- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
reality -- which we attempt to engage objectively -- is considered
appropriate for adults in the gulch. . pretty friendly interchanges,
all told. . including many libertarians!!! -- j
.
I am assuming that all religions are based on some version of some god. Being Christian by parental decree, I rejected that at age 18; then and in '64 Atlas Shrugged became my bible as Rand's rational attack on religion struck me.
But along the way I came to realize "I can't know, I don't know, so why bother?" which marks me agnostic.
My problem with religion is Blind Faith, which I view as a stupid way of making choices. In the "political" bloggers I simply ignore those who use their Bible to justify anything whatsoever. Proof must be better than that!
The only Gulch I can envision in whatever remains of my lifetime is my own homestead, and those of others about which we rarely know.
Presumably, Johnpe focused on Christianity for this topic because it is the dominant religion in this country, it is the religion behind religious conservatives, and it is the religion that most often shows up on this forum as confused with being compatible with Ayn Rand's ideas.
Whether Christian or any other religion, my problem is with Blind Faith, using that as a substitute for reality and truth. I consider that was also the essence of Ayn Rand. It would probably have been better had she been less adamant, as by that she invited the disdain of those who "feel" sincerely religious. Sad.
The essence of Ayn Rand's ideas was her philosophy of reason and egoism, not rejecting faith. Rejecting faith is a consequence, not the central point. Atheism is a negative position, only rejecting the supernatural. She emphasized what she was for. She emphatically rejected religion but did not dwell on it unnecessarily. She once said that she is an atheist but not a militant atheist. She had more important things to write and think about. But her adamantly rejecting it when it came up was required by integrity. There would have been no justification for pandering to the "sincerity" of something so destructive and so fundamentally opposed to her philosophy and support of the good.
was first evident to others when I began to use common terms in an
effort to communicate. . I could not get things across to many, without
using their language. . that's how I got to the use of "faith" and "God" in
the process of identifying the unknown. . the acceptance of my ideas
increased as a result. . I found my second wife as a result. . I became
friends with my parents as a result. . before they died a year apart, '91 - '92.
this effort to integrate rationality has worked. -- j
.
the predominant religion in the u.s. and my experience shows
that there are Christians who belong here. . IMHO. -- j
.
.
and attack the producers. . taking the oath is essential, yet
there are people (perhaps not here) who lie their way through life. -- j
.
a good guy to share the holidays, like the 4th, with!!! -- j
.
is exactly what I am trying to advocate, here. . being positive
never hurt a discussion so much, I suppose. . but I had help. -- j
.
interference in others' lives is particularly reprehensible,
in my view. . yet the confidence in a possible better day tomorrow
can carry you through ....... and that faith is good!!! . imho. -- j
.
intrinsic in their view? . I have been wondering for years!!! -- j
.
See Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the history of western philosophy.
including Christ and God -- and turn inward solemnly for insight
in making life choices. . they might call this activity prayer.
it seems to me that the identification with the "order within the universe"
is only natural, for a thoughtful human. . from what we know so far,
natural order is magnificent in its complexity and elegance. . seeing
oneself as part of that is what I'm calling natural. . and it is logical
to attempt to find the right answers for oneself, now, in that context,
and to call it wisdom. . I can take the oath and intend to call on
all of the insight and wisdom at my command, however it might be
conjured up for use. . I might smoke dope to open myself up
for wisdom (I don't), or I might use meditation. . we all use our
own ways of living for our own sake and not for others'. -- j
.
.
I would think you of all people would be flagged as a producer as much as you consider yourself an Objectivist.
Thanks,
Scott
was and is not an attempt to do that. . it is instead a question about whether
people who are students of objectivism and Christian might make
good compatriots with those who are also students of objectivism
and non-Christian. . Thanks, Scott!!! -- john
.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wo...
"soul," the unknown deep individual identity unique in that person? -- j
.
.
.
Luke 6:32-35
32 βIf you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
-The opposite of trading value for value. This is commanding us to give up our values to those from who we would not expect any value in return: giving our love to the wicked, our our good works to those who do us harm, and our money to those who will only ask for more. A rationally selfish person would only love someone worthy of their love. A Christian is expected to love their enemies. That, to a rationally selfish person, is an abasement of the concept of love, as love is an emotional response to seeing your highest values reflected in another. To give such a high value to someone who would do you harm lowers the value of the love to which you provide those who share your values.
Altruism is not just about giving money to the poor, but about trading value for something of less or no value. If you give to someone and it makes you happy, then that is trading value for value. If you attempt to give love to your enemy and get hurt in return, that is altruism and is exactly what Christianity espouses.
