Are you Going to Heaven?

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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?
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.
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?

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.

Here's what Rand actually thought about right and wrong...
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?

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:

OZOS

Well-known member
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?
If your neighbor's behavior disqualifies them from eternal life, which behavior of yours disqualifies you?

You sound a bit like someone Jesus mentioned...

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
@aCultureWarrior I think it should be noticed the Libertarian publication National Review is not mentioned by you. A good search with Bing reviews a picture of the "Ayn Rand Reconsidered" cover that is in the wikipedia article for National Review, August 30, 2010.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
@aCultureWarrior I think it should be noticed the Libertarian publication National Review is not mentioned by you. A good search with Bing reviews a picture of the "Ayn Rand Reconsidered" cover that is in the wikipedia article for National Review, August 30, 2010.
What's to "reconsider" about an atheist baby murderer who worshipped a murderer that butchered a 12 year old girl? Make your case.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If your neighbor's behavior disqualifies them from eternal life, which behavior of yours disqualifies you?
If my neighbor hasn't repented and accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, if I truly love him or her as I love myself, I'd share God's Word with them and the need to "turn" (repent) from their old way of life to a new one.
 

OZOS

Well-known member
If my neighbor hasn't repented and accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, if I truly love him or her as I love myself, I'd share God's Word with them and the need to "turn" (repent) from their old way of life to a new one.
That's not answering my question, and it further places you in agreement with the Pharisee in the temple. What you just said is that your behavior qualifies you and your neighbor's behavior disqualifies them. What makes you think that your behavior is up to God's standard of acceptability?
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
That's not answering my question, and it further places you in agreement with the Pharisee in the temple. What you just said is that your behavior qualifies you and your neighbor's behavior disqualifies them. What makes you think that your behavior is up to God's standard of acceptability?
A couple of things: First of all the Pharisees hadn't made Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, so using them as an example is a waste of time. Second: You seem to be comparing the unrepentant sinner, i.e. someone who proudly engages in an immoral behavior and very well might not think that it's morally wrong, with the Christian who has stumbled in his walk with Christ, but asks God to make him stronger so that he doesn't give into that temptation the next time it comes along. God's grace is amazing, but He knows what's in your heart and if you have no desire to be more like Christ, then you're really not one of his followers.
 

OZOS

Well-known member
A couple of things: First of all the Pharisees hadn't made Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, so using them as an example is a waste of time. Second: You seem to be comparing the unrepentant sinner, i.e. someone who proudly engages in an immoral behavior and very well might not think that it's morally wrong, with the Christian who has stumbled in his walk with Christ, but asks God to make him stronger so that he doesn't give into that temptation the next time it comes along. God's grace is amazing, but He knows what's in your heart and if you have no desire to be more like Christ, then you're really not one of his followers.
Please share, from the Bible, where it states that a Christian can become "more like Christ".
 

OZOS

Well-known member
A couple of things: First of all the Pharisees hadn't made Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, so using them as an example is a waste of time.
No, it's not, because the Pharisee, like you, was convinced that he was a child of God, and he believed it was because of his behavior. He, like you, boasted in his works, and compared them to his neighbor's.

You seem to be comparing the unrepentant sinner, i.e. someone who proudly engages in an immoral behavior and very well might not think that it's morally wrong
No, it's not. No Christian would believe that someone who has heard the gospel, and believed it is an "unrepentent sinner". In fact, believing the gospel, and calling upon the name of the Lord makes them a saint, and no longer a sinner. There are no sinners in Christ.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
Which has nothing to do with me or with anything Rand said on the subject of right and wrong - nothing at all!

Do you know what a straw man argument is?
Do you understand the concept of the guilt by association fallacy?
How about the poisoning the well fallacy, ever heard of that one?

They are all forms of lying CW!

One single more syllable in reference to this stupidity and you'll be ingored. You're a boring one note band anyway.
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?
It's no effort and I'm not defending her. The quotes that I know you didn't bother to read based on this stupid question, are brilliant and could, for the most part, have been written by a Christian.

If you think you can refute a single syllable of anything I quoted, I'd read it gladly! But you won't. You won't even read them never mind try to think them through well enough to understand them and then attempt to refute them.

By the way, had you bothered to read those quotes enough to have some idea of what you're shooting your mouth off about, you MIGHT have noticed that she did not believe right and wrong to be subjective. The lying idiots you quote who are scared to death of Ayn Rand's mind and because of their fear intentionally spread lies about what she believed and that you mindlessly parrot like an idiot are the ones who put such ideas things in her mouth.

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.
Who cares? I haven't studied libertarianism and don't give two shakes of a rat's tale about what they believe.

And non aggression is NOT a core tennant of anything Rand supported. It is only the initiation of force that she opposed not the use of it when needed. So much for a "what is good for me is right" mentality!

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
Nobody cares what Rothbard said or thought but you CW! I hadn't ever heard of him before today and I've talked at some length about how Rand's errors concerning the existence of God has lead her to horredous errors of all kinds, not the least of which is the idea that babies aren't humans until they can think rationally and that the right to life is an extension of one's existence as a rational being and thus if you aren't able to reason, you have no such right. Completely evil nonsense! But the point is that while you rant about nonsense that Rand didn't even believe or say, I not only know what Rand's errors were, I know why those errors were made. Of the two of us, who do you suppose is going to be more persuasive against an actual objectivist or libertarian?

The real problem for you, however, is that being wrong on some things doesn't make you wrong on everything (and vise versa). You want to throw out the baby with bath water it wasn't ever even sitting in!

Now, once again, do not come at me again with this stupidity about this Rothbard lunatic that no one has ever heard of or cares anything about. If you want to debate me then debate ME and stop with the dishonest tactics that people like Adam Shiff and Nancy Pelosi use. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

Clete
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
If you want to make your case for libertarianism and Objectivism, then do so.
No, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. You are slandering liberal. You pay heed to heed to ignoramuses like Joe Scarborough and Steve Schmidt, and ignore National Review, but the John Birch Society and Wackenhut are suddenly Libertarian. While you can't prove that Trump didn't organize Qanon, which so is an MSNBC slander; you cry about what happened January 6th, and ignore Antifa.

You claim that Mises and Ayn Rand view the family in the same way without proof. You call the once injured Rand Paul -- a scoundrel. Yada yada yada.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
aCultureWarrior said:
A couple of things: First of all the Pharisees hadn't made Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, so using them as an example is a waste of time. Second: You seem to be comparing the unrepentant sinner, i.e. someone who proudly engages in an immoral behavior and very well might not think that it's morally wrong, with the Christian who has stumbled in his walk with Christ, but asks God to make him stronger so that he doesn't give into that temptation the next time it comes along. God's grace is amazing, but He knows what's in your heart and if you have no desire to be more like Christ, then you're really not one of his followers.
Please share, from the Bible, where it states that a Christian can become "more like Christ"
I said "desire to be more like Christ", but I'll go with "can".

" Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. " 1 John 2:6

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. " 1 Corinthians 11:1

" Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. " Ephesians 5: 1-2

" To put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. " Ephesians 4: 22-24

Etc. etc. etc.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/becoming_more_like_christ#:~:text= 100 Bible Verses about Becoming More Like,Helpful. I appeal to you therefore,... More

 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
No, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. You are slandering liberal. You pay heed to heed to ignoramuses like Joe Scarborough and Steve Schmidt, and ignore National Review, but the John Birch Society and Wackenhut are suddenly Libertarian. While you can't prove that Trump didn't organize Qanon, which so is an MSNBC slander; you cry about what happened January 6th, and ignore Antifa.

You claim that Mises and Ayn Rand view the family in the same way without proof. You call the once injured Rand Paul -- a scoundrel. Yada yada yada.
Oh my, I've made someone angry. (woe is me).

Back later to answer Clete's post.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
aCultureWarrior said: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.
Which has nothing to do with me or with anything Rand said on the subject of right and wrong - nothing at all!

Can we both come to a mutual agreement that Ayn Rand's admiration of child murderer/butcher William Hickman and her approval of abortion on demand are just plain "wrong"?
Do you know what a straw man argument is?
Do you understand the concept of the guilt by association fallacy?
How about the poisoning the well fallacy, ever heard of that one?

They are all forms of lying CW!
LOL...ok. You by chance haven't been drinking out of the same angry well that Omniskeptical has been drinking out of?
And non aggression is NOT a core tennant of anything Rand supported.
Uhhhhh...

 

OZOS

Well-known member
aCultureWarrior said:
A couple of things: First of all the Pharisees hadn't made Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, so using them as an example is a waste of time. Second: You seem to be comparing the unrepentant sinner, i.e. someone who proudly engages in an immoral behavior and very well might not think that it's morally wrong, with the Christian who has stumbled in his walk with Christ, but asks God to make him stronger so that he doesn't give into that temptation the next time it comes along. God's grace is amazing, but He knows what's in your heart and if you have no desire to be more like Christ, then you're really not one of his followers.

I said "desire to be more like Christ", but I'll go with "can".

" Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. " 1 John 2:6

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. " 1 Corinthians 11:1

" Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. " Ephesians 5: 1-2

" To put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. " Ephesians 4: 22-24

Etc. etc. etc.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/becoming_more_like_christ#:~:text= 100 Bible Verses about Becoming More Like,Helpful. I appeal to you therefore,... More

"For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving."

Believers are to walk by grace through faith, which is exactly how they received him. The new self walks in the knowledge that they are now in the likeness of God, having been made righteous and holy. Loving God is believing what He said concerning His Son. Loving others is sharing the message of Christ so that they also might believe Him.

You twist the Bible to put people back under a yoke of slavery, just like the false teacher Dr. Michael Brown
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You twist the Bible to put people back under a yoke of slavery, just like the false teacher Dr. Michael Brown
Wanting to be more like Christ is an act of freedom, not slavery. Granted, adhering to the 613 laws that the Jewish were to follow, many of them ceremonial and dietary,
undoubtedly was an act of slavery, but that's a whole different subject. BTW, Michael Brown sold out God for his 30 pieces of silver when he became a Trump supporter.
 
Last edited:

Omniskeptical

Active member
Wanting to be more like Christ is an act of freedom, not slavery. Granted, adhering to the 613 laws that the Jewish were to follow, many of them ceremonial and dietary,
undoubtedly was an act of slavery, but that's a whole different subject. BTW, Michael Brown sold out God for his 30 pieces of silver when he became a Trump supporter.
As if you are a prophet. Wanting to be more like Christ could mean you need to be crucified, and ignore the commandment against slander. It is called thou shalt not bear wall witness against thy neighbor.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Can we both come to a mutual agreement that Ayn Rand's admiration of child murderer/butcher William Hickman and her approval of abortion on demand are just plain "wrong"?
I don't have any idea what you're talking about and any such agreement would undoubtedly be used by you to put words in my mouth. Rand is guilty of all sorts of evil things herself, never mind the things the people she hung around with and admired. She is in Hell right now paying the price for her own evil. That doesn't change the fact that she had a brilliant mind and was dead on correct about a great many things and she was able to articulate her position on issues quite unambiguously so how about we agree to accept or reject what people say on the merits of what they actually said?

I have a question for you. You will give a direct, yes or no, answer to this question or we are done. Don't worry, its an easy question....

If a person believes that there is no God, does it mean that he doesn't know that 2+2=4?

LOL...ok. You by chance haven't been drinking out of the same angry well that Omniskeptical has been drinking out of?
What?

When a person intentionally engages in logical fallacies, such as you have done, it is lying CW!

Logical fallacies are falsehoods and when you intentionally propagate a falsehood that is the very definition of lying.


Uhhhhh...

Did you read what I said? Did you listen to what she said?

"Anyone who initiates the use of force against another human being is acting like a dictator and if he establishes that as a political system then that is a dictatorship."

Here's a excerpt from Atlas Shrugged where the principle is laid out in detail. It is a principle completely in keeping with Christian doctrine concerning the use of physical force....

“Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may startthe use of physical force against others.
“To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.​
“Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no ‘right’ to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.​
“To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.​
“Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: ‘Your money or your life,’ or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: ‘Your children’s education or your life,’ the meaning of that ultimatum is: ‘Your mind or your life’—and neither is possible to man without the other.​
“If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer’s wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him—by force.
“It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil. - Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged​
Oh! That you would actually read that passage and think it through! But you won't. Some will, however and that's good enough.

Clete
 
Last edited:
Top