Posted on 04/18/2011 1:59:33 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
"Am I my brother's keeper?" Cain asked God.
A question raised by a murderer.
"Every man did what was right in his own eyes" was the attitude of the Israelites described in the Book of Judges, as they took the sure road into bondage, over, and over, and over.
The Book of judges describes a people in anarchy.
The Objectivists reject anarchy, and support the rule of objective law.
Now, if you are going to be critical of them, stop using straw man arguments and deal with what they actually believe. "There is nothing new under the sun."
The message of the Bible is that we should serve God and our fellow man.
The message of Objectivism is that we should serve ourselves.
Total opposites.
I am a born again Christian. I am a pro Constitution conservative politically.
I saw Atlas Shrugged Saturday - and I was fully able to take the message of a totalitarian government and what it does to the incentive to create products and services that make the world a better place and separate that from Rand’s beliefs on eternity - which she surely regrets now herself.
The main message of Atlas Shrugged is a brilliant and important one. I don’t care what Rand’s other beliefs were. I’m an adult. I can filter them out. If the Apostle Paul was able to debate nonbelievers on their terms, then believers can take Rand on hers.
Wish this was like Lord of the Rings. This is the movie the youth need to see to understand what the government is doing—with the support of the media...
Objectivism doesn't teach that 'we should serve ourselves', it teaches that one ought to be free to pursue happiness.
Just as it says in the Declaration. The message of the Bible is that we ought to love God and our neighbor as ourselves.
Nothing in the Bible says we are suppose to serve our fellow man.
Your socialism is being exposed.
Tripe - just like your bankrupt philosophy.
But I do believe that before you criticize a viewpoint, you should at least understand it.
I agree - regarding your comments.
Indeed.
>> but her books are powerful arguments against the tyranny of collectivism and strong promotions of capitalism and liberty. <<
That's where you and I part ways, TexasGunRunner. I was forced to read Rand in H.S., and I found her books to be a overly pretentious bore. I disagree with the Randroid claims that her novels are masterful, brilliant, visionary, amazing, must reads, etc. There are plenty of other authors who wrote creative fiction in defense of capitalism and liberty and against "the tyranny of collectivism", and in my opinion they did it in a far more effective way than Rand. I disagree with the argument that dragging people out a theater 30 miles away to view "Part 1" endlessly and conning tea party member into buying this film on DVD in mass qualities will 'educate' the public about the dangers of Obama. I don't think the average American really connects with Rand and aside from a small group of Rand worshipers, I don't think most people who read her novels, including people like who oppose socialism, believe she was a great writer.
Odd that so many so-called Objectionists feel the need to have state-run schools decree that all students MUST read Rand's novels.
If it makes you feel better though, I was required to read an Ayn Rand novel in my senior High School English class (out loud, for weeks on end), so I can "objectively" state that it was a poorly written, predictable, and extremely boring novel that doesn't deserve all the praise heaped on it by Ayn Rand worshipers.
Two months ago, the cult of Ayn Rand compared Atlas Shrugged to The Passion of the Christ in it’s “huge success” of “shrewedly marketing to its target audience”.
The Passion of the Christ
Budget $30 million
Gross revenue $611,899,420
Atlas Shrugged: Part I
Budget $20 million
Gross revenue $4,627,375
Hmmm. Seems to me Christians watched The Passion but the tea party isn’t drinking the Rand kool-aid.
Funny.
Eternal Vigilance:
I would first like to say that I appreciate the fact that you put so much time and effort into this post. You seem very well educated and everything is worded quite nicely. Besides the fact that everything is grammatically sound, your argument that Ayn Rand is a heathen in all religious connotations of the word is correct, but the fact that Rand is against religion should not be more contemptuously questioned than the underlying ideologies of religion in general should be. Taking human nature into account, I believe it is far more likely that early humans did not understand or like the fact that death is the ultimate end and that after death is nothingness and non-existence. Like infinity, nothingness cannot be fully grasped by the human mind because the brain itself is a limited entity. Finding the inevitability of non-existence quite depressing, Man created a different reality that is much easier to comprehend: a reality where an individual’s soul goes on to live another life after death. The satisfaction of knowing that one will go to Heaven (or be reincarnated) is usually greater than the satisfaction of knowing and accepting the depressing truth. Being that all humans have invariably acted upon what brings them from one state of satisfaction to a higher state of satisfaction, it is understandable that such a large amount of the world’s population believes in an afterlife. As I am wary of a government that may infringe on my individual rights, I am distrustful of any entity or belief created by those who may wear the popular emerald shades when examining what they perceive to be reality. Yes, I am blasphemous. Yes, I am a heathen. Yes, I will surely burn in the fiery pits of Hell. But I can be described this way not because I am ignorant, but because I am the exact opposite. I question everything that is thrust upon me by society, be it persuasive arguments concerning a political stance or such widely accepted topics as the existence of God. I look forward to receiving feedback from you, Eternal Vigilance. I will be humbled if you can negate any of my statements with logical, factual evidence (which does not include the opinionated and eclectic passages from the Bible provided in your post). I would be even more amazed if you could logically prove me wrong without attacking my character.
Thank you for your time,
JS
Respectfully, your fundamental problem is in your bald assertion as fact your opinion that there is nothing after death. Why do you say that you question everything from every other source, but do not question your own assumptions?
Fact is, you don’t know if there is an afterlife. You’ve never been there, and you have no window upon it.
I’ve never been there either. But I do have a window to it, provided by the testimony of a proven reliable eye witness, one whose veracity I have learned to trust implicitly.
The nihilistic view destroys many of the main components to enjoying a good life before death, and certainly will affect your eternal destiny, but, putting that aside, it also makes decent representative republican self-government virtually impossible.
Our only security when we install a man in office is the character of that man, a trust that he will fulfill the primary duties of that office by securing the Blessings of Liberty to us and our Posterity.
Of what possible use is an oath made to a non-existent person? What confidence can we have in a politician who has no belief or fear that there will be any bad consequences for him if he carelessly breaches such an oath, and instead, serves only himself instead of the people?
The basis of the American republic and our claim to liberty is found in the confident statement of truth that we are created, and that our Creator, not any mere man, has endowed us with all of our rights, and that the purpose of government is to secure those rights.
Destroy that understanding, and you have utterly destroyed the cornerstone and foundations of this free republic.
“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths...?”
— George Washington, Farewell Address
“...virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
— George Washington, Farewell Address
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.