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.

So you use God as a wildcard, a place holder for something you don't yet know or understand. You do believe the world is not flat, don't you? Science makes inroads constantly into the unknown, pushing back the frontiers of ignorance. Not knowing something is not an excuse for inventing an imaginary thing and building an entire fantasy world around it. It's more honest simply to say, "I don't know... yet."

"Everyone, even an Objectivist, values the father or mother who would sacrifice him/herself so that their children might live."
We reject forcing or manipulating people into sacrifices they don't want to make, not the word sacrifice. You might sacrifice doing something you want to help your kids, and another time you might hire someone and sacrifice time with your kids to do something else. You might sacrifice your hobby to work on a paid project, or the other way around. It's your choice. The problem comes when someone tries to make the choice for you.

I think I've heard it, but I laughed again. Funny and true

Only two commandments. Right! Just as George Carlin said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBI...

You might exist in just one universe. I exist in two.

I thought it was a mistyping of "insane".

I agree. In that context, sacrificing myself for another is in accordance with Objectivist ideals.

Beyond making money, he is pushing an aggressive pro-God, pro-Christian message. A second-hander dishonestly besmirching another writer's work. He is pissing on what he disagrees with. He dishonors himself and attacks his notion of what Ayn Rand meant by selfishness--in a very selfish way.

Ratner, if I give up my life so my child can live I am adhering to that which I value most. Altruism requires that I sacrifice my child so that another child can live. By being altruistic I am betraying that which I value most.

That's not a sacrifice. That's an act of love, in your rational self interest, for your own happiness.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrif...

🏁🏁🏁🏁

But we exist in ONE universe...so yeah, they can contradict each other...and do.

I agree. Having chosen it, it makes "sense" for a parent to sacrifice him/herself so that the children can live, when that is the only way to continue their existence, and thereby to continue their contribution to the gene pool. Do you know any Objectivist who would condemn a father for dying to save his children from a fire?

I did NOT bring it up on the post. The post itself brought it up, in the denial of God. I have only been arguing that it is as illogical (or logical) to dismiss the existence of God as it is to affirm the existence of God. I did NOT bring up the subject. The post itself brought up the subject. The question of God is where I disagree completely with Rand. On all other points, I agree with her.

I choose reason in every aspect of reality, including in the realm of faith. To me, to be acceptable, faith must be reasonable. However, there is no possible communication between the physical universe (the universe of reason) and the spiritual universe (the universe of faith) except within an individual, or within a community of faith. Without faith, reason can say absolutely nothing about God. Therefore, reason in the absence of faith cannot contradict faith.

Reason and faith exist in two separate universes. They can never contradict each other.

Objectivism does not see parenting as a sacrifice. Your children have immense value to you. You understand being a parent is hard work but having a family is a part of your purpose if you choose it.

Because Man, understanding the dire natural consequences of sin, attempted to obviate the consequences by indulging in sacrificing as an attempt to undo the consequences. God did not demand sacrifice. God made that plain by sacrificing Himself, so that man would not need to sacrifice.

Everyone, even an Objectivist, values the father or mother who would sacrifice him/herself so that their children might live.

I am learning that such is fully conscious misinterpretation and hoping some will "awaken" to the "Socratic hemlock".

Ok, Let's do it. On your mark--Ready-Set--Run like hell!

what are you still doing on this post?! we should both leave

Lol

Is 'Jesus said' like the old 'Confucious said' jokes.