http://ageofdeceit.com I realize this is you tube,but this might help. Since the fall of man i.e. Adam and Eve man has been trying to get back to what was lost. We debate back and forth and this is good so what is wrong with an elective in school about the bible? Nothing. Some here have quoted Ayn Rand as in her beliefs she was an atheist. Maybe she felt that way, but I still believe God used her to advance the teachings in Atlas Shrugged for those in the Gulch to get ready here it comes. When you hear someone say Bible some people get freaked over nothing as I have heard some say Atlas Shrugged is just a plain old fictitious book wrote by some one from Russia. The Bible means only one thing "His Story". Yes I can agree some books might have been left out why hell I could not tell you at all. What I can tell you is I believe what the Bible says, but I can also read from the books like the book of Enoch and a few others for help and I do this myself. Christ only wanted one thing from you and I "belief that he is the Son of God". All it takes is faith. Ayn Rand being used by God gets her message over to us all about what is and will take place if we do not change our ways. What is wrong about an elective in Oklahoma on the Bible or Atlas Shrugged? Nothing. What does the Q'ran teach "death to the infidels. Maybe not all Muslims believe this, but it still teaches this. The golden rule in the Bible is to love one another. As Christ said also there will be Wars and rumors of Wars. This is not just wars that are fought in Europe etc. This is wars against each other. I agree you agree or disagree. Our forefathers studied the Bible is it not good enough for us if it was for them? One thing and a main problem I do agree with is the Government has no right telling me what I study. Whether you believe this as I do or not that Great Day is coming and I will not be standing beside you and you will not be standing beside me as we are judged for what we did or did not. Any way go to the website I quoted maybe all will learn something. My hope is that all might learn as I have from all of you here in the Gulch. I have said before all of you no matter the age have taught me one thing or another. Truth that I did not get from a leviathan Govment out of control.

Where did I promote the idea that all philosophies were equal? You're reading an awful lot into my words that I didn't say which runs fairly contrary to what I actually said.

And I'm not sure how long you've been on this forum, but the participants post a very wide range of topics. Don't like some of the threads? Don't participate in them. But it is "inappropriate" to attempt to limit what may be posted. That's why the feedback arrows are there - so that EVERYONE in aggregate votes on the merits of a particular post.

As for promoting false ideas, I'm again not sure where you're coming from. Everything we talk about on these forums are ideas each individual picks and chooses from based on their experiences, knowledge, rational deduction, etc. We each - individually - choose what we want to believe in. The only "inappropriate" actions are demeaning others for their beliefs - whether you happen to share them or not.

Spend some time on the forum and you'll find out that LetsShrug is a staunch Objectivist, as are dbhalling and khalling. stargeezer is an older, Christian gentleman. Robbie is a Catholic. Mephaesdus is pro-homosexual. We've got a nice melting pot here of non-conformity that encourages thorough debate and the topics range far and wide.

CG, perhaps Mike is disparaging the fact that most
children are fathered "in absentia" by non-objectivist
males who often "beat their chests" with evidence
of their prowess -- car keys, beer cans and emmies,
not PhDs -- and also that we people guard our borders
like territorial apes.

I happen to like borders, myself. it's a family's privilege
to admit others selectively. -- j

Yup, whatever dude, believe the propaganda you just fed yourself.

1) There are no "clear contradictions through [the Bible]". Try me

2) The Bible in its present form has been in use since within a few centuries of Christ. All the books in it were chosen specifically because they were attested to by those who knew Christ personally, or learned from those who knew him personally. The Old Testament has been around for even longer and was quoted by Christ himself.

3) 5 or 6 different languages? Seriously? Where do you come up with this stuff?

4) The rest of your assertions, again, utter nonsense, the "Catholic Church" did not conspire to create the Bible, the Bible outdates the Catholic Church.

5) I suggest you get your facts straight. The four Gospels have all been *accurately* dated to the first century AD. If you care to look at the facts (which you don't), read even the cliffs notes of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He covers this at length with reference after reference after reference that will make your head spin.

But... I very seriously doubt you care about the Truth, just soothing your own preconceptions.

All religions are philosophies, but all philosophies are not religions. There was no indication that I inferred that either Objectivism or atheism were religions. However, it looks as If Environmentalism is turning into a religion among certain deluded folks.

I cannot believe we are discussing religion in a supposedly Objectivist site. I am not here for this irrational mystical crap. This stuff is not remotely compatible with rationality and objectivism.

The books of the bible have been interpreted from many languages and texts sometimes interpretations of interpretations as much as five levels deep from the source documents. Apparently many religious people do not know how the bible came to be. The actual process cannot be remotely claimed to be the inerrant Word of anyone, God or not.

Objectivism is not a religion. It is a philosophy. Neither is atheism which is a position on the hypothesis that God exist and nothing more.

That is utterly absurd. There are quite clear contradictions through it. The Bible in the form we have today was patched together by the Catholic Church picking and choosing among hundreds of ancient texts in at least 5 or 6 different languages. It chose by what it thought should be doctrine and in no small part to extend its own power. The process took on the order of 13 centuries and including lots of internal infighting and bloodshed against other Christian sects along the way.

Ancient history was often a mix of history and myth and legend in any case.

The gospels, even the earliest, were not penned until six decades after the supposed cruxifiction. They all apparently came from one common Q source.

The only real class warfare I know of is that of the moochers against the producers and that of the control freak against free people.

You confuse history of religion with religion regarded as history and a source of knowledge to be promoted. Your views on religion and supposed "civil rights" to obnoxiously and coercively impose yourself as a "protected class" have nothing in common with Ayn Rand.

The forum FAQ states: "Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie 'Collective.' Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online."

"Like-minded" does not mean promoting religion and does not mean your trashing those who reject it, which are the opposite of Atlas Shrugged, and are not "promoting the movie". You post here at the discretion of the owners, not by "right".

You are very confused about freedom of speech, "exercise of religion", and the Supreme Court. It pertains to freedom from government suppression, not a "right" to impose yourself anywhere you want on others' property and not a "right" to suppress the freedom of speech of others to reject your belligerent militant mysticism as a supposed "protected class" from "discrimination". Rejection of your belligerent nonsense and threats of legal liability is not a violation of your "civil rights", not "racism", and not contrary to Ayn Rand's principles, which also emphatically reject your pronouncements. It has nothing to do with escaping from communist Russia, which had more in common with your own statism and collectivism.

The important thing to me is teaching history and frankly, the bible does have a great deal of history in it since by Jewish law they were to record the events of the leaders, primary citizens and the history of the many wars that marked 4,000 years of their existence.

For example, the entire nation of Israel spent around 300 years living in Egypt. This began as an amicable arrangement during a bad drought in their homeland and degraded to the point where the nation was in complete servitude.

The written history of Egypt only records references to the Israeli man who rose to became a leader in Egypt and his wisdom and then it references the slave revolt where Israel left Egypt. We know the leader that lead Israel out of Egypt as Moses and without the Bible all of this history would have been lost.

These histories and many more can be taught without interjecting specific doctrines. And I believe that pretending that it does not exist does our children a great disservice. This campaign to extract religion that's being directed to remove any vestige of religion or that there is a part of religious life in this world that's going to be left out of school is not offering education, it's programming. To not teach a thing is to pretend it does not exist.

What do you tell kids about the building some people go to on sunday? What about the section at a library where there are books under key that require special permission to read? Will we soon have public book burnings, but they will be OK since they are religious books?

You may abhor proselytizing, but is it only for religion that it's "evil"? I seem to recall a recent correction (that I was right about) :) dealing with homosexuals - THAT class which is not mentioned in the "bill of rights" is "good", but religion, which is a protected class expressly laid out, first point in the first amendment is "bad"?

I understand that you don't like religion and I'm not going to even wonder why you feel so, it's your "right". But I have rights too. I can mention God in public places and forums such as this. I can even hand out pamphlets and flyers about special services like one we had a couple weeks back - the speaker was a historian who taught us about the revolution - pretty heady stuff there - we even opened with a prayer. And if some businessman were to refuse to sell flowers to me because of my faith, I won't sue, but I will be looking for a flag with a swastika or even the hammer and sickle. And like Ayn Rand, I'll be looking for a boat out - except if America falls, where do we turn for freedom?

star; Please don't misunderstand. I have absolutely no problem with your freedom of speech or practice of religion. I took the post to be about the introduction of classes on the Bible in a public school setting. I view the issue as a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing, which I abhor. For myself, that is anathema and if allowed would then lead to classes on the Quoran, on Hinduism, on Buddhism, on Satanism, on Wikka. All would have historical information arguments as well as the Bible and identical arguments for freedom of religion/speech issues.

The Bible and teaching about the Bible belongs in the home or the church as well as a person's religious proclivity or non- belief no differently than someone's sexuality. IMHO

I'm amazed it could be summarized so concisely. I've been going to UU church for years and never knew that basic fact about Christianity.

BTW, when you said the OT law fulfilled, I thought for a sec you meant Jesus paid time-and-a-half. j/k. Thanks for the explanation.

Thumbs down for truth - now there's a mind to aspire to emulate. sure.

Except it's wrong. The purpose of this website is to promote Atlas Shrugged the movies.

The attempt to stifle the free speech of somebody just because you don't like it, are challenged by it or just plain reject it is NOT in keeping with ANY of the tenants that Ayn Rand escaped communist Russia to partake.

As for the clear language of the first amendment, there's no question that the supreme court HAS found that religious speech is protected speech in ANY venue opened to the public. I.E., the Gulch, where, unlike you evw, I AM a paying member. I could care less for your respect, but you must understand that discrimination against a person for their exercising religious speech is a violation of that persons civil rights.

Well said, ewe

Promoting religion in opposition to Ayn Rand's philosophy is contrary to the purpose of the forum. It is allowed only by the owners of the forum permitting exceptions, to the extent they are willing, not by right, and need not be intellectually tolerated by others. The Constitution does not dictate that privately run discussions are to be open to any obnoxious promotions you want in the name of exercising your religion as you demand that others not judge you for it.

Your premise that no one has a right to "discriminate" against you through denouncing and rejecting false ideas is wrong and morally reprehensible. It contradicts the freedom of speech you disingenuously claim as your defense. Your irrational and false characterization as 'racist' an open rejection of your mysticism is equally disgusting. Rational people _are_ discriminating in what they accept or tolerate. "Judge and be prepared to be judged."

Your obnoxious "get over it" attempt to shove your religion down our throats in a new militant dhimmitude under the force of law and collectivist notion of a "protected class" demanding obsequious respect is disgusting. And it illustrates the inevitable use of brute force by those following faith, i.e., anti-reason.

You have a political right to believe what you want, and for _government_ to not suppress your expression of ideas where someone wants to listen to you or will tolerate it. You have no right in the name of "exercise" of religion to demand that others submit to your nonsense, respect you for it, or refrain from rejecting or denouncing it.

It is not a forum to "discuss anything" from any premises. "Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie 'Collective.' Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online."

"Like-minded" does not mean promoting religion and does not mean that all philosophies are equal like choosing from a Chinese menu, let alone equal to religion among "all possibilities". You can believe whatever your want, but "discussion" does not mean promoting false ideas contrary to the purpose of the forum, which is inappropriate.