It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



We need to establish how Roark was selfish.


We did. Over and over and over again.

According to your analysis and observations, Rand's self-serving objectivist philosophy leads to the same place as Christian "morality" (except for the nasty sex bits). You, for example, are unable to distinguish the two.

Rand's point precisely: made, underlined and bolded.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Logarock
 



We need to establish how Roark was selfish.


We did. Over and over and over again.

According to your analysis and observations, Rand's self-serving objectivist philosophy leads to the same place as Christian "morality" (except for the nasty sex bits). You, for example, are unable to distinguish the two.

Rand's point precisely: made, underlined and bolded.


We really havent establish this. Looks clumsy, need to draw in a little closer. Cant really sink the teeth into this just yet.

How would you suggest Roark redeem himself then? What move could he have made to bring him in line with something you could work with? Are you sure that your problem with Roark doesnt lay in his general unwillingness to be shoved around?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



How would you suggest Roark redeem himself then? What move could he have made to bring him in line with something you could work with? Are you sure that your problem with Roark doesnt lay in his general unwillingness to be shoved around?


...? This thread's thesis is contained in the title, "Good Christians Don't Follow Ayn Rand."

I do NOT have a problem with Roark, or Rand for that matter. I don't think either requires redemption. I agree with Rand that one need not be Christian to lead a moral life - as do you, apparently.

I recognize that Christianity does NOT believe that many paths lead to the same place - only being "saved in Christ" and thus, "redeemed" are acceptable paths.

In contrast, I DO believe many paths lead to the same place, and DO have a problem with any creed that says non-believers are doomed. I DO have a problem with hypocritical, self-righteous judgmental people of any faith, be they Christian, Muslim, Bahai' or anything else.

Again, I do NOT have a problem with Roark, or with the fact that he is not Christian - you are the one who needs to describe his and Rand's qualities as "Christian," which they are not but rather, just consistent with (ideal) Christian behavior. ...As I said previously, I am just curious how Christian Libertarians juggle the conflict inherent in serving two masters.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 
Well fair enough. As far as christains and two masters I take you to mean christains that dont follow a quiet humble life but engage in some sort of larger profit seeking ventures. Say Amish style vs The Christian Business Association (a non profit organization dedicated in empowering Christian business leaders and changing nations-whatever that means). There is and has been most of the time quiet debate amoung christains around this dichotomy for years the former being the idealists of the bunch the latter consider themselves justifed along certain biblical lines. I suppose some even feel like as long as they hate the one, mamon (or their job) then they are ok. lol Many wealthy or successful at buisness christains just consider it all a matter of degrees or (here we go) individual capacity or even blessing of some sort based on one thing or another having to do with thier lot in life. The directive about mammon then for the very large part is shoved into the laps of christain ministers who are then expected to be the only ones to live a life void of any intanglements with mamon. Heres were Roark come in. The "moneyed" christains will often times come in conflict, as in control issues by way of cash support, with ministers that they dont consider "pliable" for one reason or another. Minister that will not be second handers of one type or another or at all. The modern day church is just full to the brim with stories about ministers that wouldnt be controled by moneyed members. And it gets ruff and tuff up in there. At this point the minister departs and considers this like dusting his feet off on the deal whiel the controling forces write the minister off as not being a team player.



edit on 11-1-2011 by Logarock because: ex



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



As far as christains and two masters I take you to mean christains that dont follow a quiet humble life but engage in some sort of larger profit seeking ventures.


Erm, no. As the OP outlines and as I have reiterated over the past 5 pages, there is a fundamental ideological conflict between:

Selfish objectivist Libertarianism



versus

Self-less altruistic Christianity




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Ok. Selfless aulturistic christanity.....you never find it the same wherever you find it. Cant be worked into form. Looks like the blob. Do we want Mother Teresa or Dale Carnegie? Is it the socialist version that makes christanity a servant to social issues? I mean we gotta know there are many out there that just make a killing from good ol christain aulturisim. And it doesnt match up in the end.

You take Christ feeding the mob. He ended up driving them away by saying that they only follow him for the food!
Selfless aulturistic christanity is one of those things that should be left to the individual believer themselves and not some yoke put around the neck by other believers or preachers of social ills. Preachers of aulturism tend to be rather presumptuous in that for one thing they are most often on the reciving end of it.

The ox is worthy, he eats in the crib where he treads out the corn.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Self-less altruistic Christianity is what Christ taught, and according to Christ's word, is the foundation of Christianity.

Roark lived by the rules of selfish objective Libertarianism.

As you pointed out, you can't tell the difference - and in fact, stated that you see Roark as "Christ-like."

By your terms, there are indeed many paths to the same place, and one need NOT be Christian to be "redeemed."



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I'm a fan of Ayn Rand and not a Christian, so I guess it's true, good christians don't follow Ayn Rand because it is too liberating, too much focusing on the freedom of the spirit rather than the guilt the spirit should feel because men try to act like gods.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Logarock
 



As far as christains and two masters I take you to mean christains that dont follow a quiet humble life but engage in some sort of larger profit seeking ventures.


Erm, no. As the OP outlines and as I have reiterated over the past 5 pages, there is a fundamental ideological conflict between:

Selfish objectivist Libertarianism



versus

Self-less altruistic Christianity





And I wouldnt really put these two up agaist each other as if the first represents evil and the other all the good.

This idea that TRUE, and I pound my breast as looking skywards, self-less altruistic christanity is the place were the individual gets "borged" like Locutus to be saved and justified is just flat cultic. I am with Rand when she called this "selfishness-without-a-self." Self-less alturistic christanity as is known today is an evaluation of the individual based on economics and a very wide and self serving idea about momon. Christ said make friends in the kingdom of mammon not call them out as evil. Modern day christain alturists are often like Judas not caring for the individual beyound how he can profit form him and the poor are the hook. Or hook the person with something to give and make him poor for Jesus sake. Chrsit asked a wealthy guy to sell all he had and give it to the poor but it certainly wasnt for alturistc reasons!
"selfishness-without-a-self ".



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Logarock
 


Self-less altruistic Christianity is what Christ taught, and according to Christ's word, is the foundation of Christianity.



No this is not what he tought and its not the foundation of christianity. Make friends of the Kingdom of mammon is certainly not based on an altruistic idea. Telling the crowds to get lost if your only here for the food is not an alturistic mind set. And eating corn out of the field was a matter of the law and only applied to a few rows on the edge of the field, not the whole field.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



And eating corn out of the field was a matter of the law and only applied to a few rows on the edge of the field, not the whole field.


I take it you're referring to the rise of corporatism, and the funnelling of almost all our tax contributions into million and billion-dollar CEO "bonuses," bogus "corporate contracts" and of course, all those "bail outs."

I agree, btw.

Let's go after the Corporate Welfare Bums FIRST. The little guys get absolute bubkas in comparison.






edit on 12/1/11 by soficrow because: wd



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Logarock
 



As far as christains and two masters I take you to mean christains that dont follow a quiet humble life but engage in some sort of larger profit seeking ventures.


Erm, no. As the OP outlines and as I have reiterated over the past 5 pages, there is a fundamental ideological conflict between:

Selfish objectivist Libertarianism



versus

Self-less altruistic Christianity





And I wouldnt really put these two up agaist each other as if the first represents evil and the other all the good.


I don't. Christians do.

As I keep saying:

I don't have a problem with Libertarianism. Christians have a problem with selfish objective Libertarianism, which is based on atheism.

I do have a problem with hypocritical, self-righteous judgmental so-called Christians. The kind who say Roark must be Christian because he is Christ-like - even though he is clearly a "selfish" atheist.

AND, as I also keep saying:

There is a fundamental ideological conflict between:

Selfish objectivist Libertarianism



versus

Self-less altruistic Christianity





Pick one Logarock. Selfish atheism OR Christianity. You can't have both.

..or you could admit that contrary to Christian dogma, many paths do indeed lead to the same place.






posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



We could talk about that but no my meaning addresses this idea that the farmers whole field, or anyone whole worth ect as being subject to and by modern day "alturistic" evaluation. They have gone from the edge of the field to 1/2 of the field and are still pushing.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Heads up.

The global mega-corporations just stole nearly every individuals' WHOLE worth, never mind "1/2 the field." ...Just google "bankrupt," and "national debt."

But you still want to target crippled vets, orphans and widows? ...Wotta guy.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



Well I see this is falling apart. Really never said anything about vets, widows ect. I was talking about socalists. But yea it comes from both ends for the guy in the middle. Hes being eaten from both ends high and low. There is really only one class strugle in this country, just war on the middle class from both sides.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
This thread outlines the fundamental conflict between Christianity and Rand's atheist Libertarianism.

Clearly, the twain do not meet, except in denial.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


They are certainly never going to meet in the hard boiled mind. Christisanity should support Roark before it supports what he was up against. Communism is what overtakes the individual. And slavish mind control sorts of "christian" thinking that in one case have made the individual serve "something greater then self" clearly as a form of redemption, acceptance and usury. The other makes God a servant of man and mammon, Jesus a preacher of the work ethic rather than a source of salvation for the evil selfrightious soul and Paul a minister of prosperity rather than a man that took up his cross. Roark stands out as a saving force for mankind rather than one of the salvish mass of control freek ownership.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by soficrow
 



Roark stands out as a saving force for mankind ...



True. And as an ATHEIST too.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Oh boy well I am not going to be ramroded. Dont have to pick one as I dont agree with your dogma about the former.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by soficrow
 



Roark stands out as a saving force for mankind ...



True. And as an ATHEIST too.




I dont see this. There is a higher value given man that he must fight for against worldly tyrants. If the gift in man is given by God then the man that protects it does Gods work. WIll a man answer to God or man?




top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join