Moral objectivism and Rand’s objectivism are two completely different things.

Rand’s philosophy is opposed to traditional morality.

I would add, that the old testament has been interpreted allegorically since before Christianity, since in the Roman Empire, Jews that were civilised had some difficulty accepting the rather nonsensical elements of the archaic books.

This sort of makes sense. The bible is a collection of books that are very different in style, so it makes sense that some are understood poetically, or allegorically, while others are quite literal.

So these seemingly silly elements of the bible were literally never understood literally by Christians, until the reformation, at least.

So while it may seem like modern Christians are trying to reinterpret the bible to avoid contradictions, that are caused by the idiocy of the ancient and medieval people, the reality is literally the exact opposite.

Christianity is a child of the Jewish mysticism and Greek rationality. For someone that understands philosophy the idea of a god with a body, that looks like a human is absurd.

God is not in space, not in time, since according to Christian theology, these were created with the universe, so they are not independent from the creation. Before that(not in the temporal sense), there was only God.

The highest part of man is the one that is closest to god. The soul, clearly. The soul can partially grasp divine attributes like morality, knowledge, righteousness, etc.

Well, the human body is imperfect due to the fall, it was only perfect in the Garden of Eden.

God does not have a body, obviously. This is not what is meant by this.

I read it as "robot that can eat orgasms for fuel. My version is better.

It just seems like a natural way to think: an imitation is worse than the original.

But I never tried it, and maybe I will, but I would probably prefer normal meat anyway.

I reckon it doesn’t taste as well, but even if it tasted exactly the same, I would still prefer normal meat. It needs to taste better if you want me to eat it.

Swords were never used for hunting. Spears are much better.

Share it with us please please please.

Well, if you are in a greek setting and are using the greek names for every other character, it makes more sense to use the greek name, but Hercules is just a latin adaptation of Heracles, so no big deal I suppose.

Jupiter and Zeus are the same god. Jupiter is latin, Zeus is greek.

Then there is no such thing as plants and there is no need to value a life of a pig over a life of a potato.

Yes, because they are the same as us - humans.

Animals are not necessarily subhuman, but clearly not human.

I mean, I guess I could go into detail about the differences about the behavioir of animals and humans and what that tells about their intelligence and inner life, but I am not such a big fan of typing to be honest. I will only say that animal behaviour is simple enough to be predicted, ehy always act on the strongest impulse: whether it is food, sleep or whatever. But a human has a such complex network of character, desires, affect, beliefs, and emotions, that they can in a way that is impossible to predict. Can you imagine an animal starving itself to death deliberately? No, it would not be able to do that, as it’s instincts would overpower anything else if it got sufficiently hungry. But we can have other reasons for that that we act upon.

Honestly, if I was a vegan, I would almost certainly not say thay animals are as complex as humans, as most people would probably(quite rightly) not agree. They are more primitive as a great deal of what makes us us is our complex social structures that no animal has(even highly social ones). We have meanings and values given to us by society, which animals do not have. We are capable of morality, animals are not. I am honestly tired of typing. I think the point is clear enough now that I can stop.

Impossible to compare between humans.

Animals are functioning clearly at a more primitive level than humans. You must surely agree to this.

No, I wouldn’t.

While humans and animals have inner worlds that are orders of magnitude apart in terms of complexity, I would say that most people feel more or less the same emotions, but of course some people are more self-actualised, but everyone has the potential for that, even if it is not realised.

And it is impossible to compare this complexity in practice, of course, as there are no criteria for measuring that. Also, every human is unique in a sense and is valuable precisely because of that.

Ultimately, our values are impossible to defend. We can either share them or not, I do not care much about the animals, you do, this is fine by me.

Obviously I am not talking about fetuses. I responded to the racism comment and the inner lives of people are generally not that complicated when tbey are in the womb. I am just using this as a reason to value humans over animals.

Also, minds are not made out of neurons, brains are.

Poor choice of words on my part, perhaps. Maybe, if I chose "mind, instead of the more poetic word “soul” people would not reply about how an embryo is not ensouled.

But please tell me, was your original comment about racism towards animals sarcastic? It is sometimes hard to tell, and it seems almost like a position someone would hold.

Yes, exactly. The complexity of the human soul is uncomparable to the basic impulses of any animal.

“North Finland Treaty Organisation”