Christian attacks on Objectivism and/or Ayn Rand

[Chris Grieb]

I am interested in hearing about discussion, articles, sermons and books by Christians attacking Ayn Rand and or Objectivism. For example at youth camps are there discussions of Ayn Rand. Tell me about it I want to hear.

[PalePower]

Youth camps?

The youth today are retarded. They don't READ, let alone even know what Ayn Rand's ideas are.

~Elizabeth

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved this to the "Objectivist Living Room," but left a link in the previous forum for a while.

Here is one criticism: JESUS CHRIST VS AYN RAND.

This is from a group called Adrian Bible Students, which is founded on the writing of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witness, but is not a member of the Jehovah's Witness organization.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is very cute thing I uncovered on Yahoo! Questions called How was Jesus a John Galt?. The question was by a user called "neveragainbye."

The best answer (given by "Richard E") is so charming it deserves to be quoted:

John Galt is a charismatic character in the novel Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. He gave a moving speech against collectivism at the start of this hugely long novel, and then vanishes. Everyone runs about asking "Who is John Galt? Where is John Galt" for quite a while, and he reappears and becomes a hero.

Jesus and John Galt are charismatic savior types.

They are both central characters in long, difficult to understand books.

They both make speeches, then vanish and promise to return.

John Galt makes a more impressive return and then does not vanish again.

Nobody prays to John Galt. He does not claim to be the Son of God.

There are a few similarities and many differences.

Ayn Rand, who invented John Galt, was an atheist who thought smoking was really cool. She wore gold brooches in the form of a dollar sign and died of lung cancer.

There was a film made about her called "The Passion of Ayn Rand" It is LOTS less gory than the film about Jesus, named "The Passion of the Christ"

There is just one correction. Ayn Rand contracted lung cancer, but was successfully operated for it. She actually died of a heart attack.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a guy who converted to Christ because of reading Rand's works. Rich will probably be interested in the fact that he not only became a Christian, he also left his Unitarian Universalism congregation (he used to be on the Board of Trustees) because of Rand.

On Ayn Rand

The answer from the He Lives blog owner (a "reformed nuclear physicist") gave me a chuckle:

You may be the only person in history whose testimony includes credit to Ayn Rand, the quintessential atheist! God indeed works in mysterious ways.

...

Ayn Rand was used to lead someone to Christ. We have an awesome God indeed.

Well, it's an awesome universe, that's for sure!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is another criticism of Rand from a Christian viewpoint:

Ayn Rand: The Ayngriest Roguette: A Missive on the Ayngry Prophetess of Objectivism

by "Safari Man"

The title on the tag-head (but not on the page) is "Ayn Rand, a Nuisance." That should give a pretty good idea of the writer's attitude toward her.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Thanks Michael. I will check these out.

[Dragonfly]

The title on the tag-head (but not on the page) is "Ayn Rand, a Nuisance." That should give a pretty good idea of the writer's attitude toward her.

Well, you don't have to agree with all his points, especially his Christian tenets, to acknowledge that his criticism of Rand is fair and balanced. He may be critical, but his tone is much more benevolent than that of many Objectivist publications.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Here is a guy who converted to Christ because of reading Rand's works. Rich will probably be interested in the fact that he not only became a Christian, he also left his Unitarian Universalism congregation (he used to be on the Board of Trustees) because of Rand.

Michael

Michael, why wouldn't Rand's ideas not lead to Rich finding Jesus Christ? I became a Chrsitian because I read Ayn Rand . ... really. No really. I also saw that Kant was also an Objectivist. And, Marx. And Hitler. And...

Wayne Simmons

[Victor Pross]

Here is a guy who converted to Christ because of reading Rand's works. Rich will probably be interested in the fact that he not only became a Christian, he also left his Unitarian Universalism congregation (he used to be on the Board of Trustees) because of Rand.

Michael

Michael, why wouldn't Rand's ideas not lead to Rich finding Jesus Christ? I became a Chrsitian because I read Ayn Rand . ... really. No really. I also saw that Kant was also an Objectivist. And, Marx. And Hitler. And...

Wayne Simmons

Yeah, those Christians have a grip on reality. Like Michael Jackson looking in a Fun House mirror at the circus.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

The title on the tag-head (but not on the page) is "Ayn Rand, a Nuisance." That should give a pretty good idea of the writer's attitude toward her.

Well, you don't have to agree with all his points, especially his Christian tenets, to acknowledge that his criticism of Rand is fair and balanced. He may be critical, but his tone is much more benevolent than that of many Objectivist publications.

There's nothing fair and balanced about this screed (why do you say it's fair and balanced?). At this point, what you say is completely and utterly vacuous. This man is a god-damn irrationalist and only you pathetic mealy mouthed appeasers, who call yourselves Objectivists can't see it.

Wayne Simmons

Edited January 7, 2007 by Damage Inc.

[Victor Pross]

The title on the tag-head (but not on the page) is "Ayn Rand, a Nuisance." That should give a pretty good idea of the writer's attitude toward her.

Well, you don't have to agree with all his points, especially his Christian tenets, to acknowledge that his criticism of Rand is fair and balanced. He may be critical, but his tone is much more benevolent than that of many Objectivist publications.

There's nothing fair and balanced about this screed (why do you say it's fair and balanced?). At this point, what you say is completely and utterly vacuous. This man is a god-damn irrationalist and only you pathetic mealy mouthed appeasers, who call yourselves Objecticvists, can't see it.

Wayne Simmons

Wayne,

Dragonfly is not an Objectivist and does not declare himself as such. From what I can tell, he is rather openly hostile to it.

-V

Edited January 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

There's nothing fair and balanced about this screed (why do you say it's fair and balanced?). At this point, what you say is completely and utterly vacuous. This man is a god-damn irrationalist and only you pathetic mealy mouthed appeasers, who call yourselves Objecticvists, can't see it.

Ah sure, and this is of course the typical rational discourse of a real Objectivist.

[Victor Pross]

There's nothing fair and balanced about this screed (why do you say it's fair and balanced?). At this point, what you say is completely and utterly vacuous. This man is a god-damn irrationalist and only you pathetic mealy mouthed appeasers, who call yourselves Objecticvists, can't see it.

Ah sure, and this is of course the typical rational discourse of a real Objectivist.

It’s a shame that Objectivism is being blurred by Objectivists…some of them. Poor Rand. You know, I use to be turned off by the deeds and words of Christians and I was told that I ought to really read the Bible. Well, that confirmed my atheism! :turned:

[Guest Damage Inc.]

It’s a shame that Objectivism is being blurred by Objectivists…some of them. Poor Rand. You know, I use to be turned off by the deeds and words of Christians and I was told that I ought to really read the Bible. Well, that confirmed my atheism!

Agreed. Victor's last point was also made by Penn, of Penn & Teller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTOKGBpXc1o

[Victor Pross]

"The Holy Book of the living God suffers more from its exponents today than from its opponents."

-Leonard Ravenhill

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Look what has been going on while I wasn't paying attention.

Dayaamm!

Wayne appeared once more without any positive idea whatsoever merely to say something bad about an OL member. I wonder if that is how he wins elections in his brilliant political career in elective politics.

I get the impression that he run out of places to screw up, so he comes over here to screw up.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Look what has been going on while I wasn't paying attention.

Dayaamm!

Wayne appeared once more without any positive idea whatsoever merely to say something bad about an OL member. I wonder if that is how he wins elections in his brilliant political career in elective politics.

I get the impression that he run out of places to screw up, so he comes over here to screw up.

Michael

Michael,

Personal screw-ups, too. He has alienated me and our friendship. It is with a sad note that I say that--not glee.

-Victor

Edited January 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Victor,

you've sanctioned Michael's perpetual use of the Ad Hominem fallacy. Michael (poor soul) takes shots at me knowing full well that "my side" is kicking ass about the FMC on the other board. If I was "screwing up", why hasn't Michael provided a thorough refutation of my position? Ad hominem attacks are an admission of defeat.

You said that you think, Dragon Fly, is hostile to Objectivism. Notice how Michael leaps to his defense?

Perhaps on this issue I should give, Michael, the benefit of the doubt.

Michael, defend Dragon Fly's position and explain why my anger was misguided.

Victor, you've said I've alienated you and our friendship. I do take responsibility for what I've said. I'm sorry it happened. But, you have a very childish way of viewing things. You also have volition and need to accept responsibility. It was you - not I - that took an isolated and minor plagiarism incident and made it something far greater. I defended you on the other board. Then we found out that that was just the tip of the iceberg. You learned from that experience. I trust you'll never do it again.

Then there's your personal love life. You made a huge deal about it, that's somewhat understandable.

As a friend, I, however, took a more cautious approach. Girlfriends come and go but friendship can be for life. And, my god, at the time you both sounded a tad bit over-the-top. You hadn't (and still haven't) spent a second together in the same space. On this issue, great points were made by me and others. You both wanted the thoughts of others. Should I have lied to you? Throughout my posts I continually wished you both great success. You chose to ignore my positive thoughts because I wasn't 100% in agreement with you. I had my own thoughts which - naturally - differed from yours.

In the end, Victor, you've chosen to be stubborn and blame me. Early on I called you on the phone, you chose not to come to the phone. I extended an olive-branch even though I haven't really done anything wrong. YOU let all this nonsense get in the way of our friendship.

Who alienated whom?

Wayne Simmons

[Victor Pross]

Wayne,

Without going into a defense of myself on all the points you charge, I will focus on only one part of your post: you said you do take responsibility for what you said. THIS is a big step forward, my god. Would you please elaborate? I was under the hot light for most of the length of this post—now have a seat. Send your answer in private. Not here.

Victor

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross