Rand - a moral wimp?
acar
capitalistic greed in a Christian country, But she did not have the
cojones to say that Jesus was evil. Or that Christianity is evil. Or
that Christians are evil. Instead she went for Kant as a scapegoat,
knowing full well that Christianity was a much greater cultural
influence on the West, and in the history of the West, than Kant ever
was. What a wimp!
===============================
Alleged insights that *never* become consensual remain forever moot
and their value or lack of value remains known only to God. One
inevitable conclusion follows from their failure on planet Earth: they
are not suitable for humans. An insight about what is best for humans,
to be best for humans, has to sell. (Of course if is elitist, it
doesn't have to.)
Charles Bell
> Rand gets much credit for moral courage because she promoted
> capitalistic greed in a Christian country, But she did not have the
> cojones to say that Jesus was evil. Or that Christianity is evil. Or
> that Christians are evil. Instead she went for Kant as a scapegoat,
> knowing full well that Christianity was a much greater cultural
> influence on the West, and in the history of the West, than Kant ever
> was. What a wimp!
>
December 1935,
"The thing which is most "wrong with the world" today is its absolute
lack of positive values.
[. . . ]
"[T]his explains the tremendous popularity of communism among people
who are not communists at all, particularly the young people.
Communism, at least, offers a definite goal, inspiration and ideal, a
positive faith. Nothing else in modern life does. The old capitalism
has nothing better to offer than the dreary, shop-worn, mildewed
ideology of Christianity, outgrown by everyone, and long since past
any practical usefulness it might have had, even for the capitalistic
system. Furthermore, that same Christianity, with its denial of self
and glorification of all men's brotherhood, is the best possible
kindergarten of communism. Communism is at least consistent in its
ideology. Capitalism is not; it preaches what communism actually wants
to live. Consequently, if there are things in capitalism and democracy
worth saving, a new faith is needed, a definite, positive set of new
values and a new interpretation of life, which is more opposed, more
irreconcilable, more fatal to communism than its bastard weak-sister--
Christianity."
-- Notes on The Fountainhead, Journals of Ayn Rand
Acar
> " .. bastard weak-sister--
> Christianity."
>
"Bastard weak sister" was as far as she went. But like an intimidated
judge she stole the gold medal from Jesus and gave it to Kant. The
great villains of history according to the bizarre Objectivist ethics
are as follows.
The most evil person in all history is Jesus. Evil, Evil. Evil. If
this is not correct then Obectivist ethics is a bizarre joke.
Second most evil - Immanuel Kant.
Tied for a distant third place: Hitler, Stalin, and Pot Pol.
Since I have been exposed to Objectivism for a number of years I am
not an innocent. I use my mind to disagree with Objectivism. According
to Objectivist ethics I am extremely evil. Luckily, I can not be
excommunicated.
Gordon
> On Feb 28, 12:11 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Rand gets much credit for moral courage because she promoted
>> capitalistic greed in a Christian country, But she did not have the
>> cojones to say that Jesus was evil. Or that Christianity is evil. Or
>> that Christians are evil. Instead she went for Kant as a scapegoat,
> December 1935,
...
> "Furthermore, that same Christianity, with its denial of self
> and glorification of all men's brotherhood, is the best possible
>
> -- Notes on The Fountainhead, Journals of Ayn Rand
Acar should thank you for making his point. Rand put this in her
journal, not in The Fountainhead itself.
--
Gordon
Jerry
>
> The most evil person in all history is Jesus. Evil, Evil. Evil. If
> this is not correct then Obectivist ethics is a bizarre joke.
Muhammad, founder of Islam, beats Jesus for evil. As evidence I offer
his own statements about himself in the holy books of Islam.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam
http://tinyurl.com/y832wm
(Anyone who thinks I believe the majority is always wrong and never
provide evidence, don't bother to click on the links. Then say I never
provide evidence.)
(To Muslims who want to get mad at me: I'm not responsible for what
Muhammad said about himself.)
Charles Bell
> On Mar 1, 5:31 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > " .. bastard weak-sister--
> > Christianity."
>
> "Bastard weak sister" was as far as she went. But like an intimidated
> judge she stole the gold medal from Jesus and gave it to Kant. The
> great villains of history according to the bizarre Objectivist ethics
> are as follows.
>
There is a difference in attacking the ideas of a very historically
distant, mostly mythicial person (Jesus H. Christ) and a real, not too
historically distant, person who had clear claims to what he actually
wrote (Manny Kant).
Acar
>(Jesus H. Christ)
This is a good example of moral wimpiness. A moral wimp may say
"bastard weak sister" or go after Kant, or rant against "altruism";
and that way sound morally aggressive. But the wimpiness is in holding
back against the stronger target. It is like using initials instead of
full names. Now you have to tell us what the H stands for. Calling all
wimps. No doubt you will tell us, but the damage is done - you already
used the initial. I smoked you out.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 2, 6:14 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >(Jesus H. Christ)
>
> This is a good example of moral wimpiness.
"Jesus Christ" wasn't his name either. As I said, for the purpose of
refutation, Jesus is a mythical creature. There are many instances of
Rand vociferiously attacking Christianity, mostly for its imperative
for altruism. She does not have to address herself directly with its
figurehead to make her point. As for Kant's imperatives, he a real
person with real writings to speak against.
Acar
> On Mar 2, 10:43 am, Acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 6:14 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >(Jesus H. Christ)
>
> > This is a good example of moral wimpiness.
>
> "Jesus Christ" wasn't his name either.
What does the H stand for? Even a moral wimp can spit it out if he
tries hard enough.
.
.
.
..
R Lawrence
>Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>(Jesus H. Christ)
>>
>>>This is a good example of moral wimpiness.
>>
>>"Jesus Christ" wasn't his name either.
>
>What does the H stand for? Even a moral wimp can spit it out if he
>tries hard enough.
As far as is known, the 'H' doesn't stand for anything. There are various
speculative theories, but most likely it derives from an early Christian
abbreviation of the name 'Jesus' in Greek, which included the Greek letter
eta. The letter eta looks like the letter 'H' in our alphabet. The original
abbreviation was just the first three letters of the word 'Jesus,' but later
interpretations mistook it for an acronym. This evolved into "Jesus H.
Christ" in English, even though there is no interpretation of the 'H' that is
both plausible and grammatical.
Also, Charles is correct that 'Jesus Christ' was not anyone's name. 'Christ'
is a title, meaning "the annointed one." 'Jesus' is the Greek equivalent of
the name 'Yeshua,' which was a common given name for Jews at the time. So if
there was a real person to correspond with the non-supernatural elements of
the gospel stories, his name would have been 'Yeshua ben Yosef.' Whether such
a person had anything to do with Paul's preaching about "Christ Jesus" is
hard to say -- I'd guess not. Either way, by the time the phrasing became
"Jesus Christ," the legend was well beyond any person.
You may now return to bickering over stuff that doesn't interest me.
--
Richard Lawrence
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
Charles Bell
> Acar wrote:
> >Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>Acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>(Jesus H. Christ)
>
> >>>This is a good example of moral wimpiness.
>
> >>"Jesus Christ" wasn't his name either.
>
> >What does the H stand for? Even a moral wimp can spit it out if he
> >tries hard enough.
>
> As far as is known, the 'H' doesn't stand for anything. There are various
> speculative theories, but most likely it derives from an early Christian
"Jesus H. Christ" is a very old expression to avoid the profanity in
taking the Lord's name in vain. "Cripes" is also one. "Jimminy
Crickets" "Geez" as we go the scale of euphemisms
Acar
>
> "Jesus H. Christ" is a very old expression to avoid the profanity in
> taking the Lord's name in vain. "Cripes" is also one. "Jimminy
> Crickets" "Geez" as we go the scale of euphemisms
Geez!
.
.
.
Jerry
>
> The most evil person in all history is Jesus. Evil, Evil. Evil. If
> this is not correct then Obectivist ethics is a bizarre joke.
>
> Second most evil - Immanuel Kant.
>
> Tied for a distant third place: Hitler, Stalin, and Pot Pol.
This guy probably should be somewhere on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
Mark N
Jeepers Creepers!
Mark
Rod Nibbe
>> Geez!
> Jeepers Creepers!
Holy smoke!
(Supposedly an exclamation mocking religion:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-hol1.htm).
-RKN
Frank Kirk
>>> "Jesus H. Christ" is a very old expression to avoid the profanity in
>>> taking the Lord's name in vain. "Cripes" is also one. "Jimminy
>>> Crickets" "Geez" as we go the scale of euphemisms
>>
>> Geez!
>
> Jeepers Creepers!
Sacre Bleu! (Anybody old enough to remember "Blackhawk" comic books?)
Acar
>
> (Supposedly an exclamation mocking religion:http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-hol1.htm).
"Holy cow" may have started in the 1940s but it sounds like a
reference to the Hindu religion.
Acar
>
> > Geez!
>
> Jeepers Creepers!
Holy sheet! ... of toilet paper.
David Buchner
Jesus on a Battlestar.
Christ in a basket with fries.
Jesus. Tapdancing. Christ.
Jesus brick-shitting christ
Jesus Christ in crotchless panties
Christ on a cracker
"Jesus tittyfucking CHRIST!"
Jesus Christ in a cardigan sweater
Myself, I often fall back on good old solid "Jesus FUCKING Christ!"
David Buchner
...and redeems them for valuable cash prizes.
Kyle Haight
David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net> wrote:
>
>Myself, I often fall back on good old solid "Jesus FUCKING Christ!"
I've always been partial to "Jesus H. Christ and his black bastard
brother Harry!"
--
Kyle Haight
Kyle Haight
David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net> wrote:
>
>Jesus saves sinners...and redeems them for valuable cash prizes.
Jesus saves. Moses invests. Noah liquidates.
--
Kyle Haight
Ray
"Kyle Haight" <kha...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
news:892dnRQrH5wQgDLU...@giganews.com...
Who's Harry?
I always thought H stood for Hell.
Charles' explanation is the best, makes sense.
Ray of H (holy) Light.
Charles Bell
> "Kyle Haight" <khai...@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote in message
>
> I've always been partial to "Jesus H. Christ and his black bastard
> > brother Harry!"
>
> Who's Harry?
Isn't Obama's first name Barry, not Harry?
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
David Buchner
> I've always been partial to "Jesus H. Christ and his black bastard
> brother Harry!"
That's a nice one.
SO... of course I had to go looking for others, and learned a couple
more I like, such as...
"Jesus H. Christ on a Wheaties box!"
...and then, I found this guy, who really went and rainmanned it:
http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2007/01/what_does_the_h
.html
( http://xrl.in/1pew )
Wow. My hat's off to him.
"Jesus Roosevelt Christ," I rather like. "_Icefishing_" too.
(also I was reminded that one of my favorite absurdist ones, "Jesus on a
battlestar" came from Rachel Lucas:
http://www.rachellucas.com/index.php/2008/05/27/your-next-president-is-n
ot-a-smart-man/
( http://xrl.in/1pf0 )
Mark Sieving
> In article <1iw22ew.1sllemi74tv28N%buch...@wcta.net>,
> David Buchner <buch...@wcta.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Jesus saves sinners...and redeems them for valuable cash prizes.
>
> Jesus saves. Moses invests. Noah liquidates.
"Jesus saves. But Gretzky gets the rebound and scores!"
{Seen in today's Doonesbury comic.]
Cthuhlu saves. Sometimes he like to snack later.
Acar
about catharsis but this is ridiculous.
.
.
.
Stephen Grossman
<db7da06a-8ca7-493a...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Charles Bell <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Jesus Christ" wasn't his name either.
Harry? Abe?
Stephen Grossman
Frank Kirk <fwk...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Sacre Bleu! (Anybody old enough to remember "Blackhawk" comic books?)
Warwheel!
Acar
> In article <n1hrl.11074$i9.8...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> Frank Kirk <fwk...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Sacre Bleu! (Anybody old enough to remember "Blackhawk" comic books?)
>
> Warwheel!
Are you alive? Give me a straight answer this time. I thought you were
dead.
.
.
.
David Buchner
> Are you alive? Give me a straight answer this time. I thought you were
> dead.
You expect the dead to give straight answers? What?
( Hi, Stephen! )
David Buchner
> > "Jesus Christ" wasn't his name either.
> Harry? Abe?
Good point.
All this supposed historical evidence, and we don't even have a NAME for
this guy?
I'm going to try that, next time a touchy Christian corrects me on that.
"Okay, fine: "Jesus Christ" wasn't his name. What WAS his name, then?"
Mark N
His name was Yeshua ben Yosef, of course. Is this a trick question? ;-)
(See Richard Lawrence's post in this thread.)
Mark
x
x
Mark N
> David Buchner wrote:
>
>> I'm going to try that, next time a touchy Christian corrects me on that.
>> "Okay, fine: "Jesus Christ" wasn't his name. What WAS his name, then?"
>
> His name was Yeshua ben Yosef, of course. Is this a trick question? ;-)
>
> (See Richard Lawrence's post in this thread.)
Yeshua, help me find my proper place...
Mark
R Lawrence
> David Buchner wrote:
>>All this supposed historical evidence, and we don't even have a NAME for
>>this guy?
Treating the writings about Jesus as historical evidence (instead of as
scripture) raises questions more fundamental than "what was his proper name?"
Such as whether any real person ever matched the gospel biography, even in
its most basic elements, and whether that supposed person had any bearing on
Paul's preaching about "Christ Jesus," the supernatural figure of his
visions. Between Jesus the Galilean preacher and Christ Jesus the divine
savior, is one just an elaboration on the other? If so, which one came first?
That is, did the first Christians deify a real person, or did later
Christians invent a personal backstory for the deity? Without the restraint
of doctrinal commitments, there are more possibilities than most people
realize, and the evidence one way or another isn't especially definitive.
>>I'm going to try that, next time a touchy Christian corrects me on that.
>>"Okay, fine: "Jesus Christ" wasn't his name. What WAS his name, then?"
>
>His name was Yeshua ben Yosef, of course. Is this a trick question? ;-)
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was a real person to match the
biography. So, yes, it is a trick question!
Matt Barrow
"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>All this supposed historical evidence, and we don't even have a NAME for
>>this guy?
>
> Treating the writings about Jesus as historical evidence (instead of as
> scripture) raises questions more fundamental than "what was his proper
> name?"
> Such as whether any real person ever matched the gospel biography, even in
> its most basic elements, and whether that supposed person had any bearing
> on
> Paul's preaching about "Christ Jesus," the supernatural figure of his
> visions.
What do you make of the half dozen or dozen legends that make up the Jesus
character?
The virgin birth, the preacher crucified, blah, blah, blah, are all symbolic
stories going back up to 300 years prior.
If he did exist, he's the world biggest plagiarist (after Joe Biden, of
course).
David Buchner
> Treating the writings about Jesus as historical evidence (instead of as
> scripture) raises questions more fundamental than "what was his proper name?"
Well, duh! :-)
> >His name was Yeshua ben Yosef, of course. Is this a trick question? ;-)
Sorry. I missed that one.
See? I'm so ignorant about religion that I didn't even know about that.
R Lawrence
>What do you make of the half dozen or dozen legends that make up the Jesus
>character?
I'd say there are *more* than a dozen sources for the material in the
gospels. Many items are reworking of material from the Hebrew scriptures,
sometimes made explicit in the form of references to supposed prophecies
being fulfilled. There is a book by Randall Helms, _Gospel Fictions_, that is
a good starting point for learning how much of the gospels is derived from
earlier sources.
I'm not sure if this is where you were headed with your comment about
legends, but I would caution against accepting some of the poorly supported
theories about purported parallels with other legends, such as the claims of
"sixteen crucified saviors" or that Christianity is derived from astrology.
Some of these claims are based on outdated scholarship from the 1800s and
early 1900s. There are precedents and prior sources for much of what is in
the gospels, just not a lot of what was initially suggested in this earlier
research.
>The virgin birth, the preacher crucified, blah, blah, blah, are all
>symbolic stories going back up to 300 years prior.
I'd say "up to 300 years" is selling short the antiquity of some of the
elements.