• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

Agree of Disagree ...discuss?

  • Total voters
    52
Cephus said:
Wow, would be great if that was true, it's just 4 books by 4 anonymous authors that contain massive contradictions.
Click to expand...

I'm atheist and I disagree. Having studided the Bible, I find objections of "contradictions" to be sophmoric and ignorant of significant Bible motifs. But we should get back on topic.
 
Matt Foley said:
4 Books by 4 different point of views telling the same story pretty much authenticates the story.
Click to expand...

So if I, and two other people, read the Great Gatsby and rewrote it in a very similar, but not exact fashion, would that authenticate the Great Gatsby?

Even the tossed aside coptic stories have the exact same quotes.
Click to expand...

Even if Jesus is quoted accurately in the text, it wouldn't mean that everything said in the bible about him is true, nor does it mean he would have agreed with everything they said.


Why is this being talked about in an Ayn Rand topic?
Click to expand...

Is this topic simply about Ayn Rand? I thought it was about Rand and Hubbard using fiction to promote their ideologies. Anyway, this particular line of discussion (or at least my part in it) started when Guy Incongito brought it up as a rebuttal to my point about Hubbard and Rand being similar in their use of fiction to promote their various philosophical views.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm atheist and I disagree. Having studided the Bible, I find objections of "contradictions" to be sophmoric and ignorant of significant Bible motifs. But we should get back on topic.
Click to expand...

Hey, a true atheist. What a rare sight.
 
Matt Foley said:
You Godhaters are assuming they collaborated.
Click to expand...

:lol: Godhaters.

Where did I assume that they collaborated? You realize that the three people re-writing the great gatsby wouldn't need to collaborate in my analogy.

The problem is that you assume anyone pointing out a logical possibility is a "godhater®" instead of being rational and acknowledging accurate points that don't coincide with your illogical beliefs.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not referring to the belief in God right there when I say illogical beliefs. I'm referring to the belief that since there were four authors who wrote similar things, it means that the story is definitely true. That's illogical. My point about the Great Gatsby illustrates it. I don't think believing in god is an illogical belief, though. Just thought I'd clarify that before you jumped to yet another illogical conclusion.
 
Tucker Case said:
:lol: Godhaters.
Click to expand...

Yeah Godhaters. True atheists like ecofarm over here don't obsess over God like you guys do.

True Atheists are all, "Like whatever."

Godhaters are all, "****ING CHRISTIANS! YOU MORONS!"

Also, a true Atheist would recognize the literary value of a matter-of-fact 2,000 year old story in a sea of strange barely recognizable classical/Roman prose/fable.
 
Last edited:
Matt Foley said:
Yeah Godhaters. True atheists like ecofarm over here don't obsess over God like you guys do.

True Atheists are all, "Like whatever."

Godhaters are all, "****ING CHRISTIANS! YOU MORONS!"
Click to expand...

As a True Atheist™, I feel it my duty to say that when atheists do this, it's nearly always within the context of Christians enforcing legislative policy that affects them, and which is based solely on their interpretation of the bible. The True Atheist™ rarely cares when Christians practice their faith in a way that does not infringe on the freedoms of others. When this occurs the resulting reaction really does become "Like whatever."

Matt Foley said:
Also, a true Atheist would recognize the literary value of a matter-of-fact 2,000 year old story in a sea of strange barely recognizable classical/Roman prose/fable.
Click to expand...

What a bizarre statement. What does this even mean?
 
Last edited:
Matt Foley said:
Yeah Godhaters. True atheists like ecofarm over here don't obsess over God like you guys do.

True Atheists are all, "Like whatever."

Godhaters are all, "****ING CHRISTIANS! YOU MORONS!"

Also, a true Atheist would recognize the literary value of a matter-of-fact 2,000 year old story in a sea of strange barely recognizable classical/Roman prose/fable.
Click to expand...

Nice victim-mentality conspiracy theory. Irrational as all hell, but nice nonetheless.
 
Cephus said:
Makes about as much sense as whining about "leprechaun-haters".
Click to expand...

What I find odd about it is that I get labelled as such for accurately pointing out a flaw in his logic, not for actually saying anything derogatory about God.
 
Tucker Case said:
What I find odd about it is that I get labelled as such for accurately pointing out a flaw in his logic, not for actually saying anything derogatory about God.
Click to expand...

You gotta admit though, some of the posters here take every opportunity to attack those who are religious as weak minded etc constantly. Why is it so important for the same one's to do it over and over? To be honest I think they are projecting or scared. I mean really it's silly. I am very smart and worship God. I have money and a great life etc. Sort puts a damper on the haters of which you are not Tucker.

In fact you did not really point out a flaw, it's a fact. As far as we know it was meant to be that way, lol.
 
Blackdog said:
You gotta admit though, some of the posters here take every opportunity to attack those who are religious as weak minded etc constantly. Why is it so important for the same one's to do it over and over? To be honest I think they are projecting or scared. I mean really it's silly. I am very smart and worship God. I have money and a great life etc. Sort puts a damper on the haters of which you are not Tucker.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I've often gone after people for doing it, too, as you know. :lol:

But there's also the flip side of people who take every opportunity to attack anyone who doesn't treat the bible as though it actually is the inspired inerrant word of God as godhaters®, as we see in this thread.

I enjoy being able to discuss religious philosophy with people like you and goshin because you can offer me intelligent, well-thought out insights into your beliefs, which I lack, while being confident enough in your own beliefs to field my questions and points without assuming I am trying to convert you to atheism.


In fact you did not really point out a flaw, it's a fact. As far as we know it was meant to be that way, lol.
Click to expand...

True enough. If there is a god, I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think I'd be able to comprehend his line of reasoning. Which is saying something because I can be pretty ****ing arrogant :lol:
 
Tucker Case said:
What I find odd about it is that I get labelled as such for accurately pointing out a flaw in his logic, not for actually saying anything derogatory about God.
Click to expand...

As far as they're concerned, suggesting in any way that God might not exist is a personal insult of the highest order. However, if there was someone that believed in leprechauns and we did the exact same thing, just substituting the word "leprechaun" for the word "God", they wouldn't have a problem with it in the world.
 
Cephus said:
As far as they're concerned, suggesting in any way that God might not exist is a personal insult of the highest order. However, if there was someone that believed in leprechauns and we did the exact same thing, just substituting the word "leprechaun" for the word "God", they wouldn't have a problem with it in the world.
Click to expand...

It is not your trying to say God does not exist that is a problem. The problem is people like yourself making it insulting. Sometimes I don't even think they are trying to be. Just no sense of of being tactful for anything other then there own world view. For example...

Saying Christian belief amounts to worshiping leprechauns. Leprechauns are a known work of fiction with no historical value etc. How do you expect a Christian to take that? Of course the same goes to those that get all bent out of shape by someone saying they don't believe.

So if you respect my views, I will respect yours. Otherwise it just who can insult who and nothing is accomplished.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Absolutely. I've often gone after people for doing it, too, as you know. :lol:

But there's also the flip side of people who take every opportunity to attack anyone who doesn't treat the bible as though it actually is the inspired inerrant word of God as godhaters®, as we see in this thread.

I enjoy being able to discuss religious philosophy with people like you and goshin because you can offer me intelligent, well-thought out insights into your beliefs, which I lack, while being confident enough in your own beliefs to field my questions and points without assuming I am trying to convert you to atheism.




True enough. If there is a god, I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think I'd be able to comprehend his line of reasoning. Which is saying something because I can be pretty ****ing arrogant :lol:
Click to expand...

Hey you stole my line! Of course you are correct. Nothing to add here.
 
Cephus said:
As far as they're concerned, suggesting in any way that God might not exist is a personal insult of the highest order. However, if there was someone that believed in leprechauns and we did the exact same thing, just substituting the word "leprechaun" for the word "God", they wouldn't have a problem with it in the world.
Click to expand...

While you are right that some people consider the mere suggestion that god might not exist as a personal insult, the problem here is that your delivery of that accurate message is often clouded by the fact that your approach belittles the belief in God by comparing it to a belief in leprechauns.

A less belittling comparison would be to use something like ghosts. The same person who calls me a Godhater® for pointing out the possibility that God might not exist or the bible might not be accurate would probably find it absurd to call me a ghost hater for the same thing, but wouldn't find the comparison of God's existence to the existence of ghosts to be as derogatory.

O, if you are dealing with a mega fire and brimstone bloke, point out that the possibility of Satan not existing and by virtue of their Godhater® logic, it means you are also a Satanhater®, and therefore a good christian. That one would be a more entertaining approach to the flawed logic, actually.

In both cases you accomplish the same results without unnecessarily causing any other believer who sees the exchange to feel as though they've been insulted.

Whenever the delivery of a message creates a reaction in people that overshadows the message itself, the delivery is a bad one.
 
Tucker Case said:
So if I, and two other people, read the Great Gatsby and rewrote it in a very similar, but not exact fashion, would that authenticate the Great Gatsby?
Click to expand...

Know why the gospels are written differently?

Matthew wrote to the Jews and was primarily concerned with illustrating the fulfillment of OT messianic prophesy in Jesus.

Mark wrote to the Romans and emphesized actions over words. He often uses the words 'immediately', 'soon after', 'right away' and such to give the piece a fast-moving tone. He concentrated on Jesus' actions more than words.

Luke was a physician and wrote to the Greeks. He emphesized logic and reason, and he supplied supporting details (through research) that are not found in the other gospels.

John's primary concern was proving the divinity of Jesus, and so his gospel is not so much a variation directed at a particular audience as it is a different macro-focus.



Just sayin'
 
ecofarm said:
Know why the gospels are written differently?

Matthew wrote to the Jews and was primarily concerned with illustrating the fulfillment of OT messianic prophesy in Jesus.

Mark wrote to the Romans and emphesized actions over words. He often uses the words 'immediately', 'soon after', 'right away' and such to give the piece a fast-moving tone. He concentrated on Jesus' actions more than words.

Luke was a physician and wrote to the Greeks. He emphesized logic and reason, and he supplied supporting details (through research) that are not found in the other gospels.

John's primary concern was proving the divinity of Jesus, and so his gospel is not so much a variation directed at a particular audience as it is a different macro-focus.



Just sayin'
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I never knew that.

It explains why I tend to find Luke and Mark more interesting than Mathew and John, though.
 
ecofarm said:
Know why the gospels are written differently?

Matthew wrote to the Jews and was primarily concerned with illustrating the fulfillment of OT messianic prophesy in Jesus.

Mark wrote to the Romans and emphesized actions over words. He often uses the words 'immediately', 'soon after', 'right away' and such to give the piece a fast-moving tone. He concentrated on Jesus' actions more than words.

Luke was a physician and wrote to the Greeks. He emphesized logic and reason, and he supplied supporting details (through research) that are not found in the other gospels.

John's primary concern was proving the divinity of Jesus, and so his gospel is not so much a variation directed at a particular audience as it is a different macro-focus.



Just sayin'
Click to expand...


Just sayin' my ass, you are dead on. I mean we have no way of being 100% sure, but most biblical scholars agree this is most likely the case, but not Tucker, lol. Pun intended.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Just sayin' my ass, you are dead on. I mean we have no way of being 100% sure, but most biblical scholars agree this is most likely the case, but not Tucker, lol. Pun intended.
Click to expand...

It makes a lot of sense when you think about the styles involved.

To me, that implies that there is some chance that they were all working from an unknown pre-existing text which they then tailored to fit a specific target demographic. That would explain the similarities with the red bits (since one would assume a direct quote would have to have already been written down somewhere in order to be accurately quoted by four different people, in four different places, at four different times).
 
Matthew wrote his gospel first, and the others most surely had access to his writing. Paul wrote his epistles before the gospels were written (and the apostles clearly had access to Paul's writing, as specified by Peter), with the possible exception of Matthew. John was the last to write, completing 'revelations' at ~100ad.

We might also note that Mark was a boy when Jesus lived. Likely, he is the young man who fled without his robe at Jesus' arrest in the book of Mark, as this detail is omitted from the other gospels and fits Mark's age and spiritual conviction at the time of the arrest. It is probable that the accounts of Jesus in Mark's gospel were dictated by Peter, as Mark served as sort of a translator for the early church and assisted Paul in his writings (having travelled with Paul and Barnabas, and having been specifically requested to visit Paul in Rome). After an argument following Paul's first missionary journey and report to Jerusalem, Paul took Silas on his second missionary journey to Asia Minor and Barbabas took Mark to Cyprus. IIRC, Mark is related to Barnabas.
 
Tucker Case said:
It makes a lot of sense when you think about the styles involved.

To me, that implies that there is some chance that they were all working from an unknown pre-existing text which they then tailored to fit a specific target demographic. That would explain the similarities with the red bits (since one would assume a direct quote would have to have already been written down somewhere in order to be accurately quoted by four different people, in four different places, at four different times).
Click to expand...

Well here is my perspective...

We know how inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be. What is amazing, even the slight differences of people etc in the Gospels, you still end up and the same place story wise.

That is pretty amazing to me. I also enjoy the different perspectives as I am sure many others do as well.
 
ecofarm said:
We will NOT be dragged down by hooligans!
Click to expand...

We have been dragged down by hooligans (Tucker, I'm lookin' at you), but at least we got a Bible study lesson.

Back to Rand, Hubbard, Nietzsche and Machiavelli? What about the anti-venom, 'Crime and Punishment' (Dostoevsky) and 'Master and Man' (Tolstoy)?


ps. No one even noticed that I wrote Trotsky instead of Tolstoy (earlier), in reference to short stories. Buncha illiterate bastards.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom