Randian Religion
“Evangelical Atheism”...I like that term.
Pretty bold for a priest to accuse those rejecting God with having a religion.
I would agree with that completely.
What he should do is produce a video talking about the disciples of Obama that worship endless, all-powerful, government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 0927 hrs
Only a fool or a fraud can claim to be an adherent to Rand and Christ. The two philosophies are in direct opposition to
each other.Thanks for posting that Owen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 0939 hrs
TMKF,
What does it mean to be an adherent to Rand? (in your view)
Some aspects of Rand are very Christian…for instance, denouncing the taking and coveting of one’s time, money, and effort by government and those who want to use government to take, and covet, from others.
Christ and Rand both agree one should not covet from they neighbor.
So you cannot wholesale say Rand never held a biblical perspective on certain issues.
I would agree she rejected Christ and was a passionate atheist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 0945 hrs
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, TKMF.
Your priest gives himself away when he refers to a need to defend capitalism and also when he refers to “human solidarity”. He may successfully criticize Rand, which probably isn’t too difficult. Ultimately, though, I suspect his “human solidarity” is little more than an inability to accept that some people are different from him and an inability to recognize that the individualism he rejects is the source of the good in those people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 0952 hrs
What does it mean to be an adherent to Rand?
One who believes that individualism is morally superior to any aspect of collectivism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 0955 hrs
TMKF,
...“any aspect of collectivism?”
Wow.
So “privacy” and the individual is completely dead? We are all slave COGS to the collective?
So I’m a “Rand adherent” if I want to keep the collective from making love to my wife?
Can i still have my faith in Christ, even when the collective rejects Christ? (BTW, how does one continue to be a Christian at all then in your world? Ir one cannot believe in ANY individualism and be a Christian and conversely be a Christian (void of all individualism) in a collective that solidly rejects Christ? )
I guess by your fringe radicalism, I’m a “Rand adherent” in your view.
Sounds like someone has a false collectivist religion themselves. Have you insured your religion has been stripped out of public schools?
If not, I’m willing to make sure your religion is stripped out of public schools.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1013 hrs
I don’t quite get the gist of your rant Kevin. You asked what “Rand adherent” means to me. I told you. I didn’t claim and, I don’t believe, that the collectivism is morally superior to individualism.
I believe society functions best when there is a balance between the two. Rand does not. Christ might have been more of a collectivist than I am. I don’t know and can’t claim to know. The traditional Christian church is certainly more of a collectivist entity than I would ever wish to associate with.
I have read Rand… “Individualism is morally superior to any aspect of collectivism” is as good a synopsis as I could come up with. What does “Rand adherent” mean to you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1111 hrs
TMKF,
By your definition, you are a “Rand adherent” then. (Since you believe some individualism is morally superior to some aspects of collectivism).
There is a huge moral difference between the “collectivism” in the “traditional” Christian church and the collectivism formed by government.
The traditional Christian church should not require force, mandate, or obligation for Christ-like giving when it comes to charity by the collective. Government, to fund “charity” (welfare), needs to use force, obligation, and mandate.
If the church needs to use the latter tactics, they are no longer part of the body of Christ.
One cannot always quit the “traditional church” if that happens…one cannot quit paying taxes or skip out on regulatory compliance without men with guns coming to get you eventually.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1131 hrs
My bad.
That should say, “One can quit the traditional church…”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1132 hrs
Kevin, I think you may have grossly misinterpreted TMKF’s definition in post 5.
As I read it, finding individualism to be morally superior to collectivism on any given issue doesn’t necessarily make one a Randian. Finding individualism morally superior to collectivism on any and all issues, though, does.
TMKF, care to clarify?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1542 hrs
These people completely reject future development as helping lift everyone, as it has the last 200 years. They prefer just to rape those that have been successful, worked hard and give it to those who are tax users.
When you take from productive people and give it to non-productive people you reduce the productivity of both.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1630 hrs
Major Booris’ interpretation of Rand matches mine.
She seems to think any aspect of collectivism is an abohorent and onerous assault on the individual. I don’t think it is possible to believe that and consider yourself a Christian. But WTF do I know, I am just some dude wasting time commenting on a blog.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1634 hrs
TMKF,
You are not quite correct on Rand.
Rand has no problem with “collectivism”, as long as one has the choice about it.
For instance, she would have no problem with one choosing to be part of a baseball, or football, team.
Or similarly, one choosing to be part of a church (although she would not look kindly upon people making that choice) to help with charity.
Where she made the distinction was: when you force others to be “charitable” against their will. That is where she said the individual should not be forceably sacrificed to the whole/collective. In other words, she was anti-slavery.
So you are incorrect to say Rand was against any collectivism. She has no problem with a “collective” activity, as long as one had the choice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 0903 hrs
Christian teachings regarding charity, serving your fellow man and sacrifice for the common good are in opposition to Rands philosophy. As she said:
It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1039 hrs
TMKF,
You “fall down” in your logic on your understanding of Christianity.
If your relationship with Christ is being defined in terms of “slave and master”, your relationship with Christ is dead. It is worthless. If you view yourself as a “slave” to Christ….meaning the works you do for your “faith” in Christ, are unwilling, without choice, and you do them because you feel obligated, or you are keeping score in hopes of earning favor with Christ…may I suggest some solid bible study? I have no doubt this is how Rand viewed Christianity. This viewpoint is a big problem in and out of the “traditional” Christian church.
A true relationship with Christ in your heart inspires you to strive, resulting from Christ’s love, in service to others. It is done out of excitement and passion of being alive in Christ. You truly want to do those actions to strengthen and build your faith in Christ. It is not obligation, duty, or sacrifice. Far from it.
The Holy Spirit working within you in this manner, is NOT sacrifice as Rand explains it. It is “fruit” flowing from one’s faith.
So let’s get clear. Are we talking about true Christians, or pretend Christians in this conversation?
I agree with Rand (and your statement) if you view your relationship with Christ as “slave/master”.
However, that is not how I view my relationship to Christ. We are slaves to sin and Christ has us free. That grace and salvation inspires me to follow him, willingly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1105 hrs
Rand has no problem with “collectivism”, as long as one has the choice about it.
Rand, if she was referring to the good old USA, and Kevin seem to be confused if they believe that they do not have the option
to emmigrate.Love it or leave it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1137 hrs
FU,
Why do you think leaders and achievers have been renouncing their U.S. Citizenship?
In reality, us slave peasants in the middle class do not have the financial ability to leave in many cases…especially given the current real estate market.
So choice to emigrate is and illusion, Neo.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1152 hrs
You can believe whatever you want about what Rand would think of you and your relationship with Christ.
I am pretty sure she and I would agree that you are being silly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1225 hrs
TMKF,
So, one cannot choose to be part of a “collective”, willingly?
Is that what you are saying?
That is not what Rand was saying. Rand chose to be part of her own intellectual “collective” for a major pat of her life in New York. There were constant debates about her view of the world and the role of the individual and government and their relationship to that government in her “collective”. (Read any biography on Rand)
I have no doubt, while she was alive, Rand would find my faith in Christ “silly”. (Where she is now, I’m certain she would renounce that position instantly, if given a second chance.)
My only goal here is to get some understanding that you distort Christianity when you indicate it is duty, obligation, or forced “sacrifice”, and that Christians are “slaves” to their faith in Christ.
Since you are incorrect about that, true Christianity is not at all rejected by Rand if its done freely and voluntarily…because true Christian faith is not forced sacrifice.
If one’s Christian faith is obligation and unwilling forced sacrifice, I have no doubt Rand rejected that, and I would agree, because it is not true Christian faith.
I take it you do not what to get clear on what Christianity really means.
That’s fine, but then don’t make sweeping statements about Christianity being in conflict with individual choice, because it is not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1249 hrs
I am most certainly not going to debate Christianity with you Kevin.
Believe whatever you want to believe, just don’t dictate to others what others can and cannot do based on your beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1435 hrs
TKMF,
Believe whatever you want to believe, just don’t dictate to others what others can and cannot do based on your beliefs.
So, in other words I should not act like your typical global warming zealot, passionate liberal advocate of the welfare state, or average disciple from the freedom from religion foundation?
Duly noted.
Does this mean you will scold liberals trying to ban soda larger than 16 oz with the same sermon?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1445 hrs
If you want soda anywhere in this country Kevin you can buy as many oz’s as you can handle. Every soda purveyor you meet will be happy to sell as many oz’s as you can afford.
Worrying about the serving size of a cup is rather ridiculous, for everyone involved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1742 hrs
TKMF,
Here is the story that proves your stated facts are incorrect,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/new-york-soda-ban/index.html
So you are not willing to give the do not “dictate to others” sermon when it comes to liberalism?
Interesting.
So worshiping the global warming gods gives one license to dictate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1748 hrs
If a normal sized soda isn’t big enough for you buy 4 of them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1840 hrs
TKMF,
So it is OK to dictate…being part of the liberal religion.
I find 4 sodas (vs.1 64 oz.) wasteful and harmful to the environment.
