Why are so many Christians fans of Ayn Rand?

[MrGoodBytes]

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.

I have a high treshold for unorthodox philosophical exercises, but I draw the line at the glorification of a sadist and child murderer as some sort of amoral superman.

 

[St. Barnabas]

Care about their hypocrisy? Well, first off I would have to believe you version of the events is correct and unbiased. Quite frankly I find that a stretch.

Oh, you don't have to take my word for it - all you have to do is remember that libs are all for women's rights, unless the women are Sarah Palin and her daughters or Ann Coulter. They are all for minority rights unless the minorities are Clarence Thomas or Michelle Malkin. I have seen some of the vile emails Malkin receives.

Why should their attitude toward the poor be any different?

I used to be one of those guys who believed that we could all have our say and the best man (or idea) would win in the end, but now all the left has is insults, even for the poor.

I have had it up to here with number one, being called a liar by the likes of you, and number two, the left invoking Jesus as their excuse to confiscate people's earnings when you know bloody well that it's just going to the government. I know what I read.

 

[jonsun80]

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.

The Church of Satan agrees with you.

Satanism and Objectivism

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Objectivists endorse reason, selfishness, greed and atheism.[/FONT]

 

[lordbt]

The Church of Satan agrees with you.

Satanism and Objectivism

What they think isnt relevant. Satanists may endorse Objectivism, but Objectivists do not endorse Satanism.

 

[lordbt]

I have a high treshold for unorthodox philosophical exercises, but I draw the line at the glorification of a sadist and child murderer as some sort of amoral superman.

That isnt what happened, and I addressed this about 30 pages ago. But what you might do is rather than draw conclusions based upon second hand smears is to read her own thoughts and draw your own conclusions. This is as good a place to start as any:

http://marsexxx.com/ycnex/Ayn_Rand-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.pdf

 

[jonsun80]

What they think isnt relevant. Satanists may endorse Objectivism, but Objectivists do not endorse Satanism.

perhaps not all of them, but it speaks volumes to it's [lack of] morality and that itself holds values diametrically opposed to the Christian doctrine.

Lets not even mention it's modern mouthpiece preaches to leave your church if it speaks of Jesus' values of helping the poor and needy.

One can claim to be a Christian with their tongue all they want, but if they do not follow the teachings, or even try, let alone act in the direct opposite, they're not actually accepting Jesus in reality.

These are precisely the warnings against Satan.

 

[lordbt]

perhaps not all of them, but it speaks volumes to it's [lack of] morality and that itself holds values diametrically opposed to the Christian doctrine.

Lets not even mention it's modern mouthpiece preaches to leave your church if it speaks of Jesus' values of helping the poor and needy.

One can claim to be a Christian with their tongue all they want, but if they do not follow the teachings, or even try, let alone act in the direct opposite, they're not actually accepting Jesus in reality.

These are precisely the warnings against Satan.

I posted a link to some of her writings. Why dont you read some of it and tell me what is Satanic about it, why it lacks morality, and where she opposes helping others.

 

[jonsun80]

I posted a link to some of her writings. Why dont you read some of it and tell me what is Satanic about it, why it lacks morality, and where she opposes helping others.

well I've been reading her writings since the mid 80's. you discovered her in about what, mid '08? be honest now. And I already pointed you to exactly what is anti-christian about it. besides the fact that rand was outspoken about how much she loathed Christians and Christ. If you cannot understand how it's anti-christian then you should probably crack open the Bible sometime.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Objectivists endorse reason, selfishness, greed and atheism.[/FONT]

do you think these are things Jesus taught?




as for how this is Satan.. this is exactly how he works. by convincing supposed Christians into following him through indirect means. the writing is on the wall here. Did you think he was going to come out and be obvious about it? How much more evidence do you need?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

It would seem then that most Atheists have embraced the reason that Rand told them to. It just didn't lead them to the same conclusions as Rand.

 

[Ampersand]

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.

As opposed to the rest, who are morally bankrupt conservatives?

 

[Chamdar]

The recent fondness for Ayn Rand by self-identified conservative Christians troubles me as well, and it is especially nonsensical considering Rand's support of abortion, which makes me question the sincerity of their pro-life views (and it is probably no wonder that the Christian Right has ended up on the losing side of the culture wars despite the political power they've had for the much the past three decades---they never really believed in the fight in the first place).

On the other hand, I think it's unfair how criticism of Rand and Objectivism is also used to attack libertarians as not all libertarians of Rand adherents.
Also, as unpleasant as Rand's worldview was/is, it didn't entirely start with her. Many of the Gilded Age robber barons had views which weren't much different than Rand's and they still considered themselves devout Christians.

 

[EdwinWillers]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but apparently it needs to be said again. Endorsing one person's economic or fiscal philosophies is in no way, shape, or form tantamount to some sort of ringing endorsement for other philosophies that person may hold.

Claiming the contrary is one of the easiest logical fallacies there is to debunk - unless the claimant is intractably and dogmatically unreasonable in their stance, as apparently many here seem to be.

It is a completely transparent motive as well to attempt to sway fiscally conservative Christians away from some of the strongest fiscally conservative concepts that exist in our world today - because they were concepts held and powerfully promoted by someone who wasn't a Christian - as if that is remotely relevant in matters of economic policy.

So let's break this asinine argument down:
- Ayn Rand was an atheist.
- Ayn Rand stridently supported conservative fiscal economics.
- Christians should therefore oppose conservative fiscal economics because Ayn Rand supported them.

Does any argument get more asinine than that?

 

[Umaro]

What I can't figure out is the diametric oppositon between the two fundamental beliefs many of her followers have. On the one side, the Randians believe that extreme self interest and the market forces that come from working towards it are the best way for an economy to function, but on the other they claim that private charity will be enough to deal with the poor and unfortunate so the government shouldn't get involved. Which is it? Charity or selfishness?

 

[sdmsanjose]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational egoism and rejected ethical altruism

In ethical philosophy, rational egoism (also called rational selfishness or egotism) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest

Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest
In 1954 Rand's close relationship with the much younger Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses.[51]
In 1964 Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended,[73] Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI.[74] Rand published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#cite_note-74#cite_note-74


Why did Rand publish an article?
repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life."

Rand preacheshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#cite_note-74#cite_note-74 egotism “the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest”, but when she has to live her philosophy she gets all upset. If Rand was in power in government she probably would have taxed Branden and put regulations on him.

Rand did not practice what she preached

 

[sdmsanjose]

Why are so many Christians fans of Ayn Rand?

Because they are more interested in Rand's philosophy of rational egoism (Rational Selfishness) than Christ's teaching' s of grace.

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational egoism and rejected ethical altruism


In ethical philosophy, rational egoism (also called rational selfishness or egotism) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest

 

[EdwinWillers]

...Brick wall...

 

[Daniel25]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but apparently it needs to be said again. Endorsing one person's economic or fiscal philosophies is in no way, shape, or form tantamount to some sort of ringing endorsement for other philosophies that person may hold.

Claiming the contrary is one of the easiest logical fallacies there is to debunk - unless the claimant is intractably and dogmatically unreasonable in their stance, as apparently many here seem to be.

It is a completely transparent motive as well to attempt to sway fiscally conservative Christians away from some of the strongest fiscally conservative concepts that exist in our world today - because they were concepts held and powerfully promoted by someone who wasn't a Christian - as if that is remotely relevant in matters of economic policy.

So let's break this asinine argument down:
- Ayn Rand was an atheist.
- Ayn Rand stridently supported conservative fiscal economics.
- Christians should therefore oppose conservative fiscal economics because Ayn Rand supported them.

Does any argument get more asinine than that?

who names their avatar after the sniveling lapdog in atlas shrugged anyway? Who calls themselves the hapless boob the ubermenschs decide to let live- though without the dignity of a serf or the self-awareness of a dog?


Ayn Rand's unregulated market fetishism was due to her materialism, her dislike of the hoi polloi, and her putting as the ultimate end and purpose of mankind the self-fulfillment of one's own pleasures. Man as an end onto himself. Basically, seperating her "economic theories" from her "social theories" is ridicolous, they are one continous viewpoint of life.

 

[Daniel25]

In all her writing there is a void of any sembelence of charity. Charity in the Biblical sense of the word, larger than simple alms giving; of human understanding or loving kindness. In her books, as a subtext behind every line and twisting in every point is a hysterical, hateful misanthropy. Its enjoyable if you think you are part of Ms. Rand's elect, and can't or don't care to consider the suffering of the millions who she has cleanly claimed as subhuman parasites or worse.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Atlas Shrugged became an international bestseller, and in an interview with Mike Wallace, Rand declared herself "the most creative thinker alive."[
Rand acknowledged Aristotle as her greatest influence[108] and remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's"—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand

Seems like Rand had delusions of grandeur

 

[EdwinWillers]

who names their avatar after the sniveling lapdog in atlas shrugged anyway? Who calls themselves the hapless boob the ubermenschs decide to let live- though without the dignity of a serf or the self-awareness of a dog?

In Atlas Shrugged Ms Rand makes a clear and marked distinction between two key groups of people in the world - between those who make the world work, and those who like parasites feed off the energy, vitality, creativity, and productivity of the former. The one she calls the prime movers, the other she correctly identifies as looters. Eddie Willers is a key character in the first group; not someone with the talent or drive of a Dagny or Reardon, but someone who shares their values and is totally loyal to them to the end.

Interestingly, one of the key antagonists in the book is also one of the least capable individuals, yet one of the most powerful. Elevated to his position by the privilege of birth, corrupted by a life of entitlement and largesse handed to him by others rather than acquired with his own talents and energy, he allowed his envy and greed to consume what remnants of individual character he had left. Rather than accept his position of absolute privilege and allow his character to grow, he cravenly allowed it to deteriorate.

It is James Taggart who is the anti-Willers in the book, who saw in Eddie his own true level of talent, but who in his artificially elevated position rose even higher in the ranks of the looters, whose fall was just as ignominius and thoroughly proper. It was James Taggert who viewed Eddie as a sniveling lapdog, the hapless boob - precisely because he recognized in Eddie himself without the privilege, himself without the opportunity, himself without the energy, the vision, and the willingness to take the risks necessary to become the prime mover his sister was - which is precisely why James Taggart disdained and hated Eddie as he did - because Eddie, he knew, had done far more in his lack of all those things than he ever could with them; and it was Eddie, he knew, who had the strength of character to make at least something of very little. It was Eddie whom James Taggart avoided like the plague - because it was Eddie who concretely revealed his own failings, his own disloyalty, his own sniveling, his own haplessness - all brought on by his own lack of character which he'd abandoned as soon as he recognized that life doesn't happen, success doesn't happen, but must be worked for, and that with whatever resources one has available to them, to make with what they can.

James Taggart is the epitome of greed and materialism in the book - and the logical end to both when allowed to run their course in individuals without the character to recognize their own self-induced sense of entitlement.

That's, in part at least, why I chose the name Edwin Willers. I'm no John Galt; I'm no Hank Reardon. But neither am I James Taggart.