Christian Objectivist

[Mike82ARP]

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? "

Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics.

You are both practising a form of eclecticism then, i. e. picking those parts of a philosophy that you agree with.

I personally am in favor of eclecticism, of 'patchworking'.

From Rand I have picked "Check your premises", which imo is one of the best pieces of philosophical advice one can give, but it would be wrong and cause misunderstandings if I called myself an Objectivist since I disagree with many other Objectivist tenets.

I also think that eclectism is an effective tool to poke holes into ossified doctrines and dogma.

In addition, eclectism is in harmony with a universal cosmic phenomenon: permanent transformation. There is no standstill.

That's why all attempts by orthodox grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff, orhodox Marxists, dogmatic religionists etc) to keep a doctrine pure and unaltered, and never allowing to question any part of the doctrine/ dogma must fail in the end.

Well, we’re in full agreement here. I don’t think I ever claimed to be an Objectivist, per se. I’ve said I subscribe to much if not most of Rand’s philosophy with the exception of her atheism. Additionally, the arguments presented against Christianity thus far have been based on composition or straw men fallacies or fiat declarations (e.g. origin of the universe).

I am not attempting to reconcile O’ism and X-nity, but am seeking to find the common ground they share. I continue to check my premises even where my “faith" is concerned and make changes when the situation arises.

[tmj]

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? "

Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics.

You are both practising a form of eclecticism then, i. e. picking those parts of a philosophy that you agree with.

I personally am in favor of eclecticism, of 'patchworking'.

From Rand I have picked "Check your premises", which imo is one of the best pieces of philosophical advice one can give, but it would be wrong and cause misunderstandings if I called myself an Objectivist since I disagree with many other Objectivist tenets.

I also think that eclectism is an effective tool to poke holes into ossified doctrines and dogma.

In addition, eclecticism is in harmony with a universal cosmic phenomenon: permanent transformation. There is no standstill.

That's why all attempts by orthodox grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff, orhodox Marxists, dogmatic religionists etc) to keep a doctrine pure and unaltered, and never allowing to question any part of the doctrine/ dogma must fail in the end.

There are no absolutes? Or only in certain contexts, categories?

[Brant Gaede]

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? "

Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics.

You are both practising a form of eclecticism then, i. e. picking those parts of a philosophy that you agree with.

I personally am in favor of eclecticism, of 'patchworking'.

From Rand I have picked "Check your premises", which imo is one of the best pieces of philosophical advice one can give, but it would be wrong and cause misunderstandings if I called myself an Objectivist since I disagree with many other Objectivist tenets.

I also think that eclectism is an effective tool to poke holes into ossified doctrines and dogma.

In addition, eclectism is in harmony with a universal cosmic phenomenon: permanent transformation. There is no standstill.

That's why all attempts by orthodox grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff, orhodox Marxists, dogmatic religionists etc) to keep a doctrine pure and unaltered, and never allowing to question any part of the doctrine/ dogma must fail in the end.

Well, we’re in full agreement here. I don’t think I ever claimed to be an Objectivist, per se. I’ve said I subscribe to much if not most of Rand’s philosophy with the exception of her atheism. Additionally, the arguments presented against Christianity thus far have been based on composition or straw men fallacies or fiat declarations (e.g. origin of the universe).

I am not attempting to reconcile O’ism and X-nity, but am seeking to find the common ground they share. I continue to check my premises even where my “faith" is concerned and made changes when the situation arises.

Argument against Christianity: No evidence for a Supreme Being or that someone named Jesus Christ is His son (called: "Lord.")

--Brant

you can't have your faith and eat it too for it's not a sub-category of reason

[Mike82ARP]

Argument against Christianity: No evidence for a Supreme Being or that someone named Jesus Christ is His son (called: "Lord.")

--Brant

you can't have your faith and eat it too for it's not a sub-category of reason

Brant, I actually view that as a legitimate objection. I would however disagree with your denial of the historicity of Jesus as he is documented by eye witnesses, namely gospel writers, Matthew and John, and maybe Mark. He is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius. While the latter four do nothing to establish his deity, etc., the evidence of the historicity is sufficient to establish that he existed.

I’m not going to rehash the physical “evidence for a Supreme Being” argument.

[Brant Gaede]

Argument against Christianity: No evidence for a Supreme Being or that someone named Jesus Christ is His son (called: "Lord.")

--Brant

you can't have your faith and eat it too for it's not a sub-category of reason

Brant, I actually view that as a legitimate objection. I would however disagree with your denial of the historicity of Jesus as he is documented by eye witnesses, namely gospel writers, Matthew and John, and maybe Mark. He is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius. While the latter four do nothing to establish his deity, etc., the evidence of the historicity is sufficient to establish that he existed.

I’m not going to rehash the physical “evidence for a Supreme Being” argument.

An historical Jesus I'm not talking about, but the resurrected son of God.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you also agree that it is reasonable to speculate about a universe without a supreme being who created it.

Am I correct?

From my understanding of faith, it is not an automatic mental process like sensing something really hot and immediately learning you have to avoid it, but instead an act of will. It is an epistemological method you choose.

Ditto--am I correct?

Michael

[Peter]

Stephen Boydstun wrote:

One cannot be a Christian and an Objectivist.

end quote

I think a fan of Rand can be a person who goes to church but does not allow the mysticism of Christianity to affect their reasoning mind. I would call that person a social Christian. They do not want to be ostracized by Christians, especially those in their family or their neighborhood.

There is an element of hypocrisy there but I would not demand of anyone that they throw themselves under the Jesus Love Bus. I love the Christian culture, the Christmas songs, the joyful, smiling faces, the Easter bunny and Easter eggs. If I had to pick any religion as being less destructive of the *mind* I would pick MODERN , enlightenment Christianity as practiced in the western world.

Peter

[Mike82ARP]

@MSK

"Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you also agree that it is reasonable to speculate about a universe without a supreme being who created it.

Am I correct?”

Yes.

"From my understanding of faith, it is not an automatic mental process like sensing something really hot and immediately learning you have to avoid it, but instead an act of will. It is an epistemological method you choose."

That’s a tougher question to answer since different X-ns have different experiences related to the “faith” so I will give you my explanation based on years of studying denominational differences and theological trends in the church. I would say that X-ns have different epistemological methods they employ in the practice of their faith.

Some are New Age, mystical types and claim to have a direct relationship to God and talk about God telling them this and that and their conversing with God on a regular basis. One even said she “smelled” Jesus. I might have thought this may be a different manifestation of God than I had, but the accompanying theology of these folks is so bizarre that I would doubt their possessing a rational faith, if they are X-ns at all.

Yet others come to faith through emotional coercion like you might see at a BIlly Graham crusade or a tent meeting. Many of these abandon their profession of faith shortly afterward.

Others claim faith as an escape from some bad part of their life and willingly subscribe to a legalistic, fundamentalist faith with a lot of dos and don’ts without ever bothering to examine whether what they are being taught is in fact biblical. These folks tend to be the anti-intellectuals of X-nity. For them, it’s easier to be a lemming.

For some, church is a religious country club. Other churches focus on altruism and asceticism as a means of demonstrating spirituality. Many of these folks seek obtaining gold stars from God for their sacrifices.

With myself, faith came in a gradual way through the use of reason, but not excluding the possibility of the “supernatural” in the process. I had spent much time studying and learning through various sources and discarded incorrect presuppositions I had about God. As I mentioned earlier, God reveals himself through the world/universe and his word, the Bible. There are no new prophets. We do not have an exhaustive knowledge of God. We can know only what he chose to reveal. As God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I agree in broad strokes with your general characterization of those who do not believe as you do. (Albeit, this is a long discussion as I have a lot of observations. For another day...)

But I see a common thread. Irrespective of whether faith is a fad, a phony cover for social standing, a conclusion to explain an emotional catharsis, highly-charged or otherwise, or whether it is an act of sincere reflection,

I still see it as an act of will.

(Ditto for not believing, in fact.)

Er... one exception. Brainwashing in a cult. But that is different than what I am discussing here.

Additionally, from my understanding, the entire basis of Christian salvation is to believe in Jesus by volition, a voluntary surrender of doubt, so to speak, not by being beaten into it or tricked into it or whatever. I see this process as needing a person's full conscious agreement, not his fear or blind acceptance. Maybe these last things at first, but eventually, the seed has to sprout and grow through the conscious mind to be complete.

I'm not saying this as a set-up for an Objectivist-like put-down

("You see, you see, you choose to stop thinking, you choose irrationality, you choose evil on purpose!" .)

I'm on a different resonance altogether.

I have a lot of respect for people who think deeply about the meaning of life and the universe, even when they come to different fundamental conclusions than I do. I believe honest people make sense out of existence and death as best they can and I commend all serious efforts at deep thinking about this.

It's not easy. And I don't think it ever will be.

But the way I see it, even false faith (like that professed for social climbing), is an act of will. It's chosen. Folks adopt it on purpose.

Does this jibe with the way you think?

Michael

[Mike82ARP]

Mike,

I agree in broad strokes with your general characterization of those who do not believe as you do. (Albeit, this is a long discussion as I have a lot of observations. For another day...)

But I see a common thread. Irrespective of whether faith is a fad, a phony cover for social standing, a conclusion to explain an emotional catharsis, highly-charged or otherwise, or whether it is an act of sincere reflection,

I still see it as an act of will.

Additionally, from my understanding, the entire basis of Christian salvation is to believe in Jesus by volition, a voluntary surrender of doubt, so to speak, not by being beaten into it or tricked into it or whatever. I see this process as needing a person's full conscious agreement, not his fear or blind acceptance. Maybe these last things at first, but eventually, the seed has to sprout and grow through the conscious mind to be complete.

I'm not saying this as a set-up for an Objectivist-like put-down

I'm on a different resonance altogether.

I have a lot of respect for people who think deeply about the meaning of life and the universe, even when they come to different fundamental conclusions than I do. I believe honest people make sense out of existence and death as best they can and I commend all serious efforts at deep thinking about this.

But the way I see it, even false faith (like that professed for social climbing), is an act of will. It's chosen. Folks adopt it on purpose.

Does this jibe with the way you think?

Michael

Yes, faith in practice is an act of the will, but "faith” from a salvation perspective as an act of the will is not a universal belief within Christianity. From a salvation perspective, some view it as volitional while others are something bestowed upon one. Kirkegaard’s view was, in my opinion, irrational.

[Mike82ARP]

Brant wrote:

Argument against Christianity: No evidence for a Supreme Being ...

Lots of evidence. But if a priori you claim that anything explainable by means of purposive intelligent action is also just as easily explain (in principle) by means of physical matter, energy, and some combination of chance and deterministic law, then you are claiming that no argument for the existence of a Creator is even possible. You've simply closed yourself off to it.

For the record,

The biochemical evidence is overwhelming. The recently published results in the prestigious British journal Nature of the ENCODE project (which studied the functionality of the genome) shows that about 90% of DNA is functional, i.e., is transcribed onto RNA, and therefore has some kind of function within the cell. The researchers claimed that they expect 100% of DNA to be functional. It appears that only a small part of DNA actually codes for amino acids in the process of protein synthesis. The rest of the DNA strand does other stuff, apparently controlling much of the "formatting" (to use a term from desktop publishing) of the coding part. The significance of all this (aside from the fact that scientifically it's interesting in its own right) is that the notion of "junk DNA" — i.e., long, non-coding, NON-FUNCTIONAL, stretches of DNA apparently being preserved "errors" [the DNA equivalent of fossils] of random variation and natural selection over millions of years of genomic evolution — is out the window. None of it is junk. All of it is functional. It's quite funny to read many of the Darwinists backpeddle on this issue now: "Oh, we NEVER used the phrase 'junk DNA' in the first place! That was just the popular press exaggerating things!" Etc. Anyway, the ENCODE results have hammered the final nail in the coffin of junk DNA, an important element of the Darwinian scenario on evolution.

Additionally, a company called "Agilent" has successfully used DNA as an actual storage medium for jpeg images and text (they encoded all of Shakespeare's sonnets and some images on a few grains of DNA). The DNA was flown to their sister office in the U.S., which successfully decoded the data and read it off with near 100% fidelity.

Sorry, but the ability to use DNA for human data storage proves that the original molecule was already a kind of storage device, making use of a 4-symbol code (i.e., the nucleotide bases making up the rungs of the DNA helix) instead of a 2-symbol code like binary, which is what our man-made computers "understand." Hard-drives don't appear in nature by means of random processes and deterministic forces; they are the results of intention and purpose. Same with DNA, which is nothing but a very small hard-drive -- literally.

By the way, the compression of DNA storage is fantastic, even given the rough state of today's technology: according to its inventors, 1 gram of DNA (about 1/3rd of a teaspoon) can easily store 1 petabyte of data. 1 petabyte is 1,000 terabytes. So envision 1,000 1-terabyte hard-drives stacked up in your office, completely filled with data. Then compare that to a teaspoon 1/3rd full of powdery specks of DNA.

If the 1,000 hard-drives stacked up in your office couldn't appear by means of a Darwinian process, why would anyone choose to believe the teaspoon full of microscopic biochemical hard-drives were? And again: the only difference between DNA used to store information about JPEG images and text, and DNA actively functioning in your cells is the choice of data: the latter store data on amino acid selection, protein synthesis, and other cellular processes.

>>>>you can't have your faith and eat it too for it's not a sub-category of reason

Au contraire. Reason is a subcategory of faith. That's why Dante, in the "Purgatory", required the character of Virgil (the "shade" of the great Roman poet, who symbolically represented reason, and had acted as the benevolent guide for Dante while he was making his travels and discoveries in the "Inferno") to remain behind, unable to enter heaven with Dante as he made his final voyage in the "Paradiso". Since Virgil was a pre-Christian pagan, he could not have had the requisite faith to enter heaven with Dante and act as a guide.

You should read Dante sometime.

Good points here. Although Darwin in vilified in some circles, he was a man of science. The advances in cellular biology over the past 25 years have been astronomical compared to the post grad coursework in physiology I had about 30 years ago. I believe that had Darwin known what we know today about DNA and cellular biology, the Origin of the Species wold never have been written. The statistical odds against a living cell forming out of the process of "chance and time” are beyond miniscule. It would require a colossal amount of “faith” to believe in this.

I hear that man has 99% of the DNA of a chimpanzee. It seems impressive, but when we consider there are 3 billion nucleotide pairs in the body, that means there are 30 million different nucleotide pairs difference. Not so impressive anymore.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote:

Argument against Christianity: No evidence for a Supreme Being ...

Lots of evidence. But if a priori you claim that anything explainable by means of purposive intelligent action is also just as easily explain (in principle) by means of physical matter, energy, and some combination of chance and deterministic law, then you are claiming that no argument for the existence of a Creator is even possible. You've simply closed yourself off to it.

For the record,

The biochemical evidence is overwhelming. The recently published results in the prestigious British journal Nature of the ENCODE project (which studied the functionality of the genome) shows that about 90% of DNA is functional, i.e., is transcribed onto RNA, and therefore has some kind of function within the cell. The researchers claimed that they expect 100% of DNA to be functional. It appears that only a small part of DNA actually codes for amino acids in the process of protein synthesis. The rest of the DNA strand does other stuff, apparently controlling much of the "formatting" (to use a term from desktop publishing) of the coding part. The significance of all this (aside from the fact that scientifically it's interesting in its own right) is that the notion of "junk DNA" — i.e., long, non-coding, NON-FUNCTIONAL, stretches of DNA apparently being preserved "errors" [the DNA equivalent of fossils] of random variation and natural selection over millions of years of genomic evolution — is out the window. None of it is junk. All of it is functional. It's quite funny to read many of the Darwinists backpeddle on this issue now: "Oh, we NEVER used the phrase 'junk DNA' in the first place! That was just the popular press exaggerating things!" Etc. Anyway, the ENCODE results have hammered the final nail in the coffin of junk DNA, an important element of the Darwinian scenario on evolution.

Additionally, a company called "Agilent" has successfully used DNA as an actual storage medium for jpeg images and text (they encoded all of Shakespeare's sonnets and some images on a few grains of DNA). The DNA was flown to their sister office in the U.S., which successfully decoded the data and read it off with near 100% fidelity.

Sorry, but the ability to use DNA for human data storage proves that the original molecule was already a kind of storage device, making use of a 4-symbol code (i.e., the nucleotide bases making up the rungs of the DNA helix) instead of a 2-symbol code like binary, which is what our man-made computers "understand." Hard-drives don't appear in nature by means of random processes and deterministic forces; they are the results of intention and purpose. Same with DNA, which is nothing but a very small hard-drive -- literally.

By the way, the compression of DNA storage is fantastic, even given the rough state of today's technology: according to its inventors, 1 gram of DNA (about 1/3rd of a teaspoon) can easily store 1 petabyte of data. 1 petabyte is 1,000 terabytes. So envision 1,000 1-terabyte hard-drives stacked up in your office, completely filled with data. Then compare that to a teaspoon 1/3rd full of powdery specks of DNA.

If the 1,000 hard-drives stacked up in your office couldn't appear by means of a Darwinian process, why would anyone choose to believe the teaspoon full of microscopic biochemical hard-drives were? And again: the only difference between DNA used to store information about JPEG images and text, and DNA actively functioning in your cells is the choice of data: the latter store data on amino acid selection, protein synthesis, and other cellular processes.

>>>>you can't have your faith and eat it too for it's not a sub-category of reason

Au contraire. Reason is a subcategory of faith. That's why Dante, in the "Purgatory", required the character of Virgil (the "shade" of the great Roman poet, who symbolically represented reason, and had acted as the benevolent guide for Dante while he was making his travels and discoveries in the "Inferno") to remain behind, unable to enter heaven with Dante as he made his final voyage in the "Paradiso". Since Virgil was a pre-Christian pagan, he could not have had the requisite faith to enter heaven with Dante and act as a guide.

You should read Dante sometime.

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me.

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

--Brant

fantasy does not kill ignorance

[Mike82ARP]

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me.

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

--Brant
fantasy does not kill ignorance

What do you call the universe? It it not material? Is is not evidence?

You can fantasize about how it may have always existed, but lacking proof of that, it is mere fantasy.

[Brant Gaede]

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me.

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

--Brant

fantasy does not kill ignorance

What do you call the universe? It it not material? Is is not evidence?

You can fantasize about how it may have always existed, but lacking proof of that, it is mere fantasy.

I never fantasized about the universe always existing. It's existence always existing and only because nothing can exist apart from existence including non-existence. This is axiomatic. Non-existence as such is even beyond imagination. Everytime you try to imagine it you end up imagining something. Sometimes it's a Supreme Being, who, wonderful to relate!--looks just like a patriarch: an old white man with a beard, albeit up there in the sky looking down. A nasty fellow, really, if you don't eat your vegies, clean your room, study hard, plow the fields and strike down His enemies.

--Brant

faith and state: mix and match

[tmj]

Creation 'theories' presuppose a need for creation.

