Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Christianity and Objectivism. Are these compatible in America?

Rate this topic


Reddog

Recommended Posts

Since you are choosing to make homosexuality a topic here rather than in a more appropriate thread, I have no problem responding directly here. More specifically I said that in my opinion, homosexuality is a consequence of child molestation. All actions have consequences, and every consequence has an action which caused it.

Oh My Fucking God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of responding to real questions on ideology, I believe compatability is more clearly defined by ones actions rather than by interpreting the supposed tenets of anothers group association. Ayn Rand reached out and found things in common, i.e. compatible, with those of faith on political issues in order to advance capitalism, rather than to dismiss them because of their faith in God.

That is because she had the maturity to realize that every ideology is a tool which serves a larger purpose than itself... in this instance, Capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier Leo Tolstoy laid out a compelling argument for why Christianity is not compatible with the statism or capitalism in "The Kingdom of God is Within You".

I've only read the wiki page, but did Tolstoy only use bible quotes to back up his assertions? I have to agree with Tolstoy when he says that Christ's teachings have little to do with church doctrine. (p.3)

Oh My Fucking God.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is because she had the maturity to realize that every ideology is a tool which serves a larger purpose than itself... in this instance, Capitalism.
This was not Rand's viewpoint. It is a cynical viewpoint that actually denies truth. This viewpoint is more closer to the Marxist notion of ideology serving class interests, than to Rand's conception of one reality, and therefore one truth that we have to discover. If you think Rand was formulating an ideology in order to push Capitalism, you are attacking her and ascribing evil motives to her.

To clarify, I'm not saying you mean to insult her or think she had evil motives. If someone said you were Christian only because it served Communism, or Capitalism, or whatever... then it would imply that you do not think Christianity is true as such, but just that it serves some other end. The implication is that that other end is greater than Christianity. This is similar to the idea that the rich want Capitalism just because it will keep them rich. Do you see the point?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only read the wiki page, but did Tolstoy only use bible quotes to back up his assertions? I have to agree with Tolstoy when he says that Christ's teachings have little to do with church doctrine. (p.3)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't doubt tthat the personal attacks on Tolstoy are true.

Yeah he did use bible quotes and he did make arguments against the ideas of western biblical scholars at the time, calling the support of capitalism and the state hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not Rand's viewpoint.

I think you missed this:

Ayn Rand's words: "You would not find too much opposition to Objectivism among religious Americans. There are rational religious people. In fact I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion; but that doesn’t mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it."

Is not freedom a larger cause for which to fight? And is not Capitalism a vital expression of that freedom? Clearly Ayn Rand regarded those indivualists as allies and not enemies.

If someone said you were Christian only because it served Communism, or Capitalism, or whatever...

The invalid word is only.

In America, you cannot fully enjoy its freedoms without first working to secure your own economic freedom. And there is no other way than through Capitalism. But Capitalism demands a moral code of behavior for it to be of any value to you.

If you do not first live a life deserving of freedom... you will never live to enjoy freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you are choosing to make homosexuality a topic here rather than in a more appropriate thread, I have no problem responding directly here. More specifically I said that in my opinion, homosexuality is a consequence of child molestation. All actions have consequences, and every consequence has an action which caused it.

That's your opinion. In my opinion, Jesus was gay. Why else would he never marry, except because he thought vaginas were icky? Jesus loved penises.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(quoting Ayn Rand)

"In America, religion is relatively nonmystical. Religious teachers here are predominantly good, healthy materialists. They follow common sense. They would not stand in our way. The majority of religious people in this country do not accept on faith the idea of jumping into a cannibal’s pot and giving away their last shirt to the backward people of the world. Many religious leaders preach this today, because of their own leftist politics; it’s not inherent in being religious. There are many historical and philosophical connections between altruism and religion, but the function of religion in this country is not altruism. You would not find too much opposition to Objectivism among religious Americans. There are rational religious people. In fact I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion; but that doesn’t mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it."

She is right. Christianity precludes my conforming to Objectivism. However, Christianity does make me totally harmonious with the end products of her ideas:

Capitalists

Several things wrong here. As at least one other person has said and you ignored: the end product of Ayn Rand's ideas is not really capitalists. Capitalists is a group of people, we exist as individuals. The end product is the ethical man; the selfish, non-sacrificial man. This man cannot be a christian. Christianity is completely opposed to living for oneself. Christianity and Objectivism "cannot be reconciled"; they are not "compatible". Which is what the title of the thread asks.

Can Objectivism and Christianity exist together in a free country? Of course. But the ideas that compose Christianity cannot be the basis of a free country. The only way for Christians and Objectivists to live together is for the basis of their association to be rational. The extent to which a country composed of Objectivists and Christians is free, is the extent to which the Objectivist ideas are held and conformed to and the Christian ideas are ignored. The extent to which Christians take their ideology seriously is the extent to which the country will fail and become less free. That is what Ayn Rand is saying above.

Christianity does not make one harmonious with capitalists. Capitalists are for making the largest profit possible. Christianity is opposed to capitalism. The extent to which you ignore Christianity is the extent to which you could be harmonious with capitalists. Though, of course that doesn't mean you will be harmonious with yourself. To the extent you take ideas seriously, you will feel guilt. Guilty that you know what the proper course is but you choose not to follow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several things wrong here. As at least one other person has said and you ignored: the end product of Ayn Rand's ideas is not really capitalists.

I'm an end product of following Ayn Rand's ideas, and I'm a Capitalist. Others who have done the same enjoy the same rewards. Regardless of how wonderful her ideas are, they are totally useless if they are not realized by our actions.

Capitalists is a group of people, we exist as individuals. The end product is the ethical man; the selfish, non-sacrificial man. This man cannot be a christian.

I agree. Christianity as defined by today's liberals is a religion for failures who produce nothing.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how wonderful her ideas are, they are totally useless if they are not realized by our actions.

More evasion. Morality is the science of how one should act. You should just acknowledge that your morality is diametrically opposed to Rand's.

I agree. Christianity as defined by today's liberals is a religion for failures who produce nothing.

And more evasion. Christianity as defined by its practitioners and leaders is self-sacrificial. Feel free to tell us how guilty you feel about acting opposite to your professed beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several things wrong here. As at least one other person has said and you ignored: the end product of Ayn Rand's ideas is not really capitalists. Capitalists is a group of people, we exist as individuals. The end product is the ethical man; the selfish, non-sacrificial man. This man cannot be a christian. Christianity is completely opposed to living for oneself. Christianity and Objectivism "cannot be reconciled"; they are not "compatible". Which is what the title of the thread asks.

Christianity does not explicitly set its moral code against the interests of its followers, or 'completely oppose living for oneself.' It claims to preach an ethical code which benefits the practitioner. Rand herself did a good job of highlighting the contradiction between the egoistic focus on personal salvation and the altruistic code that is actually advocated: (from Letters of Ayn Rand p.287, written in 1946)

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).

It would be better to say that Christianity sets itself in opposition to the actual moral code that is compatible with living for oneself; it claims to lay out this moral code, but in actuality does not.

I'm an end product of following Ayn Rand's ideas, and I'm a Capitalist. Others who have done the same enjoy the same rewards. Regardless of how wonderful her ideas are, they are totally useless if they are not realized by our actions.

On this I can only elaborate on Marc's previous statement (quoted above); the end product isn't a capitalist. It is someone who applies reason to every area of his or her life, and fully accepts and implements a moral code oriented towards self-interest and based on fact. You may share some ethical and political views of hers, but clearly not all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not.

Am too.

(ok, your turn... :P )

Every time you claim that, you mislead everyone except those of us familiar with Ayn Rand, about who she was and what she stood for.

I'm quite happy enjoying the results of following Ayn Rand's sound advice. Being a pragmatist, when I read Atlas Shrugged I came away with something completely different than you did... a practical ethical productive Capitalist business model that works like a charm. Hank, Dagny, Franscisco, John, Ragnar, and even Eddie all demonstrated valuable business principles.

And as much as their actual business practices, I also utilize their mood. AS inspired me to aspire to the quality of character Ayn Rand expressed through them by becoming a no nonsense resolute trustworthy man of my word. And what I discovered is that particular quality is highly regarded in the business world. Acting on Ayn Rand's ideas made it possible to establish business relationships with other Capitalists that I'll honor until I'm dead. Business in the real world is just as much of a heroic adventure as it was portrayed by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.

And so, Nicky, there is no need to be concerned about what I do, or how I live, or whether or not I conform to orthodoxy. For the good news is that how I freely choose to express Ayn Rand's ideas in my own life does absolutely nothing to interfere with your own free choice of how you express her ideas in your own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this I can only elaborate on Marc's previous statement (quoted above); the end product isn't a capitalist. It is someone who applies reason to every area of his or her life, and fully accepts and implements a moral code oriented towards self-interest and based on fact. You may share some ethical and political views of hers, but clearly not all.

Thank you. You're exactly right, Dante. I don't meet the ideological purity of the doctrine of Objectivism. I simply became a Capitalist from reading Atlas Shrugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this I can only elaborate on Marc's previous statement (quoted above); the end product isn't a capitalist. It is someone who applies reason to every area of his or her life, and fully accepts and implements a moral code oriented towards self-interest and based on fact.

In my view, there is no difference. Someone whose reasonable actions conform to a moral code is the functional definition of a Capitalist. No one could ever succeed in business in the long run without being both reasonable and ethical. This is because Capitalism contains within it a specific moral code of behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity does not explicitly set its moral code against the interests of its followers, or 'completely oppose living for oneself.' It claims to preach an ethical code which benefits the practitioner in the afterlife. It also claims that that moral code IS the opposite of human nature. Hence, original sin.

Fixed.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so, Nicky, there is no need to be concerned about what I do, or how I live, or whether or not I conform to orthodoxy. For the good news is that how I freely choose to express Ayn Rand's ideas in my own life does absolutely nothing to interfere with your own free choice of how you express her ideas in your own life.

It does when I can't buy gasoline without giving you your cut. It does when I can't go to my gay friend's wedding because you decided God doesn't want him to have a wedding. It does if my sister gets raped and you decide God wants to force her to have the rapist's child. It does when I get fined for airing the word fuck over frequencies God apparently wants you to make sure fuck is never uttered over. It does when I go to prison for smoking pot, because the politicians God told you to vote for feel like making it a felony. That's not even half of it. The list of Christian and Republican lunacy that affects me personally goes on and on.

Thank you. You're exactly right, Dante. I don't meet the ideological purity of the doctrine of Objectivism. I simply became a Capitalist from reading Atlas Shrugged.

If you're a Capitalist, I'm a Nobel prize laureate. I won it for both Physics and Economics, and I've been winning it every years since Alfred died. I also ran the marathon in five minutes, and can eat five pounds of mayo in one sitting. All this without ever leaving the Moon. That's where I live, oh did I not mention that?

In my view, there is no difference. Someone whose reasonable actions conform to a moral code is the functional definition of a Capitalist. No one could ever succeed in business in the long run without being both reasonable and ethical. This is because Capitalism contains within it a specific moral code of behavior.

No, it doesn't. That's the whole point of capitalism. It's strictly a political system that allows people to freely choose their moral code. The only requirement Capitalism has is that you don't initiate force against others.

Which brings me to the reason why you're not a capitalist: you abide by no such limitation, half the things you stand for are initiation of force against others.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. That's the whole point of capitalism. It's strictly a political system that allows people to freely choose their moral code. The only requirement Capitalism has is that you don't initiate force against others.

No fraud allowed either. Also contracts freely entered into must be honored, unless a force major intervenes (like a war, earthquake or tsunami).

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite a creative stretch of the imagination. Could you please explain how you are a helpless victim who is coerced to give me money when you buy gasoline?

 

No, it doesn't. That's the whole point of capitalism. It's strictly a political system that allows people to freely choose their moral code. The only requirement Capitalism has is that you don't initiate force against others.

 

Well, that's where we each differ in our view of Capitalism. In my view, Capitalism only works for people who are decent, responsible, productive, solvent and frugal. It requires a moral code of behavior similar to Democracy, which also only works when people govern themselves.

 

The reason Democracy and Capitalism are both failing today is not because because they are flawed... it is simply because people have failed them by failing to govern themselves.

Which brings me to the reason why you're not a capitalist: you abide by no such limitation, half the things you stand for are initiation of force against others.

 

That's not my concern whether or not I conform to orthodoxy. My concern is doing honest work to earn an honest dollar. No one can ever truly enjoy the freedom of America without first earning their own economic freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ari Armstrong posted something at the Objective Standard that has already made it to our forum, PJ Media's Walter Hudson Previews Bernstien-D'Souza Debate on Christianity. The Walter Hudson piece, 5 Common Accusations Leveled at Christianity, seems relevant to this thread. I'm about to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...