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: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Hmmm so you think that simply because we are both homo sapiens I somehow owe you something. You believe that since you were born, everyone else around you *must* give you what you *demand* simply because you exist. You believe the best and most 'civilized' way to extract your tribute is to 'tax' or more appropriately 'steal' resources from others, simply because they have stuff and you have some claim to it. Your claim to others property is justified 'just because' you happen to have been born in their general proximity.

Your willing to use the infinite violence of the state in order to get what you are 'owed'. (again, owed for being born around other people) I will assume that since you claim the right to 'redistribute' wealth, or *steal*, that you believe anyone who does not submit to this theft the be subject to kidnapping, inprisonment and potential rape if they do not give in to your demands. And if they do resist, well of course they must be murdered for not submitting to your will. That about right?

And you *dare* shame others?




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Roark was also publicly "crucified" by the popular news magazine which set the standards for what people were supposed to believe. So in a way Roark was like Christ. He was also humiliated because he designed a temple, just like Christ made himself to be a new "temple" for the people which the orthodox types hated. I see a lot of parallels between Roark and Christ. As for the public housing, Roark gave all his creative genius to a fool, and thus did make a selfless sacrifice.

Ayn Rand's books Anthem, Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged represent a progressive idea that builds, Anthem is the philosophical manifesto of the ego, Fountainhead centers on Roark, who resembles John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, and Atlas Shrugged is the finished masterpiece of the struggle between the producers and the looters. John Galt is the continuation of Roark, and if you read Atlas Shrugged, John Galt talks for some 20+ pages about how the common man must use his mind and assert his existence, this is his selfless sacrifice to the poor. Galt risks his own life, and eventually gets captured, because he wants to help the poor through education, which is more helpful than the looters did by bludgeoning their minds.
edit on 25-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Well I dont know that anyone has said that a christian could be like a follower of Ayn. Most christians 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 Christians do and so as we tear Rand apart we make christians look like debased fools.




It's really difficult for me to work out exactly what point you're making, but it seems to me that there's a fundamental disagreement I have with both you and the OP! There are, it seems from ATS, 300 million Right Wing Christians in the USA. That's just insane to me. Right wing thought in it's entirety (not to mention Right Objectivism and there's no other kind) is incompatible with Christianity.
To me, Christians must be pacifist (most Americans aren't, even if they're not RW) and socialist which is where I thought the OP was coming from, but as I have read the thread I have seen her agreeing with you that Rand's characters are moral. As Rand herself would have said "the hell" they are!
V.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Well I dont know that anyone has said that a christian could be like a follower of Ayn. Most christians 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 Christians do and so as we tear Rand apart we make christians look like debased fools.




It's really difficult for me to work out exactly what point you're making, but it seems to me that there's a fundamental disagreement I have with both you and the OP! There are, it seems from ATS, 300 million Right Wing Christians in the USA. That's just insane to me. Right wing thought in it's entirety (not to mention Right Objectivism and there's no other kind) is incompatible with Christianity.
To me, Christians must be pacifist (most Americans aren't, even if they're not RW) and socialist which is where I thought the OP was coming from, but as I have read the thread I have seen her agreeing with you that Rand's characters are moral. As Rand herself would have said "the hell" they are!
V.


My point is there is nothing to shoot at. There isnt any Rand following in christanity unless you believe somehow 300 million "Right Wing Christains" have been sold a Rand model without them knowing it, Rand in other terms.

And christans must be pacifists....where you getting this? It certainly has something to do with the type of application of force. But even at this, whiel the christain is thought to be required to refrain from using phisical that dosent mean they cant be a force in social and political issues.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32
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!


Yes and that was my point. He still wanted something and didnt find it so he cursed the "tree". If He were so applicabel to the reasoning why didnt he "bless" the poor tree with fruit?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by antonia
 



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.



Oh please, and your style is denial of fact. I've read Rand's journals. I know she lionized the man because i read it. She loved his "outer self" which had no regard for society. This what she admired, of course, it was that disregard for society that led him to murder and cut into pieces a 12 year old. There were other murders too.

Rand was also an atheist who held the common man in contempt. i know this because i've more than her novels. She hated the poor and said so frequently. Her view was the poor were poor because they were morally inferior. Libertarians try to spin this to say she thought the poor were poor because of the government. Na, she had that old Calvinist viewpoint and she didn't hide it. Those who personally knew her attest to that. "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!", This is what is to be found in the margins of one of her journal pages. Sounds very Christian me

Rand's "Objectivism" was generally BS. there is something to be said about parts of the "philosophy", but even Rand herself didn't practice it. She basically said anyone who disagreed with her was not rational. She forced those who followed her to agree with every shred that dropped from her mouth. This is probably why Rothbard called her a cult leader. She was incapable of separating her personal views from rational thought. Rand seems to forget humans are social animals. Kindness is what she lacked, and is pretty hard to get humans to act like her.

The problem i find with Libertarians and Communists is actually pretty similar. Both groups ignore actual evidence of human behavior in favor of some idealized vision of man. That's not rational.

Anyway it's laughable you are trying tie Roark to Jesus, unless of course you believe Jesus would rape women and endanger the lives of other by blowing up buildings.
edit on 25-1-2011 by antonia because: RAWR



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Well I dont know that anyone has said that a christian could be like a follower of Ayn. Most christians 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 Christians do and so as we tear Rand apart we make christians look like debased fools.




It's really difficult for me to work out exactly what point you're making, but it seems to me that there's a fundamental disagreement I have with both you and the OP! There are, it seems from ATS, 300 million Right Wing Christians in the USA. That's just insane to me. Right wing thought in it's entirety (not to mention Right Objectivism and there's no other kind) is incompatible with Christianity.
To me, Christians must be pacifist (most Americans aren't, even if they're not RW) and socialist which is where I thought the OP was coming from, but as I have read the thread I have seen her agreeing with you that Rand's characters are moral. As Rand herself would have said "the hell" they are!
V.


My point is there is nothing to shoot at. There isnt any Rand following in christanity unless you believe somehow 300 million "Right Wing Christains" have been sold a Rand model without them knowing it, Rand in other terms.

And christans must be pacifists....where you getting this? It certainly has something to do with the type of application of force. But even at this, whiel the christain is thought to be required to refrain from using phisical that dosent mean they cant be a force in social and political issues.

IMO, Christian pacifism is the way to go! The early church was always pacifist, and that is the ideal...
Mennonite view on CP
Wikipedia view
Specifically about 9/11
Yes, you're right, Christians can be a force in social/cultural issues - but not violent physical force!
Vicky



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Vicky32
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!


Yes and that was my point. He still wanted something and didnt find it so he cursed the "tree". If He were so applicabel to the reasoning why didnt he "bless" the poor tree with fruit?

Because the parable was about the people! They were not bearing the fruit they were required to do....
Vicky



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
You know,
This kind of crap gets old after a while.

Christians + Ayn Rand = Hypocrite...............right?

Wrong.

Taking absolutes from two separate ideologies and throwing away all common ground between the two to point out a conflict in thinking is simply another game of semantics. It's just another thread designed to point your finger at another and say "You're wrong. I'm right."




edit on 26-1-2011 by badgerprints because: spellin



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
You know,
This kind of crap gets old after a while.

Christians + Ayn Rand = Hypocrite...............right?

Wrong.

Taking absolutes from two separate ideologies and throwing away all common ground between the two to point out a conflict in thinking is simply another game of semantics. It's just another thread designed to point your finger at another and say "You're wrong. I'm right."




edit on 26-1-2011 by badgerprints because: spellin

Not so much hypocrite as impossible, IMO!
Vicky



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32
IMO, Christian pacifism is the way to go! The early church was always pacifist, and that is the ideal...
Mennonite view on CP
Wikipedia view
Specifically about 9/11
Yes, you're right, Christians can be a force in social/cultural issues - but not violent physical force!
Vicky


Well you will excuse me if I am in no hurry to get feed to the lions.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
You know,
This kind of crap gets old after a while.

