If you think the use of the word "bastards" is "name calling" just change it to "mystics" (and then reread John Galt's speech to see what Ayn Rand really thought of the "tale as old as time.".

Thee's a huge difference between "saving" someone (frrom eminent death) on earth and saving a "soul" for eternity.

There is a helluva lot of equivication in some of the posts in this topic.

According to Jesus worshipers, man's highest potential is eternal life (in heaven) which can only be achieved by death (on earth).

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.

I need a drink. I wish Ayn Rand were alive to give these bastards a fundamental racking over the coals that only an intellect like hers could properly provide. But, I am also glad she is not here to see this nonsense. "Believe" and "rationally" are two mutually exclusive terms. You only achieve rationality if you think. Belief in the christian sense is faith and is the opposite of thought. Christians and real Objectivists (not the Open ones) do not share the same logic. Ayn Rand pointed out that knowledge is contextual which sweeps aside all pretenders.

what do mean by "import people to the point you can destroy any chance of the locals making a living..
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.

I disagree with your statement that Galt led some and sacrificed everyone else. You can only save yourself. He was not a slave to everyone else. As you see, this is an essential difference and one of the reasons why Rand rejected religion. So, if you didn't like that part of the book or the movies, r, what parts of AS did you like?

well the Christians don't see it that way. But for the sake of the dialogue, I can start from there. The Bible is after all a book written by many and different versions and....it's not divine to me, but the stories are compelling

Interesting discussion. The context of David Kotter's remarks was Rand's portrayal of John Galt. So many parallels to Jesus Christ. I think we all agree that Rand would say "Jesus is not the Ideal Man" but the parallels are uncanny. Were they intentional or incidental?

Rand would certainly deny that John Galt was a libertarian, as she wrote disparagingly about the movement at the time. However, the new wave of libertarians (as Alexander McCobin described it at the SFL conference in question) finds fuel in Rand's philosophy.

So, the Jesus/Galt analogy only holds true if Jesus is viewed as a fictional character? I can do that.

Stories are compelling. Ragnar is named after a Norse God. Rand:
"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.

The first quote of Mr Thomas is phrased with just enough lack of certainty to leave suspicion regardless of whatever he is quoted as saying thereafter. If I had some interest in hearing the Christ story, I would go to church.

This is a good discussion. I would say that Galt would use the pronoun "I" when saying..........the Kingdom is spread across the earth and men do not see it. Galt is an evolution of the Christ figure, not a model. I think this is Christianity trying to find common ground with people who have similar values. They like the message of Galt except for that whole self responsibility thing.

I do not see that Mr. Thomas said anything inconsistent with Objectivism.
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?