We got along so well before. now all of a sudden we 're plagued with the lectern banging.for newbies coming in it 's got to be confusing.Objectivists are already confused.

AJ, +1, 2 if I could.

Sorry, I think(?)

I could answer you very easily, as I've had this conversation outside of here recently, but this would quickly turn into a "religious" discussion. Should you want to continue contact me privately and we can discuss this (I'm not a attempting to preach) . Rest assured, there is rational grounds for faith in something outside of yourself.

Lately I 'm not recognizing the home :(

This will not further the discussion on this site. There are a ton of other sites that are interested.

Good. Isn't it wonderful that an Objectivist can see all these different side trails to explore, rather than staying on the straight and true path to a glorious, saved after-life.

Star as interesting as this may be as a topic for you have you noticed the poster is not interested? This is exactly what she was talking about. It 's not going to happen on this site that you are going to get scripture teaching. There 's plenty of other good stuff...

>>"From my perspective, the most useful thing about religions is it keeps the riffraff from running open loop"<<

Even more, it makes it OK for them to have a shitty, ground down life in the mud on Earth with bruises on both cheeks, because they get to walk on golden paths on clouds and wear white robes while bathing in the warmth from all the burning bad guys below.

You know full well this site is in support of Rand. Being American does not mean you have to be Christian.

I think so. But it makes me want to meander.... :)

>>"This isn 't a christian forum"<<

Seems like sometimes. But maybe it's a test of Objectivism. Can an Objectivist remain rational in the midst of emotional and cultural turmoil?

I hope they're grading on the curve, not common core.

I am trying to give this a point. But it won 't let me? It's showing that I voted it down and I didn 't.

They added the phrase in the 20th century. Hardly a founder issue.

This is the exact thing susanne was discussing. Look at how this has taken over the post. No one is saying that the debate can 't happen but this is supposed to be about learning more regarding Objectivism. I think some respect is due to those coming in here for that. This isn 't a christian forum. Look at the post, its intent and how it 's been taken over.

Right and all knowing, all powerful, and all BS. Grow up

It 's one way to weed out those who are uninterested in Objectivism. The site needs an identity or we can go hang out elsewhere.

No you are not part of the site. You are a Christian troll.

So one person states it, gets published and you have no little problem believing him and imparting him with celestial knowledge. If that all it takes I have a book written by 66 authors, accepted as fact historically, containing propacy that has been fulfilled and large amounts that await fulfillment. It's pages hold some of the most beautiful poetry you will ever find anywhere and it's pages bare the guidence that has fueled the founding of two nations and two faiths. The history weaved through its pages is much of the history of western civilization.

It's present form has remained constant (allowing for spelling and grammar correction)since the early 1600's.

As you might have guessed, it's the Bible.

I understand, but this should not turn into a christian AS site. We are using Objectivism as the arbitor. The philosophy is clear. We can find so much to agree on. Christianity is not one of those.

EF neither has rational points nor is he interested in rand. He is christian troll.

'Herding cats" comes to mind as to staying on post topic on this site, and I'm not convinced that thinkers that gravitate to this site should be limited or even herded. The type of thinking and writing I see, seems to be the type of wide-ranging discussions I like, for the most part.

But there are some who are either seeking to be disruptive to the discussion or that seem to attempt to demonstrate their contrariness without understanding that such doesn't require ad hominem and just rude attack. There also seem to be some that kind of sit on edges like vultures, waiting for any chance to swoop down and tear something out. I don't think any of those types are just seen on this site.

Were those that express such strong views on religious and sexual practice/preference issues honest, you'd think they'd be looking for related topics to post and have rational discussions on - but they don't. But there are also those with honestly, deep beliefs about those topics that will quickly respond when such a topic arises. Can't fault them.

I'm pretty sure I'm not a cat person.

I can 't believe it. I am in agreement.