just for fun, as many, many times before, I just voted you up again.

I firmly believe that I have gone a step past Ayn Rand in my understanding
of some -- not all -- people's religion. . it has two basic steps:::

1 the unknown may be labeled however you wish -- faith is as good
a label as any other;;; just be sure to keep it separate from direct
rational actions in your life.

2 "expect the best" works, in life. . if you interact with others as someone
who approaches them expecting their "good side," you are more likely
to engender positive responses from them. . healthy competition
with a wink and a nod -- honor for the self-interest of everyone else --
is the best way to interact.

now, if you do not think that this is philosophy, please remember
that Atlas Shrugged was written to show philosophy through
interpersonal actions in a possible world.

my life is proof. . at 9, I conformed to social pressure and
joined a church. . at 15, I rejected that idea in favor of Rand.
at about 42, I integrated my view, understanding that "faith"
can identify the "too hard" pile -- the unknown, the "impossible" --
while the entire rest of reality serves for life choices.
I was more successful at work, and more productive.
I became friends with my family for the first time in my life,
before my parents died in a one-two punch. . and gradually,
I found my wife who is a wonderful person with whom to grow old.
I am now 66 and disabled with emphysema. . life is good!!!

and I became more positive in interactions with smart people like you.
I didn't have to join mensa to figure this out, but it helped.

I used the word evasion because you persist in asking me to face
the truth. . Yes, Zen, I can handle the truth. -- john
.

Ayn Rand's political philosophy was based on her ethics, epistemology and metaphysics, all of which rejected the supernatural in any form. She was an advocate of reason.

the comment about unicorns? . OK;;; my feet hurt from nerve damage.

if I believe things which make my life less effective at positive contributions,
then I am more likely to die early or have no -- or a negative -- effect.
it's my bet that categorizing the unknown things in a "faith" pile, and
acting directly on the reality which I can know, is a wise way to live. -- j
.

the murders of the old testament count;;; people are dead. . they died
at the hands of people, not God. . I do not care whether the citations
are accurate or not;;; they might as well be, and if so are an account
of deaths by people. . you might instead cite deaths accomplished
by the flood of Noah's time -- God might have caused that flooding.

about the existence of Jesus -- whoever lived back then, and whatever
the name, we can identify this "prophet" as Jesus and go forth with
a better view of human wisdom as a result. . if I did not have the confidence
in that wisdom, I would be cursing at you and making you react more
harshly as a result. . my life is better for that confidence. -- j
.

I see that a new respect for others is portrayed in the new testament,
and agree with it. . all of the killings which you seem to dote on
are incidental to the history recorded -- and for me, they are data
about that history, not an indictment of a deity. . people conducted
those murders. . the question which you claim is still unanswered
is about people's murders. . they did it, not God. . they are responsible.
the accountability will be, or is, theirs.

if I wanted to destroy Christian faith, which seems to be an
interest of yours, I would aim at the supposed wisdom of modeling
one's life after Christ -- WWJD -- and its pitfalls. . if I attempt to lead
others to wisdom by being meek and forgiving, I am more likely to
die at the hands of someone less meek and forgiving -- for instance.

in this twisted way, I am telling the torturer how to fix the torture
machine, like Galt did. . would you think about that for a second? -- j
.

my view is that the early rules were the societal wisdom of the time,
and the revisions provided by Jesus improved that societal wisdom.
I do not have to agree that God wrote the ten commandments
in order to hold this view. . I can look at as history and metaphor.

the actual gulch, in which I do wish I could finish my life, should welcome
people who understand that "my life and my love of it" is a wonderful
and mysterious truth deserving respect and honor, as do the lives
of others. . I never live for others, nor ask others to live for me --
it is that simple, and completely true.

Thank You for entering into this discussion;;; your very presence
indicates that you value others' views, and that you understand
our participation in reality. -- john
.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.

Strictly a Point of View, we agree to disagree. I like to think that Objectivist would act to prevent a difficulty that affected his direction, a Libertarian, would not.

Star!!! . I am sooooooooooo glad to hear from you!!!
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
.

But some people have sex drunkenly or under the influence of drugs. Is that a legitimate contract? Would God agree to such a contract?

Really now, surly you can read what I wrote. The contract is between the couple AGREEING to have sexual relations that will result in pregnancy. You can keep throwing out the strawman argument about a contract with a unborn child or the woman who is going to die in childbirth - do YOU know how few women this actually is relative for each year? There's a greater risk of being struck by lightening while fishing in a rubber boat while floating down the Colorado River. This is 2015, not 1815 and medical science HAS improved a bit.

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.

OK, a couple of questions:
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.

Apply critical thinking skills.

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.

I would say welcome, but some may not truly belong. I don't know what the ratio would be, but many Christians are inherently collectivist in thinking. The recent posts about gay marriage are perfect examples. The only thing they have to back up their "traditional marriage" (which has only existed for the last 150 years or so) is the very few anti-gay passages in a religious book. They see "types" of people needing to be controlled, and believe in rights or the restriction of rights for groups of people, not individuals.

There is also a contradiction between what Yeshua taught (I don't think he actually existed, but for arguments sake....) and objectivism. Drop everything, even your responsibilities to family, and follow me. Give your stuff to the poor. Love your enemies. All of that involves, essentially, living for someone else or giving others mastery over you. There are many more, look at the beatitudes (which actually came before Yeshua supposedly existed and attributed to Krishna - but again another day) That is a tricky problem.

OK now that I've had some time to look over the other comments. (and change a timing belt) I'd like to take a different approach to the question of "Are Christians welcome in the Gulch". (the second question, I will leave to others).

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.

You raise an interesting question regarding "converting" others to Objectivism. Others have objected (some strenuously) to the use of the term "convert". But who among us has not wished that the rest of the world could see things as logically as we do here in the virtual Gulch?

It's great to have a place to hang out among the like minded, but is that enough? Sadly, those who are able and willing to think logically seem to be in the minority, if polls and elections are to be believed. I think the world would be a better place if there were a lot more rational, logical people in it, but how do we get there without becoming the kind of annoying proselytizers we disdain?

Parents do have a responsibility for their children, but contracts with parties that do not exist or are not present is the same as the argument that individuals should bear the cost of children who aren't their own, that the parents cannot support.

Stargeezer, it is impossible to enter into a contract with an unborn child. If I could enter into such a contract, then I could enter into a contract with someone with whom I have not discussed terms, which is the negation of a contract.

How can I enter into a contract with someone who is not born much less conceived? If there is no individual, how can there be a contract, that is, an agreement between two individuals? The root reason for sex is procreation? Does that mean people who are infertile have no legitimized reason to have sex?

The issue is how does a human know. The Gulch is for people who obtain information about that which exists through their senses and reason. Faith is the process of letting someone else do knowing for you. Because reason is not your means of knowing I don't think my comments will elicit any response. See why you are not a person of reason. I'll bet you like Dinesh Dsouza. By the way the US was founded on the principle of individual sovereignty...read your Locke, Jefferson and above all Monroe's "The People the Sovereigns" where he describes the founders understanding they were doing the great experiment based on Locke and how he evaluated the outcome.

ISIS is the word of God in action. Just ask them. No one can enforce a claim of the sanction of being gods spokesperson against any other person making such claim. That's why they kill each other.
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.