[Silver]

A pickup truck with a "Who is John Galt?" sticker on the back window. Right beside it was a US flag in the shape of a cross, with the words "God Bless America" around the cross.

Why isn't it legal to shoot people like that?

 

[MikeD]

Rats. I guessed wrong. But, then again, you generally don't see women even physically capable of doing what I'd guessed...

 

[Toshi]

A pickup truck with a "Who is John Galt?" sticker on the back window. Right beside it was a US flag in the shape of a cross, with the words "God Bless America" around the cross.

Why isn't it legal to shoot people like that?

ok, the flag in the shape of the cross is lame, but what's wrong with "atlas shrugged"? ayn rand was nothing but an entertaining read, what with the weird rape-fantasy episodes tossed in here and there... :biggrin:

 

[Silver]

ok, the flag in the shape of the cross is lame, but what's wrong with "atlas shrugged"? ayn rand was nothing but an entertaining read, what with the weird rape-fantasy episodes tossed in here and there... :biggrin:

You can't be a member of Rand's personality cult and a Christian unless you hold totally contradictory beliefs.

Mind you, a little rewrite...Jesus forcing Mary Magdalene to suck him off...she resists, but starts to like it, even crave it...yeah, it could work.

 

[Toshi]

You can't be a member of Rand's personality cult and a Christian unless you hold totally contradictory beliefs.

i thought the only truly mutually exclusive things were being an objectivist and a social worker :biggrin:

 

[Silver]

i thought the only truly mutually exclusive things were being an objectivist and a social worker :biggrin:

And what do you think Jesus was supposed to be? :biggrin:

Ayn Rand wouldn't have fed thousands of people fish...she would have let them starve so that their ego would not have to suffer the pain of having a communist feed them.

 

[Toshi]

ah, but in the story (the bible, that is) jesus did what he did because he was capable of it, not because he was a simpering fool who had no sense of self <-- or insert proper characterization of "da baddies" as you wish. altruism and doing acts that benefit others, such as keeping rearden metals or the railroads open, are not one and the same.

 

[Silver]

ah, but in the story (the bible, that is) jesus did what he did because he was capable of it, not because he was a simpering fool who had no sense of self <-- or insert proper characterization of "da baddies" as you wish. altruism and doing acts that benefit others, such as keeping rearden metals or the railroads open, are not one and the same.

You're forgetting that in Ayn Rand's world, there is no altruism, only self-interest. So, maybe Jesus fed people for good PR?

 

[kidwoo]

A pickup truck with a "Who is John Galt?" sticker on the back window. Right beside it was a US flag in the shape of a cross, with the words "God Bless America" around the cross.

Why isn't it legal to shoot people like that?

While contradictory...........both evident of some rattling in the empty space upstairs.

Beneath the immediate surface, no real conflict really.

Summed up in "what I done read sounds real smrt"

 

[Silver]

While contradictory...........both evident of some rattling in the empty space upstairs.

Beneath the immediate surface, no real conflict really.

Summed up in "what I done read sounds real smrt"

I think Robert Heinlein (crazy ass sci-fi writer) summed it up nicely: He said something to the effect of, "If you can believe in the Trinity and still maintain that you are a monotheist, you can believe anything."

 

[MMike]

Did you chase him down and answer his question about John Galt?

 

[kidwoo]

I think Robert Heinlein (crazy ass sci-fi writer) summed it up nicely: He said something to the effect of, "If you can believe in the Trinity and still maintain that you are a monotheist, you can believe anything."

Reading atlas shrugged is kind of like reading the bible though......bunch of repetative high brow crap designed to influence the reader through the autor's untouchable infallibility.

 

[MMike]

Reading atlas shrugged is kind of like reading the bible though......bunch of repetative high brow crap designed to influence the reader through the autor's untouchable infallibility.

Oooooohhhhhh! I like the sound of that! Sign me up!

 

[JRogers]

Reading atlas shrugged is kind of like reading the bible though......bunch of repetative high brow crap designed to influence the reader through the autor's untouchable infallibility.

I have not read Atlas Shrugged, but I think that is a grossly inaccurate characterization of the Bible if it is read without consideration of current doctrinal beliefs of some groups. Have you ever seriously read the Bible?

 

[kidwoo]

I have not read Atlas Shrugged, but I think that is a grossly inaccurate characterization of the Bible if it is read without consideration of current doctrinal beliefs of some groups. Have you ever seriously read the Bible?

I had no choice. Mandatory theology classes in my HS.
But reading it "without consideration of current doctrinal beliefs" is the only way to read it......because it was written kind of a long time ago eh? Most of my convictions about it come from looking at it in and of itself, regardless of present day notions..... (except for the translation part, not much I can do about that without learning some languages)

But I stand by my statement.......
Why is the bible worth reading if not for its undeniable truth as the word of god?

Aynn Rand kind of writes the same way. Truth be told, I'd rather read the bible.

 

[Silver]

Why is the bible worth reading if not for its undeniable truth as the word of god?

Because you get a woody when you read about Lot and his sexy daughters...

 

[kidwoo]

Because you get a woody when you read about Lot and his sexy daughters...

Yeah but it's that much better because it's divine naughty.


Naughty that endures the ages as part of the good news trumps Juggs&#8482; any day of the week.

 

[JRogers]

I had no choice. Mandatory theology classes in my HS.
But reading it "without consideration of current doctrinal beliefs" is the only way to read it......because it was written kind of a long time ago eh? Most of my convictions about it come from looking at it in and of itself, regardless of present day notions..... (except for the translation part, not much I can do about that without learning some languages)

But I stand by my statement.......
Why is the bible worth reading if not for its undeniable truth as the word of god?

Aynn Rand kind of writes the same way. Truth be told, I'd rather read the bible.

Most people today read the Bible with consideration of later doctrinal developments because they have been so pounded into people's minds. No document more blurs the lines between the text and what has developed around it.

There are many reasons to read the Bible even if it is not seen as the word of god. (First, there is the point that many Christian groups dispute your characterization- they do not see the Bible as the indisputable word of god). Why read any work of history or literature? Or the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran for that matter? To get a new perspective, to see new ideas, to gain some insight into a past culture or the human experience- there are innumerable reasons.

The Bible has the double point of still being highly significant today. Whether you agree with religious groups or not on anything, their significance is undeniable. The situation is not helped at all by a refusal to believe that examining the texts considered authoritative by these groups is worthwhile. That leads to more misunderstanding and more division.

In any case, I doubt anyone could read the Song of Solomon and just think the whole time "man, I might be getting something out of this if I accepted this as the word of god"- metaphor (which the Song of Solomon is) or not.

I am not advocating religion here- not even close- just the study of its texts and ideas. I read the Bible sometimes and have studied it much more than most. I've learned a lot of things from it, just like I have from reading Herodotus or Ernest Becker or any other collection of writings.

Part of the difficulty is translation. I am surprised both by the persistence of antiquated translations with stilted and now-obscure language as well as the number of modern translations with inaccurate English colloquialisms and the subtle inclusion of more recent doctrinal developments in the translated text.

As a final note: teaching it in high school? Now that, as we all know, is a sure fire way to wreck almost anything worth reading.

 

[MMike]

The bible is too preachy....

 

[kidwoo]

As a final note: teaching it in high school? Now that, as we all know, is a sure fire way to wreck almost anything worth reading.

Nah, high school introduced me to a whole host of great writers who I still appreciate. Believe it or not I was entrhalled with Aynn Rand at one point due to reading the Fountainhead in an AP English class. Approaching it, and her other books as an adult, not so much. But my feelings about the bible have aboslutely nothing to do with the fact that we studied it some depth in an academic setting.

It's a work of fables collected to institute a social structure through spiritual means. It's certainly not unique and it's certainly not any more deserving of validity than other works that attempt to do the same. Knowing what I do about myself and the human condition in that looking for answers and meaning to the question of our existence, it serves the same purpose as its counterparts. That's why it exists and that's why it endures. Your statement about it's study, devoid of current surrounding structures is kind of a catch 22 (read in HS . In my mind it's only the relevance of those institutions that even give the work the illusion of inflated relevance.

As a work of literature, it's messy, inconsistent and just plain difficult to read. As a work of history, it's too muddled with emotion, metaphor and an obvious purpose (one which is not to educate in fact, but rather appeal to the voids in human life).......not to mention to what I alluded before about current editions being so revamped by translators and past institutions of religious power, that I have no clue what's authors truly created.

The situation is not helped at all by a refusal to believe that examining the texts considered authoritative by these groups is worthwhile. That leads to more misunderstanding and more division.

Do we need to give the same weight to the book of mormon, Dianetics, The Koran and (wait for it)......Atlas Shrugged? There's a common thread through all of these works that serves the same end with only slight variations in execution and purpose. But like I said before, the only reason I even know about these works is because each has created a devout following proclaiming their greatness. That doesn't mean I consider them great. It also doesn't mean I've simply dismissed them without any investigation. (Okay, I've never read Dianetics but I will someday)

But I have to honest here, I suspect I'll assume the same position once I do read Dianetics......It's author(s) had a definitive purpose and made a convincing argument to many.....but not me..... But yes, I can only reach that supposition by approaching it on a personal level with the associated constructs out of the equation.

It's also completely valid to review something and come away with the following opinion:

"It's not that interesting"