Why does your “helpful” sermon to Christians on “dictating” not apply to you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1953 hrs
I stated before that rules on serving size are silly. I wouldn’t support such a thing and I don’t support smoking bans. I think our society should be as free as it can be and still function well. That is always going to be a precarious balancing act between an individual’s liberties and the collective well being. In a well functioning democracy that balance should be achieved as the pendulum swings back and forth.
I understand that any society needs to have collective aspects to function well. You have to tie your logic up into all sorts of contortions to make yourself belief that you are a libertarian, but support the restriction of others freedom and rights based on your religious beliefs. To try and justify your tortured logic you try to label me and others as what you perceive someone opposed to your beliefs should be. It is a sort of delusion. You should really try to keep it in check. If you don’t keep it in check it can blossom into psychosis. That can be dangerous.
Be well. Focus on the good things in life. Who cares if some idiot challenges your beliefs on a blog? Who cares if some misguided people in some far off place want to dictate the size of a cup? It couldn’t be less important and is certainly not something that should trouble you.
What should trouble you is that a cabal of media corporations is continually trying to manipulate you and fabric outrage within you about things as trivial as the size of a paper cup. Get off the internet. Take a walk. Contemplate nature. Read a book to a child. Do something more productive than commenting here. It is not good for you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 2022 hrs
TMKF,
I have written a proposed blog entry for my church based on our interaction. (Hopefully, it will be posted fairly soon) Theme is: “Do we, as Christians, celebrate our faith with excitement and reflect that? Or do we reflect forced sacrifice, obligation, or duty?”
So it was not complete time wasted. I enjoyed the whole debate, especially the part where we, properly, defined Christian faith.
And BTW, I would never classify you as an “idiot”. I might possibly classify you as a soul that is lost that needs to find the way…but never and “idiot”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2012 at 0747 hrs
When I said idiot I obviously wasn’t referring to myself Kevin
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2012 at 0858 hrs
Thank you for posting this, Owen.
I’ve been wanting to post for a few days now, but hesitated.
As a Christian, I must and do reject Rand’s objectivism outright. It is a false religion centered on the self and on one’s own mind and reason. As a Christian, I look to Christ, and not a human, for my salvation and provision.
However, there are aspects of her views on government, economics and free markets which are not inconsistent with biblical principles. We are created to create, we are to work; as Christians, we are called to be good stewards with what we’ve been entrusted with. Government-centered and run socialism or communism are not biblical principles; nor are altruistic measures.
These commonalities, along with her experiences in seeing in person the Russian revolutions, are where I (and probably many other Christians) appreciate her work. Look at how the economy, unions and the government, as well as the cronyism it all results in, are depicted in Atlas Shrugged, and how prophetic it has become. We are seeing these things play out before our eyes.
If someone was looking for advice for which of her works to read, I would not recommend everything, but rather Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead (for the progressivism depicted), and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and then would recommend that they proceed on to reading Hayek, Sowell and watching Freedman’s videos to further their education on economics.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 14, 2012 at 1143 hrs
Well said.
This concept, or idea, that Christianity call for “forced sacrifice” disturbs me. If one is truly following Christ, good works are done out of excitement and passion of being alive in Christ. It is not from obligation or “forced sacrifice”.
When one understands true Christianity, it supports the idea that “forced altruism” is morally wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2012 at 1215 hrs
Exactly—it is a mis-reading of Acts 2 and 4, and when you read Acts 5, you see that Annias and Sapphira had the *choice* to sell their property and had the *choice* as to what to do with the proceeds. They were punished for lying about it, not for withholding a portion of it.
Giving in Christianity is a heart matter—nothing is forced, but rather it is between you and God. There is great joy in trusting God and giving to Him.
The church leaders who are entrusted with those monies are responsible for managing them wisely, and not wasting them, or giving them to their cronies.
Big difference.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 15, 2012 at 0800 hrs
As Christians,
It think all of us need to be more mindful of: How do we reflect our faith?
Is following Christ reflected in us as: duty, sacrifice, or obligation?
OR
Is it reflected as excitement and celebration in being alive for Christ?
When Christians present their faith as the former, it leads to misunderstanding of Christianity. Some self examination and bible study might be helpful if one’s Christian faith is exhausting (like your giving something up to follow Christ) and and exercise in “forced sacrifice”.
I do get a little “wrangled” when Christianity is presented as advocating “forced sacrifice”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 0844 hrs
Amen, Kevin!
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 15, 2012 at 1415 hrs
I do get a little “wrangled” when Christianity is presented as advocating “forced sacrifice”.
Yet know problem wrangling with acceptance of your brand of spiritual salvation for sustenance?
Are those hats getting bigger or is your head getting smaller?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1626 hrs
fu,
I take it you are going to tell me the “problem”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2012 at 1707 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 38
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2013 12:46 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).