-
Главная
-
- Книги
-
- Авторы
-
- Роберт Хайнлайн
-
- Чужак в чужой стране
-
- Стр. 388/632
Для того чтобы воспользоваться озвучкой предложений, необходимо
Войти или зарегистрироваться
Озвучка предложений доступна при наличии PRO-доступа
Купить PRO-доступ
"
Damn
it
,
look
it
up
!
They
probably
gave
you
a
Bowdlerized
version
.
That
’
s
not
the
only
shock
in
store
for
anybody
who
actually
reads
the
Bible
.
Consider
Elisha
.
It
says
here
that
Elisha
was
so
all
-
fired
holy
that
merely
touching
his
bones
restored
a
dead
man
to
life
.
But
he
was
a
baldheaded
old
coot
,
like
myself
.
So
one
day
some
children
made
fun
of
his
baldness
,
just
as
you
girls
do
.
So
God
personally
interceded
and
sent
two
bears
to
tear
forty
-
two
small
children
into
bloody
bits
.
That
’
s
what
it
says
–
second
chapter
of
Second
Kings
.
"
"
Boss
,
I
never
make
fun
of
your
bald
head
.
"
"
Who
was
it
sent
my
name
to
those
hair
-
restorer
quacks
?
Dorcas
,
maybe
?
Whoever
it
was
,
God
knows
–
and
she
had
better
keep
a
sharp
eye
out
for
bears
.
I
might
turn
pious
in
my
dotage
and
start
enjoying
divine
protection
.
But
I
shan
’
t
give
you
any
more
samples
.
The
Bible
is
loaded
with
such
stuff
;
read
it
and
find
out
.
Crimes
that
would
turn
your
stomach
are
asserted
to
be
either
divinely
ordered
or
divinely
condoned
?
along
with
,
I
must
add
,
a
lot
of
hard
common
sense
and
some
pretty
workable
rules
for
social
behavior
.
I
am
not
running
down
the
Bible
;
it
stacks
up
pretty
well
as
sacred
writings
go
.
It
isn
’
t
a
patch
on
the
sadistic
,
pornographic
trash
that
goes
by
the
name
of
sacred
writings
among
the
Hindus
.
Or
a
dozen
other
religions
.
But
I
’
m
not
singling
out
any
of
them
for
condemnation
,
either
;
it
is
entirely
conceivable
that
some
one
of
these
mutually
contradictory
mythologies
is
the
literal
word
of
God
?
that
God
is
in
truth
the
sort
of
bloodthirsty
paranoid
who
would
rend
to
bits
forty
-
two
children
for
the
crime
of
sassing
one
of
his
priests
.
Don
’
t
ask
me
about
the
Front
Office
’
s
policies
;
I
just
work
here
.
My
point
is
that
Foster
’
s
New
Revelation
that
you
’
re
so
contemptuous
of
is
pure
sweetness
-
and
-
light
as
scripture
goes
.
Bishop
Digby
’
s
Patron
is
a
pretty
good
Joe
;
He
wants
people
to
be
happy
-
happy
here
on
Earth
plus
guaranteed
eternal
bliss
in
Heaven
.
He
doesn
’
t
expect
you
to
chastise
the
flesh
here
and
now
in
order
to
reap
rewards
after
you
’
re
dead
.
Oh
no
!
this
is
the
modern
giant
economy
package
.
If
you
like
to
drink
and
gamble
and
dance
and
wench
–
and
most
people
do
–
come
to
church
and
do
it
under
holy
auspices
.
Do
it
with
your
conscience
free
of
any
trace
of
guilt
.
Really
have
fun
at
it
.
Live
it
up
!
Get
happy
!
"
Jubal
failed
to
look
happy
himself
.
He
went
on
,
"
Of
course
there
’
s
a
slight
charge
;
Digby
’
s
God
expects
to
be
acknowledged
as
such
–
but
that
has
been
a
foible
of
gods
always
.
Anyone
who
is
stupid
enough
to
refuse
to
get
happy
on
His
terms
is
a
sinner
?
and
a
sinner
deserves
anything
that
happens
to
him
.
But
this
is
one
rule
common
to
all
gods
and
goddesses
throughout
history
;
don
’
t
blame
Foster
and
Digby
,
they
didn
’
t
invent
it
.
Their
brand
of
snake
oil
is
utterly
orthodox
in
all
respects
.
"
"
Boss
,
you
sound
as
if
you
were
halfway
converted
.
"
"
Not
me
!
I
don
’
t
enjoy
snake
dances
,
I
despise
crowds
,
and
I
do
not
propose
to
let
my
social
and
mental
inferiors
tell
me
where
I
have
to
go
on
Sundays
–
and
I
wouldn
’
t
enjoy
Heaven
if
that
crowd
is
going
to
be
there
.
I
simply
object
to
your
criticizing
them
for
the
wrong
things
.
As
literature
,
the
New
Revelation
stacks
up
about
average
–
it
should
;
it
was
composed
by
plagiarizing
other
scriptures
.
As
for
logic
and
internal
consistency
,
these
mundane
rules
do
not
apply
to
sacred
writings
and
never
have
–
but
even
on
these
grounds
the
New
Revelation
must
be
rated
superior
;
it
hardly
ever
bites
its
own
tail
.
Try
reconciling
the
Old
Testament
with
the
New
Testament
sometime
,
or
Buddhist
doctrine
with
Buddhist
apocrypha
.
As
morals
,
Fosterism
is
merely
the
Freudian
ethic
sugar
-
coated
for
people
who
can
’
t
take
their
psychology
straight
,
although
I
doubt
if
the
old
lecher
who
wrote
it
–
pardon
me
,
‘
was
inspired
to
write
it
’
–
was
aware
of
this
.
He
was
no
scholar
.
But
he
was
in
tune
with
his
times
,
he
tapped
the
Zeitgeist
.
Fear
and
guilt
and
a
loss
of
faith
–
how
could
he
miss
?
Now
pipe
down
,
I
’
m
going
to
nap
.
"
"
Who
’
s
been
talking
?
"
