I am not clear about what you are saying. Are you saying the murders of the Old Testament do not count for some reason? It is the same god. In fact Christians claim a Holy Trinity and can’t seem to make up their minds whether they have one, two or three gods. In fact the Bible has two answers as to whether Jesus is god. If Jesus and god are one, then Old Testament counts even more.

Is Jesus a god who ushered in a new era?

The Bible says Yes. Mt 9.2-6; Mk 2.3-12; Jn 1.1, 14, 5.18, 8.58, 10.30, 38, 14.9, 20.28; Acts 20.28; Col 1.16, 2.9; 1 Tim 3.16; Tit 2.13; Phil 2.6; Heb 1.8; Rev 1.17, 22.13

And the Bible says No. Mt 19.17; 27.46; Mk 10.18, 15.34, 16.19; Lk 18.19; Jn 8.40, 14.28, 20.17; Acts 17.31; 1 Cor 11.3, 15.28; Col 3.1; 1 Tim 2.5; 1 Pet 3.21-22

Wells, Steve (2014-02-01). The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (Kindle Locations 66835-66843). SAB Books, LLC. Kindle Edition.

I have found no credible proof of the existence of a person named Jesus existed at the time alleged in the Bible. So, I that compounds the “Christian” aspect of a new era to me. But back to the murders. Are the cititations to chapter and verse in the Bible I gave to document the murders by the Great Diety accurate or not?

“Christians tend to ignore the Old Testament, and it’s not hard to see why. But the New Testament God is still a killer; he’s just saving most of his killings for later— for the end of the world. And when the new God kills, he doesn’t just kill his victims; he tortures them forever after they die. Still, there are three New Testament killings: Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, for not giving all their money to the church; Herod Aggripa, for not giving all the glory to God; and Jesus, because God needed someone to kill as a sacrifice to himself.”

Wells, Steve (2013-10-31). Drunk with Blood - God's Killings in the Bible (p. 267). SAB Books. Kindle Edition.

How does a "new era of understanding" fit with supposedly an inerrant book? Are all the murders properly cited? If yes, how can one "understand" them differently today than when they were allegedly done? If you believe in the Bible, then you must also believe in that god's killings. Salty has been ignoring my question regarding the accuracy of the citation to the murders by saying merely he read the Bible more than I have and then changing the subject. The question remains unanswered.

“Christians tend to ignore the Old Testament, and it’s not hard to see why. But the New Testament God is still a killer; he’s just saving most of his killings for later— for the end of the world. And when the new God kills, he doesn’t just kill his victims; he tortures them forever after they die. Still, there are three New Testament killings: Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, for not giving all their money to the church; Herod Aggripa, for not giving all the glory to God; and Jesus, because God needed someone to kill as a sacrifice to himself.” What a god.

Wells, Steve (2013-10-31). Drunk with Blood - God's Killings in the Bible (p. 267). SAB Books. Kindle Edition.

The Bible is an interesting book as you can generally make any point you wish to from it. It has gone through lots of different translations and manipulations. History is full of such things.

Like all things you have to use your mind and come to your own conclusions. You have to look for that which you think is right and then put it to the test in your own life. That should be true of anything you read or hear.

Well said DanShu, well said.

I too am Christian and with the exception of the atheist aspect of Objectivism find it rather a good compliment to my Christianity.

I got it from Facebook. It's attributed to a Matthew Schultz.

Interesting you use a quote from a man who spent his life looking for what he had faith is, and in many cases found it, but in the case of a unified theory of relativity does not appear to be and was what Einstein thought should be.

We have his advances because he believed in something that could not be seen and went through the process to prove it to his utmost ability but failed on the universal theory of relativity.

It is also interesting that Einstein had faith in a creator, not any specif religion but in a creator.

Freud recognized the value of religion, specifically aithism (which was his religion) and Judaism which he was born to. While he did not believe in a god he recognized the good that could and did often come from that belief.

Who knows? Clarity is rare in the Bible---except the blood and guts parts.

Didn't the mother enter into a potential contract with a unborn child when she agreed to engage in sex? After all, that is the root reason for sex. It seems to me that engaging in such activity without recognizing the potential outcome is denial and a violation of objectivist ideals.

By the same token, the male carries equal responsibility for the child - a fact that todays "breeders" ignore placing society as the responsibility for the outcome of their momentary enjoyment.

Hi All - going back to lurking. Be well.

If you going to say that about faith you would also have to apply it to confidence.

A belief in something that is not known but is true can be described equally by the word faith or confidence.

People can have an unreasonable faith in something, but they can also have an unreasonable confidence in something as well.

So is all belief in something that is unseen equate to A!=A. Or is simply not yet proven?

For a very long time the world was flat, for 200 years the either was what everything was floating in according to science. These things were regarded as fact, but later proven wrong by increased understanding.

The construct that denies A=A is not faith but a blind following of confidence/faith after string theory was proven wrong.

Einstein was likely guilty of this in his confidence in a unified theory of relativity which he spent 30 years on and never found. It may be yet to be discovered, but it looks doubtful. But then who would have thought that the general theory of relativity would have worked so perfectly just 15 years before he published it, which was before his original paper on the idea. Nearly no one.

He had faith in his ability and faith that their was a single formula to determine the relative position and movement of objects. Without faith he would have stopped working on it long before that.

Remove faith and you remove advancement of ideas. If no one believes no one will work towards the thing that cannot be done and finding what A really is would not happen.

I am a christian and I seem to be welcome here.

Yes.

You bet they do.

Religion throughout the ages has been a source of conflict since the start of man's history. At first it was idols. When one tribe conquered another tribe they smashed the loser's idols and made them worship theirs. Ah, but the Jews were cleverer. "You can't smash our God because he's (wait for it) INVISIBLE!" There's more to the history of Moses, but I've blasphemed enough for now.

I won't even need encouragement.

And just where would all the functions of the placenta and nutrient provision system come from in a masculine membrane of muscle. .

Objectivism is a philosophy of reason holding a true statement as one derived by reason from observation of reality. Christianity is faith based. religion which holds man's task is to know the truth of god's world by faith. The two are contradictory and mutually exclusive both philosophically and psychologically.

was that from Gutfeld??? -- j

.

I rejected the pitiful explanations which I received, as a child,

associated with religion. . Rand came along and helped me to

see rationality. . I followed. . Yes, there are many, many Sunday-only

Christians. . absolution comes to mind. . if rationality is used

all the time, groupthink can be avoided -- but it sure does

piss off the group organizers!!! -- j

.

see? . I voted you up again -- honor among thieves!

as an objectivist, I converse to inform, explain, learn, and

sometimes to persuade. . if my persuasion is successful,

it might be called "converting." . could help someone

live better and enjoy their life more, don't you think? -- j

.

there you go, again. . downvoting for effect. . Thanks!

wondering about the assertion by H6163741 that there might be

an association there is NOT agreement with that assertion. . OK? -- j

.

or looters. . I have seen a bunch who were looters --

who have used religious justification to gain compliance

with hidden force. -- j

.

could you elaborate, Michael? -- j

.