aCultureWarrior said:
aCultureWarrior said:
Can someone unrepentantly partake in bad works and still be saved?
Why would God allow anyone in Heaven who proudly and without sorrow and without any desire to change his or her ways (unrepentant) engages in things that He abhors? Wouldn't that be a recipe for anarchy, the same kind of anarchy that person engaged in while on earth?
aCultureWarrior said:
Your disclaimer reminds me of when Donald Trump gave accolades to the Chinese communists for the "strength" they used when they butchered 10,000 unarmed freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square.
Resurfaced Trump interview about Tiananmen Square massacre shows what he thinks of protests | The Independent | The Independent
Atheist Ayn Rand's Tiananmen Square was when she gave accolades to child murderer William Hickman, who after kidnapping a little girl for ransom, cut off her legs, wired her eyes open to make it appear that she was alive when he came to pick up the ransom money, and scattered her internal organs around the city of Los Angeles.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott (freeservers.com)
I guess I shouldn't have said that Rand's admiration of child butcher William Hickman is comparable to Donald Trump giving the 'Butchers of Beijing' accolades for the "strength" that they used when they barbarically murdered 10,000 unarmed freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square, as Trump threw in disclaimers like "vicious' and "horrible", while Ayn Rand had nothing but admiration for the child murderer William Hickman.
If one leaves Jesus' first commandment out of the picture, then love of one's self could be open for interpretation (the "disciplined" sinner encourages others to use "discipline" in their immoral behavior), but since God is the basis of that quote, then loving others as yourself means that you want others to love God (His Word as seen in Holy Scripture) as you do.
Anyone that has studied libertarianism 101 knows that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a close match, as "non aggression" is a core tenant of both evil philosophies and movements.
Let's see what libertarian 'leaders' like child murderer Murray Rothbard and defender of NAMBLA Walter Block have to say on the subject:
Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the right-libertarian movement, particularly libertarianism in the United States. Many right-libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1]
Some right-libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy, but rather is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[2] but that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom".
Objectivism and libertarianism - Wikipedia
For those of you not familiar with the term "non aggression", it means keep government out of immoral activities, i.e. make them legal.
I do get a good laugh when libertarians call themselves "right-libertarians", as there is nothing conservative about their evil ways.
Since I had used the word "disclaimer" earlier, so as to not look like too much of a barbarian, Rand puts down libertarians later in the article that I posted above, even though there are so many similarities between the two evil philosophies and movements.
Here's an article about the "virtuous" Ayn Rand and her thoughts on abortion:
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right — which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? The Catholic church is responsible for this country’s disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished.2"
Ayn Rand's Radical Case for Abortion Rights
aCultureWarrior said:
Can someone unrepentantly partake in bad works and still be saved?
Why would God allow anyone in Heaven who proudly and without sorrow and without any desire to change his or her ways (unrepentant) engages in things that He abhors? Wouldn't that be a recipe for anarchy, the same kind of anarchy that person engaged in while on earth?
Repentance, turning from evil to good, etc. is mentioned in the New Testament alone over 50 times; if cheap grace is all that you need to spend eternity with God, why the mention of repentance so many times?Have we been afraid to really believe God? Have some even been afraid to allow others to really believe Him? We must never forget that "God's ways are not always man's ways. To some men constant peril is the only spur to action, and many religions and psychologies are
dependent on fear to keep their disciples in line. Fear, too, has a place in Christianity, but God has higher and more effective motivations than fear, and one of these is love. Often fear after a while produces only numbness, but love thrives on love. To promise a man the certainty of his
destiny may seem, on the human level, like playing with fire; but this leaves God out of the picture. Those who have the deepest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin. Moreover, fear produces the obedience of slaves; love engenders the obedience of sons." --J. W.
Sanderson, Jr.
aCultureWarrior said:
Your disclaimer reminds me of when Donald Trump gave accolades to the Chinese communists for the "strength" they used when they butchered 10,000 unarmed freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square.
Resurfaced Trump interview about Tiananmen Square massacre shows what he thinks of protests | The Independent | The Independent
Atheist Ayn Rand's Tiananmen Square was when she gave accolades to child murderer William Hickman, who after kidnapping a little girl for ransom, cut off her legs, wired her eyes open to make it appear that she was alive when he came to pick up the ransom money, and scattered her internal organs around the city of Los Angeles.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott (freeservers.com)
When you leave reason behind and start comparing me with Donald Trump and build straw men to knock down by insinuating that I tacitly support or defend the killing of children because I've read and have gotten something worthwhile out of reading a book written by an atheist who did wicked things and supported others who did worse things then you've lost the debate.
I do not take kindly to such incinuations and if you were here with me in person I'd have slapped your face (or worse) for saying such a thing, which of course, you'd never have had the temerity to do. As it is, I'm going to pretend - for now - that you didn't say this little gem of stupidity and move on. If you'd like to try to refute a single thing that I have said in regards to any position I take on the subjects politics, morality, money or just ethics in general, whether I've cited a word of Rand's or not, then I invite you to do so. I'll read it gladly. If, on the other hand, this sort of monstrous idiotic stupidity is your normal mode than I invite you to put me on ignore and prevent yourself creating a needless enemy.
I guess I shouldn't have said that Rand's admiration of child butcher William Hickman is comparable to Donald Trump giving the 'Butchers of Beijing' accolades for the "strength" that they used when they barbarically murdered 10,000 unarmed freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square, as Trump threw in disclaimers like "vicious' and "horrible", while Ayn Rand had nothing but admiration for the child murderer William Hickman.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
That is just a bunch of nonsensical talking points that you pulled of some idiots website most likely.
"What is good for me is right." is an egregious over simplification of Rand's philosophy and if it were accurate then it would be entirely indefensible. Rand's actually philosophy is actually far more compatible the Golden Rule than you'd likely care to admit or did you fail to notice that the predicate of Jesus' second command is the love of one's self?
If one leaves Jesus' first commandment out of the picture, then love of one's self could be open for interpretation (the "disciplined" sinner encourages others to use "discipline" in their immoral behavior), but since God is the basis of that quote, then loving others as yourself means that you want others to love God (His Word as seen in Holy Scripture) as you do.
I guess I have to ask why do you put so much effort into defending an atheist whose belief in right vs wrong is subjective when Holy Scripture has the answer to all of the evils of the world?Here's what Rand actually thought about right and wrong...
Anyone that has studied libertarianism 101 knows that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a close match, as "non aggression" is a core tenant of both evil philosophies and movements.
Let's see what libertarian 'leaders' like child murderer Murray Rothbard and defender of NAMBLA Walter Block have to say on the subject:
Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the right-libertarian movement, particularly libertarianism in the United States. Many right-libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1]
Some right-libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy, but rather is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[2] but that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom".
Objectivism and libertarianism - Wikipedia
For those of you not familiar with the term "non aggression", it means keep government out of immoral activities, i.e. make them legal.
I do get a good laugh when libertarians call themselves "right-libertarians", as there is nothing conservative about their evil ways.
Since I had used the word "disclaimer" earlier, so as to not look like too much of a barbarian, Rand puts down libertarians later in the article that I posted above, even though there are so many similarities between the two evil philosophies and movements.
Here's an article about the "virtuous" Ayn Rand and her thoughts on abortion:
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right — which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? The Catholic church is responsible for this country’s disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished.2"
Ayn Rand's Radical Case for Abortion Rights
Last edited: