tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9145562.post4191416074704507553..comments2023-09-12T20:41:54.775-07:00Comments on MedBlogged: Maybe Kathy Taylor IS a Republilcan?Chris Medlockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16885296990137765451noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9145562.post-77561234627993738902008-07-20T18:33:00.000-07:002008-07-20T18:33:00.000-07:00You can't be a Randian Objectivist, not a consiste...You <I>can't</I> be a Randian Objectivist, not a consistent one, anyway--you're a Christian. The underlying premises and presuppositions are too different. Rand comes to many of the right conclusions, but her atheistic presuppositions render her system, as Francis Schaeffer would say, without an adequate base. <BR/><BR/>This is why she so often shoots her characters when they ask questions that, in a real atheistic world, would make perfect logical sense. If she didn't shoot those characters, the questions they ask would reveal that her atheism is insufficient to deal with the great truths of life.<BR/><BR/>I say this as someone who has read, literally, everything Rand wrote, with the exceptions of <B>We the Living</B> and <B>Night of January 16th</B>.<BR/><BR/>Ask Michael Bates about this sometime. I'm sure he can fill you in further on this point of view. Or, if you haven't read it already, you can read <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-There-Francis-Schaeffer/dp/0830819479/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216603840&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow">The God Who is There</A>.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your informative posts lately. Thanks for the hard work involved in researching and writing them.Savage Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14366893048089380061noreply@blogger.com