Christian Objectivist

[Mike82ARP]

@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.

[Xray]

The simplest way I would put it is, people go to hell not for not believing, but for being sinners.

And you seriously think that believing in heaven and hell is compatible with Objectivism??

[Xray]

1. Belief in God is not irrational. It may not fit into a materialistic worldview, but it is not irrational.

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.

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.

One can pick and choose virtually anything from texts like the Bible, which is a hodgepodge of writings from many contributors, over a time span dating from about 500 BC. C. to about 100 AD, which makes the various 'messages' as like as chalk and cheese in many instances.

I suppose the Christians who subscribe to altruism have picked "the love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" passages.

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."

[Mike82ARP]

The simplest way I would put it is, people go to hell not for not believing, but for being sinners.

And you seriously think that believing in heaven and hell is compatible with Objectivism??

1. Belief in God is not irrational. It may not fit into a materialistic worldview, but it is not irrational.

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.

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.

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.

[Mike82ARP]

The simplest way I would put it is, people go to hell not for not believing, but for being sinners.

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.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, an Objectivist can come to Christianity, but not Christianity to Objectivism.

--Brant

a man may have contrafdictions, but not a philosophy which rends them out

[Mike82ARP]

Well, an Objectivist can come to Christianity, but not Christianity to Objectivism.

--Brant

a man may have contrafdictions, but not a philosophy which rends them out

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

[tmj]

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.

Hmm they did have money, and changers of it, don't historians/sociologist/archeologists point to money as a sign of commerce? Wealth was being created , and isn't material production beyond mere subsistence the definition of capital? So maybe they kinda did. But then in western culture christianity gained near hegemonic control of society and plunged humanity into hundreds of years of stagnation. The whole strict adherence to the scriptures thingy, or do I misunderstand history?

[We Erred Rand]

tmj:

>>>But then in western culture christianity gained near hegemonic control of society and plunged humanity into hundreds of years of stagnation.

Not only did it not "plunge humanity into hundreds of years of stagnation" (an Enlightenment-era stereotype of the so-called "Dark Ages") but it made further advance possible by (among other things) carefully preserving what it could of classical learning.

>>>The whole strict adherence to the scriptures thingy, or do I misunderstand history?

You misunderstand history.

Read:

"Inventing the Middle Ages"

Norman F. Cantor

http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Middle-Ages-Norman-Cantor/dp/0688123023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365072045&sr=1-1&keywords=inventing+the+middle+ages

and,

"The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries"

James J. Walsh

http://www.amazon.com/Thirteenth-Greatest-Centuries-James-Walsh/dp/0979660726/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365072194&sr=1-1&keywords=the+thirteenth+greatest+of+centuries

[Mike82ARP]

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.

Hmm they did have money, and changers of it, don't historians/sociologist/archeologists point to money as a sign of commerce? Wealth was being created , and isn't material production beyond mere subsistence the definition of capital? So maybe they kinda did. But then in western culture christianity gained near hegemonic control of society and plunged humanity into hundreds of years of stagnation. The whole strict adherence to the scriptures thingy, or do I misunderstand history?

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.

[BaalChatzaf]

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)

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

[tmj]

I will admit to an unscholarly generalization, assertion, but I do think it was a significant contributing factor to stagnated development. What was the "enlightenment" if not a change from dogmatic authority based knowledge, to an approach toward trying to gain knowledge on a rational basis?

[Mike82ARP]

I will admit to an unscholarly generalization, assertion, but I do think it was a significant contributing factor to stagnated development. What was the "enlightenment" if not a change from dogmatic authority based knowledge, to an approach toward trying to gain knowledge on a rational basis?

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.

[Mike82ARP]

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)

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.

[caroljane]

The reality of hell is in Scripture, yes, but so is almost everything else, and I don't know about modern theology (or ancient theology come to that). But I have heard a few sermons on it and in Anglicanism at least, my impression is that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us.

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.

Yep, that is a pretty fair description of the Anglican clergy.

[PDS]

The reality of hell is in Scripture, yes, but so is almost everything else, and I don't know about modern theology (or ancient theology come to that). But I have heard a few sermons on it and in Anglicanism at least, my impression is that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us.

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.

Yep, that is a pretty fair description of the Anglican clergy.

Apparently, Billy Graham is one of those nefarious "mystical, new age" Christians as well:

"Hell is not the most popular of preaching topics. I don't like to preach on it. But I must if I am to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We must not avoid warning of it. The most outspoken messages on hell, and the most graphic references to it, came from Jesus Himself. ...Jesus used three words to describe hell. ...The third word that He used is 'fire.' Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ...I've often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched. What a terrible fire that would be-- never to find satisfaction, joy, or fulfillment!" (A Biblical Standard For Evangelists, Billy Graham, A commentary on the 15 Affirmations made by participants at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1983, Worldwide Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 45-47)."

Sounds like the kingdom of heaven (and hell) may be within us after all.

It's also good to see that Billy believes in universal salvation as well: "I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Mike: I really think you need to take a leap of faith and start giving God a little more credit when it comes to assessing the breadth of His love.

Origen and Billy Graham have, why can't you and your brethren?

[Mike82ARP]

The reality of hell is in Scripture, yes, but so is almost everything else, and I don't know about modern theology (or ancient theology come to that). But I have heard a few sermons on it and in Anglicanism at least, my impression is that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us.

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.

Yep, that is a pretty fair description of the Anglican clergy.

Apparently, Billy Graham is one of those nefarious "mystical, new age" Christians as well:

"Hell is not the most popular of preaching topics. I don't like to preach on it. But I must if I am to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We must not avoid warning of it. The most outspoken messages on hell, and the most graphic references to it, came from Jesus Himself. ...Jesus used three words to describe hell. ...The third word that He used is 'fire.' Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ...I've often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched. What a terrible fire that would be-- never to find satisfaction, joy, or fulfillment!" (A Biblical Standard For Evangelists, Billy Graham, A commentary on the 15 Affirmations made by participants at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1983, Worldwide Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 45-47)."

Sounds like the kingdom of heaven (and hell) may be within us after all.

It's also good to see that Billy believes in universal salvation as well: "I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Mike: I really think you need to take a leap of faith and start giving God a little more credit when it comes to assessing the breadth of His love.

Origen and Billy Graham have, why can't you and your brethren?

Well, since I don’t believe in mystical powers to communicate with God directly, I have to rely on what is in his word rather then the ramblings of an individual. Even Graham isn’t sure of what the fire is. I’m not a fire and brimstone type. I didn’t bring the topic of hell up. Rev 20:10 mentions, "the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Doesn’t sound like yearning to me.

Peruse Luke 16:19-31 and let me know what you think.

Are you a universalist or just using the stolen concept for argument’s sake?

[PDS]

The reality of hell is in Scripture, yes, but so is almost everything else, and I don't know about modern theology (or ancient theology come to that). But I have heard a few sermons on it and in Anglicanism at least, my impression is that the kingdom of hell, like the kingdom of heaven, is within us.

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.

Yep, that is a pretty fair description of the Anglican clergy.

Apparently, Billy Graham is one of those nefarious "mystical, new age" Christians as well:

"Hell is not the most popular of preaching topics. I don't like to preach on it. But I must if I am to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We must not avoid warning of it. The most outspoken messages on hell, and the most graphic references to it, came from Jesus Himself. ...Jesus used three words to describe hell. ...The third word that He used is 'fire.' Jesus used this symbol over and over. This could be literal fire, as many believe. Or IT COULD BE SYMBOLIC. ...I've often thought that this fire could possibly be a burning thirst for God that is never quenched. What a terrible fire that would be-- never to find satisfaction, joy, or fulfillment!" (A Biblical Standard For Evangelists, Billy Graham, A commentary on the 15 Affirmations made by participants at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1983, Worldwide Publications, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pages 45-47)."

Sounds like the kingdom of heaven (and hell) may be within us after all.

It's also good to see that Billy believes in universal salvation as well: "I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Mike: I really think you need to take a leap of faith and start giving God a little more credit when it comes to assessing the breadth of His love.

Origen and Billy Graham have, why can't you and your brethren?

Well, since I don’t believe in mystical powers to communicate with God directly, I have to rely on what is in his word rather then the ramblings of an individual. Even Graham isn’t sure of what the fire is. I’m not a fire and brimstone type. I didn’t bring the topic of hell up. Rev 20:10 mentions, "the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Doesn’t sound like yearning to me.

Peruse Luke 16:19-31 and let me know what you think.

Are you a universalist or just using the stolen concept for argument’s sake?

I'm not sure what you mean by the stolen concept here. I thought you were being extremely witty by implying that I was using debate tactics from the Christian Playbook to try to get you to quit using that same Playbook on this thread.

It doesn't matter whether I am a universalist. The question is whether God is. But, if it mattered, and given your concession that a belief in this is not salvation-disqualifying, why would anybody not be a universalist? Especially with the testimony of Billy Graham, the early church fathers, and at least a dozen other reasons that we haven't even discussed on this thread? If the tie goes to the runner, so to speak, and this were a 50/50 proposition, why would any Christian choose to believe in a stingy view of God's love, rather than an expansive one? These are rhetorical questions here--I don't expect you to run down answers to every question I have on the topic. I confess to having read several books on this topic over the years, and having been preached the fire and brimstone stuff of nightmares while in vacation bible school as an 8 year old.

The entire reason I entered this thread was to explore with you the option that a potential reconciliation of Christianity and O'ism has to begin with a reexamination of the high hurdle of what many Christians claim to be "divine justice," and a way over that hurdle that stares every curious Christian in the face, if they would quit looking away from it.

[Xray]

You lack a fundamental understanding of scriptural interpretation.

I suppose the message is: "I want you to accept my preferred version of the many scriptural interpretations of that Biblical text passage."

[Xray]

Here, you pull a verse out of context and then build a straw man.

But giving the context weakens your case even more:

Luke 18;22 "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

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.

I'm afraid Rand would have condemned the young ruler if he sold everything he had and gave it to the poor.

Can you imagine John Galt doing that because someone promises him treasure in heaven?

If you knew the ten commandments

I know them. I'm an ex-Christian.

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.

But not to an Objectivst. On the contrary, a rich man deciding to keep his wealth (instead of giving it away to the poor to follow a guru who promises him 'treasure in heaven') would be considered as rational and therefore 'virtuous'.

[Mike82ARP]

You lack a fundamental understanding of scriptural interpretation.

I suppose the message is: "I want you to accept my preferred version of the many scriptural interpretations of that Biblical text passage ."

Yes, that is correct... After studying theology, reading the Bible and taking seminary level courses over the last 27 years, I can take that stand.

[Mike82ARP]

@PDS You make some legitimate points.

You wrote: "why would anybody not be a universalist? Especially with the testimony of Billy Graham, the early church fathers, and at least a dozen other reasons that we haven't even discussed on this thread? If the tie goes to the runner, so to speak, and this were a 50/50 proposition, why would any Christian choose to believe in a stingy view of God's love, rather than an expansive one?"

I guess my question would be, if God had universal salvation in mind, why did Jesus have to die? Being God, he could just forgive everyone.

[Mike82ARP]

Here, you pull a verse out of context and then build a straw man.

But giving the context weakens your case even more:

Luke 18;22 "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

>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.

I'm afraid Rand would have condemned the young ruler if he sold everything he had and gave it to the poor.

Can you imagine John Galt doing that because someone promises him treasure in heaven?

If you knew the ten commandments

I know them. I'm an ex-Christian.

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.

But not to an Objectivst. On the contrary, a rich man deciding to keep his wealth (instead of giving it away to the poor to follow a guru who promises him 'treasure in heaven') would be considered as rational and therefore 'virtuous'.

Jesus knew this person had no intention of joining him. He also knew that he was a mammonist. That is why he posed the questions he did, so my case is not weakened. He does this many times in the gospels.

Treasures in heaven are a wrong motivator for Christians. Those who think they are amassing treasures by being altruistic here will be disappointed.

FYI, there’s no such thing as an ex-Christian. There are Christians and there are never were’s.

[tmj]

Jesus died. If what the bible says is true, he didn't have to.

[Brant Gaede]

No such thing as an ex-Muslim . . .

--Brant

FYI