- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Departure
The Call to Adventure
Refusal of the Call
Supernatural Aid
The Crossing of the First Threshold
Belly of The Whale
Initiation
The Road of Trials
The Meeting With the Goddess
Woman as Temptress
Return
Refusal of the Return
The Magic Flight
Rescue from Without
The Crossing of the Return Threshold
Master of Two Worlds
Freedom to Live
Character similarities include that neither Jesus nor Galt advocated initiating force, both "sold" their thoughts to those who would listen and let them make the own decisions, both advocated the supposed outcome in terms of benefits, i.e, freedom from being subject to force (Galt) and salvation (Jesus).
I think the good preacher's claim of the life of Jesus being impetus for Rand's hero's is a stretch. For me, it's simply good story telling.
I would add, why three friends? The concept of the Trinity.
The basic Christ story is a tale as old as time, used in many ancient cultures-the details just change. The conversation can still happen even if one disagrees with the premise. I agree with your last statement. Why the name calling, jrberts?
"The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . . [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the exaltation of man’s self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth." The Objectivist, Introduction to The Foutainhead, 1968
"An artist (as, for instance, the sculptors of Ancient Greece) who presents man as a god-like figure is aware of the fact that men may be crippled or diseased or helpless; but he regards these conditions as accidental, as irrelevant to the essential nature of man—and he presents a figure embodying strength, beauty, intelligence, self-confidence, as man’s proper, natural state."
After all, Galt is a literary figure, a character created by Rand, the artist.
So, Thomas' statement of "god" in the irreligious sense can speak to the literary aspects of the story of Jesus Christ. I don't really see a huge connection, but I can hear the discussion. I would agree that any attempt by Christians to usurp Atlas Shrugged into religious doctrine would fail on primacy grounds. Thomas clear states that in the article-and may actually have gone into some depth on it at the conference. This is a Christian publication doing the reporting, they are going to focus primarily on the Christian perspective, I would think.
This is why Ayn Rand referred to MYSTICS as "death worshipers."
Jesus "sacrificed" his life in order for all who simply "believed" in him to achieve eternal life.
Check your premises.
Care to make a historic comparison of the contribution of the Christian "mystics" to the advancement of man's mind with the contribution of atheist "realists"?
A comparrison of reason and mysticism should begin with a review of the difference between Aristotle and Plato...and not skip directly to Christianity.
That changed with the Reformation and competition in thought. Martin Luther and others looked at the Bible and compared the writings to the policies of the Catholic church and found numerous doctrines and practices that could not be reconciled. As such, new sects of Christianity broke from the Catholics or were formed anew with different doctrines, practices, etc. Now there are literally hundreds of Christian sects.
So you see, reason and competition does have a place even in religion ;)
Yes, let's examine that bit of history... the knowledge preserved by the Catholics to be used by those reasonable men in the Enlightenment and the Renaissance as they used the preserved knowledge to murder and enslave one another.
Pope Julius attempted to have the Church act as a check on the lust for power of the kings and petty warlords of western europe, and nearly lost the Church and his life in the endeavor.
Meanwhile, the eastern... the *Christian* eastern Roman empire never fell...
What on earth are you talking about?
The creator of the universe, by reason and logic, must exist outside the universe....
Concerned that her novels, her philosophy and her memory can't stand the assault?
The speeches and trials are the philosophical part of the novels!
There is a helluva lot of equivication in some of the posts in this topic.
Salvation for a Chirstian means eternal life.
Getting and staying sober is not the same thing.
PS: Some do believe that "salvation" is a "collective" and not an individual goal.
Just ask the POTUS.
I should have guessed that you can't handle analogy.
I can't ask the POTUS, as we do not at present HAVE a POTUS.
Black li theo - same deal.
And no, POTUS is not a Christian, he is a PO* :)
A drunk must save himself if he is to have a life; eventually his addiction *will* kill him. But, if he gets sober, he's saved. Nobody can save him, because nobody can keep him from drinking 24/7/365.
Likewise, a sinner must save himself if he is to have eternal life.
Eternal life is actually eternal death.
The Bible states it as eternal life, not death. If an alcoholic is saved, he/she is saved from their all-consuming vice, utilizing spiritual strength.
As Neil Diamond sang in ,the song Free Life, "I ain't no kid, believin' in the Bible."
Life is short,
Death is forever.
That's why religion is such a great con (easy sell).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWeW05o3W...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f5spy3-9...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAZq5xIsF...
Who is "you" in your scenario? Do you mean business owners? Corporations? In capitalism, the market determines wages. It is the individual's responsibility to gain skills or look for different employment opportunities to increase their standard of living. If they don't like what employers will pay them-they can start their own business-market their skills to the highest bidder or the bidder that promises steady work over a longer time frame. The entire book Atlas Shrugged is about the moral system of capitalism and how man owns himself.
In the 19th century the government short-circuited the law of supply and demand with relation to labor at the behest of and for the benefit of business. You don't really think crony capitalists, looters and moochers were invented in the latter half of the 20th century, do you?
A lion tamer can get in a cage with three lions and not be eaten. How? The platforms the lions are forced to stand on are just barely large enough for them to stay on them. Their attention is constantly focused on the need to maintain their balance, rather than on eating the lion tamer.
This is related to the last part of your comment; if you keep the populace busy with the struggle to eat and keep a roof over their heads, they don't have attention to spare for politics. You can accomplish the same thing with bread and circuses, just not as effectively.
What part of capitalism would make this happen? Are these "local businesses" going from a capitalist country to an non-capitalist country? How would the taxes from that country plus shipping, make an equal quality product for less then a product made in a no/low tax country without shipping?
After all, you cannot use the USA problems to support your argument because we are not capitalistic. It is impossible to know what our country would be like if statism/socialism was not in our government/economy.
The infinitely malleable American mind was conditioned in the 70s to no longer seek quality.
???
Um, which patent claims it can take something that was non-living and non-self-replicating to begin with, and create something both living and self-replicating, i.e., a true biological organism?
I think you've let your enthusiasm for this "man-worship" nonsense go to your head.
Try to do at least a little homework before you post something like that. (Hint: there are no such patents, and there is no such technology today.)
The organism is nicknamed "Synthia". I think that we are well along to creating live out of non-living elements.
Jan
Jan
the resulting genome into an enucleated Mycoplasma capricolum cell - which had all of the other organelles present (Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, ribosomes, etc). The new M.
laboratorium cell happily chuffed along with its
little cellular life, eating and reproducing and
occasionally writing notes on its blog. We still need to synthesize the organelles, which we are
in the process of doing. In 2009, Church at
Harvard made some progress in synthesizing
RNA in ribosomes and then assembling whole
ribosomes from remnant parts.
The DNA was the tough part (IMO) and we
have done that; the other organelles are just
a matter of time.
Jan
Jan
>To date, the number patents issued for bio-engineered organisms numbers in the tens of thousands. Creating life is no longer god's claim to fame but the province of men. Perhaps art should endeavor to make its image of man that it portrays more "man-like" than "god-like."
Jan
Jan
You know, you Rand worshipers REALLY need to grow up and realize that in real life Galt would have failed miserably, because his antagonists wouldn't be straw men as they were in the book. It's surprising that Rand didn't notice this, having experienced the Soviet Union.
Q: What did Plato have in common with Aristotle?
A: They were both from a nation of navel gazers. And while they were gazing at their navels, a bunch of rowdy Roman farmers took their empire away from them.
As to your navel gazing joke-the next significant historical figure to come out of the time was taught by Aristotle and I think we can agree Alexander the Great was no rowdy farmer
Oh! I have one for you... Name the founder of the only empire never to be defeated? Ruler of a land far more vast than the Roman Empire?
The quintessential looter... Genghis Khan. Did he study Aristotle, too?
And no, it doesn't work that way. db made an assertion, the burden is on him to back it up.
He didn't say Christianity was aligned with playdough, he said it was based on playdough.
http://sguthrie.net/greekchristian.htm
b) Jesus and the New Testament ought to be understood as fulfilling what was promised under the Old Testament, which precedes Plato by a good 2000 years. The concept of a perfect spiritual reality existing in parallel and apart from the physical reality, undetectable by the senses, may be recognized by us as Platonic, but that's hardly where it actually originated. The Greek influence over culture during the writing of the New Testament was huge. The authors of the NT wrote about Christian concepts in Greek terms because that's where people's heads were at, not because they were BASING Christianity on Plato.
Almost all religious points of view have the same basic metaphysics, which was best described by Plato. Logical categories here-not historical debate.
---> Therefore, it is apparent that Platonism, Stoicism, and the Philonic logos are not responsible for creating Christian antiquity. It must be the case that Christianity possesses a unique view of the world dissimilar to Greek rivals.
---> In the beginning of this paper I note three areas of possible influences on Christian antiquity. By examining Plato, Stoicism, and Philo, we see that early Greek philosophy postulated a world view predominantly dualistic, imminent to a final conflagration, and intimated with the concept of logos. Many have speculated as to the similarities between these notions and New Testament teachings. But upon closer inspection it seems that any similarity is quickly diminished in favor of leaving the Christian scriptures with a unique idea of their own.
---> This leaves New Testament theology as a system independent of Greek influence and as an ideology demanding a world view unprecedented in history.
The author's conclusion regarding unique ideas of Christianity are Ethical not metaphysical.
We've gone from Christianity is "based on" Plato's metaphysics to Christianity is "aligned with" Plato's metaphysics to Christianity "falls into the same group" as Plato's metaphysics.
And to substantiate that, you link to an article that concludes " This leaves New Testament theology as a system independent of Greek influence", which negates your point, but that's just semantics. Does that about cover it?
(did I already link this one?)
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/ki...
Song of the Red War-Boat
(A.D. 683 )
"The Conversion of St. Wilfrid"--Rewards and Fairies
Shove off from the wharf-edge! Steady!
Watch for a smooth! Give way!
If she feels the lop already
She'll stand on her head in the bay.
It's ebb--it's dusk--it's blowing--
The shoals are a mile of white,
But ( snatch her along! ) we're going
To find our master to-night.
For we hold that in all disaster
Of shipwreck, storm, or sword,
A Man must stand by his Master
When once he has pledged his word.
Raging seas have we rowed in
But we seldom saw them thus,
Our master is angry with Odin--
Odin is angry with us!
Heavy odds have we taken,
But never before such odds.
The Gods know they are forsaken.
We must risk the wrath of the Gods!
Over the crest she flies from,
Into its hollow she drops,
Cringes and clears her eyes from
The wind-torn breaker-tops,
Ere out on the shrieking shoulder
Of a hill-high surge she drives.
Meet her! Meet her and hold her!
Pull for your scoundrel lives!
The thunder below and clamor
The harm that they mean to do!
There goes Thor's own Hammer
Cracking the dark in two!
Close! But the blow has missed her,
Here comes the wind of the blow!
Row or the squall'Il twist her
Broadside on to it!--Row!
Heark'ee, Thor of the Thunder!
We are not here for a jest--
For wager, warfare, or plunder,
Or to put your power to test.
This work is none of our wishing--
We would house at home if we might--
But our master is wrecked out fishing.
We go to find him to-night.
For we hold that in all disaster--
As the Gods Themselves have said--
A Man must stand by his Master
Till one of the two is dead.
That is our way of thinking,
Now you can do as you will,
While we try to save her from sinking
And hold her head to it still.
Bale her and keep her moving,
Or she'll break her back in the trough. . . .
Who said the weather's improving,
Or the swells are taking off?
Sodden, and chafed and aching,
Gone in the loins and knees--
No matter--the day is breaking,
And there's far less weight to the seas!
Up mast, and finish baling--
In oar, and out with mead--
The rest will be two-reef sailing. . . .
That was a night indeed!
But we hold it in all disaster
(And faith, we have found it true!)
If only you stand by your Master,
The Gods will stand by you!
Of course, the Vikings' victims were producers and preservers of knowledge, but they were Christians, so rape them...
She liked Vikings because they represented what turned her on... overbearing men that overpower her in their passion. Sadly for her ego, she was too butt-ugly for even Vikings on a drunken spree to rape...
FYI, we don't capitalize "god" when referring to one of many pagan gods, just as we don't capitalize president unless referring to the commander in chief. The difference between pronoun and title.
Wow. Talk about spewing insults...
And it's the "ugliest" post I have ever read in this website.
I hope the lesson is learned? Insult, degrade and offend me... and I'll return in kind.
Who has insulted or degrade YOU here?
Fankly, you aren't worth the effort to insult, degrade and offend.
Your post which denegrated an old woman (Ayn and in he later years) because she was "too butt-ugly for even Vikings on a drunken spree to rape" is the most offensive thing I've read in this or any topic here in the Gulch.
It's bad enough to make a nasty comment about anyone's physical appearance, but joking about rape is, in a word, despicable.
PS: Have you seen any photos of Ayn Rand when she was a young woman in Russia or an aspiring actress in Hollywood? Do you think she was "butt-ugly" then?
Your post is offensive and to say so is not to degade you.
You've already done that to yourself.
You don't like it? I don't like your use of the oxymoron 'Christian mystics'.
Again, genius, I don't need you to tell me my post was offensive. That was its intent. You really are kinda slow on the uptake, aren't you?
Who was joking about rape? I meant it literally.
That was, after all, the preferred Norseman method of courtship.
You were offended by someone’s comment? So what. Your allowing such things to push you to the types of comments you have made on this post/thread indicate nothing more than emotional weakness on your part.
At least get what I wrote right before you make a bigger fool of youself.
And, if you have a daughter I hope she is ugly enough (by your standards as well as the rapist's) never to be raped.
PS: Most rapists don't care that much about looks.
It's a crime of opportuntiy and is motivated by hate to a much greater degree than sexual attraction.
This is why Ayn Rand referred to MYSTICS as "death worshipers."
Near as I can be bothered to scan the messages, this is where you first began equating Christians with mystics... oh, and witch doctors.
Most rapists today are not Vikings. Completely different pathology.
Kindly leave your sex life out of the discussion.
Let me just straighten it out from a Christian point of view: the important difference from John Galt as a libertarian from Jesus...
Outside his own mind, John Galt is not God.
There are those out there who use Rand's teachings and pervert her philosophy of Objectivism for their own purposes... and it's been less than half a century. Should we, then, stereotype all Objectivists, paint them not just with the same brush as these usurpers, but as the ONLY brush? Should we maintain that their version of Objectivism is the true version, because they use it to empower themselves over others?
You guys point at Torquemada, and ignore Thomas More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2...
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Who let himself be beheaded rather than compromise his belief in God.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quot...
Kepler: "I am in *earnest* about faith; I do not play with it". One of history's greatest scientists, because he wanted to read the mind of God.
The history of the world is full of good, decent men and women, most having passed unremarked, who were good decent men and women *because* of their Christian faith. Because that faith guided them, not controlled them.
Christianity teaches one to "Resist Temptation". Would Rand not agree? Temptation is an emotional response. How does one resist temptation? With reason, of course. One "thinks it through" and considers the consequences of "surrendering" to temptation.
Christianity teaches you to love your neighbor *as* yourself, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Rand, through her characters, preaches that you should love yourself... and respect the rights of others. This is the dangerous part that objectivists leave out; without the respect for the rights of others, an Objectivist becomes just another hedonistic looter.
Christianity preaches that God loves you, and will forgive your sins if you truly regret them. What sins? Let's begin with the 10 Commandments: Don't take what is another's, don't chase after another man's wife, don't tell lies, don't worship false idols (because through them you will find your way back into bondage), don't take God's name in vain (in other words, don't put yourself in the position of playing God), work your ass off six days a week, but rest on the seventh, and last but not least.... don't envy what another man has.
Let's see... honesty, productivity, trading value for value...
The advantage of Christianity over Objectivism, it seems to me, is that not only can it be embraced through reason, but through emotion, as well. And emotion, like it or not, has a stronger, more lasting hold on a person than simple reason.
This is not a discussion that particularly interests me, kinda like asking, "Was David Koresh a libertarian modeled off of Jesus"?
But, I'm not going to let such bs go unfought.
Y'all tempt me to root for Al Qaida's re-establishment of the caliphate, just for the pleasure of watching you squirm at the reality of your warped hobgoblin vision of Christianity.
I think maybe such an ad hominem attack might get voted down, as this one deserves.
Main difference between Galt and Jesus... Jesus loved Mankind, Galt holds Mankind in contempt.
Also, Jesus wasn't an asshole.
You're wrong, I'm afraid. Jesus "was" an asshole, too.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig...
http://godisimaginary.com/i39.htm
Paul's very wordy phrase simply means: Inductive and deductive reasoning.
Religion is man-made rules of obedience to allegedly please God and is antithetical to thought.
Religion (and hence obedience) flies in the face of what a very great mind expects from the human race.
Ayn is correct about religion, but she confuses "religion" with "God" and "faith" and so her lexicon was incomplete...but she is definitely applying correct epistemology.
Faith is the principle of hope for a better future - nothing more. There is nothing irrational about it, it merely uses future-based assumptions in order to form its hypotheses. What is I think the part that many "object" to (pun intended) is the method of validation for the hypotheses, which is also often future-based. That is the part that many label irrational.
One more thought: belief is the precursor to knowledge. One can not gain knowledge without the belief that there is something to gain one does not already possess! ;)
Faith is the suspension of reason. Wher did you eve get the idea that it was the "principle of hope for a bette future?"
Talk about innane...
Believeing in something doesn't make it true.
I don't have any problem with rational disagreement and other viewpoints, but I came to this site hoping for meaningful discussion. If I want to subject myself to the inane I can go troll media sites, read the progressive/liberal propaganda and see comments by their name-calling toadies.
I wish she were alive to TRY arguing theology with me. Rhetorically slaughtering her would be rewarding.
Monty Python managed to work a bit of it into "The Life Of Brian", but there's a lot of potential.
I am personally agnostic, but I am a pro-pagan agnostic and I believe that pagans do capitalize references to their Gods and Goddesses.
I think that jimjamesjames is right and the commonality between Jesus and Galt is the mythic hero character. I like heroes; Galt is more my style than Jesus is...but if someone likes both - Hey. Come stand under my umbrella!
Jan
If I'm not mistaken, the people making the movies and participating in this website... are trying to spread their faith and beliefs... even to the point of comparing Galt to historic and religious figures such as Jesus.
She was raised in a jewish household. She was not religious.
Why would it be surprising if there were parallels between Galt and Christ? I believe it's called a plot device.
Hm... you just reminded me of something.
Found it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_...
And you have provided me with my new nickname for dbhalling...
"Robass".
"“To believe in God. Bah.” (It was the first time Thomas had ever heard that word pronounced just as it is written.) “I have a perfectly constructed logical mind that cannot commit such errors.” " - The Quest for Saint Aquin
Then maybe "John Galt a libertarian modeled off of Abraham"?
Or maybe, "John Galt, a libertarian modeled off of Joseph Smith"?
Oh, I have a better one... "John Galt, a libertarian modeled off of L. Ron Hubbard?"
Yeah, that'd be the most accurate comparison.
(I'd say he was an asshole modeled after Michael Valentine Smith, but I think Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged before Heinlein wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land".)
Edit to add:
Hm... listening to Max Headroom last night, I was reminded of an old saying.... "Success has a hundred fathers; failure is an orphan." I guess that's why so many authors and idealists trying to push their philosophy draw from Jesus, and not those others...
I think it is funny that this subject took off because John Galt is not a libertarian and there is no way that Jesus had any influence on her portrayal of him in her book.
Any similarities between Galt and Jesus must be a happenstance since, if Ayn did consider Jesus at all, it would be to create John Galt as the opposite. Any similarities in philosophy are also happenstance as you can reach the same conclusion but for different reasons and Ayn would say that the reasons matter (which is at the heart of her problem with libertarians).