Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[PDS]

I actually have a great deal of experience in this area. Been doing it for a while. (The usual Jonathan dishonesty.)

No, you don't have "a great deal of experience," Phil. You have a little bit of low-level experience. You've organized some university clubs and you've given some presentations at TAS seminars. You have nowhere near the experience or qualifications to advise the individuals and organizations that you presume to advise.

You're an old, small-time washout who thinks that his having seen some of the workings of the church as an altar boy and as a lay reader of occasional sermons qualifies him to advise the Vatican on strategy.

J

Now we have two different arguments from authority arguing about which is right: I am an authority and you are not an authority.

The real problem is that the philosophy itself is not an authority so right as all it needs is proper presentation then it's like water flowing down the river of righteousness into the ocean of falsehood transmogrified into the ocean of truth. A moral-intellectual catalyst, if you will.

--Brant

Metaphor fail, I am afraid.

[Brant Gaede]

I actually have a great deal of experience in this area. Been doing it for a while. (The usual Jonathan dishonesty.)

No, you don't have "a great deal of experience," Phil. You have a little bit of low-level experience. You've organized some university clubs and you've given some presentations at TAS seminars. You have nowhere near the experience or qualifications to advise the individuals and organizations that you presume to advise.

You're an old, small-time washout who thinks that his having seen some of the workings of the church as an altar boy and as a lay reader of occasional sermons qualifies him to advise the Vatican on strategy.

J

Now we have two different arguments from authority arguing about which is right: I am an authority and you are not an authority.

The real problem is that the philosophy itself is not an authority so right as all it needs is proper presentation then it's like water flowing down the river of righteousness into the ocean of falsehood transmogrified into the ocean of truth. A moral-intellectual catalyst, if you will.

--Brant

Metaphor fail, I am afraid.

Don't be.

--Brant

courage!

[Xray]

"... it's like water flowing down the river of righteousness into the ocean of falsehood transmogrified into the ocean of truth."

--Brant

Hmm, that sounds downright poetic. Have you transmogrified into Brant the Bard?

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Jonathan's usual posting approach

If anyone is actually interested in anything J. posts, notice the continuing dishonesty in post 223:

First, he misrepresents the experience I have [and, of course, he has no way of knowing how much there is in how many areas so the initial claim to authoritative knowledge was dishonest.]

Second, (and this part is not dishonest, it is just stupid) he uses something similar to the 'argument from authority' fallacy. Only experts (or those who meet J's criteria of experience, which he'll always use -against- his enemies) are competent to offer suggestions or advice. A rational criterion is you look at the actual suggestion and judge it on its merits. You don't waste time saying "let me see, is he expert enough for this to be a valuable idea".

Third, he adds more insults (small-time washout!)

Finally, he caps it off with a foolish, 'stretched' analogy - as if that would save his bad argument.

,,,,,,,

Having seen him do this time after time -- with me, with Michael Newberry, with Roger Bissell - and with other thoughtful people - I consider Jonathan the most contemptible, disgusting troll posting on OL.

(Jonathan, you remind me of Ellsworth Toohey spraying the well-dressed boy with his garden hose. You really need to seek professional psychiatric help for your maliciousness and seething hostility issues.

But first you have to be willing to admit you have a serious problem.)

[Jonathan]

Subject: Jonathan's usual posting approach

If anyone is actually interested in anything J. posts, notice the continuing dishonesty in post 223:

First, he misrepresents the experience I have [and, of course, he has no way of knowing how much there is in how many areas so the initial claim to authoritative knowledge was dishonest.]

Actually, I do have a way of knowing how much experience you have: I've read the posts in which you've listed your experience.

Second, (and this part is not dishonest, it is just stupid) he uses something similar to the 'argument from authority' fallacy. Only experts (or those who meet J's criteria of experience, which he'll always use -against- his enemies) are competent to offer suggestions or advice.

No, I don't think that only experts are competent to offer suggestions or advice. I just think it's hilarious when ignoramuses offer advice that they don't follow themselves and get very angry when no one else follows it either.

A rational criterion is you look at the actual suggestion and judge it on its merits. You don't waste time saying "let me see, is he expert enough for this to be a valuable idea".

I agree, and I do judge your half-baked ideas on their merits (or lack thereof). My process is not to begin with a person's lack of expert status and to then dismiss his arguments, but to listen to his ideas, evaluate them, and then, after seeing multiple idiotic arguments from him on the same subject, to eventually conclude that he is not an expert but an ignoramus on that subject.

Third, he adds more insults (small-time washout!)

Finally, he caps it off with a foolish, 'stretched' analogy - as if that would save his bad argument.

How was the analogy "stretched"? Did you think that you should have had the rank of Bishop or Cardinal in the analogy?

,,,,,,,

Having seen him do this time after time -- with me, with Michael Newberry, with Roger Bissell - and with other thoughtful people - I consider Jonathan the most contemptible, disgusting troll posting on OL.

I've never expected Newberry, Roger or anyone else to be an "expert." I just expect them to have at least some knowledge of what they're talking about, and some notion of consistency and adherence to reality.

I judged Newberry's ideas strictly on the their lack of merit. He gave Kant's concept of Sublimity a typically Objectivist hostile reading and comically misinterpreted it, and then, when confronted repeatedly with information on the subject that he hadn't been aware of, he stupidly dug in his heels and refused to acknowledge or correct his errors. My criticism of him had nothing to do with his not being an "expert," but with his publicly posing as a serious aesthetic commentator while not having even the most rudimentary grasp of the historical aesthetic concept of Sublimity.

As for Roger, again, I don't expect him to be an "expert," but I think that if he's going to comment on the nature of the visual arts, then he should have more knowledge about them than he openly criticizes Rand for lacking on the subject of music. My criticism of him is not that he's not an expert on visual art, but that he can sometimes become angry and defensive when his theories on visual art are challenged by those who know much more about the subject than he does -- he doesn't appear to be very open to addressing questions and challenges that he's never thought of or heard before.

So, no, my judgments of Roger and Newberry are not based on their not being experts, but on the fact that their ideas and judgments lack merit, and sometimes to the point of pigheaded absurdity. (Which isn't to say that everything they say is stupid. I think that Roger is very intelligent, and his ideas on music are interesting and have a lot of validity, and Newberry sometimes makes interesting observations when he's not posturing and preening and looking at everything through his distorted Objecti-goggles.)

(Jonathan, you remind me of Ellsworth Toohey spraying the well-dressed boy with his garden hose. You really need to seek professional psychiatric help for your maliciousness and seething hostility issues.

But first you have to be willing to admit you have a serious problem.)

That's interesting, because I see people like you as being like Ellsworth Toohey: Like many Objectivist guru-wannabes, you don't produce anything yourself yet you want to have influence over those who do. You want to do nothing while telling achievers how they should be achieving.

And I have no "seething hostility" for you, Phil. I don't feel anything like rage for you. What I usually experience is laughter or amazement at your fantasy view of yourself.

J

[Philip Coates]

Jonathan, you are a complete imbecile. To take apart every mistake or lie in your last post (let alone your lies and distortions about Roger B. and Michael M.) would completely derail my thread. Like I said, you need psychological help.

So here's the deal: Keep posting your lies and distortions. .And I'll go back to my previous policy of ignoring you.

[9thdoctor]

And I have no "seething hostility" for you, Phil. I don't feel anything like rage for you. What I usually experience is laughter or amazement at your fantasy view of yourself.

Écrasez Schoolmarm!

[Brant Gaede]

It doesn't matter how schoolmarmy Phil might seem to be if he makes posts that elicit detailed responses from Ghs.

--Brant

[PDS]

In partial defense of Phil, it seems fairly clear that he uses this forum (this thread is a good example) as a way of chewing on ideas--some of which he has more understanding than others. Phil is obviously quite bright (and may have aced his SAT test or something--but I'm sure Phil forgotten such details by now...), but he runs into trouble when he takes that intelligence and applies it to areas where his expertise is wanting. I am thinking of the literature thread with JR, a few months ago, where this process--along with the usual narrative arc of a Phil-thread--was especially painful/amusing to watch unfold.

In defense of Jonathan, every Jean Valjean deserves a Javert, and vice versa., and I am fairly certain that if Phil were to establish substantial credibility on a given topic, Jonathan would give him his propers. The interesting question is whether such a topic exists.

Among Objectivish types, my wish would be that the "Ellsworth Insult" were used more sparingly. It's overdone and usually undeserved, except when aimed at the Paul Krugmans of the world.

[Brant Gaede]

Among Objectivish types, my wish would be that the "Ellsworth Insult" were used more sparingly. It's overdone and usually undeserved, except when aimed at the Paul Krugmans of the world.

That's for sure. Toohey was a smarmy, destructive collectivist to the core.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

In partial defense of Phil, it seems fairly clear that he uses this forum (this thread is a good example) as a way of chewing on ideas--some of which he has more understanding than others. Phil is obviously quite bright (and may have aced his SAT test or something--but I'm sure Phil forgotten such details by now...), but he runs into trouble when he takes that intelligence and applies it to areas where his expertise is wanting. I am thinking of the literature thread with JR, a few months ago, where this process--along with the usual narrative arc of a Phil-thread--was especially painful/amusing to watch unfold. In defense of Jonathan, every Jean Valjean deserves a Javert, and vice versa., and I am fairly certain that if Phil were to establish substantial credibility on a given topic, Jonathan would give him his propers. The interesting question is whether such a topic exists. Among Objectivish types, my wish would be that the "Ellsworth Insult" were used more sparingly. It's overdone and usually undeserved, except when aimed at the Paul Krugmans of the world.

Whenever my dog blinks it is the start of a new day. I take the same approach whenever Phil starts a new thread. I try to forget past problems and disputes and view the thread on its own merits.

I think Phil has done a very decent job on this thread. My only major problem is the supposed relevance of early Christianity to the valid points Phil has made. The supposed parallels amount to nothing more than commonsensical observations about persuasion and sticking to one's principles.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you are a complete imbecile.

Yes, I would imagine that your fantasy view of yourself requires that I look like a complete imbecile.

To take apart every mistake or lie in your last post (let alone your lies and distortions about Roger B. and Michael M.) would completely derail my thread. Like I said, you need psychological help.

Anyone following along who is interested can visit the Art Instinct and the Flame War Rant threads (and previous arguments linked to within those threads) to see the substance of my disagreements with Newberry and Roger.

And I'd invite anyone who shares Newberry's or Roger's views to post on those threads, and to do what Newberry and Roger evaded doing, which is to answer the substance of my arguments. But if you do so, be forewarned: If you bring your sassy, pompous, ignorant, Objectivist judgmentalism, be prepared for what you get in return, because your whiny claims of victimhood aren't going to affect me.

So here's the deal: Keep posting your lies and distortions. .And I'll go back to my previous policy of ignoring you.

I would prefer that you either pay full attention or completely ignore me, rather than what you've been doing, which is to selectively sometimes kind of pay attention.

J

[Jonathan]

In partial defense of Phil, it seems fairly clear that he uses this forum (this thread is a good example) as a way of chewing on ideas--some of which he has more understanding than others. Phil is obviously quite bright (and may have aced his SAT test or something--but I'm sure Phil forgotten such details by now...), but he runs into trouble when he takes that intelligence and applies it to areas where his expertise is wanting. I am thinking of the literature thread with JR, a few months ago, where this process--along with the usual narrative arc of a Phil-thread--was especially painful/amusing to watch unfold.

In recent years Phil has become more and more of a sort of anti-Lord Chesterfield. He seems to want to appear to be more learned than the people he is with, always pulling out his pocket watch to count the hours, and then grumbling about being harassed and inconvenienced on the rare occasions that he is asked the time.

I think that he's used to being seen as very bright compared to those around him in his daily life, and it's therefore upsetting for him to come to OL and be surrounded by people who are much brighter than he is, so he tries to get attention and remind everyone of how smart he thinks he is. This thread is a good example. Phil has done some reading on the topic of the founding of Christianity, and he started this thread to show everyone what a good student he's been.

In defense of Jonathan, every Jean Valjean deserves a Javert, and vice versa., and I am fairly certain that if Phil were to establish substantial credibility on a given topic, Jonathan would give him his propers.

Sure. I've often given Phil props over the years.

J

[Jonathan]

Whenever my dog blinks it is the start of a new day. I take the same approach whenever Phil starts a new thread.

Each morning my dog remembers where she hid her favorite squeaky chew toy the night before. I take the same approach with Phil.

J

[Brant Gaede]

It's very hard to understand one's own motivations much less those of someone else.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Great "Expertise" Fallacy

> he runs into trouble when he takes that intelligence and applies it to areas where his expertise is wanting. I am thinking of the literature thread with JR, a few months ago [PDS]

I haven't thought about that thread recently, but my recollection is that the issue was not (and is not on most threads) who has the most "expertise" (has read the most books, can drop the most names, can post the most quotes from Wikipedia), but who has the best reasoning...and whose warehouse of knowledge is directly relevant to and serves the points he wants to make.

JR for example, mentioned that he took a course in which they read the complete works of Shakespeare. I, by contrast have not. I've read quite a few plays -very intensively- and taught them. I've thought about them a great deal. None of this tells you "whose Willy is longer". Nor is that often relevant.

It's not how many books you have read in a field that matters, or for how many years you have been studying it. It is what your mind has -done- with all that expertise. The world is full of Ph.d's in literature, philosophy, history whose pronouncements on those subjects are the height of stupidity.

.

.

.

As for the validity or cogency of the points I was making vs. that or JR or others, PDS, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

That is assuming you have enough "expertise" in the field of literature for your views to mean anything.

[Philip Coates]

And my point in citing examples from my reading about early Christianity is not to impress people with my "expertise" in this narrow topic, it's because I believe that we have a lot to learn from a detailed study of how they went about creating an entirely new religion and how they overcame persecution, competition from other mystery cults, spread in all sorts of cultures.

[Jonathan]

Here's an idea:

We could go with consecrated steak bites wrapped in bacon for the Objectivist Eucharist. Yum! That would kick the Christians' asses, what with their stupid unleavened bread wafers.

J

When supper had ended, Frank took the cup.

Again he gave Ayn thanks and praise,

Gave the cup to her disciples and said,

Take this, all of you, and mix your paints in it...

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Applying the "Planting" of Christianity to Today

After several days discussing a range of objections to my project and side topics, I'm going to pick up where I left off in Post #148 ==>

" What are some causes of 'human inertia'? 'Institutional inertia'? 'Cultural inertia'? How does one -ever- overcome it?... We tend to resist major changes in our most fundamental attitudes and convictions. That would be stressful, require the expenditure of a great deal of energy, and would require a lot of other things to be changed as a consequence. It throws our equilibrium off in many, many ways.... Once a culture is fully formed, entrenched, is it not likely to resist change compared to, say, a "frontier"? How does this relate to Paul's trying to reach out to "the diaspora"? How might it apply to finding the most receptive audiences, finding what might be the most "fertile ground" for the victory of libertarianism or for the spread of Objectivism? "

[This, the numbered points, is from the very start of the thread, where I summarized some of the points Davies makes about Paul and the attempts to 'plant' Christianity at the very start & then after the ===> arrows, I drew some (usually pretty abstract) conclusions. The next step - new to this post - is to try to draw some useful practical ideas from all this. I'll label that below "OBSERVATIONS:" ]

1. "The mobility of the peoples of the ancient world is seldom sufficiently recognized...there were far more Jews in the rest of the world during this period than there were in Judea...diaspora: Greek word for dispersion"

===> Ideas planted in a subculture or group often are discussed, transmitted within it because the people have certain commonalities, kindred attitudes or backgrounds or experiences or even family relations. If the members are widely dispersed, that can make the group more open to new ideas at various geographic points because they are not monolithic, they have a variety of experiences and contexts which tends to be more broadening as opposed to the stay-at-homes.

OBSERVATIONS

In spreading difficult and challenging ideas such as Objectivism or even libertarianism and attempting to overcome hostility and cultural inertia:

(i) Try to find tightly knit or fervently intercommunicating subcultures where the ideas will be talked up or where there is a grapevine like that which existed among the dispersed communities of Jews of 2000 years ago. Homeschoolers are a likely place where new books suitable for teaching in the home are likely to be quickly known, information spread like wildfire; the tea parties have been a similar venue for people to 'talk up' Atlas Shrugged and its relevance today. GHS's example of those harmed by and affected by drug laws are a similar 'subculture' which has not yet been tapped by Objectivists. QUESTION: What others are there where these ideas could spread rapidly that have not yet been fully approached or utililized?

(ii) A subculture which is widely dispersed or where there are not monolithic 'orthodoxies' that serve as censors or gatekeepers of all new ideas are the best choices to approach. Homeschoolers and those affected by drug laws are isolated and not monolithic, so they fit the bill. The "tea parties" tend to resent being coopted by Rpublicans or even the conservative movement or the religious right so, at this time, they are "open" in the way I'm discussing. QUESTION: Who else is 'open' in this way?

One answer I would have is physical, geographical dispersal, just like the 'diaspora' of Paul's time that he approached. Missionaries have often understood that by "going global" they were approaching people who had not yet become part of an orthodoxy, who were often hungry for new ideas, who were dissatisfied with what was on offer in their 'failed states' or at least somewhat dysfunctional orthodoxies. QUESTION: There is a big issue of translation if we go more global, literally. Are there ways to do it figuratively? How does a small movement deal with the -costs- of trying to make some impact in many parts of the world? Should we just give up using Paul's idea and that of later generations of 'missionaries' to explore every nook and granny, of trying to do an 'end run' around the collectivist/statist/trendy/politically and ideologically correct orthodoxies?

[Jonathan]

It's not how many books you have read in a field that matters, or for how many years you have been studying it. It is what your mind has -done- with all that expertise. The world is full of Ph.d's in literature, philosophy, history whose pronouncements on those subjects are the height of stupidity.

Those are the grounds on which I've challenged certain Objectivists who have posed as "experts" while making pronouncements which are the height of stupidity. So, why are you so upset, Phil, about my criticizing Newberry's hostile readings and misinterpretations of Kant's third critique, and my rejecting Roger's attempts to smuggle in his own (and his wife's) personal aesthetic limitations, lack of knowledge, and lack of response to certain art forms as the universal standard of aesthetic objectivity and psychological health/normalcy?

J

[Philip Coates]

Notice how the post I just made deals with the objection of several people on this thread that: whatever helps an irrational or authoritarian or religious ideology spread can't be applicable to spreading a secular, pro-freedom, rational ideology:

The ideas of choosing receptive subcultures like Paul did and choosing 'dispersed' one or ones less likely to be in the grip of a firm orthodoxy (like that of the priests in Jerusalem vs. the diaspora) are VERY relevant to what we are trying to do.

Has -absolutely nothing- to do with the fact he was spreading mysticism and we're spreading reason and freedom.

That will also be true of the points I'm going to note in my "Observations". I'm going to select the ideas, the techniques, the lessons that are relevant to spreading reason and freedom, not the ones that can only be used in trying to deceive or spread irrationality or authoritarian orthodoxies.

[Selene]

Subject: Applying the "Planting" of Christianity to Today

After several days discussing a range of objections to my project and side topics, I'm going to pick up where I left off in Post #148 ==>

" What are some causes of 'human inertia'? 'Institutional inertia'? 'Cultural inertia'? How does one -ever- overcome it?... We tend to resist major changes in our most fundamental attitudes and convictions. That would be stressful, require the expenditure of a great deal of energy, and would require a lot of other things to be changed as a consequence. It throws our equilibrium off in many, many ways.... Once a culture is fully formed, entrenched, is it not likely to resist change compared to, say, a "frontier"? How does this relate to Paul's trying to reach out to "the diaspora"? How might it apply to finding the most receptive audiences, finding what might be the most "fertile ground" for the victory of libertarianism or for the spread of Objectivism? "

[This, the numbered points, is from the very start of the thread, where I summarized some of the points Davies makes about Paul and the attempts to 'plant' Christianity at the very start & then after the ===> arrows, I drew some (usually pretty abstract) conclusions. The next step - new to this post - is to try to draw some useful practical ideas from all this. I'll label that below "OBSERVATIONS:" ]

1. "The mobility of the peoples of the ancient world is seldom sufficiently recognized...there were far more Jews in the rest of the world during this period than there were in Judea...diaspora: Greek word for dispersion"

===> Ideas planted in a subculture or group often are discussed, transmitted within it because the people have certain commonalities, kindred attitudes or backgrounds or experiences or even family relations. If the members are widely dispersed, that can make the group more open to new ideas at various geographic points because they are not monolithic, they have a variety of experiences and contexts which tends to be more broadening as opposed to the stay-at-homes.

OBSERVATIONS

In spreading difficult and challenging ideas and attempting to overcome cultural inertia such as Objectivism or even libertarianism:

(i) Try to find tightly knit or fervently intercommunicating subcultures where the ideas will be talked up or where there is a grapevine like that which existed among the dispersed communities of Jews of 2000 years ago. Homeschoolers are a likely place where new books suitable for teaching in the home are likely to be quickly known, information spread like wildfire; the tea parties have been a similar venue for people to 'talk up' Atlas Shrugged and its relevance today. GHS's example of those harmed by and affected by drug laws are a similar 'subculture' which has not yet been tapped by Objectivists. QUESTION: What others are there where these ideas could spread rapidly that have not yet been fully approached or utililized?

(ii) A subculture which is widely dispersed or where there are not monolithic 'orthodoxies' that serve as censors or gatekeepers of all new ideas are the best choices to approach. Homeschoolers and those affected by drug laws are isolated and not monolithic, so they fit the bill. The "tea parties" tend to resent being coopted by Rpublicans or even the conservative movement or the religious right so, at this time, they are "open" in the way I'm discussing. QUESTION: Who else is 'open' in this way?

One answer I would have is physical, geographical dispersal, just like the 'diaspora' of Paul's time that he approached. Missionaries have often understood that by "going global" they were approaching people who had not yet become part of an orthodoxy, who were often hungry for new ideas, who were dissatisfied with what was on offer in their 'failed states' or at least somewhat dysfunctional orthodoxies. QUESTION: There is a big issue of translation if we go more global, literally. Are there ways to do it figuratively? How does a small movement deal with the -costs- of trying to make some impact in many parts of the world? Should we just give up using Paul's idea and that of later generations of 'missionaries' to explore every nook and granny, of trying to do an 'end run' around the collectivist/statist/trendy/politically and ideologically correct orthodoxies?

Post 148

Subject: Equilibrium, Maintenance, and Change

What are some causes of 'human inertia'? 'Institutional inertia'? 'Cultural inertia'? How does one -ever- overcome it?

Related to the psychological resistance to change of premises or direction of human beings is the biological concept of homeostasis. Our bodies constantly strive to maintain certain static conditions - a body temperature of 98.6 degrees, a certain pH level, a constant level of glucose in the blood, etc. This enables all the chemical reactions life depends on to function smoothly and effectively. (As a fourth example, if the level of calcium in your blood goes outside of certain very narrow parameters, you will die.)

Similarly, if less strongly, we tend to resist major changes in our most fundamental attitudes and convictions. That would be stressful, require the expenditure of a great deal of energy, and would require a lot of other things to be changed as a consequence. It throws our equilibrium off in many, many ways.

One reason those who are young are the ones who first whole-heartedly embrace, seldom the middle-aged or older is the young are still forming mental and emotional habits and attitudes and a personality and character arising from them. Psychological homeostasis still exists but it has fewer things it needs to try to maintain unchanged or unquestioned.

Now apply this to an entire culture. Once a culture is fully formed, entrenched, is it not likely to resist change compared to, say, a "frontier"?

How does this relate to Paul's trying to reach out to "the diaspora"?

How might it apply to finding the most receptive audiences, finding what might be the most "fertile ground" for the victory of libertarianism or for the spread of Objectivism?

[Roger Bissell]

...in my "Observations"...I'm going to select the ideas, the techniques, the lessons that are relevant to spreading reason and freedom, not the ones that can only be used in trying to deceive or spread irrationality or authoritarian orthodoxies.

Phil, you have two days (based on Will Thomas's announced Dec. 2 deadline) to put together a program proposal on this topic for the 2012 Atlas Society Summer Seminar, which will be held somewhere on the East coast. I strongly encourage you to do this.

As a veteran Student of Objectivism and attendee of many lectures and organizer of local groups, you are ideally suited to share your experience and observations with the TAS folks. Who knows? They might be receptive to your suggestions! Otherwise, what do you have in mind? What leverage will you have with your Observations, if not to get them accepted and adapted as part of TAS or ARI programs or campaigns?

REB

[Roger Bissell]

And my point in citing examples from my reading about early Christianity is not to impress people with my "expertise" in this narrow topic, it's because I believe that we have a lot to learn from a detailed study of how they went about creating an entirely new religion and how they overcame persecution, competition from other mystery cults, spread in all sorts of cultures.

I think we have a lot to learn from ~contemporary~ Christianity. They have killer music in their churches, they have singles groups, they have opportunities to get together weekly for Bible study and/or choir practice, they have daycare for working parents as well as parochial schools and colleges (we're just getting ~started~ with the efforts of people like Lisa VanDamm, Marsha Enright, and Fred Stitt). Lotsa good stuff. And we have trouble deciding whether to meet once a year for 2, 3, or 6 days.

As much as I prefer "Atlas Shrugged, Part 1," it has been hugely swamped in box office sales by movies about Jesus. Maybe if they'd done Part 3 first and started with a really gory rendering of the John Galt torture scene, then done everything else with flashbacks...and the publicity said, "Come see a really selfish, greedy guy getting what's coming to him."

REB

[Jonathan]

...in my "Observations"...I'm going to select the ideas, the techniques, the lessons that are relevant to spreading reason and freedom, not the ones that can only be used in trying to deceive or spread irrationality or authoritarian orthodoxies.

Phil, you have two days (based on Will Thomas's announced Dec. 2 deadline) to put together a program proposal on this topic for the 2012 Atlas Society Summer Seminar, which will be held somewhere on the East coast. I strongly encourage you to do this.

As a veteran Student of Objectivism and attendee of many lectures and organizer of local groups, you are ideally suited to share your experience and observations with the TAS folks. Who knows? They might be receptive to your suggestions! Otherwise, what do you have in mind? What leverage will you have with your Observations, if not to get them accepted and adapted as part of TAS or ARI programs or campaigns?

REB

Good idea! I think that if Phil puts together a TAS presentation on how Objectivists can learn from the spreading of Christianity, he should end the presentation with a bang, such as revealing where in his studies on Christianity he picked up the persuasive tactic of calling a woman "cunt" after she provided overwhelming evidence of how wrong he had been, and how irrationally and unjustly he had been behaving. And also where Phil learned from the Christians that it's virtuous to never apologize for one's bad behavior.

J