Jesus VS Ayn Rand

[RJHarmony84]

I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", and a lot of what she writes has a ring of truth in it. I'm a Christain though, and so some of what she says flies in the face of my faith. Is it possible to beleive in what Jesus teaches and in Ayn Randian philosophy as well?
Anyone with comments please!

 

[Jaywalk]

Is it possible to beleive in what Jesus teaches and in Ayn Randian philosophy as well?

I don't see how since her philosophy is profoundly atheist.

As I've grown older, I've also come to the conclusion that her philosophy is immature. Basically, she was a well-to-do woman who left Communist Russia and wanted justification for her wealth as opposed to the superficially egalitarian principles of Communism. Eventually she settled on a philosophy of self-interest; seeking the best for yourself is the highest moral principle. Christians and others who claimed that service of others was more important were, therefore, less moral.

In Freudian terms, we all develop an Ego to balance our instinctual drives (Id) against our moral imperatives (Super Ego). It's that balance that allows us to keep from becoming either uncontrolled brats or hypocritical moralists. Rand's philosophy eliminates that balance, allowing control of the Id only insofar as is necessary to avoid punishment.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[devoted daughter]

I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", and a lot of what she writes has a ring of truth in it. I'm a Christain though, and so some of what she says flies in the face of my faith. Is it possible to beleive in what Jesus teaches and in Ayn Randian philosophy as well?
Anyone with comments please!

I shouldn't comment beyond what follows, because your truth is your own. There is truth. If something, a piece of it doesn't ring true, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water!", especially when it comes to something as deep, complicated and subjective as philosophy. Hold strong to your faith, it shouldn't be subject to anhelation just because you broaden your temporal knowledge. YOu've just read a wonderful and demanding piece of literature!
KUDOS, sister! A tough read....good for you! Keep seeking, and exercising the brain God gifted you with.
peace,
DD
His Spirit of truth will be your balance!

 

[Andry]

I shouldn't comment beyond what follows, because your truth is your own. There is truth. If something, a piece of it doesn't ring true, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water!", especially when it comes to something as deep, complicated and subjective as philosophy. Hold strong to your faith, it shouldn't be subject to anhelation just because you broaden your temporal knowledge. YOu've just read a wonderful and demanding piece of literature!
KUDOS, sister! A tough read....good for you! Keep seeking, and exercising the brain God gifted you with.
peace,
DD
His Spirit of truth will be your balance!

Yes it's a demanding piece of literature, but it's just that, literature. I read Atlas Shrugged at the behest of a good Christian friend who's very much into 'personal development', 'professional growth', 'corporate cultures' to discuss Ayn's perspective and how they pertain to our economy, our productivity, our global outlooks, etc etc ad naseaum. (both he and I are in corporate environments).

While I won't marginalize her work to a few simple sentences, I will say a few things as it pertains to the OP.

1. What Jesus taught was not philosophy.
2. Remembering a few tenets of the Westminster Confession has helped:
- Nothing contrary to Scripture can ever be true.
- Nothing in addition to Scripture can ever be binding (used as doctrine), even though it might be true.
- Every believer is responsible to search out the Scriptures, to see if what was being said is true.

So in gauging any work or writings by another person, no matter how demanding it may be, that yes, it might be true, but we can never bind it as doctrine. And Ayn's perspective has some truth, but it's not an either or proposition such as 'Jesus vs. Ayn'.

I hope this helps.

 

[rooster]

Ayn Rand is the archtypical humanist, people have extracted philoshophies from her two main books "atlas shrugged" and "fountainhead" calling it "selfish objectivism" or something like that. she has written her own none-fictions and had called her own brand of philoshophy something else(but memory fails me here).

Anyway her book is almost a caricature of a godless, self sufficient humanist society. And if you would notice that she had used her main characters to twist some very simple but fundemental human values. The book can be inspirational.... for those without God. You have God, absorb none of her philosophy. She plays her cards much too early in her books and reveals almost everything about the main characters be it John Galt or Howard Roark. the rest of the book is just a build up towards a tremondous eventual triumph.

Personally i prefered fountainhead and probably because having read fountainhead first i found atlas shrugged pretty repetivitve.

Perhaps yuo could share a bit more on what you thought of the book.

Oh, and in response to your original question, anybook can have something useful in it but if you were to built up your personal principles and life philosophy, then let only the bible and the Holy spirit be your guide and light.

 

[devoted daughter]

Yes it's a demanding piece of literature, but it's just that, literature. I read Atlas Shrugged at the behest of a good Christian friend who's very much into 'personal development', 'professional growth', 'corporate cultures' to discuss Ayn's perspective and how they pertain to our economy, our productivity, our global outlooks, etc etc ad naseaum. (both he and I are in corporate environments).

While I won't marginalize her work to a few simple sentences, I will say a few things as it pertains to the OP.

1. What Jesus taught was not philosophy.
2. Remembering a few tenets of the Westminster Confession has helped:
- Nothing contrary to Scripture can ever be true.
- Nothing in addition to Scripture can ever be binding (used as doctrine), even though it might be true.
- Every believer is responsible to search out the Scriptures, to see if what was being said is true.

So in gauging any work or writings by another person, no matter how demanding it may be, that yes, it might be true, but we can never bind it as doctrine. And Ayn's perspective has some truth, but it's not an either or proposition such as 'Jesus vs. Ayn'.

I hope this helps.

Nothing Jesus taught was philosophy? Chistian ethics, ethics and morality, "the golden rule," just to name a few! The fact that as Chistians WE take it as gospel makes it ethnocentric to say that it isn't philosophy to others, or even, in and of itself.
"Nothing contary to scripture can ever be true". TRUTH is of God, and the bible doesn't contain ALL the truths that exist. If a piece of literature is predominately false, you don't throw out what truth there is just because of the context in which it exists.
Knowing the scriptures is a good foundation, but if you lack His Spirit, you won't see the whole truth in the scriptures or anywhere. I've come across plenty of people that know scriptures like the back of their hand, but couldn't recognize truth if it hit them over the head. IN MY OPINION, that's like failing to recognize God, because God is truth; truth is of God. Where do the scriptures alone get you then? (rhetorically).
" Nothing in addition to Scripture can ever be binding (used as doctrine), even though it might be true."...the law is binding, my contracts are binding,...laws of physics are binding...they are ALL doctrine, and they are all true. Maybe we have a different definition of the word doctrine, because doctrine, to me,doesn't just mean the word of God.
All I basically told Harmony was that "Atlas Shrugged" is just a book...that she entitled to OWN her personal truths from it. Who are we to say what the Spirit would "tell" her??? I for one will not. So I agree with your summation that it is NOT an either/ or proposition, (but it was just her title, 'Jesus vs. Ayn Rand', she's entitled to that, too; it certainly caught my attention!).
DD

 

[daveleau]

It depends on what you believe of her writing. She is a pretty good political writer. Some of her ideas are dead-on. But, there is no writer that I have found that speaks to me inerrantly. I always find faults eventually with a person's writing. ...a fork in the road of ideas, if you will. I think take what is good and right from her writing, then that is ok. But, to beleive anyone's ideas wholeheartedly, is not healthy unless it is coming straight from God. Similarly, it is not good to follow one party or another and vote party lines on all political topics. There is always going to be an issue that you disagree with the candidate on. We will be hard pressed to find an author or politican who we agree with 100% of the time.

 

[Andry]

Nothing Jesus taught was philosophy? Chistian ethics, ethics and morality, "the golden rule," just to name a few! The fact that as Chistians WE take it as gospel makes it ethnocentric to say that it isn't philosophy to others, or even, in and of itself.
"Nothing contary to scripture can ever be true". TRUTH is of God, and the bible doesn't contain ALL the truths that exist. If a piece of literature is predominately false, you don't throw out what truth there is just because of the context in which it exists.
Knowing the scriptures is a good foundation, but if you lack His Spirit, you won't see the whole truth in the scriptures or anywhere. I've come across plenty of people that know scriptures like the back of their hand, but couldn't recognize truth if it hit them over the head. IN MY OPINION, that's like failing to recognize God, because God is truth; truth is of God. Where do the scriptures alone get you then? (rhetorically).
" Nothing in addition to Scripture can ever be binding (used as doctrine), even though it might be true."...the law is binding, my contracts are binding,...laws of physics are binding...they are ALL doctrine, and they are all true. Maybe we have a different definition of the word doctrine, because doctrine, to me,doesn't just mean the word of God.
All I basically told Harmony was that "Atlas Shrugged" is just a book...that she entitled to OWN her personal truths from it. Who are we to say what the Spirit would "tell" her??? I for one will not. So I agree with your summation that it is NOT an either/ or proposition, (but it was just her title, 'Jesus vs. Ayn Rand', she's entitled to that, too; it certainly caught my attention!).
DD

Hit a nerve have we? Half your post accuse me of words or thoughts I never said or meant. The other half shows your own lack of understanding. And because you seemed soooo sensitive yet at the same time oblivious to the nuances (eg. philosophy instead of philosophy - italicized for a reason), I don't think I'll bother responding to you.

Please reread my post. As far as Ayn's writings are concerned....where did I knock her?

One other thing - yes, Harmony is entitled to her opinion, but is it possible the reason she posted hers was so that she could hear others too? Just a thought.

 

[devoted daughter]

Hit a nerve have we? Half your post accuse me of words or thoughts I never said or meant. The other half shows your own lack of understanding. And because you seemed soooo sensitive yet at the same time oblivious to the nuances (eg. philosophy instead of philosophy - italicized for a reason), I don't think I'll bother responding to you.

Please reread my post. As far as Ayn's writings are concerned....where did I knock her?

One other thing - yes, Harmony is entitled to her opinion, but is it possible the reason she posted hers was so that she could hear others too? Just a thought.

No nerve hit, just addressing what I thought I understood you we're saying. Atleast I didn't get personal, no need for that, but YOU got personal, so who touched the nerve of whom?
I will re read you post per your request;perhaps you should re read mine, I wasn't slamming you, and never said you were knocking Ayn Rand what so ever, nor was I getting personal with you. As I qualified my statements..."IN MY OPINION". My "lack of understanding"??? How could you POSSIBLY know what I understand! ROTFL. Do you read palms, too?
And yes, Harmony is entitled to her opinion, as are we all; I simply defended her title of the thread. I apologize for what seems to be a misunderstanding. I respect your opinion, and I hold my own, but as you said, no need to respond. The beauty of free will!
Tone or voice can get lost in text, I was never accusatory. I retain my sense of humor.
Humbly,
DD

 

[devoted daughter]

It depends on what you believe of her writing. She is a pretty good political writer. Some of her ideas are dead-on. But, there is no writer that I have found that speaks to me inerrantly. I always find faults eventually with a person's writing. ...a fork in the road of ideas, if you will. I think take what is good and right from her writing, then that is ok. But, to beleive anyone's ideas wholeheartedly, is not healthy unless it is coming straight from God. Similarly, it is not good to follow one party or another and vote party lines on all political topics. There is always going to be an issue that you disagree with the candidate on. We will be hard pressed to find an author or politican who we agree with 100% of the time.

AMEN!
DD

 

[RJHarmony84]

Whoa whoa, People!
I didn't start this thread to create an argument...andry was right in that I wanted to hear other opinions. As for going for one or the other 100%, this may sound offensive to some but I've found things in both books that I had to try to translate, so as to understand them better. For instance, I believe that when the old testement talks about "men" it actually means both men & women. But that's a whole other argument...I'm just saying, there are a lot of things that I like about Ayn Rand's philosophies--such as striving to make/do the best that you can for yourself & those you care about.
The thing that confuses me the most is her philosophy that only those who DESERVE IT recieve care & assistance, where I belive that Jesus loves and assists everyone, no matter how undeserving. I does seem to me that if a person had no intention of changing, but recieved assistance anyway, that the assisatnce would be better given to one who would use it to better themselves & those around them. This I got from Ayn Rand. However, I also believe that everyone should be given the chance to change, (from the Bible) & how can anyone determine if they will or won't change if assistance is not offered to all?
I'm still confused, but it helps to have all your opinions and ideas.

 

[Andry]

Harmony,

No arguement here! DD and I 'resolved' things, so we're good.

 

[ChiRho]

I don't see how since her philosophy is profoundly atheist.

As I've grown older, I've also come to the conclusion that her philosophy is immature. Basically, she was a well-to-do woman who left Communist Russia and wanted justification for her wealth as opposed to the superficially egalitarian principles of Communism. Eventually she settled on a philosophy of self-interest; seeking the best for yourself is the highest moral principle. Christians and others who claimed that service of others was more important were, therefore, less moral.

In Freudian terms, we all develop an Ego to balance our instinctual drives (Id) against our moral imperatives (Super Ego). It's that balance that allows us to keep from becoming either uncontrolled brats or hypocritical moralists. Rand's philosophy eliminates that balance, allowing control of the Id only insofar as is necessary to avoid punishment.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

The irony! Dismissing the work of Ayn Rand because she is an atheist, and using Freud to support your claim! LOL! LOL!

There are definitely some truths to Rand's philosophy. We accept too much guilt. We are not responsible for the happiness of others. Many times Christians attempt to combine the two kingdoms and fuse them as one, eventually searching for God where He is not found....the government. We should support a society that protects and serves...not polices and controls. People should have complete freedom to pursue their happiness, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others. This is necessary to provide haven for the beliefs and practices of Christian without persecution.

God is where He promises to be...found in Word and Sacrament. Our God is not a God of confusion but one of clarity, yet hiddeness. I say hiddeness, because He places Himself always where man claims He isnt. It is utter foolishness to believe that God manifested Himself as a mere man, a poor carpenter at that, and was sacrificed nearly 2000 years ago for the redemption of mankind and raised Himself from the dead, thus conquering sin and death. This is foolishness to us, as this Truth, transcends the reason and logic of man.

"This cannot be so and I will not believe until one provides scientific evidence!" responds the mocking ungodly.

"Certainly the Flesh and Blood of Christ cannot be in and under the bread and the wine! Impossible!!" states the futility and dullness of carnal man.

"I am not that bad...I mean really...I help out at church and I pray when I remember...I am not that sinful!" cries the ego and vanity of the pious-fiction psuedo-Christian.

"Sure...no one is righteous...yes, yes, I know that...not even one! I read the corporate confession and receive the Body and the Blood every Sunday at church....I think I am repentant enough!" claims the smugness and ugly snobbery of a Lutheran.

The foolishness of man attacks faith and creates doubt everywhere...in everyone. Know, admit, confess truly that you are vile and full of iniquity; sinful and currupt beyond self repair and trust in the promise of forgiveness according to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior!

Our Redeemer and Sanctifier, Praise be to Christ!!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[RJHarmony84]

I don't see how since her philosophy is profoundly atheist.

As I've grown older, I've also come to the conclusion that her philosophy is immature. Basically, she was a well-to-do woman who left Communist Russia and wanted justification for her wealth as opposed to the superficially egalitarian principles of Communism. Eventually she settled on a philosophy of self-interest; seeking the best for yourself is the highest moral principle. Christians and others who claimed that service of others was more important were, therefore, less moral.

Actually, she wasn't well-to-do upon her coming to the United States; much the other way around. Like one of her "super-hero" characters, she made her fortune woking herself up from dirt-poor. When she came to the States, she was one of the hoard of bit-actors/esses in Hollywood in the very earliest days of film living off of the streets between films. She wasn't born to wealth, but rather her philosophy began as a shout against Communism, and matured into a celebration of work-ethic.

It was likely more profound due to social reforms that were going into place in the United States at the time she immigrated (government programs, such as welfare and business subsidy), which likely looked to her like a pre-cursor of Communism: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."