Posted on 07/22/2002 4:31:37 PM PDT by dubyagee
Oh, you mean the same 'serious' 'philosophers' that are responsible for the current state of affairs? Or do you mean their later-day Imp children?
Rand describes what IS.
To quote Chef --- "You're damn right!"
She's a woman. On a good day they can change oil.
I'll take your points in order.
First, Rand makes the mistake of lumping all believers in with looters. Were this the case, there would be no believers here at FR decrying big government or taking offense at the fact that the government wants our paychecks each month.
A lot of 'believers' are statists. Many are Nazis/Facists/Socialists. You'll find VERY few GOPers who decry taxation as immoral. Let them come on this thread and denounce taxation as theft.
Your mistake is that you are not in the 'group' you think you are (GOP), or you are assigning value(s) to the GOP that it does not have.
But if man is only truly alive and good when he is true to himself and his virtue, how can evil exist?
Because man is often not true to himself and virtue. It's a lot easier not to be.
Good and evil contradict one another.
False premise. Evil is the abscence of good.
Third, Rand does not believe that men are made up of nothing more than chemical reactions, but that they have a soul.
Although I agree with you, that Rand's statements that God does not exist are irrational, I'd need evidence that she ever said man has a soul.
Now, if you would humor me for a moment, imagine the execution of a man named Jesus, who comes to this world He created, in a desire to save it from destruction by looters.
This is a very interesting, and worthy point that I have not seen made before.
It is often said by those who belittle the intellectual capabilities of Christians, that the bible is full of contradictions
It is. But you're making another mistake. The Bible does not prove the existance of God. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but I believe in God. And Natural Order is one method of His proof. I have others, but they are personal.
Rand's mistake was trying to DISPROVE something by lack of evidence. I guarantee there is life somewhere in the Universe, besides Man. But I can't prove it. By her 'logic', it would be morally safe to nuke every planet without visiting it.
If, for the sake of argument, God does indeed exist, Rand has brought herself down to the level of the evil looters. Her greatest contradiction is her refusal to acknowledge the possibility that God does exist, thereby offering him no acknowledgement and no gratitude for that which she worshipped above all a great Mind
Nice wrap up, bringing it all together.
One could also add what I did above. She has precluded a possibility without evidence.
At best she could say God 'could' exist.
It's not as if we're trying to disprove the Easter Bunny.
My reason tells me that greatness must come from that which is greater
Your reason is faulty. Greatness is a man-created concept. Created in our languages/thought processes. It could be possible for an alien society to exist that has no idea about 'greatness'.
I've actually been thinking of posting something similar, but never got the time. Glad you did.
In your earlier post, you acknowledged the world is becoming more and more that way each day.
Or do you mean the Resistance is a bizzare scenario?
It isn't and can be expressed in simple quality of life terms. I was hoping Gates would tell Reno to stuff it and close Microsoft and lead an economic crash - as I would have - but he's a coward, it seems.
Can you imagine? "As of this date, Microsoft is closed. If you want software or support, call Janet Reno. Goodbye."
:)
You mean you wanted Dagny to FORCE Eddie to accompany her. That's not going to happen.
God has promised to open the "eyes of our understanding, (Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints), not the throats of our credulity,(Mat. 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel).
Your earlier post about "organized religion" is absolutely correct. Jesus never established a religion, and all the "organized religions" usurp the authority of Christ, and teach things which will never be found in the Bible.
(Most of the teachings that dominate what are called "Christian" churches, were the inventions of Augustine of Hippo, a brilliant man, converted to Christianity, but full of pagan philosophy which he introduced into Christian doctrine.)
Hank
Friend, I hope you have asbestos underwear.
And watch your mailman and the cable guy. They'll rat you out.
Good thing I'm not you. I'd really hate to think that way.
You're missing that God is the Creator of Reason. Not Ayn.
Victor Hugo was her ideal, because the characters in his novels were larger than life.
Anybody can write a novel about ordinary people. It's done all the time.
To build an array of characters whose traits are so far different from each other, and from what most people are accustomed to in their friends and family, takes an extroardinary talent.
Subtlety was not her strong suit, however.
The best speech in the book, IMHO -- better even than the Galt radio speech.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.The rest of Francisco's speech is here. (too long to post on an already long thread)"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
If that's the rule for this thread why are you posting here?
I believe what you do - that God is the Creator of Reason. And I certainly don't think (and never said) that Ayn is the creator of reason!!! What I said was that morality doesn't follow from reason. God gives us both morality and reason. If he just gave us the latter, and it led to right behavior (morality), he wouldn't need to give us the 10 Commandments; he wouldn't need to pound into us right behavior throughout the old testament, and he wouldn't have needed for Christ to teach us. Again, people employ reason (agreed given to us by God) for all sorts of purposes - including those which are nefarious. They need something more than that (which God does provide!).
But some people willingly give up money in order to serve others (e.g., Mother Teresa). She could hardly be called a 'looter.'
About 1/3 of humanity disagrees with you. Rand makes a big thing about not being forced to work for others. All (except communists and socialists) agree. But many believe that goodness includes voluntarily serving others. Christianity, in particular, posits that good is about becoming selfless to serve others. The idea that goodness equates with selfishness doesn't fly with a great many.
As I said before, evil people employ well-honed reason very well (Lex Luther, Mao Tse-tung, Hitler). When you say it's impossible to use the ability correctly and not agree with God, you're assuming something else (that which is correct), outside of reason.
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.