Christian Objectivist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I don't care what you've studied. I'm not impressed with such declarations.

When you claim that "multiple definitions" are "contradictions," and that Rand's definitions are "arbitrary" without having even read them, much less understood them, you show clearly that, despite the learning you claim, you either don't know, or refuse to acknowledge, the difference between words and concepts.

I almost always lose interest in such a high quantity of communication complications in really easy primary level stuff that I have encountered in our brief exchanges. And I did this time, too.

I get it. Your subtext (discerned though your constant repetition and insistence on attributing wrong meanings and pointing to contradictions that do not exist) is "Rand was wrong" at all costs, even when she wasn't.

This impasse is bigger than both of us.

But do carry on.

I personally have to move on to something more productive...

Be well and be happy...

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Xray,

I don't care what you've studied. I'm not impressed with such declarations.

When you claim that "multiple definitions" are "contradictions," and that Rand's definitions are "arbitrary" without having even read them, much less understood them, you show clearly that, despite the learning you claim, you either don't know, or refuse to acknowledge, the difference between words and concepts.

I almost always lose interest in such a high quantity of communication complications in really easy primary level stuff that I have encountered in our brief exchanges. And I did this time, too.

I get it. Your subtext (discerned though your constant repetition and insistence on attributing wrong meanings and pointing to contradictions that do not exist) is "Rand was wrong" at all costs, even when she wasn't.

This impasse is bigger than both of us.

But do carry on.

I personally have to move on to something more productive...

Be well and be happy...

Michael

Well put, Michael. Attempts at communications with Xray are clearly a waste of time.

Bill P

[Xray]

Xray,

I don't care what you've studied. I'm not impressed with such declarations.

Which is a good thing. I'm not impressed with such declarations either.

The only reason I referred to my studies in the field was to make it clear that you are not telling me anything new here.

When you claim that "multiple definitions" are "contradictions," and that Rand's definitions are "arbitrary" without having even read them, much less understood them, you show clearly that, despite the learning you claim, you either don't know, or refuse to acknowledge, the difference between words and concepts.

Your allegation that I have "not read them" is a mere speculation on your part. For you simply can't know what I have read of Rand.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Well put, Michael. Attempts at communications with Xray are clearly a waste of time.

I'm merely persistent when it comes to getting to the core of an issue, Bill.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

xray only visits reality as a tourist and occasionally visits Rand via some

other dimension.

Of course, I visit Rand in another dimension. I have no choice. Obviously, reality was not her home planet.

I told you she was a nag.

I can see why you call me a nag. No doubt, the questions I ask and you refuse to answer do nag you no end.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your allegation that I have "not read them" is a mere speculation on your part. For you simply can't know what I have read of Rand.

Xray,

When your posts reflect that you have, even if you have not understood correctly, I will see it.

For now...

Peace...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

#sigh*

[brg253]

I think "Christian Objectivistism" is a particularly egregious contradiction if for no other reason than that it reeks of intellectual sloppiness.

Edited October 9, 2009 by brg253

[Michelle]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

[BaalChatzaf]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michelle]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

That depends upon how you define "objective Christian."

[Xray]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Why? Admit to hypocrisy?

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Could you guys -please- not quote twenty or more lines of nested replies within replies followed by one or two lines of your own thoughts?

We already read the thread once. We don't need to keep rereading it. Especially if you have only a one-liner to add to the discussion.

It's really annoying to have to look thru the same statements multiple times only to find they are repetitious...and then find not much being added.

If you look over most of this page of posts, it could all be boiled down to about the length of this post.

And this one is much easier to read.

(And please don't now -argue- with me about it. Or make some sort of clever, snarky, smartass response: Just recognize a reasonable request.)

Edited October 14, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michelle]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Right.

[Selene]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Right.

Michelle:

I think it might be wrong to do this but I am so confused, I have no standard to make a decision. I am lost. Help! Should I not do what Phil wants or should I?

Where is xray maybe she can guide the youthful, like yourself, and the ancient like myself with insight and guidance on this critical metaphysical problem.

And stop that asshole with the cartoons!

Adam

[Michelle]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Right.

Michelle:

I think it might be wrong to do this but I am so confused, I have no standard to make a decision. I am lost. Help! Should I not do what Phil wants or should I?

Where is xray maybe she can guide the youthful, like yourself, and the ancient like myself with insight and guidance on this critical metaphysical problem.

And stop that asshole with the cartoons!

Adam

Phil very nicely made a very simple request:

"Could you guys -please- not quote twenty or more lines of nested replies within replies followed by one or two lines of your own thoughts?" (emphasis mine)

As I'm a large-hearted woman, I plan on honoring his request.

I don't believe I am in violation right now, as I only see nineteen quoted lines.

We should all kindly agree to quote no more than nineteen lines at a time in order to allow Phil a more pleasant web experience.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Michelle:

You are absolutely right. I hope Phil does not get too angry...

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Right.

Michelle:

I think it might be wrong to do this but I am so confused, I have no standard to make a decision. I am lost. Help! Should I not do what Phil wants or should I?

Where is xray maybe she can guide the youthful, like yourself, and the ancient like myself with insight and guidance on this critical metaphysical problem.

And stop that asshole with the cartoons!

Adam

Phil very nicely made a very simple request:

"Could you guys -please- not quote twenty or more lines of nested replies within replies followed by one or two lines of your own thoughts?" (emphasis mine)

As I'm a large-hearted woman, I plan on honoring his request.

I don't believe I am in violation right now, as I only see nineteen quoted lines.

We should all kindly agree to quote no more than nineteen lines at a time in order to allow Phil a more pleasant web experience.

I'd like to say something, but I'm going to defer to Phil and not.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Christian Objectivist," huh?

Having a passable understanding of Objectivism and a deeper understanding of Christianity in its various forms, I can only say that this term is self-contradictory rubbish.

If someone wants to identify as a Christian Objectivist, I won't give them a hard time about it. I'm a 'live and let live' sort of person to the extent that someone doesn't get in the way of my life. I will not, however, pretend that their self-designation has any logical legitimacy should they choose to bring it up.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o").

Ba'al Chatzaf

Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective".

From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian.

Right.

Michelle:

I think it might be wrong to do this but I am so confused, I have no standard to make a decision. I am lost. Help! Should I not do what Phil wants or should I?

Where is xray maybe she can guide the youthful, like yourself, and the ancient like myself with insight and guidance on this critical metaphysical problem.

And stop that asshole with the cartoons!

Adam

Phil very nicely made a very simple request:

"Could you guys -please- not quote twenty or more lines of nested replies within replies followed by one or two lines of your own thoughts?" (emphasis mine)

As I'm a large-hearted woman, I plan on honoring his request.

I don't believe I am in violation right now, as I only see nineteen quoted lines.

We should all kindly agree to quote no more than nineteen lines at a time in order to allow Phil a more pleasant web experience.

I'd like to say something, but I'm going to defer to Phil and not.

--Brant

BTW, did you notice how cool these embedded quotations look under OL's new format?

--Brant

not snarky

[Michelle]

I'd like to say something

To me?

[Michelle]

On re-reading my posts in this thread:

Goodness, but I can be a right bitch!

Here's how it is, Phil. I like having a little bit of a quote train to easily reference the connections between previous posts. But since it seems to disturb you, I'll try to remember to cut it before it gets too long.

[Brant Gaede]

I'd like to say something

To me?

When I address YOU there will be NO ambiguity!!!

--BRANT! BRANT! BRANT!

ranting on

[Xray]

Michelle:

I think it might be wrong to do this but I am so confused, I have no standard to make a decision. I am lost. Help!

Michelle:

We should all kindly agree to quote no more than nineteen lines at a time in order to allow Phil a more pleasant web experience.

But ... but - is doing Phil favor in line with Objectivism? What would Ayn Rand say about such relapse into - I hardly dare pronounce the dirty word -- "altruism"?

Brant:

I'd like to say something, but I'm going to defer to Phil and not.

Brant o Brant - how Rand would rant: "Deferring is altruism!" "Deferring is self-sacrfice!" "Deferring is being a sacrficial animal for a looter!"

And on top of it, all this occuring on a thread thread bearing the words "Christian tn Objectivist. Oh me, oh my, what is the objectivist world coming to!

Had Ayn Rand lived to see that happen, you would have had to duck and cover, for no doubt her wrath would have come down on the OL "tertulia" here.

Where is xray maybe she can guide the youthful, like yourself, and the ancient like myself with insight and guidance on this critical metaphysical problem. Posted ImagePosted Image

Ask and ya shall receive.

Well, ... all things considered and as always, premises checked, to get your Objectivist ducks in a row, I'm afraid you have no choice left but to "go Galt" here and charge Phil, let's say, 50 cents each time you do him a favor by not quoting those embedded posts. Just to make sure you don't deviate from the Objectivst doctrine which holds that people always have to pay money for what they get. And Phil in turn can't be accused of being a 'looter' or 'moocher' or labeled with whatever other charming words Objectivists keep in their special drawer. B)

Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I'd like to say something, but I'm going to defer to Phil and not.

--Brant

Brant o Brant - how Rand would rant: "Deferring is altruism!!It is self-sacrifice! And on top of it all this on a thread discussing "Christian Objectivism" - oh my.

Had Rand lived so see all that, can you image the goddes's wrath coming down on the little "tertulia" here? You would all have to duck and cover ...!

I'm beginning to suspect you have a stiff one in the morning. This is an improvement in that you didn't say "subjective" once.

--Brant

now I went and did it