe a John Galt will show up one day to rescue the Objectivists, though that day does not seem to be anywhere in the near future, and so we must play by society's rules until then. All we can do is push and try.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 8 months ago
                Okay...I can't stand it. John Galt is not Christ...he's not "coming for us" and he's not "going to show up and rescue the Objectivists". That is YOUR job...rescue yourself. The time to Galt (on whatever level you can) is here..it's now! And we do not have to play by society's rules..unless you're a hypocrite. You're dealing from both sides of the deck. Make sense or stop talking. (Took the kinders on a field trip today to our local grocery store...walked there actually...my favorite part was when we were in the meat cutters cooler and they showed us how they cut tbone steaks...he held of a side of beef and said, "and here's where the spinal chord used to be." I love teaching children the truth about food and where it comes from. :))
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
                    I'd like to see some specific examples of Christ being a socialist. Just curious. Religious? Duh. A relationship with Christ is a (gasp) individual one, not collective.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
                      um, look at my posts to lionel
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
                        Point given.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
                          this is my issue with the organized part of it. if one could agree to disagree on the religion of Christianity, but then when you look at each denomination and the rules and rituals for each-that certainly isn't very individualistic. heck-the Catholics didn't even want their parishioners to read the bible. and then we have Kings changing Bible versions, and we have some chanting in tongues and wrestling snakes....
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
                            Why wouldn't the leaders of the local Catholic church NOT want their members to read the Bible? Because it would mean they would lose the power over them. Did you know the Pilgrims used the Geneva Bible? Why? Because it was the purest form (versus the King James Bible, as you mention) taken directly from the original texts. (I have one)

                            Whenever people start taking responsibility and learning something for themselves instead of relying on someone else, that's when you have Independence. I have many issues with the Catholic church, but will not discuss them here. Likewise, you won't catch me playing fiddle with rattlesnakes and other varmin praising Jesus. My luck would be to get bit, die and then Jesus would ask me. "Why did you play with snakes? I gave you a brain, why didn't you use it?" I'd be begging for forgiveness of my stupidity...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by prakash_iyangar 12 years, 8 months ago
    Your comment about being a vegetarian is an interesting one.. you say its because humans are animals and then you provide exceptions to this rule.. but the fact of the matter in Ayn Rand's world.. those very qualities (morality, rationality, philosophy, and money) are the ones that differentiate human from animal..

