Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand

I am nowhere in any of my posts referring to those medically unable to work. I am referring to those who CAN WORK, but for what ever reason are not. Sometimes people get caught in bad circumstances, life happens. In those cases, the churches and private charities are the best choice to help those people through their temporary problems. People with medical issues are a whole different breed of cat imo. However, this still does not give the government license to steal from the general population to support that person. This is where families and churches should be most active. The government, and especially the federal government is always the worst possible choice for helping those unable to help themselves.

Please show me any quote in any post I have ever made on ATS where I have ever come out in favor of usury? You will never find it. Neither will you find any post where I support megacorps off-shoring our jobs, though in one post I did blast unions for doing the damage they have done to businesses making it harder for them to compete internationally. In fact if you review my posts and opinions, you will see that I support small government(articles of confederation style), and libertarian views in all instances save one. I personally believe immigration should be controlled instead of the party platform of free passage for all workers across borders.

reply to post by soficrow

…Honey, I probably read Atlas Shrugged before you were born!

Unless you are in your late 50's or older, I doubt it. If you are in your late 50's or older, then it is quite possible and I still ask you where in the novel these actions occurred.

As far as ignoring the facts, you're the guilty one here. Your "job" is to (try to) reconcile Randian objectivism with Christianity - NOT to deny the facts:

No, actually it isn't. I already said that I do not believe the statement to be true. Rand, like many other authors/actors/whatever, have their private lives and beliefs which I could not possibly care less about. I like Tom Cruise movies for example, but I think he is an idiot. I am talking about the actions of the main protagonists in the book and ask you to show where their actions support your suppositions.

reply to post by soficrow


Note: In the future avoid, like the plague, all words which end in the syllable "ism". They always lead to trouble.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Yissachar1

 

Could you be just a little clearer? Its hard to see where we are in disagreement.....unless you are just looking for a leg to piss down.

Sorry dude.

Didn't read your post properly

I need new glasses

I am trying to find the theme here and this is what I have come to in conclusion: That a person, unless they have professed their faith as Christian and abide by the teachings taught therein, cannot maintain the same moral principles; especially if those principles flow from Objectivism, which promote obtaining objective knowledge through rational thought?

Maybe I am missing the back and forth here...

reply to post by trailertrash




reply to post by ownbestenemy


The quoted article in the OP observes that many professed Christians seem to embrace Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy. The problem with that, is that Rand's philosophy is incompatible with Jesus' altruism (living for others and acting on their behalf).

Rand was an aggressive atheist who condemned altruism of all kinds...

...Rand was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus. For her, any system that that required one individual to live for others and follow anything beside his or her own self-interest was immoral. For Jesus, any system or behavior that does not take into account living for others and acting on their behalf is immoral.

All of her books, including Atlas Shrugged, describe and celebrate rational, objective, selfish existence without God or Jesus - and without any commitment to "living for others" (Christ's brand of Christianity).

reply to post by soficrow


I recognize that. I believe in God, but I also believe in the Individual. I can see where the incompatibly arises in that both must follow a doctrine that is steeped in dogma.

One can have the faith and belief in a Supreme Being and still believe that it is the nature of the Individual to seek their happiness forthwith. My preservation of my life, in my opinion, requires a bit of selfishness to ensure I can selflessly contribute towards others. There are of course exceptions. k

I don't have any strong opinion about Rand one way or another.

But the issue seems to be that Christians can't be objective. And that is most definitely a problem.
Objectivity is needed to act in any kind of moralistic or rational manner.

Enslaving yourself to the interpretations of people that claim to talk to god is not a good way to be moralistic. And I know many of you want to be as good and moralistic as possible. So just think about it.

I've always thought of Rand as more of a Secular Humanist rather than an Objectivist. Although she never said she was of any faith, most of the dialogue with her characters seems to have some spirituality to it. She definitely knew how to show a characters insides and motivation!

Zindo

A part of me was hoping that this thread would be about the high literary standards of being a Christian.

Perhaps I should start a thread along the lies of: "Good Athiests shouldn't follow Ayn Rand because her books are self-serving drivel. "

Life's too short for bad literature.

great thread. the christian economy seems very complicated. my thought is robots have put so many out of work and one percent of population owns 90 percent of wealth so I would like to see an economy much less skewed towards the monopolists. But that is what Lazerus and the rich man was about, they laugh and play while the world goes up in flames and the poor tools that want to be like them, stick up for them and blame the poor for their plight.

Personally, I preferred "The Fountainhead " to "Atlas Shrugged". I kind of identified with the idea of the character of Howard Roark. Atlas Shrugged seemed to be a fleshing out (good) and an overfocusing (bad) of Fountainhead, in my opinion.
As for the social aspects, you'll notice that her heroic characters are more of a self reliant and self believing sort, as opposed to amoral, except for Mr. D' Anconia early in his adult life (sorry if mis-spelled, it, been a few years), and you that have read it know how things worked out. They are for the most part irreligious, not necessarily atheist, (Roark was) but more questioning the point of religion in general.
I think a prior post already mentioned her preference of a name for her philosophy would have been existentialism, but as it was already being used, and not well, according to Miss Rand, she allowed objectivism to be used instead.
If the Sojourners want to label fans of Ayn Rand as heretics, that is their right, I won't argue, but if you read her works carefully, you'll notice these sorts are addressed in the Ellsworth Toohey persona, i.e., he conspires against the doers of the world because he envies their very existence. I wish them well.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I am a Christian, and I love the book "Atlas Shrugged". I do not buy into her entire moral belief system, but I also do not believe that it is the responsibility of the producers of the world to support the moochers of the world. The Apostle Paul said it best when he said "He who WILL NOT WORK shall not eat"(emphasis mine)((II Thessalonians 3:10)).

DITTO. You said it perfectly!

I love Atlas Shrugged. Great book. Well written story. VERY possible for it to happen. Those are the very best books ... the ones that scare the stuff'n out of you mostly because they could really happen. I'm not an objectivism fan, but she makes some excellent points in the book.

Not too keen on her views on violent angry sex though. Her characters get off on rape and angry dirty sex. Kinda ruined The Fountainhead for me. Could'a been a good story otherwise.

As far as not being able to be a 'good christian' and buy into some of Ayn Rands philosphy ... that's bull. 'Good Christians' deserve to be paid for their work. They deserve not to be used as doormats by moochers. They deserve not to be enslaved by the government. Just because a person is a producer, doesn't mean they deserve to be financially raped. "Christian concern' goes both ways .. up and down .. the financial status ladder. Or at least, it should.

Originally posted by vox2442
A part of me was hoping that this thread would be about the high literary standards of being a Christian.

Perhaps I should start a thread along the lies of: "Good Athiests shouldn't follow Ayn Rand because her books are self-serving drivel. "

Life's too short for bad literature.

I dont know. The Fountain Head drama is a reality that is played out at all levels of living.

You know, you give your life meaning out at Waldons Pound but not around here boy. The structure, the centers, the norm (control freaks) are served around here. And we tell you what you are and pass out the brains, the heart, the courage.

To the structure guys like Roark look like evil. Just look at all the people they try to get us to emulate in our "free" world. Many good men and great deads but always woven into that cloth, the great quilt. People dont want to face the fact that in a word that runs off about the individual that it really cant stand the individual. Individual whatever must always serve the collective or that individual will not shine at all. But yet it is even more than that. The individual will never be able to have his glory to himself but always must look like it was given him by man. This is a lie and what Roark was on about. Comes down to who needs who and Roarks position pointing out the reality of powers falicy. In the end guys like Roark have power to themselves, thier own power and this attitude must be destroyed becouse in itself its a challange to the collective glue.

Look at the way automobiles look so much alike these days, of housing projects far and wide with three standard models, ect ect and tell me theres not a problem.

First of all there is no such thing as a "GOOD" christian. All you have is grace. Anything considered good that comes from you is from the creator. Christ wasn't sent because we had it all together nor were any of the other teachers.

Yes much of the Bible was edited and tailored to the rulers of this world. Obey or Die is generally the theme.
Bait and Switch double meanings.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I am a Christian, and I love the book "Atlas Shrugged". I do not buy into her entire moral belief system, but I also do not believe that it is the responsibility of the producers of the world to support the moochers of the world. The Apostle Paul said it best when he said "He who WILL NOT WORK shall not eat"(emphasis mine)((II Thessalonians 3:10)).

DITTO. You said it perfectly!

Not too keen on her views on violent angry sex though. Her characters get off on rape and angry dirty sex. Kinda ruined The Fountainhead for me. Could'a been a good story otherwise.

Heres a good read on this subject.....

Wendy McElroy-Looking Through a Paradigm Darkly

The title of your thread should be "Good Christians Aren't Objectivists". My faith most closely parallels the Christian religion and I am reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and have recently discovered Ayn Rand through a coworker. I am gobbling it up. But I don't consider myself an objectivist, and don't want to be, although I can be sympathetic to that philosophy. Her works make sense in a secular world, which is where we realistically live. My faith is personal and I can separate my faith from the world I live in. The next thing I read after Atlas Shrugged will be The Virtue of Selfishness, which I fully expect to enjoy no less than AS.

/TOA

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by soficrow

 

…Honey, I probably read Atlas Shrugged before you were born!

Unless you are in your late 50's or older, I doubt it. If you are in your late 50's or older, then it is quite possible

Bingo. Late 50's.

...and I still ask you where in the novel these actions occurred. ... I am talking about the actions of the main protagonists in the book and ask you to show where their actions support your suppositions.

I'm not clear what "actions" you mean, or what 'suppositions' you think I am making.

...There is no doubt Ayn Rand was a self-proclaimed atheist, dead-set against Jesus' kind of self-sacrifice, or that she used her novels to showcase and present her philosophy of selfish "objective" libertarianism.

The quote you seem to question does summarize the underlying philosophy of Atlas Shrugged, and her other works too:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

~ Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Your sticking point seems to be that you see the "actions" of Rand's protagonists as moral, and essentially, "Christian." I agree, by the way, as do many philosophers and theologians. To misquote an ancient Chinese philosopher:

Many paths lead to the same place.

Believe me, I do NOT question that wisdom.

My difficulty stems from my understanding of Christianity, specifically that one MUST believe in God, the Bible as the word of God, and Christ, and that one's actions MUST be informed by those beliefs. More to the point, I understand Christians to believe that "many paths" do NOT "lead to the same place" - only the Christian path counts. That even if you seem to get to the "same place" it's NOT the same if you did not follow the "Christian path" to get there.

If I am incorrect in my understanding, please know that I am open to being 're-educated.'

With respect, sofi

reply to post by soficrow


Sorry you are derailing your own thread venturing into the weeds of disability claims. No one has made any judgment on who "decides" that a person is disabled and not capable of working. What we have been saying is that private charity is better equiped to handle the needs of a person who is disabled.
Let us however go into this a little deeper for a brief moment. If I am going to provide charity to someone and thus be giving them time or money or material support then YES I will be making the decision about the eligability of the receiver of my support. If I feel that they are simply mooching then they will not receive that support. That is MY right because I am the one giving. This is completely outside of the points being made by SOL.
Regardless of how a disability is determined private charity based on the willing contribution of its supporters is more efficent and morally superior to government.
What is "unchristian" is the concept of using the police power of government to force one citizen to give up their livelyhood to support another citizen regardless of the worthyness of that citizen. THAT is theft no matter how liberal progressive socialist like to dress it up. I present this situation. Let us suppose that you encounter a homeless man on the street. He is dirty and starving missing both arms and obviously in need. Is it acceptable for you to draw a firearm and use that firearm to force the next individual that comes along to give the homeless man money?
Whatever concepts someone has about the role and responsibility of government are independent of their personal spritual beliefs. For example I personally do not approve of excessive drug use however I do not expect that the government should therefore make drug use illegal. The christian fans of Ayn Rand who promote her philosophy about government are promoting the end result not the thought process that brought that end result about. They agree with the end result because it places more focus on the church and its role in overall society. That they do not approve of her personal spiritual beliefs is not inconsistent even though she used those beliefs to format her philosophy.

reply to post by Dragoon01

...No one has made any judgment on who "decides" that a person is disabled and not capable of working. What we have been saying is that private charity is better equiped to handle the needs of a person who is disabled.
...If I am going to provide charity to someone and thus be giving them time or money or material support then YES I will be making the decision about the eligability of the receiver of my support. If I feel that they are simply mooching then they will not receive that support. That is MY right because I am the one giving.

Exactly what I've been saying: it's an obvious, and inescapable, implication.

What is "unchristian" is the concept of using the police power of government to force one citizen to give up their livelyhood to support another citizen regardless of the worthyness of that citizen. THAT is theft no matter how liberal progressive socialist like to dress it up.

Providing food to the hungry and help to the needy does NOT force anyone to "give up their livelihood."

On the other hand, supporting the current economic system, handing over Billions of dollars in bail-out funds for executive bonu$e$, funnelling Trillion$ of dollars to corporate mercenaries - now THAT might cause a LOT of people to lose their livelihoods. ...Scratch "might" - it DID.

So why not go after the BIG Guys first - why not go after the ones who are bleeding us ALL dry?

Why go after the little guys?

Is it because they're easy targets? ...They're totally small potatoes, and don't get anywhere near the government funds that the Big Guyz do. But heh. They're defenseless. Easy ta whup. Not like the banksters and mega-corporations. Now them guyz'd put up a real fight! And you might lose. Which is what counts, right?

The christian fans of Ayn Rand who promote her philosophy about government are promoting the end result not the thought process that brought that end result about.

Of course. The ends justify the means. Now there's a Christian ideal.