Ayn Rand vs Christianity

[Truthmatters]

I dont care very much about what YOU got from it Immy.

I like you but that is not what Im talking about.

Im talking about the facts here.

It is her own philosophy and why she wrote the books.


To agree with her philosophy is to agree that greed is good and the people in the world that matter should NEVER sacraficed anything for the lesser beings.

 

[Truthmatters]

There are no "facts" here.

Just your idiotic presumptions.


If you have a case, present the facts to us.

I won't hold my breath.

So you then claim that Objectivism is in line with Christian teaching?

That is what you just claimed by saying nothing in the OP is correct.

Prove your case with something other than personal insults.

I never claimed Objectivism is in line with Christian teaching.

I simply asked you to present some facts on the matter, which you still have not done.

There are certainly elements of Rand's "objectivism" that are appealing, but to say it trumps Christianity is rediculous.

I realize these are tough times for you moronic liberals, and you need to dream up these strawmen arguements in an attempt to keep your sanity. But there is no way anyone's philosophy trumps Christs'. Not "objectivism", and not communism or socialism.

Carry on, Slapnuts.

Maybe if you read what I posted BEFORE you posted this post you would see I already have proven it.

 

[theHawk]

So you then claim that Objectivism is in line with Christian teaching?

That is what you just claimed by saying nothing in the OP is correct.

Prove your case with something other than personal insults.

I never claimed Objectivism is in line with Christian teaching.

I simply asked you to present some facts on the matter, which you still have not done.

There are certainly elements of Rand's "objectivism" that are appealing, but to say it trumps Christianity is rediculous.

I realize these are tough times for you moronic liberals, and you need to dream up these strawmen arguements in an attempt to keep your sanity. But there is no way anyone's philosophy trumps Christs'. Not "objectivism", and not communism or socialism.

Carry on, Slapnuts.

Maybe if you read what I posted BEFORE you posted this post you would see I already have proven it.

No, what you posted was from wiki and is a SUMMARY of someone else's definition of "objectivism".

Or are you too stupid to realize what you posted as "fact"?

 

[Truthmatters]

You cant face the facts huh?

What is it about the right on here that makes them impervious to reality?

 

[Immanuel]

I dont care very much about what YOU got from it Immy.

I like you but that is not what Im talking about.

Im talking about the facts here.

It is her own philosophy and why she wrote the books.


To agree with her philosophy is to agree that greed is good and the people in the world that matter should NEVER sacraficed anything for the lesser beings.

One, I do not fully agree with her philosophy.

Two, philosophies tend to grow from the initial theory into fuller beliefs. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has itself evolved over the years as others have "theorized" and added their own findings.

Three, the truth is that the greedy people of Atlas Shrugged were not the industrialist, but rather the government that attempted to control the world, which they ended up destroying.

Fourth, to agree with her philosophy is to agree not that "greed is good", but rather that each person has the right to earn their own living and that no one has the right to take from others things that are not earned.

and the people in the world that matter should NEVER sacraficed (sic) anything for the lesser beings.

In this, you are correct. She did seem to believe this particular idea. This happens to be one of the big areas that I disagreed with her in the book. However, if you had actually read the book, you would know that she did not say that no one should sacrifice, but rather, that no one should be forced to sacrifice. And in that I have to agree with her. It is no sacrifice for the person, if the government steals from the person in order to give to the masses. A sacrifice requires the willingness of the person who sacrifices something. If you come and take my home in order to make it a shelter for the homeless, I am a victim, but I am not sacrificing my home... it is being stolen from me. If on the other hand, I make the conscious decision to give my home to the homeless, then I am in fact, sacrificing my possessions for the good of society, but I do it of my own free will.

What she spoke against is what you consider "sacrifice" but is nothing more than "THEFT".

Immie

 

[theHawk]

You cant face the facts huh?

What is it about the right on here that makes them impervious to reality?

Yes, as in actual text of what Rand wrote.

Or is that too simple for you to understand?

Political Junky understands it and posted some good information.

You, on the other hand, have presented nothing.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, (9780786154456). MP3 Book - Barnes & Noble

 

[theHawk]

Then tell me what you beleive the facts are here AB?

did her philosphy of Objectivism line up with christianity?

There are no "facts" here.

Just your idiotic presumptions.


If you have a case, present the facts to us.

I won't hold my breath.

Ayn Rand on Christianity

Rand Excerpt: On Christianity

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.

This, I do not agree with. Giving or helping others does not make one "subordinate" to others. And charity is certainly not the subordination of ones own soul to the souls of other humans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have the religious right ever figured out that Ayn Rand hated the idea of sacrafice for other human beings?


It occurs to me that many of the people who worship Rands ideas also claim christianity.

They are ideas which are diametricly opposed to each other.

The religious right only worships God. The fact that some of them are also open minded enough admire diverse ideas, even if they come from people that think they are idiotic, is normally considered a plus. I guess being open minded only counts if you are open minded about things liberals like.

 

[Truthmatters]

So why do they embrace the idea of selfishness as a great political philosophy and should be how we opperate our society?

 

[JBeukema]

Have the religious right ever figured out that Ayn Rand hated the idea of sacrafice for other human beings?


It occurs to me that many of the people who worship Rands ideas also claim christianity.

They are ideas which are diametricly opposed to each other.

Cheap Beukema Knockoff

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have the religious right ever figured out that Ayn Rand hated the idea of sacrafice for other human beings?


It occurs to me that many of the people who worship Rands ideas also claim christianity.

They are ideas which are diametricly opposed to each other.

Spot on.

Rand is rather Neitzscheian in her views.

It's quite apparent that her heros are based on Freidrich's concept of Übermenschen.

Look, anybody subscribing to the philosophical position that GREED IS GOOD (which is Ayn's position in a nutshell) has assumed a philosophy that is antithetical to one of the basic premises of Christianity.

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF

I do not claim to be an expert on Rand, but her philosophy in Atlas Shrugged seems to be built more on self determinism than greed. I understand some liberals have difficulty in understanding the differences, but if you actually read her descriptions of the society that John Galt no one got rich off of anything they did. They actually traded work for an equal amount of work from others. Dagny set out to build a railroad when she got there, even though it would only serve one small town and the surrounding countryside. Do you honestly think that anyone would be able to get rich off of a rail system that small? How does that equate to greed is good?

 

[Truthmatters]

As a christain do you believe our government should reflect your beliefs?

 

[Truthmatters]

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, (9780786154456). MP3 Book - Barnes & Noble

It is her philosophy wether you understood her or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a christain do you believe our government should reflect your beliefs?

Nope, I believe the government should stay out of my life.

 

[Truthmatters]

So what philosphy should it embrace?

 

[theHawk]

So what philosphy should it embrace?

You speak of the government as if it were a live entity that can "embrace" a philosophy.

 

[AllieBaba]

You dont know what Objectivism is do you AB?

If you have a point to make about objectivism, it's up to you to make it.

NOthing more amateur or annoying than spastics who make some vague and unverified point, and follow any requests for verification with demands that the people who don't believe them research terms that have nothing to do with anything.

Make your own fucking points, or remain a laughing stock.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yawn

Another leftist blowhard that is trying to bash conservatives who consider themselves christian for not wanting forced charity and redistribution by government...

Where Christianity is about your personal doings and how you live your life... of your own free will.. and not how you force this upon others by government...

I can fully believe in my own personal stances on charity, donate to charities how I see fit... and still be against the forced redistribution by government entitlement mantra

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, (9780786154456). MP3 Book - Barnes & Noble

It is her philosophy wether you understood her or not.

Have you ever actually read the essays in that book?

Ethics is not a mystic fantasy—nor a social convention—nor a dispensable, subjective luxury.
... Ethics is an objective necessity of man’s survival—not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the
grace of reality and the nature of life.”
“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices.

What, exactly, about that do you object to?

She actually chose to use the word selfishness because of the negative connotation it has for people that do not think.

The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?”
To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid
of it.” But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.
It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The
meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely
wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is
responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral
development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it
conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to
achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness”
is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us
whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

In other words, she advocated a system of ethics that differentiates between good and evil. That is the real reason that thinking progressives hate her, she believed in, and advocated, an ethical system that is absolute in context, and that looks at the actual results of a person's actions, not just the intentions. Since progressives believe that intentions matter more than results they heap scorn on people who challenge that belief.

You, on the other hand, just spout words mindlessly because the people who control your thinking tell you too. You need to expand your horizons actually read some things you disagree with, you might find yourself learning something. I know it helps me.