Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand

reply to post by soficrow


Just curious about your last post. What do you think then of my signature quote of Rands? If you believe she knew the difference between the earners and the takers, how would you interpret that with your opinion stated?

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone

I don't know about sofi, but I am complete agreement with your sig. Government by it's very nature is repressive. Taxation by it's very nature damages the economy. Government should be kept very small so as to inflict minimum damage to the economy and control over the population.

Right-wing "christianity" is a lot about both having and eating the cake at the same time.

Jesus said very clearly that you cannot serve both Jesus and Mammon, you'll eventually start to hate either one of them.

It is very, very easy to find passages in the new testament relating to selflessless, not being overly concerned about worldy things etc etc etc.

To me, right-wing christianity seem to be very ego-centric. They want the Power of God and they want their literally everlasting life (including their special tribe, "the nation" this or that) and at the same time all the material goods they can get a handle on. And they are obsessed with sexuality one way or the other.

Rigth-wing christians do not seem to long for goodness, justice, feeding the poor, healing the sick.

Also, they seem to be extremely contradictory. They seem to want a simple, black-and-white world, yet they stumble into paradoxes and self-contradictions all the time.

One example: They are "libertarians" right? The state is all evil. The Free Individual is all good. But - when it comes to "christian" (superficially christian) indoctrination, prohibitions, regulations in society, they become very collectivistic and submitting to right-wing christian polticians that try to do some really unconstitutional things when censoring Darwin in schools or making christaian prayers in school obligatory.

Jesus and the early christians were not "state-socialists" but there are more political variants than just the dichotomy of "Communism" and "Anti-Communism" . If Communism is evil (Yes it is, then certainly Anti-that must be the only thing and the better the more extreme it is...Dichotomous thinking, by the way, that's the way obsessive.compulsives and anorexic thinks. The Universe, including our human society, is a bit more about balances and nuances and complexities.

Originally posted by soficrow
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,

This idea that many roads lead to the same place is not an idea that came from any of the big religions but an idea that has been forced on them or demanded of them. There is no way anyone that understands the diffrences in the majior religions would by into this idea that many ways lead to God. None of the majior religions believe this. They are all at odds with each other at some point and in large ways.

reply to post by ZindoDoone

Just curious about your last post. What do you think then of my signature quote of Rands?

Signature
"Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear."

~ Ayn Rand

I have worked in business corporations and in government too.

I know for a fact that the corporate structure IS a bureaucracy.

Governments and corporations are natural partners. Together, they wield the carrot AND the stick, alternately promising riches, then threatening punishment for non-compliance. Together, they manipulate and control ordinary people using economic AND political power, values AND fear.

And that's what we're up against: a corporate-government partnership - NOT the hungry, needy and homeless.

Rand would have known that, and she also would have known that the Christians are being manipulated into setting their sights on the wrong target.

…If you believe she knew the difference between the earners and the takers, how would you interpret that with your opinion stated?

The "earners" are producers: those who produce, using their own capacities, NOT other peoples' money (usury). FYI - that's the first rule of 'business' today: Never use your own money.

The "takers" go for the free ride: those who use others and others' money, and who profit inordinately from others' production and needs.

In our society, the biggest "takers," by far, are the mega-corporations who have our government by the balls. Our so-called "economy" is just a giant pyramid Ponzi scheme with the banksters and mega-corporations at the top, and ordinary "earners" at the bottom - feeding the Big Guys from every pocket at every turn.

As far as "government safety nets" go, a few individuals slip through the cracks and abuse the programs, but most would rather be working, getting ahead and living above subsistence poverty levels. Individually, recipients get very little. Collectively, 'safety net programs' get 14% of the federal budget or $482 billion.

In contrast, the banksters and mega-corporations are just raking it in - collectively AND individually.

The way the "Christians" are talking here, they seem to think individual CEO's have a moral right to claim billion$ a pop -directly from our tax contributions- for individual Executive Bonuses; but giving away hundred-dollar food stamps to hungry people is the real problem. I don't get it…?

But never mind the obscene Executive Bonuses or all the other ridiculous pork. Over the past decade, American taxpayers personally funded the global corporate military industry, and the creation of several mercenary corporate armies.

Last year, military expenditures took 54% and $1,449 billion. It looks like much of that went to "independent contractors," aka the global corporate military industry, and to purchase mercenary corporate armies' "services."

Is that Christian? Is it Libertarian?

Why not go after the BIG Guys first - why not go after the ones who are bleeding us ALL dry? The real "takers" and "non-producers"? Why not rant about corporate subsidies being funneled through the military? Just for starters?

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
Safety net programs: 14% and $482 billion

Sources:
Where do our Fed Tax Dollars Go?
Federal Pie Chart
Thanks to BenevolentHeretic

Why go after the little guys? Collectively, they get $482 billion compared to $1,449 billion: 14% of the total federal budget compared to the military's 54%.

What's that about?

…According to sonofliberty1776:

I also do not believe that it is the responsibility of the producers of the world to support the moochers of the world. ~ sonofliberty1776

Okay. But do you really believe that the hungry, needy and poor are the real moochers in this picture? 14% compared to 54%? Feeding hungry children and caring for the unemployed, infirm and elderly compared to funding global corporate military armies? [btw - Do you know that most military families need Food Stamps? 'Cuz the BIG money goes to the corporate contractors? And there's not enough left over to pay our own soldiers enough to even feed their families?]

Dragoon01 says:

…If I am … 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. Dragoon01

Okay. Decide. Do you want to give your money for Executive Bosuses in the Billion dollar range? Do you WANT to give your money to support and maintain the global corporate military industry?

From the "Christian" perspective, I agree with miken777 on this one.

… 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.
~ miken777

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by soficrow

 

Good Christians reject the use of violence against the innocent, which means they must reject socialism.

It is clear that good Christians follow Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, because that is the only system of purely peaceful voluntary interactions between humans.

Well I beg to differ with you on that.

The closest economic form for honest Christians to subscribe to is not Anarcho-capitalism, actually it is not capitalism at all, it is Distributism. The only fair, honest, and morally acceptable economic system which neither steals the fruits of your labors (Socialism) or permits servitude (Capitalism). Man should be free to design his private property in whatever shape he wants while still living in a society which allows for communal cooperation.

Abolish the employer and the bureaucrat. Neither has helped man through this life. Private property, cooperation, voluntary collectivism, and self-reliance are true Christian values. All classes must unite, guilds must be formed, and private ownership of the means of production spread as far as possible.

You want Christian values? Only Distributism can truly represent Christianity.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by soficrow
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

...There is no way anyone that understands the diffrences in the majior religions would by into this idea that many ways lead to God. ...

Exactly my point.

Christianity does NOT acknowledge that "Many paths lead to the same place."

So while Rand's characters have the appearance of being moral in a Christian way, and their actions appear consistent with Christian values, they are NOT following the Christian path. These facts alone make Rand's philosophy un-Christian.

reply to post by soficrow


Quote:
Exactly my point.

Christianity does NOT acknowledge that "Many paths lead to the same place."

So while Rand's characters have the appearance of being moral in a Christian way, and their actions appear consistent with Christian values, they are NOT following the Christian path. These facts alone make Rand's philosophy un-Christian.

Unquote

This one sentence needs some clarification:
"Christianity does NOT acknowledge that "Many paths lead to the same place."

It should read : "Many paths lead to the one true path" which is what is actually the belief system of most Christians. Through out your lives you take many paths that are wrong in nature until you find the path that brings you to what ever is to become your destiny! Some to Christianity, some elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it's un-christian to falter and then regain the righteous path later in life. I think more than ever that Rand believed that when she penned the ending of 'The Fountainhead'! She may not have believed in a God, but she did emulate Christian values in her characters and in some ways in her own life as chaotic as it was!

Zindo

reply to post by soficrow
This does not mean that we cannot appreciate and agree with the libertarian ACTIONS of the CHARACTERS in the book. I agree 100% that Jesus is the way, there is no other. This does not make every single action of every single person in the world wrong. Their reasons for the actions may be wrong, but that is not for me to judge. Only the Lord can judge. I have enough problems with my own sins to concern myself with the sins; much less the motive for the sins of others.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Good Lord.

You're not only attempting to re-write Rand's works, but history and philosophy too!!!

I hear her rolling over in her grave.



...Believe me, YOUR understanding of Rand's 'path" is emphatically NOT hers.


Ed. to add:

This one sentence needs some clarification:
"Christianity does NOT acknowledge that "Many paths lead to the same place."

It should read : "Many paths lead to the one true path" which is what is actually the belief system of most Christians.

Erm. No. I said exactly what I meant to say, and what many philosophies say too. And yes, it is VERY different from what Christians say.

reply to post by Misoir


Interesting, I have never heard of distributism before. I have only read what is on your link, and would need to do more research, but this seems very reasonable. Too bad there are no such societies in existence. I would live there.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Their reasons for the actions may be wrong, but that is not for me to judge. Only the Lord can judge.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by soficrow
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

...There is no way anyone that understands the diffrences in the majior religions would by into this idea that many ways lead to God. ...

Exactly my point.

Christianity does NOT acknowledge that "Many paths lead to the same place."

So while Rand's characters have the appearance of being moral in a Christian way, and their actions appear consistent with Christian values, they are NOT following the Christian path. These facts alone make Rand's philosophy un-Christian.

Why becouse Roark demanded his work be done his way and didnt buy into the system?

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by soficrow
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

...There is no way anyone that understands the diffrences in the majior religions would by into this idea that many ways lead to God. ...

Exactly my point.

Christianity does NOT acknowledge that "Many paths lead to the same place."

So while Rand's characters have the appearance of being moral in a Christian way, and their actions appear consistent with Christian values, they are NOT following the Christian path. These facts alone make Rand's philosophy un-Christian.

Why becouse Roark demanded his work be done his way and didnt buy into the system?

Not at all. No idea where you got that.

In other words, because Christianity demands compliance with beliefs, not just appearance and actions.

reply to post by soficrow


I was just wondering were you see clear problems say with Roark as an un-christain type. Not that I am really saying he is mind you but can see where someone could draw parallels with Roark and Christ, strong parallels.

reply to post by Logarock

I was just wondering were you see clear problems say with Roark as an un-christain type.

Christians aren't a "type" - you're either Christian or not; you either believe in Christ as the Son of God or you don't. No waffling, no middle ground.

...(I) can see where someone could draw parallels with Roark and Christ, strong parallels.

Me too. But "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," remember?

...I don't think there's any doubt Rand's characters behaved morally - but they are NOT Christians, hence not appropriate Christian models. I don't believe Christians have a monopoly on Christian values and moral behavior. ...It's the Christians who say, "Follow Christ or go to Hell," in other words, "My way or the highway."

The 'unchristian' in her characters ... they seem to reeeeeeeeeaaly like violent angry dirty sex and rape. They get turned on by rape. A 'frigid' woman gets raped and then ends up being turned on to sex by it. A rape victim marries the rapist. A woman is raped in her apartment by a man reclaiming his 'terratory' after he finds out that she had sex with his arch enemy years and years prior. She liked his reclaiming of her. Bruises .. cuts ... elbows to the face ... degrading sex in dirty railroad tunnels on filthy sacks of building materials.

THAT is the unchristian-ness (a word??) in the Ayn Rand books.

As for her 'hero' characters being producers and resenting the moochers who live off them, that's not 'unchristian'. No where does Christianity say to be a doormat.

reply to post by FlyersFan
Well, I did say except for the sex. I wanted only to argue the political/economic points. The characters are obviously not Christians for the sex and other things as well. However I wanted to limit the scope to solely political/economic. That is more than enough for one thread don't you agree?

Being Christian is not as one-sided as "just" believing Jesus is the son of God. It is not as one-sided as doing good deeds or being a moral person either.

From Matthew 7

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Or from Pauls first letter to the Corinthians

"If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal"

I do not not recognize any love or unselfishness whatsoever in Rand's philosophy. It's stone cold to me. If Rand is compatible with Christianity, then Nietsche is as well.

And the sayings of the impossibility to serve both God and Mammon is still there, in the very Bible to read for all, including those to claims that every single word in the Bible is from God.

I think for some right-wingers logic and compatibility is not that important.

It's like when Reagan wanted to use "Born in the USA" as a campaign-song. He never listened to the text really, it was all about the gut-feeling of Impact and Power. Shock and Awe.

Yes, distributism seems to be what I have been trying to articulate. My question is, can we convince the mega-wealthy that a healthy society is healthy for them also? Jesus said in a parable that even if someone comes back from the dead to tell them they still will not listen.