I have never been in a physical fight ... but once. . I was attacked by
a bully when I was a kid, maybe 12. . he wanted someone to beat up,
it seemed, just for "fun." . he started out by saying something like
"I don't like your attitude." . so, I agreed. . then, he said, "and your
mother dresses you funny." . so, I agreed. . then he hit me
a couple of times to no effect, and left. . I had taken the fun out of it.
people can, on a trial basis, extend a hand of optimistic rationality
to their enemy, to the scammer, to the thief, to the rapist, and once
in a while there will be a positive response. . if not, like Heinlein said,
they can use force with impunity. . in self defense.
this is a tactic which some consider wise. -- j
.
.
My cousin told me to say that.
penlight, slide rule, pez dispenser....... -- j
.
"Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High" that is my value and as I said "You may not place any value in what I receive but I do."
Thank you johnpe1. I have been in fights, I never started one but I have always stood up when I had to. I was visiting home from college and was in a bar. A much smaller friend of mind had been seeing a girl that the third baseman of the local community college thought was his girlfriend. And to be honest I knew her and she was defiantly not a one man girl. 9 of these guys came into the bar looking for a fight, I stood with him watching our other friends slip out the back. Luckily the bartender liked us and the cops showed up before we got beat to a pulp. And here's the point, what did I gain by JohnC' valuation? Nothing. Here's what I know I gained. It's a small town and they know I'll stick with you in troubled times. After several working lives I'm back in my home town as an independent financial adviser and a lot of the times my door opens people just want to talk or need advice on unrelated matters. But as I said its a small town, people talk and you can't buy that kind of advertisement. I get paid and blessed in more ways than I deserve.
a situation like yours. . I do know that there was no bragging by my bully
the day after, at school. . he usually had bragged about the people
whom he had beat up, the day before. . he was just so confused
by the way he was treated. . too bad. -- j
.
in supporting those less fortunate -- for personal
gratification. -- j
.
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--...
One thread Timelord used a definition of life.
Based on his "Objectivist" definition of life, a fetus is human life and entitled to all rights you and I are then, making abortion murder.
You cannot really have the argument both ways.
Your assertion that based on Objectivism "a fetus is human life and entitled to all rights" and "abortion is murder" is false. You don't know what you are talking about. Your religious proselytizing and attacks on Ayn Rand do not belong here.
What makes you think I am Catholic, really? good grief...What "Church" are you talking about, certainly not one I have ever attended.
Birth control, I love sex for pleasure, and you need to be responsible for YOUR decisions, if that means being responsible for 18 years because you were to damn freeking STUPID to control yourself then SO BE IT!!!
Meanwhile crack whore Sally Ann visits Planned Parenthood for the upteenth time as Obama applauds.
What is wrong with this picture?
A rational thinker does not need religion to figure stupid out. An unborn baby also has rights.
Ayn Rand's philosophy systematically explains the basis of morality in human nature and the moral basis of rights. Both apply to persons, not the unborn potential. She also explained why a woman has the moral right of abortion and why she rejected the church dogma and campaign against abortion.
You can read her basic principles of ethics and rights in The Virtue of Selfishness, Chap 1 "The Objectivist Ethics" and Chap 12 "Man's Rights", and her position on abortion in particular in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, Chap 8 "Of Living Death".
Take my Christianity. I believe evolution is a fact and not a theory. So I do not 100% believe in what is written in the Old Testament.
There is also evidence that a great flood occurred exclusively in the Mediterranean region way back when people were on the planet.
I'm a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but when he said smoking is not addictive I was a smoker then knew better. I quit and it hurt.
Anyway, a fetus is alive and and has rights. I'm not alone with my point of view--
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.co...
As I also wrote about what I thought--
Ayn Rand I do adore
But Jesus is the door.
The New Testament came much later than the Old and never in any religion has so much detailed description been written about the life and times of Jesus Christ.
Believe it or not. That was the original choice before of course power hungry people warped the whole thing pretty quick.
Ayn Rand was an atheist. I'm not.
So we're different. And so what? She does possess valuable insights. So does what Confucius say . .
a perfect way to expand the knowledge of our members and readers!!! -- j
.
2) If so Timelord provided a definition for life.
3) If Timelord whom YOU have defended as an Objectivist used the definition I mentioned, then either a. The definition is correct withing Objectivist philosophy, or b. Timelord is not using the definition right and misinterpreted the definition of life within Objectivist philosophy.
4) If the definition is true, then a. a fetus is human life and entitled to all the rights a human has, making abortion Murder by the legal statues, or b. the definition is false, and Timelord made the mistake.
