I'm saying no one has to shut up and sit down.
God is love.
But kill the terrorists first.

From the Ayn Rand "Lexicon"

Atheism

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .

Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.

Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.

Didn't Jesus go into the woods and weep because he didn't want to be sacrificed. Jesus was sacrificed 'for the sins of others' (whatever that's supposed to mean) and Galt didn't sacrifice a thing.

Ayn Rand was an atheist. She did not believe in self-sacrifice. She would not have modeled any heroic character after Jesus of the New Testament. She labeled theists as mystics, and her readers know what she thought of them.

You think Ayn Rand modeled John Galt after Jesus?

A "man" who lies about one thing, will lie about anything, and is of little consequence.

Exactly. Which is why *I* use my real name whenever I post, :-)

You have my blessing. *I* stole it from someone who stole it and so on... :-)

Just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that "they" aren't out to GET you. :-)

Nah, my bride, who really is a PHD in Pharmacy,

was just having fun with you folks. I let her handle
my light work when it comes to biblical scripture
and dealing with pompous asses.

Yes, bravo Frank.When a man is a light weight
regarding his big head and is loosing, he usually
grabs his groin searching for his little head. So I
suppose you truly do believe you always win. ;-)

Do you think he was actually suggesting that a tape measure comes into the argument? In my mind it is a challenge over one ups manship. I do like the challenge however. I'm going to book that for use at the proper time. I have a high school reunion coming up in June. I look forward to dueling with the snobs, and my high school was packed with them. I'll be sure and give you credit Frank. That is unless it gets a favorable reaction with proper laughs. Then I'll have to lie.

I think the use of "self evident" puts any squabbling to bed over it.

Ah hell, Jesus was a son of a rapist, that snuck into a little virgin's bed in the middle of the night while the girl was asleep. He didn't even wake the poor girl.

Jeez, what weak reasoning!!

I think it was in NJ but I could be wrong. The township government actually wanted to take private property from the owners so that a shopping mall or some such could be built where the property that they owned was. The idea was more jobs etc, but I suspect it was more sales tax money that was what they were after. But I'm more than a little suspicious of the governments, maybe even paranoid.

Wasn't that the whole theme? That no one owns the product of my work except me.

I don't follow what you are trying to say here?

Absolutely, we are constantly making value judgments about how to expend our time and effort.

I certainly agree. This raises the notion of appropriate force. I was thinking in a more general sense such as for retrieving stolen property. At some point the effort to take the property back out weighs the value of the property.

I agree that such mad dogs need to be exterminated so we can all safely believe what the heck is right in our individual hearts and minds.
I tell people Jesus is the door to God. Well, BOO!
Please excuse that persecution.

Yes, beheadings and burnings (ostensibly for religious reasons) would constitute reason enough to warrant elimination of the offenders.

I world agree with the observation that the two are inseparable.

I personally would not use force (and certainly not lethal force) against someone who stole something insignificant. My concern is for human life. Something that does not threaten human life is of significantly less importance to me. If a pickpocket robs an individual of a comb and is discovered, I would not support breaking the pickpocket's arm.

Thank you very much. I will keep your email address handy. I am not sure what the relatives have planned, but I will let you know if I can make it. Thank you for the offer.

we do too!