basimpson22

God of the Old Testament? The confusing part starts in vs. 6

...or else, you are honestly compelled to acknowledge your rationalization and follow the only alternative which is to reject his existence. Essentially, any concept of God - by clerics or theologians - is tailor-made and derivative. (I think.) I must point out that my early concept was as honest and sincere a belief as any. It wasn't designed to enable "a gradual departure from God" as you well put it. So, you would say not continuing to seek him out was denial; I would say it was denial that was keeping me there. Where do we go from here? B) Tony Well, this is difficult for me to analyze unless you can illustrate to me your personal transition from sincere believer to atheist. I do know that the reasons for these changes often have much to do with deeply personal issues. Or maybe it was as simple as having a revelation that all this religious stuff seems to be so contrived. Either way I am interested in your story on this matter. edit: i don't believe I said anything about denial. Possibly, one could infer that, though I feel what I said implies being completely honest with yourself. Ok, so you said that denial was keeping you there, well I say that your denial implies deep-seeded doubt and with possessing this doubt you are in essence serving up another plate of an inevitable departure from God. This is where faith comes in to play I suppose.

Well, these are two different things: the concept of God and....can't think of a better way to put it, God himself. You invented your own concept of God that suited you. I believe that any concept of God created to tailor to an individual's personal agenda is a recipe that results in a gradual departure from God, since by substituting God with an artificial persona, you are not honestly able to compel yourself to seek him out. Whose to say that the God, or atleast parts of his character, in the OT wasn't contrived in order to exercise an agenda. I know this isn't perfectly written but I feel certain that you can see where I'm coming from. I don't believe Schulman is guilty of this either(inventing a God to further his agenda). From where I stand, his main focuses are that of a staunch libertarian. By the way Tony, when I say the above statement I'm not accusing you of having this opinion. I just think it gives some credibility to the genuineness of Schulman's encounter.

Well, theoretically, I suppose God as an infinite number of "types" with every individual having a slightly varied and evolving perception of God. Well, do objectivists not already have a high appreciation for ingenuity and for science. Also I believe experimental invention is redundant as inventions are subject to the possibility of future improvement or even change in application. This goes along with what Schulberg says about how God is a dynamic being and not the rigid creature depicted in the Old Testament.

Yes Tony, I would agree with that they are closer than any religious person, because they are willing to really examine what is true where a religious person tends to uphold arbitrary dogmatism. I believe you may be on to something Tony. This adheres to the classic cliche, "if you love something you'll let it go. if it loves it'll find its way back" something to that effect. That's what Schulberg said he appreciates so much about libertarians, not believing in coercion. And Tony, I understand that you may have sprinkled your reply with a bit of sarcasm but I will choose to overlook this because of your kindness in the past. Edit: And if that wasn't your intention I apologize for assuming so.

I just came across this thread although its been posted for half a year. I read through Schulman's entire interview. It was a tremendous experience for me. This will likely have a profound impact on me. What hit me so hard was when I read one of Schulman's response to this question: With the understanding that you say nobody should take it on faith alone, what are you trying to get the readers of I Met God to believe? Schulman's answer: That God 's creation was an act of experimental invention thus the outcome was unknown to Him when He did it, and there were and still are enormous personal risks for Him. That for any intelligent being – even God -- “perfect” is not a noun but a verb, and any perfection is only a temporary way station in an unending adventure. That denying God because he takes risks and his experiments don’t always pan out is like a child finding out that his parents aren’t perfect, and while God isn’t perfect, he’s still way smarter, better informed, wiser, and better at making the hard choices than the rest of us are. (end answer) The reason this struck me so hard stems from a conversation I had with a devout christian just a couple nights ago. I had, what I felt was, a rather tremendous epiphany. So much so that I wrote it down, something I've rarely ever done. Here's what I wrote: I do believe God serves a purpose but its not to give us dogmatic commands to follow. The purpose is to give us something to aspire to. God is the epitome of perfection but perfection is an imperfect as well as an adaptable idea an in that sense you can mold God in the image of what you aspire to be. (end quote) I realize that Schulman's has a completely different premise, which is that God exists. However, after reading the interview I realized that what I said is only applicable if we honestly believe in a God-like being, or if one holds that same premise. We can't fool ourselves into striving to be something we know imaginary. It must be real to us. And I see parallels to Objectivist thinkers. I believe they are striving for perfection as well, but without the God premise. Perhaps, Objectivists are much closer to God than they realize.

edited version: I quite dislike Katie Kouric. Hey Michael, I posted this in hopes that it's something we could agree on, a disdain for Katie Kouric. As you can tell, I didn't put a lot of thought behind this post as it is bedtime for me and well, i'm just ready to go to bed. Unedited version: I fucking hate Katie Kouric, with her fake-ass, caked-up eyelashes and her greasy legs. Her legs aren't that nice people. addition: here's a link to a hateful article about KK. Bet middle initial is a K..... BTW, i know this may seem overdone as to the point of sarcasm but the truth is I really don't like Katie Kouric. That Bitch!

Nature does not love us, nor does nature hate us. The Cosmos is indifferent to us. For a long time we were not, for a short time we are, and for a long time afterward we will not be. The Universe does not care one way or the other. Ba'al Chatzaf Guys, you must be reading something different. The cosmos aren't mentioned. What is mentioned, is how in the natural world you don't find convincing evidence of altruism or "peaceful coexistence". Of course the universe or "nature" doesn't care one way or the other. They are not beings nor is the author of this article portraying nature as a being. Self fulfilling prophecy.......shit, if I had a dime everytime I read that on OL.

Well in Ayn Rand's novel there is a utopian-esque secret/exclusive society. If I were you I would try to imagine this objectivist utopia on a distant planet. Then you also have a model of a world without objectivist on earth to contrast the utopian planet with. Edit: The idea being that there are scouts from the utopian planet scavanging for potential objectivist on earth to send to Objectitopia(whatever you might call it)

AR wrote happiness is the ultimate moral goal. "Contentment" sounds more like Epicurus, who focused on avoidance of suffering. AR would have you straining yourself for the sake of great achievements. Reason alone, as opposed to what? Or is it reason without reference to evidence that is to be rejected? That’s not reason in AR’s view, it sounds like rationalism. No benevolent universe? I’ve never entirely bought into that one, however it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. I do find Taoism and Confucianism interesting, and superior to the Abrahamic traditions in most ways. However, they led to rather static societies, or so the critics allege. I believe you've failed to see the context of my post. Did you read the link I posted? Much of what I posted is directly quoted from the link so its not my opinion to debate, even though debate wasn't my aim in this post.

So much can be traced back to Asia but I never would've suspected to find evidence of Objectivist thinking when I started researching Taoism. Go to the link I posted to see what I'm talking about. Taoism Principle #1: The goal is contentment. I'm not sure if AR said this specifically but I know her favorite philosopher, Aristotle, was a proponent of this view. Principle #3: Manifestations of the Tao. Taoism acknowledges man's inherent intellectual limitations and consequently avoids concepts that cannot be tested and verified by practical application — reason alone is not to be trusted. I don't know about you but I believe there are hints of objectivism in this statement. Priniciple #4: Nature is unkind. All I believe I need to say about this excerpt is that it includes the phrase enlightened self-interest. Principle #5: Society vs. the Individual Ok, the title alone should intrigue any objectivist. You'll find reference to individualism and also it basically says altruism sucks without using the word altruism. Principle #6: Humanity and Justice are artificial Values. WOW! That's all the worthless commentary I have to offer. I'll let you guys analyze the rest of the article. Edit: I realize that there are many mystical references in this article. Just remember, I don't declare that Taoism is a perfect reflection of Objectivism. I just found the similarities to be quite intriguing.

I'd like a new leach field for my septic system. --Brant I know where you can get a free perc test

I would like to see arguments that justify the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz.

Please share any of your sleep paraylsis experiences. The strangest episode for me was when I awoke in sleep paralysis and I sensed a presence beside me. Of course, with my muscles temporarily paralyzed, I couldn't turn to see if anything was actually there. I know there is a scientific explanation for this that many will have an urge to cut and paste here but, please, I just want to hear the strange (or not so strange) stories associated with this peculiar phenomenon.

...and so Obama's re-election campaign begins

O, lol, from the other thread. Of course I don't agree with that. That's just nutty. Anyways, I wonder why is it that various groups of people have assigned Jews as their fictional oppressors?

Of course, MSK, there is a dash of provocation intentionally thrown in. I admit it. Who hasn't spiced their posts up on OL or any other forum for that matter? Sue me! One thing I'd like to say is I don't believe that 90% of movie critics have anti-Objectivism agendas.

The acting made me wrench. They may as well have casted robots and mannequins. It was God-awful, but, what else can you expect from a director accustomed to soap operas. I believe that many on OL are a bit delusional from having invested so much into anything Randian. Nonetheless, this is one of the lowest quality movies I have EVER seen in theatres. It has no business playing on the big screen.

Disappointing? I say, justifiable.

I applaud the white nationalist review. He hit the nail on the head. Plainly, the movie "sucked".

Jeff Riggenbach, I am a fan. I've finally found a voice of reason pertaining to politics on OL.

[Delete]

You are an intellectual clown. That's all you have ever been, and that's all you will ever be. So put on your red nose and big shoes, grab your seltzer bottle, and get on with Part 452 of "Watch the Clown Cry Some More." Ghs An intellectual clown? Women love an intelligent man with a sense of humor. Good for you Philip!

awww..... I just can't get enough of all this playful banter.

I found it eerie how what he was discussing parallels a novel written over 60 years ago. I've never read Anthem but I could easily see how his discussion correlates to Atlas Shrugged.