Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ann r kay

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    Right where I am
  • Interests
    writing, reading, objectivism, sci-fi and fantasy, star wars, star trek, gaming, south park

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
  • School or University
  • Occupation

ann r kay's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. AqAd, Again, it says in the Catholic Catechism that man is in a "fallen state" or a "state of sin". What is your definition of "state of sin"?. Or, what is the Churches definition of "state of sin"? There is the absolute definition, but I would suppose that the Church will define it so it will fit their arbitrary teachings. It was not my intention to impress you as far as my knowledge of Catholicism. If I am wrong, fine. Prove that I am wrong. But please, back it up with a cite from what the Church actually teaches, and not your own questionable claim to expertise on Catholicism.
  2. I do not presume anything in regards to the teachings of Catholicism. I was raised Catholic, and have my own copy of the Catholic bible and the Catechism. Maybe this will refresh your memory as to what the Church teaches on the nature of man. In other words, man cannot be be moral upon his own merits. The sins of Adam are the sins of mankind. Therefore, it is in man's nature to be evil. Only through the righteousness of one man (Jesus Christ) can mankind be saved. Again, a man cannot be moral upon his own merits. He can only be saved from his wickedness because the Son of God died for mankind's sins. I am not here to learn about Catholicism. This is not a site about the teachings of Catholicism. I have no desire to study what I already know. If you disagree with what I have been taught, then you should quote where I may be in error from either the Catechism or the Catholic bible, as you are the one that is trying to prove that the beliefs of the Catholic Church and reason are not incompatible.
  3. Then how does Catholicism explain man's "fall from Paradise"? According to Catholic teachings, man sinned, therefore he was not worthy of Eden and was cast out because of his "evil" nature. If Catholicism does not teach that man is "evil" or "depraved", then why is the story of Adam and Eve still part of their teachings? If the Church now teaches that man has dignity and self-worth, to be consistent, and not arbitrary, Catholicism would need to reject the story of Adam and Eve and their fall from Paradise, because man never deserved to be cast out.
  4. Ms. Rand's writings have nothing to do with the desire to serve the truth. I am living proof, as I have never read any of her writings thus far, but determine morality objectively. Wow! That sounds like a collective threat. A return to the Dark Ages is the last thing we need. What the Catholic Church teaches and what it practices are two very different things. How is it reasonable that confessing my immoral behavior to a priest suddenly makes it all better? Explain that to me in rational terms. Because God has forgiven me? How can you see no conflict here between reason and faith?
  5. Well, I cannot know what is meant by "God", as there is no proof that God exists. Something has to be perceived, real, before it can be defined. I guess I just answered my own question. The existence of "God" would matter to me, depending on the nature of that existence.
  6. First of all, thanks for all the replies. From my own experiences, especially dealing with my own mother and father, I find it difficult to try to persuade them to think outside of the beliefs that were handed to them. They are both Catholics, and never question their faith. Pony Girl, I wanted to reply to you specifically, because I am a woman in my 30s as well, although only just learning about Objectivism. Perhaps that is why I am different. In my late teens and early 20s, I had no interest in discovering who I was or what I valued. My only interest was in fitting in. That wasn't what I said about myself, but it was quite apparent in my actions. I have never been very comfortable around others. It takes me awhile to trust people. I used to think of it as a hindrance to my life, now I consider everything I am an asset in what I want out of my life.
  7. Thank your this thread, as I am new here and this is a question that I struggle with. But for me, it doesn't really matter whether God can exist or not. The question for me would be "Does it matter if God exists?" Would the mere objective proof of God's existence change what is moral and valuable? If morality is objective, would the existence of God change that?
  8. After voting in the poll on the ages of the posters here, I noticed that almost half are under the age of 25. So it made me wonder, is Objectivism a phase that many young people grow out of, and if so, why does the process of aging cause people to be less rational? For the record, I seem to be doing quite the opposite, becoming more and more rational the older I get. Edited for my error. Actually, more than half are under the age of 25.
  9. No, the opinions of her husband and other relatives on her wishes were not objectively proven to be Terri's wishes. There were just as many relatives with the opposite opinion. Either side could have their own agenda, instead of trying to carry out Terri's wishes. From what I have seen in this case, both sides may be only considering what they feel to be their own best interest, rather than Terri's. The parents may just want her alive because letting her die is against their faith. The husband and his family may want her dead because they may be afraid there is a chance she could recover and reveal the "truth" of her wishes. Who knows? It's all hearsay now, anyway, because she is dead. I have tried so hard to see this case objectively, because if it were me in Terri's position, I would not want to be kept alive. What kind of life would that be? But how I feel does not in any way define what Terri would want.
  10. All my thoughts are divinely inspired. Right now, for some reason, God has forsaken me. Seriously, the only other site I have ever really posted on was one by the name of thestraightdope. I do not suggest going there. Their slogan was "Fighting ignorance since 1973. It's taking longer than we thought." The reason why is that they are fighting themselves and don't realize it.
  11. It's simple, really. The ocean or sea represents two things: collectivism and irrational thought. The island represents reason, the one thing left that the individual can cling to. I think when you get that, the rest of the poem falls into place. I write for myself, anyway. Some will not get it, and that does not negate the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed writing it. BTW, I have been reading some of your other poems, and I will refrain from comment until I can really study them. There are so many! As long as you love them, and find value in them, that is all that matters.
  12. Added another poem to my other two. Actually, more like poetic prose. The Heart of Nothing A future, when? Nothing for us but our doom. It marches towards us, bloody soldiers clad in altruistic colors of red, white, black, and yellow; the blank faces of all mankind become lost in an endless sea that has no shore to lap its tears upon. They call you brother, and reach for your hand, but how can they hold you when you can't be found? You are so much a part of them that your hand is already theirs, shackled to their faith in nothing. There is only one, and it drifts within its endless sea, helpless in its search for freedom. The oceans of humanity suffocate, and we drown in our own blood, like shiftless soldiers; eyes so blinded with lust and power that they can no longer blink with reason and compassion. And so the sea drowns in itself, waiting in humble silence for that island to appear. She will pull the gentle waves to her breast. Her soft breezes will sing to it, giving hints, mere suggestions of answers. What manner of creature will crawl from the tide and hear her words? And will it learn? Lie quiet, be still, listen... you will know.
  13. Since I cannot call myself an Objectivist, I can only tell you how I have chosen my career. I do what I am passionate about, which is writing. Everything else will follow after. Not everyone will understand or appreciate what I do. It doesn't matter. I write for myself, not for the money (although I wouldn't mind having more than I have), and definitely not for the fame (the less people I have around me, the better). Pick a career that satisfies your personal wants and needs, and eventually, when you truly do recognize your own worth and greatness, the monetary rewards will be there.
  14. Actually, the question shouldn't be whether "people" should be kept alive in a persistent vegitative state. The question, all along, the one that cannot be objectively answered because Terri can't speak for herself is "What would Terri choose to do in this situation?" If that question can't be answered, I would say it is better to err on the side of life, as long as the family members that want her kept alive pay for her care out of their own pocket or through donations. They are the ones that want to keep her alive, therefore, she is their responsibility, not anyone else's.
  15. ann r kay


    I was born left-handed, but was forced in kindergarten to use my right. So now, I write with my right hand, but I bat left-handed and kick with my left foot. So yes, I am all screwed up, for more reasons than one.
  • Create New...