Christian morality is not for the good of man either by intent or content. It is an other worldly demand for a duty to sacrifice for the supernatural, suppressing reason in favor of faith and scholastic rationalization in its service. When it dominated the western world in the Dark and Middle Ages it stifled progress and kept the west in darkness for thousands of years, stifling and preventing human progress and happiness.

For the direct contrast of that institution with Ayn Rand's philosophy see for example her The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, Chap 8 "Of Living Death" and Capitalism the Unknown ideal, Chapter 24 "Requiem for Man".

I am very glad that you are well read in Rand -- far better than I am --
and that you are willing to point out places where others can learn
what you have, from Rand's writings. . Thank You! -- j
.

Thank You, ewv, for citing these places to expolore Rand's ideas. . this is
a perfect way to expand the knowledge of our members and readers!!! -- j
.

It is up to the owners and not a right. A stated standard for this forum is that it not be co-opted by religionists.The value of any of this discussion is in the ideas learned which explain what is wrong with the religion, Ayn Rand's contrasting ideas, and how they fundamentally conflict with faith and religious dogma. That will only last until the repetition becomes too annoying.

It isn't an "integration". The murky god speculations and sloppy "relabeling" are fundamentally contrary to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and cannot be "integrated" with it. They don't "work". Truth is not what works until it stops working as promoted in Pragmatism. They are contradictions in ways you possibly don't even realize. Mysticism is not exploring new knowledge. If someone wants to experience the excitement of new understanding of the night sky he should be studying physics and astronomy, and similarly for any other subject matter..

ewv, my effort to integrate Christianity into my Randian view of life
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
.

johnpe1 asked if Christianity might be welcome because that is
the predominant religion in the u.s. and my experience shows
that there are Christians who belong here. . IMHO. -- j
.

we are here to learn, and Thank You for bringing more of Rand's
philosophy to the online gulch!!! -- j
.

Invalid concepts don't work. Neither does Pragmatism as a philosophy.

"moral religious" = life-sustaining rather than life-diminishing.
you might call me one of the former, if you were generous. -- j
.

I separate reality into the known and the unknown, strive to make good sense
with the known and find out about the unknown as I can. . makes sense for
me as an engineer and inventor. -- j
.

mine is. . God and faith refer to the unknown, which we as a species
are constantly striving to explore. . reality is more complex than I thought. -- j
.

then the child must prove itself as a rational being before it is a person? -- j
.

I suppose that we should consider ewv as a voter against welcoming
Christians to the online gulch. . there appear to be more who accept
than reject. -- j
.

Thank You, ewv, for this recollection. . Rand devoted 12 years to
AS and the process is fascinating!!! -- j
.

ewv, I do find it curious that the owners have not -- to my knowledge --
sought to truncate this set of discussions. . there must be some
interest in the welcoming question on their part. . don't you think? -- j
.

I am exposing the way in which I have internally integrated Rand's objectivism
and my confidence in the speculated contents of the unknown. . reality is constantly
being explored, and the wonderful, exquisite new knowledge is precious.
the sense of wonder and intrigue which a youngster experiences
when looking up at the night sky -- in my opinion -- needs to be sustained
throughout life, and this labeling of unknown reality works for me in that regard. -- j
.

I love you, too, ewv. . my conceptualization works for me.
and my only dishonesty is engaged in keeping personal facts personal. -- j
.

You're right, they should and when asked most do. I was led to atheism through the Catholic church, as were hundreds of thousands of others, no doubt.

There are plenty of wise-asses like woodlema who will answer, "god is love" or "god is everything that is unknown and unknowable" when asked to define god - or the first definition s/he offered and repeated several times. But here's how I would define god from my Catholic upbringing and it seems to fit with most of the Christian beliefs I encounter these days.

[God is the being that created the universe and everything in it. He existed before the universe and he will exist after it's gone. He's all knowing and all powerful.]

You can get into the All Loving and the rest, but the more you add to what I wrote above the more you're "customizing" god for a particular religion. What I wrote is, I believe, universal among at least the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

Thank You for the references;;; I will re-read them!!! -- j
.

I'm not an expert on Moses or Judaism, but I've had many discussions with a good friend who's a conservative Jew. It's my understanding that Moses didn't write the Bible. I'm not going to be able to be absolutely accurate or complete here, partially because of lack of knowledge and partially because I don't want to spend that much time. Also, just for this post, when I write "bible" I mean the Jewish bible, no New Testament.

There were many prophets before Moses and they delivered god's message to the descendants of Abraham, the Jews. There are hundreds of rules that observant Jews must follow, and in spite of the truly crazy set of rules set forth in the bible, and particularly Leviticus, most of the rules don't appear in the bible itself. I was told that either in the old Hebrew or in the oral tradition that when god handed down a set of instructions, and when what the Jews practice goes way, way beyond what's written in the bible, it's because god said, or implied, "do this thing in the way I have already made known to you." That would have been made known through other prophets and passed down through the oral tradition, not in writing. Eventually that tradition made it into the Talmud in some form.

No doubt I got details wrong, I'm not Jewish, but I think it's close enough. Moses didn't need a basis for a religion, they were already Jews, the religion was there, the law was there, but the people were straying badly.

and, as a Rand devotée, I am attempting to build a bridge to the future
by extending her realm of understanding, here. . if Christians are welcome
to the gulch, then we might enjoy simplified labels in our discussions. -- j
.

and I had a pocket protector for all of my pens and pencils, ruler,
penlight, slide rule, pez dispenser....... -- j
.

good point;;; wounding the guard would have been entirely adequate. -- j
.

Heinlein supposed that God was reality and split Himself into a myriad
parts in order to have friends. . it's as good a definition as I need. -- j
.