Mike82ARP

In Israel at the time of the first temple government and religion were tightly tied together. There was no distinction between legal judgements based on halacha (Jewish law as given in the torah or the mishnah) and "civil" law. There was no "civil" law at that time. Perhaps some Christians took what Jesus said seriously: Render unto Caesar etc. etc. But after Constantine they didn't. B a'al Chatzaf Yes, Constantine. A blessing and a curse for Christianity.

Generally, I agree with you. The Christian church at that time was restricted to the Roman Catholic (R.C.) church who had their hands deep into all aspects of society. Remember, this was not biblical mandate, but a power grab and a perversion of X-nity. It wasn't the Enlightenment that broke the back of the R.C. church, it was the Protestant Reformation which did that which set the stage for the Enlighternment to occur.

To blame Christianity exclusively for the Dark Ages is rather short sighted. I’d look at the fall of Pax Romana as the primary reason. For certain, the X-n church exceeded its warrant and projected itself into government (which is not Biblical). The X-nity of today is quite different than 1000 years ago. In some ways it is more messed up. Misguided groups like the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition have been unsuccessful as they too do not understand X-nity has no biblical warrant to act as a political party. But this only goes to show that even in man’s attempt to seek God, he still makes mistakes. The economy of biblical times was at best a mixed economy with heavy taxation by the Romans, but little on the social spending side. Additionally, the Romans and Jews had an odd alliance which corrupted the Jewish leaders.

I know one who recently did. He’s still a Rand fan, too!

And you seriously think that believing in heaven and hell is compatible with Objectivism?? IMO, they are immaterial to Objectivism. As one who subscribes to Rand’s philosophy, I agree with her when she stated, “the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest purpose” (VoS 27). I chose my highest value and gave myself wholly to it to achieve happiness. I am my own highest value and my soul is the most valuable part of me. I will maximize my soul by putting it in the most valuable place possible which is in state of oneness with God.

And you seriously think that believing in heaven and hell is compatible with Objectivism?? As for those Christian not supporting laissez faire capitalism, maybe they thought of what the Jesus character is quoted saying in Luke 18:25? "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." You lack a fundamental understanding of scriptural interpretation. Here, you pull a verse out of context and then build a straw man. Rand herself would have also condemned the young ruler, the character in this passage, as he was one whose covetous selfishness was of the pejorative definition associated with that word. If you knew the ten commandments you would have noticed that Jesus left out the commandments about coveting and the first four which speaks of man’s relation to God. So in the context of this passage, a “rich man” is one who is egocentric and covetous. Additionally, you presume the rich young ruler amassed his fortune through laissez faire capitalism which didn’t exist in biblical days. :-) Even socialists can amass wealth through corruption.

@tmj " I see reason as a faculty and pretty much synonymous with mind, so in this sense it could be metaphysical. I see logic as more the epistemologic tool. Reason is the means by which we gain knowledge of reality.: You wrote, "Reason is the means by which we gain knowledge”. Doesn’t that mean it is by definition an epistemological tool? The authority or arbiter of 'truth' is reality, not sure what you mean by ultimately in this context. I (we) face the arbiter of truth constantly, we are never out of its 'sphere of influence'. We are never outside of reality. To remain in conceptual awareness of reality, one must use reason constantly , to think means to use the faculty of reason , what things or actions can we do without using reason? I agree with this and for me, God is a reality who has sufficiently revealed himself in the universe and in the Bible. I’m not allowed to redefine or engage in a celebrity makeover with God to fit in with “modern theology” (a meaningless term someone else used earlier) When I hear kooky stuff coming from hucksters like Benny HInn, Ken Copeland, or Jim Bakker, my reason tells me they are phonies, not men of God as they would claim.

Regarding the last question, I did not mean infer by the question that this was necessarily your position. By honest people, i mean people who have the courage of their convictions. If Christians actually believed in the hell most of them profess to believe in, they would be leading very different lives. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the average Christian actually believed that Granny was going to roast in hell, then they would spend a lot less time on say, hydroponic gardening, and more on evangelical outreach. Do you really have confusion about what I mean by injustice? If so, I mean this: it would not be just for God to predestine some to be saved, and others not to be, and then punish the latter eternally. That's as simple as I can state it. Perhaps God is more loving than you think He is. Perhaps He is more just than you think He is too. "By honest people, i mean people who have the courage of their convictions. If Christians actually believed in the hell most of them profess to believe in, they would be leading very different lives." That’s a pretty observant comment. By Christians”, do you mean some, many, most, or all? I’d say “many" from my perspective. Whether they actually are Christians is another story. Claiming to be one doesn’t necessarily mean you are one. Many people get caught up in the emotionality of a sermon or tent meeting, but a few months later are back to their previous lives. "Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the average Christian actually believed that Granny was going to roast in hell, then they would spend a lot less time on say, hydroponic gardening, and more on evangelical outreach." You don’t know how much time I spend utilizing by gifts, do you? Not all are called or have the skills for evangelism. There’s a passage in Ephesians which notes we are parts of the body, each with a different purpose. Most folks in my church walk the walk. I can’t say that is true for everyone. "Do you really have confusion about what I mean by injustice? If so, I mean this: it would not be just for God to predestine some to be saved, and others not to be, and then punish the latter eternally. That's as simple as I can state it." Your objection is dealt with in many places in the Bible. The potter and the clay analogy is frequently used. Does the clay have the right to complain to the potter, “Why did you make me this way?” Your final comment about predestination. It seems you at least have it figured out. The simplest way I would put it is, people go to hell not for not believing, but for being sinners. If one never sins, he has no need for Jesus. Would I have done it this way? Probably not, but I’m not God.

If a Christian said to me what you wrote "that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us”, I would consider that person a “mystical, new age” Christian.

I view reason as an epistemological tool of the mind rather than a metaphysical concept. Am I wrong on this?? Given that reason is a tool, one would use reason to evaluate something. In the case of The Bereans, they used reason in assessing Paul's teaching against a reasonable authority (about 1300 years of meticulously preserved written history). Do you have any authority you ultimately come to face? And how did you conclude that reason fundamental? Did you use reason to assess reason as primary? Matybe two questions here. Sorry.

Any orthodox Jew would tell you that Paul as -apakoros- and a total flunk out from the Yeshiva. Ba'al Chatzaf LOL!!!

@tmj "This is the part I was speaking to, I had the wrong quote in mind about the coin in the temple(which was a really good answer contextually imo). There is nothing in the above passage that allows men to use reason to question authority. God's servants are his , they know what is right do not question, obey, is what I get from that. Am I misapprehending the meaning of the passage? I do not see any limiting of the authority over men by reason. " I’m note sure where you’re coming from when you ask about reason being used. How is man able to determine what action to take without using his reasoning ability? In Acts 17 and 18 there are numerous references to Paul “reasoning with the Jews and Greeks at the Synagogue”. He also goes to Athens where at the Aeropagus, he reasons with the philosophers for days, even quoting the philosophers, Epimenides and Aratus during his discussion. Paul was the best student of the renown Jewish Pharisee, Gamaliel. Blind obedience or gullibility is not commended. In fact, skepticism is what is commended. In Acts 17:11 it states, "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." So it seems to me that reason is being used in Paul's exhortation to “do what is right” in light of the edicts of the authorities. Or, if you already know something is right, do you have to use reason to decide to do what is right?

That’s a good question. First, look at the context of this. Mk 12:13 "And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.14And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,c but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denariusd and let me look at it.”16And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him." So we see that this is a specious question and was an attempt to depict Jesus as either an enemy of the state or an enemy of the temple. He gave a rather ingenious answer. He meant that we are subject to pay taxes to the ruling authorities, but we owe no religious allegiance to them. Christian principles would not allow one to sin if the state were to demand that. Romans 13 also provides information on the role of the government.

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist? For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god? Common ground: Laissez faire capitalism, reason, limited government, individualism, rational self interest. But doesn't the Objecivist philosophy reject the belief in a god as irrational, i. e. as 'anti-reason'? That would eliminate 'reason' as common ground. Also, I don't quite see why being a Christian would imply an endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism (?). I know quite a few Christians who think of laissez-faire capitalism as detrimental. 1. Belief in God is not irrational. It may not fit into a materialistic worldview, but it is not irrational. 2. Why would a Christian not support laissez faire capitalism? I’m sure some Christians who subscribe to altruism (which is unbiblical in my opinion) might believe that. Have you ever asked what is the basis for that belief from a Biblical perspective? I’d love to hear their answers.

Please appreciate that the unbreachable obstacle to any sort of cross-over between Christians and Objectivism is not only the metaphysical conflict of existence/non-existence of God, but epistemological, psycho-epistemological and moral. There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content. Here is a critical distinction: he not only *won't* accept any authority, he *can't*. It's a cognitive impossibility, a self-contradiction. Your comment indicates that you do not understand Christianity, but have accepted a false interpretation foisted upon O’ism. Yeah, got to admit 6 years of C of E boarding school didn't improve my understanding. (Not sure I recall, but I don't think I ever did pass Divinity exams.) "Foisted"? No, you aren't getting my point. O'ists don't take anything as assumed (even Objectivism. ) Anyhow, this God who is not an absolute authority over man's mind and soul, I certainly don't understand. What have I misinterpreted? This is what I was referring to. You wrote, "There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content." This seems to imply that God has authority over our minds. Was I mistaken?

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist? For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god? Common ground: Laissez faire capitalism, reason, limited government, individualism, rational self interest.

@PDS "Did you even think about what I said, or did you simply google yourself some sources to support your preconceived notions?" I have no preconceived notions. My conclusions are based on 27 years of reading the BIble, studying theology and attending classes from seminary professors. "If not the latter, why, for instance, did you leave out the views of Origen and Clement of Alexandria? I'm really not interested in rehashing arguments 101 and 201 from the Christian Debate Playbook." Here is what Rand describes as the “stolen concept”. Right? Anyway, why do you choose only those who ideas support yours? The early father were at a major disadvantage since the canon of scripture had not been assembled. Their incomplete theologies are interesting, but not authoritative in any church that I’m familiar with. "That said, your enthusiasm for the eternal torment of some souls and not others is truly contagious." Where pray tell did I express enthusiasm" for eternal torment? The reality of hell is clear in Scripture. It doesn’t matter whether I like it or not. It’s there...Deal with it... or choose not to. "Most honest people simply cannot get past the injustice of eternal torment.” “Honest people”? “Injustice”? Based on who or what? "So here is the big question: is a belief in universal salvation itself a belief that disqualifies one from salvation?” Ahem... no. Were did you get that idea?

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions. It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help. I don't agree with you on the pointlessness factor. You assume a top down method of persuasion/argument, and perhaps underestimate how repulsive the Jonathan Edwards description of God actually is to those not singing in the choir. The Early Church fathers were, by and large, Universalists, i.e., they believed that Christ died for everybody, not just those who signed onto a dotted line of doctrinal beliefs. Then a couple of generations of organized Church types got involved and won the "interpretation" narrative, to use MSK's lens for looking at social issues. Coincidentally, that narrative helped them control people and build an organization that has lasted 1500 years. Why Christians find it alarming that God would save everybody, as opposed to some, is beyond my ability to comprehend. It is almost as though they would be upset if God dispensed His grace to all. I actually think "justice" would be among the very best openings in the forest for a person devoted to both Rand and Christ. Nearly everybody has an innate sense of justice, and those who don't are not worth talking to. To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God. That’s why an atheist could not appreciate what is probably the most famous sermon ever preached. I found the blog where you posted about the early church fathers. You should do better research next time. Here’s what they actually said: Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2, [110 A.D.]) ''Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him. Clement of Rome (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D.150]) ''If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest, but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment.'' (Second Clement 8:4) ''So also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance.'' (Second Clement 8:5) ''After we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will belong to us.'' (In other words, Clement is saying that you must make the decision to believe in Christ while you are alive on this earth.) Justin Martyr (First Apology 12 [150 A.D]) ''No more is it possible for the evil doer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of Fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments.'' Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. VIII [150 A.D.]) ''And we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment, and not only as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. And if anyone say that this is incredible or impossible, this error of ours is one which concerns ourselves only, and no other person, so long as you cannot convict us of any harm.'' (Justin is clear in stating that the punishment is eternal and not for a temporary amount of time.) Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. XXVIII [150 A.D.]) ''For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.'' Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, 4:28:2 [189 A.D]) ''The penalty increases for those who do not believe the word of God and despise his coming. It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomever the Lor shall say,'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,'' they will be damned forever.'' (Notice the reference to Matthew 25:41) The previous cited from http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/818386-early-church-fathers-did-not-believe.html And I fully agree with your last comment about justice.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions. I have to deal with other Christians whose theologies are mystical and altruistic, but I get along with them anyway. However, if asked, I will tell them where I believe they err. It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help. I appreciate the dialogue we can have here. Please appreciate that the unbreachable obstacle to any sort of cross-over between Christians and Objectivism is not only the metaphysical conflict of existence/non-existence of God, but epistemological, psycho-epistemological and moral. There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content. Here is a critical distinction: he not only *won't* accept any authority, he *can't*. It's a cognitive impossibility, a self-contradiction. Your comment indicates that you do not understand Christianity, but have accepted a false interpretation foisted upon O’ism.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes. Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions. I have to deal with other Christians whose theologies are mystical and altruistic, but I get along with them anyway. However, if asked, I will tell them where I believe they err. It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help. I appreciate the dialogue we can have here.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'? But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'? Wrong question. Think about it some more and get back to me. Here’s mine. Do you have enough faith to believe in the eternality of matter in spite of recent scientific discoveries?

But the idea of life arising from merely chemical and physical properties inherent in matter (perpetually "as yet undiscovered") is beyond chemistry and physics, specifically, the 2nd law. That is correct, never mind the astronomical improbability. I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection. You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”. I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here? Why would it need a god to get it here? Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause. If you argue on the basis of a causality chain, then god must have a 'cause' too. Yeah, probably the same cause as “existence”.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection. You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”. I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here? Why would it need a god to get it here? Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause.

The analogies work perfectly for young kids. There are also definitions of sin in the various catechisms used by some of the churches. The catechisms are meant for older kids and newer believers and cover topics in more depth. There are plenty of writings available in the topic of hamartiology- which is the doctrine of sin.