On 7/13/2012 1:27 AM, anorton wrote:

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"Hawke" wrote in message ...

On 7/11/2012 2:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_...hinking_skills

Whatever the truth may be you can't blame a rational person for
thinking that in Texas they are opposed to teaching children to think
critically. That sounds just like something they would do in Texas.
They wouldn't teach the kids to think but they would teach them
scripture. Sounds like Texas to me.

Hawke

The problem is what you/they are calling it, it's not thinking
critically, it's better described as "liberal fantasy insanity". So
the subject should really read "Texas Republicans are opposed to
liberal fantasy insanity". Other suitable names for what liberals
consider "critical thinking" include stupidity, stinking thinking,
lies, distortion, spin, BS, etc......

Like I explained to you about the book of Isaiah, liberals using their
"critical thinking" decided about half of Isaiah was written by a
different author at a much later date. They figured the fulfilled
prophecies in Isaiah must have been written after the fact because
they couldn't handle the truth, so they choose to make up their lie
and believe it. But then the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls
was dated before the time the liberals said part of Isaiah was
written. So it ends up the conservatives that didn't fall for the
so-called "critical thinking" were right, and the liberals and their
revision were found out to be wrong.

But for you "critical thinkers": How is it that "critical thinkers"
think they know more about something that happened in history than the
first hand eye witnesses that were there? You claim the stories
handed down through the ages are wrong, how did those stories get
believed by the people of the day? In the future you will be right,
many things that are taught today in the liberal education system will
be known to be wrong, if fact people are already writing about the lies:



RogerN



So, assuming you are correct in your summary, does pushing back the
date of authorship completely disprove the theory that the book was
written by several people at different times? Or is more likely that the
original estimate of when various sections were written was incorrect?

I am not a biblical scholar and I do not ever intend to be one. But I
just googled this issue and it seems many (if not most) biblical
scholars believe it was written by many people at different times. They
must have their reasons. A critical thinker who was interested in the
subject would evaluate those reasons trying to see if they are valid or
flawed, and whether they are stronger or weaker than the evidence
pointing in the opposite direction. Your diatribe against those scholars
makes me think that is not the approach you took. I suspect you instead
latch onto one shred of evidence that points to what you want to
believe. One of your lines above is very telling. You say, "How is it
that "critical thinkers" think they know more about something that
happened in history than the first hand eye witnesses that were there?"
That argument assumes the conclusion as its premise. Hopefully, that is
the kind of fallacy they would teach you to watch for in a class on
logic or critical thinking.


As usual, Roger got things mixed up. As you said, exactly who wrote the
text that are in the old testament are completely unknown. How many
different writers contributed to what was in each book is anyone's
guess. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't prove anything except that someone
wrote what was in them a very long time ago. The veracity of any of it
is something that is pretty much unknown because it's about all there is
in writing from that time. All it does is confirm that what is in the
old testament is pretty much the same in the modern Jewish old testament
as was written in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It doesn't prove any of what is
in the scrolls is true or not.

It's in the new testament that the writers were known to be Greek
clerics that were written more than 100 years after the death of Jesus,
and little is known about how many or who they were. Anyone who looks
carefully into any of the religious texts finds the same thing. They
prove nothing and they make all kinds of wild claims and assertions. You
either have to accept them as true on faith or you don't. I've looked at
a lot of them and my conclusion is they were all written by men and no
supernatural being had anything to do with any of them.

Hawke

On 7/13/2012 12:55 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:36 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/12/2012 1:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Irrelevant. A rational person still *cannot* believe that Texas
Republicans oppose critical thinking ability. What they oppose is the
left-wing teachers' unions and "educrats" trying to sneak in
anti-western values under a fake name. Every right thinking person
opposes that.


That's not what he means, George.

By "critical thinking" he means he thinks he can be critical of what
YOU think...

At least that's what his actions say.


In religious settings they teach the children the doctrine of the
church, not how to think critically or to question what they are being
taught. Do you dispute that? I was raised in a Christian home and went
to Sunday school and was confirmed. They didn't teach us to question
what they were telling us. They told us to believe what they told us was
the word of god and was infallibly true. My friends in Catholic schools
were learning the same things there.

Critical thinking is just about as far away from the way they teach in
religious setting as you can get. It's no surprise that in places that
are dominated by very religious people that they teach their students to
accept religious dogma. They don't teach them to question it or to think
critically. If you can prove that is not true I'd like to see you try.

Hawke


Congratulations, you have discovered the difference between proof and faith.

On 7/13/2012 3:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

It is an enormously influential book.

Only among

It is an enormously influential book, *even* among those who oppose its
philosophy.

On 7/12/2012 5:52 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:51 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In ,
wrote:

That's because you have no sense of humanity. You see the poor and the
weak suffer and are not bothered by it. You are more offended when the
rich have something taken from them than if poor women are denied pap
smears and breast exams and wind up dying of cancer. It says a lot
about
your values. They obviously are not what are called Christian values,
are they? In your book, wealth and privilege mean more than caring for
the least of us. The world is full of people like you. That is why
it is
such a ****ty place. Things mean a lot more to you than people.

Hawke


Read "Atlas Shrugged" fool.

This is actually consistent with Hawke's point. Ayn Rand was as
anti-Christian as it gets. She despised Christianity and Christian
values of generosity and altruism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...dont-mix_n.htm

http://online.worldmag.com/2011/06/1...-jesus-christ/
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/0...-christianity/



That didn't come across in the book.
I just finished it (second reading) last week.



Now how do you like her after learning she's anti Christian, anti
religion, atheist, and denigrates generosity and altruism? Still a hero?

Hawke

On 7/13/2012 3:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

It is an enormously influential book.

Only among

It is an enormously influential book, *even* among those who oppose its
philosophy.


It's not influential. It's popular. There is a difference.

Hawke

On 7/12/2012 11:35 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:30 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 10:51 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/12/2012 10:42 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/11/2012 9:59 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/11/2012 10:24 PM, Hawke wrote:


Sorry but I can't allow RogerN's ignorance and religious nonsense
to go
unanswered. Whenever I see things that are clearly wrong I have to
set
people straight. You always think I'm wrong but I'll match my facts
with
yours any time you want.

Hawke

Sorry guy.
I don't keep a special set of "facts" like you do.

I don't have a special set of facts.

You don't have *any* facts. What you have are primitive and juvenile
emotions.

That's funny coming from you.

It's factual. I have frequently pointed out that you rely on juvenile
concepts like "fairness" that you cannot competently and coherently
define. You're like a kid - "fair" is whatever treatment you want for
yourself, "unfair" is treatment you don't want, such as being made to
eat your Brussels sprouts.

If you had an education instead of vocational training you would
understand that fairness is anything but a juvenile concept. Entire
legal systems are based on that idea. It's been discussed and debated by
the finest intellects throughout history. You call it juvenile. I'll
tell you what is juvenile. It's your understanding of any ideas that are
deep, complex, or profound. They're all far above your mental capacity.

That is why you misunderstand them and fail to see the depth and
complexity in something like the concept of what is fair. To someone as
stupid as you the only arbiter of fairness is the market. Worse than
that is the fact that you don't care about what is fair at all unless
it's you that is being mistreated. Sympathy is a foreign concept to you.
They had an alien race that is like you in one of the Star Trek series
called the Ferengi. They cared about nothing but personal acquisition.
They were loathsome creatures, like you.




And maybe you didn't notice.
Count me among believers in regards to what you call
religious nonsense. It's right there on my web page.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/cross.htm


Let me look at it and then I'll tell you if I think it's religious
nonsense. By the way, I was raised in a religious home and learned what
most Christians do. But as an adult I educated myself on the "facts"

No, you didn't.


Yeah I did.

No, you didn't.

Stop lying you ****.

Hawke

On 7/13/2012 1:47 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/13/2012 12:55 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:36 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/12/2012 1:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Irrelevant. A rational person still *cannot* believe that Texas
Republicans oppose critical thinking ability. What they oppose is the
left-wing teachers' unions and "educrats" trying to sneak in
anti-western values under a fake name. Every right thinking person
opposes that.


That's not what he means, George.

By "critical thinking" he means he thinks he can be critical of what
YOU think...

At least that's what his actions say.


In religious settings they teach the children the doctrine of the
church, not how to think critically or to question what they are being
taught. Do you dispute that? I was raised in a Christian home and went
to Sunday school and was confirmed. They didn't teach us to question
what they were telling us. They told us to believe what they told us was
the word of god and was infallibly true. My friends in Catholic schools
were learning the same things there.

Critical thinking is just about as far away from the way they teach in
religious setting as you can get. It's no surprise that in places that
are dominated by very religious people that they teach their students to
accept religious dogma. They don't teach them to question it or to think
critically. If you can prove that is not true I'd like to see you try.

Hawke


Congratulations, you have discovered the difference between proof and
faith.



But the question to you was can you show that religious people teach
their students to believe in the religious teachings and not to question
them, or do they teach their students to challenge the teachings and
think critically about them? I've never seen that done. That's why I
challenge you to show me some place where the religious institutions
don't teach dogma and don't discourage any challenges to what is being
taught as is comes from god. If that exists anywhere I don't know of it.
Do you?

Hawke

On 7/13/2012 3:30 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:52 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:51 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In ,
wrote:

That's because you have no sense of humanity. You see the poor and the
weak suffer and are not bothered by it. You are more offended when the
rich have something taken from them than if poor women are denied pap
smears and breast exams and wind up dying of cancer. It says a lot
about
your values. They obviously are not what are called Christian values,
are they? In your book, wealth and privilege mean more than caring for
the least of us. The world is full of people like you. That is why
it is
such a ****ty place. Things mean a lot more to you than people.

Hawke


Read "Atlas Shrugged" fool.

This is actually consistent with Hawke's point. Ayn Rand was as
anti-Christian as it gets. She despised Christianity and Christian
values of generosity and altruism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...dont-mix_n.htm


http://online.worldmag.com/2011/06/1...-jesus-christ/
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/0...-christianity/



That didn't come across in the book.
I just finished it (second reading) last week.



Now how do you like her after learning she's anti Christian, anti
religion, atheist, and denigrates generosity

No, she doesn't. What she militates against is *forced* giving. Rand
had no problem with someone who chooses to help another, as long as the
person giving help has complete control over who gets the help and how
much help is given. That's exactly how I believe it should be.

I am more generous with the needy than you are, by far. You give
nothing - no time, no money, nothing.


and altruism?

There's no such thing.


Still a hero?

She sure is to me.

On 7/13/2012 3:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

It is an enormously influential book.

Only among

It is an enormously influential book, *even* among those who oppose its
philosophy.


It's not influential

It is enormously influential. This is not in rational dispute.

On 7/13/2012 3:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:35 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:30 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 10:51 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/12/2012 10:42 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/11/2012 9:59 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/11/2012 10:24 PM, Hawke wrote:


Sorry but I can't allow RogerN's ignorance and religious nonsense
to go
unanswered. Whenever I see things that are clearly wrong I have to
set
people straight. You always think I'm wrong but I'll match my facts
with
yours any time you want.

Hawke

Sorry guy.
I don't keep a special set of "facts" like you do.

I don't have a special set of facts.

You don't have *any* facts. What you have are primitive and juvenile
emotions.

That's funny coming from you.

It's factual. I have frequently pointed out that you rely on juvenile
concepts like "fairness" that you cannot competently and coherently
define. You're like a kid - "fair" is whatever treatment you want for
yourself, "unfair" is treatment you don't want, such as being made to
eat your Brussels sprouts.

If you had [whiff off]

You didn't define "fairness" or give the term any meaning. You can't -
it's nothing but a juvenile feeling you harbor.




And maybe you didn't notice.
Count me among believers in regards to what you call
religious nonsense. It's right there on my web page.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/cross.htm


Let me look at it and then I'll tell you if I think it's religious
nonsense. By the way, I was raised in a religious home and learned
what
most Christians do. But as an adult I educated myself on the "facts"

No, you didn't.


Yeah I did.

No, you didn't.

Stop lying, you ****.

"anorton" wrote in message
m...

"RogerN" wrote in message
om...
snip
But for you "critical thinkers": How is it that "critical thinkers"
think they know more about something that happened in history than the
first hand eye witnesses that were there? You claim the stories handed
down through the ages are wrong, how did those stories get believed by
the people of the day? In the future you will be right, many things that
are taught today in the liberal education system will be known to be
wrong, if fact people are already writing about the lies:

snip

RogerN



So, assuming you are correct in your summary, does pushing back the date
of authorship completely disprove the theory that the book was written by
several people at different times? Or is more likely that the original
estimate of when various sections were written was incorrect?

The problem is that if Isaiah wasn't written at different times, it would
mean the liberals are likely wrong about some of their other beliefs.
Basically the liberal way is "truth be damned" and rearrange the truth to
fit their world view. Something that doesn't fit in their beliefs simply
can't be true, so they make up all and any kind of idea to make what was
written fit their beliefs. Since parts of Isaiah so accurately foretold
events that happened later, the liberals decided those prophecies in Isaiah
must have been written after it happened, in other words they fabricated
lies that fit their unbelief. But then book of Isaiah was found that dated
before the time that the prophecies were fulfilled, so the liberals had to
fabricate new lies, no problem for them.

I am not a biblical scholar and I do not ever intend to be one. But I just
googled this issue and it seems many (if not most) biblical scholars
believe it was written by many people at different times. They must have
their reasons. A critical thinker who was interested in the subject would
evaluate those reasons trying to see if they are valid or flawed, and
whether they are stronger or weaker than the evidence pointing in the
opposite direction. Your diatribe against those scholars makes me think
that is not the approach you took. I suspect you instead latch onto one
shred of evidence that points to what you want to believe. One of your
lines above is very telling. You say, "How is it that "critical thinkers"
think they know more about something that happened in history than the
first hand eye witnesses that were there?" That argument assumes the
conclusion as its premise. Hopefully, that is the kind of fallacy they
would teach you to watch for in a class on logic or critical thinking.

So why do they believe it was written at different times?

It could have been written by Jack after climbing his magic bean stalk, but
why believe that about it?

So there are religious writings (the original book of Isaiah) protected by
religious people, why or how would someone get new writings to be included
and why would they even want to? To me it doesn't matter if it was written
by Kermit the frog, what matters is what is written and when it was written.
Liberals try to confuse by making unfounded claims, only foundation for
their claims is their unbelief.

Here's another example with American History. (thanks to Gunner)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

After Gunner posted this, the liberals on the group attacked David Barton,
etc. Not a one of them could refute that the Bible was printed by U.S.
Congress in 1782 for use in our schools. Not one of them could deny the
paintings on the wall that contradict their beliefs. Not one of them could
deny that Thomas Jefferson (the one who wrote "separation of church and
state") went to church for 8 years in the US Capitol building. They could
only make unfounded accusations and attacks on the messenger. Don't like
the true message, attack the messenger, that's what they did. I'm a logic
programmer and know bad logic when I see it, liberalism is very bad logic.

RogerN

On 7/13/2012 5:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

It is an enormously influential book.

Only among

It is an enormously influential book, *even* among those who oppose its
philosophy.


It's not influential

It is enormously influential. This is not in rational dispute.


You are arguing with Hawkie, George.

Why would you expect a rational dispute???

On 7/13/2012 5:46 PM, Hawke wrote:


But the question to you was can you show that religious people teach
their students to believe in the religious teachings and not to question
them, or do they teach their students to challenge the teachings and
think critically about them? I've never seen that done. That's why I
challenge you to show me some place where the religious institutions
don't teach dogma and don't discourage any challenges to what is being
taught as is comes from god. If that exists anywhere I don't know of it.
Do you?

Hawke



Hawkie, you are such a fool.

Who does not question their beliefs at times?

You?

"Hawke" wrote in message ...

snip

That didn't come across in the book.
I just finished it (second reading) last week.



Now how do you like her after learning she's anti Christian, anti religion,
atheist, and denigrates generosity and altruism? Still a hero?

Hawke

Sounds like she should be your hero, is she?

RogerN

On 7/13/2012 3:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:30 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:52 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:51 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In ,
wrote:

That's because you have no sense of humanity. You see the poor and
the
weak suffer and are not bothered by it. You are more offended when
the
rich have something taken from them than if poor women are denied pap
smears and breast exams and wind up dying of cancer. It says a lot
about
your values. They obviously are not what are called Christian values,
are they? In your book, wealth and privilege mean more than caring
for
the least of us. The world is full of people like you. That is why
it is
such a ****ty place. Things mean a lot more to you than people.

Hawke


Read "Atlas Shrugged" fool.

This is actually consistent with Hawke's point. Ayn Rand was as
anti-Christian as it gets. She despised Christianity and Christian
values of generosity and altruism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...dont-mix_n.htm



http://online.worldmag.com/2011/06/1...-jesus-christ/
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/0...-christianity/



That didn't come across in the book.
I just finished it (second reading) last week.



Now how do you like her after learning she's anti Christian, anti
religion, atheist, and denigrates generosity

No, she doesn't. What she militates against is *forced* giving. Rand
had no problem with someone who chooses to help another, as long as the
person giving help has complete control over who gets the help and how
much help is given. That's exactly how I believe it should be.

I am more generous with the needy than you are, by far. You give
nothing - no time, no money, nothing.


and altruism?

There's no such thing.


Still a hero?

She sure is to me.


You should be embarrassed to admit that. Her values are greed,
materialism, and being completely self-serving. Her values are the
antithesis of "family values". I am not surprised that you are proud of
having those values. They go hand in hand with your belief that only you
and your material gain are of any importance. You put yourself at the
center of the world. Everything revolves around you. The problem is that
most of the world considers that way of thinking as being completely
wrong, and that is one care where the majority is correct.

Hawke

On 7/14/2012 5:16 AM, RogerN wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message ...

snip

That didn't come across in the book.
I just finished it (second reading) last week.



Now how do you like her after learning she's anti Christian, anti religion,
atheist, and denigrates generosity and altruism? Still a hero?

Hawke

Sounds like she should be your hero, is she?

RogerN


No she's not a hero of mine but some of the things she believes I do
agree with. My argument with her isn't that I think everything she
thinks is completely wrong. Where I think she went wrong is in how far
she goes with what she thinks. She goes to the extremes in a lot of her
beliefs. If she was more moderate in her views I'd agree with her a lot
more often.

Hawke

On 7/13/2012 4:55 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/13/2012 5:46 PM, Hawke wrote:


But the question to you was can you show that religious people teach
their students to believe in the religious teachings and not to question
them, or do they teach their students to challenge the teachings and
think critically about them? I've never seen that done. That's why I
challenge you to show me some place where the religious institutions
don't teach dogma and don't discourage any challenges to what is being
taught as is comes from god. If that exists anywhere I don't know of it.
Do you?

Hawke



Hawkie, you are such a fool.

Who does not question their beliefs at times?

You?


I think you have a comprehension problem. I didn't ask about whether
people have questions about their beliefs. I believe that no matter who
you are at some time or another you have questions about what you
believe. If Mother Teresa did, then who doesn't?

But I'm trying to say by asking my question that people who teach
religious ideas as opposed to secular ideas don't teach the same way.
The religious don't encourage critical thinking or challenges to their
authority. They discourage it. Just look at how they teach the young in
Islam. What they teach is supposed to be accepted by the pupil
completely and they aren't to question it. It's the same in every
religion I know of.

Secular teaching does encourage students to challenge what the
instructors are teaching and they do teach their students to think
critically. It's completely different from religious teaching. I can't
believe you would disagree with that. If you have been in a religious
setting and a secular one you know they are not equal. The religious
tell the pupils the information they are giving them came from god. You
don't ask questions when god tells you something.

In Texas there are a lot of religious people teaching children in public
schools and they are not likely to teach them in a secular way. They are
going to teach them the way they teach religion as much as they can get
away with. Do you think that is not true?

Hawke

On 7/13/2012 4:06 PM, RogerN wrote:
"anorton" wrote in message
m...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
snip
But for you "critical thinkers": How is it that "critical thinkers"
think they know more about something that happened in history than the
first hand eye witnesses that were there? You claim the stories handed
down through the ages are wrong, how did those stories get believed by
the people of the day? In the future you will be right, many things that
are taught today in the liberal education system will be known to be
wrong, if fact people are already writing about the lies:

snip

RogerN



So, assuming you are correct in your summary, does pushing back the date
of authorship completely disprove the theory that the book was written by
several people at different times? Or is more likely that the original
estimate of when various sections were written was incorrect?

The problem is that if Isaiah wasn't written at different times, it would
mean the liberals are likely wrong about some of their other beliefs.
Basically the liberal way is "truth be damned" and rearrange the truth to
fit their world view. Something that doesn't fit in their beliefs simply
can't be true, so they make up all and any kind of idea to make what was
written fit their beliefs. Since parts of Isaiah so accurately foretold
events that happened later, the liberals decided those prophecies in Isaiah
must have been written after it happened, in other words they fabricated
lies that fit their unbelief. But then book of Isaiah was found that dated
before the time that the prophecies were fulfilled, so the liberals had to
fabricate new lies, no problem for them.

I am not a biblical scholar and I do not ever intend to be one. But I just
googled this issue and it seems many (if not most) biblical scholars
believe it was written by many people at different times. They must have
their reasons. A critical thinker who was interested in the subject would
evaluate those reasons trying to see if they are valid or flawed, and
whether they are stronger or weaker than the evidence pointing in the
opposite direction. Your diatribe against those scholars makes me think
that is not the approach you took. I suspect you instead latch onto one
shred of evidence that points to what you want to believe. One of your
lines above is very telling. You say, "How is it that "critical thinkers"
think they know more about something that happened in history than the
first hand eye witnesses that were there?" That argument assumes the
conclusion as its premise. Hopefully, that is the kind of fallacy they
would teach you to watch for in a class on logic or critical thinking.

So why do they believe it was written at different times?

It could have been written by Jack after climbing his magic bean stalk, but
why believe that about it?

So there are religious writings (the original book of Isaiah) protected by
religious people, why or how would someone get new writings to be included
and why would they even want to? To me it doesn't matter if it was written
by Kermit the frog, what matters is what is written and when it was written.
Liberals try to confuse by making unfounded claims, only foundation for
their claims is their unbelief.

Here's another example with American History. (thanks to Gunner)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

After Gunner posted this, the liberals on the group attacked David Barton,
etc. Not a one of them could refute that the Bible was printed by U.S.
Congress in 1782 for use in our schools. Not one of them could deny the
paintings on the wall that contradict their beliefs. Not one of them could
deny that Thomas Jefferson (the one who wrote "separation of church and
state") went to church for 8 years in the US Capitol building. They could
only make unfounded accusations and attacks on the messenger. Don't like
the true message, attack the messenger, that's what they did. I'm a logic
programmer and know bad logic when I see it, liberalism is very bad logic.

The funny thing is that you can't recognize bad logic when it comes from
a conservative source. I know logic when I see it and conservatives are
not logical, ever. How come you only see people on one political side as
illogical? Could it be because you are so biased yourself? Actually, we
know you are totally biased against all liberal ideas so we know how
biased you are.

By the way, that's why you can't see anything wrong with the logic of
conservatives. Or from religion. For someone as religious as you to
think they are logical is laughable. You aren't logical. You have a
technical job that has the word logic in it but logical you aren't.
You're a programmer. You believe in religion not because of the logic of
proof, facts, and evidence. You believe in religion because you have
chosen to. Logic has nothing to do with it. You want to believe.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message ...
On 7/12/2012 11:41 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
snip

Irrelevant. A rational person still *cannot* believe that Texas
Republicans oppose critical thinking ability. What they oppose is the
left-wing teachers' unions and "educrats" trying to sneak in
anti-western values under a fake name. Every right thinking person
opposes that.


I'm sorry you don't know it, but every time someone tries to teach
traditional ways of thinking they are rejecting critical thinking. When you
teach children to follow customs, tradition, and religious tenets, then you
are not teaching them to think critically. You are teaching them to accept
what is passed on to them and to not question it. That is done in Texas all
over the place just like it's done in Madrassas in the Middle East. They
teach children to accept and believe not to think critically. That is what
religious people do. They do this all over Texas. So don't bull**** us,
okay. People in Texas that have positions in education teach religion over
critical thinking all the time. If you don't believe that then you've never
been to Texas.

Hawke

The problem is that the truth can become a casualty of someone's "critical
thinking". If the truth doesn't fit someone's world view then they can
"think critically" and decide the truth isn't the truth. But then they fail
at thinking critically about how what they think isn't true became accepted
by the people of that day as the truth.

Here's an experiment since you think things in the Bible were made up and
accepted as truth. Write something condemning acts of terrorism and murder
of non=Muslims by Muslims, claim it was written by Mohammed and lost for all
these years. Get the Muslims to accept these writings of yours as being
written by Mohammad and no more Muslim terrorists!

Basically, critical thinking allows anyone to believe what they want to
believe, the truth becomes a matter of opinion.

RogerN

"Hawke" wrote in message ...
snip

I think you have a comprehension problem. I didn't ask about whether people
have questions about their beliefs. I believe that no matter who you are at
some time or another you have questions about what you believe. If Mother
Teresa did, then who doesn't?

But I'm trying to say by asking my question that people who teach religious
ideas as opposed to secular ideas don't teach the same way. The religious
don't encourage critical thinking or challenges to their authority. They
discourage it. Just look at how they teach the young in Islam. What they
teach is supposed to be accepted by the pupil completely and they aren't to
question it. It's the same in every religion I know of.

Secular teaching does encourage students to challenge what the instructors
are teaching and they do teach their students to think critically. It's
completely different from religious teaching. I can't believe you would
disagree with that. If you have been in a religious setting and a secular
one you know they are not equal. The religious tell the pupils the
information they are giving them came from god. You don't ask questions
when god tells you something.

In Texas there are a lot of religious people teaching children in public
schools and they are not likely to teach them in a secular way. They are
going to teach them the way they teach religion as much as they can get
away with. Do you think that is not true?

Hawke

But the result is that what the "critical thinker" thinks is true becomes
the truth to them, truth is not subject to opinion except by "critical
thinkers".

I heard that some critical thinker is even claiming the Holocaust never
happened. If something that happened less than 100 years ago can be denied
by "critical thinkers" what about things that happened longer ago than that?

Another example: Critical thinkers claimed for 1000 years that the ancient
Nineveh never existed because it wasn't mentioned in secular writings, only
in the Bible. But then it was excavated revealing 1000 years of failure of
critical thinking.

But wait! There's more to the failure of "critical thinking"!

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/art...eligious18.php

....

The Biblical Problem

The book deals with a serious challenge to the Bible that most
Bible-believing people are not even aware of. The problem is the fact that
there is no archeological evidence to substantiate the patriarchal stories
about Abraham and Moses. In fact, archeological evidence relating to Saul,
David and Solomon is almost non-existent.

It is true that archeology has corroborated much in the Bible. For example,
by 1800 Bible skeptics were pointing to the New Testament references to the
towns of Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida as proof positive that the Bible
is full of myth, legend and superstition. "No such towns ever existed," they
claimed. Today, thanks to archeology, you can visit these places.

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

Likewise, the skeptics pointed to the Old Testament references to Assyria
and its capital, Ninevah. Again, they claimed such places never existed.
Assyria was written off as a "mythical empire." The reason for this
conclusion was that no secular references to Assyria and Ninevah had ever
been found. Then, in 1840 a British explorer by the name of Henry Layard had
the temerity to discover evidence of the existence of Assyria, and soon
after, another Englishman proceeded to dig up the city of Nineveh.

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

The skeptics then turned their attention to the Hittites, a nation the Bible
mentions 40 times. They were classified an "imaginary" people who existed
only in the pages of the Old Testament. But then, in 1905 archeologists
uncovered the city of Boghas-Keui in central Turkey which proved to be the
former capital city of this "bogus" empire.

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

The Archeological Challenge

Archeology has substantiated a lot of the Bible, particularly the New
Testament, but it has failed to find evidence to verify the stories in the
Old Testament. Over and over again archeologists have asked, "How could
several million Jews reside in Egypt, then migrate across the Sinai to
Canaan, and proceed to conquer the land without leaving a trace of evidence?
It's like a giant walking across the landscape and leaving no footprints!"
The conclusion of the vast majority of archeologists is that the Exodus just
didn't happen.

In a similar manner they have written off the stories of Saul, David and
Solomon as "tribal legends." After all, what evidence outside the Bible has
ever been found to attest to the reality of these men? The only
extra-Biblical reference to David that has been found was discovered only
recently at Tel Dan in northern Israel where a stela fragment was found
written in Aramaic which mentions "the House of David." But, as scholars
have pointed out, this could still be nothing more than a reference to a
legend.

If men like Saul, David and Solomon really existed, why don't we have
letters by them or official documents from their courts? Of course, such
letters and documents exist in Scripture, but the skeptics demand
extra-biblical evidence. After all, such evidence exists for Egyptian
Pharaohs who reigned long before these Hebrew kings.

