Kristoffer Polaha is John Galt: Atlas Shrugged III wraps production

Posted by overmanwarrior 11 years ago to Movies
76 comments | Share | Flag

As I watched the proceedings on the last day of shooting during Valentines Day, I realized I was watching history in the making. It will sort of simmer for a decade or two like many of the progressive policies did on the backs of several occult mystics and superstitious knuckleheads from the past. Atlas Shrugged Part III is an achievement, like climbing a tall mountain that nobody thought possible and those who hoped nobody ever would used superstition to keep anybody from even trying. John Aglialoro and a small army of dedicated supporters did, and the result will appear in around 500 theaters this upcoming fall of 2014. And the world will be a lot better off because of it—which makes me immensely proud.

John Galt will be a gift to film history.
SOURCE URL: http://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/kristoffer-polaha-is-john-galt-atlas-shrugged-iii-wraps-production/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ dhinet 11 years ago
    Yes, thanks to the work of John & Joan Aglialoro maybe the world will feel the movement. I hope that Atlas Shrugged III - Who is John Galt? is more than a good movie, hope it is the match that starts the fire of real hope and change, for better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by terrycan 11 years ago
    A book as complex as "Atlas Shrugged" is very difficult to make into a movie. Kaslow and Agliaro stayed true to the book. They did this at their own expense. The trilogy of movies will be a classic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jspringr 11 years ago
    Glory halelujah! You did it. You completed Atlas Shrugged part 1, part 2, and part 3. All this while being attacked by the establishment and suffering a small box office. This is a project that really needed to be done. Your work will be immortalized for all time. Congratulations.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 11 years ago
    Surprisingly enough, in Argentina neither the book nor the subsequent movies seem available (of course I´ve read it in the english version, as well as The Fountainhead). I myself am trying to get many down here to read up for alot of things are happenning that Misses Rand´s Comet dialogue with the cast away would help clear up alot.

    Truly an admirer of Ayn´s great novels and books now, I also have come close to objectivism and the character Galt´s A is A theory. I guess I always have in a way, but this remained dormant for many years in which I applied a more oriental and passionate side to life (passionate meaning driven by emotions such as enchantment, love and other sentiments). Today, I intend on becomming more and more intelectual and adopt consciousness as my soul, rather than the mythological and abstract concept brought forth by religion and other tendencies that made me truly skeptic for a long while.

    I hope to catch the films somewhere soon, or attain the DVD´s as an alternative. Though I´m more fond of reading, I´ll admit a good film can always draw people into the literature and this author deserves such homage.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Jeanne101 11 years ago
    I believe the term is: True believer. One who believes in Truths and Truth. Not atheism, as belief is required to create what did not exist before the particular creator. The greatest beleivers in history cannot call themselves atheists because religions have had to exist without proof or truths. Law courts are not governments is equally important. No one expects Ayn Rand to do it all herself. Didn't she do enough? There is so much more to do, but shouldn't we get to it just right, so every one could participate in the all truths processes?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That's why I'm surprised you went this long in the exchange.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years ago
      I felt that it allowed a certain "pulpit" :) to present viewpoints not often expressed here in the gulch. To show that the "reason" behind the decision for a certain act was not about some voodoo mystical chant, but a logical and reasoned examination of theology will at least render a thought out decision about faith.

      I truly don't care what they decide, just please make an examination of the true facts about religion, then reject it or accept it. But to sit back and regurgitate what this atheist says, or what this other atheist says the Bible says, but never truly examining the data is just below so many.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
    Kristoffer Polaha is not D.B. Sweeney.

    Remind me to google the word "sycophant". It's possible the word's meaning has changed in recent decades...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
    The article says:

    "Kristoffer Polaha is the perfect John Galt. He’s a person of value; he loves his wife, his children and is extremely charismatic. During the interview above he made it a point to explain that he was a man of religion and was a wonderful find from the Atlas production guys. "

    How can he be the "perfect John Galt" if he is also "a man of religion"? Ayn Rand was an extremely outspoken atheist. ALL her main/successful characters are extreme atheists. Objectivism, itself, is an extremely atheistic philosophy.

    One cannot be both a "perfect John Galt," and a "man of religion." The two really are mutually exclusive. Sort of by definition, if you've read Ayn Rand. That's sort of her point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years ago
      Well, look at this way--The challenge was to find someone who had wide-appeal and fit the model. The producer weren’t looking for someone to please Ayn Rand, they were looking for someone to please the audience, and the audience for the movies thus far has been mixed. I remember the first time I read a thread here about the upcoming movie and this poster expressed fear that the Galt speech would be a lot like it is in the book --a smack down on religion. The poster pleaded for the producers not to be as harsh with christians when they developed the script. I’m not saying anyone should give up their principles to please anybody us, but--

      While, obviously, many of us, who favor the teachings of Ayn Rand and are stubborn about our opposition to religious views, we are also reasoned enough to understand --wide appeal is the best way to go. Besides, it’s a movie; any actor can be cast to play an objectivist.

      Polaha is good-looking fellow, but I’m going to wait for the movie to come out before I past judgement on the choice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
        Mimi,

        I'm not disagreeing with you, but if "any person can be cast to play an objectivist" (and you're right), then why in the world should we care if Polaha is "a person of value, loves his wife and children...and is a man of religion"?

        For him to be "the perfect John Galt," all he has to be able to do is look pretty, talk nicely, and emote deeply. And...done!

        And for that matter, why would we EVER care about the personal lives, and possible "hypocrisy" of any particular actor playing any particular role?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years ago
          All you have to do is read the comments around here from the movie threads for the last year to realize for whatever reason Atlas Shrugged fans care a great deal about the stance of the actors. But in the real world -- acting is getting paid to pretend.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
            It looks like they care about the stance of the actors as long as those stances match their OWN stances, regardless of what Ayn Rand's stances were! (and those last two are obviously NOT the same)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years ago
              Good grief. It’s a movie. H-e-l-l-o???

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                I know it's a movie, and YOU know it's a movie, but the producers are acting as if it's manna from heaven raining down upon the great unwashed masses.

                Or maybe just the great pre-washed masses....
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
                  where do you get this stuff? why are you HERE?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                    I'm here because I'm here because I'm here because I'm here.

                    Why are YOU here?

                    Actually, I read and enjoyed AS, and Fountainhead, and the Fountainhead movie, and the two AS movies, so far. I agree with SOME of what Ayn Rand writes, but not all of it--probably not MOST of it. But enough of it I enjoy discussing it.

                    And as for where I "get" this stuff, I read the linked article. Where do you think I got it from? And since you haven't contributed anything at all to this discussion, why the hell do you care? All you can do is a vague ad-hominem attack on me, and no actual "material" contribution? Sweet! Nice gig, if you can get it.

                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
                      what's a "vague" ad hominem attack? every comment you have made today in here has been negative. So far, I see you enjoy being highly critical, attacking Objectivists and Objectivism-oh, and Christians. I'm glad you enjoyed AS.
                      I contribute quite a bit in here, so my purpose for enjoying this site is obvious. I align with the mission of the site. I am also a paying producer. I am ecstatic that the movies have brought thousands to AR and reading AS.
                      "...the producers are acting as if it's manna from heaven raining down upon the great unwashed masses..." I see no proof for that statement. That's why I asked where you get this from.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                        Vague ad hominem: Instead of challenging me on my ideas, you ask me "Where do you get this stuff?" and "Why are you here?"

                        And I'm not 'attacking," I'm challenging. Sorry if you're used to everyone falling into some sort of lock-step, but I've seen this happen elsewhere on this site, in other discussions: Someone fails to hew the line and he (or she) gets lambasted for it. For a supposed group or class of people who promote free-thinking and independent thought, you actually don't. You seem to like people who think differently then "the others," but only as long as they think like YOU.

                        You may contribute to other threads, but until your challenge to me ("Where did you get this stuff/Why are you here?"), you hadn't contributed once to this one. Sorry, but I'm not keeping track of you.

                        And, finally, re. "Manna from heaven," these producers are no different from many other Hollywood producers. THEIR stuff is unique and fresh and amazing, unlike all that other stuff that all those OTHER people are so used to. You're either going to be able to see it in the article (or even the quote at the top of this thread) or you're not.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
                          I think while you're in the zone of movie making and promoting you're playing it all up. Big money on the line-lots of enthusiasm and promotion juice flowin. I admit, I help keep it flowing.
                          Again, thousands.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Argo 11 years ago
                      While you are quick to disagree with those who are striving to be or are believers in the idea of Objectivism, you fail to present any critical points to why you enjoyed reading the books based on the philosophy "but only agree with some...but not all--probably not MOST of it". To be critical of those who do and offer nothing in the way of reasons as to you critic of the Objectivist philosophy is disingenuous, if not pointless
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                        Well, among other things, I do like the fact that she has engineers (since I am one) as heroes--more specifically, that she has them standing up for and promoting themselves. For all her "anti-poor" rhetoric, she has a LOT of pro-intellectual rhetoric.

                        She also tells a version of what I've been calling "The Engineer's Joke" in Atlas Shrugged (During the French Revolution, a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer are all sentenced to die by guillotine...), when John Galt offers to repair the broken "Ferris Persuader" forcing its operator to run off screaming into the corridor.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Argo 11 years ago
                          So we know why you liked the book, but you have again left out any critic of Objectivism and why you only agree with some but probably not MOST of it. In the subsequent comment you give a critic of 2 other books, but again lacking substance as to why you disagree with them. Is this purposeful?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                      BTW, I also read "Capitalism," and "Anthem."

                      I was very interested in "Capitalism," not that I agreed with a lot of it. "Anthem" was pure crap, made crappier by the egocentric inclusion of the same story but with all the editor's marks intact, taking up the entire second half of the already thin (but, sadly, never thin enough) novelette.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
                        wow. you like AS but didn't agree with much of CTUI. I am not taking points away btw.
                        you might be one of the ones who should have started with The Virtue of Selfishness-

                        "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                          "Capitalism" dealt with a lot of specifics, so there was more to actually look at w/r/t practical applications. But, even Alan Greenspan 9who wrote some of the articles) eventually came to the realization that SOME regulation is good (or, at least, "not bad!")

                          I trust that you have come to terms with your Christian faith vs. the statement that "human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone." That would be too much cognitive dissonance for me, personally, to handle.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                            Meanwhile, as one of the producers of this site--you DO see that we have a nice, lively debate going here, I trust! ;)
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
                              I think you probably know this-but just in case, when I say "producer from the site" it is what we call those who pay for value-add on the site. Hence the gold dollar sign next to their name. The administrator/producers of the site have a red dollar sign by their name. You can upgrade to producer if you like-we get advanced information about the film, some great historical information including seeing original Rand notes and one of my favorites-the Frank Lloyd Wright blueprints for a home Rand commissioned. Often the executive producers will set up chats with us, etc. We don't see ads. Hey-tell me if you see my ad. I am currently running an ad for my techno thriller Pendulum of Justice. The only ad I get here is from outside country, which I am.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                                Sorry about the "Christian" reference; I was just coming down from a heated debate with "Stargeezer" (if I remember correctly). No offense meant.

                                I am intrigued by the Frank Lloyd Wright stuff--I've always been a fan of his (though I temper that with the knowledge that most of his rooves leak like sieves). I used to work near a USONIA installation, near Ardsley, NY. I drove into the neighborhood whenever someone was having a garage sale (otherwise it was "no trespassing")

                                I don't see any ads--I'm using "Ad Blocker." I'll look it up later. Thanks.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
              I don't like contributing money to actors who oppose my agenda or with agendas of their own. See, they get money for acting, then they spend that money on advancing socialism....
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                So, if Polaha is a "deeply religious man*," is it safe to assume that he will give some of his money to his CHURCH, thereby promoting their SOCAILISTIC causes (actually, it would be "Social welfare," but what's a few definitional differences between friends?)

                * I'm going to go out on a limb and assume "deeply religious," otherwise why would they have bothered to bring it up at all?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
                  Not if he's a deeply religious Wiccan...

                  "Generosity is inborn; altruism is a learned perversity" - Robert A. Heinlein

                  Protestant Christian churches, unlike socialists, do not compel contributions or participation. The Catholic church is slightly different, but to be quite frank, I have trouble picturing Catholics as being particularly devout... "deeply religious".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -1
                    Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                    True, true, he COULD be a member of one of those churches that believes "All I have to do is profess my faith in Jesus to be forever saved" and that good works are nonsense. That would be right along with the objectivist faith. Sorry: belief system.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
      It would only be a contradiction if the producers were intentionally seeking a person of religious belief as a criterion for the role. I doubt that it was. I suspect that this was merely included as in saying that the actor is a grounded and moral human being.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -2
        Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
        Yes, of course! because Ayn Rand felt that the only way to guarantee morality was through a belief in a fictional entity!

        (Again, as I've stated: the producers are acting as if their film is Ayn's Gift To Humanity; so for them to seemingly go against one of her central philosophical tenets is...amusing)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rex_Little 11 years ago
      Nonsense. First, an actor's ability to portray a character doesn't depend on his personal beliefs lining up with the character's. Second, while atheism was an important part of Rand's philosophy, Atlas Shrugged pretty much ignores religion.

      On a side note, the most outspoken atheists I've come across are extreme leftists, and openly hostile to Objectivists and libertarians.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
        As with any profession, if he believes in what he's doing, he'll do a better job of it than if he's just trying to collect a paycheck.

        As an Objectivist, or Rand devotee, he would, I expect, be more enthusiastic about his portrayal than if it was just an acting challenge.

        Remember George C. Scott trying to portray Patton over the top, trying to make him look like a nut, because he disapproved of Patton. It was a bitter irony for him that he won the Oscar; he didn't accept it because he felt he had no competition.

        Verhoven totally destroyed the movie "Starshit Troupers" because of his hatred of the military. He could have turned down the job. He was also responsible for making the original "Robocop" almost into a dark comedy.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
        Rex,

        That's because most Objectivists treat it like a religion (in that they haven't read the books, and don't think about the deeper implications of it all that much)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years ago
          And not every person who holds objectivist views is a atheist. As much as they like to tout that point it's not supported except by themselves. "they, considering themselves among themselves discovered that they were not wise".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 11 years ago
            Being an atheist is just another collectivist category. Its a group that chooses not to deal with the individual relationship between life and death and what one should do with the value of a life in that span within the tradition of religion. So to insist that an Objectivist, a Christian, or a Thelema occult member cannot enjoy Atlas Shrugged, is just another attempt to place people within the shackles of a category centered on collectivist identity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
            http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religi...

            http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p...

            "This talk argues that only Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, provides a code of morality suitable for living successfully and happily on earth. Objectivism holds that reality is real, that reason is man's only means of knowing it and that one should act in one's own rational self-interest, with rationality being the highest virtue. Life is the objective standard of morality. In contrast, Christianity asserts that reality is governed by supernatural forces, that knowledge is based on faith and that the highest moral virtue is self-sacrifice. It will be shown that Christianity cannot be practiced consistently, destroys the integriity of man's mind, and is incompatible with living successfully and happily in the real world." (from Dr. Edwin Locke, through the Ayn rand Institute)

            Read into it what you will (while you quote Corinthians)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years ago
              Down check me as much as you desire, it does not matter or affect my faith. But, I suppose it may increase yours since you seem to have elevated AR to godhood, and I threaten to pull the cape off of superwoman by my faith.

              Do you not expect to wake up in the morning? Do you not anticipate your next heartbeat? Congratulations, you are a person of faith.

              Run around the room, waving your hands in the air and proclaim "there is no god". In the end you will be exhausted and you and I will be one moment closer to our grave and God will still be.

              I don't ask you to believe, why do you demand that I surrender my belief? A is not A with that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                Stargeezer,

                You really don't know me, and it makes you look rather foolish to act as if you do.

                I am by no means a follower of Ayn Rand or any of her extremist philosophies. I am an atheist, though. I am also NOT asking you to change your beliefs, I am merely pointing out Ayn Rand's beliefs, and the beliefs now commonly held by her acolytes.

                And there is a HUGE difference between believing that I will wake up the next morning, or that the sun will again rise, and that there is a giant, invisible, telepathic, telekinetic Sky Daddy that loves us so god-damned much that he will set fire to us forever if we fail to love him back in just the right (though still poorly defined) way. But you may continue to believe in Him if you so chose. I really could not care less. Well...unless you try to pass laws controlling ME, based on YOUR fantasy. And at least when it comes to THAT, I DO follow Ayn Rand.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
                  Why did you switch from attacking Christianity to attacking Islam and Judaism?

                  " that there is a giant, invisible, telepathic, telekinetic Sky Daddy that loves us so god-damned much that he will set fire to us forever if we fail to love him back in just the right (though still poorly defined) way."


                  It's the belief of those other two religions that God is a sadist. Per Christianity, God loves us, and therefore wants us to be saved from that whole burning ouchie stuff... but, there's that whole free will kinda thing. Being returned to the fire, metaphorically speaking, is the default position, that's all.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                    Actually, Judaism isn't much on the whole burning in hell thing. From discussions, I've found it to be much more a Christian and Muslim thing.

                    But since we never actually started out in the burning fires, I don't see how we could be "returned" there.

                    (And as an atheist, I think it's all a bunch of nonsense, anyhow)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
                      hm... I'm pretty sure I put "metaphorically speaking" in there.

                      Yes, returned to the burning fires, the forge... as one returns faulty metal to the fire so another attempt to refine and form it can be made.
                      nonono...

                      not the burning in hell, but that God wants to burn you; fearing God as a threat.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                        Well, it's ALL metaphor, to me!

                        Here's the extent of what I thought "Judaic Hell" was: Sheol

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

                        No burning.

                        Besides, isn't all that "refining in fire" more of a Buddhist or Hindu thing? Once The Christian/Muslim God casts you into the fires of Hell, He's pretty much done with you.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years ago
                  He loved us enough to send his son, one third of his own being to show us the way to truth. But don't allow me to correct your error.

                  The only one here who seems to want to pass laws controlling another person seems to be those who want to tell us of faith what where and how we can practice our faith and exercise the freedom of speech about religion that all Americans are promised. The freedom of religion that drove the founders of our nation to fight and die for. And coincidently the freedom that drove Ayn Rand to fight so hard to come to this country where she was promised as much freedom to not believe as those who do believe.

                  Any time I begin to offer a reasoned analysis of why I believe you guys come unhinged and start telling me what I believe, how I'm trying to pass laws telling you that you must go to church - nonsense. Most of which is laughably WRONG and obscenely illogical and unreasoned. I never stop learning, unlike the closed minded that plug their ears and scream when faced by a person who actually lives his convictions. A person who is quite happy to allow you to go to hell in your own way. Except every time God is mentioned here there is this chorus that begins about how Ayn was a atheist (we know that) how a person can't practice objectivist principals and be a Christian (wrong), and how there were no religious discussions in the Gulch (wrong again) and most importantly of all, you forget it was a novel! Not the book that you raise to some height of unbelievable inerrability.

                  If I did not know that you would not go so far, I'd believe that you are placing Ayn up as god and atlas shrugged as her inspired "bible". I'm pretty sure that she would be screaming at the prospect of such irrationality.

                  No I don't know you. I can't say that it would be a pleasure to cross that divide, BUT there are very few people who do know me that would ever say that I'd rise to the level of incivility that I've been subjected to on this forum over the past two days for admitting that I was a Christian. What's next, a new coliseum and Christian sacrifice with lions and Christians hung on crosses?? That's the tolerance Christians have experienced in the past at the hands of atheists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -1
                    Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                    Do you believe in passing laws that tell my grandchildren they must study Creationism in Science class?

                    I'm NOT placing Ayn Rand up as a God, nor her works as a "Bible." Quite the opposite. Try re-reading my comments from the point of view of a person who has very little patience for those that ARE trying to do just that, you'll find they (hopefully!!) start to make more sense!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years ago
                      So you assume that I'd want such a law passed? I was told far back in Basic Training what assuming anything does and it's not a good thing.

                      No, I would not.

                      However, I would demand that the tax dollars I pay each year to support a school MY grandkids don't attend, be routed to the Christian school they do attend. Got a problem with that?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -2
                        Posted by Boothby171 11 years ago
                        I didn't know if you'd want such a law passed or not. That's why I asked. Your assuming that I was assuming that you would want such a law passed (and now, it's getting silly)

                        And I DO have a problem, with you ,as a member of society, not paying for your share of that society. Do you mind if I don't pay for the interstate that runs by your house? I can't really see it doing me any good at all.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
                          that's why there are toll roads. Some infrastructure-but we have alot of people spending other people's money. that is not good. You wouldn't agree to it privately-it's not as efficient as people would like you to believe. It's then becomes this game of entitled to. I'm entitled to a hospital, I'm entitled to fire protection if I live on top of a mountain, I'm entitled to ...healthcare
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years ago
                          You didn't know? You said"unless you try to pass laws controlling ME, based on YOUR fantasy" which was a completely false accusation.

                          Now you suggest I refuse to pay gas and fuel taxes for roads and bridges - again wrong, I pay for all I receive and I pay for a lot I don't use. Those schools that teach kids all about whatever is politically correct is an example of a thing I don't benefit from, yet this year I will pay around $6000 for the local school district and around $1400 to the local Jr. College as I'm also paying $4500 for my two grandkids to get a good education in a private Christian school. I think my tax dollars should go to the school that matches my values and where my dollars would give me value in turn.

                          Keep swinging, so far you are striking out with all your "assumptions", I'm a Christian, not a ogre, but I'm not too sure about you.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
              Again, define the term "supernatural". If you mean "outside the universe" then.. well, duh. Reality is obviously governed by extra-universal forces.
              From whence did the universe come, after all... both?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo