Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand

reply to post by soficrow



Ok I see your points but we are challenging Rands writing here as being christain or not or to what degree. She use types and so it just leads to an examination. Its really not a place for hard core christain application. In that case we should just leave off with any examination of litature along these lines becouse its just not going to work out to a full blown gosple message.

Having said all of this it looks to me like Rands Foutainhead was influnced by ideas she had about justice and christanity in a secular setting with political overtones, even if she wasnt aware of it. Just look at the large amount of christain philosophy that resides in our understanding of the lichpins of western culture that we no longer even recognize where it came form when we see it or use it.

The consitution of the US is largly influnced and yet not a part of scripture or a gosple message. Even Marx called religion and he was talking about christanity "the opiate of the masses" so great was its influence on our ways of thinking to the point of being a fundemental part of western cultural philosophy.

Originally posted by Nuugha
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.

Christ did many unselfish things but He was constantly pointing out things to the leaders that challanged their place as one that they had taken. Like the stories of the Vineyard. If Christ was such an altruist why did he say to the crowds that they followed Him only becouse of the bread? Why didnt He let them eat and feed them always? And to the rest He said you must eat my body and drink my blood? He was certainly trying to get folks to focas on Himself. He cursed a fig tree that had not fruit on it. The temple was latter torn down and burned, much like Roarks blowing up of His own work, becouse He was not recived well there and rejected as His name was not in it. Thats not very "loving" and "unselfish". Fact is Christ wasnt a totaly unselfish person. He made and demanded claims over His own things, things that were His. He made Himself the center of attention..."you will not see me hear again untill you learn to say blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord". But, but Jesus I though all you wanted to do was go around feeding and healing people and doing good works but now we see you want something.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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.

You are right this is not very christain. But the bible is full of this sort of violence as part of its telling. And it dosent say it was good but it doesnt mean there wasnt a reason for recording the events. Yes Rands Roark is not a chirstian type but he is a human type. Are you so sheltered that a dozen roses and candy instead of the ruff stuff is what it would take to get you to take Rand a little better?

Lets look at the woman here. She is really just a high classed call girl a woman on a leash at a price before she met Roark. Why didnt she fight off the good ol boys like she did Roark? Why at first did she try to make Roark another of her lackeys? So she meets an independent guy that wouldnt cave in for the "love" a guy that wants something real out of her instead of her phoney selling of hereself for some power wealth and position. If she wanted his kind of man she was dam well going to respect him. She became the woman that had seven devils cast out of her.

Originally posted by soficrow

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 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."

Yes certainly my way or the highway. Lets just have a look at the people and their type that followed God and Jesus. Many of them are types. Types of waffling sinners getting off track here and there. "My way or the highway" is not something easy for man to follow and the bible is full of examples. Men that were left to build in His name that didnt always do things right. Are you going to tell me you never got or get off the highway? Would you withstand a guy like Roark becouse you felt like you had the same interests like those men that withstood him had to protect? In fact maybe Roark is more of a type that gose around making sure his name is all over "the work" like much of what we see out of "leaders" in modern christanity today. But that wasnt Roark really as he let others take credit for His work but blew it up only if it wasnt done right.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses Logarock.

reply to post by Logarock

...it looks to me like Rands Foutainhead was influnced by ideas she had about justice and christanity in a secular setting with political overtones, even if she wasnt aware of it.

It looks to me like those aspects of "Christian philosophy" are not exclusively Christian.

There is an exceptionally long pre-Christian history of various religions, cultures and philosophers teaching non-selfishness, cooperation, kindness and compassion. ...Some people actually believe that Christ went to India and studied Buddhism during his "missing years." Whatever happened then, the generally accepted explanation is that successful societies are based on core "laws" calling for "fair cooperation" because any social system falls apart without it.

...it looks to me like Rand set out to prove that a society could exist without religion or a "moral" code, just a "rationally selfish" one - and still be successful.

Even Rand was not a perfect Objectivist. It all amounts to a lot of navel gazing anyway. Selfishness in Rand's philosophy is not the same as the dictionary definition of the word. In a world with billions of human beings, each invariably pursuing his own desires, selfishness is an objective reality. What needs clairity is our perception of what is truly in our self interest.

If I pass someone who is starving and naked, that persons condition does not automatically place responsibility on me to supply the remedy. I did not put that person there or cause his suffering. Yet, it is in many ways in my self interest to help that person. Why?
1. Poor people are desperate people and can quickly become angry or violent. It would be in my self interest to provide some measure of charity to ease his suffering, by gift of lodging, money, employment.
2. I don't want to see it on my street or town and will pay the person to leave.
3. My sense of compassion - I will feel better about myself If I help.

Or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with any social obligation and everything to do with my own self interest. Welfare removes the responsibility of charity from the individual and the pubic. This is ultimately destructive of society as people leave it up to the bureaucracy that ends up doing harm and wasting resources.

So, If we all were more self interested in the truest and most honest sense, the world might be a better place.

Jesus said He was giving up His body that He might recieve it back again. It seems to be a gospel of higher self-interest. Society wins and individuals win, physically and spiritually when we care for ALL human beings. We do this better as a group, flaws and all, but the real payoff is one on one caring. Just attempting to practice pure love is uplifting.

Of course. Good christians follow jesus and not anyone else. So Nuugha and sofi are right, you can't serve two opposite masters, either you follow christ or not.

According to the bible Jesus doesn't like lukewarm people, he spits out people like rand, and of course her followers.

Originally posted by soficrow
Thanks for your thoughtful responses Logarock.

reply to post by Logarock

 

...it looks to me like Rands Foutainhead was influnced by ideas she had about justice and christanity in a secular setting with political overtones, even if she wasnt aware of it.

It looks to me like those aspects of "Christian philosophy" are not exclusively Christian.

...it looks to me like Rand set out to prove that a society could exist without religion or a "moral" code, just a "rationally selfish" one - and still be successful.

You are welcome sir.

Well she clearly did set out in Roarks case to show how the individual is up against a system that serves itself at the expence of the individual. I dont see Roark as being selfish really but do see the "system" she presents in the story as being selfish. She did a good job of showing how selfish and ruthless sell outs to the system were. That their requerments of the individual were really over the top, foul, evil and dark.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Of course. Good christians follow jesus and not anyone else. So Nuugha and sofi are right, you can't serve two opposite masters, either you follow christ or not.

According to the bible Jesus doesn't like lukewarm people, he spits out people like rand, and of course her followers.

That ok but were still havent established that Roark couldnot have been a christain. I could clearly see how a man like Roark could see himself as one doing the Lords work.

I mean is anyone on here trying to say that the Roark figure was evil and selfish becouse he fought being absorbed, that he resented finding his personal value in the amount of it that could be coined by the system? Silver is what it is becouse the system puts value on it, its rarity adds to this but silver is an impersonal object. Should a man allow this of himself to others without at least being able to place value on himself? What is a man if he cant define himself? Christ defined himself at every turn and to the consternation of the elders and people and refused to be made into something acceptable for their use. Oh they tried.

Originally posted by miken777
Jesus said He was giving up His body that He might recieve it back again. It seems to be a gospel of higher self-interest. Society wins and individuals win, physically and spiritually when we care for ALL human beings. We do this better as a group, flaws and all, but the real payoff is one on one caring. Just attempting to practice pure love is uplifting.

Yes and Christ knew that he must obtain the throne, all authority, becouse He knew who would get it if He failed and knew that to be a bad thing.

Originally posted by Smack

Or any number of reasons that have nothing to do with any social obligation and everything to do with my own self interest. Welfare removes the responsibility of charity from the individual and the pubic. This is ultimately destructive of society as people leave it up to the bureaucracy that ends up doing harm and wasting resources.

So, If we all were more self interested in the truest and most honest sense, the world might be a better place.

Yes and in the case of the good samaritan the guy he helped was a good citizen that had been set upon by those that lerk along the highway. The guy wasnt homeless or a bumb or a worthless fellow. Not to say we cant help the homeless but the story here is not about a down and out homeless man but a victim of thugs.

reply to post by Logarock

You are welcome sir.

You can call me ma'am.

With respect, sofi

...

The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision. The book follows his battle to practice what the public sees as modern architecture, which he believes to be superior, despite an establishment centered on tradition-worship. How others in the novel relate to Roark demonstrates Rand's various archetypes of human character, all of which are variants between Roark, the author's ideal man of independent-mindedness and integrity, and what she described as the "second-handers." The complex relationships between Roark and the various kinds of individuals who assist or hinder his progress, or both, allow the novel to be at once a romantic drama and a philosophical work. Roark is Rand's embodiment of the human spirit, and his struggle represents the triumph of individualism over collectivism.

Roark's struggle is about individual interpretation against the 'accepted version,' personal vision against dogma, art against tradition - and he DOES triumph as an individual over the 'collective.'

...all of this is fairly anti- Christianity, in virtually every aspect. Don't you think?

Originally posted by soficrow

Roark's struggle is about individual interpretation against the 'accepted version,' personal vision against dogma, art against tradition - and he DOES triumph as an individual over the 'collective.'

...all of this is fairly anti- Christianity, in virtually every aspect. Don't you think?

Not to be quaint but that would depend on where one was standing....in christianity. I just cant help but to see Christ here, not as a rebel but being true to what He was and comming into conflict with everything on earth. Granted Christ should probably be seen more as a restorer but He certainly was at odds with the world over His personal individual essence.

reply to post by Logarock

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by soficrow

Roark's struggle is about individual interpretation against the 'accepted version,' personal vision against dogma, art against tradition - and he DOES triumph as an individual over the 'collective.'

...all of this is fairly anti- Christianity, in virtually every aspect. Don't you think?

...that would depend on where one was standing....in christianity. I just cant help but to see Christ here, not as a rebel but being true to what He was and comming into conflict with everything on earth.

The difference is in their intent. Roark's intent was to serve his own "selfish" needs; Christ's intent was to serve God and sacrifice himself for man.

But I do agree - Jesus Christ was the ultimate revolutionary.

Granted Christ should probably be seen more as a restorer but He certainly was at odds with the world over His personal individual essence.

Nope, don't think it was about his "personal individual essence" - the 'world' was not serving God, everyone was about to go to Hell, and Christ's purpose was to sacrifice himself to "save" them.

Originally posted by soficrow
[
Nope, don't think it was about his "personal individual essence" - the 'world' was not serving God, everyone was about to go to Hell, and Christ's purpose was to sacrifice himself to "save" them.

Yea save them, His elect from the "collective". And look what He got out of it. All authority over things on, below and above the earth. And Hes coming back with force to empose Himself, His way and will.

And closer to the point do you believe Roark would have been a christ figure or something in that direction had he alowed himself to be used fully, at all personal expence for the greatness of the whole? Do you think Christ is all about altruism?

reply to post by Logarock


Roark was all about selfishness - serving the self, and not God.

Christ was all about selflessness - serving others, and God.

Rand proved that both paths lead to the same place.

"Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand".

Of course a good Christian would not follow Ayn Rand. Jesus would have dealt with Objectivists like the money lenders in the temple; he would kick serious butt.

We are all our brother's keeper and the nasty Ayn Rand was an odd character that preached an un-IslamoChristian ideology.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
"Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand".


We are all our brother's keeper and the nasty Ayn Rand was an odd character that preached an un-IslamoChristian ideology.

Didnt Roark let another lame ass use his plan, but let the other guy put his name on it?

reply to post by soficrow


We need to establish how Roark was selfish.

Christ was not all about selflessness. One thing comes to mind here His cursing of the fig tree when He couldnt find any fruit on it.