Column: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

[nate895]

This one just came out today, and I totally agree with it:

The Fountainhead of Satanism
Joe Carter

 

[jmdrake]

No, she didn't hate them. In an interview, she once said that if she had to choose between the Israelis and the Palestinians, she would choose the Israelis, but only because she felt they were more productive. That can hardly be called hate.

That's not what she said. She called them "almost primitive savages". And she justified her collectivism by saying "the Arab men plant bombs" as if every one of them planted bombs.



Pay close attention to the last few seconds where she says "And that what makes me condemn and despise them".

BTW, this was the interview I was basing my (mistaken) assumption that she was a warmonger. My mistake was wrongly assuming that her rabid zionism meant she supported wars for zionism's sake. However it's just are wrong to say that she merely thought the Palestinians were "less productive". She called them monsters.

 

[jmdrake]

This one just came out today, and I totally agree with it:

The Fountainhead of Satanism
Joe Carter

Interesting article. I was that Ayn Rand was LeVay's mentor. I did self centered elements of Ayn's philosophy troubling. At some point I need to do more research including reading Atlas Shrugged, not to adopt its philosophy but to be able to more intelligently talk about it.

On the flip side, it's time for Christians who believe in small government, individual responsibility and voluntary altruism to develop their own philosophy for people like Paul Ryan to read and quote. Ron Paul's writings are a good starting point.

 

[nate895]

Interesting article. I was that Ayn Rand was LeVay's mentor. I did self centered elements of Ayn's philosophy troubling. At some point I need to do more research including reading Atlas Shrugged, not to adopt its philosophy but to be able to more intelligently talk about it.

On the flip side, it's time for Christians who believe in small government, individual responsibility and voluntary altruism to develop their own philosophy for people like Paul Ryan to read and quote. Ron Paul's writings are a good starting point.

I remember my mom and I were checking out at a Barnes & Noble, and she bought Atlas Shrugged while I bought The Potter's Freedom, and I told her that we could not be buying more opposite books. At that point, I had just woken up to the fallacies and dangers of Randianism. We cannot let these secular philosophies fool us (Colossians 2:8). Pretty much every philosophy contains some degree of truth. It must, considering reality stares us in the face every moment we breathe. However, that does not make most unChristian philosophies of any use to Christians whatsoever.

 

[erowe1]

This one just came out today, and I totally agree with it:

The Fountainhead of Satanism
Joe Carter

Good article.

My only quibble is that it doesn't mention that there are other philosophies that are far more pervasive in our government than Objectivism is and that are every bit as satanic.

 

[nate895]

Good article.

My only quibble is that it doesn't mention that there are other philosophies that are far more pervasive in our government than Objectivism is and that are every bit as satanic.

Oh, they mention that plenty of places. It's a whole magazine and blog. They just do not like the libertarianism that is infecting the "conservative movement" right now, and so every once in a while make an article to rip it to shreds.

 

[AceNZ]

But that's just it. Jesus asks us to love everybody even our enemies.

I must not understand the Christian concept of love. Can you explain what this really means?

In my world, to love someone means to admire them as a result of shared values; to value them. An enemy would be someone who holds conflicting values, who I condemn and despise. They are two contradictory concepts. This also means that it's impossible to live this way in a consistent fashion; to do so invites death.

In concrete terms, if someone seriously threatened my wife's life, and I were to then tell her that I loved that person anyway, she would be rightfully repulsed, and likely throw me out on my ear. If she didn't, and I invited him in, she would end up dead.

So everybody has value.

Again, how does that work in the Christian sense?

In my world, for someone to have value, there must also be someone doing the valuing. If a person is threatening my life, or the lives of those close to me, they have no value to me. In fact, they would be an anti-value, because of their desire to destroy those who I do value. I suppose they might have value to someone, perhaps as a child/parent/friend, but why should that matter to me? Anyone who supports or encourages someone who is an enemy of mine would also be an enemy.

Ayn Rand gave the specific example of coming up on someone who was drowning. If you risk your life to save that person and he's a stranger, according to Ayn, that's altruistic and immoral.

It's surprising how often people bring this example up. It happens so often that Ayn Rand wrote a chapter about it in one of her books. What your question brings to mind for me is similar to what it brought up for her:

1. Is your first concern how to sacrifice life, rather than how to live it?
2. Do you regard mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone's help?
3. Do you believe that men are trapped in a "malevolent universe," where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives?
4. Do you have a lethargic indifference to ethics, and a hopelessly cynical amorality, since you bring up a situation that you are never likely to encounter, and which bear no relation to the actual problems of your own life?

Regardless, here's what she said regarding the case you brought up:

"To illustrate this on the altruists' favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's own life no higher than that of a random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one's sake, remembering that one's life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

If the person is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person's value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, the one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her -- for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable."

Contrast that with Jesus who, according to Christian "mythology" (as you would see it), died even for those who were actively rejecting Him.

I'm confused about the Christian version of events with regard to Jesus' death. Wasn't he killed -- you know, nailed to the cross and all that? And wasn't one of the cries of the Christians from the middle ages about "the Jews killed Jesus"? So he didn't voluntarily give his life, did he? If that's right, how can he have been said to have died for others?

 

[AceNZ]

My previous post was deleted.

Funny, for a site that preaches freedom of the press, support for the first amendments, etc, I would have expected this to be the last place that I would experience censorship.

Congrats, folks. Way to go, alienating your supporters. I hope you enjoy the world you've built.

 

[low preference guy]

My previous post was deleted.

Funny, for a site that preaches freedom of the press, support for the first amendments, etc, I would have expected this to be the last place that I would experience censorship.

Congrats, folks. Way to go, alienating your supporters. I hope you enjoy the world you've built.

Could a moderator please let us know why the post was deleted? I liked it and gave it a +rep! What's going on here?

 

[AceNZ]

I'm reposting, censored according to the moderator's guidelines.

That's not what she said.

I stand corrected.

She called them "almost primitive savages".

How much do you know about Islamic tradition and law, including their attitude toward women?

And she justified her collectivism by saying "the Arab men plant bombs" as if every one of them planted bombs.

I didn't hear that quote in the clip you posted.

Even so, don't the Palestinians teach their children that Israel has no right to exist, and should be destroyed? Don't they name public squares after suicide bombers, and generally treat them as martyrs? Are you saying you support a society like that?

Pay close attention to the last few seconds where she says "And that what makes me condemn and despise them".

What she says before that quote sets the context:

"No, I don't resort to terrorism; I don't go around murdering my opponents, innocent women and children. That is what I have against the Arabs. That takes the conflict out of the sphere of civilized conflict and makes it murderous. And anyone who -- private citizens -- who resort to force, is a monster, and that's what makes me condemn and despise them."

So, it's the use of force that she was against.

My mistake was wrongly assuming that her rabid zionism meant she supported wars for zionism's sake.

So because she's against the use of force, and in favor of a culture that is bringing advanced technology to the region, she's suddenly a rabid Zionist? I'm certain that if asked, she would have thoroughly rejected Israel's near-theocratic political system.

However it's just are wrong to say that she merely thought the Palestinians were "less productive". She called them monsters.

She called anyone who uses force a monster. In the context she presented, I would have to agree.

A more interesting question is why you apparently don't.

 

[TER]

I must not understand the Christian concept of love. Can you explain what this really means?

In my world, to love someone means to admire them as a result of shared values; to value them. An enemy would be someone who holds conflicting values, who I condemn and despise. They are two contradictory concepts. This also means that it's impossible to live this way in a consistent fashion; to do so invites death.

In concrete terms, if someone seriously threatened my wife's life, and I were to then tell her that I loved that person anyway, she would be rightfully repulsed, and likely throw me out on my ear. If she didn't, and I invited him in, she would end up dead.



Again, how does that work in the Christian sense?

In my world, for someone to have value, there must also be someone doing the valuing. If a person is threatening my life, or the lives of those close to me, they have no value to me. In fact, they would be an anti-value, because of their desire to destroy those who I do value. I suppose they might have value to someone, perhaps as a child/parent/friend, but why should that matter to me? Anyone who supports or encourages someone who is an enemy of mine would also be an enemy.



It's surprising how often people bring this example up. It happens so often that Ayn Rand wrote a chapter about it in one of her books. What your question brings to mind for me is similar to what it brought up for her:

1. Is your first concern how to sacrifice life, rather than how to live it?
2. Do you regard mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone's help?
3. Do you believe that men are trapped in a "malevolent universe," where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives?
4. Do you have a lethargic indifference to ethics, and a hopelessly cynical amorality, since you bring up a situation that you are never likely to encounter, and which bear no relation to the actual problems of your own life?

Regardless, here's what she said regarding the case you brought up:

"To illustrate this on the altruists' favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's own life no higher than that of a random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one's sake, remembering that one's life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

If the person is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person's value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, the one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her -- for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable."



I'm confused about the Christian version of events with regard to Jesus' death. Wasn't he killed -- you know, nailed to the cross and all that? And wasn't one of the cries of the Christians from the middle ages about "the Jews killed Jesus"? So he didn't voluntarily give his life, did he? If that's right, how can he have been said to have died for others?

Sadly, you don't.

 

[AceNZ]

Sadly, you don't.

I already said that. No explanation? Or is it the kind of thing that "words can't explain"? It's an honest question. I'm not trying to be a troll or to bait anyone.

While I'm at it, the quote in your signature is equally confusing. What does it mean for someone to command that you love another? Even if you wanted to, how can you force yourself to feel a certain way? And how can it be moral for someone to command you to feel that way?

 

[erowe1]

I already said that. No explanation? Or is it the kind of thing that "words can't explain"? It's an honest question. I'm not trying to be a troll or to bait anyone.

While I'm at it, the quote in your signature is equally confusing. What does it mean for someone to command that you love another? Even if you wanted to, how can you force yourself to feel a certain way? And how can it be moral for someone to command you to feel that way?

The Christian conception of love is not a feeling that comes over a person, it's an action that they do for the good of someone else. You can love someone who has nothing in them to commend them to you. You can even love someone who, as long as they live, will never do anything except things that give you displeasure.

Jesus did voluntarily give up his life. And he voluntarily gave it up for his enemies. God didn't look down from Heaven and see a bunch of darlings and say, "They're so precious, I just have to save them." He looked down and he saw a bunch of rapists, murderers, and idolaters, and determined that he would turn some of these sinners into saints contrary to their own natures and their own wills, on absolutely no condition whatsoever, with the result that the glory for their salvation belongs entirely to him alone.

John 3:16 doesn't mean that God felt such a great feeling of love for the world that, as a result of that feeling, he sent his son, so that whosoever believed on him would be saved. It means that God performed a certain act of love, namely the act of sending his son so that whosoever believed on him would be saved.

Romans 5:6-10 explains how God loves people in a way that Rand would consider immoral:

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

 

[Krugerrand]

I already said that. No explanation? Or is it the kind of thing that "words can't explain"? It's an honest question. I'm not trying to be a troll or to bait anyone.

While I'm at it, the quote in your signature is equally confusing. What does it mean for someone to command that you love another? Even if you wanted to, how can you force yourself to feel a certain way? And how can it be moral for someone to command you to feel that way?

(jewish, not christian) Fiddler on the Roof is one of my favorite movies. A thread running through the movie causes one to ponder the meaning of love. Clearly, from a Christian standpoint, love is not an emotion.

Just like other feelings, emotions can be easily deceived/distorted.

There are numerous places in the New Testament discussing love. Some of the biggies would be to love your enemy, if you love me you will keep my commandments, do you love me ... feed my sheep. None of that conveys warm-fuzziness that is generally accepted as a meaning for love now.

 

[AceNZ]

Thanks for the answers. They do explain a few things for me.

 

[TER]

In my world, for someone to have value, there must also be someone doing the valuing. If a person is threatening my life, or the lives of those close to me, they have no value to me.

This is your greatest impediment into understanding love as taught by Jesus Christ and as understood by His faithful, namely that everyone, even the greatest of sinners and the most fearful of your enemies is a beloved child of God, made in His image and containing within themselves the divine image of our Creator, though it might not be apparent because of sins and passions which have taken precedence in their minds and in their desires. Of course they have value, and a value enough where God would die for them on a cross.

What so great about loving those who love you? Reciprocating such love is natural even for the fallen human and the least a person can do. Loving those however who hate you is greater still, because it knows that those who have hate in their hearts and malice in their souls because of their spiritual blindness need even greater prayers and greater love shown to them so that they too can soften their hearts and allow the love of God to enter in and heal them and restore them to the condition of brother or sister, whom we stand by at all times, and who we would die for in order to save them.

There is no greater love than this. And in this love, does the heart truly understand and gain knowledge and experience God.

 

[low preference guy]

Loving those however who hate you is greater still, because it knows that those who have hate in their hearts and malice in their souls because of their spiritual blindness need even greater prayers and greater love shown to them so that they too can soften their hearts and allow the love of God to enter in and heal them and restore them to the condition of a brother or sister we love, whom we stand by at all times, and who we would die for in order to save them.

It seems difficult to me to love those who hate you without hating yourself. If you're indifferent to the fact he is willing to destroy you, that would show that you don't love yourself.

 

[TER]

It seems difficult to me to love those who hate you without hating yourself. If you're indifferent to the fact he is willing to destroy you, that would show that you don't love yourself.

Jesus said "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it" (Matthew 16:25)

And who does Christ mean when He says 'me'? He means also our neighbor.

For on that dreadful Day of Judgement, we will say "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ (Matthew 25:37)

So by our love for our neighbors, we give love to God, and He has promised those who have such love eternal life, just as the Crucified and then Risen Christ has revealed to the world.

We do not hate ourselves. Rather, we hate those things in us which corrupts us and keeps our minds occupied and away from the greater things in life and the source of life itself- namely, our God Who is Love.

 

[TER]

It seems difficult to me to love those who hate you without hating yourself. If you're indifferent to the fact he is willing to destroy you, that would show that you don't love yourself.

For those who have faith that we are but sojourners in this world, and that the greater and fuller life will be in the next one, then we are not indifferent to the fact that another is willing to destroy us, but rather, we pray for them and for God to forgive them (just as Christ did on the cross and as the first martyr Saint Stephen did), so that our attaining such crowns of martyrdom is not done so at the expense of another's eternal soul. This is Christian love and is the love which supports the entire universe.

 

[itsnobody]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-05-Ayn-Rand-and-Jesus-dont-mix_n.htm

lol Ayn Rand also believed in free-will, but believing in free-will requires MORE faith than believing in God since there's much more scientific evidence against free-will than God

So anyone who believes in free-will would've ruined all the "belief without evidence" arguments as the reason for not believing in God....