A good example of the archeological challenge to the Bible is presented by
Kathleen Kenyon's famous excavation of Jericho which began in 1952. She
concluded that there simply was no city existing at the time the Israelites
entered the land! The mound of Jericho had already been a desolate ruin for
several centuries by the time the Israelite tribes crossed the Jordan. Based
on her research, many scholars concluded that the biblical story of Joshua's
conquest of Jericho is a myth.
Rohl's Assault

These smug dismissals of the biblical record have now been thrown into
disarray by David Rohl's revolutionary new book. Without any religious axe
to grind, Mr. Rohl has launched an all-out assault on the authenticity of
accepted Egyptian chronologies, and a vitally important by-product of that
as sault has been the discovery of new archeological evidence that
substantiates the Old Testament narratives about the birth of Israel.

Rohl's basic point is that scholars have been looking for the archeological
evidence of the Israelites in the wrong place, because they have been
relying on flawed Egyptian chronologies.
Ancient Dating

Before proceeding to consider Rohl's astounding discoveries, let's pause for
a moment to consider how ancient peoples dated events. The system they used
is what scholars call "regnal dating." That means they dated events to the
regnal years (the reigning years) of a monarch. Thus, Egyptian inscriptions
tell us that the Battle of Kadesh took place in "year 5 of Ramesses II."
This same dating system is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. For
example, in 1 Kings 14:25-26 we are told that the Egyptians looted the
Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in "the fifth year of King Rehoboam."

Now, how do scholars end up assigning a date of 1275 BC to the Battle of
Kadesh or 925 BC to the plunder of Solomon's Temple? They arrive at these
dates by counting the sequence of regnal years backwards from the birth of
Jesus. But, this is not as simple as it sounds. The task is complicated by
incomplete records, co-regencies (a father and son reigning together),
parallel dynasties (two or more competing kings reigning at once), and
interregna (periods when there is no monarch at all).

The biblical records present all these problems. Let me give you an example.
If you were to go through the Hebrew Scriptures and add up all the years
each monarch of the northern kingdom of Israel reigned, you would come out
with a total of 245 years. But we know that the northern kingdom lasted only
209 years, from 931 to 722 AD. Why the difference? Because of co-regencies
and parallel dynasties.

The Egyptian Records

Chart on Egyptian HistoryThe traditionally accepted Egyptian chronology is
full of these problems. Look for a moment at the chart to the right. Note
the three "Intermediate Periods." These are time periods when there was no
central controlling dynasty in Egypt. Instead, there were several dynasties
reigning at the same time, all claiming sovereignty over the whole land, but
in fact ruling only portions of the territory, like regional war lords.

The Egyptian chronologies are especially plagued by incomplete data. There
are inscriptions that give long lists of pharaohs, but the lengths of their
reigns are either omitted or else the numbers have been obliterated over
time. The result is that guesses have to be made as to how long they reigned
and whether each one's reigning period was solitary or shared.

Rohl's contention is that many bad guesses have been made, and he presents a
mountain of evidence much of it rather recently discovered to make his
point. In the process, he resorts to incredible (and often very tedious)
detective work to prove that major errors have been made in compiling the
Egyptian chronologies.
Egyptian Chronological Adjustments

Rohl concludes that the Third Intermediate Period is "artificially over
extended." He argues that it should be shortened by 141 years because of
parallel dynasties. He then presents a convincing case for lengthening the
Second Intermediate Period by 219 years.

These and other adjustments result in a shift of 345 years for the beginning
of the 19th Dynasty, from 1295 BC in the traditional chronology to 950 BC in
the New Chronology. (See the "Close-up Chart" below.) This is a very
significant shift because the third pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty was Ramesses
II. This means Ramesses ceases to be the pharaoh of the Exodus and becomes,
instead, the pharaoh who sacked the Jerusalem Temple in 925 BC.

But how can this be when the Bible specifically states that the pharaoh who
plundered the Temple was named Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26 and 2 Chronicles
12:2-9)? Traditionally, this name has been identified with Pharaoh Shoshenk
I, the founder of the 22nd Dynasty. But in one of the most fascinating
chapters of the book, Rohl shows that pharaoh's had both reginal names and
nicknames (called hypocoristicons). The royal name of Ramesses II was
Usermaatre-Setepenre Ramessu-Meryamnn. But his hypocoristicon was Sisah,
which transliterated into Hebrew, becomes Shishak. Further, Rohl proves that
Shoshenk's military campaign into Israel never touched Jerusalem whereas the
records of Ramesses' campaign specifically states that he plundered Shalem
the ancient name of Jerusalem.
Biblical Adjustments

Close Up of New ChronologyRohl makes two adjustments in the traditional
biblical chronology. The first is one that Evangelicals will have to wrestle
with. He shortens the sojourn in Egypt from 430 years to 215 years, which
results in the date of the Exodus shifting from 1250 BC to 1447 BC. (See the
"Close-up" chart).

The length of the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt has traditionally been set at 430
years because of Exodus 12:40 which reads as follows: "Now the time that the
sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years."

From this passage, the length of the Egyptian sojourn seems to be
indisputable. But, Rohl points out that our modern translations of this
passage are based on the Masoretic text which dates from the 4th Century AD.
Rohl shows that there are three more ancient versions of this text and that
all three state that the 430 years was from the time the Hebrews entered the
land of Canaan, not Egypt.

The three older sources are The Septuagint (the translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures into Greek in about 280 BC), the writings of Josephus (who quotes
the verse in his First Century AD writings, stating that he is quoting from
Temple documents), and The Samaritan Version of the Torah (which dates from
the 2nd Century AD). The Septuagint version reads as follows: "And the
sojourning of the children of Israel, that is which they sojourned in the
land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years."

Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (Chapter XV:2) puts it this way:
"They [the Israelites] left Egypt in the month of Xanthiens, on the
fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our
forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only
after Jacob removed into Egypt."

It appears that in the compilation of the Masoretic text, the phrase "and in
the land of Canaan" was dropped either because of a scribal error or because
of an exercise in interpretation.

There are other passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which provide clues that
substantiate the revised Exodus date of 1447 BC. These are noted on the
"Close-up" chart.

The second adjustment Rohl makes in the biblical chronology is to lengthen
the time of the wilderness wanderings, the conquest of Canaan, and the
period of the Judges from 220 years to 417 years. This adjustment does not
raise any biblical problems since it corresponds to dating clues in the
biblical narrative (see 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11: 26).
The Amazing Discoveries

Now, with these adjustments having been made (see the "Close-up" chart),
archeologists who believe in this New Chronology have suddenly started
making some astounding discoveries all because they are looking in the right
places for the first time.

For example, according to the New Chronology, the pharaoh of the Exodus
becomes Dudimose at the end of the 13th Dynasty. The history of Egypt
written by the High Priest Manetho in the Third Century BC contains this
remarkable observation: "In his reign [Dudimose], for what cause I know not,
a blast of God smote us..."

Could this be a reference to the plagues of Moses? Excavations dated to the
revised time of Dudimose (mid-1400's BC) reveal "plague pits" where hundreds
of bodies were thrown one on top of the other.

Recent excavations of Tel ed-Daba, located in the Nile delta area and
referred to in the Bible as the land of Goshen (Genesis 45:10 and 47:27),
have revealed it to be the ancient city of Avaris. An examination of the
tombs in this area has produced the startling discovery that the people who
populated the area were from Palestine and Syria. Rohl believes these were
the children of Israel. Another interesting discovery is that the area has a
much higher percentage of infant burials than what has been found at other
ancient archeological sites. Rohl believes this is due to the Egyptian
slaughter of the Israelite infant males at the time of the birth of Moses.

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

As further evidence of a significant Jewish presence in Egypt, Rohl points
to a tattered papyrus scroll in the Brooklyn Museum (scroll #35.1446). It
has been dated to the reign of Pharaoh Sobekhotep III who held power a
generation before the birth of Moses, according to the New Chronology. The
scroll fragment contains a copy of a royal decree which authorizes the
transfer of ownership of a group of slaves. Over half the names of the
slaves listed in the document are Semitic, including such common Hebrew
names as Menahem, Issachar, and Asher. The bible tells us that prior to the
birth of Moses, the Israelite population was subjugated into slavery by a
pharaoh "who did not know Joseph" (Exodus 1:8).

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

Perhaps the most amazing revelation to be found in Rohl's book relates to
Joseph. The excavations at Tel ed-Daba (Avaris in Bible times) have revealed
a large Egyptian-style palace dating from the early 13th Dynasty (see the
"Close-up" chart). Rohl concludes that this must have been the retirement
palace of Joseph, built in the midst of his people.

In 1987 the excavators began to uncover a large pyramid-style tomb adjacent
to the palace. They discovered that the tomb had been carefully emptied in
antiquity. There was no evidence of the ransacking that characterizes the
work of grave robbers. Further, they discovered the head of a very large
statue of the man who had been buried in the tomb. The head is most unusual
in that it displays very un-Egyptian type features like a mushroom shaped
coiffure or wig. The figure is also clean shaven. Most remarkably, this
person is wrapped in a coat of many colors!

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

Rohl concludes that this is a statue of Joseph, and in the process, he
reminds the reader that before Joseph died, he made the sons of Israel swear
that when they returned to Canaan, they would take his bones with them
(Genesis 5:4-25). We are told in Exodus 13:19 that when the Exodus began,
Moses ordered that the bones of Joseph be taken with them. And in Joshua
24:32, we are told that Joseph was reburied in Shechem, which is located in
the hills of central Israel, in the area called Samaria.

Evidence of Saul and David!

I said the discoveries relating to Joseph were "perhaps" the most amazing
related to the New Chronology. The reason I qualified that statement is
because Rohl points out that a review of ancient documents, using the New
Chronology, may have produced letters referring to David as well as letters
written to the Egyptian court by King Saul of Israel!

The documents, known as "The Amarna Letters" were discovered in Egypt in
1887. They proved to be the "House of Correspondence" of the Pharaoh
Akhenaten. They exist in the form of 380 cuneiform tablets and they mainly
consist of letters sent to the pharaoh by foreign kings.

Now, no one has ever searched these tablets for letters from the United
Monarchy of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon) because, according to the
conventional chronology, Akhenaten (late 18th Dynasty) lived and died long
before the United Monarchy of Israel was established. But the New Chronology
places Akhenaten at the beginning of the reign of Saul.

So, Rohl went to these documents with the expectation of finding
correspondence from the new Hebrew kingdom an expectation no one else had
ever had. The first thing he ran across were letters from city-state rulers
of Palestine that contained copious references to a group of marauders
called the "Habiru." These references are obviously speaking of Hebrews, and
they have always puzzled scholars because the conventional chronology placed
these letters a century before the Exodus. But the New Chronology places
them during the reign of King Saul when David and his mighty men kept alive
by pillaging the countryside. Rohl concludes that these letters relate to
David and his soldiers of fortune who hired themselves out as mercenaries.

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

Rohl's second discovery was a series of letters written by a King Labayu of
the hill country north of Jerusalem. His name means "Great Lion of Yaweh."
Rohl believes this was the true name of King Saul and that Saul was his
hypocoristic name (nickname). Rohl reviews the letters in detail to show
that they describe events that parallel incidents during the reign of Saul.

These remarkable letters some by Saul and some by his son, Ish-bosheth (2
Samuel 2:8) contain references to Ayab (Joab, commander of David's forces)
and also to Benenima, Dadua, and Yishuya. Rohl concludes from what is said
in the letters the Benenima is Baanah, one of Israel's tribal chieftains who
later assassinates Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 4). He concludes that Dadua is
David and that Yishuya is David's father, Jesse (Yishay in Hebrew). The
evidence he presents in behalf of these conclusions is fascinating and
convincing.

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

The Invisible Evidence

So there you have it — the New Chronology producing evidence all over the
landscape that substantiates the biblical records concerning the origins of
the Jews, their formation as a nation in Egypt, their exodus and wanderings,
and their conquest of Canaan. The evidence has been there all along, but it
has been invisible because of flawed Egyptian chronologies.

Remember Kathleen Kenyon's conclusion that Jericho was destroyed at least
200 years before the Israelites entered the land? Well, she was right when
relating the destruction to the conventional chronologies. But the New
Chronology has the Jews entering the land at least 200 years earlier,
precisely at the time that Jericho was destroyed!

I urge you to read Rohl's book for yourself. You will find it to be a faith
building experience.

The Discovery Channel has recently made the BBC television adaptation of the
book available to the public that run a total of 150 minutes. It comes in an
attractive slip case box and can be ordered by calling 1-800-938-0333.

(*** Critical Thinkers Fail Again!***)

"Hawke" wrote in message ...
snip

I'm sorry you don't know it, but every time someone tries to teach
traditional ways of thinking they are rejecting critical thinking. When you
teach children to follow customs, tradition, and religious tenets, then you
are not teaching them to think critically. You are teaching them to accept
what is passed on to them and to not question it. That is done in Texas all
over the place just like it's done in Madrassas in the Middle East. They
teach children to accept and believe not to think critically. That is what
religious people do. They do this all over Texas. So don't bull**** us,
okay. People in Texas that have positions in education teach religion over
critical thinking all the time. If you don't believe that then you've never
been to Texas.

Hawke

In my previous reply I provided several examples where "critical thinking"
failed about it's conclusions related to the Bible, archeology revealed the
truth.

I forgot to mention, in all these instances where those who used "critical
thinking" were proven wrong, those who had faith in their Bible were proven
right. I just wanted to make sure you understood that, regarding the Bible,
critical thinking fails, faith prevails. This has been PROVEN by archeology
in multiple instances. Do you ever wonder what else critical thinkers got
wrong and those with faith got right?

RogerN

On 7/14/2012 1:37 PM, Hawke wrote:

Hawkie, you are such a fool.

Who does not question their beliefs at times?

You?


I think you have a comprehension problem.


You are right about that.

For instance, I can't comprehend why I'm bothering with this silliness.

My critical thinking tells me that it's a waset of time and energy.

See ya,
Wouldn't wanna be ya.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
... In my previous reply I provided several examples where
"critical thinking" failed about it's conclusions related to the
Bible, archeology revealed the truth.
RogerN

It can be a deceptive euphemism for narrow critical-of-all-other-views
thinking.

From Socrates:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/page...l-thinking/408

However the pure logic of Aristotle crippled science for 2000 years:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...3142654AACy8XW

Because of him we didn't advance beyond the Romans until 1700~1800.

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
... In my previous reply I provided several examples where "critical
thinking" failed about it's conclusions related to the Bible, archeology
revealed the truth.
RogerN

It can be a deceptive euphemism for narrow critical-of-all-other-views
thinking.

From Socrates:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/page...l-thinking/408

However the pure logic of Aristotle crippled science for 2000 years:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...3142654AACy8XW

Because of him we didn't advance beyond the Romans until 1700~1800.

jsw


It is unfair to blame that on Aristotle alone. The main problem was that his
conclusions were incorporated into the dogma of the church. As Galilleo
among many others found out, the church did not like anyone questioning
their dogma.

This is a little ironic because one of the things Aristotle got right was
that things are not necessarily so just because someone in a high position
says they are.

"anorton" wrote in message

However the pure logic of Aristotle crippled science for 2000
years:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...3142654AACy8XW

Because of him we didn't advance beyond the Romans until 1700~1800.
jsw


It is unfair to blame that on Aristotle alone. The main problem was
that his conclusions were incorporated into the dogma of the church.
As Galilleo among many others found out, the church did not like
anyone questioning their dogma.

This is a little ironic because one of the things Aristotle got
right was that things are not necessarily so just because someone in
a high position says they are.

Galileo was building on the work of Copernicus, who unlike Galileo was
tactful enough to convince Pope Clement VII. The Church knew the
ancient theory was faulty but was still seeking and arguing internally
over a suitable replacement, one that wouldn't soon embarrass them if
disproven. Galileo spoke up too loudly and too soon.

"As long as a hypothesis allows reliable computation, it does not have
to match what a philosopher might seek as the truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
One could say that of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics too.

Aristotle's mistakes were confusing energy level with substance, and
discounting experimentation as inherently flawed. Earth, water, air
and fire correspond to solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Experimental
accuracy depended on the clock and instrument makers' ability to make
better measuring tools, especially accurate screw threads. Can you
measure precisely how long an object takes to fall one, two and three
feet?

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
... Aristotle's mistakes were confusing energy level with substance,
...

jsw

My sixth grade science teacher was trained in biology and didn't know
that temperature is molecular energy level. When I asked what "cold"
is his confused answer resembled Phlogiston theory.

jsw

On 7/14/2012 11:22 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/13/2012 3:30 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:52 PM, Richard wrote:
On 7/12/2012 5:51 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In ,
wrote:

That's because you have no sense of humanity. You see the poor and
the
weak suffer and are not bothered by it. You are more offended when
the
rich have something taken from them than if poor women are denied
pap
smears and breast exams and wind up dying of cancer. It says a lot
about
your values. They obviously are not what are called Christian
values,
are they? In your book, wealth and privilege mean more than caring
for
the least of us. The world is full of people like you. That is why
it is
such a ****ty place. Things mean a lot more to you than people.

Hawke


Read "Atlas Shrugged" fool.

This is actually consistent with Hawke's point. Ayn Rand was as
anti-Christian as it gets. She despised Christianity and Christian
values of generosity and altruism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...dont-mix_n.htm




http://online.worldmag.com/2011/06/1...-jesus-christ/
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/0...-christianity/



That didn't come across in the book.
I just finished it (second reading) last week.



Now how do you like her after learning she's anti Christian, anti
religion, atheist, and denigrates generosity

No, she doesn't. What she militates against is *forced* giving. Rand
had no problem with someone who chooses to help another, as long as the
person giving help has complete control over who gets the help and how
much help is given. That's exactly how I believe it should be.

I am more generous with the needy than you are, by far. You give
nothing - no time, no money, nothing.


and altruism?

There's no such thing.


Still a hero?

She sure is to me.


You should be embarrassed to admit that.

No reason for that.



Her values are

Right - they are absolutely right and worthy.