Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About NotCrazyDan

  • Birthday 01/26/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Gaming<br />Hunting<br />Marksmanship (Rifles)<br />Geology<br />Military History, weaponry, tactics, etc.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Interested in meeting
    Get off my lawn!
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    Born in Saudi Arabia to an American oil engineer, spent 6 years in the National Guard, 6 years Active Duty army, deployed in OIF III with 3/7 INF at Baghdad as a Forward Observer, now a topographic analyst (Still US Army). I have a wife, 2 sons, and a 1 month old daughter.
  • School or University
    Associates Degree, Client Server Programming Diploma
  • Occupation
    Proud to be a Soldier.

NotCrazyDan's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. Weak response, just as your implied threat of violence earlier in the thread was weak. Using distractions, intimidations and disrespect to shut somebody up because you don't like the implications of what he's saying is weakness. I got involved with this forum because I like to surround myself with people who think differently than I do in order to learn, but I think I've learned all that I'm going to here. Best of luck to all of you in all your future personal endeavors.
  2. My gift to you, sir, so that people might take you more seriously in the future. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ I'll give you a hint: Read the very first one on the list.
  3. I'm not rationalizing anything. I haven't stated anything on this forum that isn't the truth as I've seen it since I first became interested in religion (which was well before I started actually believing in Christianity). I'm not molding anything to anything. What I do see is a bunch of bobbleheads who always seem to have the same opinion on everything, which I find remarkable. What I find even more remarkable is your habit of shouting down and shutting up anyone who doesn't agree with you. I've seen it on this forum in numerous different places, not just religion. You are dogmatic, and not interested in discussions unless they are perfectly in line with your predisposed and often arbitrary ideas. Take the recent thread pertaining to abortion if you need an example. But YOU are the enlightened free thinkers, and I am the irrational rationalizing catholic guy, though I'm the one arguing from context and fact that any religion major can verify, and you are simply arguing from contempt.
  4. Your missing the whole point of why what he did was necessary, and this thread's about to explode because everything I'm about to say is going to need to be checked, doublechecked, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat and recycled as firelighters. (I love Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). The culture of the time was grounded in blood sacrifice. Animals were slaughtered so that transgressions against God might be forgiven (this is where the term 'scapegoat' comes from. Back then it was literal). By spilling his own blood, God spoke in the language of the time. It was no longer necessary to shed blood for the forgiveness of sins because the bloodprice had already been paid. Oh really? Jesus wasn't berrating Peter for cutting off the guy's ear in his defense. Jesus was telling Peter to calm down because it was all part of the script. As for healing the servant, I'm fairly sure Malchus became a good Christian for the experience.
  5. John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. (context on this verse: The people at the temple were buying and selling livestock to be sacrificed) "Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 'It is written,' he said to them, 'My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers.'" (Matthew 21:12-13) Acts of the Apostles 24:10 When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: "I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense. 11You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man. These aren't the "Lie down and take it" people that you guys seem to think they are. Wow you guys are rapidfire. Unfortunately I'm out of time, but I'll pick this up later.
  6. That's exactly what he meant, and it's consistent with other things he said, example: "If anyone asks you two walk one mile, walk two." During that timeframe, Jerusalem was under Roman occupation. Roman Soldiers had the right to ask a civilian to carry their equipment for 1 mile, but due to abuses, they could be punished for asking a citizen for more than that. You can imagine Jesus's reason for telling all his followers to walk the extra mile.
  7. Actually Jesus didn't mean what you think he meant at all... He was being very clever. Here is an explanation of what the "Turn the other cheek" passage means in the bible from Walter Wink's "The Powers that Be" "You are probably imaging a blow with the right fist. But such a blow would fall of the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left hand. But the left hand could only be used for unclean tasks; at Qumran, a Jewish religious community of Jesus’ day, to gesture with the left hand meant exclusions from the meeting and penance for ten days. To grasp this you must physically try it: how would you hit the other’s right cheek with your right hand? If you have tried it, you will now: the only feasible blow is a backhand. The backhand was not a blow to injure, but to insult, humiliate, degrade. It was not administered to an equal, but to an inferior. Masters backhanded slaves, husbands, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews. The whole point of the blow was to force someone who was out of line back into place. …[Jesus] is saying to them, “Refuse to accept this kind of treatment anymore. If they backhand you, turn the other cheek.” By turning the cheek, the servant make it impossible for the master to use the backhand again: his nose is in the way. …The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists …and the last thing the master wishes to do is establish the underling’s equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in the relationship. (101-102)"
  8. And here are the relevant passages in the New Testament: Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Galatians 3:23-25 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace The 'Law' that these passages refer to is the Hebrew law in the old testament to which I've already referred.
  9. No need to get condescending. I was referring to the book of Judges and the other laws in the Old Testament. Yes we still follow the 10 commandments. Never said we didn't.
  10. No problem here. Everyone knows we've got guilt down pat . In response to The Egoist's comments though (getting that twitchy 'I'm about to derail this whole thread' feeling), the New Covenant, in the New Testament, which is what Christians believe in, supersedes the old covenant as outlined in the Old Testament. This is why Christians are no longer required to be circumcised, sacrifice animals, etc etc. The Old Testament is the one that contains all the goofy laws like the one where the Father has the right to kill a son that's displeased him and so forth. Faith and Forgiveness now trumps works; Though as any Catholic will tell you, without works faith is dead (We're great at creating guilt when we feel we've fallen short, which is pretty much all the time.)
  11. As a Roman Catholic, stuff like this embarrasses the hell out of me. It is not her job as a representative to preach to the people she's representing. She is not a 'leader', she is a representative. Furthermore, she plays into the very worst of what people think about Christians in general. Ugh.
  12. This is why: St. Thomas Aquinas: The Existence of God can be proved in five ways. Argument Analysis of the Five Ways The First Way: Argument from Motion Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). Therefore nothing can move itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. Nothing exists prior to itself. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings. Assume that every being is a contingent being. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being. Therefore not every being is a contingent being. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God. The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest). The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The Fifth Way: Argument from Design We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. Rand was an athiest so obviously she didn't buy into any of these arguments, but she did appreciate Aquinas's use of reason to prove the existance of God, and his work had repurcussions down the road, both for future philosophers, and the church.
  • Create New...