You are using the word "save" with two entirely different meanings of the word LIFE.

Eternal life is actually eternal death.

Not to disagree on principle, but I would use the expression "men versus man."

Please quote the post in which I used the term "Christian mystics."

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.

nope. From your very first post I knew you did not philosophically agree with Objectivism.
The speeches and trials are the philosophical part of the novels!

(degrade)

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 seem to really dislike Objectivism, Objectivists and Ayn Rand. Why would you waste time here?

This is an odd discussion on a usually rational forum. I find the most important point to be that I want to have a large philosophical umbrella under which Christians are welcome, as long as they believe in individual freedom and dignity, and the power of honest competition to energize society and advance technology (which in turn improves human condition). There is nothing that I know of in Christian philosophy that precludes a positive environment whilst still alive - and since that is what matters to me, we are in accord there.

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

Of course I meant Industrial Revolution in my last post.

I hope we can keep religion out of this movie.

Libertarians accepting Ayn does not change the fact that she did not accept them and her hero was not one of them.

And I don't think even AA (which insists that individual "recovey" depends on God) equaltes sobriety with salvation.

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.

It's about religion in general. No one is calling you evil-though you have been quite gleefully happy to attack Rand, her novels and her philosophy viciously and still hang out in here. hmmm....

If I found an article on that topic, maybe...

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).