The Bible

[Dodger]

Alright.

I like to rant when I'm angry. So I'll rant to get this out of my system.

Jesus H Christ I cant believe how people believe all of this bull that is Christianity. It is unimaginable.

Here is my logical conclusion.

If the Bible is God's Holy Word, then it cannot be wrong....ever. It cannot lie, it cannot have errors, it cannot be false. However, many blatant contradictiosn exist.

This means (BY GOD'S OWN DECREE) that the Bible is a bunch of cock and bull.

Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaradox.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

I was talking to this 15 year old girl, and she asked me to pray for her. I, being the blunt, honest person that I am said that I could not do so because I no longer considered myself a Christian.

She asked me why and I gave her a few reasons.

Well, it sparked a debate.

So I decided to end it quickly, so I told her that the bible has contradictions. She said that isnt true, and I quoted a few verses. Generally, the contradiction is this:

Some of the bible says 'FAITH ALONT CAN SAVE YOU!!!!!'

Some parts say 'FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD!!!!!!'

I quoted the verses in James that completely destroy the Bible's credibility. She responded by saying that I was wrong and kept showing me more and more verses that say essentially the same thing, that only faith can save you.

I laughed so god damn hard that I almost pissed myself.

I could not BELIEVE that someone would IGNORE such a BOLD contradiction!!

I asked her if she saw the contradiction....

She said yes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!

And you STILL believe this bull crap?!?!?

Oh dear GOD it was HILARIOUS.

Whats even funnier.

The Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!!!!

Well...one of them HAS to be right, dontcha think?

WHICH ONE?!?!?

And if you tell me the Catholic Bible is right Ill say 'HAHAHAH BS DUDE' and show you the inner contradictions of the bible.

The bible IS NOT GODS SPOKEN WORD!!!!

IT IS A COLLECTION OF WORKS OF MEN GROUPED TOGETHER IN A HUGE MESS THAT WE CALL HOLY!!!

LMFAO!!!!

THE ADAM AND EVE STORY WASNT EVEN WRITTEN TILL MOSES WAS ALIVE!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh man. I find this so entertaining and I just LOVE making Christians run away with their tails between their legs.

Oh..

Im sorry, but I am completely emotionally detached when I talk to people who believe in Christianity. I think they are sheep and that they dont deserve my nice caring side. I would much rather show them the asshole that I can be.

My apologies if this offends anyone, but I had to get it out of my system. But if you are an objectivist, then Im sure you will feel as I do.

[Victor Pross]

Doger,

I can certainly appreciate the spirit of your post. No, I’m not offended. In fact, I was an atheist before I came across Ayn Rand. Yes, the The Bible is rather an incongruent assemblage of documents spanning a considerably immense amount of time.

With a more charitable frame of mind, I think that by comparing the Bible with other sources we have from similar time periods, I think one can learn some real historical information from studying the Bible. And beyond that, like similar documents from other cultures, many of the proverbs and principles delineated in the Bible can be said to be “common sense” -- but much of it is rather crude and even horrendous. Of course, as you know, Objectivism rejects the supernatural for this reason: It is something that must be taken on faith, not facts. This is a very good reason for any rational person to reject it, Objectivist or not.

I’m sure you’ll remember this quote from Atlas Shrugged:

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his [mans] original sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge- he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil- he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor- he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire- he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy- all the cordinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was, that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love, he was not man…Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.”

I love that part! :turned:

-Victor

Edited April 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dodger]

Victor,

Thank you so much. I am glad that you were able to read through my emotion-fueld rant and give me an objective comment. Your comment is very insightful, and you are correct. The Bible may be a horrible book to base one's life off of, but it is a good historical collection of information.

Just for the sake of sharing:

I have the bible's teachings known to such an extent that I can teach a Christian how to live his life. I know what it takes to get into heaven, what should be done, what should not, etc.

It is because I know the bible so well and the religion itself that I throw it away. Those who believe in Christianity do not really know that which is the bible, rather, hey know what is taught to them, and they believe it like mindless sheep following a shepard. It is disgusting to watch so many people try to discredit arguements by using verses of the bible, as if it were the top authority.

I have been raised Christian. I can understand how a Christian reacts to being questioned and proven wrong, because I was once one. I know how irrational I was and how I used the bible to validate all that I said. I remember when others presented perfectly logical statements that refuted me, and how I reacted. I remember it all, which means I know exactly why Christians believe what they believe, how they have come to believe it, and why it is flawed, simply because I have been through the motions.

I recently went to a church 2 weeks ago on a wednesday night.

This is the ironic part:

I was able to debate with the youth pastor, and I gained a tremendous amount of respect from people I have never met simply because my knowledge of the bible was far greated than theirs. I had the ability to teach them everything about their own religion, show them verses to back it up, etc.

That was a very eye-opening experience. I saw how desperate they were for a man of intelligence to lead them. Christians do not look to God or the Bible, they look to the most knowledgeable man and the most inspiring to lead them.

Hell, if I wanted to, I could probably be a world renown preacher.

Eh...Im ranting again. I cant sleep at the moment, I have a woman on my mind

Anyways, Victor, thank you again for your comment, and that quote you gave me is amazing. It makes me want to read the book again.

Man I love this place

[Robert Jones]

Thanks for the dose of sanity, Victor: That one can be opposed to the Bible without sounding like an incoherently silly schizophrenic. You are always an honorable poster on these boards.

By the way, friend Dodger, I would suggest to you that I am not a Catholic based upon the Bible, but based upon a glorious sense-of-life projected by many Biblical and canonized heroes, including the Saint of Reason, Thomas Aquinas.

For the same reason I am an enthusiastic admirer of Ayn Rand's novels. You know what I figured out, once I did some growing up? It was this: That I admired Rand not because I agreed with the letter of Objectivism, but because of the glorious sense-of-life projected by her larger-than-life heroes. Tell you what: If you really want to sabotage Objectivism, in the next printing of "Atlas Shrugged," replace Galt's speech with your incoherent drivel. And then, watch the results! This is too absurd to even contemplate Ayn Rand writing anything remotely approaching what you just wrote.

Regarding:

"Im sorry, but I am completely emotionally detached when I talk to people who believe in Christianity. I think they are sheep and that they dont deserve my nice caring side. I would much rather show them the asshole that I can be."

And, this place is called "Rants," so I gotta cut you some slack there. "Emotionally detached"? Please edit out all the cartoonish lines like:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!"

...and then I will buy that one.

Listen, pal, I know you think you're just among "your own kind," so you can spew crap like this, sort of like white guys making n*gger jokes when there are no blacks around.

But, you're also responsible for your words. And, based upon the juvenile "gotcha" nature of your rant, I'd place your age at about 15 or so. But the proper word isn't "asshole." It's "bigot."

Sheep? I'll show you a whole lotta sheep! Me and a whole slew of Army troops and Marines, my buddies going back 25 years. Come by the American Legion hall where we honor God and Country and dare call any of us "sheep"! While I'm no hero, I know a hell of a lot of guys who've been in harm's way, who've been in firefights, who've been in foxholes up to their knees in rain and their own filth. The vast majority of whom are quite religious in their own way, and don't take any crap from anyone. You'd last about five seconds, because you'd be preaching your unsolicited judgmental garbage on a good number of men who would just as soon bounce your hide out onto the street.

Go back and actually READ that screed of yours. It is chock full of the manic, intolerant, rush to judgment brand of Objectivism that's better flushed down the commode and sanitized thereafter with a good helping of Pine Sol.

Get your head out of your duffel bag, son! Ever occur to you that, if Objectivism is about anything at all, first and foremost it's about thinking for yourself? I know it is incomprehensible to you, but thinking for yourself is NOT treating the Bible OR "Atlas Shrugged" as REVEALED TRUTH, which is exactly what you're doing. Neither is thinking for yourself letting Ayn Rand, Lenny Peikoff or anybody else sit as a board of censorship insie your head. ("Oh, gosh, I can't be religious, because Rand said that means I'm not guided by free will, but dancing on the strings of a puppet master deity.") It takes ZERO guts or brains to come aboard this forum and parrot what Ayn Rand or anyone else in the "Movement" says.

Grow up! Your manner of expression is not welcome here by me. Tell you what: You get the guts to be religious AND write for Objectivist publications. I would no sooner renounce my deepest-held beliefs just because of who cuts my paychecks than, say, Martin Luther, Thomas a Becket, Jeanne d'Arc, or Howard Roark would have.

Either that, or take your shtick to the Focus On the Family folks and see if they put you on the payroll. Is the picture coming in any clearer now?

It is to the eternal glory that the people on THIS side of Objectivism's fence have -- while not budging an inch on the principal of an atheistic metaphysics -- been accomodating in the extreme to those with a religious worldview. Take a look at the Moslem guy who's coming to the IOS summer seminar to connect the Islamic tradition of Ijtihad -- of rational debate and inquiry within Islam, rather than blind dogma -- and following the example of Averroes. Then DARE get up in his grille and serve up the same bizarre, screaming pile of fecal matter you just said about the Bible and Christians, but instead about the Koran and Moslems. Do you hear that sound? It's the silent sound of shame, of crickets chirping, because you've helped to drive home the stereotype that Objectivists are a bunch of hysterical zealots and puritans!

So, I request that you get yourself an attitude adjustment because I know the Bible pretty well, too, and can make mince meat in no time out of your non-sequiturs and ad hominem attacks. Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk.

I urge you to appeal to your mature reason instead of your inner child's emotions.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is my logical conclusion.

If the Bible is God's Holy Word, then it cannot be wrong....ever. It cannot lie, it cannot have errors, it cannot be false. However, many blatant contradictiosn exist.

This means (BY GOD'S OWN DECREE) that the Bible is a bunch of cock and bull.

Grown up people realize that the Bible (and the Holy Books of other religions) were written by human beings and were done so in an age before science existed (the Q'ran is an exception: Aristotle was known to the Arabs and Jews before the time of Mohammed). What is likely to be found in such books?

1. Some kind of creation story.

2. Some kind of moral exhortation.

3. Some kind of list of mores and customs.

4. A bit of history both mythical and real

5. Some poetry and song.

What sensible, grown up folks should not expect is the Word of the Lord. Only the Fundies and other religious extremists buy this notion, that the Bible is Truth straight out of G-d's mouth. More sensible folk take the bible as literature and a cultural artifact.

Now it turns out that the Hebrew Bible (TNKH or Old Testament as the goyim call it) is a staple part of western culture, in much the same way as The Illiad was a staple part of Greek culture. Aristotle, Plato and Socrates knew the Illiad backward and forward. They had it read to them as children and they read it as adults. This is simply the case. It has nothing to do with whether the Bible (or the Illiad) contains facts (it so happens that the Hebrew Bible contains a very good description of the land around the Dead Sea and the land down at Etzion Geber, where the modern port of Elat is). The Bible may even provide a clue to the location of King Solomon's copper mines. The Hebrew Bible has a mythologized story of how the Hebrews and Egyptians interacted both during the rule of the Hyksos (the story of Joseph in Egypt) and afterward when the Southern Dynasty took over in Egypt. You don't have to believe literally in Ten Plagues to appreciate the end of slavery, as is memorialized at the Passover, also remembering the near genocide of Jews in Persia during the time of King Artitaxes has its uses. The Scroll of Esther is the only book in the Hebrew Bible in which G-d is not mentioned, not even once. Unlike the more recent genocide in Germany, the Persian Jews fought back from the git-go. That is something worth remembering, or so I think. I am sure the Jews who -did- fight back in the rebellion of the Warsaw Ghetto and Sobibor had the Scroll of Esther in mind. In fact, Hitler even chose time of Purim for his final dissolution of the Ghetto. That is no accident. For forty two days, the Jews of Warsaw proved to the world that the Nazi supermen were not all that super and they bled just like everyone else. The Jews lost that round, since they were completely outnumbered and outgunned but they gave as good as they got for forty two days in spring. They lasted longer against the Nazis then the French army did. So the Hebrew Bible did have some use, as an inspiration to courage and defiance of tyranny.

The story of the Hebrews in Egypt did not go unheeded by Black slaves in the American South. They saw the story of Moses and the Hebrews as being totally relevant to their situation. Not bad for a Book that is total bullshit, yes? The slaves of the south did not rely totally on De Lawd. They made good use of the Underground Railroad, run mostly by Quakers who also read the Bible. Not bad for a book that is total bullshit, eh what?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BAMF]

I echo Robert's sentiments about the immaturity of that post, Dodger. I've made some pretty immature posts myself, but none as venomous as that. In fact, I think that's the most venom I've ever seen on this board.

[Dodger]

I posted this here simply because I was angry, and I wanted to get something out of my system. I generalized as well. I do not want anyone to take anything I said as gospel, simply because it was merely a way for me to shred my bitter mood.

Robert:

If you are going to challenge me, at least put up a better fight.

Thanks for the dose of sanity, Victor: That one can be opposed to the Bible without sounding like an incoherently silly schizophrenic. You are always an honorable poster on these boards.

Yes, Victor's post was very good, and I admired him for taking such a stance. I also admired him for not getting angry because I decided to lash out and relieve some of my anger.

By the way, friend Dodger, I would suggest to you that I am not a Catholic based upon the Bible, but based upon a glorious sense-of-life projected by many Biblical and canonized heroes, including the Saint of Reason, Thomas Aquinas.

For the same reason I am an enthusiastic admirer of Ayn Rand's novels. You know what I figured out, once I did some growing up? It was this: That I admired Rand not because I agreed with the letter of Objectivism, but because of the glorious sense-of-life projected by her larger-than-life heroes. Tell you what: If you really want to sabotage Objectivism, in the next printing of "Atlas Shrugged," replace Galt's speech with your incoherent drivel. And then, watch the results! This is too absurd to even contemplate Ayn Rand writing anything remotely approaching what you just wrote.

I was fine with this until you insulted me. Please, take your childish 'Stupid kid' accusations elseware--I will not tolerate it. If you dont like the way I say something, fine, but you do not have to start a flame war.

Listen, pal, I know you think you're just among "your own kind," so you can spew crap like this, sort of like white guys making n*gger jokes when there are no blacks around.

But, you're also responsible for your words. And, based upon the juvenile "gotcha" nature of your rant, I'd place your age at about 15 or so. But the proper word isn't "asshole." It's "bigot."

I'm 17. I'll have to ask you to not label me, or judge me based on one post that I made that I have already defined as anger driven.

Sheep? I'll show you a whole lotta sheep! Me and a whole slew of Army troops and Marines, my buddies going back 25 years. Come by the American Legion hall where we honor God and Country and dare call any of us "sheep"! While I'm no hero, I know a hell of a lot of guys who've been in harm's way, who've been in firefights, who've been in foxholes up to their knees in rain and their own filth. The vast majority of whom are quite religious in their own way, and don't take any crap from anyone. You'd last about five seconds, because you'd be preaching your unsolicited judgmental garbage on a good number of men who would just as soon bounce your hide out onto the street.

Wow. What pisses you off so much about me? Is it that I decided not to care what anyone thought? Is it that I was honest?

What's even funnier, you have already deemed me unworthy of debating, when I, even though I was angry in my rant, am willing to listen to you and reconsider my position and how I handle situations.

However, I do not respond well to posts that completely insult me. You have just lost your credibility by approaching this matter thanatonically. You had a goal in mind, and it was to completely bash me for my post.

Seems like you're the one who needs to grow up.

Go back and actually READ that screed of yours. It is chock full of the manic, intolerant, rush to judgment brand of Objectivism that's better flushed down the commode and sanitized thereafter with a good helping of Pine Sol.

I've read it. Im happy with what I wrote. It was an effective way for me to relieve myself, and better yet, Victor responded in an admirable way. He saw this rant for what it was and did not act thanatonically--rather, he acted the opposite. You chose otherwise.

Get your head out of your duffel bag, son! Ever occur to you that, if Objectivism is about anything at all, first and foremost it's about thinking for yourself? I know it is incomprehensible to you, but thinking for yourself is NOT treating the Bible OR "Atlas Shrugged" as REVEALED TRUTH, which is exactly what you're doing. Neither is thinking for yourself letting Ayn Rand, Lenny Peikoff or anybody else sit as a board of censorship insie your head. ("Oh, gosh, I can't be religious, because Rand said that means I'm not guided by free will, but dancing on the strings of a puppet master deity.") It takes ZERO guts or brains to come aboard this forum and parrot what Ayn Rand or anyone else in the "Movement" says.

You deserve a hard slap to the face. You ONCE AGAIN have drawn conclusions about me and assumed you know my character, philosophy, and my life by ONE POST.

I have been a Christian for the majority of my life. I was a Christian when I read Atlas Shrugged. The book did not alter my faith in any way, but what it did do was tell me one thing: check my premises.

After I read the book I simply started looking inward at myself, questioning my beliefs and values.

It is through these actions that I came to my conclusions, and the indirect influence of others around me.

Obviously, I pissed you off and you decided to take that anger and use it in a NEGATIVE WAY!!!

Anger is neutral until it is given actions associated with it. You have taken a negative path and decided to flame me, insult me, and judge me.

However, you cannot accuse me of doing the same of Christianity. I have been a Christian almost all my life, and I have a very firm grasp of the knowledge and teachings Christianity represents. My decision to change was made alone, and by my own logic. NOT by Ayn Rand and NOT by anyone else.

Grow up! Your manner of expression is not welcome here by me. Tell you what: You get the guts to be religious AND write for Objectivist publications. I would no sooner renounce my deepest-held beliefs just because of who cuts my paychecks than, say, Martin Luther, Thomas a Becket, Jeanne d'Arc, or Howard Roark would have.

Your manner of expression is not welcome here by me, either. At least, not until you redeem yourself and regain your credibility that you just forfeited.

Either that, or take your shtick to the Focus On the Family folks and see if they put you on the payroll. Is the picture coming in any clearer now?

Yes, the picture is coming clearer. The picture is that you have assumed and have been thanatonic in your post.

You obviously already hold some sort of superiority complex, at least when it comes to me.

Please, throw it away.