Either way no matter how I was neither misinterpreting nor misrepresenting anything, simply making a logical observation based on one of the Gulches more prolific Objectivists.
So please pick which is true and false. Or provide in your "opinion" what the REAL definition of LIFE is, and we can go from there.
The above had EVERYTHING to do with consistency of thought, which you lack in your response.
You talk of moral right. Look at the Objectivist Oath, and meditate on each aspect of it.
And because I can tell you simply want things handed to to you without effort, here is what Timelord used as a definition of life. Again this is NOT religious. And you in many previous posts laud Timelord as an Objectivist, therefore the definition HE provided for life must be Objectivist.
Timelord provided this as the definition:
Posted by Timelord 17 hours, 39 minutes ago
(Life itself cannot be "defined") Why do you insist on making these outrageous claims that are so very simple to disprove?
1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Based on that a fetus from the point of conception meets the qualification of life. PERIOD. A fetus from conception reacts to stimuli, metabolizes, grows, is most definitely animate, and is most certainly functional exhibiting a force separating it from a dead thing.
That makes a Fetus "ALIVE" from the point of conception. That Fetus is a Human Life. All Human life in these United States are entitled to all the protection of the Constitution of these United States.
Since it is illegal to knowingly "stop" a human life against its will, planning and executing such an action is by definition 1st degree murder that makes abortion murder, by all legal secular definitions using Timelord's definition of life as a legitimate Objectivist definition. Also since Timelord is a devout atheist you should accept his definition as an objectivist and a fellow atheist. NONE of whatI pointed out here is religious but 100% secular ind logical AND consistent. Few little of YOUR argument is either logical or consistent, making your argument unreasonable, and contrary to any view of Objectivism.
Now if you disagree with Timelord's definition of life, then I put it to you to provide a definition of life that IS acceptable to you. My bet is you cannot provide a definition of life that does not prove that a fetus meets the qualifications of life, and is entitled to all rights of a human being.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/phy...
Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiateβdo you hear me? no man may startβthe use of physical force against others.
So abortion IS physical force against another, given the definition of life which is according to Ayn Rand UNFORGIVABLE and EVIL.
Now to take this a step further.
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/...
"According to conventional wisdom, an embryo becomes a boy when a gene on the Y chromosome triggers the development of testes, which then begin to produce male sex hormones, including testosterone, at about the 8th week of gestation."
Now if at 8 weeks gender and "gender preference" is in play then that life by the definition provided, has also taken on more complex traits of identify. Then that life is even further defined and if most certainly MURDER to abort.
So please pick one stand to take and be consistent.
.
.
To determine if there is an irresolvable conflict that would keep Christians out of the Gulch is very difficult due to the wide variety of people who call themselves "Christian". I chose to focus on three texts which (while not authoritative) are representative of what Christians tend to believe: The ten commandments, the Apostle's Creed, and Jesus's opinion of the most important commandment(s).
The Oath required for admission to the Gulch does not seem to directly contradict any of the ten commandments. The first 4 are about reverence for God, which many Objectivists object to, but it is not "forbidden" by the Oath to have reverence for a higher being, only to not live for the sake of another man. Honor your father and mother, again, may be contentious to some, but I don't see showing my parents "honor" the same as "living for them". The remaining five are basically Objectivist principles, don't use force against your neighbor. (with the possible exception of adultery, which has been recently discussed and I won't pick sides here). My conclusion: belief in the Ten Commandments will put you at odds with many in the Gulch, but I do not see that it violates the Oath.
The apostles creed has much the same result (I won't quote it here for fear of downvotes ;-) ). It expresses belief in a rather intangible entity, and life after death, but does not offer to live for another person. Again, not a very Objectivist viewpoint, but no direct conflict with the Oath.
Third are the words of Jesus when asked about the greatest commandment. His respponse was two-fold - the greatest commandment is to honor God (paraphrasing here); but the second is like it - love your neighbor as yourself. This to me is the closest I found to living for the sake of another man - but stops short of making that commitment.
Still, the extent to which a person takes these biblical teachings to heart vs how strictly they follow Objectivism can provide a wide range of viewpoints. Some individuals would probably find themselves uncomfortable in the Gulch; some might even find themselves unwelcome. But based on my reasoning above (which is certainly NOT authoritative, and I welcome comments) I don't see anything specific that would prevent a Christian from taking the Oath and entering the Gulch.
But no one should think he has to or should want to take any kind of "oath" to discuss or ask questions about Ayn Rand's ideas if he finds himself attracted to Atlas Shrugged and wants to learn more.
You don't decide in advance to "become an Objectivist", like joining a club or a church and then finding out what it is like. You seek knowledge and try to understand all you can, then wind up being called whatever you are as the result of that process, usually years later.
the philosophy with a category of stuff set aside for further exploration
called "God" in which I have "faith." . you can have your opinion, ewv,
and I can have mine. . your repetitions are boring. -- j
.
p.s. did you ever have a vette? . photo?
.
.
some serious mechanicking....... great car!!! -- j
.
.
Take note that the greatest atrocities committed by man required the abolition of religion, specifically Judeo-Christian teaching, as a prerequisite.
The greatest scientific thinkers in history recognized that science explained the existence of God, it did not explain away God. Yes, there have always been small-minded church leaders that sought to stifle the expansion of knowledge, but that was to secure their own power.
Please do not be confused about this. If you are attracted to the sense of life in Atlas Shrugged then find out what Ayn Rand's philosophy is and how it made Atlas Shrugged possible.
Regarding the Dark Ages, as has been explained multiple times in this string, "the church" is religion. The church had become tyrannical in maintaining its power, which has no basis in Christianity.
Rand's fundamental miscalculation (and this is coming from a Rand fan) is in not recognizing that not only to natural rights comes from our Creator, but that freedom/liberty can not exist without being tethered to Judeo-Christian principles. This is particularly ironic considering her hatred for communism, which outlaws religion.
Tyrants must remove religion (particularly Judeo-Christian beliefs) as an organizing principle, because that removes our natural rights, which is essential to maintaining control.
As stated previously, it's profoundly contradictory for those espousing reason to believe that something as basic as a pencil requires a creator, but those most complex machine in the universe (humans) does not.
I would refer you to the greatest scientific minds in history (Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, and host of others) who realized that the glory of science and creativity was that it brought us closer to understanding God, it did not substitute God.
Western culture, which is based is Judeo-Christian values and morality, is what makes freedom/liberty possible. You failed to address the correct assertion that in order for tyrants to rule, they must first eliminate Judeo-Christian faith. History is replete with examples of this, and tens of millions died as a result.
The problem is that Christianity is rationally inconsistent and actually often puts down rational thinking, like the scientific method. Asking for proof, specifically. Doesn't Jesus state that a person who believes without proof is more "blessed" than one who requires proof to believe? Faith is accepting something in the absence of proof, which is opposite of rational thinking.
What tyrants need to do to rule is to suppress individual thought and to promote collectivism in any of its forms, including racism, nationalism, religion, socialism, communism, classism, etc. While many (not all) of our western thinkers who brought us to the understanding of freedom we have today were also Christians or Deists, that does not mean that Christianity was the cause of the thoughts. Correlation does not prove causation. Everyone at the time was some form of Christian. It was unthinkable to not be. We can speculate all we want on what their thought processes were, but it is not necessary. They were wrong in their assumption that a deity exists.
Essentially, if all our rights were "given" to us by a supernatural being, they really aren't rights but permissions to act in accordance to His wishes. If he gave them, he could also take them away. That is the nature of gifts and permission. If a right is not inalienable, it is not a right.
There are plenty of these little difficulties once you try to define individual rights in terms of Christianity. The deeper you go, the more you will find.
There are no such inconsistencies or contradictions in Rational Selfishness.
Your assertion about the correlation/causation of western thinkers reminds me of modern liberals looking at dropping crimes rates and asking why prisons are so full if the crime rate is falling. Could it be it's because we're removing criminals from the streets and putting them in prison.
It was the fact that western society is built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It's because Christianity was sweeping the continent and subsequently America.
The point of natural rights is that we are endowed with them by our Creator. They can't be taken away.
Regarding inconsistencies, how does a rational mind explain the creation of the most complex entity in the universe? Are we to believe that something as simple as a pencil requires a creator, but the human body happened by chance?
Finally, in the end the acceptance of reality existing excludes the possibility of a being existing outside of existential reality, which would be nesessary for it to have created existence itself. For a more in-depth analysis, look up Rands statements on atheism. I do not think you fully understand her position, you just simply suppose that she is anti-Christian or possibly biased based on being raised in Communist Russia.
and call the creation of it unexplainable, under the heading "God." . labeling
of the unknown can be arbitrary, yes? -- j
.
I was a kid. . religion is a personal thing, not a church thing. . imho. -- j
.
things get really gross and people start making changes. . war, etc....... -- j
.
the understanding that Christianity can be a process of research
into wisdom instead of a pit of altruism. . the simple assignment
of unknown stuff into a pile labeled "faith" and some learning from
accounts of things which happened long ago suffices. -- j
.
.
The poor are the moral heroes of christianity and the producers and people of reason are the enemy. Force must be used to redistribute the wealth. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all the children of Abraham and one God. They love fighting over being spokespeople of his one word. No christians or sons of Abraham in the Gulch. We want peace.
p.s. who is AG?
.
The reason I argue with Christians and not econuts is Christians believe, not know, in a moral system. Its easier to argue about the purpose of morality with someone who grasps the need for a moral system than someone who cannot accept the idea of a system of related values. So Christians can have their own Valhalla Valley and when they find a rational standard to choose between the thousands of religious systems they can come over to the Gulch by taking the Oath.
Isis has NOTHING to do with Christianity, save their (ISIS) desire to kill Christians.
America was founded on Christianity and God-given rights (refer to Declaration of Independence). Our natural rights are the result of God. Finding hatred in the teachings of Christianity is like finding a right to abortion in The Constitution... it's not there.
if you do not make wise choices?" -- j
.
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.
Judeo-Christian beliefs (the foundational blocks of western civilization) are necessary for freedom and liberty to exist in the first place. They're actually the basis on which these beliefs were formed.
If you were taught that Christianity equates to hate, your understanding of Christianity is fundamentally flawed. I would challenge you to find a single teaching of Jesus that espouses hate. Your understanding of the "deadly sins" is not only incorrect, but misplaced. They were a creation of the church (also appearing in literature), not Christ. They build upon Proverbs, but are not actually teachings of Christ.
While Ayn Rand was a tremendous intellect (Im a Rand fan and actually have a first edition Atlas), but to place her above the Founding Fathers, Copernicus, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Friedman, and the other great minds in the last two thousand years who recognize that freedom/liberty are inextricably tethered to Judeo-Christian morality is bit of an over-reach.
I never talked about "deadly sins" and intentionally avoided them. Pride is thought of as a sin by all versions of Christianity:
Proverbs 3:7
The LORD despises pride; be assured that the proud will be punished. Pride goes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall.
I was not "taught" that Christianity equals hate; quite the opposite actually. I was taught that it taught love, specifically love for all with God as the primary. I analyzed it for myself and came to the conclusion that Christianity teaches altruism. As an Objectivist, I reject altruism as evil.
Luke 12:33, "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys."
Luke 18:22
When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
-proposing giving away worldly possessions in favor of ethereal rewards in the afterlife that are given to you by God because of your selflessness on Earth.
Luke 6:32-35
32 βIf you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
-The opposite of trading value for value. This is commanding us to give up our values to those from who we would not expect any value in return: giving our love to the wicked, our our good works to those who do us harm, and our money to those who will only ask for more. A rationally selfish person would only love someone worthy of their love. A Christian is expected to love their enemies. That, to a rationally selfish person, is an abasement of the concept of love, as love is an emotional response to seeing your highest values reflected in another. To give such a high value to someone who would do you harm lowers the value of the love to which you provide those who share your values.
Mark 9:35
35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, βAnyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.β
-We must place our own desires as last and by the servant of everyone else.
These are only a select few examples. Altruism is the philosophy of Death. If you want to understand what I mean by this, go to AynRandLexicon.com and search Altruism.
Finally, I do not say that Ayn Rand was "above" anyone, only that she was more correct. All science, including philosophy, is built on the shoulders and the prior work of those who came before. Einstein would have likely never gotten to his theory of Relativity if Newton had not conceived of Calculus, and Newton would have likely never gotten to Calculus if Arabs had not conceived of Zero, etc. etc. Does that make one "above" or "greater" than the other? Is it more work to refine an idea and see it differently than the common wisdom, or to conceive of something truly new and groundbreaking? One is not inherently greater than the other, and I do not place Rand "above" those from whom she drew great inspiration. However with time and additional thought, she was able to conceive of a philosophy that begins with Man's life as its primary value from which all other values and morality stems.
She was the next logical step in the evolution of philosophy. That does not deride any of those who came before her, but it does make her more correct.
That aside, the fundamental flaw (at least in your assertions here) is the freedom originated with Aristotle. Freedom derives from natural law, which is the product of our Creator.
Again, you're misinterpreting the issue of Pride, et al in Biblical reference. The purpose of calling out specific human traits is to point out the destructive potential of over-indulging any of them. It's a warning to not be too prideful or too slothful or too... We are to be mindful not to be too full of ourselves. Pride, envy, gluttony, etc. can be a person's undoing if taken to the extreme.
Western civilization is the bedrock on which the fullest expression of human achievement has been built. There's a primary reason for that, and it's the fact that western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian morality and faith (the belief in God and that our natural rights come from our Creator). There's simply no way of escaping that fact.
I find it rather ironic that you're espousing the value of the mind and rational thought as the genesis for all things, yet rejecting the principle that we had to be created by something. It's akin to Rand, having escaped communism, didn't see the relationship between God (observance outlawed in communist countries) and the liberty/freedom/success she found in the west.
Many complicated things exist which we know happen naturally. Coastlines have been shown to be extremely complex fractal patterns. Does that necessarily mean that the coastline was drawn by a math program? Or is it that the laws of nature follow mathematical principles?
Quit espousing assumptions as rational arguments. If you cannot answer "why?" Then you have not done the require logical work.
And yes, we (the human body) is the most complicated mechanism in the known universe. There is nothing else that even comes close. Not only is the functionality the most complicated, but we also have the ability to understand, learn, create, reason, and on and on and on. Nothing else comes close. You mention the complexity of coastlines. That's is less than child's play compared to the human body. For starters, we have the capacity to discover and understand the complexity the coastline you referenced. This is not even a debatable point.
And yes, the laws of nature are the result of intelligent design. The laws a replicable and consistent across the universe. That does not happen by accident. To quote Einstein: "God does not play dice with the universe."
The alternative to my position is that a universe that operates in mathematical harmony is the result of random happenstance. What's your explanation?
If you wish to discuss reason and reality, this is your forum. If you wish to recruit worshippers of an unknowable contradiction, then go away. You are wasting your breath, and more importantly our precious time.
Forced altruism is evil, but then again, it not truly altruism if it's forced. If a company donates money to the community in which it does business, it's altruism with a self-serving purpose. By improving the community in which it operates, the company will have better, more productive employees, more loyal customers, and greater profits.
Forced "giving" is evil, for it's not giving at all but rather theft at the point of a gun.
entirely appropriate to invest in marriage when the results are gratifying!!! -- j
.
.
modified by humility and partial self-denial aimed at the improvement
of the group. . Yes, our country was built on rational selfishness, etc.
PLUS the wisdom involved in experience-seasoned teamwork in
defending the unalienable rights which we find inherent in our nature.
calling the source of our human nature Divine Providence was
shorthand for "we don't know how it got here, but we are sure
that this is the real human nature." . translation::: high confidence. . imho. -- j
.
Self-denial in the name of "the group" is exactly what is so evil about socialism and all other forms of collectivism.
I choose the group and the degree of self-denial, and the purpose is:::
self-interest. . I want more from life and use these devices to get it. -- j
.
The Catholic Church hasn't helped.
But like most prejudices, the conclusion precludes the process of examination.
.
You seem to be unaware of the link between Judea-Christians principles and freedom. You mention the Founding Fathers. I refer you to one of their most famous documents, The Declaration of Independence. In it you will find "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights."
You continue to avoid the fact that throughout human history, abolition of religion (particularly Judeo-Christian on which western civilization is based) is essential. I refer you to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and on and on. There's a reason for this, and it comes full circle back to my point eloquently asserted by the Founding Fathers you referenced in the DOI.
Belief in God and Christianity and intellectual pursuit are not mutually exclusive. Because one doesn't understand it, does not mean it folly. If "the gulch" attempted to exist without the moral underpinnings of Judeo-Christian absolute, it would not be long for Earth.
As a aside, I'm somewhat vexed by the allusion to Dinesh Dsouza.
This country was founded on the ideas of reason and individualism in the Enlightenment, not religion. The Enlightenment overthrew the death grip of religion on western thought. Christianity was the philosophy of the Dark Ages, not of this country. The moral right to one's own life, liberty, property and pursuit of one's own life on earth is the opposite of Christianity's demands for faith and other worldly duty to sacrifice. This country would have been impossible under the traditional Christianity, which had to be watered down and secularized to survive. "Moral underpinnings of Judeo Christian absolutes" for sacrifice, duty, and living for another world contradict everything the founding of this country stood for.
If you are interested in Ayn Rand's ideas you should read in particular on this historical/philosophical topic Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels.
He does accurately, and with robust documentation, define the founding principles of America.
religious people wanting to practice their religion in a free country.
I have followed his work, and it is good! -- j
.
do [the] knowing for you." . it is the process of setting the unknowable
aside for later, and looking for wisdom in the rest. . Yes, the nation
was founded on individual sovereignty. . so is my religion. . just the facts,
and the rest is in the "unknown" pile. -- j
.
Aquinas is not the definer of my Christianity or any other true Christian that has walked the Earth since Jesus did. Christianity is defined by one person and person alone, Jesus Christ.
As a historical document, I've reviewed a good bit of Jefferson's bible. As a tool to glimpse into what was important/interesting to him, it's an interesting read. But, it's just that.
Christianity is defined by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Our natural rights are the result of our Creator, and our Founding Fathers recognized that fact. They also recognized that the only way to ensure liberty/freedom was to base our new country on those facts.
Ayn Rand was a brilliant philosopher and a keen intellectual. But, she made a mistake in her conclusions regarding religion. This is particularly ironic given her detest for communism, which as an organizing principle (as is the case with all tyrannies) bans religion.
She would have done well to examine even greater intellects like Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Galileo, and countless others to observe the connection between God and science/reason.
a label for the unknown, the set-aside for later, the mysteries out of my reach. -- j
yet currently unknown. . like gamma-ray-bursts from the stars -- we're
still working on that. . the unknown, for me, seems to make sense
as the knowable, just not-yet. -- j
.
She didn't view herself as a product of a mind and that there is a mind behind the "product".
I have found that Objectivism has only two minor flaws:
1) God isn't "religion"
2) Yes, existence exists BUT life is a product of a mind.
I reject that. . my Christianity is mine and it is derived specifically from
Ayn Rand's objectivism and my own insights, using everything which
I have learned in life. . 66 years' worth of effort. . and I agree with your
assessment of original sin. . my "original sin" was joining the church
with a crowd at age 9 for social purposes. . I have learned since
that conformity is suicide.
Thank You for the book recommendations!!! -- j
.
in contrast, many Christians think that it is a good place.
the poor are not the moral heroes of Christianity;;; they are just poor.
Jesus taught that we should consider them people.
fighting is not needed in order to embrace charity. -- j
.
.
objectivism and religion. -- j
/
who have used religious justification to gain compliance
with hidden force. -- j
.
.
Im in the Gulch where are 'the rest of you?
It is not reasonable to hold so rigidly to one's ideas as to make progress in securing liberty difficult or impossible to achieve.
Which brings us to coalition politics. I'll use myself as an example. My sacred ground and the center of political discourse is the Constitution. To regain that one most find like minded people who are willing to realize it's hang together and get the important thing down first then work on the rest of the list. At present the rest of the list is an unobtainable dream without preserving and working from the sacred ground.
Much the same as it was in the 1770's. Now we have the supporters of the Government Party i.e. the new aristocracy chanting the latest slogans as approved by St. James of Carville. Nothing new there same SOS or stuff on a shingle. The other extreme is the non-realists indulging in wishful thinking. The my way or the highway and no matter cannot back up my dogma.
Which makes it.. they win we win or they win
However the Sorotistas and their counter parts provide a valuable service in telegraphing their latest thinking - or that of those who program them.
Thus giving them some value
Try jotting down what is important to you. From must have all the way to nice to have.
I'm still working on some reference material for the History section. The last part of the development of the party system in the USA gives a major example of third party faction splitting which also brings more fascist barriers to anybody but the Government party.
Despots don't seize power they are given power. But they never willingly give it back. That's all you need to know about the extremists on the left.But I included their development anyway.
to isolate and alienate a splinter group, compelling them to form
another party instead of cooperating and graduating here?
this is a strange twist of logic! -- j
.
If we don't hang together we shall surely hang separately
Thus ends the Republic
and again and again. -- j
.
.
would she -- the woman -- be entitled to a choice? -- j
.
trying to decide for the mom. . her life is her life. -- j
.
.
When people refer to "humans" as having rights we do not mean clumps of undeveloped cells. A clump of cells at conception is not a rational being. The presence of "human" DNA in the cells is irrelevant. "Human being" equated with "human cells" is how you are equivocating on the word "human" to push a mystical religious dogma of "rights" of cells. Sacrificing real human beings to cells reveals the man-hating ideology of the church that Ayn Rand rejected for good reason.
and objectivist self-identification. . might be a new post in the works. -- j
.
wondering about the assertion by H6163741 that there might be
an association there is NOT agreement with that assertion. . OK? -- j
.
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.
1. The biological reason for sex is to generate prodigy.
2. A male and female agree to have sex, both parties knowing that the potential outcome is the fertilization of a egg and pregnancy.
3.BOTH parties must agree or it's rape, it is an agreement between consenting adults.
4. that is a contract.
5. Now comes 1972? and SCOTUS proclaims that the female no longer must keep her end of the contract. No-Fault sex becomes the law of the land and the only one inconvenienced is the unborn child who is rather gruesomely murdered at the hands of a governmentally licensed butchery.
6.Since I was around at the time this was put into law, I recall that one of the benefits of allowing this wholesale murder was that the rate of extramarital births would drop - do you care to guess the change that has come about after the murder of approximately 30 million defenseless children?
7 The proclamation was also made about how healthy this was going to be for the mother - I guess they missed how the process worked out for the child.
Now that we've looked at just who the contract was with (the people engaging in sex) you surely must acknowledge that any contract has at is base reason for being, some benefits and some costs. Obviously the immediate benefits is the physical enjoyment of sex. The supreme bonding act of our species. BUT the cost and if you choose to see it this way, the risk of sex is pregnancy. And here I suspect may be where You and may differ. I believe the parents have a contractual obligation to that child. An obligation that far too many choose to dismiss in the ultimate act of moral bankruptcy - murder for the sake of their own convenience.
Do you believe in contraception?
I am assuming you believe life begins at conception. What is a miscarriage? Manslaughter?
Do you believe that a living life (the mother) should be sacrificed to the unborn life (the child)?
Again, how can it be a contract if the child is not alive to agree to it? You might consider it wrong to stop a beating heart or wrong to stop what could develop into a beating heart, that could have meaning. But with the contract argument you're basically taking the argument that sex is a contract with god and then replacing god with the fetus.
The child (not fetus) like all life is sacred and a very special gift and yes I believe it is given to us by God and just one of the very myriad of things that render the debate over faith meaningless between believers and non believers. Believers look upon a newborn child or even the moving child growing in it's mothers womb and see the hand of God giving witness to his existence. Non believers look on the same things and see pure biological processes except they can never address the single most important question, Why? Most of them can't bear to acknowledge there even is a question. but the answer is very simple, to point us to God.
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.
prevent conception with nearly complete certainty. . yet life does begin
when the sperm and egg unite, so the woman's body is the host of
a new life which she may choose to end. . we do not, as a society,
generally consider this murder. . but many among us do. . imho. -- j
.
What makes the egg or sperm different from a fetus in that respect? Is it the DNA composition? A wart or a tumor both have different DNA from the person on or in whom they reside. That is why they grow more rapidly than the cells around them. Yet no one stages protests outside cancer hospitals, nor are there attempts to ban wart removal medicines.
Therefore we need a more specific definition than just "life" in order to understand when it is no longer acceptable to terminate a conceived pregnancy.
One possible solution is viability. We consider a child now an adult once they have reached the age where they generally could be considered to be able to understand what they are doing and their consequences. When they have developed enough to live on their own, essentially. At that point they are given the full rights of any other adult. So such a test would make sense for when a fetus has the rights of a child, such as to their life. When a fetus can live on its own, possibly with medical aid. At that point I can recognize him/her as a separate human, with his/her own rights, rather than something that is still very much a part of the mothers body.
equals that of the human into which it will grow, I view it as a person.
if we take viability as a test, then many low-IQ folks would not be people. -- j
.
.
since lovemaking is just that -- lovemaking, and sex for conception is
another thing altogether. -- j
.
After the first trimester things certainly change, but before that it's not a contest of two equal interests, but entirely the life and liberty of the mother over the potential for a human life.
It has no more moral claim than do the individual sperm or eggs prior to inception.
I have hesitated to call;;; didn't want to increase your stress level
by asking you to return. . many hopes and prayers for you and yours!!! -- john
.
I certainly have watched you fighting the good fight! And I'm sorry I've not jumped in as much as I should have, but there's just so many hours in a day and I've just been concentrating on what makes me happy, healthy and wise - well, OK, I'm settle for happy and healthy. :).
I've been occupying my time building 3d printers and developing a line of CNC routers and mills - that's turning into a full time job!
Again, I'm sorry I've not kept in touch as I should have. I'll try to jump in a bit more often. Also, please feel free to give me a call anytime! I love to hear from my "Battle Buddies".
May God richly bless you and your family.
Larry
If AS were written in the age of today's technology, the heroes would say things like this.
.
It is possible in principle to explain color to a blind person even though he could not experience it directly -- science deals all the time with understanding through inference for aspects of reality we cannot directly perceive. Faith is the opposite of reason and science, not a form of perception.
There is no such thing as "the good fight" for religion on this forum, which is dedicated to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not it's enemies' fight against it.
and I hope that it treats you well. . and pays you well. . we'll call
and check in soon -- keep the faith!!! -- john
.
.
to respect others thoroughly. . if you want to ask us to view and respond
to attacks on Christianity as a part of our analysis of reality,
you may find that we would rather listen to Horowitz play Chopin. -- j
.
videos failed to come up on my machine because of some sort of
video player version control issue. . I am responding to the titles
which seem to focus on the bad things about Christianity over the years.
metaphor is exceedingly important in religion, since our understanding
and ability to express empirical results is small in comparison with
the size of the universe, for example. -- j
.
.
Load more comments...