Dante Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Bald faced lie. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” -- Leviticus 20:13 As I argued previously in this thread, it's not enough to quote the Bible on something without looking at actual Christians to see whether they view this passage as a valid Christian principle. How many Christians do you know that believe this? And how are those Christians (e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church) viewed by the greater Christian community? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Imagine if one tried to determine what Oism was, not by reading the literature alone, but based on the various beliefs of those who claim to be Oist..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 A religion represented by both Stylites and by the “Jesus wants you to be rich” types has issues with the law of non-contradiction, methinks. The American Jesus wants you to be rich, but first you have to buy the guy's book on how to be rich without even raising a sweat. ruveyn1 moralist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 No. It means that there are no irreconcilable conflicts. Oups. I'll give you that reconcilable is a synonym of compatible, however if you're asserting that compatibility demands the reconciliation of every element, then no two individuals can be compatible by definition, as individuality requires some point of distinction. By your assertion, Christians couldn't be compatible with each other nor could Objectivists because there would always remain a difference of opinion or action or appearance, i.e. individuality. Men and women have an irreconcilable conflict of gender and yet remain compatible in spite of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 As I argued previously in this thread, it's not enough to quote the Bible on something without looking at actual Christians to see whether they view this passage as a valid Christian principle. How many Christians do you know that believe this? And how are those Christians (e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church) viewed by the greater Christian community? To the main-line types, the likes of the WBC is bloody embarressing. ruveyn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Imagine if one tried to determine what Oism was, not by reading the literature alone, but based on the various beliefs of those who claim to be Oist..... How true... and you could search every church on the face of the Earth, and never find complete unanimity of beliefs. This is because everyone's own personal life experience is different from others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” -- Leviticus 20:13 ... and yet in that same Old Testament, there is no record of anyone actually having been stoned to death for adultery. Edited February 1, 2013 by moralist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbA Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Christians alligning themselves with socialist/Marxist leanings always surprises me. Between the Christians I know and the Atheists I know (non Objectivist atheists that is) all the Christians are Capitalists and most of the atheists lean toward Marxist thought. Anyone who tells you Jesus was a socialist is just plain wrong. ............. SapereAude, I don't see what should be all that surprising about some Christians having socialist/Marxist leanings. After all isn't it some form of the Altruist Morality that underlies both those ideologies as an attempted justification? I seem to recall that Rand had an essay that spoke to the parellels between Christianity and Communism and how the two would throw together in pursuit of a common goal. In fact I'd have to say that it's been a while since anything any particular group of Christians has done tha'st really caused me any great surprise. Dismaying at times yes but not really all that surprising. My life experience with Christianity (and those who take it seriously) has for the most part been negative in nature. I started my existence out being fairly heavily indoctrinated with the Luthern version of it. And all though I managed to reject most of it by my early 20s I went straight into a dogmatic agnosticism and a level of acceptance of socialism/Marxism to where I thought that "Capitalism" was what was wrong with the world. Kind of a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire" if you will. I stumbled along as a fairly confused and angry young man with all that nonsense well into my mid 30s when I had the great good fortune to get exposed to the thinking of Ayn Rand. As to your assertion that "Anyone who tells you Jesus was a socialist is just plain wrong".......well as some one who's held a range of different appraisals of this "jesus" character at different times over the course of his intellectual evolution I believe I've come to the conclusion that he was simply nothing more than just another non-productive member of the society he lived in. Essentially I think he was a mooch and the classic example of a "second-hander". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I'll give you that reconcilable is a synonym of compatible, however if you're asserting that compatibility demands the reconciliation of every element, then no two individuals can be compatible by definition, as individuality requires some point of distinction. By your assertion, Christians couldn't be compatible with each other nor could Objectivists because there would always remain a difference of opinion or action or appearance, i.e. individuality. Men and women have an irreconcilable conflict of gender and yet remain compatible in spite of that. You're equivocating between contradiction and difference. Find a book on logic, look up the distinction. It should be in the first chapter. Two things can be different without contradicting each other. A man and a woman don't contradict each other. Objectivism and Christianity do. Edited February 1, 2013 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 As I argued previously in this thread, it's not enough to quote the Bible on something without looking at actual Christians to see whether they view this passage as a valid Christian principle. Christianity is a top down organization, and the entity at the top is God. His means of conveying his commands is the Bible. I can prove this claim with quotes from any well knows Christian priest, preacher, or other Christian leader of your choosing. Go ahead, pick one. Anyone. I guarantee you that after a quick google of his name + Bible, I will come back with direct quotes to that effect. How many Christians do you know that believe this? And how are those Christians (e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church) viewed by the greater Christian community? Why are you asking how many I know? Christianity is a 2000 year old religion, with billions of followers, my circle of acquaintances is not a representative sample. I can however link you to instances of that exact idea from the Bible being used by Christians to murder homosexuals. You're welcome to pick the century, too. Please, make it easy on me, and go with the current one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 My life experience with Christianity (and those who take it seriously) has for the most part been negative in nature. I started my existence out being fairly heavily indoctrinated with the Lutheran version of it. You guys worshiped Luther Vandross? Best religion ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Two things can be different without contradicting each other. A man and a woman don't contradict each other. Objectivism and Christianity do. I'm guessing you've never been married... The topic is "compatible in America", not "irreconcilable in epistemology", not "philosophically different", and not "contradictory". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 I would agree with AbA. Christianity and Socialism have many connections. 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) To the main-line types, the likes of the WBC is bloody embarressing. ruveyn1 They are like terrorists to Islam... just without the violence and murder. Edited February 2, 2013 by moralist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 They are like terrorists to Islam... just without the violence and murder. As long as they do not resort to violence and keep their legal distance from funerals, there is no law that can stop them from doing what they are doing. The fact that looney tunes like these are not persecuted and prosecuted is actually a good reflection on our laws of free speech. If they could be shut down by law, how long would it be before you and I were shut down? ruveyn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Hardin Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 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. As others have suggested, the key thing to note about this quote from Ayn Rand is that she clearly distinguishes between religion and 'religious people.' She often said that many people are better than their premises, but she never wavered from her conviction that religion itself is absolutely antithetical to Objectivism. All religions--and especially Christianity--represent the philosophical enshrinement of the mind-body dichotomy, and Objectivism is diametrically opposed to that doctrine and all of its disastrous ramifications for human life and human happiness. Kate87 and Nicky 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate87 Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) It is impossible to reconcile the liberal political interpretation of Christ as a weak feminised limpwristed indolent left wing Marxist hippie with the decent courageous upright responsible productive Capitalist ideals of Ayn Rand. Jesus advocated the non-resistance of evil. Of course you will come up with excuses and different interpretations, and reasons why this is taken out of context etc. But here it is anyway in black and white, as clear as the day: But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Since you like Atlas Shrugged, I put it to you that this quote is the embodiment of Rearden's philosophy pre-Galt. It is literally a self destructive philosophy and more likely to be held by someone on the political left, especially by someone who advocates pacifism. Edited February 2, 2013 by Kate87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 (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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Socialists, too, can fight for reason and reality: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 She is right. Christianity precludes my conforming to Objectivism. However, Christianity does make me totally harmonious with the end products of her ideas: Capitalists Except that it doesn't. You support forced taxation (for all kinds of things, even road building), you support a ban on abortion, you are probably against gay marriage, etc. The only Capitalists you could ever live in harmony with are the ones who think exactly like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbA Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) I don't see how a Christian can reasonably be considered to be "totaly harmonious" with the end results of Rand's ideas (Capitalism) when that ideology is so diametrically opposed to the basic metaphysical precursor ideas (such things as the mind body dichotomy and the primacy of consciousness vs. the primacy of existence) that are the foundation (roots) on which her end product (Capitalism) depends. I'd have to say that it's a prime example of some one wanting to enjoy the "fruits" of some thing while at the same time not just denying the roots but holding ideas that actively work to poison them. To put it in terms of the "parable of the talents" I'd have to say it's worse than "reaping where one has not sown" in that it's a case of "expecting to reap where one has sown nothing but salt". Edited February 3, 2013 by AbA Kate87 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn1 Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 ......, you are probably against gay marriage, etc. Whoa! Did he actually write that he was against gay marriage. If not, how could you possibly know? ruveyn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate87 Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I think the odds favour Moralist supporting abortion restrictions and banning gay marriage, only he can confirm this of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowEpistemologist Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Whoa! Did he actually write that he was against gay marriage. If not, how could you possibly know? ruveyn1 Exactly. He's a Christian finding common cause with Objectivists, easily the most anti-Christian movement ever known. He may also find common cause with Satan worshipers and Scientologists. Or maybe he believes in all of Christianity except for the part where the main character rose from the dead. Maybe he actually is gay and only believes in 5 of the 10 commandments. Maybe he goes to church every Sunday unless there's a game on. Maybe he believes that the Ark existed, and held all of the millions of species which existed on Earth including a male and female tyrannosaurus, but he doesn't think it was a boat but rather a magic hovercraft. There's no telling with this one. Once you break with logic, anything is possible. Don't assume he values logical consistency: he's a Christian for chrissakes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbA Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 I'm curious to know what his position is on Woman having the right to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.