|Ted wrote, |
Bill I have ignored your requests that I defend a straw man of your own making because after my telling you once on the Good Friday thread that it wasn't my duty to refute what you have made up I didn't feel like repeating myself. Very well, in Post 4 of that thread, you replied to Steve Wolfer as follows,
When you quote to me where I said that orthodox Christians claim that Jesus didn't practice what he preached, and answer my questions to you on that thread for that matter, then I will defend it.
Fine, Steve. I know the facts. I offered them if you care. Rand's opinion is forgivable, based both on the obscurity of the topic and the fact that she was a Jew and an atheist, but indeed confused and historically ignorant. Then in Post 18 of the same thread, you wrote,
You do not contest and you cannot contest that Jesus is portrayed as overcome by anger in the Temple, that he is reported to have whipped the money changers . . . The orthodox churches explicitly preach [this] as demonstrating his human shortcomings. . . .
(Think about the "what would Jesus do?" mantra. Should a Christian beat moneychangers with a whip? Of course not, his teachings are more important than his actions.) It is easy to see why Rand would have been misled on the idea. Aren't you saying here in so many words that orthodox Christians claim that Jesus didn't practice what he preached?
As for answering your questions, I thought I did that? For example, you asked,
Bill, I have a question. Can you provide the source of Rand's description of Jesus as an ideal embodiment of man, and were those her exact words?And I answered you by quoting Rand's comments in her Playboy interview. If there are other questions that you feel I haven't answered, would you restate them for me? Thanks.
Since you've just been relegated to the Dissent Forum, I'll cross post this there under the title "Replies to Ted on Rand's view of Christianity," so you can answer me if you want.
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/11, 10:03pm)