-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
A Further Perspective
Ayn Rand and Karl Marx
A heretic is a heretic, and that’s all there is to it.
Mark Tooley’s article, “Choosing Ayn Rand or Jesus,” posted on this site yesterday, makes depressing reading, but given the miserable intellectual state of religious leftism, is not particularly surprising.
Ayn Rand’s work can, indeed, be regarded as a Christian heresy, like Marxism. Like nearly all Judeo-Christian heresies, these take one aspect of Judeo-Christianity, or one of the values held by good people in general, necessary in itself and in its place, and try to inflate it into a complete new system.
Looking at Ayn Rand, Judeo-Christian thought has always accepted the idea of individualism, as it has accepted the idea of the worth of every individual soul. It was this that led Christianity, alone among the major religions, to abolish slavery in a political-religious campaign lasting thousands of years.
Christianity held that every individual, possessing an immortal soul, was of vast importance and value. Hence, when that fierce disciplinarian the Duke of Wellington found a common soldier in front of him at a church-parade, he reassured the cowering and terrified private with the words: “We are all equal here, my man.”
This importance given to each individual is something Ayn Rand , even according to her own doctrines, need not have quarreled with. But Christianity was also the first religion to go in for altruism on a large scale – one of its first activities, after it was made legal by the Roman Emperor Constantine, was to see that each diocese had a public hospital. Before this some hospitals had existed but they had been scattered, spasmodic, one-off affairs. Christianity also instituted the care of orphans, who previously had frequently been left to perish, and set up whole orders devoted to caring for the poor and sick. The Western Science of which Ayn Rand was proud (she suggested the first men on the moon should have declared: “What hath Man wrought!” was a product of Christianity.
The amazing genius of Christianity meant it could be all things to all people, and could accommodate quite different states of mind without losing its central premises: pacifists as well as crusaders could be Christian, scientists as well as mystics, philosophers as well as yokels. It founded the first real modern universities.
There had been nothing like this among Mankind’s religions on Earth before. Thus, to state there is some kind of choice between Ayn Rand and Christianity, while in a sense true, is really very little more than a silly and childish statement of the obvious. It is equally true, though the leftist churches won’t be saying this, that there is a choice between Christianity and the heresy of Marxism.
Ayn Rand did have a few worthwhile things to say. A paraphrase of the most sensible part of her message might be that the creators of wealth and prosperity are, provided of course that they are honest, doing something necessary and honorable; she also warned, quite eloquently and accurately against Marxism, as the inflation of altruism under an idealistic cloak leading at length to the Gulag. At schools and colleges where no alternative to leftist writers are offered on reading lists, bootleg copies of her work may act as “ice-breakers” of the leftist monopoly, leading the enquiring student on to better things.
Mark Tooley quotes a leftist religious network: “GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values,” the network explains. “Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible.” The political agenda behind this seems obvious. Substitute a name like “Sojourners” or “The World Council of Churches” for “GOP leaders and conservative pundits” and “Karl Marx” for “Ayn Rand,” and the point becomes not only obvious but true.
Of course, Ayn Rand was a crank. It is neither desirable nor possible to swallow the whole of her message, even assuming it was consistent. She was, like Marx, one of the “great simplifiers” that Edmund Burke warned against, and her work has more in common with that of Marx than the disciples of either should feel comfortable about. The best of what she had to say was said more elegantly and intelligently by Adam Smith in the 18th century, by von Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom,” or any number of other writers in the classic economic tradition.
The point is that it is possible to take the best of what she had to say and discard the rest, without the moral bullying and hectoring of the Christian Left or anyone else. The same point could be made about far greater philosophers.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (236) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/07/ayn-rand-and-karl-marx
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Weiner and Women
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- The Thatcher Legacy
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.7.11 @ 6:33AM
Was she a crank? She believed in the individual and wrote extensively about and against collectivism. That's why the left hates her. They can't afford movements or societies based on individualism.
As far as her views on religion, she wrote two main papers and both centered on Catholicism, which she viewed as anti-Capitalist and anti-individual.
To dismiss her as an equivalent to Marx is ridiculous. Marx was a statist.
Ayn Rand saw the future and she saw it clearly. Her view that religion was a waste of time may be debatable, but it shouldn't be regarded or dismissed as a heretic movement.
Religion has been used to control the population in many ways, and for thousands of years. If you don't believe, just look at Islam? Do you support the Koran? If not, then you would be a heretic in those societies who do support it.
Ayn Rand saw clearly that the middle ground, the bi-partisanship in politics would lead to mutual destruction of both parties.
As she stated, "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
As far as altruism, look at our society. We are becoming obsolete because personal responsibility is being replaced by group sacrifice.
In that sense Ayn Rand was absolutely right.
"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."
Ayn Rand
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 7:26AM
WRONG, minarchism fails for the same reason Marxism does: we will never have enough responsible citizens-- people will always have children they can't take care of, for instance.
You may excel at economics, yet your comprehension of human nature is lacking.
Same with Marx himself.
Alan Brooks| 6.7.11 @ 9:51AM
libertarians can't get it: religion is here to stay for a long time. They don't get how there is no 'we' in the free market-- only in houses of worship.
David C| 6.7.11 @ 11:53PM
You don't argue very sensibly, Alan.
If there will never be enough responsible people in any society, then there will never be enough to care for the children who aren't cared for by their parents.
And libertarianism is simply the opposite of authortarianism. It has no view of religion per se.
However, if there is no "we" outside of houses of worship, then our national flag represents nothing.
Ruskie| 6.8.11 @ 2:15AM
Libertarianism demands immorality in the name of freedom. Much like how the Left demands their gay "marriage".
If it feels good, do it.
Stuart Koehl| 6.8.11 @ 9:55AM
I believe you have confused "libertarianism" with "libertinism". There is a difference, though it would seem a lot of people who post here don't know what it is.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:04AM
Then THANK GOODNESS we have you to explain it to us!
Teach, Stu...TEACH!!!!
ZAK KLEMMER | 6.8.11 @ 2:58PM
If you want to get "deep" into it may I suggest reading?
The Undiscovered Self, by Dr. Carl G. Jung.
MotivationComesfromGod| 6.8.11 @ 4:51PM
Delving into human nature has its satisfying aspects, but truly understanding what makes one tick and being able to understand how only our Creator can fill the void, provide a real purpose, and the motivation and desire to fulfill same is priceless.
"For I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer. 29:11.
Tomas| 6.7.11 @ 12:52PM
You're both right, Alan.
Rand: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
Jesus: "Because you are neither hot nor cold I will spit you out of my mouth."
Too many people stand in the middle - embracing their non-responsibility as a justification for their inaction. It's those on the extremes who are making a difference, good or bad.
-
Klemens| 6.7.11 @ 4:26PM
If people are "not enough responsible" to look after their own children, whose failure is it ? Minarchism's ?
JP| 6.7.11 @ 7:26AM
I think the author was referring to Rand's philosophy and not her beliefs per se. Rand and her Objectivist's followers purported to get much of thier intellectual inspiration from Aristotle. However, even a cursory reading of Aristotle undermine's her rather strident athieism.
Rand commits one of Nietzsche's unforgivable sins, in that after dispensing with the Western God and its attendent myths, she somehow keeps the "dignity of the individual" intact. Nietzsche himself was agnostic about God; however, he had nothing but contempt for thinkers who couldn't go the whole way and create a new worldview that went beyond the Christian concept of Good and Evil.
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 7:51AM
Yes, she was a crank, as well as an uber-elitist. Marx believed in an elite that would Govern the state and us, by proxy. Rand believed that some are born to it, and should not be constrained by societal norms in their pursuits. To illustrate this, she places her protagonists in opposition to cartoonish, buffoonish antagonists that anyone with common sense would oppose. The end result is that the reader naturally finds himself/herself being manipulated by Rand to cheer for the protagonists and adopt her cause. And this is intentional.
Had Rand chosen a more realistic scenario not populated by cartoon characters, her elitist philosophy would never have found such widespread sympathy.
Additionally, one cannot separate Rand's philosophies from her malignant narcissism. She did not wish to be constrained by societal norms, and developed an entire system of political philosophy to justify her sad, selfish, empty life.
Donald| 6.7.11 @ 3:04PM
You hit it outta the park, guy. Kudos.
Mike| 6.7.11 @ 6:00PM
Doctor Right,
I concur totally with your assessment of Ayn Rand.
You note that she did not wish to be constrained by societal norms, yet she had no compunction about constraining her devotees. She forbade them to read
William Buckley's review of Atlas Shrugged.
Ruskie| 6.7.11 @ 9:33PM
What would you expect from an atheist?
David C| 6.7.11 @ 11:56PM
Yes, because all atheists are alike.
Just like all theists. We all know that Ghandi was just like bin Laden.
Ruskie| 6.8.11 @ 2:12AM
The godless are all alike. Selfish, self indulgent liars.
Stuart Koehl| 6.11.11 @ 7:10PM
Gandhi killed far more people than bin Laden. The road to hell is paved with those good intentions, you know.
Jerry| 6.8.11 @ 8:11PM
"Only by accepting total compulsion can we achieve total freedom."
Doesn't that sound like the typical Libertarian philosophy? No wonder they all love her.
Bob K.| 6.7.11 @ 8:08AM
Ayn Rand saw the future?
Burke wrote about "Great Simplifiers." I wonder if he considered their followers "Great Simpletons?"
BillH| 6.7.11 @ 8:59PM
I actually agree that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is incompatible with Christianity. Free market economics, on the other hand, is perfectly compatible with Christianity.
Ayn Rand goes further than defending and advocating for free markets. She supports the idea that people have no moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate than themselves. I disagree with that belief and I also believe that that belief is incompatible with Christianity.
ZAK KLEMMER | 6.8.11 @ 3:06PM
The State uses force and as an institution does not have a soul, can never know right from wrong. I may have an obligation to make moral choices as I am capable of knowing them. Were I a Christian in the former USSR would I have a moral obligation of following the Sate's laws? I think not and I have no moral obligation to pay off the US national debt as an individual since I did not create it.
Frisbee| 6.9.11 @ 6:05PM
You'd have a moral obligation to follow the just laws.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.7.11 @ 6:51AM
Ann Ryan assembled a literary account of behavior that ascertained and promoted the economic freedom produced by democracy, lassie fare governmental regulation, and pure capitalism.
The Bible as I read it is an assembly of values, values not to be altered, invoked, or superseded by government, that promotes pure charity and honest exchange as the only economic tenants.
The only conflict that I can see among the zealots willing to condemn one or the other is the level or degree of exchange. Both concepts are offering guidelines to avoid “hell on earth:” one concerns poverty, the other damnation. Avoiding the first neither assures or denys the second.
Any two concepts will exhibit contrasts and comparisons. Accept the best of either and avoid the worst of both. Most importantly, ignore those who offer blanket condemnation or profess altruism.
Yes Sir| 6.7.11 @ 3:07PM
"Most importantly, ignore those who offer blanket condemnation or profess altruism."
Ya mean like you do?
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 7:17AM
Mr. Colebatch is using the word "heresy" in a highly imprecise and erroneous manner. Derived from the Greek hairesis, meaning an opinion or faction; as used by the Church Fathers, it basically meant holding an opinion within the Church at odds with the mind of the Church. Thus, for a heresy to be a heresy, it has to fit within the continuum of Christian belief, at the core of which is belief in Jesus Christ as Son of God.
Arians believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but not equal to the Father; that was their heresy. So-called Nestorians or "diphysites" believed that Jesus Christ had two distinct natures, one human and one divine, while so-called "monophysites believed that He had but one divine nature". All of these are heresies because they involve differences of opinion within the Church.
St. John of Damascus was pushing the envelope when he described Islam as the "last and greatest" of the Christological heresies, because the Quran acknowledges a special status for Jesus while denying his divinity.
Colebatch proposes to extend the term to cover opinions from those outside of the Church, who in fact deny the most fundamental claims of Christianity, i.e., the existence of God, hence the possibility of Jesus as Son of God.
If Marx is a Christian heretic, and Rand is a Christian heretic, then so too are Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, the Cynics, the Neo-Platonists and all the Greek philosophers. The law of contradiction says a thing cannot be both itself and its antithesis. An atheist cannot be a Christian (and vice versa), therefore, Marx and Rand cannot be considered Christians, thus their philosophies cannot be considered "heresies".
On the other hand, those who attempt to integrate the substance of their philosophies into the theological framework of Christianity can become heretics if, in so doing, they contradict the Tradition which is the mind of the Church. Thus, in the second and third centuries, many Christians tried to integrate aspects of neo-Platonism into Christian doctrine, which to their minds would have had the dual benefits of explaining some of the central mysteries of the faith, and on the other, make the faith acceptable and respectable to the pagan elites by framing it in terms they understood. Thus, Origen, for instance, believed in the pre-exisence of souls. More extreme neo-platonists fell into gnostic dualism, in which the spiritual and the material worlds were seen as at odds, rather than being integral part of God's creation (and thus equally good).
Other Church Fathers, such as the great Cappodocians (Basil the Great, Gregory Nanzianzen, Gregory of Nyssa), Ambrose of Milan, and John Chrysostom, had no problem in mining classical philosophy for concepts, methods and vocabulary that could be adapted for Christian use, without accepting any of the pagan presuppositions that lay behind them. So, while the Church eventually condemned the errors of Origen and the other Christian neo-platonists, it elevated Basil, the two Gregories and their peers to the status of our Fathers among the Saints.
On the other hand, nobody ever suggested that Plato, Aristotle and the other pagan philosophers were ever Christian (though some might be numbered among the righteous gentiles), so their works were never condemned as heresies, since they were not expected to conform to the Christian consensus.
Tertullian might have asked what Athens had to do with Jerusalem, but the Church answered that question by saying, quite a bit--but only if you approach it the right way.
Mr. Colebatch should be more careful in approaching the concept of heresy in the right way.
JP| 6.7.11 @ 7:39AM
You are correct. Since Rand was never a believer she couldn't be classified as a heretic. What is interesting is the hold Rand had on an entire generation of younger people during the 1950s and 1960s. Even in the 1980s you could always find a few college students who were her followers. The ones I met thought they had discovered the meaning of life. The only explaination I have is that Rand made a fetish of the Self. She celebrated the Self in the same way New Age therapists used to. And for certain people this is enough. All of this reminds me of what the late thinker Alan Bloom wrote about Swift's Liliputians, who had one eye fixed on themselves and another on distant stars. Everything else (that is Humanity and its affairs) were of no concern. Rand fit Swift's caricture to a T.
Fred| 6.7.11 @ 1:21PM
I agree with you JP, but that was the Laputans. The Liliputians were the little people.
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 8:00AM
If they contradict "the tradition which is the mind of the Church"???
Now THAT'S funny, especially when one considers that these very "traditions", as spun by "Church Fathers", are themselves heresies when contrasted with scripture itself.
Marx, Rand, Catholicism...whatever. The true believers are incurable.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 11:05AM
Bite, Doctor Right.
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 1:19PM
Nice non-reply-reply, Stu...
Then again, you're the Master of saying a lot without actually saying nothing at all...
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 1:50PM
Bite and bite again.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 1:50PM
Bite and bite again. You're not worth a serious reply.
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 2:14PM
Stu, don't kid yourself...You NEVER give a serious reply.
Your long-winded posts are purposefully loaded down with high-falutin' words and terms that are purposefully meant to distract the casual reader from noticing that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
When asked to justify un-scriptural Catholic doctrines (meaning Catholicism itself), your usual knee-jerk response is to reply something akin to "'Cuz the Pope says so."
But you can't just say "'Cuz the Pope says so", so instead, you scribble something like:
"In 1312, with the express purpose of ratifying to emissus nocturnus first codified by Saint Borat the Elder at the Council of Lichedyspidlle, the Magisterium altered and adapted ad-pro-facto the treatise on "Virginius est Maryus Perpetuas" first enunciated by Euripides (and, of course, later embellished by Plato's tutor Testiculus) that itself was a restatement of the findings of the Council of Bloviatum in 1292, primarily that the sacredd catechism, in-toto-ad-nauseum, is a re-affirmation of Saint Bilbo's original doctrine of "In vino veritas", and thus you see the perfect, logical conclusion leading to that perfect doctrinal position proving once and for all the primacy of the most Holy Mother Church..."
You have NO clothes, Stu...
Augustine's Ghost| 6.7.11 @ 3:14PM
Not only does he have no clothes, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. A hireling who eats the sheep.
Ecumenical Garbage| 6.7.11 @ 4:08PM
Dr. Right: Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh. Keep them coming.
Bob Grant| 6.7.11 @ 8:40PM
I'm not sure what your beef is with The Church. That would be what?
victor| 6.8.11 @ 4:11AM
Bob Grant:
"I'm not sure what your beef is with The Church. That would be what?"
That would be the Roman Catholic Church's edict about eating only fish on Friday.
That would be the
Doctrine of Separation of Church and Steak.
Nick| 6.8.11 @ 6:15AM
Victor,
There is no such "edict" in the Roman Catholic Church. You have been misinformed.
Say "Hi" to Margie for me, God Bless!
victor| 6.10.11 @ 1:45AM
Pope Nicholas I (858-867) declares that abstinence from flesh meat is enjoined on Fridays.
Okay, so it's a "declaration".
Okay, how about this one:
http://peterjennings.co.uk/201.....ic+Bishops’+Conference+of+England+and+Wales
Now it's a LAW!
BTW:
An edict is an announcement of a law, often associated with monarchism. The Pope, with a few others, is currently the only person who still issues edicts.
Nick| 6.10.11 @ 2:41AM
Victor,
There is no such "declaration," either.
I realize you were just making a joke. But, your statement was not accurate. Did you read your own link?
"Every Friday is set aside by the Church as a special day of penance, for it is the day of the death of our Lord. The law of the Church requires Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays, or some other form of food, or to observe some other form of penance laid down by the Bishops’ Conference." (Emphasis mine.)
All Roman Catholics were required, in the past, to abstain from meat on Fridays. This changed with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, I believe. Now, each nation's conference of bishops determines what the required penance on Fridays will be. This was to accommodate vegetarians or people in poor countries who don't eat meat regularly.
This is why the headline of your link is: "Fish on Friday re-established by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales." This will be the "LAW!" in England and Wales, not for every Roman Catholic in the world.
To learn more about the Latin Rite Catholic teaching on fasting and abstaining from meat, please read this link:
http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/abfast.php
To you, and Margie, God Bless!
victor| 6.10.11 @ 8:28PM
Nick,
A pope "declared" something that was contrary to God's Law, that is Acts 10:9-15:
"The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it,
he fell into a trance
and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."
God, Himself, told Peter, and therefore us, that we were allowed to eat whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted and however we wanted and that no one, not even a pope has the authority to tell man what and when to eat.
I prefer to be under the authority of God, don't you?
Nick| 6.10.11 @ 10:28PM
Victor,
As you know, I believe I am under the authority of God because I belong to His Church. So, "yes" is the answer to your last question.
Your interpretation of Acts 10 is a huge stretch, I think. If I take you literally, is it okay to eat human flesh? How about feces? But, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument.
So, let me show that your interpretation is also contradicted by the Scriptures. In 1 Corinthians, chapter 10, Saint Paul commands us not to eat anything sacrificed to idols. This contradicts your third assertion about "however we wanted," does it not?
God told Kephas 'the Rock' (as he was the first pope) that the Jewish dietary laws were no longer binding (binding and loosing, Matthew 16:19.) God changed what we were allowed to eat. God doesn't say anything about when we can eat, in Acts 10, as you claim. Don't you ever you fast?
Again, the Holy Father never banned outright the eating of meat flesh, just not on Fridays. And, this was changed in 1983. This tradition is about penance and acknowledging Friday as the day Christ hung on the Cross for our sins. Is this not a good thing?
This is not about forbidding or controlling (the pope did not forbid the eating of any food.) We are called to make a rather small sacrifice publicly, to deny ourselves some earthly pleasure, so that we might get closer to God and remember Our LORD's sacrifice. Is this also not a good thing?
Now, since it is Friday, I think I'll have a peanut butter sandwich.
God Bless!
Big Mac| 6.8.11 @ 1:53PM
Yeah, where is the beef, anyway? I want beef! Mo fish on Fridays for me, oh no. I know my Bible. When God told Peter he could eat whatever he wanted and declared all things clean and commanded him not to declare anything unclean that God declared clean, I'm assuming that meant any darn day of the week!
Beef, yum! Every day and twice on Fridays!
Mutch Moore | 6.7.11 @ 10:26PM
Dr. Right, This is way too funny!
Nick| 6.8.11 @ 6:20AM
"Your long-winded posts are purposefully loaded down with high-falutin' words and terms [...]."
- Doctor Wrong, a.k.a. Pope Bigot I
Yes, words have never been your friends, have they?
Neither has education, for that matter.
Oh...that would be book learnin' to you, Doc.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:07AM
Nick,
Whenever we need a drone-like, Papist-at-any cost-devotee, we can always count on you!
Nick| 6.8.11 @ 8:00PM
Actually, I'm a Christ-at-any-cost devotee, Doc.
So is the Holy Father, by the way.
If you would read Papal documents from the past century you would know this.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 1:55PM
So the Pope says the Pope is...what, exactly??
And we're supposed to believe that?
Uh-huh...
Nick| 6.10.11 @ 1:58AM
The Pope says the Pope is a Christ-at-any-cost devotee, Doc.
Don't believe me, read their writings for yourself.
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 2:17PM
Do you have another non-reply all prepared, Stu?
Frisbee| 6.9.11 @ 6:11PM
Stu's reply was intelligent and informed by history. DR's replies were mere mockeries, and were informed by ignorance and a strange imagination. DR: you should study the actual history of the Church.
Nunya| 6.7.11 @ 3:49PM
So.... Does that mean he's the master of saying a lot?
:-)
W| 6.7.11 @ 5:37PM
"Marx, Rand, Catholicism...whatever. The true believers are incurable"
Are you now equating Catholicism with Marxism/Communism?
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 8:40PM
He is. Which is why he can bite me. We've been down this road before. Dr. Right is an adherent of the last socially acceptable prejudice.
Ruskie| 6.7.11 @ 9:30PM
Mr. Knowledge Puffs up is a member of the largest cult in the world, sans Islam.
W| 6.8.11 @ 6:46AM
rusk, what is the name of this cult?
victor| 6.8.11 @ 4:07AM
Stuart WaytooKoohl:
"the last socially acceptable prejudice."
Actually, the last socially acceptable prejudice is the one that you and your sister churches have been engaging in for millenia.
Anyone who believes that they can worship Christ without benefit of official sanctions of the holy mother church is treated as a heretic and punished appropriately.
W| 6.8.11 @ 6:48AM
Up at 4:00 am? What is the appropriate punishment? What is the name of these sister churches?
victor| 6.10.11 @ 2:49AM
W:
"What is the appropriate punishment?"
I believe God has the answer:
2Jo 1:9-10
"Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.
If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting;"
Apparently the catholics took this to mean that they should cut off their heads and cast them into fire.
There are other verses, but they are all in this vein.
Show them the errors of their ways and if they persist, show them the door.
victor| 6.10.11 @ 2:52AM
W:
"What is the name of these sister churches?"
You already know that.
Or if you don't, you can always ask Stuart.
Roman Catholics (242 denominations)
Now for the "Roman Catholic" denominations. These appear to be broken down by various rites:
Armenian (Eastern-rite Catholic)
Bulgarian (Byzantine rite)
Byzantine-rite (jurisdiction for more than one ethnic group)
Chaldean (Eastern Syrian rite)
Coptic (Alexandrian rite)
Ethiopic (Alexandrian rite)
Greek (Byzantine rite)
Hungarian (Byzantine rite)
Italo-Albanian (Byzantine rite)
Jurisdiction for both Latin-rite and Eastern-rite Catholics
Latin-rite Catholic
Malankara (Syro-Antiochian, Eastern Syrian), Syro-Malankarese
Maronite (Syro-Antiochian, Western Syrian)
Melkite (Byzantine, Greek Catholic; Arabic-speaking)
plural Oriental (jurisdiction for several Eastern rites)
Romanian Byzantine rite
Russian (Byzantine rite)
Ruthenian (Byzantine rite)
Slovak (Byzantine rite)
Syro-Malabarese (Eastern Syrian)
Syrian, Syriac-speaking (Syro-Antiochian, West Syrian)
Ukrainian Byzantine rite
This is from:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologe.....#Catholics
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:12AM
Stu is actually onto something.
Neither Marx nor Rand-ian "objectivism" nor Catholicism have any basis in fact when juxtaposed against what they claim to represent.
Marx claimed to speak for "the people" and to elevate them to equality, when in fact, he made them all EQUALLY miserable.
Rand claims that the "$" sign is the highest ideal that mankind can aspire to, and completely disavows the supernatural. Well, we've seen where that road leads...It's not much different than Marx's, or Stalin's.
And the Catholic Church hides it's ancient lust for power and control (and unimaginable wealth) behind a pseudo-Christian veneer, complete with their own set of pseudo-rules (many of them completely un-scriptural, and some even expressly forbidden).
This is what happens when you follow a false, man-made "faith"...
Ruskie| 6.8.11 @ 1:47PM
That would be the definition of this:
"..holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people." 2 Cor. 3:5.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:14AM
Stu,
You have neither the insight nor the intellectual acumen to refute me; that's why you hide behind "big wurdz"...You're hoping no one will notice.
W| 6.8.11 @ 1:23PM
I find it amazing that with all the current problems we face such as the budget deficits, economy, two wars, an incopetent president, the islamist terrorists, and others ,whenever any article mentions or relates to the Catholic Church we have the usual suspects appear from under the rocks.
They claim to have read the Bible or scripture, and they know the absolute truth of what it states. They know what is to be taken as parable, allegory, and literally. They are no different than the mullahs in Islam who claim to know God and what God says. They claim to be Christian, but the words are snarky, smarmy, and full of hate. What we have are authoritarians. Worse, they claim to be "former or ex Catholics," as if this gives them some credibility. All it does is show they were never Catholic and are surely not Christian. They are more at home with the mullahs with their cyberspace Ku Klax Klan rantings about Catholics, and any others who disagree, although they are reluctant/afraid to attack Jews as they do Catholics, But you know they really want to because they have discovered the truth and cannot tolerate other religions. They will spout a Biblical verse for any occasion by using their computerized Bibles.
Grow up and get a life.
Big Mac| 6.8.11 @ 1:54PM
Ya mean like, "Bite me?"
W| 6.8.11 @ 3:52PM
Were you named after the burger?
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 2:18PM
Wipe the spittle off of your screen and mellow out.
I can tolerate Catholics. I bear Catholics NO animus.
I simply regret that they cling to a false philosophy.
Also...It's kind of fun tweaking them, and watching them label critics as "bigots"...TOO funny!
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 2:19PM
"They know what is to be taken as parable, allegory, and literally."
Yes. That's because we do something Catholics are not urged to do – READ the Bible (and not take Father Flanagan's word for it...)
W| 6.8.11 @ 3:51PM
Still have a problem with the Irish? We all read the Bible, but not all of us have a direct line to God like you. You are not tweaking, just repeating yourself that your reading of the Bible is the only correct way.
Did someone call you a bigot? Why did you respond? If you think it is "funny" to attack other religions?. If someone wanted a caricature of a closed minded "religious" fanatic" obsessed with Irish Catholics....
So you know every line of the Bible that is to be taken literally, which as parable, and which as allegory? And you have found the only true philosophy? Please inform us of this true philosophy.
If you really wanted to convince people, as a real Christian would, you would drop the attitude and deal with facts. You are not worth any spittle, but it shows how you think.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 4:07PM
The Irish? They don't bother me at all...when they're sober, that is, and not blowing up school-buses...Sorry, Paddy.
And there's NO convincing you "true believers"...
W| 6.8.11 @ 4:52PM
You need facts and logic to convince, you have neither. nor humor. stick to the chiropractor or dentist work.
Tyranny Rex| 6.8.11 @ 6:32PM
I'll give you humor. Stuart Koehl reminds me of a dentist. Every time I go to one I hear him say to me, "Bite, and bite again."
Hee haw.
Say W,
Try going to a real Christian church one day, you might learn something. That is, a church that actually studies the Bible.
W| 6.8.11 @ 7:34PM
I suppose your church is the real christian one, right? you should study the Koran, you have the mentality for it.
TR| 6.8.11 @ 8:14PM
See what happens when you really try?
Mr. Bible Bigot| 6.8.11 @ 6:43PM
Hi,
My name's Mr. Bible Bigot, and I'm here to help you. What is a Bible Bigot, you may ask quite concernedly?
Well, I'll tell you. It means that I hold strictly to whatever it says in that book because I know that God is the Author of it. It also means that since God is the Author, I reject anything, and I mean ANYTHING that other men have written, now write, and will write in the future, (whether I'm here or not, ha!) if what these men, (mere peasants!) if what they say does not comport with what the Author of said book says.
Yes, I'm Mr. Bible Bigot, and nothing else will do!
How about you?!
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 1:57PM
Well, that's a MUCH smarter philosophy than accepting what men have written as being EQUAL to the Word of God, don't you think...Stu?
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 1:59PM
And why, Stu, WOULD you accept something that doesn't "comport" with scripture???
Hmmmmmmmmm????
You're a coward.
Mr. Bible Bigot| 6.9.11 @ 5:30PM
No sir. I am a bigot for the Truth. A fool for Christ, as the Apostle Paul said he was! It is an excellent thing. Let them call us bigots, for it is better to be a bigot for the Truth than one against it, as the Stuart Koehls of the world are.
Yes indeed, I will always be a bigot for the Bible.
That's Mr. Bible Bigot, to them.
Frisbee| 6.9.11 @ 6:19PM
Well said W. DR and others can be very lucid in their politics but go totally bonkers over the RC church. But Stu K drives them especially crazy because he's not RC (but GC). He doesn't fit into their preconceived notions of the evils of "Romanism", so they go after him with extra vigor (and non-lucidity).
victor| 6.10.11 @ 3:03AM
W:
"But you know they really want to because they have discovered the truth and cannot tolerate other religions."
You mean as the roman catholic church tolerated others by inventing the various Inquisitions?
The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). The Medieval Inquisition was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.
The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish: Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición), commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was a tribunal established in 1480 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms, and to replace the Medieval Inquisition which was under Papal control. The Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave.
The Portuguese Inquisition was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that the Pope acquiesced. This inquisition was a Portuguese analogue of the more famous Spanish Inquisition.
The Roman Inquisition was a system of tribunals developed by the Holy See during the second half of the 16th century, responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes related to heresy, including sorcery, immorality, blasphemy, Judaizing and witchcraft, as well for censorship of printed literature. The tribunals covered most of the Italian peninsula as well as Malta and also existed in isolated pockets of papal jurisdiction in other parts of Europe, including Avignon, in France. The Congregation of the Holy Office, one of the original 15 congregations of the Roman Curia created by Pope Sixtus V in 1588, presided over the activity of the local tribunals. While the Roman Inquisition was originally designed to combat the spread of Protestantism in Italy, the institution outlived its original purpose, and the system of tribunals lasted until the mid 18th century, when the Italian states began to suppress the local inquisitions, effectively eliminating the power of the church to prosecute heretical crimes.
Bob K.| 6.7.11 @ 9:22AM
There are admirer's of her on this website who say she "saw the future and she saw it clearly." It is hard to dismiss this God-like attribute they give her no matter what the precise definition of heresy is.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 11:06AM
One need not be divinely inspired to see the future clearly, simply immersed in human history and able to derive trend lines. I can see the future clearly, and make no pretense of divine inspiration. Rand herself would have laughed at the idea.
Bob K.| 6.7.11 @ 3:36PM
Whether you can or cannot see the future clearly isn't important. (For the record, I cannot.) No one has built a cult around you.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 8:40PM
I'm willing to accept minions, if you want to join up.
victor| 6.8.11 @ 4:02AM
Stuart Koehl:
"I'm willing to accept minions,"
Stuart is a little hard of hearing and thought they said
"millions" and said "I'll take all the little green ones that you have.
Now he can't turn around without stepping on the Keebler Elves.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:16AM
You can "see the future clearly", huh?
'Cuz you're "immersed in human history and able to derive trend lines"?
LOL!
You? A pompous fool???
NEVER!
Vern Crisler | 6.7.11 @ 10:31AM
I agree to the idea that it is wrong to describe evil philosophies as "Christian heresies." I do have one disagreement. You said Nestorianism was the view that Christ has two natures. This must have been a slip of the pen, as that's actually the orthodox view. The problem with Nestorianism is not that it recognized two natures (divine and human), but that it separated them so much as to create two distinct personalities, thus sacrificing the unity of the incarnation.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 11:18AM
We agree: the charge laid against Nestorius by St. Cyril of Alexandria was that he claimed Christ had two distinct natures, one human and the other divine, in distinction to Cyril's formulation of "one nature of the divine Logos".
In point of fact, both Nestorius and Cyril were talking past each other and were in essential agreement (one of the great tragedies of early Christianity). But Cyril's terminology was very imprecise, and he tended to use nature, person and essence more or less interchangeably.
The Council of Chalcedon, while affirming Cyril's Christology, sharpened the definition through the adoption of the formula presented in St. Leo the Great's "Tome to Flavian"--that the human and divine natures exist distinctly and without admixture within the one hypostasis of the God-man Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, the Chalcedonian definition could and was interpreted in a distinctly diphysite manner by a number of bishops and theologians, which caused the Church of Alexandria among others to reject it. And although most Western Christians see Chalcedon as the end of the story, it required two additional Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople II and III) to rectify deficiencies in the Chalcedonian definition and complete the Christological synthesis.
The tragedy here, again, is that both the Oriental Orthodox (the so-called Monophysites) were also in substantial agreement with the Chalcedonians; their divisions were the result more of different theological terminology and political factors such as the attempt of the Church of Constantinople to impose its will over the Great Church of Alexandria.
Only in the last few decades have all sides been able to escape fifteen centuries of polemics to come to a common understanding, contained in a series of Agreed Christological Statements. Though full communion has not been restored between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East (the so-called Nestorians), on the ground they have learned to live and work together.
Nowhere is this seen better than in Syria, where all three Churches have agreed to combine their efforts out of sheer self-preservation.
Recently, they opened a joint school in Damascus, and the question of what to teach about Christology. Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby resolved the matter thus: "We all agree: Jesus Christ is true God, Jesus Christ is truly man, and Jesus Christ is One. Everything else is philosophy".
Ecumenical Garbage| 6.7.11 @ 3:16PM
Are you a member of the World Council of Churches?
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 3:22PM
No, just a legend in his own mind...And he DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...
victor| 6.8.11 @ 3:54AM
Doctor Right:
"No, just a legend in his own mind.."
Either that, or a Legend that will last a Lunchtime.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 8:41PM
Are you just plain stupid?
Ruskie| 6.7.11 @ 9:29PM
Isn't everyone stupid to you, Mr. Knowledge Puffs Up?
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:18AM
Sorry, Stu, but I see you for what you are - a poseur, pure and simple.
Vern Crisler | 6.8.11 @ 1:06AM
I don't agree that the issues were mere matters of terminology or politics. There were real heretics in those days just as there are today.
Also, with respect to Zoghby's statement, Nestorians and monophysites could affirm what he said. The problem with such general statements as provided by Zoghby is that they fail to deal with the specific issues. In this case, the above heresies mangle the incarnation, and no ecumenical banalities will be able to cover up that fact.
Stuart Koehl| 6.8.11 @ 10:09AM
There were some, on the extremes of both sides, who actually held true diphysite or monophysite beliefs. But most of the so-called monophysites merely wished to retain the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and resented attempts by the Church of Constantinople to impose another formula (much of this was also wrapped up in resentment of Constantinople's imperial ideology). And poor Nestorius was no Nestorian, but merely wished to ensure that the humanity of Christ was protected against what he saw as the excessive emphasis on Christ's divinity in Cyril's approach.
As to your opposition to such general statements, let it be said that the Easter Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church both have signed Christological statements with the Oriental Orthodox (formerly known as the monophysite heretics) in which all parties acknowledge their substantive agreement, essentially reiterating Zoghby's statement in more long-winded and theologically technical language. The agreements do not require any party to adopt the specific formulae of any Council that was not received by it, and conversely, does not require any party to renounce the specific formulae of any Council that it did receive.
The Catholic Church has also signed a similar agreement with the Church of the East (formerly the Nestorian heretics), saying the same thing. But the Catholic Church has established formal communicatio in sacris between the Church of the East and its Catholic counterpart, the Chaldean Catholic Church. This allows the faithful in each Church to attend the services of either, and to receive the sacraments in either without prejudice. The only distinction between this, and reestablishment of full communion is the absence of concelebration by the clergy, and commemoration of the hierarchs in the diptyches.
Pope John Paul II made a trenchant observation back in the 1990s. He said we should always take care not to confuse the historically, culturally and linguistically conditioned expression of doctrine to obscure the eternal truths that form the substance of doctrine.
Vern Crisler | 6.8.11 @ 10:14AM
I would say that attempting to find unity under the banner of general ecumenical statements is not faithfulness to the Bible. It's attempting to have unity for unity's sake -- like the Borg collective. Faithfulness to the Bible means that one has to have specific credal boundaries defined by the Bible, not by ecclesiastical bureaucrats intent on papering over differences by means of generalities
Truth in Advertising| 6.8.11 @ 1:22PM
Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!
Or, in simpler terms~ the Ecumenicalism is a fraud and so are its practitioners.
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 11:12AM
I will take this to mean that neither of you accepts or supports the mandate of the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio), and that you both disagree with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in their efforts to promote Christian unity through a dialogue of truth, which leads me to think you probably also reject the words of Christ in John 17.
Fraudulent Premises| 6.9.11 @ 1:58PM
I reject the Pope and I reject the cult of Catholicism, and so does every genuine Bible believing Christian.
You cannot accept false doctrine and call yourself a Christian.
Christians follow the words of God, not what heretical men taught that came after the Apostles.
YOU are the one who rejects the words of Christ by accepting the fraud who calls himself POPE, and all the sick teahings that go along with that Religion.
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 2:25PM
What about the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East? Or do you think of them simply as Catholics in fancy dress?
Fraudulent Premises| 6.9.11 @ 3:33PM
What about the very words of God? You do not even concern yourself with them, do you?
victor| 6.9.11 @ 3:56PM
Exactly where is the pope or the vatican in John 17?
BTW you never provided Cornelius's geneology in Acts 10.
Spike| 6.7.11 @ 11:50PM
Huh?
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:19AM
Don't ask, Stu doesn't know, either...He makes it up as he goes along...
Jay| 6.7.11 @ 7:23AM
Looks like you're two - for - two this week Hal. Polemics based upon canards ... great work.
Richard| 6.7.11 @ 7:35AM
The energy expended on this blog to defend the significance of one of the world's more marginal cult philosophers continues to amaze. I was a college sophomore once, so I tried reading Ayn Rand. I gave up. Among writers of long novels that offer heavy dollops of the author's philosophy, I prefer Dostoevsky.
Look, I get it. The fascination on this blog with Ayn Rand is that her philosophy of objectivism offers a willing audience a rationale of some intellectual rigor in support of brute self-centeredness.
A person can be conservative and objectivist (several have already remarked on the importance of a big tent). A person can be a Christian and have read Ayn Rand. A person can be a Christian, and find value in some of the things Ayn Rand has written. But a person cannot be a Christian and an objectivist. One cannot be a Christian and a Randian. She said so. Mr. Colebatch is correct. From the perspective of Christian belief, a person who embraces Ms. Rand's philosophy is a heretic. Doesn't mean that person is an idiot. Doesn't mean they're necessarily a bad person, or that they're not stimulating company. But there is simply no room in the Christian gospel for the full indulgence in objectivist belief. You can't have it both ways, that's all.
But, seriously, let's put on the table that the visceral appeal of objectivism is the intellectual patina that it provides for the dislike of the poor, the disadvantaged, or others whom one wishes were not one's streets. If you want Any Rand's permission to live a life of utter self-centeredness, you have it. If you want my permission, what the hell. You have it. You just don't have Jesus Christ's. It's that simple.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.7.11 @ 8:28AM
"But, seriously, let's put on the table that the visceral appeal of objectivism is the intellectual patina that it provides for the dislike of the poor, the disadvantaged, or others whom one wishes were not one's streets."
Wow!
If you look in the dictionary under the word "Piety" there will be a picture of you holding hands with Anthony Weiner.
Richard| 6.7.11 @ 9:53AM
Michael - What I wrote is neither an endorsement of the collectivist state, nor an effort to twist Christian moral theology into a misrepresentaion of socialism as the logical expression of the Sermon on the Mount. All I'm saying is that I find the fascination with Ayn Rand to appear to be a useful mask for those whose notional conservatism is more an indulgence in anger and resentment than it is a commitment to true conservative principles that arise from the Christian-informed Western tradition. Best, Richard
Truth in Advertising| 6.8.11 @ 1:25PM
Richard, you poor soul~ you won't last here amongst the cult of Rand, the cult of Catholicism, and the cult of Libertarianism. The Bible has no place here among such, as it is utterly rejected for the doctrines of men.
Patrick| 6.7.11 @ 3:09PM
Piety: noun, plural -ties.
1. reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations: a prayer full of piety.
2. the quality or state of being pious: saintly piety.
3. dutiful respect or regard for parents, homeland, etc.: filial piety.
I think you meant the word "sanctimonious".
Bob Grant| 6.7.11 @ 8:47AM
Understood. The "contradiction" many seem to have on this website is anything but, in my opinion.
I believe the key issue is separating their personal philosophy with what government they would like to live under. The contradiction exists here, I believe. I believe it's perfectly rational to hold Christian beliefs and prefer to be governed by people with "Randian, Objectivist" views.
After all, notwithstanding their qualifications, who wold you prefer to have govern you: Rush Limbaugh (Randian, Objectivist) or Nancy Pelosi (Catholic Socialist)?
Patrick| 6.7.11 @ 3:12PM
My stomach churns with the words Pelosi and Catholic so closely put together.
For those of a more Calvinist perspective, it's about as sickening as seeing, Jimmy Carter (Baptist Socialist).
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 12:37PM
Those who dismiss Rand as "marginal" make the same mistake as those who dismiss Tolkien as a "marginal" writer. Yes, from an academic perspective their work leaves much to be desired (although Tolkien is miles ahead of Rand), but if one judges by how many people have been influenced by them, they are probably far more important than most other 20th century writers.
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 2:55PM
And they both wrote fantasy, although Tolkien's love scenes were far more believable...
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 2:26PM
How do you feel about Tolkien's eminently Roman Catholic fantasy? Or was he so subtle that this aspect of his work escaped your notice?
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 3:44PM
Tolkien was a GREAT writer.
I've never considered his Catholicism. If it influenced his work, so be it...who cares?
The fact that Tolkien was a great writer (which is actually debatable; he had an incredible imagination, but his prose was occasionally dense and impenetrable) is irrelevant in juxtaposition to his faith.
In other words, Stu, just because one was good doesn't mean the other was correct.
Duh.
Stuart Koehl| 6.11.11 @ 7:31PM
So, you never quite understood that when buying into Middle Earth, you were buying into a Roman Catholic worldview. That's why Tolkien wrote that he "preferred history, real or feigned" to allegory. History can be interpreted in many ways, allegory in just one--which is why Lord of the Rings is a much greater work than the Chronicles of Narnia.
Nevertheless, LOTR is seeded with a plethora of Catholic signs and symbols: Lembas and Miruvor as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist; Elbereth Gilthoniel as the Virgin Mary (to whom the Elves pray), Mordor as purgatory, . . . the list is almost endless. Even the key dates have deep significance for Catholics (and, of course, for the Orthodox, too): the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell on 25 December (a date with which you might have passing familiarity), the Ring is destroyed on 25 March, the Feast of the Annunciation; Aragorn is crowned on 1 May, the great Marian feast of the Latin Church--and so on.
Show me a piece of non-denominational "Bible-Only" fiction--or any piece of art, music or literature--that compares. There is a fundamental failure of the imagination in the Evangelical mind.
Which merely validates the assertion of Evangelical scholar Mark Noll (Wheaton College), "The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind" (See Mark Noll, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind", Eerdmans, 1995).
ADM| 6.7.11 @ 1:01PM
The appeal of objectivism is that it recognizes one has a right to one's life whether one likes, dislikes or is indifferent to the poor, disadvantaged and others similarly situated. In my view, morality must apply to all people and simply being poor or disadvantaged is not enough to make one virtuous. Put another way, what obligations do the poor or disadvantaged have to make themselves better? Rand was okay with compassion, she just thought it wasn't the be-all and end-all of ethics. People very differently situated can be equally moral in her system of ethics by making something of themselves, great or small. She was okay with helping others, but didn't recognize it as an individual's first and primary duty, nor as the touchstone of morality.
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 2:54PM
"But a person cannot be a Christian and an objectivist."
Very true.
And nice post, too.
When I was young and impressionable, I thought Rand was a genius.
As I got older, I came to view Rand's philosophies as somewhat repugnant. There's nothing admirable about intellectually koshering elitism (with a slight dollop of eugenics) for the masses. Rand's super-man is not too far removed from Nietsche's, or even Hitler's.
Whitaker Chambers had it right. His brief review of "Atlas Shrugged" read simply "To the gas chamber, go!"
Bob Grant| 6.7.11 @ 8:35PM
A slight exaggeration don't you think?
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:20AM
Nope.
Patrick| 6.7.11 @ 3:23PM
There is always visceral appeal towards selfishness.
The difference between Rand and Marx is that Rand is honest about her selfish intentions, while Marx doubles down on smoke and mirrors. I suppose that in a way, that in itself can be refreshing, if caught in the miasma of Marxist propaganda for too long.
Without Marxism overshadowing it, Randian philosophy cannot stand on its own.
youfamissim | 6.7.11 @ 7:51AM
Christianity, Jesus' teachings, and all the other parables that abet them are not Collective Salvation. Collective Salvation is what Obama and Marxists want. It is imposed - not chosen. The first gift of Christianity is Free Will - given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Overtime, curbs were placed upon human appetites. This culminated in Christ asking... asking his followers to search their souls and find charity/compassion. Christ never undid the first gift. Each individual is asked to search for charity; then apply the charity within the context of their life and experience. Individual growth is Christ's exhortation... not collective, compelled salvation, which as Pope Benedict said: is a corruption of Christ's message.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.7.11 @ 8:15AM
It is good to be a Christian.
The Big E| 6.7.11 @ 8:52AM
I make no claim to be a scholar of Ayn Rand, though I have read much of her work, but it seems to me that many misinterpret her writings on altruism. I've read nothing in Rand opposed to VOLUNTARY altruism, it is government or society forced altruism she opposed.
By the same token, Christ's teachings are that we should CHOOSE to be charitable. Nowhere does he assert or even insinuate that we should be FORCED to be charitable, by the government, the church, or any other institution. Altruism in Christian teaching is a choice - the right choice - but still a choice of the believer.
Rand taught that forced altruism - i.e. - the redistribution of wealth by the state - was a path to ruin.
I am not attempting to harmonize Rand's writings with Christian doctrine - Rand's writings were in no way Christian - I just don't see the big inconsistency on that particular point.
Bob Grant| 6.7.11 @ 9:11AM
I agree. I would suggest watching the Phil Donahue interviews with Ayn Rand on you tube. Say what you will about Donahue's politics, they were fascinating interviews (filmed in the '70's).
Yes, daytime talk shows used to be quality programming, relatively speaking.
Spike| 6.7.11 @ 11:54PM
Big E,
Well said. This is my take on Rand as well.
Bill| 6.7.11 @ 9:01AM
My reading of Ayn Rand and Christian texts, mostly the New Testament, suggest to me that Ayn Rand's objection to Christianity is that it is not reason-based but most importantly has strains of communitarianism running through.
However, Ayn Rand's logic was not impeccable and her philosophical leanings are not without flaws. For example, Ayn Rand's critique of Christianity is that it is collectivist; that is not true. Christianity has some flavor of communitarianism and contains an occasional strong flavor of "give all that you have to the poor," nevertheless, it is individualistic and one is not lost to salvation if one does not give all that he has to the poor. Protestant Christianity has an additional protection against Randian critique in that it stresses God's grace and not good works ("altruism" in the Rand scheme of things) as the basis for salvation.
Christianity formed the university system, and in the early days of the universities, taught Aristotle. Objectivism finds much of its foundation in Aristotelianism, so the university system could be said to make it possible for Ayn Rand to develop her ideas.
Finally, even though Christianity contains much thought that is not rational or reason-based, its thought is not inconsistent with the use of reason, and the history of the development of the Christian church shows a large degree of devotion to reason and its benefits (despite a couple of centuries of Roman Catholicism vs. Protestantism and a consequent unreasonable focus of faith in the sense of dogma).
Petronius| 6.7.11 @ 9:19AM
Another winning effort for Hal, but the left will never be beaten rhetorically or logically. They claim and hold the port of the Sanhedrin in all cultural institutions. They, the pharisees, speak not for the Almighty. They are almighty. Their favorite unwritten law is equating altruism with selflessness in others, not themselves. Christ never extorted anything from anybody. They revel in it. Acquisition and the wielding of power is their mission in life. Oddly, it's paradoxical. Taking power to and for them is not about what they want, but what they don't: the obligation to compete heads up with each other in the arena of commerce to earn a living. Their replacement of choice with command is supposed to make manifest FDR's 4 freedoms, thus facilitating the baby life they really desire. This is why you may not leave a college campus in one piece if you openly carry Atlas Shrugged, and or any book by Rush or Ann.
john dubose| 6.7.11 @ 9:32AM
There is value in community but in their passion, Karl Marx and the authoritian Left fail to see when it goes too far. They wind up stomping brutally on innocents.
There is value in individual autonomy and achievement also. But survival of the greediest is no way to run a world.
In our present world, the Left is way more powerfull and doing a lot more damage.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 12:39PM
What would one say, then, of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, or Jean-Paul Satre, or Leo Tolstoy?
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 2:47PM
Oh, but what would YOU say about them, Stu?
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 8:43PM
That all of them were pretty reprehensible human beings (you can read Paul Johnson's sketches of all of them in his book "Intellectuals") who had tremendous influence in their day, some of it good, much of it bad.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:21AM
Word is that Satre had you in mind when he said "L'enfer c'est les autres"...
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 2:28PM
In your case, I have no doubt that you view my presence as being like hell. Let's keep it that way, shall we?
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 3:45PM
Actually, I view you as incredibly amusing.
I'm sure your wife, however, views you as "L'enfer"...
Bill| 6.7.11 @ 5:41PM
Paul Johnson, in his book, Intellectuals, has some fun things to say about Rousseau and Sartre. I don't remember if Tolstoy is in that book.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 8:44PM
Oh, he most certainly is. See the chapter entitled "God's Elder Brother".
Stuart Koehl| 6.8.11 @ 10:16AM
Well, I guess that shows what you know, because he has a whole chapter to himself. You could have discovered that if you had read the book, but that's work, while sniping and snarking is so much less intellectually taxing, hence more attractive to someone like you who has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion.
If you were really up on the subject you would know that Tolstoy enunciated a whole philosophical system, which bears his name (Tolstoyism), and he had quite a large following in his lifetime and afterward. It (together with his insatiable womanizing) were a major source of stress in Tolstoy's marriage, and drove poor Sonia to attempt suicide.
Seems that, after having begotten several children by his wife, and dozens of bastards by his peasants, he one day walks in and tells his wife they will now live in continence as brother and sister--and, oh, by the way, I am selling off all of our property to give to the poor so that we can live lives in Christian poverty.
Nice guy.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:24AM
Boy, he told YOU, Ruskie!!!
You gotta' get up pretty early in the morning to put one past Stu...least by 7am, that is...
Ruskie| 6.8.11 @ 1:30PM
Ha! That's ok, Dr. Right. God's going to deal with the pompous ass when He's ready to.
As to Tolstoy though, he wrote marvelously. I have never read anything like his writings~ have you ever read anything by him? His understanding of human nature was amazing.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 2:22PM
Just a l'il something called "War and Peace"...
(BTW...if anyone else is not familiar with this book, just ask Stu. No doubt, he has a PhD in Russian Lit...)
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 11:20AM
Living in a family of Russian scholars, yes I have, although unlike my wife and daughter, I have not read them in Russian. Sometimes Tolstoy does have profound insights into human nature (though his theory of history is utter nonsense), and a lot of time he spouts rubbish. Whether you agree with him or not, though, like Rand, and Rousseau, and Sartre, the man was a flaming hypocrite who, in his personal life, treated people--especially his own family--like rubbish. That's just a simple historical fact that cannot be denied or ignored. So, if Rand's personal life is enough to disqualify all her work from serious consideration, should not the same criterion be applied equally to all philosophers, writers and artists? If not, why not?
As for my taste in Russian literature, I prefer Pushkin for poetry (still excellent even in English), and Doestoevsky in prose. Re-reading him since my conversion has given me a whole new outlook on his work.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 2:11PM
Actually, regarding Tolstoy, I've read them in modern Russian 19th-Century Russian.
The latter translation is actually more in-line with the Russian of Tolstoy's day, thematically speaking. This is due to the degradation the language suffered under 70 years of Soviet rule that has caused most modern translations to be, well...insufficient.
Pushkin is OK for the plebeian devotee' of Russian literature who prefers (gasp!) the Romantics, and one can easily impress the hoi-polloi at faculty cocktail parties with faux impressions of Eugene Onegin, but to really understand the Russian soul, one must be versed in Bulghakov. Soviet-era literature, such as it was, was often lacking, but occasionally a work would squeak through, such as "The Fatal Eggs", that enables a true glimpse of the soul of the Russian proletariat. The combination of fatalism, cynicism, paranoia, and a benign acceptance of life's unpredictable and uncontrollable nature typifies all genuine Russian/Soviet literature. The rest is Romantic-era drivel.
But I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, right, Stu? What with your PhD from the Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. School of All Knowledge?
...clown...
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 2:29PM
I've read Master and Marguerita, too, thanks.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 3:46PM
In Russian?
Stuart Koehl| 6.11.11 @ 7:34PM
If I could not read Tolstoy or Dostoevsky in Russian, how could I read Bulgakov. In any case, I have people right at hand whom I can ask about problematic passages.
Beyond that, you can't understand squat about the "Russian soul" unless you understand Russian Orthodoxy--and I have seen no indication that you have this.
BTW, I can read most of the important liturgical texts, the lectionary and the Epistles in Slavonic.
Margie| 6.20.11 @ 10:34PM
Where is the wise one? Where is the
scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?
Did God not make the wisdom of this
world to be foolish?
For since in the wisdom of God the
world by wisdom did not know God, God
was pleased through the foolishness of
preaching to save the ones believing.
And since Jews ask for a sign, and
Greeks seek wisdom,
we, on the other hand, preach Christ
crucified (truly a stumbling block to Jews,
and a pitfall to Greeks),
but to them, the ones called, both to
Jews and to Greeks, Christ is the power of
God and the wisdom of God;
because the foolish thing of God is
wiser than men, and the weak thing of God
is stronger than men." 1 Cor. 1:21-25.
MOS was 71331| 6.7.11 @ 2:17PM
Where do you get the idea that "Ayn Rand was an impulse driven woman?" I've read every published work of Ayn Rand as well as every published AR biography. None of them expressed that evaluation.
I may be a "modern follower" of AR, but I'm nothing like a "60's hippie."
Doctor Right| 6.7.11 @ 3:23PM
"Compulsive", yes.
"Impulsive"..? Not so sure.
Al Adab| 6.7.11 @ 11:42AM
Very interesting conversation this morning. The religious left promulgates the idea that The State should fulfil the Christian obligation to Love one another (create charity, help the poor, etc.). The Christian understands that the obligqtion is a personal one and cannot be shifted to The State or other institution aside from "The Church" in it's sense as community of all believers.
When The State tries to asssume the roll, charity becomes compulsion and our giving becomes confiscation. The State then chooses the "worthy" cause and often violates the Believers moral understanding through, for example abortion, funding operations that many find morally repulsive. By commanding such resources, The State then violates the Christian principle it ostensibly is trying to follow. In many ways, relying on the State to promote charity is simple buck passing on the part of many. They avoid their personal obligation through reliance on outside agencies, when in fact it is the Individual who must act charitably toward his neighbor.
Marx and Rand both therefor choose athieism as, for the one, it empowers the State while for the other it relieves the Individual of obligations. Both sadly are in error.
Craig Deeley| 6.7.11 @ 12:34PM
I was in high school when I first read Ayn Rand's two great novels. I learned; I was responsible for my employability. During my career I choose to continue my education, accept challenges (Some of which I spent the night reading to know what to do the next day.) thus I was able to stay employed.
I have freewill, therefor I can pick and choose the ideals presented by fellow humans to guide my life. We are not required follow an ideology in its totality.
wj| 6.7.11 @ 12:47PM
When it comes to philosophy, Rand and Marx are not even comparable. Marx, like most philosophers, may have been wrong in many respects, but at least he was a real philosopher.
I agree to some respect that Rand is not deserving of all this attention, but so long as she has devotees in the conservative movement, discussions like this that reveal her incompatibility with both Christianity and conservatism, some attention is warranted.
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 11:28AM
I suggest you read Johnson's portrait of Marx in "Intellectuals", and then plow your way once more through Das Kapital. Just because Marx is opaque and litters his writing with meaningless jargon does not mean he has anything in the least bit enlightening to say, which is the definition of being a philosopher.
By the way, you say Marx was wrong in "many" respects. In what respect was Marx right, about anything at all? I admit to having had trouble maintaining consciousness while reading him, but I don't think I can recall any.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 2:12PM
Marx knew that most people are self-important fools...
...Funny you missed that one.
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 2:31PM
Marx missed that he was a self-important fool, a failing you seem to share with him.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 3:48PM
Marx a fool?
Self important, perhaps, but to dismiss the one man whose pervasive influence affected the course of the 20th century like no other as "a fool" is something that only a...well, a pompous, self-important fool himself would say.
Stuart Koehl| 6.11.11 @ 7:38PM
Marx was a fool. So, too, was Hitler, and Mao, and Pol Pot. Fools can have a lot of influence, much of it very bad indeed. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Zak Klemmer | 6.10.11 @ 12:21AM
Marx is a real philosopher? That is a giving the definition of the term a very wide latitude. If individuals are free to choose, even Ms. Rand, many will choose to be generous. To be charitable one must have both empathy and humility. It takes many different views to make up society and we need inventors, manufacturers, salesmen, people who care for the needy, scientists, doctors and all occupations and avocations, even clergy. I find this discussion amusing in that we have various practitioners of Christianity throwing brickbats against each other as well as Ayn Rand.
Marxism is an ersatz religion of the most base and primitive kind but the totalitarian mind can use any institution to organize and control his/her followers. Christian institutions are not immune to this impulse as it is part of the human condition.
SCM| 6.7.11 @ 1:10PM
Hey folks,
We all know that a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.
Separating Ayn Rand's wheat from Ayn Rand's chaff should not be difficult to do. We make those kind of decisions every day, even when reading these articles and posts on AmSpec.
simon templar| 6.7.11 @ 1:50PM
Thank you Hal for a more reasoned, balanced, and perceptive article on this subject. The thread in this blog is also interesting..all the ideas and opinions..as they seem to reflect more mature, balanced and creative insights.
james wilson| 6.7.11 @ 2:08PM
Rand died inside the enforced sterility of her own mind. It was not said by anyone that she died well.
EJM| 6.7.11 @ 3:17PM
The main reason that Ayn Rand had and still has a admiring following is her uncompromising stance on truth and morality, in a modern world that everywhere urges non-judgmental compromise and moral relativism, ridiculing absolute standards of any kind as hopelessly outdated.
She fascinates because she refused to bow to the overwhelming pressure to conform, or compromise her beliefs.
Of course this attitude is by definition extreme and isolating, because it is so uncommon. People with this kind of courage--or obstinacy, depending on your point of view--have usually met with unhappy ends. Thomas More or Jesus himself come to mind. Yet these individuals and the principles they stood for are still remembered and challenge us hundreds or thousands of years later, while their persecutors or the innumerable hordes of compromisers have passed into oblivion.
Since the questions raised by such individuals cut to the heart of the ethical foundations of values and choices we all have to make in our lives, it is no wonder that there is a religious aspect to their beliefs. And where there is religion there is heresy.
Marxists and today's "progressives" have an unquestioned belief system impenetrable to facts or empirical evidence that substitutes for their lack of professed religion. The great irony is that their political belief system is their religion, and they everywhere persecute anyone they perceive as heretical with a determined viciousness and inhumanity that would make the Grand Inquisitor proud.
The great insight of the Enlightenment was religious and political tolerance. Neither Spinoza nor John Locke would have recognized liberalism morphing toleration into moral equivalence and the relativism of truth, and then persecuting all who do not subscribe to current "liberal" dogma.
You don't have to agree with everything Rand said or want to live your life the way she lived hers to understand that she was purposively and directly challenging the commonly accepted and absolutely unquestioned moral relativism (more irony, that) of our times, and to admire her for that.
kerry| 6.7.11 @ 4:03PM
best comment on here. She most certainly has played a role in opening young person's minds, especially in the progressive infected universities. People need to loosen up!
simon templar| 6.7.11 @ 3:24PM
EJM, excellent post!
Ken| 6.7.11 @ 4:28PM
While the word "heresy" migh carry a technically precise definition, its use here is intended to capture an important insight. Neither Marx nor Rand, in their deviation from orthodox Christianity, have established utter independence from Christian doctrine. Western civilization is unintelligible without an understanding of how pervasive and integrated Christian thought has been in developing the premises on which Western thought rests.
Marxism is milleniallism without Christ. Objectivism is a response to imago dei without the deus. Neither sprang fully formed from Zeus's head. Both are foam flecked from the oceans of Biblical thinking.
Stuart Koehl| 6.7.11 @ 8:49PM
Actually, Rand would probably have been more influenced by Judaism than by Christianity. And still, no one can be a heretic who is not at some level a Christian. You might as well say that we are all influenced by the classical Greeks, since so much of Christianity was built on the foundation of classical culture.
victor| 6.8.11 @ 3:48AM
You mean so much of the Catholic Church and her Sisters, don't you?
The Greeks never believed in One God, much less One who sent His only begotten Son to die for the Sin of the whole world.
1Cor 1:23
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"
I would sooner be influenced by Moses or David, wouldn't you?
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 11:26AM
0% of Christianity was built on classical culture.
Once again, you're confusing Catholicism with Christianity.
For one who claims to be so smart, it's HILARIOUS that you keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Disciple| 6.8.11 @ 2:11PM
"since so much of Christianity was built on the foundation of classical culture."
Huh, whaaaa?
Christianity was built on the power of the Holy Spirit, and upon Christ. Catholicism and other false Religions were born on heretical teachings of the "early church fathers"~ ya know, the ones YOU listen to. The ones who brought in such sickening lies such as the body of Christ is eaten literally when you take Communion, prayer to the dead, infant baptism, and worst of all the lie that if you aren't a Catholic, you aren't a Christian, when the exact opposite is actually true. You cannot be a Christian and accept false doctrine at the same time!
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 11:31AM
Do you ascribe to the Nicene Creed? If you do, welcome to the world of classical culture. If you don't, how do I know you are truly a Christian?
If you are a Protestant, just about everything to which you subscribe goes back to Luther or Calvin, both of whom were convinced Augustinians. Everything they believed they traced back to Augustine. Welcome to the world of classical culture, once again.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 2:17PM
Nice try.
The Nicene Creed was adopted in 325. That would be approximately 325 years AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ, and well after the drafting of the Gospels.
So to answer your (smug, dumb) question, NO, I don't subscribe to the "Nicene Creed". That this creed may correctly re-state scripturally-based Christian doctrine is irrelevant, since the Doctrine existed BEFORE the creed, so the creed, and the Council of Nicaea, are irrelevant and superfluous.
As I've stated before ad nauseum, I'm not a Protestant, either.
Welcome to the World of Christianity, Stu...A world distinctly devoid of Catholic lies and drivel.
(How does it feel to be so wrong all the time? You being such a scholar, and all?)
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 2:35PM
If you don't subscribe to the Nicene Creed, then how do you arrive at a proper understanding of the Trinity through resort to Scripture alone--taking into account that Arius and others accused Athanasius of using extrascriptural sources to define the Son as "homoousios" with the Father (the Holy Spirit was added even later, in the Creed of Constantinople, which is what most of us mean by the Nicene Creed)?
Athanasius took a position of sola Scriptura and got it wrong. You will probably say you got it right, but then, you inherited a 1500 year consensus on the nature of the Trinity, all of which goes back to how the Council of Nicaea interpreted Scripture. That more than a few Protestants are either incipiently or explicitly Arian says a lot about the ability of the average person to correctly interpret Scripture outside the matrix of the received tradition.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 3:54PM
Again, the "Trinity" is another piece of Catholic hokum that tries to insert Catholicism into sound, established Christian Doctrine as the originator of the Doctrine, instead of merely a Hobo on the freight-train of history.
The "Trinity"...that old chestnut that die-hard Catholic fools trot-out to try and get Christians to accept an article of Catholicism.
Sorry, Stu, but you're in over your head, here.
The "Trinity", the Nicene Creed, and the "Sola Scriptura" game all came AFTER Scripture...just like Catholicism, they're man-made, artificial constructs. Again, that they may accurately define prior-determined and sound Christian doctrine is irrelevant, a point you seem unable to grasp.
I did not "inherit" a "1,500 year consensus"...My faith is based on ONLY what is written in scripture. Nothing you refer to was not accurately described therein.
But you're a "true believer"...So you'll never understand the truth.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 3:55PM
And also...again...I'm NOT a Protestant.
That's another fact you seem unable to digest...like logic, it eludes you.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 3:56PM
Stu...do you support the US Constitution?
I'll assume the answer is "yes".
If so, does that make you a Founding Father?
TruthWillSetYouFree| 6.9.11 @ 5:19PM
"..then how do you arrive at a proper understanding of the Trinity through resort to Scripture alone."
The Trinity isn't part of the Scriptures.
Wow. What a revelation, huh?
Marc Jeric| 6.7.11 @ 4:47PM
Ayn Rand was inspirational for me; like her I also escaped from a communist hell. Social justice leads inexorably to slavery, terror, mass murder, and poverty - except for the ruling class of true communists. What our professoriat, all marxist by the way, forget is that the communist mass murder has two stages: 1) in the first the capitalists are murdered; 2) all marxist professors are then sent to Gulag to contemplate their folly.
Zak Klemmer | 6.8.11 @ 11:52PM
Marc: "...(2) all marxist professors are then sent to [the] Gulag to contemplate their folly." Oh how I love poetic justice. ;)
Pat| 6.7.11 @ 4:56PM
There are those rare modern authors who obtain a notoriety ranging far beyond their published works and due primarily to the real world implications of their message. When Dan Brown wrote a piece of fiction speculating that Jesus was actually married and had surviving children, religious groups and churches across the world felt compelled to rush forward to debate and attempt to debunk Brown’s work of fiction. If Brown’s popular novel was allowed to remain unchallenged, the implications to our society could be staggering and potentially catastrophic. Some groups labeled Brown a modern religious heretic and morally loose canon while mourning the lack of a convenient stake and plenty of dry firewood.
Others attacked his historical facts, countering with the supposedly true version of events, clarifying the roles of historical persons and “setting the record straight”. All this hoopla over a work of fiction intended to sell books and make an author and his publisher much wealthier. But, at this point in time, we don’t know if future generations of young Americans will avidly read “The Da Vinci Code”, become enthralled and reignite the same passionate debate, allowing this supposed controversy to range unquenched through succeeding decades.
But we do know Ayn Rand has surpassed Brown in that respect and at this point in history – her fictional story is periodically re-discovered by younger generations, kept alive by readers who weren’t yet living when she died. Her simply plotted novel “Atlas Shrugged” is prophetic to an eerie extent. And young adults find her social predictions and observations on human nature to be far more modern in scope than was the case in the 1950’s. If they didn’t find it so, there would be no need to attack Rand, either as an unlettered philosopher or as a “woman of loose morals” – no one would care and she would be quite forgotten.
In an age of Green Lanterns, Two and a Half Men or even an English King with a speech impediment, John Galt seems a childish anachronism who should rate even less than the standard 5 minutes of fame. But for young adults becoming aware of a world beyond Facebook and college beer blowouts, the lack of actual job prospects is depressing. A government taking more and more control over its citizens while displaying less and less competence is also depressing. Unlike Jesus, John Galt was never alive, but to listen to Rand’s many critics you have to wonder if more is going on here than simply debunking what they term a “cheesy novel”.
Thom| 6.7.11 @ 7:24PM
Pat/EJM/Stuart thanks for staying on subject and adding value.......
Thom| 6.7.11 @ 8:04PM
I haven’t read anything Ayn Rand ever wrote or anything of detailed substance written about her. I don’t plan to.
I purposely went to see the movie Atlas Shrugged and took a freshly minted product of “university” with me who happens to be quite religious as in Christian and fully employed and prosperous. I didn’t have to point out in the movie where the story mirrored what we see today and he could put current personality names onto most of the villains without me coaching him. He got the message and didn’t lose his “faith” in doing so.
Some here are consumed with shooting the “messenger” at the expense of the central tenet of Rand’s message circa 1950s….. Look how far we’ve fallen as a people from where we were then. Is that because of Marx’s beliefs or Rand’s? It certainly isn’t because of Christ’s.
Consider her upbringing prior to escaping to the US. There is no “moderation” in a Communist upbringing in the 20-30s Soviet Union. None. Submit or die a slow and agonizing death at the pleasure of your masters. Her personal life reflects those extremes. It strikes me she saw all permanent and forced collectives as ultimately going down the same path as what her experience had been under Communism. It didn’t matter what the pretty face on the façade was the end result tended to all turn out the same way. The misuse of Christianity (and others for sure) going back hundreds of years with things like the Inquisition, Indulgences, the Crusades and burning heretics at the “stake” probably had some undue influence on her view of organized “religion”. Christ wasn’t responsible for these graven abuses of his teachings…..
It also strikes me that the central Rand message is pretty simply to grasp if you don’t condemn the Message because you don’t like the personal affairs of the Messenger. The personnel affairs and contradictions of the mind behind the Declaration of Independence and how those views shaped this Republic would not pass muster with many that have posted here yet we all benefit from the clarity that Thomas Jefferson brought to the formation of this Republic. He wasn’t a “broke clock” that just happened to get it right…..
victor| 6.8.11 @ 3:39AM
Thom:
"The misuse of Christianity (and others for sure) going back hundreds of years with things like the Inquisition, Indulgences, the Crusades and burning heretics at the “stake” probably had some undue influence on her view of organized “religion”.
Yes, they all stem from the same source:
The Roman Catholic Church.
They still are mis-teaching Christ to this day.
They will get their day in Court, won't they?
"Christ wasn’t responsible for these graven abuses of his teachings….."
No, He is not, but He will be sitting in Judgement of those who perverted His teachings, won't He?/
Thom| 6.8.11 @ 6:59PM
Victor,
I have no dog in the fight between the various factions of Christianity thus it was not my intentions to single out any particular denomination or even religion in general but I would caution you to not fall for the false utility of disproportionate impacts. Said in English, the Roman Catholic Church is by far the largest and longest lived denomination of Christianity. Proportionately speaking, any reported abuses by members of said denomination will have far more perceived impact than any obscure cult that murders a few hundred like Jim Jones, etc. By the same token, Islam is far worse than the Roman Catholic Church could ever approach and yet it is virtually protected from criticism across a broad front out of fear while Catholics and Christians in general are dumped on at every chance possible. Islam and Communism are the same evil represented by two different faces of the same coin. Both require unwavering submission to the collective’s needs on this earth and will crush any hint of individually that deviates from the master plan of the self-appointed prophets. If you think the Roman Catholic Church has been the only abuser of Christ’s teachings you are sadly very ill informed.
victor| 6.12.11 @ 3:25AM
Thom:
"I have no dog in the fight between the various factions of Christianity thus it was not my intentions to single out any particular denomination or even religion in general..."
I've no doubt that if we continued in this vein that might prove to be untrue.
"By the same token, Islam is far worse than the Roman Catholic Church could ever approach"
Yes, I am sure that the Ottoman Empire would be a match for the Holy Roman Empire, don't you think? They equally persecuted Christians.
"If you think the Roman Catholic Church has been the only abuser of Christ’s teachings you are sadly very ill informed."
The catholic church has not been the only one to distort and teach false doctrines as you well know.
I have NEVER said that they were the only ones.
I have said that they have organized many efforts to root out, ban, and punish those they considered heretics.
You would be hard pressed to point out the Presbyterian pogroms, the Episcopalian Inquisitions, or the Methodist massacres.
What comes to mind are the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics. They really are the opposite sides of the same coin.
The difference is that the Anglicans are Pope-less Catholics.
They were both equally guilty, more or less, in rooting out, punishing and martyring Christians.
Please read the following books:
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/contents.htm
Dealing with the martyrdom of the Anabaptists, those who did not believe in infant baptism. Anabaptists required that candidates be able to make their own confessions of faith and so refused baptism to infants.
Foxes Book of Martyrs:
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html
Nick| 6.12.11 @ 4:31AM
Victor,
Ever heard of the Schmalkaldic War and, later, the Thirty Year's War? How about the Salem witch trials?
Protestants, besides the Anglicans, had their persecutions, and wars, too.
Margie| 6.12.11 @ 7:20PM
"Protestants" ~ "Anglicans" Catholics" all just names meaning absolutely nothing since they do not abide by the Bible and sought to be murderers instead of Christian.
"..and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 Jn. 3:15.
Nick| 6.13.11 @ 2:26AM
Margie,
I was only trying to show Victor that is wasn't just the Catholics and Anglicans who made war on each other. Lutherans and Calvinists were also not abiding by the Bible.
I've heard author Tom Clancy (The Hunt For Red October) say that all wars are economic. If this is true, I would say that it was greedy kings, queens, and princes who used religious differences to attain more power, through these wars.
Did Victor see my response to his last comment about meatless Fridays and Acts 10, above? I'm curious as to his thoughts.
Tell him I said, "Hi, and God Bless!"
victor| 6.15.11 @ 2:14AM
Nick:
"I was only trying to show Victor that is wasn't just the Catholics and Anglicans who made war on each other. Lutherans and Calvinists were also not abiding by the Bible."
Then where are the Lutheran or Calvinist Inquisitions, eh?
Nick| 6.15.11 @ 9:58AM
Victor,
I guess the Lutheran and Calvinist churches didn't care enough to try and stop the abuses committed by their kings and princes to have an Inquisition, which is too bad.
But, what does this have to do with them waging war against the Holy Roman Empire?
Nick| 6.15.11 @ 10:05AM
By the way, didn't you have any responses to my questions about meatless Fridays and Acts 10? I was looking forward to them.
To you and Margie, God Bless!
Osamas Pajamas| 6.8.11 @ 1:41AM
Hmmmm. Rand danged by faint praise. Oh well, I suppose it could have been worse. ~:
Osamas Pajamas| 6.8.11 @ 1:48AM
All of this blather is kind of funny, actually. An organizatiuon of leftist bullshirters sets out to divide the conservative-libertarian alliance against the dictatorship of Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew ---- and they succeed, judging by the content of these posts. Derailing the OhBummer dictatorship is the main event, sports fans --- don't get deflected from this goal by the "divide-and-conquer" tactics of these leftist skunks.
Nick| 6.8.11 @ 7:57AM
Mr. Colebatch's column, as well as Mr. Tooley's, from the previous day, and debating the subject in the combox, have allowed me to discover facts of which I was unaware, concerning Rand's life, writings, and philosophy.
Such as, the hero of The Fountainhead, Roark, rapes Dominique, the heroine. Strange thing for the hero to do, don't you think?
Or, how about the fact that Rand seems to have had a school-girl crush, at age 23, and admired a 19 year-old man (she calls him "boy") who kidnapped, held for ransom, murdered, and dismembered a 12 year-old girl. When he paid the ransom, Hickman (the murderer) drove off and dumped the girl's torso out of the car in front the father.
She doesn't admire the act of murder, of course. Rand just doesn't care about the murder of a 12 year-old girl. She admires the murderer's extremism and his credo: "I am like the state: what is good for me is right."
She was also a bleeding heart, at this time, as she blamed society for not offering the cold-blooded murderer better options to showcase his gifts, so, he had to take what he wanted. This was a far worse crime than killing a 12 year-old girl.
You can read about all of this at these two links:
http://www.firstthings.com/blo.....2/ayn-rand’s-superman-a-serial-killer-and-rapist/
http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
Her admirers, I'm sure, will point out that she was 23 at the time. Although, when I was 23 I was in the Saudi desert waiting to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. And, Rand had lived through the Bolshevik revolution and the evils of Lenin and Stalin. So, she should have known better.
If you read the whole journal entry about Hickman and The Little Street, as I did, you will see that Rand had fallen for the lies of Nietzsche completely. She may have rejected some of these views later in life, but, the damage was already done.
Wes in MT| 6.8.11 @ 9:19AM
I think sometimes we look too hard for things hidden when the obvious is what we need to see.
I read and enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged". If only we could get every college age kid to come away with this: there are two predominant classes of people, producers or looters. Society will crumble of its own weight if we let the looters govern and teach.
It's really pretty simple.
Nick| 6.8.11 @ 7:52PM
Wes,
"It's really pretty simple."
It's not simple at all. Rand's philosophy is simplistic, I'll grant you that. Because it denies man's fallen nature.
What about corporate cronyism? ADM, GE, NPR, etc., receive billions in corporate welfare, yet, they also produce. So, are they "producers" or "looters" in the simplistic Randian world?
People are individuals and should always be treated as such. Dividing us into two classes serves no useful purpose. Besides, it doesn't reflect the real world.
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 11:40AM
Rand would be the first to denounce "crony capitalism" and corporate welfare. If you read Atlas Shrugged, you will see that she anticipated those developments and her fictional equivalents of Archer Daniels Midland, General Electric, and "NPR" (what the hell are they doing in there?) are definitely placed on the side of the looters.
It really IS that simple.
People are individuals, and should be treated as such. Within the set of all individuals, there are people who are productive, and people who do nothing except live off the production of others. There are those who contribute, and those who just consume without contributing.
It does reflect the real world, and when you're a bit wiser (if not older) you will see it. Just as you will begin to recognize that most people will, if given the opportunity, prefer to suck of the teat of someone else's labor.
If you hate Ayn Rand, you're bound the loathe C.M. Kornbluth, whose work I highly recommend to you--especially the novellas "The Marching Morons" and "The Syndic".
The former, set in a dystopic future, finds that all the work in the world is done by the competent ten percent, who are virtual slaves to the incompetent ninety percent, the "Marching Morons"--until an advertising executive from the 20th century provides the solution to their problem.
The latter is set in a world where the Mafia has taken over all of the functions of government, since the functions of government were not all that different from the business of the Mafia (e.g., insurance is essentially gambling, so it is run by bookies). In fact, the Mafia runs society better and at a lower cost, as people discover to their dismay when they manage to overthrow the mob and restore democratically elected government.
Nick| 6.10.11 @ 1:38AM
I'm sorry, Mr. Koehl, it is not that simple.
I know you are an academic, but, have you ever run a business or made a payroll? Rand's philosophical theories do not work in the real world. Because she denies the fallen nature of all men, as I've stated before.
You state that Rand's fictional ADMs and GEs are definitely "looters." But, aren't they also producers? It would seem that there should be a third group: Producer-Looters, no?
"There are those who contribute, and those who just consume without contributing."
Are they born this way? Is there no chance for redemption or change? People do change, this is reality. Have you ever heard of Star Parker? She went from looter to producer in a short period of time.
Rand's theories and philosophies might be fun to contemplate and debate in the academic world amongst intellectuals, but, they don't reflect the world we live in. This is not a slap at the academic world, at all. It is a slap at intellectuals, most definitely.
I recently heard a great definition of an "intellectual" by the historian Paul Johnson: "An intellectual is someone who thinks ideas matter more than people." I would call Rand an intellectual.
Doesn't her admiration of a multiple murder, early in her life, show that her ability to think was flawed from the beginning? Being, as it was, poisoned by Nietzsche?
I do not hate Mrs. Rand. I just don't think it is worth my time to learn anything more about her or Objectivism by slugging through her boring novels.
In the same way I don't want to waste my time reading Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or Mao's Little Red Book to find out if the worldviews they promoted were wrong. I believe I have enough information to deduce that Marx, Hitler, Mao, and Rand were all wrong, and, incompatible with Christian virtues, without reading everything that they wrote.
p.s. I included NPR in my list because local NPR-member stations (as well as PBS) are privately owned, but, they take taxpayer money.
Stuart Koehl| 6.11.11 @ 7:50PM
"I know you are an academic, but, have you ever run a business or made a payroll?"
I own my own business and I do make payroll.
"You state that Rand's fictional ADMs and GEs are definitely "looters." But, aren't they also producers? It would seem that there should be a third group: Producer-Looters, no?"
I've had a lot of experience as a small businessman dealing with big businesses. What I have discovered is, due to the intrusion of government into the marketplace, big businesses have transitioned from shareholders to rent seekers within our economy. Big business likes regulation. Regulation raises the cost of entry into their lines of business and restricts the number and nature of their competitors. So, push comes to shove, the big companies go into the looter category.
Inter alia, would you say that there is something too "absolute" about dividing mankind into "sheep" and "goats"? Isn't such a division too impractical for the "real world" because it does not take into consideration the fallen nature of mankind? I'm just asking, because that final judgment figures prominently in my woefully un-biblical faith.
"Are they born this way? Is there no chance for redemption or change? People do change, this is reality. "
Never said they couldn't. Neither did Rand.
"I would call Rand an intellectual."
I would not disagree.
"Doesn't her admiration of a multiple murder, early in her life, show that her ability to think was flawed from the beginning? Being, as it was, poisoned by Nietzsche?"
So, what happened to all that "people can change" stuff? Pure BS on your part, or just a talking point?
"In the same way I don't want to waste my time reading Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or Mao's Little Red Book to find out if the worldviews they promoted were wrong."
Much as I found it distasteful to do, I did plow through all of these, knowing in advance that their worldviews were wrong. Why? "If a general knows his enemy as he knows himself, he will never be defeated", according to Sun Tsu. And then there is that old saw about "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". Those who blithely repeated "Saddam Hussein is no Hitler" obviously did not realize that there was a time when even Hitler was no Hitler--but those who read Mein Kampf knew what he could be come. Those who read Marx were under no illusions about Marxism (unless, of course, their minds were so befuddled that they bought into his deeply flawed arguments), and nobody who read Mao's Little Red Book would ever be surprised at the sixty million who died while he was implementing its precepts.
PBS is a good example of a pure looter mentality. Give me commercial interruptions, any day.
Nick| 6.12.11 @ 4:16AM
Mr. Koehl,
I work in the family business, heating and cooling, and also deal with big corporations like Honeywell, Carrier, Trane, etc. Most of which are just subsidiaries of larger corporations.
I would make a distinction between people who believe society owes them an existence, those who try to stack the deck in their favor, and those who just use the system to maximize their profits. I guess it comes down to a question of morality (thievery and slothfulness) and ethics (exploiting the system.)
As a conservative, I could be accused of hypocrisy because we sold many furnaces and air conditioners by pushing the O'Bama tax credit on high efficiency equipment. My competition was doing the same, it was sink or swim.
But, I can see your point. Those who spend millions to lobby D.C. politicians to gain an advantage over their competition are, although different in motivation, looters like the people who sit around getting welfare checks and food stamps. Because, morally, they have no right to taxpayer money, at all.
This is not new, by the way. Samuel Morse lobbied Congress for years to build telegraph lines between D.C. and Baltimore, and, he was successful in getting $30,000 of taxpayer money in 1843, as I'm sure you are well aware.
I think it might be "too 'absolute'" because it is too simplistic to put people in an x or y, "us or them" category. God can judge who are the sheep and goats because only He can truly judge men's hearts, we can't. Morality is black and white, but, specific situations are sometimes grey because we do not have all of the facts.
If not the fallen nature of man, how about Rand's rejection of the inherent worth of every man, no matter their deeds, because we are all made in the image and likeness of God?
The idea that because someone does not produce they, therefore, should perish is antithetical to Christianity. There are some people who cannot produce. What about them? There are some, the mentally retarded, who cannot reason. What about them?
"So, what happened to all that "people can change" stuff? Pure BS on your part, or just a talking point?"
No. No animal excrement here. I allowed for Rand changing her positions at my 6.8.11 @ 7:57AM comment. This episode, admiring the murderer of a 12 year-old girl, shows that her ability to reason was extremely flawed at the age of 23. When I was 23, I was not extolling the virtuous qualities of Jeffrey Dahmer's psyche, in spite of his monstrous crimes. And, I had not experienced the evil of the Bolsheviks up close, as she had.
Doesn't this show that her reasoning skills were lacking? I am arguing that these skills didn't improve that much.
Also, while researching these stupid musings of young Rand, I never came across a retraction, or, a condemnation of them by her. Others have seen similarities between Hickman and Roark (of the The Fountainhead): "He was born without the ability to consider others." She practically wrote the same thing about the hero of The Little Street, Danny Renahan, who was modeled on Hickman.
"Much as I found it distasteful to do, I did plow through all of these [...]."
This is why the Good LORD gave us academics, like yourself, Mr. Koehl. So, that people (like me!) good get the CliffsNotes version of these books from the articles that you guys write.
Thank you for saving us so much time!
shipley130| 6.8.11 @ 1:45PM
I just started reading Atlas Shrugged and I'm already bored with it.
Doctor Right| 6.8.11 @ 2:23PM
Let me summarize it for you:
"Serve yourself".
(BTW...This was also the motto of Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan...)
Thom| 6.8.11 @ 7:32PM
Doctor Right,
Regarding “serving yourself”, a wise man once pointed out to me that if all Christians followed the teachings of Christ the way some have presented his thoughts there would be but two kinds of Christians, a few Priest, Pastors, Fathers and all the rest would be “poor” and equally destitute because each would seek the lowest common denominator in the “flock” rather than be perceived as “rich”.
How does a native squatting on the Sahara relate to the Pope with regard to the term “poor” or “rich”? The Pope and many of those standing in the pulpits have access to wealth way beyond anything I’ll ever have yet if they reduce themselves to the same level of existence as that same native on the Sahara who will be helped in the end? No Church can help anyone without the benefit of someone’s wealth.
The central point this “wise” man was making was that you must first “serve yourself” in order to help others or translated into modern sound bites, you can’t solve the problem if you are part of it.
Christ helped people by performing “miracles”, he needed no wealth for such things. You know anyone that performs miracles? Feed the multitudes without benefit of being able to draw on someone’s excesses beyond a subsistence level of existence?
I think most of us are grown up here and understand the differences between “self-centered”, “selfishness”, “self-interest” and the degree to which these concepts can and do overlap. The Church of Satan is not concerned with the individual serving themselves, only the interest of Satan.
Doctor Right| 6.9.11 @ 2:20PM
Here's an education lesson for you, at no charge:
Anton LaVey's famous response "Serve yourself" was actually a DIRECT reply to the question of how one can BEST serve Satan.
Additionally, that "wise" man who counseled you doesn't really seem that wise...he seems confused.
Zak Klemmer | 6.9.11 @ 12:05AM
In a free market you have to serve others first to profit. Shure there are cheats in life and the so-called "social justice" mob are in the end ruled buy the most ruthless power hungry tyrants. Whatever faults Ms. Rand had at least she didn't claim to be God's representative on earth. Creator’s deserve to own their creation and the benefits that go with them. While I may think that Rand was shallow, she didn't commit mass murder or use the force of the State in the name of humanitarianism.
Nick| 6.9.11 @ 11:48PM
Mr. Klemmer,
Rand never had a state to command.
Had she, I'm confident she would have been no better than Stalin, Pol-Pot, or Castro.
Zak Klemmer | 6.10.11 @ 9:43AM
Speculation on your part regarding Rand becoming another Stalin, religious true believers followed Elijah Mohammad, Jim Jones and Elizabeth Claire Prophet. This is a human problem and no one is immune.
Nick| 6.10.11 @ 8:18PM
Mr. Klemmer,
This is why I'm so confident!
Two centuries of atheists seizing complete power have shown us that they murder on a massive scale. Jews and Christians don't even come close to being in their league.
Zak Klemmer | 6.10.11 @ 9:56PM
You missed my point. It’s the totalitarian mind which uses organizations of identity to assume power, drive a cause. Islam is being used by totalitarians to destroy, leftists use this to destroy our system of constitutional government replacing it with their version of utopia and it can happen in any society because it is part of the human condition. To single out atheists (I am not one) is to assume that self-restraint, ethics and empathy are only reserved for people of faith and therefore they are immune from being either a victim or perpetrator of authoritarian/ totalitarian rule. It is because we are human – that is the cause. Only eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Nick| 6.10.11 @ 11:32PM
Mr. Klemmer,
Yes, it is the totalitarian mind, and, this mindset is antithetical to Christianity.
Even the Elizabethan protestants, as bad as they were, didn't try to exterminate all Catholics. They mostly tried to get rid of the Church by stealing all of its property and outlawing the Mass.
I would call the founder of Islam a totalitarian. Mohammed was a conqueror who either enslaved the infidels, or, he slew them. But, he didn't try exterminate everyone who wouldn't convert. Even the pagan Romans didn't try to eliminate the Jews after A.D. 70, they dispersed them.
The conquering done by the Hebrews, in the Old Testament, was a matter of reclaiming their own property, that of the 12 tribes of Israel. Just as if I came home after years away, and found people living in my home. I would be justified in using whatever force was necessary to evict them from my property.
Christians and Jews simply do not have the history of trying to exterminate those who do not agree with them, or, who are different than them, as do atheistic regimes.
Starting with The Reign of Terror, 1790s; through to the Portuguese and Mexican revolutions, 1910; on to the Soviets, 1917; Mao's first uprising, 1927; the "Republicans" of Spain, 1930s; Ho Chi Minh, 1940s; Castro, 1959; and Pol-Pot, 1970s; these revolutions all have two things in common: They start killing those who won't submit to their ideology and are atheistic.
Almost all of them start with persecuting, imprisoning and killing Catholic bishops, priest, and nuns. They then target whole populations with re-education, prison, famine, and death.
History is on my side, Mr. Klemmer.
Zak Klemmer | 6.12.11 @ 2:14PM
Nick:
Yes I agree but you forgot the Inquisition, the burning of John Hus and other reformers. We are not immune, even Christians. People of faith in the Judeo-Christian culture are still capable of following false and totalitarian leaders.
Margie| 6.12.11 @ 7:16PM
He forgot them conveniently, yes. Right, Nick?
And there were several by the Catholics.
The Catholic persecutors and murderous of the Bible believing Christians were NOT Christian~ they were Catholic.
HUGE difference.
Catholics do NOT abide by the Bible, Christians do.
AND~ NO ONE who murders for ANY reason has been born of God. I don't care what they try and call themselves.
Right, Nick?
Zak Klemmer | 6.13.11 @ 12:38AM
Now Margie, let's play nice no ad hominem attacks OK?
I am not posting here to be a referee or dictate who and who is not a Christian. I think that the impulse to beat on our chest and postulate that anyone who does not think exactly like I do or performs religious rituals differently is a heretic and a fool. My main point is that totalitarianism is a part of the human condition as is ignorance and even though our religious/ spiritual impulse is a noble one as humans we are not immune to being susceptible to tyranny.
Margie| 6.20.11 @ 10:45PM
Mr. Klemmer,
I was speaking to Nick.
And what I said was the truth concerning Catholicism vs. Christianity.
Catholicism as a Religion is in fact against the Scriptures, but you would have to study this to know.
But my post wasn't to you.
Nick| 6.13.11 @ 2:10AM
Margie,
No, I did not conveniently forget anything. See my response to Mr. Klemmer. It must be remembered that it was the secular authorities who put heretics to death. They did this because, in their view, they were protecting society.
The various inquisitions were an attempt to stop the abuses being committed by Catholic monarchs across Europe. And, except for a few cases, it was very successful.
We agree that anyone who commits murder "for ANY reason" is not acting like a child of God. I will not defend murder whether done by Catholics or Protestants. You will never find me defending the IRA, for instance. I condemn them.
I know you don't believe Catholics "abide by the Bible." But, you can't say that this Catholic is ignorant of the Scriptures, can you?
How is your research into Kephas/Rock and Matthew 16 going? I had some questions concerning your take on Isaiah 22, but, you must have missed them. Here is the link again:
http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....ent_554689
I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
God Bless!
Margie| 6.20.11 @ 10:59PM
Nick,
Sorry. What I should have said is Catholicism and not Catholics. Catholicism is not the practice of Christianity according to the Bible. Individual Catholics who believe in Jesus and love Him and want to serve Him have been taught the wrong way to do so, and I am not their judge. I only know what the Bible says, and that if someone really wants to obey God, He says they must listen to and obey His Words, and not the false teachings of men.
And yes, you do know your Bible, but you add things that aren't there.. but this is what we are in discussions about! Ya know what Nick, our thoughts are not His thoughts like it says in the Bible, and every day I must remember that myself. My thinking only gets me in trouble. Apart from Him, we're all lost. On this I know we agree.
God bless, sorry for my harshness.
Nick| 6.21.11 @ 3:26PM
Margie,
No need to apologize, and thank you for your clarification.
I understand why people see the Inquisitions as proof that the Catholic Church committed evil acts in the past. I used to be one of them, in my youth, when it came to the Spanish Inquisition.
But, then again, I knew very little about the subject. Just what I had absorbed from the popular culture. As I studied more, and, learned more, I found that idea that millions died was, in fact, false.
This does not mean I condone the executions of any innocent victims. But, as I previously stated, the abuse was being committed by the secular authorities, for the most part, not the Catholic Church.
Thank you for the compliment about being knowledgeable of the Scriptures. You, also, certainly know the Word of God. You have stumped me more than once! Requiring me to search my Bible commentaries and the writings of the Church Doctors and Fathers.
Discussing the Word of God, with mutual respect, can only be a good thing, in my opinion. Praise the Lord for this instrument, the World Wide Web, that allows the two of us to share His Holy Word with one another!
God Bless!
Nick| 6.13.11 @ 1:48AM
Mr. Klemmer,
I did not forget the Inquisition. And, when it comes to all the Inquisitions, there is always a difference between what people think they know about it and what the actual history is. The same is true about Galileo.
I am not claiming that Christians are immune. My only point is that when atheists get total control of a state, they have far surpassed cultures that believe in a deity, or, deities, when it comes to murdering its own citizens and foreigners.
If Rand had gained control of a state, I don't think it is that far-fetched to believe she would've started to eliminate her enemies, when her programs did not produce fruit. Based on the history of all the other atheists who have held the power of life and death of their fellow citizens.
ZAK KLEMMER | 6.13.11 @ 3:18PM
That is an illogical assumption that Rand would do evil because Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot did so. Are all Germans pre-disposed to commit genocide because Hitler was controlling the German State? While I ponder that my morality comes from our Judeo -Christian heritage it does not mean that others can not live a just life or that Christians can not commit genocide (they wouldn't be Christians except by fraud). But there are frauds in society and claiming to be a Christian, doing rituals does not make one a Christian.
Nick| 6.13.11 @ 8:03PM
Mr. Klemmer,
I thought that I laid out the logic behind my conclusion rather well.
If one is searching for the truth, e.g. Plato, Aristotle, etc., then yes, they are much less likely to commit horrible atrocities.
But, once someone rejects God, completely (i.e., atheists) he will believe in anything, including the evil falsehood that the ends justify the means.
ZAK KLEMMER | 6.13.11 @ 8:27PM
Nick:
If one is a Nihilist it is a certinty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Nick| 6.15.11 @ 10:06AM
Mr. Klemmer,
Agreed.
Julie| 6.8.11 @ 11:01PM
Mark Tooley is not from the Christian left. He constantly attacks the United Methodist Church.
He is a tool of the far right trying to make excuses for Paul Ryan's plan, which the Christian left does not support.
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 11:46AM
On the subject of selfishness and self-interest, is there not a person alive who did not accept Jesus Christ who did not do so out of self-interest? Are not all those who come to Christ in the Gospels, likewise motivated by self-interest, asking Him questions such as, "Lord, what must I do to be saved?" or "How can I have eternal life?" or "Reserve a seat for me at Thy right and left hands?"
They aren't joining Christ out of altruism, but out of truly enlightened self-interest: they do want to be saved, they do want eternal life, they do want seats in the Kingdom. Christ tells them what they must do, and it is up to them whether they will do it. At that point, they must weigh competing interests and values--those of the Kingdom against those of the world--and live with their decisions.
Ayn Rand, if she could get over her reflexive revulsion of all religion, would not disapprove of that sort of contractual (covenantal) relationship: I do A, B, and C for you, and I will do X, Y and Z for you.
Stuart Koehl| 6.9.11 @ 11:46AM
Make that "you will do X, Y, and Z for me".
mikhail silo| 6.10.11 @ 1:41PM
"But Christianity was also the first religion to go in for altruism on a large scale."
Not true.
It is Faith, Hope, and Charity, Mr.Colebatch, not Faith, Hope, and Altruism. Don't confuse the two.
Charity is the practice of benevolent giving and caring.
Altruism is the practice of self sacrifice.
Rand admired the former and abhorred the latter.
Nick| 6.10.11 @ 8:13PM
Mr. Silo,
That is a narrow definition of charity.
In its Christian sense charity means love. Love of your neighbor, as yourself, because he was created by the LORD thy God, in His image and likeness.
This is why all men deserve our love, even the monsters, or, the looters. Hate the sin, but, love the sinner. Christ said to love your enemy.
I believe that Charity, the third theological Christian virtue, includes altruism.
victor| 6.11.11 @ 5:42PM
mikhail silo:
"It is Faith, Hope, and Charity"
Actually, it is It is Faith, Hope, and Love:
1Cor 13:13 "
And now faith, hope, and love, these three things remain; but the greatest of these is love."
in the Greek:
Νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα· μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη.
ἀγάπη = Agape ~ Divine Love or what God prefers.
Strong's Concordance:
26 agápē – properly, love which centers in moral preference. So too in secular ancient Greek, 26 (agápē) focuses on preference; likewise the verb form (25 /agapáō) in antiquity meant "to prefer" (TDNT, 7). In the NT, 26 (agápē) typically refers to divine love (= what God prefers).
The third word has always been mistranslated so that is why you need to go back to the Greek.
mikhail silo| 6.11.11 @ 10:47AM
Thank you for your courteous reply.
I do not want to get into a semantical argument about the meaning of love. Suffice to say that the love I feel for my family is not the love that I feel for my enemies or even strangers.
The term love covers a hierarchy of sentiment. I love my wife because I admire her attributes. I love my enemy because I wish him well. These two sentiments are not morally equal. To ask anyone to consider them equal is repugnant to me.
Altruism exists. I will sacrifice my life for those whom I identify with: my family, members of my squad or other close associations. But in doing so I do not really sacrifice my "self" because my affection for them is so strong that they become an extension of my "self"; self preservation by proxy, if you will.
It is not possible for me to love my enemy and his vices in the same way as those whom I love because of their virtue. It renders my love for my family as nothing more than my love for my enemies or, put another way, it elevates the love for my enemies to that of my family and friends rendering virtue and vice equal.
What is said in the Bible that we know is a translation and is open to interpretation. I do not believe your interpretation of the command to love you enemies as yourself (an invitation to self sacrifice) is, without intending any disrespect, semantically or morally incorrect.
Nick| 6.12.11 @ 12:43AM
Mr. Silo,
I only took issue with your narrow definition of charity, and, separating altruism from the third theological virtue.
I claimed no such equality between the love of your enemy and your wife. I also repeated the Augustinian adage of love the sinner, hate the sin (or vices, as you wrote.)
People give their lives for strangers all the time, e.g. police, firemen, soldiers, etc. I would argue that their love is greater than the love we have for our family and friends. A healthy man has no need for a physician, as Christ taught.
It's easy to love people we like. It's hard to love the people who would do us harm. But, all of God's commands are hard to man, because of our fallen nature.
insanity | 6.13.11 @ 10:58AM
good to hear that
Anna | 6.20.11 @ 10:06PM
Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com .cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys