Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

Guy Incognito said:

The "red letters" are the Jesus words. He did have a hand in it, you know.

And you are frankly wrong in your assessment of Scientology. Hubbard never "glossed over" anything.

They have nothing to do with each other. One is the founder of a philosophy, the other is the prophet of religion. When a person bashes Hubbard and Scientology, it is no better than the ignorant, hateful people who bash Muhammed and Islam.

You see an "interesting connection" where the only connection is you prejudice against these two completely disparate things. The only connection is that you happen to not like them.

Click to expand...

No. Red letters mean he is directly attributed to saying it, not writing it.

You can't say the same about the authors of the Bible because #1 Way to many of em, lol. #2 The Bible is assembled from many other writings. It was literally not written, but built.

Scientology is a scam to make money, that's it. It was created by a science fiction writer for the sole purpose of making money.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." - L Ron Hubbard

PrometheusBound said:

How can you advocate "do it on your own" and still accept unearned and dependent birth privileges such as inheritance, trust funds, and living off a large allowance in college?

Click to expand...

I can accept them because I don't demand "do it on your own". There is room enough for all in this society. I cannot, however, accept "do it our way or else".

Guy Incognito said:

The "red letters" are the Jesus words. He did have a hand in it, you know.

Click to expand...

They are the parts that the author's have attributed to Jesus. Even if I quoted you in a book, it wouldn't make you a co-author of that book. Jesus did not write the Bible. If you think he did, you are incorrect. That's not even a debatable issue. Not one word of the bible was written by Jesus.

Now, he may or may not have spoken some of the words that are in the bible, but that depends on how accurate the authors' were in their depiction. Considering that modern biblical scholars believe that most, if not all, of the New Testament authors never even met Jesus, it's perfectly reasonable to note that the accuracy of those quotes is definitely up for debate.

In any case, it's absolute nonsense to claim that Jesus wrote the New Testament. At best, it is an accurate biography of him written decades after he died. At worst, it's an inaccurate, nearly fictional, biography. One thing it definitely ain't is an autobiography.

And you are frankly wrong in your assessment of Scientology. Hubbard never "glossed over" anything.

Click to expand...

He definitely glossed over the absurdity and illogical nature of it. All religions do that. :shrug:

They have nothing to do with each other. One is the founder of a philosophy, the other is the prophet of religion. When a person bashes Hubbard and Scientology, it is no better than the ignorant, hateful people who bash Muhammed and Islam.

Click to expand...

Religions are a specific type of philosophy. They just incorporate a supernatural/faith component into them. They don't deserve any more or less consideration than any other philosophical view as far as criticisms go.

The only connection is that you happen to not like them.

Click to expand...

Where on Earth did you come up with that utterly fictional conclusion?

I'm actually quite neutral on both of them as far as "liking" or "disliking" goes. Like the vast majority of philosophies, they have both positive and negative aspects.

Blackdog said:

No. Red letters mean he is directly attributed to saying it, not writing it.

Click to expand...

Retread that post carefully and you will see that nowhere did I say that Jesus wrote anything. Please do try try to have some clue what you are talking about prior to shooting you mouth off.

Guy Incognito said:

Retread that post carefully and you will see that nowhere did I say that Jesus wrote anything. Please do try try to have some clue what you are talking about prior to shooting you mouth off.

Click to expand...

You said he had a hand in it, which could only be true if he wrote it. You were responding ot a point where it was clear to all but the intellectually dishonest that authorship was being discussed, which confirms the implication from "he had a hand in it". BD also made sure to say "attributed" to him instead of "said by him", which allows for the possibility of a misquote from those authors.

Please do try to have some clue what your words actually mean before saying them.

PrometheusBound said:

But it's not about uneven distribution, it's about not distributing enough to people with talent. The wage gap that I am most against is the typical distribution where an inventor got a $30,000 bonus and his corporate Masters got $300,000,000 for the patent that wouldn't have existed without him. Just like the workers, the investors were only secondary factors in creating that wealth. The Investor Inferiority objective of homo erectus is achieved if this point is ignored and opposition to Rand is only focused on giving lower-class moochers more of the wealth created by homo sapiens.

Click to expand...

In one of her many internal contradictions, Rand has no problem with inherited wealth. Her pathetic attempt to rationalize it was that the character of a man determines success, regardless of inherited wealth or other unearned advantages. This is an attempt to counter a valid criticism of Randianism by appeal to practical results. She claims that in practice, those who are unworthy of wealth will squander it and and those who are worthy would succeed with or without inherited wealth, so will all balance out in favor of try deserving egoist a. This is of course probably false by observation of reality, and also internally contradictory, as elsewhere Rand bemoans elite "second handsets" who somehow manage to coast onthe success of heroic egotists despite her assertion that this is impossible.

Presuming it was dictated and accurately recorded, he wrote it. Who wrote the Koran?

As a general statement to those who are trying to drag this debate off topic with pointless posts containing nothing but trolling, Tucker being chiefest among those responsible for such tangential trolling posts, I won't be sinking to your level and responding any further. Keep the debate on topic, which is Rand, Hubbard, and any purported relationship betwee their teachings. Cluttering up this thread with posts full of trolling, blathering personal attack posts is unwelcome.

We will NOT be dragged down by hooligans!

ecofarm said:

Presuming it was dictated and accurately recorded, he wrote it.

Click to expand...

The New Testament is not considered by anyone to have been dictated by Jesus, though. Jesus is merely quoted in it. There is a ton of text in there that definitely did not originate with the man that was Jesus. At best, the legends state that the non-red words contained in the new testament were inspired by god, but not dictated by him.

Who wrote the Koran?

Click to expand...

That one's a little different because the legend associated with that text is that Mohammad was recording the dictations of God. I believe Mohammad wrote the Koran, but those who believe in that legend will assume that the text contained within that book did originate with God, thus they would feel that God wrote that text.

Jesus didn't have anything to do with the creation of the bible, at least whilst he lived. Allegedly, he could walk on water, turn water into wine, raise the dead, and turn a few scraps of food into a bounty that can fed hundreds, so it only follows that he could have simply snapped his fingers and written a book himself had he really wanted one to exist. That same logic is why I disbelieve the Mohammad legend. If you can create an entire universe from scratch, you certainly don't need a ghost writer/secretary for your autobiography.

I understand the New Testament. But, Mohammad couldn't write. So now you're telling me that a guy who was incapable of writing actually wrote something. I thought words mattered.

Guy Incognito said:

As a general statement to those who are trying to drag this debate off topic with pointless posts containing nothing but trolling, Tucker being chiefest among those responsible for such tangential trolling posts, I won't be sinking to your level and responding any further. Keep the debate on topic, which is Rand, Hubbard, and any purported relationship betwee their teachings. Cluttering up this thread with posts full of trolling, blathering personal attack posts is unwelcome.

Click to expand...

:rofl

Right. I'm the problem because I made an on-topic comment about the OP and you came in and responded to my on-topic point in a way that triggered teh tangential line of discussion.

Saying I'm the problem here is honestly the dumbest thing I have ever seen you say. :lol:

ecofarm said:

I understand the New Testament. But, Mohammad couldn't write. So now you're telling me that a guy who was incapable of writing actually wrote something. I thought words mattered.

Click to expand...

Who said Mohammad couldn't write?

Tucker Case said:

Who said Mohammad couldn't write?

Click to expand...

Dude couldn't/didn't write. He just went around saying the Koran over and over, and other people wrote it down. That's the story I heard.

I think your description of the NT leaves much to be desired as well, but this is the more interesting point.

ecofarm said:

Machiavelli did it better. And, of course, Nietzsche. And Dostoyevsky.

But Anthem is not bad.

Click to expand...

In Anthem, people were forbidden to use I, just as today the femininnies forbid us to use he for "he or she" and demand that we use the collectivist they when referring to a singular. More obviously, we are forbidden to use you in the sense of talking back to authorities. For example, in response to "To get a good job, get a good education" we are tamed out of saying "Who are you to tell me? I say to you, if you want talented people in our good jobs, pay us up front to learn what you need, because you are just welfare dependents on the wealth we create for you." Too much today, we hear "they" as some command from God, as in "they want us to do this" especially the commandments coming from Rand's plutocrat heroes. She would only allow us to use I in defiance of the government, but wouldn't allow self-interest against the overreaching self-indulgence of the rich.

Guy Incognito said:

Retread that post carefully and you will see that nowhere did I say that Jesus wrote anything. Please do try try to have some clue what you are talking about prior to shooting you mouth off.

Click to expand...

Tucker, pretty much covered it already. He had no hand in the Bible at all, none. He was gone 50 to 100 years before even 1 word of the books in the NT had been written.

As for the clue part. I am not perfect and often make mistakes. In this case however, I am correct.

You mite want to take your own advise bud.

ecofarm said:

Dude couldn't/didn't write. He just went around saying the Koran over and over, and other people wrote it down. That's the story I heard.

Click to expand...

Ah, I did not know that. If it was accurately recorded and he dictated it, then he'd be the author. If it wasn't accurately written down, then he's the inspiration and not the author.

I think your description of the NT leaves much to be desired as well, but this is the more interesting point

Click to expand...

What is it that you don't like about my description?

Tucker Case said:

Ah, I did not know that. If it was accurately recorded and he dictated it, then he'd be the author. If it wasn't accurately written down, then he's the inspiration and not the author.

Click to expand...

Same as the Bible (to Christians).

What is it that you don't like about my description?

Click to expand...

No recognition of the trinity (I was gonna leave trilogy cause that's funny but it ain't proper).

Guy Incognito said:

In one of her many internal contradictions, Rand has no problem with inherited wealth. Her pathetic attempt to rationalize it was that the character of a man determines success, regardless of inherited wealth or other unearned advantages. This is an attempt to counter a valid criticism of Randianism by appeal to practical results. She claims that in practice, those who are unworthy of wealth will squander it and and those who are worthy would succeed with or without inherited wealth, so will all balance out in favor of try deserving egoist a. This is of course probably false by observation of reality, and also internally contradictory, as elsewhere Rand bemoans elite "second handsets" who somehow manage to coast onthe success of heroic egotists despite her assertion that this is impossible.

Click to expand...

Also, the heirs have to be wasteful far beyond what would hurt an unprivileged person before they suffer any consequences. And they have to be competent far below the level an unprivileged person has to reach to get anywhere. Notice too that all her socialists are heirs. Without aristocracy, no communism. The reason for that is its birth-privileged leaders have a "born to rule" attitude.

ecofarm said:

Same as the Bible (to Christians).

Click to expand...

Not quite. Jesus didn't dictate the bible. Jesus was definitely the inspiration for the bible, there's no debate about that. Authorship would require it to be dictated directly and accurately recorded, though.

No recognition of the trinity (I was gonna leave trilogy cause that's funny but it ain't proper).

Click to expand...

I didn't mention that interpretation of the bible because it's clearly an interpretation, not something expressly stated in the text, and thus up for a whole different debate. If it wasn't an interpretation, Unitarians wouldn't exist in opposition to Trinitarians.

Now, I do believe that I did mention the possibility of it being the inspired word of God, though, which is an allusion to trinitarian beliefs without being expressly stated as a trinitarian view.

But there's no claim that I know of that it was dictated by god in order to be accurately recorded by the authors, though. I also feel that the bible doesn't imply that the holy spirit being within the person writing the bible = dictation of the bible by god, nor am I aware of any argument that claim such. Only that the word was inspired and inerrant, which is different from direct dictation.

Tucker Case said:

Ah, I did not know that. If it was accurately recorded and he dictated it, then he'd be the author. If it wasn't accurately written down, then he's the inspiration and not the author.

Click to expand...

According to the story, Mohammed's followers memorized his teachings while Mohammed was alive and after his death, they were worried about the teachings being lost as the followers started to die so they wrote it down. It's anyone's guess how accurate the writings actually are or if anyone took any artistic license.

Cephus said:

According to the story, Mohammed's followers memorized his teachings while Mohammed was alive and after his death, they were worried about the teachings being lost as the followers started to die so they wrote it down. It's anyone's guess how accurate the writings actually are or if anyone took any artistic license.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected on that twice, then.

Tucker Case said:

Not quite. Jesus didn't dictate the bible. Jesus was definitely the inspiration for the bible, there's no debate about that. Authorship would require it to be dictated directly and accurately recorded, though.

Click to expand...

4 Books by 4 different point of views telling the same story pretty much authenticates the story.

Even the tossed aside coptic stories have the exact same quotes.

Why is this being talked about in an Ayn Rand topic?

Matt Foley said:

4 Books by 4 different point of views telling the same story pretty much authenticates the story.

Click to expand...

Wow, would be great if that was true, it's just 4 books by 4 anonymous authors that contain massive contradictions.

Your really picking nits to say Divinely Inspired isn't very, very, very similar to directly dictated after you through in impossible to be wrong, flawed or even inaccurate.

I'm sure a college debate course run by a very learned man has a heaping helping of differences between the two, this old boy can't see a curling hairs gap between the two.

Both carry the same spiritual weigth as far as the public is concerned.

Back to Rand, her 'philosophy is a cover for how a person LIVED his life and the choices he made rather than a blueprint to follow. In a work of fiction a few can hold this 'philosophy' and be written to succeed. Life however seldom follows your script.

Most success is a result of teamwork as no one person can do it all, all by himself. It is a tad bit humorous those born into multigenerational wealth, priviledge, and power are some of the loudest for self reliance and every man for himself. Imagine that, those with a headstart go on and on about everyman for himself, no taxes, and end all 'death taxes'.

Used to be there was such a thing as team work, self sacrifice. WWII wasn't won without many teams. Those at the front on in the bombers. Those keeping the supplies as forward as possible, those back home who bought bonds and built the ships, planes and tanks.

This Randyism is all about me getting mine, devil take the rest. Dress it up in 3 dollar words, it is still just cutthroat capitalism as practiced by entitled, good old boys who would be the first to scream they are too big to fail if things go south for them. It would take a work of fiction to have everyone mass brainwashed to just take care of themselves,(if whatever vague limits you set this week), and denies centuries of real world evolution of thought and deed. We are at our best as a society when we work together, cooperate not draw hard lines.

Going back to ancient Greece and denying centuries of philosophy is like going back to medieval bumpersticker philosophy. Greece was a base for our modern thought, not the penthouse.