Dinesh's thesis is "American Greatness" see his books

Faith and Force are just two sides of the same coin, (Attila and Witch Doctor). No Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. should be allowed unless as khalling says: they take the Oath.

Some of my best friends are Christians. Too bad that they don't think the same of me.

Hey guys -- have you stopped to think that you are debating about words written by primitive people who were filled with superstition. Whose lore passed vocally through the generations became what was written after centuries? That's the perspective you need to keep in mind. When Moses became a shepherd, he became interested in Yaweh, the invisible god of the volcano. He adopted that very cleverly for a religion and it has stuck with us to the present. But let's not attribute more than what it's worth to it. There are a couple hundred "commandments" in the bible, the most common, those that everyone knew even before it was written down were the ten that Heston 'er Moses carved on a tablet. There are far more interesting and meaningful topics to discuss.

Exactly. Earlier, when we had questions for David Kelley, I asked a question about whether Objectivists could have founded the nation given the necessity of compromising with people with differing views in order to make this country. I thought his answer was interesting (whereas most of the people on this forum didn't seem to get the question). When I met him at Porcfest we discussed it further, the short answer is he would like to think so but some of them, clearly not.

It is not reasonable to hold so rigidly to one's ideas as to make progress in securing liberty difficult or impossible to achieve.

No. He'll just torture you forever and ever and ever if you don't believe in him.

Do you truly believe in the flood?

Before one can assert the words or works of a god, one must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2).

According to the divinely inspired and literal biblical figures, the world was formed in 4,000 B.C. when Adam was created. Methuselah was born 687 years after Adam, which would be the year 3317 B.C., and he lived for 969 years, which brings us to the year 2348 B.C.

The flood, which the bible tells us occurred when Methuselah’s grandson Noah was 600 years old, has been established by biblical scholars as being in the year 2448 B.C. The maths shows us that Methuselah must have lived 100 years after the flood. The question is this: Did Methuselah survive the flood by: (a) trading water; (B) holding his breath; or (C) disguising himself aboard the ark as an old goat?

The bible names two people named Jesus. To which are you referring?

You would curse me? With what? Flying flaming serpents? or something modern like Voodoo?

I doubt your life is better for your deeply held belief in a god, the grudge you carry against non-believers must weigh heavily upon your shoulders.

Providing an explanation when something is NOT written right is not proselytizing at all but correcting a wrong statement, which is REASONABLE!

After all you would not want to be accused at all of simply propagating something WRONG, because then A does not equal A then.

I think Galt was wrong.

You have not answered the questions I asked about the quotations accuracy, so I assume you agree they are accurate and try to change the subject by saying things are better in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. You are simply selecting what you want and discarding the rest.

According to 2 Timothy, Chapter 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, ...” which means you cannot discard the Old Testament for the New Testament without cherry picking.

I would like to see the end of all faith, not only the Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity. I don’t have any faith, I don’t respect faith, I don’t believe in faith, and I would be very foolish if, after a person has announced he holds his belief by faith, if were to then try to engage in discussion with him because the only means I have are reason, empirical demonstration, rules of evidence, and so forth. None of which are relevant to the grounds for his belief. So I usually don’t involve myself in such pointless interchange. I do so only when I detect a hint of actual intellectual curiosity.

People of faith want intellectual respect for positions not arrived at intellectually. They want the respect they know themselves they are not entitled to. They want others to treat their faith and mystical beliefs with the same respect another would treat a rational or scientific conviction. And when they do not get intellectual respect, they get antagonistic or offended.

I think it is clear in a case such as this, defensiveness is an issue of an intellectual bad conscience more than anything else.

Beyond all this, once a theist asks a person to give up reason and accept a proposition on faith, by what means can anyone determine the correctness of the statement?

I lover your mis-quoting of these scriptures and not explaining the context of them,.

My favorite one you have listed is the completely WRONG usage of what you say God sanctioning rape.

The owner of the house was trying to protect the guests as it was a custom to NOT ever let harm come to a guest in your home.

If you read a bit further:

Then the men of Israel said: “Tell us, how did this terrible thing happen?” 4 At this the Levite man, the husband of the murdered woman, said in answer: “I came to Gibʹe·ah of Benjamin with my concubine to stay overnight. 5 And the inhabitants of Gibʹe·ah rose up against me and surrounded the house by night. They meant to kill me, but they raped my concubine instead, and she died. 6 So I took my concubine’s body and cut it up and sent the pieces into every part of Israel’s inheritance, because they had committed a shameful and disgraceful act in Israel. 7 Now all you people of Israel, give your advice and counsel here.”
8 Then all the people rose up in unison and said: “Not one of us will go to his tent or return to his house. 9 Now this is what we will do to Gibʹe·ah: We will go up against it by lot. 10 We will take 10 men out of 100 from all the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000 and 1,000 out of 10,000 to collect provisions for the army, so that they may take action against Gibʹe·ah of Benjamin, in view of the disgraceful act that they committed in Israel.” 11 Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city united as allies.

Context is very important...but then again it is normal that liberals tend to only cherry pick things and ignore full context...

Most non-Christians think that they know about Christianity and then conclude certain "truths" about Christians without doing the legwork to truly understand what Jesus taught.
The Catholic Church hasn't helped.
But like most prejudices, the conclusion precludes the process of examination.

Economics - or should I say theft? - has been conflict's real basis through the ages. Religion has been used to rally the illiterate masses..

I think it's possible to be a rational christian, I'd like to think of myself as one. I know there are irrational atheists. However I think what more often passes as irrational atheism is not atheism at all but rabidly anti-god. As a rational christian I have to remember that whenever I am faced with contradictory "truths" to check the premise of each. Its not uncommon to find one or both positions based in errors or assumptions unfounded it proof. I think many Christians use faith as an excuse to not follow up on their sources. The 7,000 year earth guys base everything on a very old english translation of very old text. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The period that ends the sentence is significant. It doesn't say when or how. God could have made it with a bang, a really big one.

I am a Christian and I am against abortion unless the mother's health is in danger or has been raped.
I found links about abortion that are far more sickening than the following. I advise those who are not squeamish to find them yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boz--...

A potential life is not a life. A potential is not the equivalent of an actual. By demanding that a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, you are placing the potential life's interests above those of the actual life of the woman. Respecting how she chooses to spend her life is as important as her life itself. The argument that she probably won't die during pregnancy is irrelevant. If she does not wish to go through a birthing process, then she should not be forced.
The concept that a child is a consequence of sex is a misconception (excuse the pun) of sex itself. We are not breeding stock or barnyard animals. Sex is not solely for procreation, but for expressing love. It is also supremely enjoyable. Sex for its own enjoyment is possible. Rand says this point better than I do, so google it. But she is correct.

WRONG!!!! Faith does NOT deny A=A. Maybe based on your misinterpretation of faith it does but to any TRUE Christian, A=A, and Faith does not contradict that at all.

Within Faith Truth is Truth Period.

Next to directly answer the title any TRUE Christian accepts that a person has 100% free will to do with their life and their body as they see fit. I will provide an analogy.

If you decide YOU want to stand in the middle of a lane on a super busy freeway maybe wander using a blindfold at night wearing flat black clothing, and tell me that is what you are going to do, I will tell you you are not doing something smart and YOU will receive in yourself full recompense due your error. Romans 1: 24 - 27
It would not be the fault of the bus driver that runs you over you die, it would be YOUR fault.

I also have complete faith you will be dead by morning also cause many other people potential harm. It is of course your choice, and your free will to do such a stupid thing.

Likewise, and I am sure the title of this is referring to Abortion, you will receive in yourself full recompense due what I consider your error for having an abortion, potential physical harm, infections, emotional distress after the fact and so on, however again YOUR choice.

If you are claiming to be christian and have an abortion you will answer for this to God, again YOUR choice on the outcome of YOUR free will.

A=A Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. I have total faith that YOU will without a doubt experience the impact of your decision potentially negative later in life. Again YOUR choice, and my faith does not contradict at all A=A.

Edited for hitting enter at wrong time.

Based on the GG purpose on the right of this site, participants should at least be striving to be Obj.ists or wanting to learn more of the philosophy without irrational criticism. So a Christian can be welcome if he is trying to understand Obj.ism vis a vis religion and not to preach.

There's a lot of history in the bible, both old & new if you can cut through the subsequent alterations. One of the most interesting things to come to light of late is the revealing of the excluded books especially on the story of Jesus (Yoshua).

The hatred within Christianity is for life and the self. Pride is a sin to a Christian. Pride is a virtue in Objectivism. Self-abasement and self-denial are virtues in Christianity, self worth and self esteem are values in Objectivism. The two concepts are incompatible... While in some instances they may seem to come to similar conclusions or have similar outcomes in the real world, those outcomes are due to those who ignore the altruistic teachings, not due to those who follow them.

Our country was not built on charity, self-denial, and asceticism, but on rational selfishness, egoism, and the pursuit of personal happiness. While our founders felt that our inalienable rights were the result of divine providence, Rand demonstrated that it is from the inherent value in our lives that our rights extend. A deity is no where in that picture, especially not one that demands absolute obedience and worship.

Isn't that the real question: what is the purpose of this blog? If it is discussion among Obj.ists, then the answer is no. But I have certainly seen a lot of non-Obj.ists here; and that is good if they want to learn about it.

There is a fundamental difference between religious acceptance and objective reality, it is the difference between belief and understanding. To believe means to accept something as true on faith and without evidence or proof. To understand is to have a testable model of the behavior of some aspect of reality and to be able to successfully use that model in the performance of some desired function. Our ability to use our understanding of electricity is an example. While we do not "know" what electricity "is" we have have an extensive and useful understanding of how electricity behaves. This understanding supports the design of countless devices that perform useful functions. "Belief" is a metaphysical concept while "understanding" is a testable scientific principal. Can these two diametrically opposed pictures of reality co-exist? Oddly, they can. I have several friends that are physicians with a deep understanding of biology and they are simultaneously deeply religious. It reminds me of the Alice in Wonderland character that could hold two impossible and diametrically opposed thoughts in her mind at the same time. A very interesting talent.

Is faith necessarily a construct that denies A is A? If you're talking about faith in a magical, higher power, I can go along with that. But consider how faith (in some better outcome) got some through Auschwitz and other "camps" while those without it quickly shriveled and died.