    I have no problem with vegetarians (infact I used to be one before i discovered i liked how meat tasted ;) just around the time I was 20) but i find the premise of equating humans with animals as unworthy..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
      Ah, but I have stated that our difference is our mind. Our rationality. For, our flesh is the same. And that is the reasoning behind it. I would not feast on the flesh for that is our commonality. But I would not equate to them, for I have rationality and the wild animal does not. They take their earnings by force, not productivity...and thus they are corrupt. I would not offer them a place in our society for they cannot be human.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
        they are going to come up with something that shows an orange shrieking in pain as it is picked from the tree. oh. they have.
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandquerie...
        Once you accept your premise, I just don't see the logic in where you draw your line. btw, what is your stance on abortion?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 12 years, 7 months ago
          Abortion? As long as it does not yet have a heartbeat then I support it. For, only absolutes matter, not possibilities. Just because it could become a human being does not mean it must. For the tree is just as guilty of its cells not joining into a human as the cells in the womb. But once its heart begins to beat and it's rationality begins to form, it becomes human and would then be murder. And, before it has a heartbeat, what makes it any more deserving than all the sperm and eggs that do not become human? Every second you do not conceive, that denies millions of possible births. So, just because it has a few more cells does not make it human. A mind and heart do.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Neil 12 years, 8 months ago
    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.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
      What I'm sick of is Islamist kill (because Mohammed commanded them to) and kafirs (everybody who isn't a muslim) hide. Those who choose not to hide and instead fight them are labled as "haters", "warmongers" and other leftist nonsense. These people are dhymmis.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 12 years, 8 months ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 8 months ago
    If you were starving would you kill an animal to survive? Just curious.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
      What if I was starving? I try not to ask "what if"...but for the sake of answering...no I would not. If you were poor, would you become a looter?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 8 months ago
        No, but I would kill an animal so my kids don't starve. You try not to ask "what if"? How do you plan your future in today's climate without asking what if?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 7 months ago
          You should try the dead animal flesh I put on my grill. mmmm, mmmmmm, good.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago
            was it steak? that's what is happening here in the gulch
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 7 months ago
              Oh yes, Steak, beef Tri Tip, Beef ribs (my favorite, but a bit difficult in prepping), pork steak, marinated chicken breasts, my Hawaiian Chicken kabobs...buffalo burgers. I'm prepping my grill this weekend for the new season, the neighbors will soon know it's time to get grilling.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago
                pork steaks. St. Louis. we do kabobs-but not the Hawaiian kind- in part because that fresh pineapple thing to meat. here, pineapple is easily come by and so canned pineapple is very, I mean very expensive.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 7 months ago
                  Where are you at in which canned pineapple is expensive? Are you some scientist, stuck in a hole in Antartica?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago
                    no, in central america. canning certain things in this country isn't as profitable as shipping the product out to be canned elsewhere. then bringing it back in...I'm in an area where things like that are imported. think...boat
                    but fresh is abundant and cheap. canned things I can do myself. but I have not been able to figure out that enzyme thing with pineapple.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago
                you have 30 of your best friends coming over for dinner? Are they all AR fans?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 7 months ago
                  That would be nice. 30 people would require some preparation in advance for sure. I'd have to use my other grill too. (A man CANNOT have just one grill)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago
                    how many grills do you have? a nice gas grill, a weber, what else? a smoker? I love to roast ducks. my a l'orange sauce is kicked up with heat. no one talks during the dinner-only downside to duck. 30 AR neighbors coming over for a BBQ dinner. hmmmm. nice and in our dreams :)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 7 months ago
                      Roast duck sounds real good, BTW. It's been a while since I've had it. Occasionally, my wife and I will prepare one for Thanksgiving. Yes, no one talks when having duck. Too damn good.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago
                        thanksgiving for us as well! on fake pewter plates with pewter goblets. sigh. sometimes I miss the stuff. but home stuff is not important when on an adventure
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 7 months ago
                      Charcoal only. I have two Meco's, one is the usual 350 square inch one, and the other is a rare tabletop one, similar to the Weber one. I once used both to cater to about 15 people a while back and they were full when it was all done. I served steak and my custom marinated chicken breasts. The one comment I'll never forget was "Damn, the chicken looks and tastes like it came from a restaurant". I was flattered. It was unexpected.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
          Ah, but you misunderstand. I would not change my morals for any reason. Would I become a Christian if I was the only atheist left? No. Would Ayn Rand have quit Objectivism if nobody followed her? No. My morals are the one thing that will not waver. If I did not trust my own morals, why have any at all? And I plan my future with certainty. Do you think Ayn Rand ever asked "what if this doesn't work out" or Dagny Taggart asked "well what if this fails"? No. If they had, Objectivism would not exist and the Taggart line would have been sold at the beginning of Atlas Shrugged.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
            so if you are a vegetarian for moral reasons, how do you explain how this is consistent with Objectivism? Are all animals morally equal? if so, should we put a lion in jail for eating a zebra?
            animals and people are not the same. let's start from choice vs. morality
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
              I never said they were equal. In fact, I said they were incapable of morality and philosophy. But that doesn't mean we must be. I have sworn to only threaten a life if it threatens mine first...and so I put that for all animals. If I can go my whole life as vegetarian, as a human can live happily without slaughtering an animal, then I see it as avoiding useless slaughter. It's a personal choice. We have no right to police animals, for they do not understand law and will never understand. So, I am not saying apply human morality to the animal kingdom. I am simply saying that I try to keep myself as far away from their behavior as possible. They may kill, but that is because they have no philosophy. I have philosophy and so I do not kill.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Neil 12 years, 8 months ago
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 8 months ago
    "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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
      love thy neighbor.
      are we all equally worthy of love?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LionelHutz 12 years, 8 months ago
        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.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 8 months ago
        "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"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
          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
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 8 months ago
            How so? unless we believe that we are completely perfect and do everything correctly, in thought or otherwise. I would rather see myself as a 'sinner' than perfect, I provide less disappointment to others as well as myself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
              that is a lame brained way to go about things blaze. once that is your premise-you better start controlling all the sinning. I prefer to see you as a good individual thinker. someone striving to make the best decisions, take the right choices and put them into action. will you screw up occasionally? sure. but you'll learn and get right back to the good choices. why? because it's part of being Man.
              "Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute." AR, For the New Intellectual, Lexicon
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 7 months ago
                Okay so the only thing you can do is retort with name calling? Like a leftist would do, "you don't agree with me so I'll resort to name calling and discrediting because I have no other argument!"
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 12 years, 7 months ago
                  I was referring to your methodology, not you personally. the second sentence shows great respect for how I see you. I meant to be provocative to someone who reasons well in their comments. I apologize if I offended you. My goal was to get you to respond to the 9/10th of the comment, which was a formulated argument
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 7 months ago
                    "lame brained"? If you had called him that and said nothing further then maybe that would be considered leftist name calling...maybe, but it would've been a lame brained attempt at name calling lol
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
            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?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 12 years, 8 months ago
              "Why does Man need a code of values"
              Sin does not not need to be a part of this answer.
              "Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. " (Causality vs. Duty, Philosophy Who Needs It, AR, Lexicon)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
      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."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 8 months ago
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 8 months ago
          You are spot on with your factual statement. Liberals love to say that Christ was a pacifist. That is such a croc of BS. Did Christ really tolerate evil? You make the call. Did Christ uphold the traditions of men? You make the call. Ok, I can't take it, here's the spoiler: NO.

          He was not a pacifist; because he knew (via the Holy Spirit) what was in men's hearts, he was able to stop them in their tracks. He challenged the "establishment" of the day and ridiculed them for not upholding God's law, but rather the traditions of men. When Christ saw something wrong, he challenged it. He did not "tolerate" anything that was not in accordance to the Father's Word.

          The point is, liberals are wrong about Christ. Don't believe them. Don't believe me, read the Bible and read it for yourself.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 8 months ago
            You are exactly right one other thing that conflicts with liberalism is Christianity believes in one ultimate truth, and that is God, liberalism believes in relativism or moral collectivism as I call it. And yes Christ was a radical for his day. Back then the Pharisee's were the interpreters and law bringers of God's word, no one else could read scripture only the pharisee's could which lead to corruption and a power base for them to perpetuate whatever they wanted by saying "this is what God wants" Christ was a threat to them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo