CHRISTIANOBJECTIVISTS.COM

Alive and Kicking!

2011-04-10T16:57:00.000-07:00

Hey, I was just reminded that I hadn't updated this website in a long time, and people might get the idea that the treatise has taken a sabbatical.

But no!

The treatise is alive and well and, for some reason (probably the recent release of the the Atlas Shrugged movie), in pretty big demand right now.

READ THIS:
(1) I hate the "donate" word on the button, just like you do. But don't rip on me for it. I don't know how to change it!
(2) When you pay your $8, send along a note telling me if you want the treatise in pdf form (which I send as an email attachment the minute I read my email) or by regular mail, as a sort of paperback (folded and stapled, around 170 pages).

Happy shrugging!

TREATISE NO LONGER BY "DONATION" BUT BY SALE

2010-07-31T14:21:00.000-07:00

Some ticked-off-atheist who wanted to jam a Christopher Hitchens book into my hippocampus when she saw that I was suggesting that Objectivism is compatible with Christianity thought it would be SOOOO FUNNY to send me one penny as her "donation" for the treatise.

Yeah, mooching and looting is a great way to make atheists look good. Way to go, bone head atheist chick.

I refunded her penny. I'm sure Paypal, whom she also forced to do a lot of work for nothing, admired her clever little joke, too.

So now I'm changing the word "donation" to "price."

I've always respected atheist Objectivists and wouldn't have believed I'd have to take action to prevent being looted by one! I still don't believe that she represents any other atheist Objectivists in her little pin-headed demonstration of chupacabra ethics.

Anyhow, I don't know how to go in and do that word change from DONATION to PRICE, but this will suffice for the announcement of that change till my techie-daughter goes in and changes it for me in the right-hand column. (Thank you, Sarah!)

Later!

TREATISE NOW AVAILABLE IN MULTIPLE FORMATS!

2010-02-04T13:26:00.000-08:00

TREATISE NOW AVAILABLE FOR KINDLE, MOBI, PRC, AND PDF in addition to hard copy:
JULIAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC TO THE RESCUE!

By a coincidence that was so unlikely that I believe it was the hand of God, I met one of the proprietary partners of Julian Information Technologies, LLC, and discovered that he is a Christian and an Objectivist.

He has put the Christian Objectivism treatise into the following formats for all of you:

1. Amazon Kindle
2. PDF
3. PRC for MOBI format

Please read about his company here (below), and remember to hire them for your internet development needs. You will be working with a Christian Objectivist. Can you possibly beat THAT?

Julian Information Technologies, LLC is a full service internet development firm.

We specialize in custom software development, web site design and system integration. We use Microsoft Technologies including .NET to provide solutions for a wide range of business types including wholesale, retail, point of sale, and e-commerce.

Please contact us at 615-482-7426 or 615-397-1445, visit our website at www.julianit.com or email us at bmccord@julianit.com.

Treatise available again, hard copy or PDF

2010-01-17T05:42:00.000-08:00

For those of you taking the introductory test, I believe the answers are also posted in an old post here.

For those who wanted a PDF copy, those are available now.

Hard copy printed booklets are also being printed now, ready any day now, to mail to you.

I should post more here, but I don't know if anyone really ever reads it. Then again, how could they read the posts here when there aren't any? :)

Treatise is sold out!

2009-11-26T07:47:00.000-08:00

For now, the treatise is only available in PDF form. And that lowers the price/donation, but it's in a state of flux for now, due to serious illness continuing in my family. There you go.

Favor: Try not to write to me by comments on here, as I don't see them for months, and i don't know how to reply, and it's not a good time for me to learn that right now.

Write to me by email if you have a question, por favor.

Sorry if I sound sad. I am.

Treatise being converted to PDF file!

2009-11-06T05:15:00.000-08:00

Well, there are only a couple of treatises left in print form, but with the help of some very kind individuals, I'm going to get the treatise switched to PDF.

Then they'll be cheaper and instant-er and infinite!

I'm taking care of my husband who has bladder cancer and is going through chemo, leading up to a huge surgery, so I'm uncharacteristically slow replying to things these days.

But PDF to the rescue.

I'll post again when it's done, and I'll drop the price, too!

Beth

No treatises will be shipped until after Sept. 24!

2009-09-19T11:53:00.000-07:00

Due to a family emergency, treatises cannot be shipped until after Sept. 24, so if you pay for one, please know that I will get it to you as soon as I can after that date. I won't be able to email you until after 9/24, either. My apologies for the delay!

In addition, there are only 7 treatises left as of today, and depending on the outcome of our situation, there may be a delay in my ability to print more--but that's a bridge to cross IF we come to it. :)

Love!

Unexpected success in treatise sales and unfortunate rise in cost of treatise

2009-08-21T06:16:00.000-07:00

Unexpectedly, the treatise has almost sold out--as of this moment, I have only 8 copies left. I'm glad about the popularity of the book, of course.

But...now I have to print more, and it's (as Chas. Dickens' character Captain Cuttle says) DE-VILISH expensive! The previous copies cost me $6 each, and after postage of 2 to 4 dollars per book sent, I lost quite a bit of bling on that batch.

How very UN-CAPITALIST of me not to know how to price my merchandise!

Anyway, I've raised the price to $8.

I think $8 is a LOT for a book, but since they're still first editions, 182 pages long, and autographed, you could probably resell yours on ebay and recoup your investment after you've read it. Even, perhaps, with a profit. Which would be better than what I'm doing. ;)

Answers to Self-Tests from Christian Objectivism Treatise

2009-07-29T08:20:00.000-07:00

These are the answers to the self-test which appears several posts south of this one.

Oh, just say it.

Beth, you're a lazy monkey for publishing these answers here instead of replying to each person individually, who takes the test.

But being an idealist, I always PLAN to write back in great detail to each person. Then, being a romantic, my life runs away from me in great heaves of enthusiasms, and I don't get to do the things my Inner Idealist tells me I should.

So in a better-than-nothing mood, I'm publishing these here.

If you take the test, you can check yourself.

Remember that you can send me a little moola in exchange for the 182-page treatise, which comes complete with my AUTOGRAPH. hahahaha. Autograph?!? Oh, NOW you want it, don't you? ;)

Answers:

Answers to self-tests
Test #1 self-test answers:
1. yes
2. d and e
3. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
4. b
5. a
6. b
7. a
8. b
9. a
10. a
11. a
12. a
13. a
14. a
15. a
16. a
17. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
18. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
19. a
20. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
21. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
22. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
23. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
24. (f) Other: 1/10,000th of one percent.
25. (b) Four percent.
26. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
27. (d) All.
28. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
29. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
30. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
31. If b, you need to read Atlas Shrugged and this treatise and learn that.
32. a
33. b
34. b
35. i
Scoring: If you missed zero, you’re probably already a Christian Objectivist and didn’t know it; if you incorrectly answered 1-10 questions: you’re still far more aware of Christianity’s actual teaching than most Christians; if you incorrectly answered 11-20 questions: you’re probably in the average zone for understanding Christianity, which is unfortunate because if most Christians know only half of the truth about their faith, might it not be half-truths that they are alleging when they talk to atheists and unbelievers? If so, the ability to persuade others is significantly weakened, and the ability to hold on to one’s own beliefs when challenged is also weakened; if you missed more than 20 answers, read this book carefully.

Test #2 self-test answers:
1. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
2. a
3. b
4. b. Four percent.
5. f. Other: 1/10,000th of one percent.
6. a
7. d and e
8. Error in the major premise and in the conclusion. (I realize that the minor premise is tricky, because of the word “allegedly,” but I left the word in. Long story. )
9. true
10. true
11. a
12. low
13. b
14. c
15. a
16. a
17. c
18. a
19. a
20. a
21. a
22. a
23. a
24. b
25. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
26. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
27. c
28. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
29. a
30. a
31. b
32. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
33. b
34. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
35. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
36. If b, you need to read this treatise and learn that.
37. a
38. i
Scoring: If you missed zero, you are in the extreme elite as far as understanding actual Christianity; if you incorrectly answered 1-10 questions: you’re still far more aware of Christianity’s actual teaching than most Christians; if you incorrectly answered 11-20 questions: you’re probably in the average zone for understanding (misunderstanding) Christianity, which is unfortunate because if most Christians know only half of the truth about Christianity, and if most Randian Objectivists or unbelievers know only half the truth about Christianity, what kind of go-nowhere conversations are taking place between these groups? This book is what you need; if you missed more than 20 answers, read this book carefully. Even if you remain in a rejecting position toward Christianity, at least you will know what you have rejected, and will be rid of any straw man you’re currently holding.

Looters, moochers, socialism, pirates, and now COPPER?

2009-04-17T06:05:00.000-07:00

Francisco D'Anconia would love it. COPPER is perhaps becoming the replacement for the gold standard, at least for the Chinese, who are suddenly hoarding it, seeing its rarity and seeing that it will be necessary for all hybrid cars.

Main point: How could Rand have had SO many apparently prescient ideas in Atlas Shrugged? I thought the pirate part was amazing, but now COPPER MINES have come into the picture, too? It's positively--well--MYSTICAL. ha.

PLEASE READ THE POST UNDER THIS ONE. I'm trying to get people to take the self-test.

And if you want the bumper sticker that says READ ATLAS SHRUGGED! (photo of that below) or the 182-page treatise, The Philosophy of Christian Objectivism--just tell me. You can have them free if you don't want to donate. That's my beneficism offer--NOT altruism. ***grin*** What's beneficism, you say? Ah! Read the treatise and find out!

Take the self-test: Do YOU need Christian Objectivism?

2009-04-07T05:26:00.000-07:00

Are you completely clear on the fact that the philosophy illuminated in Atlas Shrugged is entirely consistent with gospel Christianity? If not, you need to know about Christian Objectivism.

Take the quick self-test that is posted just below the first post here.

There is one test for Christians. There is another test for non-Christian Objectivists.

No one has EVER gotten a perfect score on the test, and everyone has therefore been able to learn something from Christian Objectivism.

Christians learn about how Christianity is objectively true. Non-Christian Objectivists learn how much they DIDN'T know about Christianity.

To get your test scored, copy and paste it into an email to me at beth.drennan@gmail.com. I may or may not be able to comment on each and every point you make, but I will reply pretty thoroughly, and if you knock it out of the park, you might get a free copy of the treatise, "The Philosophy of Christian Objectivism."

Sweet. :)

Atlas Shrugged bumper sticker and Joe Eros

2009-04-01T04:03:00.000-07:00

Here's my dearly loved friend Joe Eros, with the bumper sticker on his computer. Joe is an atheist Objectivist, and one of the most brilliant people I've ever met.

Don't you want one of these bumper stickers?

How to get the treatise, "The Philosophy of Christian Objectivism"

2009-03-30T11:03:00.000-07:00

To get a copy of the 183-page treatise which establishes the complete philosophical system of Christian Objectivism, click the "Donate" button to the right and order a copy online. Each copy cost $6 to print, and I'm asking for a donation to cover that printing cost. I will pick up the postage for you, and throw in some bumper stickers that say READ ATLAS SHRUGGED! You may, of course, donate as much as you want toward future printing and publishing costs.

The post below this one contains a fun self-test to see if you need to read the treatise! There is one test for Christians, and one for non-Christian Objectivists.

SELF-TEST: CHRISTIAN? ATHEIST? OBJECTIVIST? OTHER? TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

2009-03-09T06:33:00.000-07:00

(c) Beth Drennan 2008 et seq all rights reserved

Here is the self-test I promised, from Chapter 1 of my treatise, The Philosophy of Christian Objectivism.

The fonts and spacing are very nice in the booklet, but on here, they have not crossed over, so it doesn't look so nice. I need to figure out how to fix this on this blog.

I'm still deciding about whether to post the answers here or have you send me an email request. If we do the latter, I wouldn't GRADE your test or anything. I'd just send the answers by email.

I shall ponder this.

Meanwhile, here's the test:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1

Self-test: Can You Learn Anything from Christian Objectivism?

• Test #1 is for Christians, whether Objectivist or not

• Test #2 is for non-Christians, especially Objectivists

If you are neither a Christian nor an Objectivist, take Test #1 if you are more familiar with Christianity than with Objectivism; take Test #2 if you are more familiar with Objectivism than with Christianity.

Why is this test important for Christians?

If you do not achieve a perfect score on your portion of this test, then you have fewer facts about Christianity than you need in order to be intellectually responsible, and are therefore not fully prepared for the new intellectual world, not fully equipped to do anything but “preach to the choir,” not fully prepared to discuss or defend Christianity intelligently with an intelligent non-believer, and not fully prepared to defend Christianity to yourself after hearing atheist arguments. This book will help prepare you. If you do achieve a perfect score, then this book may help clarify points for you or may bring up points you haven’t considered.

Why is this test important for non-Christians, especially Objectivists?

If you do not achieve a perfect score on your portion of this test, then you are not fully prepared to intelligently discuss Christianity, probably because you believe in a straw man Christianity or a “crayon Christianity” that is inconsistent with Objectivism and with reason, altogether. Objective truth and reason constitute the actual teachings of Jesus. If you’ve been taught otherwise, then until at least those factual misunderstandings are corrected, you’re not fully equipped to argue your position to anyone but “the atheist choir.” This book will help you understand actual Christianity. If you do achieve a perfect score, then this book may nonetheless bring up many points you haven’t considered.

Self-test #1 (for Christians)

[Answers at the end of this chapter]

1. Is there a difference between faith and belief? (a) yes; (b) no; (c) I have no idea.

2. Which describes “blind faith”? Check all that apply: (a) desirable; (b) the best kind of faith; (c) the only kind of faith; (d) impossible; (e) inconsistent with Christianity.

3. If you were asked to name the only two ways that human being know things, could you name the two ways? (a) yes; (b) no.

4. Which dichotomy (pair of opposite categories) is consistent with Christianity: (a) natural versus supernatural; or (b) real versus unreal?

5. Which word—“rational” or “irrational”—would best describe the following qualities: not foolish, sane, having good judgment, making sense, logical, intelligent? (a) rational; or (b) irrational?

6. Which word--—“rational” or “irrational”—would best describe the following qualities: illogical, crazy, making bad choices, using poor judgment, inconsistent? (a) rational; or (b) irrational?

7. If a moral code is based on objective truth about man and objective truth about reality, is that moral code (a) rational; or (b) irrational?

8. If a moral code is not based on objective truth but on wishes, imaginary truths that constantly change, dreams, envy, and sexual hungers, is that moral code (a) rational; or (b) irrational?

9. If a leader wanted to teach people how to coexist so as to have the maximum fairness, honesty, consistency, free will, protection of personal rights, and integrity, which kind of moral code would he teach? (a) rational; or (b) irrational?

10. What kind of moral code (not religious code) did Jesus teach? (a) rational; or (b) irrational?

11. Did Jesus tell us that man’s "self" was something to love or to hate? (a) love; (b) hate

12. Which kind of self is more likely to be committed to real, objective truth: (a) a self who believes in rational morality; or (b) a self who believes in irrational morality?

13. Which is more likely to have good judgment, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness? (a) a self that believes in real, objective truth; or (b) a self that makes up truth as it goes along, to fit its passing hungers?

14. What does it mean to act in a child’s “interest?” (a) to act for the good of the child; (b) to act to hurt the child?

15. If you have the kind of "self" that believes in real truth, and a rational moral code, are your self’s “interests” more likely or less likely to go in directions that promote real truth and a rational moral code? (a) more likely; (b) less likely.

16. If your self is aligned with a rational moral code, and with honesty, truth, wisdom and good judgment, then in which scenario would you be more likely to make wiser, more sensible, fairer, and truth-consistent decisions: (a) Where your decisions were aligned with the "interests" of your "rational self" (following your "rational self interests"); or (b) where your decisions intentionally defy and go against the "interests" of your "rational self" (defying your "rational self interests")?

17. Do you know the difference between “altruism” and “beneficism”? (a) yes; (b) no.

18. Do you know the difference between rational sacrifice and irrational sacrifice? (a) yes; (b) no.

19. Is one of the four gospels’ first assertions that all of reality is constructed solely of logic? (a) yes; (b) no.

20. Do you know the difference between objective truth and subjective truth? (a) yes; (b) no.

21. Do you know the difference between a moral objectivist and a moral relativist? (a) yes; (b) no.

22. Can you list three teaching techniques which were used by Jesus and which could not be understood without logic and reason? (a) yes; (b) no.

23. Are you able to name two recent discoveries in quantum mechanics that support two Biblical statements about the nature of God? (a) yes; (b) no.

24. What percent of the electromagnetic spectrum is visible to the human eye? (a) none; (b) 4 percent; (c) approximately half; (d) 97 percent; (e) 100 percent; (f) other:________.

25. What percent of the matter in the universe is visible? (a) none; (b) 4 percent; (c) approximately half; (d) 97 percent; (e) 100 percent; (f) other:______.

26. Can you define “miracle” without using the word “supernatural?” (a) yes; (b) no.

27. What percent of Christianity deals with actual reality? (a) none; (b) some; (c) half, and the other half deals with the supernatural; (d) all.

28. Do you know the difference between the following: strong atheist, weak atheist, positive atheist, negative atheist, explicit atheist, implicit atheist, agnostic, Bright, apatheist? (a) yes; (b) no.

29. Can you name five major beliefs that traditional Christianity has in common with Objectivism? (a) yes; (b) no.

30. Can you explain why this sentence self-destructs when you say it: “There is no such thing as absolute truth.”? (a) yes; (b) no.

31. Can you name five social, economic, or political messages in Atlas Shrugged? (a) yes; (b) no.

32. Is there one objective, logical proof of Christianity that is so persuasive that once it is set forth, the responsibility is immediately shifted to the unbeliever to show why this proof fails, and if the unbeliever cannot do that, then by the rules of logic, it is proven that belief in Christianity is fully consistent with logic and reason? (a) yes; (b) no.

33. Should an attorney attempt to represent a client in an important proceeding where, if the client loses, something very bad happens, but where that attorney has never been to law school, has no formal training, has no idea what the opponent is talking about, does not understand the opponent’s vocabulary, and where every single person on the jury is a close personal friend of the opponent? (a) yes; (b) no.

34. Should a Christian attempt to represent Christianity in a debate against an atheist where, if the Christian loses, Christianity appears to be a ridiculous religion, and where that Christian has never been to theology school, has no formal training, has no idea what the atheist is talking about, does not understand the atheist’s vocabulary, and where every single word of the debate will be observed by other atheists who are looking for reasons to believe that Christianity is ridiculous? (a) yes; (b) no.

35. On which of these points do virtually all historical scholars agree, including non-Christian scholars (check all that apply): (a) Jesus was a real historical figure; (b) Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee; (c) Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist; (d) Jesus was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire; (e) Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion by Roman Governor Pontius Pilate; (f) Jesus was allergic to wheat; (g) none of the above; (h) all of the above.; (i) all of the above except (f).

Self-test #2 (for non-Christians, especially Objectivists)

[Answers at the end of this chapter]

1. Do you know the Latin name Christianity uses for the heresy that occurs when a Christian says that he believes in Christianity by blind faith instead of by reason? (a) yes; (b) no.

2. Did Ayn Rand approve of performing actions of charity? (a) yes; (b) no.

3. Did Ayn Rand invent Objectivism? (a) yes; (b) no.

4. What percent of the matter in the universe is visible to human beings? (a) none; (b) 4 percent; (c) approximately half; (d) 97 percent; (e) 100 percent; (f) other:______.

5. What percent of the electromagnetic spectrum is visible to the human eye? (a) none; (b) 4 percent; (c) approximately half; (d) 97 percent; (e) 100 percent; (f) other:______.

6. Is this statement in alignment with Objectivism? “If it is objective truth we seek, then we cannot allow epistemology to dictate metaphysics”? (a) yes; (b) no.

7. Which of the following terms or statements are consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ (select all that apply): (a) blind faith is an acceptable way to believe; (b) belief against the evidence is sometimes necessary; (c) belief with no evidence is a good thing for Christians; (d) truth is always objective; (e) Hume’s fork describes the only two legitimate ways to believe in Christianity.

8. Is there an error in the following major premise, minor premise, and/or conclusion? Underline any statement that is erroneous. If no errors, no underlines. Major premise: Nothing real can have qualities such as being omnipresent or existing outside of time, and existing in the past, present, and future simultaneously; Minor premise: God is allegedly omnipresent and exists outside of time, existing in past, present, and future simultaneously; Conclusion: God cannot be real.

9. True or false: The qualities of light are such that if an object could travel at the speed of light, time would dilate and there would be infinite mass, so that its existence would be in the past, present, and future simultaneously, and its mass would be everywhere in the universe simultaneously.

10. True or false: Original Christianity teaches that God is light and that with him, time dilates, and he is everywhere.

11. If God were, in fact, light, and if he, as light, did, in fact, exist in a state of dilated time, would this Biblical statement Peter made about God be consistent with recent discoveries in quantum mechanics? “With God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day”? (a) yes; (b) no.

12. Is the probability high or low that professional fishermen in the Middle East two thousand years ago could have figured out for themselves a description of the nature of God which would have been consistent with recent findings of quantum mechanics?

13. Did Jesus say that money is the root of all evil? (a) yes; or (b) no.

14. How many times did Jesus mention the concept of Original Sin? (1) between one and five times; (b) more than five times; (c) zero.

15. Did Jesus frequently break off conversations with persons who demonstrated by their dialog that they were unable to draw logical inferences from his metaphors? (a) yes; (b) no.

16. Does Christianity’s foundational text assert that all of reality is composed solely of logic? (a) yes; (b) no.

17. The Christian community set up by the followers of Christ after his death most closely fits the definition of (a) socialism; (b) fascism; (c) free-market capitalist gulching as described in Atlas Shrugged.

18. How many of the four written eyewitness reports of the actions of Jesus have been found to be authentic by use of secular (non-Christian) analysis? (a) all; (b) some; (c) none.

19. Were the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ work cross-examined by an outside medically-trained investigator on behalf of a skeptical wealthy citizen, and did that investigation involve interviewing other eyewitnesses at the time to cross-confirm the reports of the first three eyewitness accounts? (a) yes; (b) no.

20. Is the report of that independent investigation published in the New Testament itself? (a) yes; (b) no.

21. Does the Tetragammaton (4-letter name of God, given to Moses, expressing God’s essential ontological nature) concisely and parsimoniously express Objectivism’s three axioms simultaneously? (a) yes; (b) no.

22. Was Ayn Rand rational to believe in Aristotle by relying solely on circumstantial evidence? (a) yes; (b) no.

23. Can reliance on circumstantial evidence as a basis for belief in Jesus be rational? (a) yes; (b) no.

24. When examining history, is there any evidence on which to rely other than circumstantial evidence? (a) yes; (b) no.

25. Can you define these: strong atheist, weak atheist, positive atheist, negative atheist, explicit atheist, implicit atheist, agnostic, Bright, apatheist? (a) yes; (b) no.

26. Can you name five major beliefs that traditional Christianity has in common with Objectivism? (a) yes; (b) no.

27. How many founders of world religions confined 90 percent of their teachings strictly to presentations that required reason and logic to decode? (a) three or more; (b) none; (c) one.

28. Do you know the difference between rational sacrifice and irrational sacrifice? (a) yes; (b) no.

29. Which kind of sacrifice does Christianity support: (a) rational, or (b) irrational?

30. Jesus taught that it was sometimes appropriate to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Did Ayn Rand ever write approvingly of laying down one’s life for one’s friends? (a) yes; (b) no.

31. In the gospels, did Jesus (a) claim to be a weak, forced victim serving the values of others at his crucifixion, or did he (b) state that he acted willfully and with personal power in choosing that course of action in order to remain consistent to his values?

32. Can you name five non-Christian first-century historical documents that corroborate the reports about Jesus, his brother, John the Baptist, and early Christianity? (a) yes; (b) no.

33. Which dichotomy is consistent with actual Christianity: (a) natural versus supernatural, or (b) real versus non-real?

34. Can you name five major allegations Rand made about “all religions,” such that the allegations were true about Hinduism and Buddhism, but were false about Christianity? (a) yes; (b) no.

35. Can you name the Christian thinker who is revered by rational Christians as the greatest rational intellect in the history of Christianity and who based all of his work on Aristotelian logic? (a) yes; (b) no.

36. Do you know the difference between “altruism” and “beneficism”? (a) yes; (b) no.

37. Is it possible to prove a negative? (a) yes; (b) no.

38. On which of these points do virtually all historical scholars agree, including non-Christian scholars (check all that apply): (a) Jesus was a real historical figure; (b) Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee; (c) Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist; (d) Jesus was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire; (e) Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion by Roman Governor Pontius Pilate; (f) Jesus was allergic to wheat; (g) none of the above; (h) all of the above.; (i) all of the above except (f).

--end--

Self test: Can you kick the oblada of this test, or will it kick yours?

2009-03-07T05:51:00.001-08:00

A little later this morning, I'm going to post a (an approximately) 35-question self-assessment test that will allow you to see if you are as up to speed as you think you are on the topic of Christian Objectivism AND on the topic of ACTUAL Christianity as Jesus taught it--as OPPOSED to so MUCH of what is being taught as Christianity. (Oh, gag me with post-Jesusian doctrinal improvisations!) (Jesusian? hahaha I just made that up.)

If you are an atheist, Objectivist, or both, or an official rejecter of Christianity, you'd better CHECK YOUR PREMISES and make sure you know what you are rejecting.

If you are a Christian, you'd better check YOUR premises, too, and make sure you know how to correctly represent what you have staked your allegiance to.

SO FAR NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has gotten a perfect score on this test. Including persons with doctorates and decades of self study in either atheism or Christianity or anything in between.

The only thing I'm deciding is whether to POST the answers, or make you email me to get them. Any votes one way or the other?

Well, I guess you need to see the test before you even give a cr*p as to whether you even WANT to see the answers or not.

hahahaha

Bumper stickers for you! The treatise is ready, too!

2009-03-05T18:17:00.000-08:00

I'm on top of the world--and the polar ice caps are NOT melting here. ;)

The bumper stickers are ready. Let me know if you want one. They say:

READ ATLAS SHRUGGED!

I'll try to post a picture of them.

And probably more importantly, the treatise is ready, too. It's printed into a small booklet, and I am sending the first editions out to selected individuals who want one. The first printing is only 25. Hey, if it's ever a best seller, imagine having one of THESE! :0

Mainly, it's the debut of an entire philosophy, a whole new philosophy, 9 years in the making.

Let me know if you really want one. No mercy requests, please. :)

You can make a donation to my paypal account--whatever you feel is its value to you.

Love to all.

Happy Beth.

Join our Google Group! Click the heading of this blog...

2009-02-22T04:39:00.001-08:00

We hope you will visit us at our Christian Objectivist google group.

To do that, click the box at the top of this blog--the box around the heading for the blog. That will take you there.

We enjoy discussion and especially questions. We have members from a very wide spectrum of opinions and all levels of knowledge.

We're very friendly, so drop by.

CAVEAT FOR ATHEISTS WITH HOSTILITY ISSUES

Unfortunately, based on many past experiences, I do have to make this defensive caveat: If you want to come talk with us, but you're this year's Volunteer of the Year for Atheists with Hostility Issues, first check and see if you match with the opinion pattern below. If you do, save yourself a headache.

Is this you?

(a)I am a freaking genius.
(b)All Christians are stupid.
(c)I haven't bothered to read the Christian Objectivist treatise, so I have no idea what Christian Objectivism is even about, but I know it's wrong.

If that's you, lots of love to you, but save it. Many such matadors-in-training have tried to shake their little red towels at us before. They were quickly disabused of items (a) and (b) above, and most of them left with the intellectual equivalent of a new moonroof installed in their heads.

Veritas.

If I haven't replied to a comment you've left...

2009-02-21T05:16:00.000-08:00

If I haven't responded to a comment you've left, it is either because I never saw the comment (sorry! I've changed my settings today so I'll get emails when someone comments), or it is because your comment gave me an adrenaline rush, and I'm waiting for that to subside before I reply. :)

The Christian Objectivist treatise is now available. Hooray.

2009-02-20T14:08:00.000-08:00

At long last, and just 4 months late, the treatise "Christian Objectivism" is available. Even though it was written nearly 9 years ago, I needed to make some updates and corrections.

It's available as a reader's draft, stamped "Not for Circulation."

I will also be posting excerpts here, probably daily, or almost daily.

ATLAS SHRUGGED BUMPER STICKERS

I will also have bumper stickers that say READ ATLAS SHRUGGED! and under that line is printed "ChristianObjectivism.com" The stickers are black and white, 3 x 10 inches. I'll post a picture once I figure out how to do that. :) They're already printed and shipped, so should be here soon.

Christian Objectivists: Dialog with Atheist Objectivists? No.

2008-10-03T15:54:00.001-07:00

I got this question today from a Christian.

Should Objectivists and Christians talk? Do reasonable [people] disagree, and if so, is it profitable for them to understand one another?

--M

Dear M:

I don't believe there is any other kind of Christian but a Christian Objectivist. If there is, he is saying that the tenets of Christianity are not objectively true.

Ridiculous.

Sadly, though: I don't think many Christians would know what "objectively true" even means.

Even more ridiculous.

So maybe the question is, "Should Christian Objectivists and atheist/agnostic/skeptic/apatheist (AASA) Objectivists talk?".

It seems like the answer should be "yes," but I actually believe it's often better if it's "no."

The vast majority of atheist individuals I've posted with or seen post are so vitriolic about Christianity that I think their emotions get in the way of their ability to be rational. At that point, no meaningful dialog is possible.

There are websites by ex-atheists that explain this phenomenon. Those were helpful to me in understanding why Christianity drives atheists into a frenzy, and helped me understand why some atheists are driven to spend--report the ex-atheists--virtually all their free time learning arguments with which to attack Christians on the Internet.

But what's new? Non-Christians have wanted to rip Christians apart since the beginning, as evidenced by the resulting torture and murder of Christians on a huge scale.

Beg to differ with that allegation? Save it. I have the statistics.

So yeah. The idea for the non-Christians is that you kill/hate/attack--not PEOPLE who come to different conclusion--but CHRISTIANS who do that. Now THERE'S tolerance, o ye "good guy" atheists. No. Wait. Did I say, "tolerance"?

What? Were you going into the little speech about "Alllllll the killings perpetrated by Christians?" HA! Let's end that crap once and for all. Check your premises. Atheist regimes hold the FIRST 30 SLOTS in the world history of number of people killed under their authority. So pack up that crap and see if you can sell it on ebay. Don't try shoving it off on any educated Christian.

Granted, 99 percent of Christians are, frankly, idiots on stilts when it comes to understanding what they themselves purport to even believe in, and the nature of it, and the empirical proofs of it.

Not necessarily their fault.

But Christian teachers who spent their time teaching their classes how to make Christmas ornaments for the handicapped instead of teaching them what the hell metaphysics and epistemology are and the proofs of their faith--don't get me started--are going to have some 'splainin to do on the Big Day.

Nonetheless, there are so many logical contradictions in atheist/agnostic/skeptic Objectivists feeling that Christians don't have a right to their own rationally deduced value choices that I don't even have time to get into that.

Today.

At the bottom, isn't the act of "talking" actually the act of each person asserting his position? And in a conversation where each is strongly motivated to dissuade the other, isn't that too toxic an atmosphere for dialog? What progress could either make that wouldn't make the other's emotional state ramp up?

But the CHRISTIANS! Oh, I'm shaking my head with a "Tsk, tsk, tsk" at them.

Until Christians wake up and get their minds working about what Jesus actually taught, and about the definitions of the words they use, and about the existing proofs, I actually think it is detrimental to the cause for those Christians to open their mouths.

Their illiteracy just gives more ammunition to atheists, and causes the poor atheists to put in so much silly work rejecting a straw man--a straw man that the Christians built by alleging teachings that are NOT the teachings.

I completely exclude apatheists from the above description. Apatheists (apathy + theist = apatheist) simply don't care whether there is or isn't a God, so they aren't even going to engage in any dialog beyond letting you know they don't care.

I find THAT position to be the scariest of all.

Then again, maybe that's one common ground for atheist Objectivists and Christian Objectivists--to form an alliance to at LEAST bring back the caring. :)

Hot or cold, people!

Beth

Are you a Christian Bright?

2008-09-21T08:01:00.000-07:00

Christian Brights is a brand new group that I've started, a parallel group to Christian Objectivists.

Click here to find out what a Christian Bright is, and whether you are one already! This will take you to the blog called "Christian Brights." There you can find out about this, and you can even take two little bitty tests to find out if you belong. Cheers!

A brief history of Christian objectivism

2008-08-29T16:43:00.000-07:00

For up to date postings on the philosophy of Christian objectivism, go to http://christianobjectivist.blogspot.com where Beth Drennan's treatise founding Christian objectivism will be published in segments beginning in September. The name of that blog differs from this one only by not having an "s" at the end of the word "objectivist."

Thank you!

HISTORY

Christian objectivism had its beginnings in January, 2000, in a house in Baraboo, Wisconsin, where a family of Christians (the youngest child being 18, the oldest 20) all read Atlas Shrugged and, in addition to having their lives immediately changed as if moving from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, they each independently concluded that many of the tenets set forth in Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand's Objectivism), were substantially the same tenets they perceived as being the foundations of Christianity, as they, themselves, understood Christianity.

They realized immediately that a proper combination of Christianity with the concept of objectivism would create a philosophical system that reflected their deepest convictions.

Of this initial group, the daughter Sarah Saturday--now a Los Angeles computer consultant and designer, and a musician--and the mother, Beth Drennan--an attorney and former columnist for The New York Times Syndicate, and founder/director of a non-profit legal corporation--began in-depth discussions, and Drennan began her formal work on the development of the tenets that would express the new philosophical system named Christian objectivism.

Drennan produced the treatise setting out the new philosophy of Christian objectivism, and she and Saturday began hosting in-house and online groups to discuss the new philosophy's applications. The first-ever online appearance of the new philosophy and its name was in a Yahoo chat group set up by Saturday soon thereafter. A discussion group, hosted by Saturday, is still active today, in which Christian, atheists, Randian Objectivists, and everyone in between, hold lively exchanges. (You may join that group by clicking the indicated rectangle at the top of this blog.)

As would be expected, Randian Objectivists (Objectivists who subscribed strictly to Rand's version of the philosophy of objectivism) had strong reactions against the group, ranging from laughter to vigorous verbal attack, most asserting that Objectivism as set forth by Rand was utterly incompatible with Christianity.

A disambiguation was in order.

Drennan explained that the name "Christian objectivism" had been chosen for reasons other than to cling like robots or remora to the version of the philosophy of objectivism that Rand had homesteaded and named Objectivism (for clarity, in this document, Objectivism with a capital "o" refers to Rand's Objectivism, and objectivism with a small "o" refers to the general philosophy of objectivism that preceded Rand's version.) Christian objectivism was not a system built to hide in the skirts of any pre-existing system, or to grow from it, as an offshoot. Rather, Christian objectivism would be an entirely new, fully original, and independently-standing structure.

Therefore, Drennan had no hesitation about asserting that the second word of the name of the philosophy would be "objectivism", as this term most sharply reflected her certainty that truth was objective. And since it was her position--shared by Saturday-- that Christianity was true, then Christianity's truth must also be objective.

So, while Rand's writings about her own Objectivism had profoundly affected and excited Drennan's family and had opened their minds more fully than ever to the concept of objective truth, it was nonetheless gallopingly clear that Rand, an atheist, had not delineated her philosophy in such a way as to leave room for theist variants, and Drennan was not attempting to crash that party.

That was not to say, however, that vast areas of Christian objectivism and of Rand's Objectivism--both taking the same view of the nature of truth--did not overlap, and there was no attempt to disguise that fact in Drennan's treatise on the new philosophy.

In fact, Christian objectivism, by consistently discussing Rand's Objectivist writings, especially the similarities and differences between the two philosophies, had, in effect, intentionally set up residence in close proximity to Rand's philosophy, establishing only very meager fencing between the two, for the simple reason that truth, being objective, obviously had bedrooms in both houses and should be able to move freely between the two establishments, like a child in custody of parents who share his biology but who have enough irreconcilable differences to keep them from being housemates.

A series of essays will be posted on christianobjectivist.blogspot.com, in which Drennan's treatise on Christian objectivism will be published in segmented installments. A book-length treatise will be published thereafter.