I read your comment wrong. I thought you were saying "those residents who did not have quantifiable production did have to be invited," while those with high production were automatically admitted.

Brief little moments of clarity in clouds of obfuscating gnat IQ.

Had to come up for air.

you are describing moral relativism, which is amoral by definition

I am, I was raised Presbyterian. Our culture is part of what defines us. You don't slough off your cultureunless it's useless. Rand was clear that there are many religious traditions which you can certainly appreciate as benevolent. After all, she toyed with adding a priest to AS. I had a great church family growing up. a great experience. It is partly why I hang out on this site and not some other O sites. Christians get property rights. give me a christian any day over a libertarian. now watch zen ding me lol

I'm not speaking of the need for a god, as I stated. As I see it, existence itself means that He has to exist. The tautological argument to First Cause may be a tautology, but to me, it is inescapable. Nothing can exist unless God Exists, for there is nothing to cause anything to come to be.

alright then. I still like you :)

I happily try to ignore the concept of god but you are bringing it up on my post! the purpose of the post was primarily to point out all of the distortions and wrong information regarding Rand. Yes, it was also noted what weekend it was. I remind you that this is an Ayn Rand site and that you will meet with lots of disagreement in discussing the existence of god. If that seems odd to you, please check a premise

Thank you, Ranter.

Apparently, I misunderstood you. Taken as wholes, Christianity, communism (a.k.a. socialism) and Objectivism, could not be more incompatible. Any comparisons of them without going down all the way to their fundamental principles is a job done incompetently, in my opinion.

I encounter here a fair number of people who maintain Christian beliefs and also claim to subscribe to the Objectivist philosophy. I think that they are torn by feeling some guilt for sensing the appeal for Objectivism, while unable to or afraid to draw the conclusions that their reason suggests. If one has been raised Christian means, I think, having been exposed to a, more or less conscious, long training in feeling guilty. I accept that there is a wide spectrum among various denominations and subsets within those. Still, I think, the claim withstands scrutiny.

Finding the "similarities", for some people, alleviates the guilt.

Have a great day!

Both Christianity and Communism require obedience, self-abnegation, a submission of self to the higher power for the greater good, whether God or the collective. Both operate psychologically on indocrinating their subjects into a sense of ther own unworthiness compared to the larger power. Both encourage self-sacrifice for the greater good. Both will hedge, or let up, on the degree demanded when they run out of victims.

Christianity, and religion in general, and Objectivism share certain ethical values, such as honesty, integrity, non-initiation of force, the work ethic, voluntary cooperation, benevolence. But the Christian willingness for self-sacrifice puts it diametrically opposite to Objectivism. Rand defined it as never sacrificing a greater value to a lesser value (a basic principle of economics as well). A mother risking her life to save her child is acting on that premise; the child is a great value to her. Even in the animal kingdom one can see such seeming alruism to preserve the young. That is not self-sacrifice but the DNA's most selfish function of preserving the next generation.

Christianity's preoccupation with self-sacrifice is rooted in the notion that because Jesus allegedly sacrificed himself and thus saved the whole human race from eternal damnation, we all should emulate him. This is a misguided and distorted version of the idea of investment, and builds this perverse narrative of a God who demands sacrifices as symbols of worshipping him.

On the continuum from sadism to masochism, you couldn't find a better implementation than what Christian beliefs, or rather its developers, have concocted. Objectively, for people to be happy, no one should be made to suffer. No one should derive benefits from the loss of another. No sacrifices need to be laid on anyone. Intelligent, self-interested collaboration can achieve a good and dynamic, life-loving world.

Short-term delay of gratification for long-term gain is not sacrifice. It is in one's long-range rational self-interest, the investment principle.

As for finding overlaps of any two thought systems or even any two apparently mutually exclusive ideas, I invented a fun game played on those lines. It is a veritable lab experiment in concept formation and rationalization. Ask for details if interested.

From what you say, it seems that using the word love in my quotation may be an imprecise translation. Be that as it may.

I have the feeling that your definition of "enemy" is different than mine. My enemies are German soldiers in WWII who shot 200 of prominent us for every one of their soldiers that resistance killed. My enemy is the Islamist who wants to blow up my business, invade my home and kill my family. I want to completely focus, on cold-bloodedly, effectively and efficiently destroying him. I do not want any emotional distraction to cause me to make a mistaken move and risk failure.

To equate your royal jackass with my enemy is nonsensical.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century.[13][14] The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 CE), as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps "translated") them as best he could."[15][Notes 1] On the surface, this has been taken to imply that Matthew's Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[16][13] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[15] The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.[17]"

After having "lived" in three languages, for years in each, I have a keen sense of uncertainty of translation. In accurate thinking, the careful and agreed upon definitions of many terms are crucial. Way too many translators take poetic liberties.

In conclusion, if your quote is authentic expression of the original Christian thought, then I have to tell you that I feel no "tender solicitude" for the enemies I mentioned. I do believe that that feeling toward enemy would be altruistic. I see nothing rationally in my self-interest to feel that way toward my enemies. Perhaps that is a glimpse of the feeling of guilt that Christianity tries to excite in people who do not obey the teachings. I do not feel that guilt. Sorry.

This is already too long. I conclude that we are talking passed each other because we have different concepts which end up described by the same words. Regrettable, but a very frequent problem. This is not a proper place to sort out the numerous details involved in the misunderstanding.

They don't even make a marshmallow peep, but they do sometimes leave behind little piles of jelly beans. :)
Happy Easter