Existence exists, axiomatic or not?

Isn't it that the supposition is in error, not any particular theory?

[PDS]

@PDS.

You wrote: "Your beliefs, for reasons that it might be fruitful for you to examine sometime, seem to compel you to believe that this act of suicide was only for you and those like you.

I won't subject the readers of an Objectivist website to a bunch of Bible verses. You can go read this book here if you are genuinely curious. Plenty of Bible versus in there for you to ponder. "

Do you really think that over the last 27 years of reading the Bible and broadly studying theology that universalism somehow slipped under the radar. It would be nice if it were true, but it fails when measured up against what the Bible teaches. That’s why there's a very small minority of X-ns who teach it.

You asked for some Bible verses about universal salvation and I provided you with an easily accessible (i.e., free) online book full of them. Did I do something wrong?

You asked me to speculate on what you have learned over the past 27 years of reading the Bible and studying theology, so here goes: my speculation is that you haven't yet figured out what makes you so special that God would commit suicide on your behalf, but not Granny's, or your across the street neighbor. Further, I would speculate conundrum doesn't seem to bother you all that much, since it isn't you who will be the one roasting in hell.

Maybe I am wrong in my speculations. Maybe you have thought about this a great deal and have some answers. If so, please let us know what makes you deserving of preordained grace, and not others.*

*If your answer is that this is a "mystery", or something akin to that, well, then I give up having a discussion with you.

[Mike82ARP]

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me.

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

--Brant

fantasy does not kill ignorance

What do you call the universe? It it not material? Is is not evidence?

You can fantasize about how it may have always existed, but lacking proof of that, it is mere fantasy.

I never fantasized about the universe always existing. It's existence always existing and only because nothing can exist apart from existence including non-existence. This is axiomatic. Non-existence as such is even beyond imagination. Everytime you try to imagine it you end up imagining something. Sometimes it's a Supreme Being, who, wonderful to relate!--looks just like a patriarch: an old white man with a beard, albeit up there in the sky looking down. A nasty fellow, really, if you don't eat your vegies, clean your room, study hard, plow the fields and strike down His enemies.

--Brant

faith and state: mix and match

Stipulating your tautology, why would it them be impossible for God to have always existed? Can nothing conceivably exist outside a natural/material realm?

[Mike82ARP]

@PDS.

You wrote: "Your beliefs, for reasons that it might be fruitful for you to examine sometime, seem to compel you to believe that this act of suicide was only for you and those like you.

I won't subject the readers of an Objectivist website to a bunch of Bible verses. You can go read this book here if you are genuinely curious. Plenty of Bible versus in there for you to ponder. "

Do you really think that over the last 27 years of reading the Bible and broadly studying theology that universalism somehow slipped under the radar. It would be nice if it were true, but it fails when measured up against what the Bible teaches. That’s why there's a very small minority of X-ns who teach it.

You asked for some Bible verses about universal salvation and I provided you with an easily accessible (i.e., free) online book full of them. Did I do something wrong?

You asked me to speculate on what you have learned over the past 27 years of reading the Bible and studying theology, so here goes: my speculation is that you haven't yet figured out what makes you so special that God would commit suicide on your behalf, but not Granny's, or your across the street neighbor. Further, I would speculate conundrum doesn't seem to bother you all that much, since it isn't you who will be the one roasting in hell.

Maybe I am wrong in my speculations. Maybe you have thought about this a great deal and have some answers. If so, please let us know what makes you deserving of preordained grace, and not others.*

*If your answer is that this is a "mystery", or something akin to that, well, then I give up having a discussion with you.

People make all kinds of claim and write books about them. Have you smelled Jesus lately? I'm sure there's a book that tells you how. That doesn't make the content of the books true. Universal salvation is a nice idea, but as I wrote earlier, Jesus need not have come. It is a small minority position and the al evidence for it comes up short.

Your harping on this issue makes me wonder if deep down you have a fear of an afterlife and hope of a universal salvation.

You then wrote, "what makes you so special that God would commit suicide on your behalf, but not Granny's, or your across the street neighbor." That's an easy question to answer. Nothing special. That's what "grace" is all about. Spend some time examining that attribute of God.

What happens between others and God is not my business. Jesus himself said in Luke 9:59, "Let the dead bury their own dead." God's words, not mine, nor my place to argue about it.

Do I rejoice that some "roast in hell"? Maybe, for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot., but I didn't make the rules.

[Mike82ARP]

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me.

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

--Brant

fantasy does not kill ignorance

If, supposedly, the universe had no beginning, why couldn't that apply to the Supreme Being? Your infinite regression comment is specious.

[tmj]

Do I rejoice that some "roast in hell"? Maybe, for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot., but I didn't make the rules.

Lovely set of rules that apply equally to Pol Pot and my agnostic granny.

[PDS]

@PDS.

You wrote: "Your beliefs, for reasons that it might be fruitful for you to examine sometime, seem to compel you to believe that this act of suicide was only for you and those like you.

I won't subject the readers of an Objectivist website to a bunch of Bible verses. You can go read this book here if you are genuinely curious. Plenty of Bible versus in there for you to ponder. "

Do you really think that over the last 27 years of reading the Bible and broadly studying theology that universalism somehow slipped under the radar. It would be nice if it were true, but it fails when measured up against what the Bible teaches. That’s why there's a very small minority of X-ns who teach it.

You asked for some Bible verses about universal salvation and I provided you with an easily accessible (i.e., free) online book full of them. Did I do something wrong?

You asked me to speculate on what you have learned over the past 27 years of reading the Bible and studying theology, so here goes: my speculation is that you haven't yet figured out what makes you so special that God would commit suicide on your behalf, but not Granny's, or your across the street neighbor. Further, I would speculate conundrum doesn't seem to bother you all that much, since it isn't you who will be the one roasting in hell.

Maybe I am wrong in my speculations. Maybe you have thought about this a great deal and have some answers. If so, please let us know what makes you deserving of preordained grace, and not others.*

*If your answer is that this is a "mystery", or something akin to that, well, then I give up having a discussion with you.

People make all kinds of claim and write books about them. Have you smelled Jesus lately? I'm sure there's a book that tells you how. That doesn't make the content of the books true. Universal salvation is a nice idea, but as I wrote earlier, Jesus need not have come. It is a small minority position and the al evidence for it comes up short.

Your harping on this issue makes me wonder if deep down you have a fear of an afterlife and hope of a universal salvation.

You then wrote, "what makes you so special that God would commit suicide on your behalf, but not Granny's, or your across the street neighbor." That's an easy question to answer. Nothing special. That's what "grace" is all about. Spend some time examining that attribute of God.

What happens between others and God is not my business. Jesus himself said in Luke 9:59, "Let the dead bury their own dead." God's words, not mine, nor my place to argue about it.

Do I rejoice that some "roast in hell"? Maybe, for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot., but I didn't make the rules.

Well, I guess I'll take consolation in the fact that you at least don't have the gall to call any of this a "mystery".

Fair enough. Discussion over.

[Mike82ARP]

Do I rejoice that some "roast in hell"? Maybe, for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot., but I didn't make the rules.

Lovely set of rules that apply equally to Pol Pot and my agnostic granny.

I thought you didn’t believe in all that stuff. You’ve nothing to worry about.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Good points here. .

Mike,

I don't want to give the sockpuppet jerk too much credit, but too many people are going ooh and aah over his intellect (Not your case, but this is as good a time as any to make my point.) Rather than dismiss his points that you found good, though, let's be fair and do this on the merit of his "overwhelming evidence" stance, specifically his "storage device" premise.

