Mike82ARP Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on for since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation. Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly. Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.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 commonalitiesI 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, aself-contradiction.Your comment indicates that you do not understand Christianity, but have accepted a false interpretation foisted upon O’ism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now