I asked myself as a kid, why was a smart, charismatic guy like Moses wandering around for 40 years when he could have gotten there within a year? Here's what I figured, (with some scholarly help): He was gathering an army. As his tribe(s) grew, he conquered more and more tribes and converted them. After 40 years he died just outside of Jerusalem. His second in command, Joshua, took over and with what was by then, a pretty big army conquered Jerusalem. End of chapter 5. So, if we look at Moses (a name that has no meaning since it was Egyptian for "man" from a strictly historical perspective, the story might go as follows. An exiled Egyptian General returned in order to gather an army. He had various run-ins with the king but through chicanery managed to come away with a substantial number of followers. He spent the rest of his life raiding and gathering an army. Meanwhile, being educated, he wrote a history of his adventures and a book that could be used as a basis for a religion. How it's been altered over the centuries cannot be fully understood.

That means the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God. Right?

If not inerrant, then how does the reader determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

Problem is the Deity was never the one doing the writing, its always someone else and like two persons recording historical events. Both will be different of the same event. It is quite different based on the values and goals of the person doing the writing.

If a person has a dream or a vision it still requires them to interpret it.

In a world where you wrong me and I kill you and you entire family a vision would be interpreted quite differently than the post law of Moses eye or and eye and tooth for a tooth. A much more civil world the one before it. Or the world of Christ where you are to forgive others and not carry the chip on shoulder over what they did. The interpretations will be different.

That's called being a Libertarian not being an Objectivist.

And how are we to know it was an act of God..contact ISIS? The reason there are moochers is they are the poor and downtrodden children of God to whom the rest of us are to be sacrificed. Go, get thee to a church.

Yes -- A is A, even before its discovery, and high confidence is required
to bolster us as we strive to make that discovery!!! -- j
.

I use the "turn the other cheek" advice as a diversion -- to make
an adversary think that I'm meek. . I am my brother's sustenance,
by free will only (I wish -- the govt forces some of this) ... and judging
is absolutely required for choices in life, so I try not to do it wrong. -- j
.

Jefferson: " But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

When the pocket picking or leg breaking starts, then there is a problem.

yessir -- divide and conquer;;; the anaconda tightens again
and again and again. -- j
.

Thank You! . I'd like to look him up -- clever!!! -- j

p.s. most days, it feels like I have unicorns in my shoes --
peripheral neuropathy.
.

he might have been a pretty good leader, and just maybe
a very fine chiseler. . like hammer and chisel. . or not. -- j
.

Please explain the 40 years wars between Catholics and Protestants in 17th century Europe witht he St. Barthotemus Day Massacre that still goes on in the streets of Belfast. Christian equals slaughter as the Germans showed just be sure its blessed when you carry it out. Science has shown there are no observations or facs of God. Consider the greatest physician and philosopher between Aristotle and Rand, John Locke who demanded his belief in God be supported empirically and did so on the basis of three stories in the bible of direct intervention by God. The Bush, the staff, and walking on water. That's about all you can base your views on as well.

There is nothing common about a fact. Its also agreed to by Aquinas and Augustine. The question is what is your view of man? Born of God and duty bound to know him through faith or naturally evolved with a mind fit to know this earth and produce the necessities of life.

we had a wonderful restaurant here in knoxville -- the butcher shop --
where you could cook your own 3 inch steak over charcoal, along with
texas toast and baked potatoes ... from the '82 world's fair.
ooooohhhh, we do miss that place!!! -- j
.

the relevance is ... including Christians in the gulch is a sure way
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
.

I heard it from Jan, I believe ... jlc -- on another thread. . a very long view
into the future, if I remember right. -- j
.

that is the common view, a well-respected Rand interpretation. -- j
.

as you very well should, like many others, IMHO. -- j
.

john; "old testament" rules-based view of life certainly is defined as passed down from a supernatural entity. And the idea that a view of life/reality based on such combined with "new-testament" love-based view of life can correlate to or 'agrees with' the Oath expresses a severe misunderstanding of the Oath and all that underlies both views of life.

And being "personally, are many gentle, positive folks who care for themselves and others gracefully --we have several here in the online gulch", a consideration for inclusion in discussions, to the extent that they might gain a better or fuller understanding of what Objectivism is truly about and its importance to the individual, is a fair enough view. But being invited to or included in the actual Gulch--that's not reality.

True. One would think a diety could write more clearly...or maybe even show up from time to time so we could see what the murderer looks like.

Objectivism is NOT a religion.

john; I down-vote for a variety of reasons, all explained in the FAQ's and CoC. In your case, I've attempted to explain why with replies.

In the immediate case, your comments are contradictory, ambiguous, confusing, and express a lack of understanding, or a full grasp of what Objectivism is or how it applies in the immediate case. Maybe your attempt at analysis of my down-voting as 'sensing evasion in your explanations' is telling. The inclusion of 'evasion' is of your choice, not mine.

I would be more tempted to use 'lack of ownership' of the content of a post, or the reason of why you think it worth discussing on a site such as The Gulch. If your interest is just to post a topic and see how many comments or discussion amongst others on the site you can garner, without committing yourself or opening up your rationale and reasoning or personal philosophy to others, I can see how you might think you've exposed some evasion in yourself.

A typical response from that type of poster is 'I just wanted to see what others on the site thought' or some such. In my view that is of little value in trade for the value received from others on the site. In the topic of this post, what do you think and why? What real world facts or data do you include in your reasoning? How did you rationally and logically arrive at your determination? How does your 'love oriented view of reality' and 'wise to forgive' interaction with others and 'we're all brothers and sisters' opinion relate to the topic of your post and how does that mesh with or contradict the philosophy of Objectivism? Why should or should not Objectivists consider inclusion of avowed christians or christian thinking into an actual or virtual Gulch?

I'm not going to get involved in further, lengthy tit-for-tat explanation of each statement anymore than I already have. You're intelligent enough to figure it out.

See slfisher comment below.