Ayn Rand and Christianity - how do you make them fit together?

#26
#26
AshG said:
I've been digging deeper into the works of Ayn Rand in an attempt to understand some of the viewpoints here. The more I try to wrap my head around Randian Objectivism, the more confused I become.

How do those of you who hold Rand in such high esteem deal with the cognitive and spiritual dissonances created by such conflicting ideologies?

And how many of you don't even realize that you operate in Rand's ideology?

Randian Objectivism:
  • What you see is all there is, no reason to look deeper or further
  • Your personal truth is all there is
  • There is no transcendent future, only now
  • You are the center of your universe
  • Accumulation of wealth through work is the primary goal of life
  • What's yours is yours; anyone who wants any of it for any reason is a thief
Christianity
  • There are deeper meanings and causal relationships in almost every situation; seek, and you shall find
  • The now is but an infinitesimally short moment in eternity for all humanity
  • God is at the center of all things, and you come to Him through Christ
  • Nothing actually belongs to you, you are merely the steward for a short moment. Your reward is added to by giving it away and waits for you in eternity
  • Give Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. If a man asks for your coat, etc.
Click to expand...
Do you also take the writings of people such as Darwin or Freud and discuss how they differ from your understanding of Christianity
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, EasternVol, Rasputin_Vol and 1 other person
#27
#27
AshG said:
To address your points:
Christians are compelled by Christ to be altruistic.
Christians are compelled by Christ to sacrifice in our daily lives
The Beatitudes outline the blessed nature of the weak
The chief purpose of man is to glorify God

I see quite a bit of conflict here.
Click to expand...

Jesus stands at the door and knocks - he doesnt blow down the door. If you are seeing Christians being compelled in any sense, you are missing the gospel. We are not loved because we obey but we want to obey because we are loved. Altruism and sacrifice are worthless works if they are not freely given of a willing heart - and God alone can know that.
There is nothing intrinsically meritorious or good about weakness. Nothing. The only good of human weakness is that it makes us dependent upon God, who is completely without weakness. The weak are blessed because they look to God for their strength instead of themselves. The young lions lack and suffer hunger; But those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. Yes, that is true but I would not expect a 'rationalist" philosophy to incorporate this.

If Objectivism is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." That conflicts only as our own happiness is not our highest moral purpose (see non nobis above) and that our reason is not on an absolute throne above God himself. Indeed reason, like our emotions and our body, should be our servant, and not our master.

Again, as a rationalist philosophy who denies what may exist but cannot be seen, I dont think Objectivism is compatible with any religion per se but again, I consider it's value more for its economic considerations.

Think of it more as a Wesleyan injunction (make all you can and save all you can, so you can give all you can) for those who consider themselves "enlightened" above "mere" religious superstition.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#32
#32
Gandalf said:
Jesus stands at the door and knocks - he doesnt blow down the door. If you are seeing Christians being compelled in any sense, you are missing the gospel. We are not loved because we obey but we want to obey because we are loved. Altruism and sacrifice are worthless works if they are not freely given of a willing heart - and God alone can know that.

There is nothing intrinsically meritorious or good about weakness. Nothing. The only good of human weakness is that it makes us dependent upon God, who is completely without weakness. The weak are blessed because they look to God for their strength instead of themselves.

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. Yes, that is true but i would not expect a 'rationalist" philosophy to incorporate this.

If Objectivism is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. That conflicts only as our own happiness is not our highest moral purpose (see non nobis above) and that our reason is not on an absolute throne above God himself. Indeed reason, like our emotions, should be our servant, and not our master.

Again, as a rationalist philosophy who denies what may exist but cannot be seen, I dont think Objectivisim is compatible with any religion per se but again, I consider it's value more for its economic considerations.

Think of it more as a Wesleyan injunction (make all you can and save all you can, so you can give all you can) for those who consider themselves "enlightened" above "mere" religious superstition.
Click to expand...

I greatly enjoyed your response and have a lot to chew on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Gandalf
#34
#34
AshG said:
There are plenty, even if they don't know it. Just look for the times people complain that that's no reason to look further into a situation (voting, medical access, etc) because the problem is obvious and has no nuance.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make them knowing (or unknowing) followers of Rand. Ayn Rand is a branch of right wing thinking that is probably more liberal on social issues (especially since Rand lived a rather liberal lifestyle in her personal relationships) and more conservative on fiscal matters. Keep in mind that Rand was essentially a White Russian that had escaped the tyranny of the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s or early 1930s, so she has a firm grasp of the dangers of collectivism and it heavily influenced her work and thoughts for the rest of her life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, AM64, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#35
#35
AshG said:
Have you read the scathing letter she sent her niece when she asked for help with a prom dress?

Also, her idea that taxation is theft.
Click to expand...
I would be very interested to read that letter. First I've ever heard of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#36
#36
AshG said:
To address your points:
Christians are compelled by Christ to be altruistic.
Christians are compelled by Christ to sacrifice in our daily lives
Click to expand...
Just thinking off the top of my head... Abraham, Job, David and Solomon were not paupers, but very rich landowners/farmers or very wealthy rulers.

AshG said:
The Beatitudes outline the blessed nature of the weak
Click to expand...
Not "weak", but "meek".

AshG said:
The chief purpose of man is to glorify God
Click to expand...
Probably the only one you got right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and Vol8188
#37
#37
AshG said:
"I want you to understand right now that I will not accept any excuse—except a serious illness. If you become ill, then I will give you an extension of time—but for no other reason. If, when the debt becomes due, you tell me that you can’t pay me because you needed a new pair of shoes or a new coat or you gave the money to somebody in the family who needed it more than I do—then I will consider you as an embezzler. No, I won’t send a policeman after you, but I will write you off as a rotten person and I will never speak or write to you again."

I can't, in good conscience, imitate that advice in whole or in part.
Click to expand...
That letter is next level. Thanks for sharing that.
 
#38
#38
I have wrestled with this myself ever since first reading Atlas Shrugged about a decade ago. The basic breakdown is that Rand correctly identifies the problems with collectivism but she makes a critical error. She sees mankind’s failings as a problem of the mind and posits that objective rationality is the cure. Christianity however accurately pegs the problem as man’s heart and comes down to self will and pride.
In short, Rand correctly diagnoses that collectivism and statism will never work. She however proposes the wrong remedy for the cure.
Her work is good to turn on the lights and point out the stupidity of liberal progressivism. She can help people wake up but she cannot direct them to the proper destination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188, Gandalf and DuckInAPen
#39
#39
Gandalf said:
Jesus stands at the door and knocks - he doesnt blow down the door. If you are seeing Christians being compelled in any sense, you are missing the gospel. We are not loved because we obey but we want to obey because we are loved. Altruism and sacrifice are worthless works if they are not freely given of a willing heart - and God alone can know that.
There is nothing intrinsically meritorious or good about weakness. Nothing. The only good of human weakness is that it makes us dependent upon God, who is completely without weakness. The weak are blessed because they look to God for their strength instead of themselves. The young lions lack and suffer hunger; But those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. Yes, that is true but I would not expect a 'rationalist" philosophy to incorporate this.

If Objectivism is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." That conflicts only as our own happiness is not our highest moral purpose (see non nobis above) and that our reason is not on an absolute throne above God himself. Indeed reason, like our emotions and our body, should be our servant, and not our master.

Again, as a rationalist philosophy who denies what may exist but cannot be seen, I dont think Objectivism is compatible with any religion per se but again, I consider it's value more for its economic considerations.

Think of it more as a Wesleyan injunction (make all you can and save all you can, so you can give all you can) for those who consider themselves "enlightened" above "mere" religious superstition.
Click to expand...
Very well expressed
 
#42
#42
Rasputin_Vol said:
He had a very specific niche that he was trying to go after when he made this thread because it was very random to bring up Ayn Rand when there hasn't been much recent talk about her in the forum as far as I could tell.
Click to expand...
Yep another example of his “neuro” objective BS that always seems to go one way. He loves to argue for two things:
-an established liberal narrative
-anything that comes from his approved MSM narrative
And surprise surprise, they are often the same
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#43
#43
Rasputin_Vol said:
He had a very specific niche that he was trying to go after when he made this thread because it was very random to bring up Ayn Rand when there hasn't been much recent talk about her in the forum as far as I could tell.
Click to expand...

And within an hour he took his ball and ran home.
 
#45
#45
AshG said:
I'm tiring of you trying to dictate when and how I respond. What is your problem?
Click to expand...

You made a thread specifically to call me out, never addressed any of my points, and left within an hour.

I didn’t dictate when you made the thread. I didn’t make you make a thread you knew I would respond to.

But if you’re going to do those things, you should put your big boy pants on and be ready to engage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970 and Rasputin_Vol
#47
#47
Vol8188 said:
You also seem to be completely misunderstanding Rand if you believe she sees “accumulation of wealth” as the primary goal in life.

In The Fountainhead her main character intentionally makes decisions throughout the book that cost him money, because he would rather remain true to himself.

In Atlas Shrugged the main characters leave all their worldly possessions behind to start their own society.

Instead of reading opinions on Rand, you should start with her actual works. Specifically those two
Click to expand...

@AshG you should probably start here
 
#48
#48
Vol8188 said:
You made a thread specifically to call me out, never addressed any of my points, and left within an hour.

I didn’t dictate when you made the thread. I didn’t make you make a thread you knew I would respond to.

But if you’re going to do those things, you should put your big boy pants on and be ready to engage.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did I call you out specifically? Good lord, that's some ego.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top