"a Christian doesn't have to explain those offensive behaviors"
Yes. This is just as no one has to explain offensive behaviors of their group. "What about [light-skinned people / dark-skinned people / Muslims / atheists] who did [XYZ]? " People shouldn't have to answer for things *other people* did.

" I actually agree with George Will on the header to this thread, "
Yes. I think our Constitution is not for the best in us but for the part of us the freaks out and wants to ban unpopular speech, guns, and search every house for those horrible child abusers etc.

I'm not saying that I agreed with Adams on this point. I actually agree with George Will on the header to this thread, but Adams' statement, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." says that he thought it would not have worked for atheists like Thomas Paine.

As far as I am concerned, the concept of original sin is the singlemost incorrect thing about Christianity. While Adam and Eve might have "sinned" for eating the apple, it does not logically follow that we have sinned for that reason. I am not saying that all have not sinned. I do not think it is possible to go through life without doing something that should reasonably make you feel remorse for at least once. On this point, however, IndianaGary and John Galt (and AR) were right; the concept of original sin is illogical.

It works, though, for people like Thomas Paine and those who believe only in the sanctity of their own minds.

Khalling is right on this one. There was a rich young man who had followed the commandments, but when Jesus asked to give everything away and follow him, he couldn't (or wouldn't) do it. Christianity does not enforce altruism, but it does more than just highly encourage it. In AR terms, does Christianity require the sanction of the victim?

You’ve got it backwards. They came here first to make profit. Nobody came to set up ‘colonies’. They came here first to exploit resources for their Kings and Queens. In fact, four months after the first settler landed in Virginia, the first slaves were brought ashore to work the fields. There are African-American families in this country whose roots go back even earlier than most of the Founders.

In the last statement about "it is easier to be moral when one has an unmoving foundation of values in place; for Christians, their god is that foundation", I think my position is pretty much aligned with George Will's on this one.

I know of no religion that does not require acceptance of the supernatural on faith.

More precisely, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

What bridge?

+1

I mean no offense, but a Christian doesn't have to explain those offensive behaviors. One of the more redeeming (pun intended) characteristics of Christianity is the personal relationship that Christians claim to have with their god. Christians do not have to explain others' "sins"; they only need to atone for their own sins.

Ironically to most Objectivists, Christianity is quite a selfish decision to make. Christians realize what they perceive to be their own inadequacy and make a decision to live their lives for another man (Jesus Christ) in exchange for a promised future salvation. Whether that decision is a good decision or not is certainly one worth debating (and frankly has been debated thoroughly) in the Gulch.

"Religion is your way of life: your code of conduct. It is WHY you do what you do and how you value things when weighing decisions."

I don't accept your premise.

I consider teaching kids to accept the irrational in their most formative years the most reprehensible brainwashing imaginable. Just when they are beginning to discover the wonder of the world, we scare the hell out of them with the Devil and saddle them with Original Sin. I can think of nothing more evil.

While there are certainly contradictions in how Christianity has been practiced, it can be practiced in a way that is non-contradictory (provided that one is not at the same time an Objectivist because Galt's oath becomes a major problem). It is quite possible to be a rational Christian and non-contradictory, but if one is that way, then he/she cannot be lukewarm. A Christian must be either "all in" or isn't worthy of the name Christian.

Regarding whether Christians will not accept the point that ethics need not be based upon the existence of a god, many Christians will grant that one can certainly be ethical without the existence of a god. Pres. John Adams is a counterexample, but I can tell you of several people within the Gulch who are Christians that would "accept the point that ethics need not be based upon the existence of a god". That being said, it is easier to be moral when one has an unmoving foundation of values in place; for Christians, their god is that foundation.

Good for you Indiana, I hate the word hate but don't like to pick nits either....

...ahh yes, the "sanction of the victim" is much worse than "highway robbery". The sources of that code emanate from religion in forms that camouflage the ways government betrays our natural rights.

Most of the Founders were not explicitly Christian; they were Deists, which is subtly different.

Definition: deist - Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority.

This is more like the concept of Intelligent Design than explicitly Christian. We Objectivists argue that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine that there is no need for the existence of any god and that, in fact, accepting the existence of a (necessarily) supernatural god is counter to reality. As you have said before, you may choose to believe what you want to believe and I'll go down a different path.

That is true--about the safety instruction in a hypoxic situation. See to yourself, and then you can see to others.

I'd put this to you: relying on the government to enforce an altruistic policy is, at best, a lazy man's act. At worst, it promotes theft and covetousness--both of which the Judeo-Christian traditions forbid.

When you force someone else to give, that's theft. Worse than that, it is robbery.

I hate the word "sin". It's a religious crime, not a secular one. According to Christianity, being born is a sin.

I agree with you barwick. None have proof of a reason not to have faith. Hope we can all at least fight for each others freedom though.

I bought into that religion until I was about 21. Then I started thinking for myself and discovered Objectivism. It took a couple of years of difficult introspection and study before I fully understood the evil of altruism, which is the basis of virtually all religion, particularly Christianity.

Try this exercise: read a Papal encyclical and replace the word "God" with the word "State" and see just how close it comes to a Communist equivalent. The relationship between Christianity and Communism is uncanny. If you agree that Communism is evil, I'd suggest that you look very closely at what you've let into your religion. I suggest that it is built-in and cannot be separated.

While I agree with your assessment, Christianity has built-in contradictions that make having a rational conversation with someone with the Christian mindset difficult, if not impossible. When it becomes clear that a person (Christian or not) is impervious to logic I simply stop and move on; life is too short to waste my time trying to debate a point with a brick wall. Christians simply will not accept the point that ethics need not be based upon the existence of a god.

John Adams said that a religion-based morality was necessary to the long-term success of the country.