(We can do this with the sockpuppet's other points, too, but I will stick to this one right now. Neither I or you are eternal, at least not on this earth. Ah me, life is short and yap yap yapping is long and this seems to be a constant subtext of the sockpuppet. )

He claims that since DNA can be used for storage (of Shakespeare's works, in fact), this proves that it was a storage device from the beginning. I really don't want to quote him since I threw the original post in the Garbage Pile, but I refer to this little gem: "... the ability to use DNA for human data storage proves that the original molecule was already a kind of storage device..."

That's about as fallacious an argument as I have ever read. This is like saying that since a cigarette can be used to start a forest fire, this proves that cigarettes were arson devices from the beginning.

It's stupid reasoning of the mental masturbation sort--for what gets left out alone. But there's more. It makes a whopping presupposition and that takes it to overlapping with a different category.

This is an NLP technique. But please, don't take this to mean that I think the sockpuppet studied NLP. The procedure and deception are the same regardless of what you call them. I only mention NLP because it illustrates the thing so clearly.

In NLP, if you want to get someone to agree with something without examining it, make it a presupposition for a "focus" statement and use indirect language if clarity sets off warning bells. A focus statement is something that inherently causes your mind to temporarily shut out considering the context and background in order to focus solely on it. This can be a technical point, or it can be a sudden emotional outburst, or even another kind of attention-attracting statement.

NLP people use this technique to sneak in hypnotic commands while bypassing the target's awareness filter, but the technique is the same for uses outside of conversational hypnosis.

Here's a quick hypnosis example so you know what I am talking about. "As you relax, you will find that you are becoming more interested." The person will focus on the focus statement: "you will find that you are becoming more interested" and think, "Oh really? Let's see if you can make me, big shot." Meanwhile, he is relaxing because he accepted the presupposition that he is doing precisely that. "As you relax" snuck in under the radar.

There are many ways to do presuppositions, and many uses for them, but this is a topic for another day.

Back to the sockpuppet. In other words, if you want to sell Intelligent Design without openly and honestly looking into the pros and cons, make it a veiled presupposition of a goosed up technical point. At a later time, if the person accepts your technical point, you can befuddle him with his own reasoning.

This is a great game for gotcha trolls, too.

Substance-wise, I'm not saying whether DNA was a storage device from the beginning or whether it was not. To me, at this stage of human development, that is not knowable. We don't have an organ for observing such intent at such a time distance. Nor can we question it.

We can speculate about it, but you have to be honest to use words like "speculate" for an issue like this. When you say "prove," like the sockpuppet does, and there is no way to prove it other than speculate, well, you know what to think about the seriousness of that statement...

So I am saying that current use does not prove original design intent--or even if there was a designer. All it proves is an observation, that you can use DNA as a storage device, and that the person making the "proof" argument is either a manipulator or a fool.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me.

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

--Brant

fantasy does not kill ignorance

If, supposedly, the universe had no beginning, why couldn't that apply to the Supreme Being? Your infinite regression comment is specious.

Again, you are talking about the universe--a universe?--I'm talking about existence. I do not and cannot know if the two are in actuality different, but I'm the guy leaving room for the possibility, not you.

--Brant

[anthony]

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me.

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

--Brant

fantasy does not kill ignorance

If, supposedly, the universe had no beginning, why couldn't that apply to the Supreme Being? Your infinite regression comment is specious.

Reality, aligned with a supernatural Existence is a contradiction in terms.

To claim both, is having one's cake, and eating it. What's next? Does 'reality'

become a "sub-category" of 'meta-reality'?

Reason, founded upon the autonomous, inviolable mind - along with an omniscient Being who knows what you're going to think before you think it, attacks man's certainty of consciousness.

The core tenets of Objectivism, as you must know - both eliminated.

Socially and economically, may Christians and Objectivists have a cordial relationship.

But Objectivism needs nothing from Christianity, while seemingly Christianity requires the credibilty O'ism (or any rational ideology) offers. Bring them together, by force or compromise, and one will be wiped out. I can guess which.