Posted on 11/27/2001 4:25:49 PM PST by Orion78
You are absolutely correct. That is exactly what I meant.
What Christianity teaches is both illogical and absurd, and Rand rightly rejected it. My point was, that Christianity, the organized religion, does not teach what the Bible teaches. We don't know what Rand's view would have been if she had ever been introduced to what the Bible actually teaches.
You may be making the same mistake Ayn made, that what Christians say the Bibles says is what it actually says.
Hank
Anytime! Not one single person preaches, everything you stand for and live by. It is always better to appreciate the good qualitites others have, agree with them on issues you agree with and absorb whatever good they have to offer.It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone on certain issues and still be able to admire them on certain others. Then we have the other extreme, people, who admire a person and any action and stand by that person is acceptable to them. Well, what can you say for these people. Hint: Clinton Voters
OK ayotallah's (you know who you are), flame away. I'm going to bed in asbestos underwear.....for a change.
P.S. CG the second paragraph has nothing to do with you, bud.
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess, it is time for me to search for my fire proof one too. G nite!
121 Posts, not to shabby for blowin it at post 16 eh?
That's a fair question. You made a number of statements that were basically unsubstantiated, yourself, but let's just consider the last:
But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?
No, I don't say that. No, I say the strong become weak at the expense of money.
The statement, "the strong become weak at the expense of money," as it stands, is incapable of meaning. Who do you mean by "the stong?" Are the strong those that make money? Are the strong those that do not make money, but steal it, or cheat others out of it? (I would not consider such strong.) Are the strong those who have their money stolen or are cheated out of it? (I would not consider those who can be easily cheated or robbed strong.)
Of course, I'm guessing, because you provide not even a hint who you consider the strong to be.
And how is it that the "strong" are made week by money? And, what do you mean by, "at the expense," of money? Money is never an expense, it is the means of paying expenses.
If you can answer these questions, you may be able to make sense out of your statement, but I think you can see, as it is, it makes no sense, and is therefore, nonsense.
Hank
I just noticed you said this and thought I would mention I believe you ought to feel free to attack anything you think is false. If what you attack happens to be true, those who know and believe the truth will be able to defend it. If what you attack is false, you will have benefitted everyone who learns from it.
Hank
He only gets the money because he operates in a legitmate racket which allows him to steal.
I personally believe the Bible, but I reject all superstition (any belief not based on reason from evidence) and mysticism (supposed knowledge without a rational source.) You may be suprised, therefore, that I do believe in revelation, (not mystic revelation, but the kind we all experience when someone explains something to us we could never have learned on our own, like when a blind person is told by a seeing person the light is green and it is safe to cross the street). Most of our knowledge of history is also of that kind.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.