It is to the eternal glory that the people on THIS side of Objectivism's fence have -- while not budging an inch on the principal of an atheistic metaphysics -- been accomodating in the extreme to those with a religious worldview. Take a look at the Moslem guy who's coming to the IOS summer seminar to connect the Islamic tradition of Ijtihad -- of rational debate and inquiry within Islam, rather than blind dogma -- and following the example of Averroes. Then DARE get up in his grille and serve up the same bizarre, screaming pile of fecal matter you just said about the Bible and Christians, but instead about the Koran and Moslems. Do you hear that sound? It's the silent sound of shame, of crickets chirping, because you've helped to drive home the stereotype that Objectivists are a bunch of hysterical zealots and puritans!

Sigh.

More insults.

So, I request that you get yourself an attitude adjustment because I know the Bible pretty well, too, and can make mince meat in no time out of your non-sequiturs and ad hominem attacks. Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk.

I urge you to appeal to your mature reason instead of your inner child's emotions.

If you are so sure that you are much more intelligent than I am, and you are justified in basing your beliefs of me on assumptions, then far be it for me to tell you that you are wrong.

Now then.

Please dont miss this part:

I am willing to declare anything I say wrong. I am willing to comprimise. I am willing to lose. However, in order for me to admit any form of defeat, YOU have to do a better job of proving me wrong. Personal attacks of this matter do nothing but stir my temper. All you have to do is detach yourself from the outcome of this post and cooperate in a rational, logical manner. If you want to prove me wrong , or do anything at all, then do it with an open mind, and do not be so quick to judge. Do not start flame wars, and do not insult me. You have the chance to regain your credibility but only you can do it. You have to be willing to cooperate.

Baal:

What sensible, grown up folks should not expect is the Word of the Lord. Only the Fundies and other religious extremists buy this notion, that the Bible is Truth straight out of G-d's mouth. More sensible folk take the bible as literature and a cultural artifact.

I agree 100%. The Bible itself is a valuable cultural artifact and has many things that can be useful. But when it comes to believing that the book is the holy word of God--that is when you have crossed the line.

Now it turns out that the Hebrew Bible (TNKH or Old Testament as the goyim call it) is a staple part of western culture, in much the same way as The Illiad was a staple part of Greek culture. Aristotle, Plato and Socrates knew the Illiad backward and forward. They had it read to them as children and they read it as adults. This is simply the case. It has nothing to do with whether the Bible (or the Illiad) contains facts (it so happens that the Hebrew Bible contains a very good description of the land around the Dead Sea and the land down at Etzion Geber, where the modern port of Elat is). The Bible may even provide a clue to the location of King Solomon's copper mines. The Hebrew Bible has a mythologized story of how the Hebrews and Egyptians interacted both during the rule of the Hyksos (the story of Joseph in Egypt) and afterward when the Southern Dynasty took over in Egypt. You don't have to believe literally in Ten Plagues to appreciate the end of slavery, as is memorialized at the Passover, also remembering the near genocide of Jews in Persia during the time of King Artitaxes has its uses. The Scroll of Esther is the only book in the Hebrew Bible in which G-d is not mentioned, not even once. Unlike the more recent genocide in Germany, the Persian Jews fought back from the git-go. That is something worth remembering, or so I think. I am sure the Jews who -did- fight back in the rebellion of the Warsaw Ghetto and Sobibor had the Scroll of Esther in mind. In fact, Hitler even chose time of Purim for his final dissolution of the Ghetto. That is no accident. For forty two days, the Jews of Warsaw proved to the world that the Nazi supermen were not all that super and they bled just like everyone else. The Jews lost that round, since they were completely outnumbered and outgunned but they gave as good as they got for forty two days in spring. They lasted longer against the Nazis then the French army did. So the Hebrew Bible did have some use, as an inspiration to courage and defiance of tyranny.

Thank you for that. I rather enjoyed learning a few new things, and being encouraged to look at it through historical means. I appreciate this

The story of the Hebrews in Egypt did not go unheeded by Black slaves in the American South. They saw the story of Moses and the Hebrews as being totally relevant to their situation. Not bad for a Book that is total bullshit, yes? The slaves of the south did not rely totally on De Lawd. They made good use of the Underground Railroad, run mostly by Quakers who also read the Bible. Not bad for a book that is total bullshit, eh what?

Not bad at all.

But please dont confuse my anger at the way the book is viewed from the book itself.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Dodger

[Dodger]

I echo Robert's sentiments about the immaturity of that post, Dodger. I've made some pretty immature posts myself, but none as venomous as that. In fact, I think that's the most venom I've ever seen on this board.

Forgive me for being angry. However, it was my choice and I wanted to releave myself of the anger.

But eh, my previous post combatting Robert should be enough to explain further.

[BAMF]

I think Robert had a right to say what he said since there was so much hatred in your previous post. I realize that we all have to blow off steam at times, but I'm still kind of put off by it. You say he has no right to insult you? You say that he shouldn't judge? You were doing those very things. The way you presented yourself in your initial post offended and insulted Robert (and me, although I'm an atheist), so he let you know it.

For someone who is extremely familiar with Christianity and was once a Christian himself, you certainly seem to condemn easily.

You said: "However, you cannot accuse me of doing the same of Christianity. I have been a Christian almost all my life, and I have a very firm grasp of the knowledge and teachings Christianity represents. My decision to change was made alone, and by my own logic. NOT by Ayn Rand and NOT by anyone else."

Maybe you should let your little debating buddy come to rational conclusions on her own. Or just her own conclusions, even if they're not rational. I certainly hope that you did not attempt to persuade her with the amount of anger you had in your last post. Would that have worked on you?

I'm not going to condemn you forever because of this post, I just had to let you know that I thought it was absurd. I know that it was your choice to blow off steam (believe me, I've been to the point of wanting to blurt out things similar to your first post), and I also know that it is anyone else's choice to agree or disagree.

You are a very intelligent dude, and it shows.

P.S. I emphatically forgive you for being angry. We've all been there, bro.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Kori

[Dodger]

Kori;

I think Robert had a right to say what he said since there was so much hatred in your previous post. I realize that we all have to blow off steam at times, but I'm still kind of put off by it. You say he has no right to insult you? You say that he shouldn't judge? You were doing those very things. The way you presented yourself in your initial post offended and insulted Robert (and me, although I'm an atheist), so he let you know it.

You have the right to say what you just did, and the manner in which you have spoken has gotten me to reconsider and at least think about the consequences of the post I have made. However, Robert took the easy way out.

I appreciate you being able to be sincere and cooperative. I will reconsider what I said.

For someone who is extremely familiar with Christianity and was once a Christian himself, you certainly seem to condemn easily.

I have a lot to explain for this. But I will save it for later; it will take too long to type.

Maybe you should let your little debating buddy come to rational conclusions on her own. Or just her own conclusions, even if they're not rational. I certainly hope that you did not attempt to persuade her with the amount of anger you had in your last post. Would that have worked on you?

I most certainly did NOT respond to her in the fashion of my post. However, I was not nice. I was honest, and I was blunt. I did not attack her beliefs but I told her what I thought, and what I believed. I told her that it was not up to me to try and influence her beliefs in any way, shape, or form, but that I did want to make my stance clear.

I'm not going to condemn you forever because of this post, I just had to let you know that I thought it was absurd. I know that it was your choice to blow off steam (believe me, I've been to the point of wanting to blurt out things similar to your first post), and I also know that it is anyone else's choice to agree or disagree.

Thank you, and I apologize for the manner of this post. It was made out of an extreme amount of anger, and for the whole story you will have to wait a little while, because it will take some time to type.

EDIT: Would you also say that it is anyone else's right to draw conclusions and assume things about me from the post?

Edited April 21, 2007 by Dodger

[BAMF]

Dodge,

And I appreciate your sincerity. I so understand what it's like to be angry, especially after a talk with someone 'irrational', and I understand that it takes venting and cooling down.

I was pretty certain you didn't respond to her in such a way, because if you did, you probably wouldn't have had to post such a rant. You don't have to be 'nice' in a debate. Haha!

No more apologies needed. At least to me.

I would say that it is someone else's right to assume things about you from your post. It's just like in real life. I judge people based on the way they act and by the things they say. It's a reflection on who they are. However, I usually wait to see if they consistently act a certain way before I cast a damning judgment upon them. I do think Robert was a bit harsh about certain things, but that's just what he saw in your post. I'm sure you can convince him that you are not what is contained in that first post, just like you have me.

I look forward to hearing more about this experience.

[Victor Pross]

Dodger,

In the spirit of the current conversation, I would like to recommend a book that had a profound influence on me. I was only 16 when I read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I whole heartedly recommend this book to broaden your intellectual horizons. Thomas Paine was highly influential inspirational writer during the American Revolution. Thomas Paine was one of the most influential people, not only of the American Revolution, but of his time as a whole. He was a contributor to The Declaration of Independence. His “Common Sense” book inspired the American Revolution.

In The Age of Reason Paine declared that he did not believe in any religion and that all religions are institutions established for the enslavement of mankind. Paine went on to strongly criticize the Bible and document many fallacies in the Bible, as well as giving an excellent account of how the Christian religion developed from its early pagan roots---an analysis which still holds weight. Paine denied the truth of the story of Christ's birth and of his resurrection and his manner of presentation is both lucid and funny.

However, Paine believed in God. Not the Christian God, which he did mock—but he believed in god. Paine refers to his concept of god, as "the Creator", those famous words in The Declaration of Independence. Paine also made common use of the phrase "God of Nature" or "Nature's God" -- a phrase also found in The Declaration. The Age of Reason, though, stands as a great work that rips apart the bible.

-Victor

Edited April 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Robert Jones]

I'm not going to get tied up in a bunch of arguments, I'm just going to say this once:

Dodger, as you see this "argument," of course I lose. I think, however, you miss the point entirely: To many people freshly enamored with Ayn Rand and Objectivism, they are suddenly possessed of the urge to go out amongst the people and trumpet their discovery. I've been there myself, as I became an atheist two years after reading "Atlas Shrugged," and remained one until I was in my late twenties.

Among many, particularly the young, this can turn into the ugly desire to be a Moral Avenging Crusader. It is not merely enough to disagree with someone, to even think their beliefs are silly and foolish. But, the almost innate need to then get in people's faces, and prejudge them and pronounce moral judgment upon them -- in an unwelcome, uncouth and unsolicited manner -- has become the ugly hallmark of some rabid Objectivists.

You just read "Atlas Shrugged." Wunderbar, brilliant, and more power to you. I still re-read it every few years to "refuel" my own soul. But, Ayn Rand never meant her magnum opus to be used as a club to bash people over the heads with, like some union thug. She never meant that, in the pursuit of reason, we drop being *reasonable.*

I doubt that you're familiar with the dark side of Objectivism, the scathing moral judgments, the kangaroo courts, the excommunications, the schisms separating the chosen annointed from the profligate apostates, and -- worst in my book -- the unwarranted, unsolicited moral judgment of one's fellows, family, friends and even total strangers. For many years, Objectivists have had adhered to them the label of "cultists," and often not unjustly.

This is an irrational and destructive impulse among some who proclaim Objectivism, the thirst in the marrow of one's bones not so much to do the right thing, but to BE right, to be an exemplar of moral perfection. That may be one thing, this type of zealous behavior on the part of the acolyte. However, when this becomes a compunction to take it beyond that, to use one's rightness as a sword with which to smite the transgressors, the heretics, the (dare I say it) Infidel, then this steps into the realm of what Robert Bidinotto rightly called "intrinsicism." This is referring to Immanuel Kant's notion that people need only be vessels of moral rectitude, that the purity of their knowledge and motives is sufficient, actions and choices and exercise of free will take a big back seat in Kant's world.

When I read a screed like the one above, I can only see it as "militant intrinsicism."

About five years ago, some college kids started a Yahoo! user group called "Romantic Realists," or some such name, a place for the artists, writers and musicians among us to congreagate, and share our works in a generally benevolent fashion. It was a great idea, and even drew in people like Bidinotto, Marsha and John Enright, and even (I think) Barbara Branden.

Ah, but that wasn't obviously morally correct enough for this passel of rabid, younger members. These were some (presumably) college kids who jumped all over John Enright in one of their crusades, savaging his character, questioning his sanity and generally sitting as a board of moral arbiters condeming him mercilessly for what were mostly imaginary transgressions. These kids had a field day with assassinating his character, because such concepts as tolerance, good will and giving the benefit of the doubt were foreign to them. What mattered to them solely was that they *were right* and John *was wrong.*

My recommendation is to read about this ugly history of the Objectivist movement up front before proceeding further. Books like Barbara Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand," Nathaniel Branden's "Judgment Day," David Kelley's "Truth and Toleration," and so many numerous articles on the Internet about the famous Objectivist show trials and excommunications of people like Robert and Beatrice Hessen, George Reisman and Edith Packer, and Per-Olof Samuelsson.

Consider these shocking stories of friendship and loyalty betrayed. Then, you will see why some of us here are very sensitive when we see moralizing hooliganism posing as ethical consistency.

I am religious, but am very sympathetic to atheists, and even their reasons for being so. If not, then the five people who've most influenced me -- atheists all -- would not have been allowed into my pantheon. But, these atheists, while being intransigent, never stooped to the level of those they claimed to be combatting. I urge you to check out the works of Nat Hentoff, H.L. Mencken, Robert A. Heinlein and Kurt Vonnegut in addition to those of Ayn Rand's.

In addition, I also recommend Aquinas's "Summa Theologica." You need not agree with any or all of what these writers have to say, but just please keep in mind that wisdom comes from finding shared values with people whom we would otherwise disagree with.

That said: Truce?

Edited April 21, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Dodger]

Victor;

I'll go pick up that book tonight.

Robert;

Thank you for being willing to cooperate. I understand the reasons behind your initial assumptions, whether or not I believe they were wrongly placed.

And, to be honest, I am not very familiar with the darker side of objectivism. However, I can assure you that my goals are not to try and destroy anyone's beliefs--My grandmother whom I live with is Christian and I do not judge her at all. The beliefs I have are different for different people. Ill explain.

For the majority of church going Christians, it is easy for them to be deceived. I remember about a month ago my youth pastor was preaching on a topic that most churches and denominations deem completely wrong and taken out of context--and that is predestination. Now, I dont have a problem with people who believe it out of their own decision, but what I DO have a problem with is people entrusting their minds to a MAN. Almost every kid in that youth group nodded their heads and said 'Yup, that makes sense' solely because our youth pastor said so. It made me sick.

I, to put it in better terms, do NOT feel all Christians are sheep or worthless human beings. However, those that forfeit the control of their beliefs to someone else, who do not even ask themselves if they agree, are sheep and should not even be spoken to. They have no right to even attempt to convert me.

Now, for those Christians who have PERSONAL REASONS and have MADE THE CHOICE CONSCIOUSLY--More power to them and far be it for me to even attempt to discredit their beliefs and character. I know many people that are smarter than I am who put their faith in God for personal reasons and experiences. Now, most of the time I disagree with their use of some experiences as proof for God's existence, but it is not my place to try and debunk someone's beliefs when they have made the choice consciously.

Consider these shocking stories of friendship and loyalty betrayed. Then, you will see why some of us here are very sensitive when we see moralizing hooliganism posing as ethical consistency.

Very good point, and it makes perfect sense. I apologize for the way I have come off to you, but I hope that my explanation of my views has helped shed some light on why I feel as I do, and why I react so harshly to some Christians--It is how I react to anyone who forfeits their mind and ability to make conscious decisions.

And as for the truce, hell, after that eye opening post of yours, Im ready to give you a brotherly hug

[Victor Pross]

Robert,

Most excellent post.

Dodger,

Regarding the Orthodox Objectivists, I have had my share of them—believe me. You may not know it, but I am a Toronto caricature artist. I took a fantasy to caricaturing a specific Ortho-Objectivist who operates some other site. This did not make a lot of people too happy on that site—which was posted there by Robert Campbell. Mind you, Ol’ers had a blast when that was done.

The rendering should communicate how this individual views himself—and how others view him in relations to themselves---OR how this individual wishes others to view him. This work is called "Follow the Leader."

In the journey of discovering Objectivist ideas, let them serve as guiding principles to living a happy and productive life—not as a gavel upon which to smite others. (Unless you have a sense of humor--then and only then--do so!) :turned:

Edited April 22, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dodger]

Victor;

Very interesting post.

Can you explain/elaborate on your caricature? It isn't as obvious (at least, not to me) as most are.

Forgive me for not seeing it yet.

[Victor Pross]

Victor;

Very interesting post.

Can you explain/elaborate on your caricature? It isn't as obvious (at least, not to me) as most are.

Forgive me for not seeing it yet.

Dodger,

There is a very involved story behind the meaning of this drawing, and it was directed to a “target audience”—so don’t feel too bad for not “getting it”. However, if you wish to heed Robert’s advice about educating yourself regarding those dastardly Ortho-Objectivists, the 'dark side', I would refer you to this link:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Kilbou...ing_Beast.shtml

This link is to an article about the subject of my caricature, Lindsay Perigo. As you read along, see if you can connect the image to the story. My job, as a professional caricaturist, is to link the image to the person. Come, son, to the dark side, and take a look!! Educate thy self!

-Victor

Edited April 22, 2007 by Victor Pross

[BAMF]

Mitchell, if you do investigate it, don't get sucked into the dark side. It's frightening. It's truly, truly frightening. (And yes, read "The Passion of Ayn Rand" and "My Years With Ayn Rand")

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche

P.S. Robert, I'm VERY interested to know what made you become a Catholic once again after being an atheist. That's very unusual.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Kori

[Victor Pross]

P.S. Robert, I'm VERY interested to know what made you become a Catholic once again after being an atheist. That's very unusual.

Yes, Robert, do explain yourself! No, really, I'm curious as well.

[Robert Jones]

Victor;

I'll go pick up that book tonight.

Robert;

Thank you for being willing to cooperate. I understand the reasons behind your initial assumptions, whether or not I believe they were wrongly placed.

And, to be honest, I am not very familiar with the darker side of objectivism. However, I can assure you that my goals are not to try and destroy anyone's beliefs--My grandmother whom I live with is Christian and I do not judge her at all. The beliefs I have are different for different people. Ill explain.

For the majority of church going Christians, it is easy for them to be deceived. I remember about a month ago my youth pastor was preaching on a topic that most churches and denominations deem completely wrong and taken out of context--and that is predestination. Now, I dont have a problem with people who believe it out of their own decision, but what I DO have a problem with is people entrusting their minds to a MAN. Almost every kid in that youth group nodded their heads and said 'Yup, that makes sense' solely because our youth pastor said so. It made me sick.

I, to put it in better terms, do NOT feel all Christians are sheep or worthless human beings. However, those that forfeit the control of their beliefs to someone else, who do not even ask themselves if they agree, are sheep and should not even be spoken to. They have no right to even attempt to convert me.

Now, for those Christians who have PERSONAL REASONS and have MADE THE CHOICE CONSCIOUSLY--More power to them and far be it for me to even attempt to discredit their beliefs and character. I know many people that are smarter than I am who put their faith in God for personal reasons and experiences. Now, most of the time I disagree with their use of some experiences as proof for God's existence, but it is not my place to try and debunk someone's beliefs when they have made the choice consciously.

Consider these shocking stories of friendship and loyalty betrayed. Then, you will see why some of us here are very sensitive when we see moralizing hooliganism posing as ethical consistency.

Very good point, and it makes perfect sense. I apologize for the way I have come off to you, but I hope that my explanation of my views has helped shed some light on why I feel as I do, and why I react so harshly to some Christians--It is how I react to anyone who forfeits their mind and ability to make conscious decisions.

And as for the truce, hell, after that eye opening post of yours, Im ready to give you a brotherly hug

I am pleased too we could both reach an accomodation. TRUST ME, I know what you're going through (see reply to Kori and Victor below). It's just that, and I personally endorse cynicism, but saw something very bitter in your first post. Someone that bitter at so young an age is setting himself up for a miserable existence by age 40. Surely, you don't want that. You would, I presume, prefer to be confident and self-assured. Bidinotto once had a line about frustrated objectivists in middle age that haunts me to this very day:

"people with long faces and short resumes."

Nonetheless, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. From time to time I will be out of line too, and don't hesitate to call me on it.

Cheers,

Rob't

[Victor Pross]

Nonetheless, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. From time to time I will be out of line too, and don't hesitate to call me on it.

Cheers,

Rob't

Robert, I suppose I'm a very big man then! I have an Objectivist girlfriend and so I'm wrong a lot. :turned:

Victor

[Robert Jones]

Mitchell, if you do investigate it, don't get sucked into the dark side. It's frightening. It's truly, truly frightening. (And yes, read "The Passion of Ayn Rand" and "My Years With Ayn Rand")

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche

P.S. Robert, I'm VERY interested to know what made you become a Catholic once again after being an atheist. That's very unusual.

Kori, thanks for having my back there. I really appreciate it.

Kori, Victor: It's a rather long story, so I'll try to be succinct.

For one, it's not that I "became a Catholic again," though I see how you could infer that based on what I have written. I was raised in an Objectivist household in my early years, though not explicitly atheist, just that we never went to church. My mom and dad also never mentioned Ayn Rand, but my dad always made me prove my assertions with common sense. My questions about God were answered by my mom, who said the Greeks' name for him was Zeus. She said gods were omnipotent beings out of fables, akin to fairies and leprechauns.

When I was about 13, Mom got religion and the pendulum swung to the other extreme. We went to a Methodist church (Protestant), which at first glance would seem moderate, but this particular congregation in West Virginia was quite Elmer Gantry. From the age of 14 until I graduated high school, most of the lessons in Sunday school were about how to avoid cults (this was right after Jonestown, and Hare Krishnas, Moonies, Scientologists and Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh were big time in the news then).

By the time I was 17, and having learned my lessons well, I was convinced of one thing: That this strident Methodist congregation of which I was a member was a cult. Worse, half of my extended family were members of Jerry Falwell's "Liberty" Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, which I considered -- and still do -- a "cult."

Around this time, I also invented communism on my own, totally unaware what it was, though I'd heard of Karl Marx. I was mowing the lawn one day, and gnats and mosquitos were bugging the hell out of me, it was humid and about 98 degrees. After getting $3.00 from my dad, I announced to him -- he was a middle manager at an IBM branch office -- that people who mow the grass should be paid the same wage as people who were middle management for IBM.

Later that night (and it wasn't for weeks that I put two and two together on it), I asked my dad if he read any good books. He recommended "Atlas Shrugged," and the rest as they say is history.

Being involved in a quite religious family (though my dad was always giving no more than lip service, and to this day has no use for the "Born Agains"), especially my cousins, aunts and uncles in Virginia, when I was 19, I told everybody I was an atheist, and was quite the angry young man. For the next five or six years, I was also a vociferous exponent for pro-choice abortion rights, and basically alienated everyone in my town in West Virginia with the heated rhetoric of my letters to the editor of my hometown newspaper.

Like many objectivists, I was convinced that there was not an iota of science to the claims of anti-abortion pro-lifers. Then, when I was about 27 or so -- in my senior year in college -- as an exercise in debate class (I was captain of the debate team), we had the topic of abortion. I was given the negative (anti) side, something I relished, as I loved playing "Devil's Advocate." (This is a funny story, because I was very much Mr. Right Wing libertarian and my debate partner was a flaming bleeding heart liberal Democrat. From our constant bull sessions, which went on into the early hours over coffee at a nearby truckstop, we became an unstoppable team -- no one could defend socialism like I, and he could explain supply-side economics better than David Stockman).

Through the course of my research, most of which were not polemical, but medical articles, I came to the conclusion that abortion was indeed killing, though not murder in the legal sense of the term, and that from the time of conception, what we are dealing with is a living, growing, human being.

The best arguments from a political standpoint were Nat Hentoff's passionately argued articles against abortion. For years, I had dismissed abortion foes as religious zealots impervious to reason. Yet, here was an opponent of abortion using reason and evidence upon which to base his claims. Further, he wasn't some religionist in disguise using scientific jargon to "put one over" on his readers to advance a hidden agenda. Anyone who knows anything about Nat Hentoff is that his agenda is solely his conscience. He was and is an atheist, and a secular humanist liberal (though today, he leans more libertarian). While I did not always agree with Hentoff (and still only agree half the time), there has been no writer for whom I have greater respect.

In graduate college at CUNY Graduate Center, I became a voracious student of the Middle Ages, and theology. I was still an atheist at the time. My biggest infleunce there was a distinguished professor of my personal acquaintance named Dr. Howard L. Adelson. Adelson, though Jewish, often quipped that he was a "professional Catholic," i.e., a scholar of Medieval history. I was a Political Science major, and never took classes from Adelson, but I often visited him in his office. I knew Adelson from working with him on Jewish civil rights and pro-Israel advocacy while at the time I was chief of staff at a Jewish civil rights organization.

From him, I gained a wealth of knowledge about the Church, the codification of God's handiwork in the cathedrals of the High Middle Ages, and devoured a book he suggested I read, the "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas's book is an attempt to square Christian ethics and theology with the philosophy of Aristotle. Objectivists regard this as a brilliantly argued, but ultimately failed attempt to reconcile reason with the divine. I, however, was very open to Aquinas's reasoning, and as a result of his brilliantly-argued thesis, became a believer at this point in a Supreme Being in general (though not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God).

At this time, I was also struggling with my previously held pro-abortion beliefs. As I kept researching the issue, I came to the same conclusion as Nat Hentoff (who himself was pro-abortion until well past his 50s). From Hentoff, I learned (on this and so many other issues) that it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong and that with age comes wisdom and tolerance.

My choice of the Catholic church is multi-faceted, and oughtn't to be regarded as a wholesale advocacy of their positions. Indeed, I am consistently in agreement more with Objectivists than I am with my own church.

The reasons for choosing the Catholic faith are many, but they boil down to the following reasons:

1). The Catholic Church is the home of one of its most highly revered Saints, Thomas Aquinas.

2). Aquinas was an exponent of free will, as is the Church; too many Protestants are either outright hostile to free will (predestination Calvinists) or just downplay it.

3). I made the decision to become a Thomist, that is a Deist who believes in God, but believes also that reason is God's supreme gift to mankind and that it is up to us to act based on our free will.

4). I was already predisposed because of my love of the High Middle Ages instilled in me by Prof. Adelson, and my long love for Renaissance art, which often has deeply pro-mankind depictions of its Biblical subjects.

5). As I now consider myself against abortion, the Catholic church is the one most consistently pro-life, as our side considers itself.

6). Finally, an atheist, Nat Hentoff, made a Catholic of me. I concluded that if there is a God, He must certainly work in mysterious ways, and that one need not believe in order to do God's will, which is best summed up with Christ's dictum "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Hentoff lives by this maxim. Strange at it seems, Hentoff continues to amaze me with his scintillating intellect, and to me his very existence is proof of a benign and loving God.

There is a line from Jane Eyre which haunts me to this day, which finds Jane as a little girl grieving over the loss of her friend Helen, who died of pneumonia. Jane wants to give up on the world and run away from school. Her doctor mentor counsels her, wisely, "Do you wish to grow up to do God's will? And who will do God's will? An educated woman? Or an ignorant one?" From this and so much else around me, I have come to reconcile my Catholic faith with my objectivist principles. Out of respect for Objectivism, however, I do not call myself an "Objectivist."

Edited April 22, 2007 by Robert Jones

[BaalChatzaf]

Like many objectivists, I was convinced that there was not an iota of science to the claims of anti-abortion pro-lifers. Then, when I was about 27 or so -- in my senior year in college -- as an exercise in debate class (I was captain of the debate team), we had the topic of abortion. I was given the negative (anti) side, something I relished, as I loved playing "Devil's Advocate." (This is a funny story, because I was very much Mr. Right Wing libertarian and my debate partner was a flaming bleeding heart liberal Democrat. From our constant bull sessions, which went on into the early hours over coffee at a nearby truckstop, we became an unstoppable team -- no one could defend socialism like I, and he could explain supply-side economics better than David Stockman).

Through the course of my research, most of which were not polemical, but medical articles, I came to the conclusion that abortion was indeed killing, though not murder in the legal sense of the term, and that from the time of conception, what we are dealing with is a living, growing, human being.

Abortion surely is killing. So is swatting flies, applying antiseptic and pulling weeds. The question underlying the abortion is issue is NOT whether it is killing, but whether it is murder; the termination of a conscious, autonomous sentient being -- i.e. A PERSON. Fetuses are NOT persons, they do not have enough brain tissue or neural interconnections to be persons. Neither are new-born infants. If they aren't persons, then what are they? Answer: they are property, the product of the carrying female who has grown the fetus within her body and nourished it through her own efforts and all to the hazard of her own life. The woman who carries the fetus has the right of disposition.

It is NOT a scientific question at all. It is a question of property rights. The woman owns the fetus she has grown in much the same way as she would own crops grown in her own garden in her own soil. She can permit them to grow or plow them under as she chooses.

And shame on Nat Hentoff for being such a sentimentalist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 22, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neither are new-born infants. If they aren't persons, then what are they? Answer: they are property, the product of the carrying female who has grown the fetus within her body and nourished it through her own efforts and all to the hazard of her own life. The woman who carries the fetus has the right of disposition.

Bob,

Boy do we disagree.

The only part I agree with is that the woman carries the fetus.

The disagreement starts with one's definition of human nature (and that's just for starters), at least concerning this issue. I don't even think we agree here on what property is. Man is an end in himself, not the property of anyone, even himself. Mixing property rights and people is a perfect rationalization for slavery.

(btw - I do support the woman's right to decide on and execute abortion of the fetus she carries.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Boy do we disagree.

Michael

Yes we do. You (perhaps) think fetuses are people; I do not. You think newborn infants are people; I do not. If permitted a newborn infant will very likely become a person in a fairly short time. In much the same way that an acorn becomes an oak tree or a caterpillar become a butterfly. My position is based on neurophysiology. What is your position based on? What is the difference between a fetus one second before the umbilical is cut and one second after and it is breathing on its own. If the breathing newborn infant is a person then so is the fetus a second before separation from the placenta.

I think you have a logical problem in supporting a woman's right to abort. I don't.

Mike, I am not going to continue this debate under this topic heading. I will move it to a new stand alone topic, if that is alright with you. The thread is drifting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 22, 2007 by BaalChatzaf