Why are so many Christians fans of Ayn Rand?

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Oh poo poo to your moral collapse nonsense. Slavery is gone, bigotry is being slowly being annihilated, minorities both racial and sexual have more rights then ever, and new and interesting ideas can be transfered instantly over great distance. We're better off now then we were in the 18th Century by miles and miles.

Since Roe v Wade over 50,000,000 baby boys and girls have been murdered by abortion in the United States, covenant, life long marriage is becoming the exception and disposable marriage is becoming the norm, we have institutionalized theft by government proxy and far too often scoundrels are running our government. God's wisdom is dismissed in preference for man's foolishness and as a result people are going into massive debt pursuing the lusts of the flesh and our nation as a whole is going into even more massive debt, sexual sin is rampant and God is treated like He is an enemy of mankind ... and you call this being better off?
 
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes. You're god is not everyone's god. Your morality is not everyone's morality. It's tough to hear that, I imagine. But them's the breaks.

Ampersand, A=A, truth is true, reality is real. Even though people may worship other 'gods' there is only one God, even though there is a wide range in moral thoughts only one moral belief system is entirely holy. Christians understand quite well that God is often abandoned that other things may be worshipped, that His moral teachings are often dismissed in favor of teachings that men may find more palatable. That is apparent in the world never mind that God teaches us that this is so as well.

That God does call all men to be holy, that He does have law that all men are subject to whether they acknowledge that law or not and that He will judge them, giving to those who heeded Him eternal life and those who denied Him wrath and utimately death may be hard to hear and believe but as you said, them's the breaks. There really is a God and He really has made Himself known to us. There really is a Satan who hates men with all his being (because he hates God and God loves us) and is doing all he can to separate us from God whether by introducing false gods for men to worship, corrupting our understanding of the one true God or getting us to believe there is no God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
My point is that the only proof of the Nameless God being real is the Torah/Bible/Koran saying so. If I write "Ampersand punched out a laser bear" that doesn't make it true.

There is far more proof than that. Creation itself bespeaks of the Creator Ampersand, the inclusion of scientific truths in the Bible that man only now is able to verify (meaning it was impossible for those how wrote as the Holy Spirit prompted them to know of the things they wrote of the sea depths or of deep space), there is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the accuracy of Bible prophecy and on and on.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟12,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Question: Since all taxation is theft, is there a means for a government to function at all? That is, are we aiming for the total obliteration of government and the establishment of a true socialist society bereft of central authority? (!) Or perhaps a purely carnivorous society; i.e. without a central authority it is ultimately left to those who attain the greatest wealth and power to rise to the top and we play social king of the mountain?

I'm guessing the former isn't the idea since socialism is a naughty word and it involves social cooperation so that everyone benefits--which from what I hear is a really bad thing.

The latter would seem to be the ideal state of affairs, a true Randian Utopia where dog eats dog, a true experiment in social darwinism where there is a survival of the richest and strongest and to hell with those who can't make it.

If a government, in order to survive at all requires the governed to sustain it (which a lot of which includes taxation) and we remove that aspect away so that government ultimately ceases we are left still with how society govern itself.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've never read any of Rand's works, but it would seem to me that this is precisely the sort of ultimate ideal of a Randian society, one in which the strong, the powerful and the rich survive and everyone else has their necks stepped on.

Such a society would be the worst kind of anarchy, a predatory society bereft of benevolence. A modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. No, literally, Ezekiel 16 says the crime of Sodom was their affluence, power and their refusal to tend to the care of the needy.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Question: Since all taxation is theft, is there a means for a government to function at all?

What does God say? If we keep in mind what the purpose of government is and what the responsible and holy man of God does (and throw out all of the carnal responsibilities that men have added to the duties of government), yes, government can be financed without taxation.

That is, are we aiming for the total obliteration of government and the establishment of a true socialist society bereft of central authority?

Socialist society? Is that the ideal that Jesus preached?

Or perhaps a purely carnivorous society; i.e. without a central authority it is ultimately left to those who attain the greatest wealth and power to rise to the top and we play social king of the mountain?

We have a central authority ... God!


I'm guessing the former isn't the idea since socialism is a naughty word and it involves social cooperation so that everyone benefits--which from what I hear is a really bad thing.

There is a difference between cooperation and coercion ... the same difference between free societies and statist societies. Socialism as devised by men at its very foundation is at odds with the society that God champions and does not benefit all men, it benefits some men at the expense of others.

The latter would seem to be the ideal state of affairs, a true Randian Utopia where dog eats dog

What???? When people can only achieve their goals with the voluntary cooperation of others, where coercion is not an option, HOW do you get a dog eats dog state of affairs?

a true experiment in social darwinism where there is a survival of the richest and strongest and to hell with those who can't make it.

This is not possible in a society of people committed to God's holiness NOR in a society where the initiation of the use of force to compel others to obey you is not legalized ... as it IS legalized in statist societies.

If a government, in order to survive at all requires the governed to sustain it (which a lot of which includes taxation) and we remove that aspect away so that government ultimately ceases we are left still with how society govern itself.

If we limited government to its moral purpose as identified by God (to ensure justice is done and address the predatory man's evil against his fellow man), its costs can easily be borne without the kind of taxation you apparently believe is critical.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've never read any of Rand's works, but it would seem to me that this is precisely the sort of ultimate ideal of a Randian society, one in which the strong, the powerful and the rich survive and everyone else has their necks stepped on.

Why would it 'seem to you' when you readily admit you haven't read any of Rand's works? She condemned that kind of society which, AGAIN, cannot exist when the initiation of the use of force in human relations is not an option!

Such a society would be the worst kind of anarchy, a predatory society bereft of benevolence. A modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. No, literally, Ezekiel 16 says the crime of Sodom was their affluence, power and their refusal to tend to the care of the needy.

-CryptoLutheran

What Ezeikiel 16 said was "this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me"

Crypto, you didn't mention that God was angered as well by Sodom's PRIDE, IDLENESS, HAUGHTINESS AND COMMITTING OF ABOMINATION like, oh, men laying with men and by failing to do so you gave a very distorted view of why God was angry with Sodom.
 
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Matthew 22:21

and render unto God what is Gods. That carnal men erect governments that are unjust and do things that God hates is no reason for the servant of the Lord to join them in their evil. God teaches us how to deal with carnal men whether it is living under an unjust government to being an outright slave of another man. We are in the world but not OF the world.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CryptoLutheran

Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
Sep 13, 2010
3,015
391
Pacific Northwest
✟12,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
For what it's worth, I come from a theological position that says we owe no allegiance to the State. I've rather consistently spoken of what I believe is a the fundamental difference between Christ and Caesar and have argued that Christians owe all to Christ.

When Jesus was asked whether one ought to pay taxes to Caesar Jesus does not give a yes or no answer. That's essential to the passage, Jesus does not say "Yes, pay your taxes." nor does He say, "No, don't pay your taxes." instead Jesus asks for a coin, then He asks whose image was on said coin. Caesar's image, along with this inscription:

TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST

Tiberius Caesar, son of the Divine Augustus

So Jesus says, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "Render unto God what is God's". Let Caesar have his coin; and perhaps what's in the subtext: you, inscribed with the image of God, and all of creation which bears God's mark and inscription belongs to God. Caesar can have the coin, you belong to God.

Thus it was not a yes or no to paying taxes, but rather a deeper question of allegiance.

Of course St. Paul much later explicitly says that Christians do pay their taxes. Is this because of our allegiance to Caesar? No, but rather because Christians are not lawless troublemakers; Caesar can have his bit of our coin, it's not properly ours anyway but for the sake of the poor and the needy, to be given and distributed among the needs of the Faithful, to widows and orphans, to the hungry and the thirsty. Our wealth is not ours, but for the benefit of others.

Tax-paying is not an act of patriotic duty, but a recognition of God's ultimate supremacy over Caesar and our understanding of the ultimate worthlessness of personal wealth ("no man can serve two masters...") and that our "stuff" is not for us, but for God and God's way has always been that it be distributed to the poor and the needy.

Christians are not opponents of the State, but neither are they allies of the State. Christians are citizens of a foreign kingdom where a Crucified man is King living as immigrants and exiles; it is not ours to attack the State as dissident rebels nor to be servants of the State as though we owe the State any allegiance--our allegiance is to Christ alone who calls us to be servants of all people regardless of who they are or where they are from. So we recognize the State as being the State, we pay our taxes and abide by the laws insofar as we are able, in peace and with love extended toward all (Romans 12).

This is a very firm conviction I have, it is in part why I will not salute nor make any pledge to flag or nation, why I oppose war and do not believe it is right for a Christian to serve in the military nor prudent for a Christian to be in public office.

That all said, if as a Christian who can in no way claim rights over the coin I make--for I and all I have and am is the property of Christ and in Christ the property of all--pay my taxes and some small measure of those taxes contribute to the needs of those to whom I have been called to serve by Jesus--the "least of these"--then by what justification can I, in good conscience before Almighty God, claim it as "theft" when all that I own, because of Christ, is not my own. For I have been called to forsake myself for others, called to be dedicated to the needy and least among us.

All this rhetoric about "theft" and "legitimate interests" has no biblical basis. It is nothing but an investment of pious language into unpious thought and action. It is a Christianized justification of greed, selfishness and pride.

And consistently it cannot be backed up with anything but assertion.

So if it helps someone sleep better at night to say that I'm not listening to Scripture and that I'm opposing God and not "properly" Christian because of my continued dedication to the words of Jesus over and against partisan political slogans then by all means, let them. But I am confident that Christ will hold no fault against me for advocating on behalf of the least of these, through He will hold fault against me for all the ways and all the times I have failed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty. And yes, if that bit of coin I cling so tightly to because it is Caesar's taxes could have been used to help those very same, then I am held guilty on account of it.

Kyrie eleison.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Ayn Rand had a way of dealing with carnal men, too, if you know what I mean. And I mean she had a rape fetish.

She may have. I know Howard Roarke did rape Dominique Francon in the Fountainhead and (sorry if I am misremembering because I haven't read Atlas Shrugged in ages) I seem to remember that Dagny Taggart was raped by John Galt.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
60
Mentor, Ohio
✟19,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
really rand is so morally bankrupt most atheists are ashamed to be categorized with her.
That would have more to do with the fact that most of your atheists out there are morally bankrupt leftists, not that Rand or her ideology was morally bankrupt.
 
Upvote 0