I think a big problem most people who are not educated in scripture have is just not understanding what is there. It's very easy to read a passage and proclaim that it tells you to do such and such. Then you are informed that what you're reading is history - not rightly dividing the bible leads to more problems among the untrained than any other thing.

It's very easy for a new convert to read a passage and say it tells me to do such and such - then to discover that it was actually a historical passage explaining how the Israelites defeated whoever.

The Bible is roughly 1/3rd poetic, 1/3rd historic, 1/6th prophetic and the balance religious law. If a person starts reading The Song of Solomon thinking they are studying how to live their life, they just might get arrested. The same holds true of the battle orders of King David. You must know what you are reading and just how many of the people you know who do not go to church are able to do that in a book of - for example - physics?? The same is true for Christian faith. The truth is in there and anyone who honestly looks for it can find it, but the odds of doing it by random reading is pretty slim.

All that said, here is the difference from a decision point - Christianity requires an affirmative decision, atheism requires no decision at all.

I am patient. very patient. but sometimes I'll snap. big personality-lol-you're not fooled. I like to work towards all of us focusing on the immediate. get as many people as possible to watch the movies-consider talking in here. we have the world to win, r.

I think we are out of order here folks. I'm not sure what to respond to. :D

ok-I am out of this post-you take over for me rozar-;)

Exactly Robbie. When one becomes a Christian, they don't surrender the ability to reason and think independently.

Theology is one place where Rand and I part paths. She interprets the concept of "I am my brothers keeper" far too excessively. While we are commanded to care for the poor, that can be accomplished in many ways today even to the point of acknowledging that through our taxes the government has stepped in to supplant our place in this order. The truth is that in this country the only "poor" are poor because they choose to be poor. It is a conscious decision on their part and no matter what I might inclined to do on their behalf is not going to change their circumstances.

AS for original sin, she just missed the point of the concept, didn't she?

sort of

I agree.

my take on EF is he's playing a game and he is not interested Objectivism or reason. I rarely down vote. but when he snarks I do. it's frustrating when the people play games like that. many have acknowledged it-even those who are P-A-T-I-E-N-T

Afraid Rand's romantic interpretation of Man is not one of the things I've read. I don't pretend to know all of her wittings apart from AS and Fountainhead. I've read some and listened most of her popular interviews, but I'm no expert.

The Wikipedia definition is a fairly accurate view of secular humanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_hum...

A part of the "problem" with discussions that skirt the religious implications is the lack of Ayn Rand's reference to the issue. We are all well aware that she was publicly an atheist, and perhaps someplace in her wittings she addressed this stance further. I do not tout any great knowledge of her wittings apart from the things "The Gulch" pertains.

To those of us whom religion is more than just a word, we know where the path she proclaimed leads, and more, we know it was the same path we once followed. Rejection of God does not buy one exemption from him. It is this overwhelming idea that drives Christian zeal. The knowledge that no matter what our personal point of view of the existence of God may be, before God we are all the same up to the point we accept him. Those who forever chose to reject him have a path that lies in another direction and is just as certain. No Christian wants another person to follow that path. And we all know that while we can lead a horse to water, we cannot force them to drink.

Sometimes in our zeal we stub our toe and sometimes in their zeal against those of us who live by faith the powers that be have killed us, martyring us for our faith. When this country was established as a nation where the most important precept of our government was the guaranty of the freedom to exercise our religion without governmental interference, a promise that we could practice our faith even on the steps of the buildings that housed our government. A practice that was so important to the founding fathers that services were held every Sunday inside the very House of Representatives

I've looked through the documents which formed the foundation of our nation and I cannot find where the people were given a promise of "freedom from religion", that is a lie. The promise is most assuredly a "Freedom of Religion". America is to be a place where Catholic's, Baptists, Hindus, and certainly a place where atheists could all live together and practice their religion, or rejection of religion as they choose. NO promise was given to any group that they would never be faced with the symbols of another religion, but that is the battle we fight today. No promise was given to atheists that they'd not be confronted with the "Ten Commandments" at a courthouse - after all, they were the foundation of our legal system.

Some proclaim that they have a right to never be forced to see Christian symbol's - can somebody please point to the in the constitution? Some claim that my placement of a crèche on the city property, paid for and maintained by my own funds at Christmas is a violation of their rights because they would be forced to walk or drive past it on official business and be offended - there are no proclamations in the constitution that you cannot be offended by my exercise of my religion. Some claim that they find that they have a right to not be confronted with religious history in schools - IF it is history, it should be taught. That includes how the nation of Israel was founded 3000 years ago and how 2000 years ago a carpenter lead a small group of followers to form a new faith that was oppressed, martyred, and overcome all to build the Christian Church. Like it or not, that is history. A 8th grade world history book I read the other day had ONE reference to the church - the crusades. That was all. Revisionist history.

Christians are not calling for church history to be taught in school, but as long as our tax dollars are funding the schools, we want ALL of the history taught in a truthful, factual manner.

A lot of us Christians are tired of being discriminated against and are not going to be pushed into extinction by being quiet and not being confrontational. So far that method has gotten us to this place where we are being told to be quiet and sit in the corner. EXACTLY why those who escaped religious persecution in the 17th and 18th centuries fled to THIS country. We are not going to repeat the errors of those days.

It's a good point to make that Christianity tells people how to live their lives while atheism makes no claim. You can be an atheist and go to church, believe in the power of the state, or outwardly reject both. The only condition to being labeled an atheist is not believing in the existence of supernatural entities. Christianity defines what is morally right, atheism doesn't.

My inheritance tax post, for instance....

I agree with everything you're saying but want you to qualify secular humanism. Are you referring to Rand's romantic interpretation of Man? That's different. It is a literary concept. not a religion.

I think you are referring to me,r? I was responding to "atheist hot buttons." I do not have "hot buttons" because I am atheist. My hot buttons stem from a philosophy of life. There are foundations, tenets I use to guide. Atheism in and of itself is not a good guide. it's just a result. that might not be the best word...but close. Christianity is indeed a philosophy. so-atheism cannot be the opposite of Christianity. apples and oranges. that was my point.

I am responding not initiating.r, I am very respectful of those in the gulch who believe in God. It's one reason that I am not comfortable on other Objectivist forums. Objectivism is a philosophy with foundations. Atheism is not. I am not one of those atheists who like to turn it into a cause. I see that as unproductive. For example, those people who actively promote putting up some statue at court houses to get some sort of equality with a statue of the Ten Commandments. Or taking the govt to court over the removal of "in God we Trust." I can see the point, but do not see the harm. There are issues I will be outspoken about and it comes from an Objectivist point of view not atheist.