Why thank you. Please feel free to use it. I am certain that I read it somewhere and stole it myself but do not remember where.

I'd like to flatter you by stealing that second line.

I know the line, "give until it hurts." I prefer to only give until it feels good.

I used that line in my Algebra class yesterday. One of the students said, "That's really deep man." Makes me weep for the lack of education these kids have today.

Atlas is shrugging ... he got that right.
Jesus is a cry baby, bleeding for the world .. he got that right too. And he sees the future- Atlas is in it. He certainly ins't making the point that Jesus stands alone, by bringing Atlas into the picture, and he openly admits it. So, his book is more like an implied pleading, with tears, for Atlas to stop and help Jesus(it's in the title). You know Atlas's reply ... F.U. And not because he won't stop to help an injured person. He knows it's Jesus and that the game it up. "F.U. Jesus". God it feels good saying that.

Sounds like the author was trying desperately to imitate C.S. Lewis iconic "Screwtape Letters" only in reverse.

(For those of you not familiar with the book, it is the conversations (via epistle) of two devils - one in training - about how to corrupt humans.)

I'm just going to ignore the book entirely. If I'm going to write a book, I'm not going to plagiarize someone else's characters just to make a point. That smacks of a lack of ingenuity on my part.

I don't know. I've read Galt's speech (with the entire book) and it's a patented disaster from a public speaking standpoint. I know that might sound like heresy to some here, but a good speech has to be clear, to the point, and not ramble. If it takes 40 pages to get through - it's too long for a speech. I've spoken in public enough times that you only have the attention of the audience for as long as their butts don't get sore. If you haven't made your point by then, you'll lose their interest. A good speechwriter could condense Galt's speech down to about five pages and it would be brilliant.

It's really tough to differentiate in court the difference between true infringement and literary license, especially when the characters being used are part of popular culture (three movies vault one to that position).

There's also the other matter that it's unlikely this guy has anything to go after in the first place.

Now that's not to say it might not be infringement. There was a pretty notable case involving J.K Rowling and her "Harry Potter" series where a court did find that another author had blatantly plagiarized much of Rowling's work in publishing their own series. It may very well be the same here. But as it is being presented as a rebuttal of philosophy, ie an alternative perspective, they're not refusing to acknowledge Rand's original work at all. Thus while one might find it distasteful and one might identify factual inaccuracies in the book, it's going to be awfully hard to justify copyright infringement.

Much better to just pan the book outright.

I have always studied the Bible very carefully, so no I have not viewed the Bible differently after being exposed to Objectivism, in fact appreciated all the similarities from the beginning.

Altruism is not a Biblical concept, but a concept created by lazy people trying to shame the productive people into parting with their hard earned product without fair exchange of value.

On that I completely disagree. Christianity is all about FREE WILL and independent choice.

Communism is all about the collective dictating to you your actions and productivity and personal wealth. Diametrically opposed. Karl Marx said about communism. "Communism can be summed up in one Sentence. Abolition of Private Property."

The Bible in more place than I can count talks about you owning the product of your labor, Opposite of Communism.

@E,
Teach the man how to fish. Don't give him fish.

I agree and if it were within my power there would be no min. wage now or ever.

Did you interpret the bible the same way prior to being introduced to objectivism? I definitely didn't and tried to make sense of the bible the way it was explained to me. I almost made it work with objectivism before I realized I didn't need to reconcile the two.

I would disagree that the goal of Objectivism is to "bring value to the lives of your fellow man". I think that it would be more correct to say that Objectivism teaches people how they themselves can increase value of their own lives.
My perception is that in this and many other things the focus on the difference between individualism and collectivism is being lost.

Just before I quit being a Catholic (for a number of reasons I won't go into) I recall a priest preaching to "Give until it hurts!" during a sermon about tithing.
Guess that really made an impression since I'm 68 and I heard that while in college.
Oh, good little Catholic me did give until it hurt when the collection plate was passed.
I realized shortly thereafter that all I got out of that was a personal hardship.
I think when one gives of his own free will it should be because he really feels moved to do so and if he can afford it.
Wandering Protestant me visited a Methodist Church last Palm Sunday. Gave $20 that did not hurt.
Think I'll just watch "Killing Jesus" for Easter.

Oh ya and isn't churches and those who go to them, the biggest reason most are turning away from the christian message. They are the one's all over the media with molestation trials, begging for money, and separating families. What's the first thing you do when you go to church? You all go to a separate room. Ya that's a great family time event.

" ... they are not at odds with each other as some would propose."
You say that as a conclusion and I objected. If you select skillfully, communist ideology and Christianity look "similar" too.

OK this is a little off topic, but I think its relevant. Why is it that Christians, are the first one to point a finger, twist the truth, and capitalize on someone else's achievement? Isn't that hypocrisy? Oh wait, no Christians are good people just teaching the rest of us how to live, basing all of there teachings on a centuries-old book, with little or no real logic. Maybe I am the idiot for refraining from going to church and feeding my kids their BS.

To accept that bringing value to the lives of your fellow man is the goal is a good way to find yourself chained to a production line or rationalizing the process of chaining others to said production line. It is not, and cannot be the goal of objectivism.

Until our economy tanks and the President du-jure executes Directive 10-289. It is coming.

You know, I picture Limbo just as Dante described it - the best, most interesting place to end up at, even if he didn't mean it that way!

Murphy?--I thought.
Is Murphy an Ayn Rand character?
No.
Audie Murphy?
Whoa! Murphy's Law! LOL!
I have not thought of that for some time.

You just described why the min. wage is negatively influencing the economic growth. If the wage scale matches skill levels higher up, why stop at an arbitrary minimum?

Only if he uses those characters without permission and to further the story without giving proper citation or remuneration to the original author.

Example: Writing a new "Star Wars"-themed book is illegal unless you are Kevin Anderson or have explicit written permission from George Lucas. However, you can refer to Star Wars figures in a book of your own (like say Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files" series) as part of popular culture, even to the extent of rewording your sentences to sound like Master Yoda.

What this author is doing, however, is actually re-writing the original story from his perspective and casting it as a "rebuttal". This is a true grey area - because one the one hand the characters from "Atlas Shrugged" can be argued to be a part of popular culture (especially after three movies) and therefore subject to a much more lenient reading of copyright infringement. On the other hand, it can be claimed that he is only trying to piggyback on the fame of Atlas Shrugged in order to make money for himself - which most courts frown on.

If people "choose" to only selectively pick things out of context that is their problem.

But drawing a parallel, and showing similarities is not now, nor ever is interpretation and to suggest so, is not "reasonable."