The Bible


Dodger

Recommended Posts

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.

I you do not accept self ownership (I do) then you cannot justify a right to suicide. If we own our time and energy we surely own our bodies. We can even donate or sell pieces of them. If we do not own our time and energy (and our bodies too) then we are ready to be sold on the block.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Bob: I know, I know. I've read every bit of rhetoric about abortion in Objectivist circles, and -- sorry -- find that these arguments, well, are hugely "context dropping," to borrow a phrase.

However, my purpose in writing that was not to open up a can of worms on the abortion matter. My gosh, I am very upfront about things and don't use my posts as a Trojan Horse to sneak in any hidden agendas. If I wanted to argue abortion pro and con, I would have done it in a separate thread.

I was merely answering Kori and Victor as to why and how I became a Catholic, that's all. Since the matter of abortion was key to that, it would have been both misleading and self-censoring to have left that out.

Finally, I have to come to Hentoff's defense here. Nat Hentoff may be a rank sentimentalist about many things: His love for the music of Thelonius Monk and Duke Ellington, his loyalty to friends like A.J. Muste, and so on. However, I think it is injudicious to ascribe Hentoff's eventual anti-abortion beliefs politically as "sentimentalism." Hentoff is a thinker of the first order, and if you are familiar with his writings, then you must come to the conclusion that he formed such beliefs not out of some woozy change of heart, but from remaining intellectually honest with himself. As an intellectual, Hentoff has been my role model, not so much because of changing his mind on abortion, but because he is a consummate thinker. He practices what I consider the hallmark of wisdom: He challenges his own deepest-held principles constantly, and reserves the right to change his mind. Hentoff is the opposite of a dogmatist, he is and has always been an active thinker, in the best sense of the term.

Edited by Robert Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodger,

This is a Rants forum so I am not surprised with your anger. However, you did generalize way too far. You should have simply stated that your anger only applies to the fundamentalist type of Christianity. For that type of Christianity, your rant is valid. I think Robert was right to be angry at how you apparently attacked part of his form of Christianity but still I dont think he was correct to deny your rage had any validity. Its valid for fundies.

Thomists however, your characterisation does not apply to them, since the goal of Thomism (although I do consider it impossible, but noble in spirit) is the reconciliation of Christianity with Aristotelianism.

I think you really need to avoid this "any disagreement with me is an evasion" thing, because then you will fall into Piekhoff-style rationalism. Truth and Toleration by David Kelley is a free download from the Objectivist Center website. Read it. Im not saying you are immature or your anger is invalid, I just think you would benefit from acquiring a wider context of Objectivist thought. I became an Objectivist at 18 and it took me a few years to understand the finer points of the philosophy... i.e. the importance of the solution to the problem of universals, etc. Im not calling you ignorant, Im just saying that Objectivism is not a "Sola Scriptura" movement. Atlas Shrugged is not enough to fully understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodger,

This is a Rants forum so I am not surprised with your anger. However, you did generalize way too far. You should have simply stated that your anger only applies to the fundamentalist type of Christianity. For that type of Christianity, your rant is valid. I think Robert was right to be angry at how you apparently attacked part of his form of Christianity but still I dont think he was correct to deny your rage had any validity. Its valid for fundies.

Thomists however, your characterisation does not apply to them, since the goal of Thomism (although I do consider it impossible, but noble in spirit) is the reconciliation of Christianity with Aristotelianism.

I think you really need to avoid this "any disagreement with me is an evasion" thing, because then you will fall into Piekhoff-style rationalism. Truth and Toleration by David Kelley is a free download from the Objectivist Center website. Read it. Im not saying you are immature or your anger is invalid, I just think you would benefit from acquiring a wider context of Objectivist thought. I became an Objectivist at 18 and it took me a few years to understand the finer points of the philosophy... i.e. the importance of the solution to the problem of universals, etc. Im not calling you ignorant, Im just saying that Objectivism is not a "Sola Scriptura" movement. Atlas Shrugged is not enough to fully understand it.

Good points, and yes, I was only attacking those fundamentalist types.

I made it clear in my other posts.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodger,

This is a Rants forum so I am not surprised with your anger. However, you did generalize way too far. You should have simply stated that your anger only applies to the fundamentalist type of Christianity. For that type of Christianity, your rant is valid. I think Robert was right to be angry at how you apparently attacked part of his form of Christianity but still I dont think he was correct to deny your rage had any validity. Its valid for fundies.

Thomists however, your characterisation does not apply to them, since the goal of Thomism (although I do consider it impossible, but noble in spirit) is the reconciliation of Christianity with Aristotelianism.

I think you really need to avoid this "any disagreement with me is an evasion" thing, because then you will fall into Piekhoff-style rationalism. Truth and Toleration by David Kelley is a free download from the Objectivist Center website. Read it. Im not saying you are immature or your anger is invalid, I just think you would benefit from acquiring a wider context of Objectivist thought. I became an Objectivist at 18 and it took me a few years to understand the finer points of the philosophy... i.e. the importance of the solution to the problem of universals, etc. Im not calling you ignorant, Im just saying that Objectivism is not a "Sola Scriptura" movement. Atlas Shrugged is not enough to fully understand it.

Good points, and yes, I was only attacking those fundamentalist types.

I made it clear in my other posts.

:)

Dodger: See, you argue a thing long enough, and you'll find that you've been on the same sheet of music all along, but just playing in counterpoint. I have no use for fundamentalists -- of ANY religion or ANY secular philosophy -- either. There are two ways to look at the world: Fundamentally or allegorically. The nimble mind thinks in terms of the latter.

About when people pray for you, however:

1. You just got run over by a bus, you're in the hospital all bandaged-up and a friend says "I'll pray for you."

What they mean is "gosh, that's horrible, I hope you get well soon, and I'll ask the almighty to chip in a little on the healing process." As this variety of unsolicited prayer giving is meant with all kindness and sincerity, the correct reply -- even from an atheist -- is "thank you."

2. You just announce to a religious friend that you're an atheist and the friend says "I'll pray for you."

What they really mean is "fuck you." As this is their oblique way of saying they are quite certain -- and indeed, perhaps hoping for -- of your soul roasting in hell for eternity, the correct reply is "fuck you, too!"

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert & Dodger; I believe that Ayn Rand liked the phase God Bless America. I believe she said this in a reply on the Tom Snyder Show. Barbara may be able to straighten me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodger, I realize that this is in the past and I don't have time to read of whether or not you apologized for it because I have homework to do. So, here's what I think:

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.

The contradiction you pointed out was a pretty non-essential one anyway.

Robert:

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

Are you joking? What did you say throughout your entire post other than that it has contradictions and then pointed out a small one?

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.

You chose to lash out, people chose to lash out at you.

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.

Can you not tell that you insulted him? I'm somewhere between atheist and agnostic AND I'm younger than you and I still thought your post was crap. Besides, he didn't even say "Stupid kid" or mention your age in that part of the post. Now you're going to talk about not starting a flame war? What do you call your entire opening post?

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.

You earned that label. Plain and simple.

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.

Are you joking? Didn't he just offer to debate you above? Didn't your post completely insult him? Isn't that obvious? Doesn't it occur to you that he doesn't give two cents in hell that you don't care what people think of you, but that he just thought you were ignorant either way?

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.

That's because he had no reason to be offended by it.

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.

He didn't judge you too quickly. He made a logical conclusion based on what he saw.

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.

This has to be a joke.

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.

Pot calling the kettle black?
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.

If you compromise, assuming that one of you is correct initially, then you will be wrong either way. In any case, you started the flame war, you started the being judgmental (declaring all Christians sheep). He was justified, you're just being blind to your own faults. Last I checked those who are delusional are as illogical as those who are Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert & Dodger; I believe that Ayn Rand liked the phase God Bless America. I believe she said this in a reply on the Tom Snyder Show. Barbara may be able to straighten me out.

At The Ford Hall Forum she stated that she liked what people seemed to mean by it--the benevolence.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodger, I think people are being too hard on you here. If you can't safely rant about religion among Objectivists, where can you rant about it?? I can completely relate to your frustration in dealing with religious people. There's this bumper sticker -- and I don't like bumper stickers because they always entail the assumption that the reader is in the "enemy camp" -- but this bumper sticker said, "If you don't want me to ridicule your beliefs, stop having such stupid beliefs."

My college roommate was a born-again Christian. (She also happened to be a lot of fun to be around and I liked her very much.) We often argued to the point of my exposing a contradiction. I remember at one point she said to me that "with God, all things are possible, even contradictions." So, no matter what argument you use, it's never good enough.

Robert Jones, you call yourself a Catholic but say that you reject "fundamentalist" beliefs. I don't really get why you call yourself a Catholic. If Catholicism is a type of Christianity, you must believe, (1) in the virgin birth of Jesus who was God Incarnate, (2) the physical resurrection of Jesus after crucifixion, and (3) the attainment of everlasting life by accepting Jesus' sacrifice on your behalf. If you don't literally believe these things, you're not a Christian, because these things define Christianity. I am puzzled as to why someone would begin to consider himself a Catholic just because he has decided he agrees with Catholics about abortion.

Dodger, I think in discussions with religious people, you need to determine what your goal is, and keep it in mind. I don't think there's anything to be gained by just pissing off religious people. If you want to try to get them to think, it's better to take a laid-back approach (and believe me, I know how hard this can be, particularly when you're young -- I remember!).

One fun thing to discuss might be the supposed discovery of Jesus' bones in an ossuary. Some Christians say these couldn't be Jesus' bones, because he was physically resurrected. I'd ask matter-of-factly, "so, you really believe that after death, Jesus' body physically floated up through the air, up to heaven? How could that be?" I just wonder how many people would answer "yes" to this kind of "you don't really believe that, do you?" question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with a good, intelligent rant against Christianity. I clicked on the thread, in fact, hoping for a list or recording of a good number of contradictions with good explanations. Had it been that I would have had a very different outlook on it.

On the other hand, Robert, you said that you believe in Catholicism because of the sense of life correct? Or did I misread? If that's so, I'd like to hear why you would follow a set of beliefs based on that. I follow Objectivism, first and foremost, because I think that the fundamentals are true. The sense of life is a great bonus.

Edited by Jeff Kremer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Cafeteria Catholic, and I only eat the desserts.

I believe in Christ's divinity, yes, but moreso do I believe -- as even H.L. Mencken noted -- that J.C. was a gentleman, and that's why the Roman goons crucified him.

I believe in transubstantiation, that in my stomach the communion wine and wafer become the blood and body of Christ, which is a whole lot more palatable than thinking about what really happens to them.

I believe that Pope John Paul II was a great guy, and so was Father Guido Sarducci.

I believe that the Knights of Columbus wear less ridiculous hats than the Freemasons and that their Cadillacs are roomier than the clown cars the Shriners drive.

I believe that it's better to take religious and ethical advice from Italians and Irishmen than Brits and Germans (excepting of course Pope Benedict XVI).

I believe that John F. Kennedy was the closest we ever had to having a direct line to the Vatican in secretly running America, which is also better than having the secret cabal of Freemasons in charge.

I believe that movies were more entertaining when the Catholic Legion for Decency was censoring them.

I believe that the Jews killed Christ, and that when they drink Manischewitz wine, it transubstantiates into the blood of a gentile child.

I believe that lighting prayer candles helps give people who work in the wax industry job security.

I believe in worshipping statues of Mary as I dance around my Virgin of Guadalupe grotto I set up on the sidewalk in front of the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Halls.

I believe that the "Chick" tract "The Death Cookie" may be right, and I'm doomed to hell forever.

I believe in Purgatory, so I can party some more before I go to heaven.

I believe that William F. Buckley, Jr. is the second coming of William F. Buckley, Sr.

I believe that attending Novena is a great way to pick up chicks on a slow Wednesday.

I believe in and pray on my Rosary. I also believe that finding pennies brings good luck. However, I also believe it's bad luck to recite Hail Marys when fishing in Lake Tahoe in a boat with Al Neri.

I believe that altar boys are a great Church tradition, so long as you keep them away from the rectory.

I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury secretly ordered Fidel Castro, Jimmy Hoffa, Lucky Luciano, J. Edgar Hoover, and Meyer Lansky to assassinate JFK.

I believe Spencer Tracy would have looked ridiculous as Rabbi Flanagan in "Boy's Town."

I believe that the Holy Pontiff with the Guiness World Record for most excommunications is Pope Leonard I.

I believe that any episode of Sister Wendy's television programs about art history that doesn't pass muster over at the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights are evil apostacy.

I believe that the greatest Catholic contributions to art are Michelangelo's "David," Leonardo's "The Last Supper," and the baptism scene from "The Godfather."

I believe that Terry Bradshaw and Lynn Swann were touched by the hand of Our Heavenly Father when they created the Immaculate Reception.

I believe that my vote for Rudy Giuliani in the Republican primaries will simultaneously bring Papal rule over America and a return to partial birth abortion.

I believe it's a good thing when it's irrelevant what Reverend Dr. James Dobson thinks about my particular branch of Christianity.

I believe in the power of confession, so that I can go out and sin again, and again, and again.

I believe that the growth on my porch screen door is an apparition of the Virgin Mary. But some days it looks like Jesus weeping, or Elvis singing "In the Ghetto."

I believe these things because I am a Good Catholic and Devout Believer. Or so, that's what I'm told I believe.

Dominus Illuminatio Mea. Dominus Vorbiscum. Illegitimi Non Carborundum.

Amen.

:P

Edited by Robert Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert; I greatly love John Paul 2 and I like Pope Benedict the 16th too.

My nephew got a mug for his high school graduation with Benedict the 16th and the caption "Putting the smack down on heresy."

I think that if I were to join a church it would be Roman Catholic. I'm not going to.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirby J. Hensley (founder of the Universal Life Church) once said that the Bible was like a lumberyard. If you want to build a red house, you go to the lumberyard and get the stuff you need to build a red house. Then go and build your red house. Likewise if you want a white house, go to the lumberyard and get what you need to build a white house. Then go build your white house.

I tend to agree with him.

You want to find beauty and truth, you can find it. Likewise if you want to find ugliness and lies, well you can find that too. Depends upon what you're looking for, and what you want to have in your life. Depends also on who is going to the store with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirby J. Hensley (founder of the Universal Life Church) once said that the Bible was like a lumberyard. If you want to build a red house, you go to the lumberyard and get the stuff you need to build a red house. Then go and build your red house. Likewise if you want a white house, go to the lumberyard and get what you need to build a white house. Then go build your white house.

I tend to agree with him.

You want to find beauty and truth, you can find it. Likewise if you want to find ugliness and lies, well you can find that too. Depends upon what you're looking for, and what you want to have in your life. Depends also on who is going to the store with you.

Hehehe.

That was probably one of the wisest, smartest, and most insightful few sentences I've ever seen.

You are 100% correct--You will find what you look for.

Seems as if I have gone against some of my own principles..

I'll explain later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now