Posted on 11/13/2009 7:51:55 AM PST by cornelis
#39, son. And that’s the tip of the iceberg, where Rand’s irrationality is concerned.
It would have been much more “Christian” to say “I will never live for the sake of another against my free will.”
Exactly, Ayn was mostly right. She tripped up in a few spots, probably in opposition to the Progressive/Fascism of her time.
Ayn Rand's weakness was her belief that pure self interest was the antidote to socialism. In fact, self interest is the key to the socialist elite. All the propaganda is just for the masses.
Ayn Rand's other great weakness was her denial of the need for and the power of spirituality. The self interested people were always co-opted and out maneuvered by socialists and communists. Those who defeated Communism were people like Lech Walesa, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, all of whom understood that socialism could never stand up to people with moral integrity and strong spiritual beliefs.
William F Buckley and Whitaker Chambers also understood this.
“..but then, that’s what insane people do, too: they draw painstakingly logical conclusions from initial conditions that have no contact with the real world.”
Hey, you just described religion perfectly. Thanks!
Excellent point. I might even put it more strongly .... that pure self-interest is actually antithetical to moral integrity, which fundamentally lies outside the self.
I sympathize with your position, but you can't "heal" rot. You have to cut it out or burn it out.
Regards,
But is there anything to encourage serving others? Or is considered just a “preference”?
Humourless and unreadable.
I can't take you seriously.
I can't take you seriously.
Rationality is a wonderful thing, God’s gift to mankind.
But without God, there is ultimately no rationality.
Which is exactly the problem with Rand, of course.
The Christian view is that true slavery is slavery to one’s own merely human wants and desires.
Not much different from Buddhist belief, in that regard.
Ayn Rand was fundamentally wrong. She claimed that her books were all about the strength of the individual, but if you read them, in none of them did an individual succeed on his own. Her heroes succeeded as a part of a voluntary community.
And that’s where she was wrong, and where the libertarian attack on collectivism so often goes wrong. The problem with collectivism isn’t the group, it’s the coercion.
The communitarians aren’t evil in wanting to build a sense of community, they are evil in that they confuse the community with the state and advocate using the power of the state to force individuals into community.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a socialist collective, provided that the individual members are free to join, and are free to leave.
The strength of a society is in its voluntary associations.
There is nothing in there about tennis shoes, either.
I personally look to G-d for guidance on moral issues, not government.
Romans 3:22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Revelation 3:8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Pretty much sums it all up.
THROUGHOUT the Bible, salvation and condemnation are talked about.
Jesus himself in Matthew 7:13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
I agree!
Christ compels us to live for the sake of other men. Indeed, he promised to judge us on whether we do so or not. (Matt. 25:31) While there may be aspects of Randism that are appealing to man as selfish, sinful beings, in no way does it comport with what Christ would have us do.
Ms. Rand may consider the "notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice" as being appalling, but I think most Christians will differ.
Does she really think a vicious man would sacrifice himself for others? Only a man of supreme virtue and heroism would do this.
it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors.
Quite correct. True Christians would never force others to do so, of course.
Mother Theresa was pretty obviously superior (morally, mentally, etc.) to many if not most of those she devoted her life to, but she freely chose to do so. That her life was therefore wasted, which I assume Ms. Rand would believe, is at best a debatable proposition.
I would contend she led a high and admirable life. If she chose it freely, I don't see why Ms. Rand should object.
I think the more interesting questions are: (1) what constitutes salvation?, (2) are salvation and eternal life interchangeable concepts or is there a distinction? (3) does “eternal life” refer only to the afterlife or is there a fuller meaning?
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.