and, the other side of the coin, are those that use their religion to justify their existence and interfere in other lives.

But by what moral standard would the two judge? The Objectivist has a moral standard and a means to judge but the libertarian has neither.

"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."

Expecting the best has to do with benevolence and the generally positive view of the universe held by Objectivism (ie life affirming or supporting rather than all doom and gloom). Read David Kelley's new book called Unrugged Individualism for a good discussion of the virtue of benevolence and what it implies.

As for the unknown and faith, I would venture that it is one thing to have ideas about the unknown. But different to have faith in what one classifies as the "unknowable". Rationalists tend to have faith that there is nothing that is not unknowable (at least in theory if not in practice). Religious faith requires belief in something that is, by definition, intrinsically unknowable in its being or essence.

I had a '77 1/2 Anniversary Edition 'Vette. It was a fun car, but a serious money pit. I restored a '71 Goat ragtop, and that's going to have to last me now. There are no "classics" from the last 30 years or so that I'm interested in, and parts are getting a little too hard to come by for the older ones. In any event, the GTO has always been my dream car.

Sadly, the Vette is now gone. I still have my 78 Camaro (Z28, T-tops, 4-speed). Occasionally I look for another Vette, but would have to sell the Camaro first, and can't seem to let it go.

hi John. I've been so busy I've just had no time to get wrapped up in discussions like this one, trying to describe color to the willingly blind. As I said, I've been lurking, looking for the many threads from my good friends here, like yourself.

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

The thing is john, the Oath is in no way a 'mysterious truth'. It is a revelation to many when they finally grasp the full meaning contained in those few words (some never do), strung together in just the way needed to convey such a powerful message. But only for those willing to put the work into understanding the underlayment of what Rand so eloquently conveyed.

In a way it reminds me of Zen Koans, those short stories conceived and written by fully matured Zen Masters before they can determine their death time (many passed within days of finishing their Koans), meant to help those coming up in their own searches for enlightenment. Boiled down to the essence, stripped of fat, excess, and decoration, and illustrative of the way in which the Master had reached his own enlightenment, yet not to be understood by those that haven't put the work and dedication into gaining their own enlightenment.

I am in that category, and respect a woman's body as her own,
and accept others' social choices as their own. . and I'm a
heretic, back then, but an objectivist, now. -- j
.

and IF the supernatural is not called that, but the unknowable,
THEN the rest can be used for rational living. -- j
.

very fine paraphrase of Rand, and respected as such here in
the online gulch. . yet there is an alternate view. . make the jump
to a place where man's rationality is sovereign in his or her life,
and the unknowable is set aside for later, called -- as you wish --
the faith zone or confident optimism zone. -- j
.

interesting. . what, then, is a soul? -- j
.

weren't the "drop everything" instructions for his disciples? . I don't
see those instructions as general ones. -- j
.

Thank You, VG, for your analysis!!! -- j

p.s. did you ever have a vette? . photo?
.

I wish! . this playground sure needs supervision!!! -- j
.

very fine analysis, sir;;; Very Fine!!! -- j
.

that's why the moral religious people do neither. -- j
.

Dinesh asserts the same as you -- that the u.s. was founded by
religious people wanting to practice their religion in a free country.
I have followed his work, and it is good! -- j
.

faith, for me and many, is not "the process of letting someone else
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
.

if ISIS represents a deity, then this universe is sick, doomed to die fast.
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
.

moochers will, and deserve to, die ... if producers deign to support them. -- j
.

both. . one, the first, is a metaphorical explanation, and the second
is a direct factual explanation. . these are both common views
and I respect both. -- j
.

I do hope that our words here are viewed by more than just the few
of us who contribute the most. . I joined immediately after finding
this virtual gulch, but many do not, and perhaps many more are just
watching. . it is an open forum;;; yes? . . Hi, NSA!!!

and I edit books. . and I interact with others. . all good interactions
can serve -- like watching someone working efficiently in a diner! -- j
.

where did you read that it was, Benjamin? -- j
.

There is no contract. Agreeing to enjoy sex is not a contract to have a child, nor does it make cluster of cells or an embryo equivalent to a child. His arguments are nonsensical sophistry.

Anyone is welcome who is attracted to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism and her novel Atlas Shrugged, including serious questions. This 'gulch' is not a place to promote or proselytize for religion or faith.

Anyone who "agrees that a woman's body is her own [or a man's his own], and a person's social choices are his or her own" has already rejected Christianity's dogmas of duty to God and is so secularized that he would have been branded a heretic in earlier times. An actual, full-fledged Christian would have no support for Atlas Shrugged beyond the most superficial misunderstandings. Most Americans are not in that religious category.