Noah unbelievably bad and no redeeming moments!

[dldelancey]

Babies are narcissitic by necessity, but they are not ingrates. They return the favors bestowed upon them with trust, cuddles, smiles, coos, and lots of love. Babies may declare quite loudly when they are in need, but they are also the epitome of reciprocity. The babies-are-liberals analogy doesn't fit, and it's an insult to babies.

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

I don't think that God exists.

You're right, Ellen...

God as you describe Him does not exist.

On that we are in complete agreement.

Greg

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

That's a significant point, since the God of the Jews didn't start out being claimed to be the only god. Instead, Yahweh, in an early stage of Judaism's development , was a god among other gods, and made a special deal with the Jews whereby they were to worship only him in return for his special protection. Thus the Jews became "the chosen people."

The real kicker is that same offer of protection is still valid today for anyone who wants to take God up on it. Simply honor Him by doing what's right and He will protect you from evil.

Greg

[moralist]

Tony writes:

("Chosen", I need not point out, hasn't done the Jews any favors-rather (as is my concern for any "special interest group") painted a target on their backs.)

And yet the Jews still prevail as people and as a nation. They only lose their protection when they as a nation abandon God.

Ironically, this also holds true right here and now. When God is expunged from public recognition, America as a nation will also lose its protection.

Greg

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

Babies are narcissitic by necessity

...as are liberals.

but they are not ingrates.

Babies are incapable of gratitude.

They return the favors bestowed upon them with trust, cuddles, smiles, coos, and lots of love.

So do liberals when they get what they need from their mommie, the government.

Babies may declare quite loudly when they are in need

... as do liberals.

but they are also the epitome of reciprocity.

As are liberals who give their political support to get government benefits.

The babies-are-liberals analogy doesn't fit, and it's an insult to babies.

Liberals being like babies is an insult to liberals, because babies can't help being self absorbed dependent narcissists...

...but liberals can.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I'd say that maybe babies act like little narcissists, not that they necessarily are. I recall the story about the father with an injured arm who had to diaper his baby with one hand. Instead of the usual baby thrashing about he lay quietly to make it easier. How babies act is for survival and growth value and if they weren't so damn cute the race would have gone extinct long ago. This superficial narcissism tends to peak and then decline in the mid teens or it hardens into something we can describe as nuerotic or pathological--way too much self regard, which is not true self esteem.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen writes:

Babies are narcissitic by necessity

When are you going to return to using the proper quote function?

The person you quoted there is Deanna - #176. (I agree with what Deanna said, but she should get the credit.)

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen writes:

Babies are narcissitic by necessity

When are you going to return to using the proper quote function?

The person you quoted there is Deanna - #176. (I agree with what Deanna said, but she should get the credit.)

Ellen

It works! It works!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen writes:

I don't think that God exists.

You're right, Ellen...

God as you describe Him does not exist.

On that we are in complete agreement.

Greg

Pin the tail on God.

--Brant

good

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Pin the tail on God.

That's right...

Hate and Negate

People first create a false ugly image of God to be the external object of their internal hate...

...and because their own hate is as ugly as the false image they created to hate...

...they then negate it.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

Pin the tail on God.

That's right...

Hate and Negate

People first create a false ugly image of God to be the external object of their internal hate...

...and because their own hate is as ugly as the false image they created to hate...

...they then negate it.

Greg

So, who wrote the Bible?

--Brant

[moralist]

Brant writes:
So, who wrote the Bible?

Good men who loved God because He is Good.


Greg

[Brant Gaede]

So, they told the truth about God and that's your God?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant writes:

So, who wrote the Bible?

Good men who loved God because He is Good.

Greg

More like late Bronze age dudes who did not know stuff was made of smaller stuff and who believed the sun went around the Earth. They also believe one could get stripped and spotted sheep from the lamb herd by showing the ewes whittled sticks while they were carrying lambs inside.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

So, they told the truth about God and that's your God?

My view is upside down from yours, Brant...

In my view, things don't exist just because someone writes about them. As far as I'm concerned, you could round up all the Bibles in the world and burn them and absolutely nothing would change in my life. This is because the Bible has absolutely no effect on the order of moral law. While it has other useful purposes, that's not one of them. It's just words used to describe that moral order and is not the order itself.

A finger is not the moon to which it points.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I have to guess, then, that they lied.

--Brant

good smokescreens you lay down

[moralist]

Brant writes:

I have to guess, then, that they lied.

You are welcome to your guess. It's all yours.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

When you argue with an irrationalist . . .

--Brant

he wins

[moralist]

Brant writes:

When you argue with an irrationalist . . .

--Brant

he wins

I already understand there's no point in arguing, because no one else can resolve your resentments for you. That's for you to deal with inside yourself. I'm just grateful they're yours and not mine.

Whenever people vent their complaints about God at me, I don't believe their descriptions of God any more than they do. It's just ugly lies made up by angry people who need something external to hate. So what's the point? What possible advantage could you get from what you're doing? It's just plain stupid to make up ugly lies only to hate and negate them.

It's like pouring sand into the gears of a machine.

Greg

[anthony]

Greg, I for one don't hate God (more precisely, the god-concept)and don't think Brant does either: I don't 'see' him, is all. That you see Him is fine by me and likely by most others here, man.

I've never been a bitter atheist, or seen the point.

[Brant Gaede]

Resentments?

--Brant

it was merely a factual statement

[moralist]

Greg, I for one don't hate God (more precisely, the god-concept)and don't think Brant does either:

I understand, Tony. My comment was for Brant alone since he was complaining about God.

I don't 'see' him, is all.

You will.

As long as you love what's morally right enough to do it, I can guarantee you'll see God. Those are not just idle platitudinous words. It's a promise personally made by Jesus and He always keeps His Word.

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God."

Your lack of resentment is a redeeming quality.

No one "has" to believe in God. It is not something people "have" to do, as if it required an effort of their will, or that they are forced to abandon their reason or their rationality. Quite the contrary, knowing God is completely effortless because it is totally up to Him to reveal Himself, and not for anyone to try to conjure Him up. In fact that's from where all of the ugly lies arise. People intellectualize an image of God when they don't actually know Him, so the image is always false. That's going about it in the wrong way.

You shall not make yourself any graven image to worship it..."

This includes making false mental images of God and creating false intellectual concepts of Him. To worship means to give your attention. People will even worship ugly negative false intellectual images of God when their attention becomes fixated onto the false image of their hate.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I have no complaint about "God." For me that would be complaining about reality. I have no belief in a Supreme Being--an old white guy up there in the sky. And Greg, you use a lot of ad hominem instead of ad logical and you squirm from one side of an argument to the other just to maintain your default positions.

--Brant

[moralist]

Brant writes:

I have no belief in a Supreme Being--an old white guy up there in the sky.

Neither do I, Brant.

That's just another ugly false image intellectually created only to negate. If you actually knew for yourself one way or the other, there would be no need to create any false images.

There's a reason that behavior made it into the TopTen.

Greg

[anthony]

Greg, I for one don't hate God (more precisely, the god-concept)and don't think Brant does either:

I understand, Tony. My comment was for Brant alone since he was complaining about God.

I don't 'see' him, is all.

You will...

Greg

Not in this life time Greg, but thanks for the thought. (Put in a good word for me, just in case, will ya?)

;)

Because imo it is more interesting or fulfilling to find some commonality with individuals instead of constantly stressing the differences, there is one thing immediately apparent in religious people like yourself: That they easily and naturally step through the so-called "is-ought" (false) dichotomy - as though it didn't exist.

Bearing in mind we are always going to be opposed on the fundaments of the "is" (metaphysics, man's nature); and then that there will remain large differences on the "ought" (ethics), though not all the time and not in every way.

For all that, it is no small thing this knowledge I think we Objectivists and the religious share, that the one implies and presupposes the other without a break.

Only have to compare with discussion with the secular- agnostic, philosophically-skeptical individual - who cannot or will not acknowledge the connection from "is" to "ought" and with whom it's soon clear this one essential difference is insurmountable.