Christians + Ayn Rand = Hypocrite...............right?

Wrong.

Taking absolutes from two separate ideologies and throwing away all common ground between the two to point out a conflict in thinking is simply another game of semantics. It's just another thread designed to point your finger at another and say "You're wrong. I'm right."


Great post. I thought when this started we were going to get into the common areas talk about any application. So I tried and get stoned for it. Yea Rand isnt going to do well in a plug in type thing here but by the trying dosent mean I am into defending Rand to the hilt but these selfrightious jackwagons try to back you up into supporting rape and destruction ect.


edit on 26-1-2011 by Logarock because: ex



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I used to debate satanists on the usenet newsgroup alt.satanism (figured I'd just head straight into the lions den, for fun) and almost to a one they LOVED Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, which they hoped would lead to the stratification of civilization where those who rule are the "strongest", bent on nothing but a "rational self interest" alone, who in their view must gain power at any and all cost including deception, trickery or outright lying. The less able, the downtrodden, the sick, the lame, the mentally retarded, everyone who's not "strong", is to be crushed from the top down, and even wiped out if possible by a type of social darwinism.
In part, her works appear motivated by an aggressive anti-Christian rebellion and intollerance.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is abhorrent to the Christian.
But if you're perfect, strong, young, and extremely hard working, love money, wealth, fame, power, etc. and have a certain loathing for us bleeding hearts, then it's definitely for you, but not so much when you get old and are of no use anymore, then you'll be garbage and of little value, unless you've managed to amass a fortune, but then you'll just die anyway, and be nothing but worm food, so you'd better get to work NOW!



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Vicky32
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!


Yes and that was my point. He still wanted something and didnt find it so he cursed the "tree". If He were so applicabel to the reasoning why didnt he "bless" the poor tree with fruit?

Because the parable was about the people! They were not bearing the fruit they were required to do....
Vicky


Didnt I just say something like that? But no it wasnt about bearing fruit like some sort of requirement...dont let money here frost your understanding... Jesus wasnt collecting money. The fruit or lack there of represented the nations reception of Him. He came to His own and they knew Him not so He blew the place up 70 years later. That whole deal there dosent sound like soup kitchen Jesus. Why didnt He just let it go, be cool, turn the other cheek ect, set up a ministry for the homeless or something. Who did He think he was that His people should have understood Him anyway? Why didnt He just get with the program like a good citizen, bring something to the table, get into something larger than self? Oh no He cursed the place and then blew it up.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Logarock because: ex



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
In part, her works appear motivated by an aggressive anti-Christian rebellion and intollerance.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is abhorrent to the Christian.


Well at least the Satanist look at it. And Rand is certainly adhorrent to Christianity...certainly the christianity that turns followers into brainless dolts, easy to use, easy to sell, easy to rob. God forbid any christain would have any other purpose other than a dumbass for the use. This is why so many christain ministries make a great deal of their helping the poor and prisoners ect becouse they are like Judas and any use otherwise is a waste. Then you have christains that say waste it here on my special annointed ass. Really if you seperate money and christanity, christanity may become what it should look like. All the rats would start to jump ship. Same with politics.

If Rand could awaken anything in a person to break them out of the dolt mindset then great. Jesus tried and people walk around with this book full of anti-dumbass ideas but these idea are just twisted and used by socialist and other scank scab money benders of many types. Christ in His real form is just not something anyone really likes to look at.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Vicky32
IMO, Christian pacifism is the way to go! The early church was always pacifist, and that is the ideal...
Mennonite view on CP
Wikipedia view
Specifically about 9/11
Yes, you're right, Christians can be a force in social/cultural issues - but not violent physical force!
Vicky


Well you will excuse me if I am in no hurry to get feed to the lions.


Well no one is any too eager for that! IMO, however, if that's the way the cookie crumbles, to use an Americanism, so be it...It's better to be killed than to kill.
Vicky



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


I think you confuse eating with physical eating. I think you confuse working with physical working for pay. I do not read that in the scripture. I look at what he says as spiritual. If you do not work and simply act like you are working to be at one with the lord you shall not eat or in spiritual terms, you shall not be complete. Others scripture would go against a physical interpretation of that quote.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Didnt I just say something like that? But no it wasnt about bearing fruit like some sort of requirement...dont let money here frost your understanding... Jesus wasnt collecting money. The fruit or lack there of represented the nations reception of Him. He came to His own and they knew Him not so He blew the place up 70 years later. That whole deal there dosent sound like soup kitchen Jesus. Why didnt He just let it go, be cool, turn the other cheek ect, set up a ministry for the homeless or something. Who did He think he was that His people should have understood Him anyway? Why didnt He just get with the program like a good citizen, bring something to the table, get into something larger than self? Oh no He cursed the place and then blew it up.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Logarock because: ex

Who said anything about money? I certainly didn't!
"The fruit or lack there of represented the nations reception of Him. "
I disagree, it wasn't about that so much, as their obedience to the knowledge they already had...
He didn't set up ministries for the homeless etc, because he knew his time was too short for that, he left that to us, his followers.
We are his limbs in the world today.
The blowing up was pretty much going to happen anyway, because of the the inevitable rebellion of the Jewish people against the Romans. Jesus knew it was coming, he didn't cause it.
He came to teach, but he knew what would happen to him for the crime of telling people to "be excellent to one another".
Vicky



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Logarock

Didnt I just say something like that? But no it wasnt about bearing fruit like some sort of requirement...dont let money here frost your understanding... Jesus wasnt collecting money. The fruit or lack there of represented the nations reception of Him. He came to His own and they knew Him not so He blew the place up 70 years later. That whole deal there dosent sound like soup kitchen Jesus. Why didnt He just let it go, be cool, turn the other cheek ect, set up a ministry for the homeless or something. Who did He think he was that His people should have understood Him anyway? Why didnt He just get with the program like a good citizen, bring something to the table, get into something larger than self? Oh no He cursed the place and then blew it up.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Logarock because: ex

Who said anything about money? I certainly didn't!
"The fruit or lack there of represented the nations reception of Him. "
I disagree, it wasn't about that so much, as their obedience to the knowledge they already had...


Whats the dif?

He didn't set up ministries for the homeless etc, because he knew his time was too short for that, he left that to us, his followers.


He didnt really say anthing about it. Their mission was to get the word out not to turn the early church into a used clothing collection point.

The blowing up was pretty much going to happen anyway, because of the the inevitable rebellion of the Jewish people against the Romans. Jesus knew it was coming, he didn't cause it.
He came to teach, but he knew what would happen to him for the crime of telling people to "be excellent to one another".
Vicky


But this is not why He was killed. As far as being excellent that includes reproof and rebuke...with all longsuffering naturally.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

But this is not why He was killed. As far as being excellent that includes reproof and rebuke...with all longsuffering naturally.


No, they killed him because He said he was God.

And all your ideologues mean nothing before the Divine. If you think Jesus is going to a cookie and a pat on the back because you did the most for yourself-Well, I'm not sure we were reading the same book. Jesus came to save all. He suffered to save all. You know what Rand said about that? That is was deplorable. Why would the perfect man give himself for imperfect beings? That's what she said. You want it in more detail:
JESUS CHRIST ON SACRIFICE

"AND HE WHO DOES NOT TAKE HIS CROSS AND FOLLOW AFTER ME, IS NOT WORTHY OF ME."

Jesus suffered, not for fame, not for money, not for self-interest. His action was completely selfless. He said it himself-You follow me alone or don't follow.

All those people you proclaim are moochers and leeches are loved by Jesus. He died for them. He didn't pick favorites. I'm sure you will have some other strange rebuttal for all of that. Jesus himself said the First will be Last. The Meek will Inherit the Earth, Blessed are the peacemakers, etc.

Luke 6:20
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

So no, Ayn Rand and Jesus cannot be reconciled.
edit on 26-1-2011 by antonia because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
22
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join