Obama vs Ayn Rand

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Her influence among professing Christians is absolutely Satanic. By Satanic, I do not mean overtly and self consciously promoting the advancement of the Devil’s interests. Those ideas are most evil and dangerous that are closest to the truth while still being lies. This http://atheists.org/ is not nearly as Satanic as this http://biologos.org/
2nd Corinthians 11:13-15 (ESV (which is growing on me))

The former is obvious and no real threat to the church. Those aren’t the people I’m after. It’s the smiling, beguiling servants of that false “angel of light”, bible in hand and talkin about Jesus who are the most insidious, corrosive and corrupting of all the people on earth. Theistic evolutionists aren’t the only ones. I’m just using them as one example. There’s plenty more. What’s really telling is that Rand is far closer to the atheists. She WAS an atheist and a cheap peddler of all that was opposed to the gospel and people in this modern world can claim Christ out of one side of their mouth and her godless self exalting paganism out of the other.

This is why our country is almost dead and the western world is swirling down a toilet of death, debt and debauchery. The church, who is commanded by Jesus Himself to be the exposing light and preserving salt of the earth is in shameless wanton whoredom with the world she’s supposed to be an alien ambassador to. It seems that ancient Israel hasn’t taught us much after all.

Dead, deceived, defeated, worldly, heretical “christians” are faaaaar more useful to Satan than all the Dawkins, Dennets, Harris,s and Hitchens of the world combined. Rand is one of his more clumsy weapons that does seem to have it’s uses among some of the more untutored souls with the name of Jesus on their lips. Many will grow to put away her poisons. Many will not.

Regardless of what JEATON may think? This post is NOT an attack on him as an individual.[/quote]
But by that measure almost everything in todays culture is satanic.[/quote] YOU WIN!!! LOL!!! And not just today’s. Welcome to rescue in Christ. In Adam all died and the creation along with him. THE only escape is Christ. (Unless ye be born again… ) That’s like the gospel man. Always has been. Always will be, regardless what the latest abhorrent abominable backsliding deception the visible church decides to buy next. [quote]orion wrote: What is it that makes her stand out?[/quote] She doesn’t. Just another in a parade of godless deceptions. She isn’t nearly as bad as many others. [quote]orion wrote: Her, um, influence?[/quote] She’s not really all that influential where I care about most. There are alleged Christian theologians and pastors who are far more dangerous to the church than she is. Most people with a testimony are not fooled by her.

62

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]

This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.

Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.

The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even. [/quote]

That is a strawman.

There is a direct quote from Ayn Rand where she say that if you want to give, give.

If you are forced to give at gunpoint, like in, I dont know, social security, universal healthcare, welfare programs, food stamps… that is not really you being free to give that is you being treated as a beast of burden by other people.

[/quote]
How is it a strawman? It is a quote from her novel.

63

Your life belongs to YOU and the GOOD is to live it.

Pretty terrible stuff there, eh?

If humans are to have a future as men, not at slaves or serfs, it will be a RANDIAN future. Religions will laughed at as if they were some sort of organisations for mental patients.

64

[quote]JEATON wrote:<<< Rand taught that man has the right, even the moral obligation, to live life to his own purpose. >>>[/quote]A demonic attitude and act.

If Calvin were never born the gospel would still be the gospel, however the incessant bare charge of murder is a sensationalistic oversimplification to say the very least. It’s not for this thread. If you really want to pursue it start one, but Calvin may be in hell for all I know. I also know that his theology was thoroughly biblical unlike the humanistic, self exalting idolatry of Ayn Rand. Choose man. Ya have to. Rand or Jesus. You simply cannot have both. I’m reminded of the mighty prophet Elijah the Tishbite and his proclamation to to the apostate 10 tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel.
The first book of the kings, Ch. 18, verse 21

[quote]21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word. [/quote]That was right before the fire of the Lord consumed the sacrifice the altar the stones, water and dust and Elijah executed the 450 prophets of Baal. Rand has a lot more than 450 prophets.
What is it with this pathetic miserable woman that you find so enamoring? Her thought is utterly hostile to the Word of almighty God. Pick one. I say this because I care first about His name which you blaspheme regularly around here, but also about you. Do not doubt that and since you refuse to talk to me privately I am forced to do it like this.

65

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]

This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.

Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.

The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even. [/quote]

That is a strawman.

There is a direct quote from Ayn Rand where she say that if you want to give, give.

If you are forced to give at gunpoint, like in, I dont know, social security, universal healthcare, welfare programs, food stamps… that is not really you being free to give that is you being treated as a beast of burden by other people.

[/quote]
How is it a strawman? It is a quote from her novel. [/quote]

Because, Don Quixote, your are setting up your own windmills at which to tilt.

66

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Your life belongs to YOU and the GOOD is to live it.

Pretty terrible stuff there, eh?[/quote]It is indeed. Blasphemous anti Christian humanism. Satanic to the core. It’s EXACTLY the message of the serpent to Adam and Eve. Nobody’s life belongs to them. Not even the ones with the anger rising up inside of them when they read this. That IS the essence of sin. “NOBODY owns me!! I AM my own person!!!”. That’s the way unbelievers already live. The God who owns everyTHING and everyBODY is not impressed. It’s people who claim to be Christians who promote this godless self worship that get me.

67
68

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Your life belongs to YOU and the GOOD is to live it.

Pretty terrible stuff there, eh?[/quote]It is indeed. Blasphemous anti Christian humanism. Satanic to the core. It’s EXACTLY the message of the serpent to Adam and Eve. Nobody’s life belongs to them. Not even the ones with the anger rising up inside of them when they read this. That IS the essence of sin. “NOBODY owns me!! I AM my own person!!!”. That’s the way unbelievers already live. The God who owns everyTHING and everyBODY is not impressed. It’s people who claim to be Christians who promote this godless self worship that get me.
[/quote]

But you see, Ayn Rand would call your vision satanic, or something similar on her terms.

And she could make your claim too, that the recognition of individual liberty was with us since the day of the Greek polis and that we have gone downhill since we started to no longer respect it.

Either way, I do believe that they assumption that Christianity was the end all and be all of European culture is a bit much.

69

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]

This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.

Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.

The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even. [/quote]

That is a strawman.

There is a direct quote from Ayn Rand where she say that if you want to give, give.

If you are forced to give at gunpoint, like in, I dont know, social security, universal healthcare, welfare programs, food stamps… that is not really you being free to give that is you being treated as a beast of burden by other people.

[/quote]
How is it a strawman? It is a quote from her novel. [/quote]

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

â??Playboyâ??s Interview with Ayn Rand,â?? March 1964

70

Ayn Rand is the quintessential pop’philosopher.

When a popstar is on stage, singing “I love you” or “You’re so beautiful”, every girl in the public has this strange gut feeling that the star is singing for her, looking right into her eyes.

While the star is actually gazing into space.

When Rand write about the virtues of the superior, sucessful man, every guy in the readership has this strange gut feeling she is writing about him. Like, totally.

While she is actually pontificating into emptiness.

71

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Your life belongs to YOU and the GOOD is to live it.

Pretty terrible stuff there, eh?[/quote]It is indeed. Blasphemous anti Christian humanism. Satanic to the core. It’s EXACTLY the message of the serpent to Adam and Eve. Nobody’s life belongs to them. Not even the ones with the anger rising up inside of them when they read this. That IS the essence of sin. “NOBODY owns me!! I AM my own person!!!”. That’s the way unbelievers already live. The God who owns everyTHING and everyBODY is not impressed. It’s people who claim to be Christians who promote this godless self worship that get me.
[/quote]

We are the children of God. God apparently says that if you think any differently than me, you will be punished. In other words, God creates us so that we can be puppets.

You reject the church of Rome but follow its meme.

“May the God you invented forgive you.” (Ayn Rand)

72

She did. Which is my primary point. I couldn’t really care less what she thought about anything until people attempt to marry her to Jesus. Which as the apostle so rightly said in the 6th chapter of his 2nd letter to the church at Corinth 14th verse4:

[quote]Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?[/quote] I realize a somewhat loose application of the verse (as KingKai will be sure to remind me =] ), but the principle stands.

73

[quote]kamui wrote:
Ayn Rand is the quintessential pop’philosopher.

When a popstar is on stage, singing “I love you” or “You’re so beautiful”, every girl in the public has this strange gut feeling that the star is singing for her, looking right into her eyes.

While the star is actually gazing into space.

When Rand write about the virtues of the superior, sucessful man, every guy in the readership has this strange gut feeling she is writing about him. Like, totally.

While she is actually pontificating into emptiness.

[/quote]

Nope. I didn’t feel that at all. All I ‘felt’ was a supreme intellect addressing my mind. Reading Rand leads one to question not only the morality one has accepted but THEN the motives of those propounding said morality.

Since the moral code we live by is propounded by Merchants of Death (religious authorities), then their morality is one of enslavement, selflessness, meekness…in other words, death.

74

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

She did. Which is my primary point. I couldn’t really care less what she thought about anything until people attempt to marry her to Jesus. Which as the apostle so rightly said in the 6th chapter of his 2nd letter to the church at Corinth 14th verse4:

But then your main problem is that she is too much like you and does not believe in the same things.

75

Yep.
That’s what i was saying : special snowflakes need special moral codes.

Exactly in the same way a teenage girl feel a supreme voice adressing her heart.
Hearing the popstar’s lyrics lead her to question not only the way of (un)life she has accepted but THEN the motives of the parents who taught her said way of (un)life.

[quote]
Since the moral code we live by is propounded by Merchants of Death (religious authorities), then their morality is one of enslavement, selflessness, meekness…in other words, death.[/quote]

Can’t remember where i heard these lyrics before.
It’s a cover of a Nietzsche song ?

76

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]

This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.

Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.

The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even. [/quote]

That is a strawman.

There is a direct quote from Ayn Rand where she say that if you want to give, give.

If you are forced to give at gunpoint, like in, I dont know, social security, universal healthcare, welfare programs, food stamps… that is not really you being free to give that is you being treated as a beast of burden by other people.

[/quote]
How is it a strawman? It is a quote from her novel. [/quote]

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

â??Playboyâ??s Interview with Ayn Rand,â?? March 1964
[/quote]
What does that have to do with the quote? It sets up a conflict between achieving and giving and goes so far as to claim that we are taught the latter at the expense of the former. Who was taught that? I remember growing up and being asked what I wanted to be when I grew up or being told that I needed to make something of myself.

Also, you bring up a quote about charity when the original quote it is about giving. There is a difference. The fact is that Rand would not have been in a nation that allowed her to do what she did and have what she had, if it were not for other people who gave. Giving is a fundamental part of a society. Who is expected to give their lives for their country? It isn’t everyone. Women can vote because men gave them that right. Why do some give their lives for their country, putting the greater good ahead of their own existence? Why did men give women the right to vote? Was it out of a sense of moral duty? I know the response will be that giving someone the right to vote is not the same as giving money to charity but it is in fact very similar. By giving women the right to vote, men gave up a lot of their power. They ended up sharing power, sounds somewhat like socialism to me, with another group of people. There is not much difference between giving someone money vs giving them power.

77

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Reading Rand leads one to question not only the morality one has accepted but THEN the motives of those propounding said morality.
[/quote]

Melville already did that around 100 years before her. He was far from the first to do so.

78

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]

This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.

Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.

The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even. [/quote]

That is a strawman.

There is a direct quote from Ayn Rand where she say that if you want to give, give.

If you are forced to give at gunpoint, like in, I dont know, social security, universal healthcare, welfare programs, food stamps… that is not really you being free to give that is you being treated as a beast of burden by other people.

[/quote]
How is it a strawman? It is a quote from her novel. [/quote]

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

�¢??Playboy�¢??s Interview with Ayn Rand,�¢?? March 1964
[/quote]
What does that have to do with the quote? It sets up a conflict between achieving and giving and goes so far as to claim that we are taught the latter at the expense of the former. Who was taught that? I remember growing up and being asked what I wanted to be when I grew up or being told that I needed to make something of myself.

Also, you bring up a quote about charity when the original quote it is about giving. There is a difference. The fact is that Rand would not have been in a nation that allowed her to do what she did and have what she had, if it were not for other people who gave. Giving is a fundamental part of a society. Who is expected to give their lives for their country? It isn’t everyone. Women can vote because men gave them that right. Why do some give their lives for their country, putting the greater good ahead of their own existence? Why did men give women the right to vote? Was it out of a sense of moral duty? I know the response will be that giving someone the right to vote is not the same as giving money to charity but it is in fact very similar. By giving women the right to vote, men gave up a lot of their power. They ended up sharing power, sounds somewhat like socialism to me, with another group of people. There is not much difference between giving someone money vs giving them power. [/quote]

I will be generous and assume that you made an argument.

No I wont, because I am not going to wade through muddy waters just so that you can muddy them some more to slip away.

“Giving ought to be a moral obligation for otherwise a society cannot work”.

Is that the point you want to make.

79

[quote]zecarlo wrote:<<< What does that have to do with the quote? It sets up a conflict between achieving and giving and goes so far as to claim that we are taught the latter at the expense of the former. Who was taught that? I remember growing up and being asked what I wanted to be when I grew up or being told that I needed to make something of myself.

Also, you bring up a quote about charity when the original quote it is about giving. There is a difference. The fact is that Rand would not have been in a nation that allowed her to do what she did and have what she had, if it were not for other people who gave. Giving is a fundamental part of a society. Who is expected to give their lives for their country? It isn’t everyone. Women can vote because men gave them that right. Why do some give their lives for their country, putting the greater good ahead of their own existence? Why did men give women the right to vote? Was it out of a sense of moral duty? I know the response will be that giving someone the right to vote is not the same as giving money to charity but it is in fact very similar. By giving women the right to vote, men gave up a lot of their power. They ended up sharing power, sounds somewhat like socialism to me, with another group of people. There is not much difference between giving someone money vs giving them power. [/quote]Are you sure you aren’t really Orion arguing with himself. You made some very good and some completely brain dead points in this one post. Just like I’ve been tellin him forever that he does sometimes.

80

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

She did. Which is my primary point. I couldn’t really care less what she thought about anything until people attempt to marry her to Jesus. Which as the apostle so rightly said in the 6th chapter of his 2nd letter to the church at Corinth 14th verse4:

[quote]Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?[/quote] I realize a somewhat loose application of the verse (as KingKai will be sure to remind me =] ), but the principle stands.[/quote]But then your main problem is that she is too much like you and does not believe in the same things. [/quote]I’m not sure what you mean buy this.