Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand

Originally posted by Logarock

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.

It's the most basic truth about Rand and her work.

Rand set out to prove that selfish atheists are "moral." She succeeded. AND she showed that "Many paths lead to the same place."

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?

I absolutely agree - many paths DO lead to the same place. However, according to Christian dogma, "Whosoever believeth in him shall be saved...

And whosoever do NOT believeth shall be damned."

...First you try to re-write Rand. Then you try to rewrite the Bible. Now you're trying to rewrite Rand again - and change one of Christianity's most basic terms!

...I'm not dogmatic - you are. And not very good at it either. More to the point, you aren't just having problems with facts and logic - but with Christian dogma too.

Not really. I believe as you do about Christ. Rand will finally fail in the end as anything will, but you really present Rand as an easy straw man. Christanity doesnt need to pull itself up on the back of these humanistic type presentation for any reason nor does it really need to destroy Rand. Bible persons are much more interesting than Roark anyway for examples of majior failures within truth and in the bibles case certain failure in the face of certain truth.

This thread is about the fundamental differences between Rand's objective Libertarianism and Christianity.

It is NOT an opportunity for pushing dogma and selling salvation. Any more preaching and I will report you for violating the T&C.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Logarock

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.

It's the most basic truth about Rand and her work.

Rand set out to prove that selfish atheists are "moral." She succeeded. AND she showed that "Many paths lead to the same place.

I dont think this is what Rand really set out to do. Looks like Rand was trying to show a figure up against, in Roarks case, the mechine and the hypocrisy of a system that simply ran its mouth about individual rights. This is simply a classic challenge to power. No Roark cant save anyones soul but the story was not about saving the soul. Its about saving the individual as a political entity, a person with rights and this extends to the roots, the development and standing of hundreds of years of developed philosophy. A philosophy that of late around 1776 came at last to forged God into its fabric as author of said rights. No one has ever said this is a path to the salvation of the soul to everlasting life but it is seen a salvation of man and society against earthly devils.

reply to post by soficrow


I dont think anyone reading this thread would accuse me of being the first to preach here. Try to avoid getting wound up, I though you we having a good thread here. How could certain things not be brought to the table in a thread called "Good Chrsitians Dont Follow Ayn Rand". Some mention of Christ is going to arise at some point!

According to Christian dogma, "Whosoever believeth in him shall be saved...

And whosoever do NOT believeth shall be damned."

...First you try to re-write Rand. Then you try to rewrite the Bible. Now you're trying to rewrite Rand again - and change one of Christianity's most basic terms!

...I'm not dogmatic - you are. And not very good at it either. More to the point, you aren't just having problems with facts and logic - but with Christian dogma too.

This thread is about the fundamental differences between Rand's well-established and commonly recognized atheism, and her philosophy's incompatibility with Christianity.

Rand's Libertarianism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible - as outlined in the Op article and illustrated throughout this thread.

reply to post by soficrow


You just have not shown how say Roark is not christain. And I am not saying he is or trying to rewrite anything. You are having a breakdown and SCREAMING!

.....?

Shoo.

Originally posted by soficrow
Good Christians Don’t Follow Ayn Rand is the title of an article first published in Sojourners. The concluding sentence in the cited review is pointed:

If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil.

Rand, in Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and other works, promoted objectivism and atheism. In her words:

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

This article highlights the hypocrisy of self-described "Christians" who uphold Rand's objectivist ideals, pointing out that Rand herself "was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus."

...I've always wondered how Christian Libertarians juggle their conflicting priorities.

It’s fascinating to see Atlas Shrugged author Ayn Rand posthumously elevated to the level of saint by conservatives who are allegedly driven by Christian values. For Rand was an aggressive atheist who condemned altruism of all kinds, writes Tim King in Sojourners, and “Grace, by its very definition, cannot find any place within Rand’s philosophy.”

...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. Christians should take Ayn Rand’s words as a warning. To follow her and her vision, one must give up Christ and his cross.

So "Jesus Shrugged."

How about you? Do you see the hypocrisy? Wonder about it? Or do you think that the the two philosophies, Christianity and objectivism, can be somehow reconciled?

The idea that Rands ideas would not line up with those of Jesus are based on three, faulty interpretations. The first of Rand, the second of rands ideas about Jesus and the 3rd, ideas of Jesus. I have tried to show you some of these problems but the effort has proved useless. And I should have know it would becouse you are more concerned with making rand/christain/capitalists look like hypocrites and using Jesus to help do it. Jesus to you is as good only as He can be used to make your point. Any pointing out that Jesus was not a model for the current aulterism ideas, the Jesus of socialism, has just led to you flaming out.

For Rand was an aggressive atheist who condemned altruism of all kinds, writes Tim King in Sojourners, and “Grace, by its very definition, cannot find any place within Rand’s philosophy.”

This is simply a statment made based on one mans idea of altruism and grace or the socialists idea of same. It is simply the logic of rhetoric. Its grace by Tims very (little) definition.

Originally posted by Logarock

The idea that Rands ideas would not line up with those of Jesus are based on three, faulty interpretations.

Were you and I reading the same material?

Here is an article concerning Rand's idolization of a serial killer who murdered and mutilated a 12 year old girl.
www.michaelprescott.net...

She had a propensity to sleep with married men. Rape is frequent feature in her novels.

I think it's pretty telling most of her defenders won't touch that.

reply to post by antonia


I am not saying that Rand would measure up to having a good interpretation of Christ but that these ideas about why Rand may not area about as crapy.

Your post above had some Chris Matthew Sciabarra ideas on Rand....

John Ridpath, a director of the Ayn Rand Institute, has argued that The Russian Radical is postmodern and deconstructionist in its overall orientation, that it is a "worthless product" of contemporary academia, and that on the whole it was "preposterous in its thesis, destructive in its purpose, and tortuously numbing in its content."[5]

While James G. Lennox thoroughly rejects the author's historical conclusions, and he recommends against construing Rand's method of challenging dichotomies or "false alternatives" as "dialectical,"

Sciabarra

Anyway I read what you posted. Many parts of it look to be pure spin and out of context cherry picking to support the position. Not taking up for Rand here but she is a person that many see a need in destroying. Making her out as someone lionizing a killer just brings up the flags and would have to be looked at a bit more than the info you provide here. Your style is boring and Sophomorish.

reply to post by soficrow


I completely agree with you Soficrow. I have always wondered that myself, how any Christian can call herself a follower of Ayn Rand! It's insane...
Vicky

Originally posted by Logarock
Yes and someone show where Roark was a toss? He was more like Christ than folks could know.

WTH?
Have you ever read any of Rand's endless non-fiction? It hardly matters what Dagny Taggart said! I've read it all, every painful word, and no good Christian can be a Randbot. (Not even an American Christian, although to judge by ATS, American Christians swallow things that those of us outside the USA would vomit at - endless war for one thing..)
V.

It seems absurd to me that professed 'good christians' would attempt to reconcile Objectivism with Christianity as the two 'philosophies' (one being a philosophy rooted in logic and reason and the other being superstition rooted in the opposite) are infact diametrically opposed. The very core of Rands objectivisim is the rejection of all belieifs that do not arise from information gathered by the senses: senses that are held to be the only true measure of truth, while the core of Christianity lies fundamentally in information that has absolutely no factual or verifiable basis that can be arrived at with said senses. Any attempt to reconcile these opposites seems to me to be an exercize in madness, akin to trying to mesh Nazism with Anarchism, or the scientific method with astrology. Commonalities between the conclusions of each system, such as individual liberty, are arrived at purely coincidentally. Objectivism must explicitly reject Christianity as irrational because no rational human can accept on 'faith' (again the opposite of reason) the existence of a supernatural dead jewish zombie who died for our immaginary sins.

So no, of course a 'good christian' cannot logically be a follower of Rands Objectivism any more than a witch doctor can declare himself to be a modern physician. To hold two opposite beliefs simultaniously is best described as cognitive dissodence, and more appropriately called madness.

reply to post by Vicky32


Well I dont know that anyone has said that a christain could be like a follower of Ann. Most christains dont know who she was or anything about her...like 99%. The OPs supposition here started off as if the issue was to be examined in light of some popular christain following. But i can tell you there is no great following at all of Rand with christains at large. But even if this was not the OPs thing making a post about christains following Rand is about like saying good christains dont follow ...fill in the blank.

This thread gives the idea that Christains do and so as we tear Rand apart we make christains look like debased fools.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by soficrow

 

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

Pardon me, have I heard you rightly? How can you possibly see parallels between Roark and Christ? AFAIK, Roark's issue was with the building he designed being used as a housing project for the poor. (Presumably, like all Randbots, he thought they ought to live under bridges... )
Christ was for the poor, not for his own ambitions..
V.

reply to post by Vicky32


"christ was foor the poor" ....if you read back in this thread this issues was touch on in a few ways.

Christ was not for or against the poor. The making of the poor as the centerpiece of Christs work is a liberal interpretation and really dosent line up with the Jesus in scripture. Liberals and Christ as poor mans advocate dont really know the bible well enough to see Christ as anything other than a political tool.

Originally posted by Smack

If I pass someone who is starving and naked, that persons condition does not automatically place responsibility on me to supply the remedy.

Yes, it does. You're a human being and she is a human being. You do have an obligation to them. And because most people won't lift a finger, civilised societies have this thing called 'taxation', the purpose of which is to redistribute wealth, so that even the callous bleeders such as you seem to be by your words above, will help those in need.
Of course from what I see on ATS, 95% of Americans, and even here in NZ, 30% of Kiwis, would rather scream that 0.05% of the tax they pay goes to "moochers", useless eaters and "welfare Moms" (or as the RWNJs here call them "DPB slappers".
I just can't believe you people, especially those who say that Rand's characters 'act morally'. Only in a very sick society would such actions as dynamiting housing projects and sinking relief ships be called moral actions. Shame!

reply to post by Vicky32


Since the thread is about Ayn Rand, I'll stick to the topic. Welfare is supposed to help the poor, just like governments are supposed to protect the people, but the world is not always what it ought to be. In Atlas Shrugged (I read it because I am proud to say I am not a good little christian), the mentality of "to each according to need" creates a society of parasites. The middle ground is where wisdom resides, there is benefit to a moderation of social welfare but at the same time welfare always creates corruption, and thus social welfare is not perfect, not nearly as good as self-sufficiency which is the opposite of what welfare preaches. Welfare teaches people to be selfless and give their self to another, begging the question, why can't the other be selfless? Or better yet, self-sufficient? In the very rare case of a handicapped or mentally challenged individual welfare has benefits but most people on welfare are not handicapped.

reply to post by Logarock


Don't you even get that the cursing of the fig tree is an acted parable? It has nothing to do with literally wanting literal fruit to eat!