|
|
General Discussion
Started by Josh at 03-13-2009 8:47 AM. Topic has 29 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 03-13-2009, 8:47 AM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 67
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
It's sad what our country has become and is turning into. The word of the day is consensus. At one point this word would refer to a majority of the country being in agreement, but now it just means a majority of the media. If the media is in agreement about a topic (and they are all just arms of the same beast) then it's deuces wild. There is no discussion about whether something is moral or immoral, it just depends on whether "most people" agree. You hear phrases like "I think we can all agree" and "The experts have reached a consensus" and magically that makes any action acceptable. Oh well, it's been a good run.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-15-2009, 2:53 AM
|
galtsgulcher
Joined on 03-15-2009
Posts 47
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/cs/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif"> <strong>mnichols1202 wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">Hello All,
This is my first post here. I'm quite new to the philosophy of Objectivism though I feel I’ve been am adherent all my life!
I’m about 2/3 of the way through Atlas Shrugged and I’m chewing through it like a sugar addict and a box of doughnuts! LOL!
Anyway – my first stab at a question here is, I’m hoping, not going to be too controversial. My greatest fear is to opening my mouth for the first time from an Objectivists point of view in an Objectivism forum, and going down in a barrage of flames. Be that as it may…here goes.
Question: Is Objectivism necessarily Atheist?
I don’t believe so!
Most adherents to any organized religion would hotly disagree with me. On this point I think I’m on solid ground. You see, I’m a Seventh Day Adventist….
ok, pick your jaws up off the floor.
Not just a Seventh Day Adventist, but I believe, a Thinking Adventist and while I’m very new to Objectivism, I don’t believe that any of Christ’s teachings contradicts any tenant of Objectivism.
Please don’t respond to me to refute this claim but presenting the view of most organized churches (including my own) of Jesus as a collectivist hippie, it’s just not there.
Anyway, I look forward to this post starting a raucous intellectual debate.
Cheers</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi m,
Since this was your first post, it's fitting that my first post is a response to your intriguing question.
Even though I'm a Christian... I just can't seem work up any offense to anything Ayn Rand has written.
Rand and I both agree on an objective moral reality that is not a product of either our thoughts or our emotions... and both agree that we are held morally responsible to properly address it.
What she calls reason, I call Conscience.
Even though Rand says selfishness is a virtue, the heroic Capitalists in Atlas Shrugged would give their lives for each other... NOT for the sake of each other... but ONLY because it was the RIGHT thing to do... and I really resonate to that... because loving what is morally right is also loving God... regardless of whether or not the person acknowledges it as such.
I won't spoil it... but wait until you read the ending of Atlas Shrugged. It will positively blow you away. Right now I'm in the middle of a fourth reading, and STILL can't put it down.
I'm afraid I'm much more of a mechanic than a deep thinker, so you won't get the thoughtful responses like the others in this thread... nontheless, I'm happy to participate in the discussions here even with my limited abilities.
Take Care,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 8:53 PM
|
mike
Joined on 02-06-2009
Posts 13
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker said... "Communism and religion are just two sides to the
same coin. One wants complete obedience to a god's will and the other
to the will of the people (collective). Both belief systems need to
use fear and force in order to keep people obedient to the will
(either of people or of a god). Fear of going to hell, fear of the
wrath of the people, eternal damnation, a loaded gun. Considering how
alike they are I can imagine it being difficult to follow both at
once. The religion wants you to follow god's will, communism..the
voice of the people. What if those 2 don't match up? I suppose one
could say that the voice of god wants you to follow the will of the
people. I think either group would still want you to be obedient
only to one though."
I think it is dangerous to oversimplify. To talk about "Religion" is to
ignore the almost infinite graduations within. There is enormous
variation within any system of thought in application, and the longer
that any system has been road tested by being applied to real societies
is a measure of the enormity of variation within. For instance, think
about the difference between a Mother Theresa who gives her life to
serving the poor and a dedicated Capitalist / individualist who also happens to call
himself a Christian. Think about the difference between a racist who
claims to be protecting liberty and freedom by lynching blacks and a
Capitalist who recognises that Capitalism is only truly served when the
rights of all individuals are protected equally. Think about the
hell-holes of countries that call themselves "Democratic People's
Republic of (whatever)" while dragging families away to be tortured. We
live in a world characterised by a crisis of rhetoric where words mean
next to nothing. Many a country has been driven into the arms of
communism by the relatively free west choosing its friends on the basis
of common enemies. Who can, in all conscience, blame them when western
money is pumped into a corrupt military junta simple because it too is
opposed to communism. The only way that Objectivists will have a
lasting influence will be to painstakingly dismantle the mutually
exclusive structures of the various systems of social organisation,
discard meaningless dogma and then examine each brick. We need to look
to what we have in common with our neighbours and build on that. Only
by engaging will Objectivists get traction and influence the world. I
have had many raging arguments with collectivists where we simply throw
rhetoric at each other but the most productive discussions (in terms of
changing the mind-sets of collectivist friends) have been long quietly
vigorous discussions where we strip back the rhetoric and concentrate
on the detail. By about 3am (and after a few glasses of red) we often
find ourselves talking the same language. Thanks to the clarity of
Rand's writings, Objectivists instantly recognise the contradictions of
"Capitalists" who want to preserve freedom by violating the rights of
their opponents; "Communists" who call themselves men of the people
while maintaining private armies and Switz bank accounts; Social
Democratic governments who claim to be preserving property rights by
regulating business and re-distributing wealth. We see these
differences but the vast majority of people DON'T and the use of
oversimplified jargon simply adds to the cacophony of dogma being
bandied about. One of the problems is that most of us can only ever
hope to be good at one thing. We live in an age of specialisation. That
also applies to philosophies / politics / religion as well. I find that
many Objectivists only have a "Sunday School" familiarity with
Christianity and many Christians only have a vague familiarity with the
principles of rational selfishness. Most of the time, each group is
slandering the other based on ignorance and prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 9:00 PM
|
mike
Joined on 02-06-2009
Posts 13
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> Josh wrote: "We can
scientifically prove the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and that it wiped
out the town of Pompei. We don't need eye witnesses to prove this.
There are many similar events in history we can use science to prove
without depending on eye witnesses."
>>
>Yes
we can prove some historic events with science (especially when rock
strata, fossils, remains, flora / fauna etc can be analyzed) but many
events can best be proven / documented with eye witness accounts. Were
it not for the disturbing eye witness accounts of the soldiers who
personally liberated the inmates of Nazi concentration camps we would
be without an important evidential ingredient in our knowledge of the
crimes of the Nazis. There are many instances of historic events which
are best documented by the accounts of people who were there and whose
testimonies can be reasonably relied upon. Bulk is an important factor:
the more credible people who can back up a story or the more
documentation authored by people of the time, the more likely it is to
be true.
>>
>> Josh wrote: "I
wouldn't mind going into details on the premises that require faith for
a "Randian atheist" position. I think what you are referring to are
the 3 self evident axioms Ayn Rand discusses. I don't think these
axioms require faith, but more of an acknowledgment. They exist
whether you accept them or not. These axioms are required to believe
in an omnipotent being that created the Universe and that we were
specifically created in his image. I think discussing this more will
really start to show what objectivism is about. I'm not a certified
objectivist or anything, but from what I've read these axioms are
pretty much the basis for objectivism."
>>
>There
is nothing in true Christian doctrine that contradicts or fails to
acknowledge the primary axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and
consciousness. In the interests of simplification I made the error of
creating unnecessary terminology and separating the whole into its
parts. By "Randian atheist" I was saying that I was a committed
Objectivist AND an atheist. My research led me to question my atheist
position, not my enthusiasm for Objectivism. Since, like most
Objectivists I'm sure, I regarded atheism as a necessary plank in the
structure of Objectivism and therefore indivisible, I found my emerging
leaning towards Christianity very difficult to justify. However,
several years of research have led me to the conclusion that Christ's
claims about Himself are far more likely to be true than not. Having
reached that conclusion, I would have immediately disqualified myself
as an Objectivist to have simply ignored my conclusions. In a previous
reply to me you said something to the effect of (I'm off line at the
moment so will have to paraphrase): "I consider myself open minded.
Give me evidence that a God created the universe and I'll be happy to
look at it." Well, I also consider myself open minded: give me evidence
that God does NOT exist and I'll look at that too. Essentially: to say
that one is an atheist is to state that there is no God. To know
definitively that there is no God would require all the knowledge of
the universe. I think at this stage in our journey, for a non-believer,
it is safer to say: "I believe that it is unlikely that God exists but
will reserve my judgment pending further information" i.e., I believe
that a rational atheist would, upon reflection, change their status to
agnostic. You mention "faith." I think it is fair to say that the term
"faith" has been as corrupted as the term "selfishness" down though the
ages. For some people (I am not one of them) faith means blind
acceptance of dogma simply because someone else said it is so. To me,
"faith" in a concept is something you develop when that concept has
proven itself reliable. Sometimes we have faith in a teacher when we
can't understand where a line of study is taking us so we follow the
semester through, doing everything we're told while not seeing any
sense in the strategy, or a scientist may have faith in a theory and
spend years pursuing experimental proof against a backdrop of the
ridicule of his colleagues.
>
>Ayn Rand believed that an
artist's most important function was to paint life as it should be but
she also understood that the job of changing the world into a world
that reflected her vision belonged to the politicians: she understood
that the path would be tortuous and twisted and she did not expect it
to happen overnight. What she has provided us with, in her writings, is
an ideal blueprint for social organisation which serves as a vision to
aim for. The journey towards that vision will have infinite twists and
turns and will involve many compromises (and I know how much we all recoil from that word). We must maintain a clear
vision of what we are seeking and, while keeping our eye on the prize,
be prepared to compromise the occasional battle in order to win the
war.
>
>Objectivism at this stage has the luxury of
remaining pure and uncorrupted. It has not yet reached a critical mass
of devotees to be able to claim significant influence in the world of
international politics. It has an uphill battle ahead of it since
collectivism is enormously attractive to fearful people but it is a
battle that Objectivism must engage. Like all great manifestoes
(philosophies and religions included), at its most detailed exposition,
it is very difficult for the average man in the street to understand in
all its subtleties. The collectivists understand this: striking workers
on a picket line, fearing starvation for themselves and their families
are easily whipped into homicidal frenzy by simplistic slogans. Try
approaching a striker screaming hatred at a passing bus loaded with
non-union labour and attempting to explain the complex Objectivist
reasons why he's being unreasonable. Christian scripture is very
complex and is often reduced to simplistic (and self contradicting)
slogans and as a consequence is often, wrongly, associated with the
left. A thorough and open minded study of the teachings of Jesus will
reveal the roots of individualism, rights of property and the equal
treatment of all citizens regardless of gender, culture or race.
Generally, whether it's theology, philosophy or political movements,
all manifestoes become corrupted over time when put into practice. If
an Objectivist Party were formed, it would not take long for the
purists to be horrified by the deals that would need to be made to
ensure the survival of the party. Those who are intellectually
privileged enough to have the capacity to understand a system of
thought in its entirety have a duty to that system to work tirelessly
to promote its subtleties. Unless Objectivists wish to remain ethical
fringe dwellers, sooner or later, we must engage. There will need to be
constant negotiations with all sorts of unlikely bedfellows. Only when
that process is under way will Objectivists realize, I believe, that
many members of the Christian community are willing fellow travelers
and that Christianity, at its best, is an ethical system which, in many
crucial ways, closely parallels Objectivist goals. It is no accident
that Christianity works best within a free and individualist social
system.
>
>It was during my years as an Objectivist /
atheist that I realized that my ethical system was beginning to closely
resemble the Christian ethos. Even while a committed atheist, I could
see that, without the tireless work of the Christian community, our
world would be significantly impoverished. Every week, out of every
church in the western world, flows a river of money directly into
problem areas. People outside the church judge Christianity by
sensationalist headlines but would be astonished at how much good work
the church actually does. Most churches function with a small full time
staff, a larger part time staff and an army of volunteers which means an exraordinary percentage of the donated funds reach the target. An
Objectivist might well argue that there is no prerogative to fix
problems but the practical outworking of that approach is to arm the
citizenry, shoot the starving and desperate and dispose of the bodies.
Keep in mind that every dollar spent by a church fixing a social
problem is a volunteer dollar, not a tax dollar which would be filtered
through a bloated beauracracy, eventually only passing on a proportion
of the original dollar. Furthermore, most church attendees believe that
their proactive engagement is meant to make the world a safer and
better place for their children (a noble and rationally selfish
motivation). You will also find, within the Christian community,
significant support for the ideas of flat rate taxation, balanced
budgets, constitutional limitations on government involvement,
individual liberty, personal responsibility and the inalienable rights
of property. Essentially, Christians got there first. It's the rituals
and machinations of the church "establishment" that has introduced
systemic corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2009, 1:35 AM
|
galtsgulcher
Joined on 03-15-2009
Posts 47
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
(mike wrote...)
"It was during my years as an Objectivist / atheist that I realized that my ethical system was beginning to closely resemble the Christian ethos."
Hi mike,
If people's behavior was completely stripped of religious or cultural context...
...it would be impossible to tell a decent Christian from a decent Jew, or a decent Buddhist, or a decent Muslim...
...or a decent atheist.
This is because there is an objective moral reality which is not determined by thought or emotion. For thought and emotion are only reactions to that objective moral reality.
Take Care,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2009, 2:09 AM
|
mike
Joined on 02-06-2009
Posts 13
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-23-2009, 12:21 AM
|
slacker00
Joined on 03-08-2009
Posts 22
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike, I just wanted to clarify, that wasn't my quote that you are quoting. It belongs to a different user involved in this discussion. Maybe you copied and pasted the wrong user name. I just want to keep people from getting too confused.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. We have to be careful to not oversimplify or overgeneralize. But it's tough not to do. How can we talk about every detail of every topic without making some generalizations for the sake of conversation?
As far as Objectivism versus Communism versus Theocracy, I think we've got a 3 way stalemate, almost. People simply have different ways of thinking about things. What should be done about difference of opinion within a society? If we let history give us a clue, the answer is messy.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-23-2009, 12:43 AM
|
galtsgulcher
Joined on 03-15-2009
Posts 47
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi slacker,
I agree... and can add that there could be no verbal expressions of wisdom without stating generalities...
...for exceptions to a generality are
~always~ implied.
(slacker wrote...)
"What should be done about difference of opinion within a society?"
That is not a problem as long as the differences of opinion within a society are between decent people.
Take Care,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-24-2009, 2:02 AM
|
mike
Joined on 02-06-2009
Posts 13
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker... my apologies. I view these at work, cut and paste them, send them home and reply from there... a bit elongated so hence the mix up. You're right re generalisation, in fact the ability to catagorize information and draw generalised conclusions is nature's way of allowing us to anticipate danger and protect ourselves from past experiences. I think there's a distinction to be drawn between discrimination and predjudice: the former is choice based on sufficient information to draw conclusions and the latter is premature conclusions based on insufficient information.
Overall, as I said in an early post, discussions about religion, while fascinating, tend to distract us from the main game ie: steering the world towards a popular understanding and acceptance of Individualism. In a truly individualist world we would celebrate differences such as religious (or not) and all other orientations which were private choices and therefore of little strategic importance in political terms.
As a convert to Christianity from atheism, however, having spent a fair amount of time looking in to it, while I'm not a definitive expert, I do like to point out issues when I think my Objectivist "comrades" are basing their antitheistic views on selective information rather than a more informed overview.
Cheers
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-24-2009, 12:31 PM
|
galtsgulcher
Joined on 03-15-2009
Posts 47
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike,
Since there is an Objective standard of moral behavior that isn't determined by the popular cultural collective consensus...
...it doesn't really matter to me why people are decent when they are all decent in the same ways.
Whether as a Christian I say this Objective moral standard is an expression of a God given Conscience, or Rand says it's a product of our ability to reason simply becomes an individual difference of expression when viewed within the larger context of the agreement itself of what is good and right.
It is within this agreement to aspire to conform our behavior to this Objective standard that people trust as they uphold the trust of others. This is the foundation of Capitalism in America... the agreement which works for the decent in all religions and cultures.
Take Care,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2009, 1:37 PM
|
slacker00
Joined on 03-08-2009
Posts 22
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I agree with what you guys are saying. There is a higher order (or power?!) to things, which we do not currently fully understand or appreciate. Call it God or call it an objective reality, it is just a way of identifying things.
Where Christianity & Objectivism split really comes down to morality. I mean, true Christians probably aren't going to split hairs with scientists about whether the universe really was created in 7 days or not. It's more about the Christian virtues, being a good & honest decent person, etc. I try to see Objectivism the same way: decent, intelligent, honest people working together individually for personal happiness as well as a more universal social harmony when viewing the bigger picture. What I'd really like to contrast is how Christians & Objectivists conflict when viewing some common social problems. I'm still working on this.
Here's an interesting analysis by an Objectivist writer. I agree with the destructive menace of religion fooling people. But it isn't just religion, but the media in general, maybe even the government itself. I think we need to look beyond Christianity, if for no other reason than to see the bigger picture of the menace of ignorance propagandizing. But I do think the evangelical Christians are a very ominous cadre.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2009, 12:47 PM
|
Martin Lundqvist
Joined on 04-11-2009
Posts 15
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Quotes are by mike)
> "I also consider myself open minded: give me evidence that God does NOT exist and I'll look at that too."
Thing is that the burden of proof does not lie on the person who makes a negative claim. For example, our current legal system (at least in most civilized countries) proclaim that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, with your logic it would instead be the other way round: for example, if someone was accused of murder, they would have to provide an aliby to prove their innocence, and if they fail in this task, they are convicted of murder - I would not call that a fair nor rational trial.
Also consider replacing the word "God" with "Santa" as in "give me evidence that Santa does NOT exist" - the absurdity in similarities are already there.
>"To me, "faith" in a concept is something you develop when that concept has proven itself reliable."
I think you have somehow corrupted the term yourself a bit, although unintentionally - reason, in the context as a form of "rationality", is not compatible with any iniutive beliefs or mystic revelations. I think a more proper word is "convictions", which is another thing entirely. (for example, Ayn Rand famously said that she "has no beliefs, only convictions" - i.e. she did not believe in her philosophy, she was convinced)
>"Even while a committed atheist, I could see that, without the tireless work of the Christian community, our world would be significantly impoverished."
I would disagree with this to some extent because I am opposed to foreign aid, but I certainly agree that voluntary organizations and volunatary money is better than the slave labour issued by government bureaucracies. Nonetheless, since most (if not all?) of the christian charity is based on some form of "duty to others" (aka altruism), I do not think this is compatible with rational self-interest and self-esteem, unless it is a means to your own ends and without harm to others (which is seldom the case in wealth redistribution however).
On the other hand, one could argue that "selfish" behaviour in the name of christianity would not really be "christian" behaviour because it was not truly altruistic by nature per definition, however since I am not an expert on theology I cannot confirm nor deny such a statement.
>"It's the rituals and machinations of the church "establishment" that has introduced systemic corruption."
Glad you got to this conclusion. Am I right in assuming that you are approaching Jesus from a philosophical standpoint? Since if you dismiss the mumbo-jumbo of the christian mysticism I can't see much reason for you to call yourself a "christian": instead you could say that Jesus was a good role model for individual rights, and that's it - there is no need to associate yourself with a broad spectrum that contain every person from benevolents to thugs. The "No true scotsman"-argument in opposition to people that perform horribly deeds "in God's name" is not an adequate defence of christianity in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2009, 10:02 PM
|
mike
Joined on 02-06-2009
Posts 13
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>Martin: "Thing is
that the burden of proof does not lie on the person who makes a
negative claim... ...Also consider replacing the word "God" with
"Santa" as in "give me evidence that Santa does NOT exist" - the absurdity in similarities are already there."
>>
>Martin
you make a good point and, with regards to the issue of "burden of
proof", I agree with you. However, a substantial body of circumstantial
evidence exists that points strongly towards divine existence. Until
the mid 60's the scientific world, since Aristotle, had believed in an
eternal universe model. Big Bang theory, in essence, aligned scientists
with theologists. This in itself is enormously significant but upon
serious examination we find that the body of evidence continues to grow
in direct proportion to the time we spend examining the issue. Christ
clearly lays claim to deity. The 3 years of His ministry (the last 3 of
his life) is the most examined portion of human life in history. We are
left with the uncomfortable conclusion that He is either liar, lunatic
or who He claimed to be. The road to dismantling religion is paved with
the conversions of determined atheists who set out to disprove, once
and for all, this religious 'mumbo jumbo.' It's quite clear that Jesus
and Santa (tooth fairy, etc) cannot be bundled into the same package.
(Execs at Coca Cola might be a little disappointed in this since it was
a Coke campaign that created the familiar image of Father Christmas).
>
>>Martin:
"I would disagree with this to some extent because I am opposed to
foreign aid, but I certainly agree that voluntary organizations and
volunatary money is better than the slave labour issued by government
bureaucracies. Nonetheless, since most (if not all?) of the christian
charity is based on some form of "duty to others" (aka altruism), I do
not think this is compatible with rational self-interest and
self-esteem, unless it is a means to your own ends and without harm to
others (which is seldom the case in wealth redistribution however)."
>>
>I
have a problem with foreign aid too. Using tax payer's money to mop up
the consequences of bad political and cultural choices in foreign
countries is a violation of our property rights and a gross betrayal by
a government that should be acting for its employers, the tax payer.
However, Christian aid is voluntary, accountable to the congregation
and specifically targeted. It is never given as aid to a regime but
always used to fund specific projects such as easing the plight of
refugees, feeding and educating starving children, providing a buffer
against child slavery, digging wells to obtain clean water and so on.
>
You make the blanket analysis that Christian charity is altruism. I
think sometimes we Objectivists are as confused as everybody else on
the sometimes blurry distinction between altruism and big-picture
rational self interest. An act is neither altruistic nor selfish simply
because of the act itself but is defined by our reasons for committing
or not committing the act. Dagney Taggart's motivation in her act of
generosity towards the tramp Jeff Allen was of no immediate benefit to
her, but she saw, in his pathetic sense of property towards his meagre
possessions, a spirit and a value worthy of support. This is a modern
parable and very similar to the parable of the good Samaritan. We help,
when possible, the guiltless victims because this makes our world a
better place. There is no mention in the scriptures that suggests the
Samaritan's interests were damaged by his act of kindness and that his
act was validated by the element of sacrifice.
>
>I am
not committed to converting Objectivists into believers. All I wish to
see is evidence that Objectivists are prepared to take a "jury's out"
stance and divert their atheistic energies into promoting the culture
of individualism.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07-27-2009, 1:36 PM
|
rca411
Joined on 07-27-2009
Posts 5
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
slacker,
you said: "One big difference is that Communism seems to promote authoritarian control whereas Christianity is more about (voluntary?) faith."
It isn't so voluntary if I bomb your nation back into a tidy secular dessert in order to increase my profit margin and standing in the world resource scheme in the name of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07-28-2009, 8:39 PM
|
AndrosBlaze
Joined on 07-26-2009
Posts 5
|
Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Not just a Seventh Day Adventist, but I believe, a Thinking
Adventist and while I’m very new to Objectivism, I don’t believe that
any of Christ’s teachings contradicts any tenant of Objectivism.
Please don’t respond to me to refute this claim but presenting the
view of most organized churches (including my own) of Jesus as a
collectivist hippie, it’s just not there." - mnichols1202
Actually, they do. Let me direct your attention to the Sermon on the Mount: http://www.loveallpeople.org/sermononthemount.html
I could go on and on about how this goes against Objectivism (and have done), but I'll keep my points brief. If you'd like to verify the extent of the contrast, you can read it and judge for yourself.
Jesus preaches thus:
"5:39 But I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat,
let him have your cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two.
5:42 Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you
turn you not away."
In other words: you are a sacrificial animal. Anyone who approaches you has the right to beat you, abuse you, and take your possessions, either through force or coercion.
Objectivism is based on the opposing premise: that you are not sacrificial, that you do not have to tolerate abuse or theft, that you have the right to your life and your property.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2 (30 items)
|
< 1 2 |
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: Orjectivism and Religon
|
|
|
|