I see your points wood. Be ok with the FACT that Objectivism does not support religion as a mystic concept. There are many dissonances you will experience following Objectivism as a Christian. That's ok. Venn diagram and all :)

You are correct save for one detail.
Cesar passes my spell checker.
But so does Caesar as in Julius Caesar and all the other Caesars..

objectivism suggests an individual involved in the creation of values should be able to exchange those values honorably with other individuals for mutual benefit without government interference or oversight.

Jesus never mentioned tithing that's man's perversion. Jesus said render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's render unto God that which is God's. God doesn't need money. Cesar represents Government and tithing is a remnent of a time when Churches filled the roll of government.

In my opinion it is eminently possible to combine objectivism and the the christian faith. I don't believe Jesus said follow me but leave your brains at home. Ayn Rand believed if an individual were self sufficient then they wouldn't want to rely on the meager pittence governments provide. The other side of that is, if you can't take care of yourself how will you be able to help others take care of themselves? The one lesson Jesus taught most purposfully overlooked by big government nany state progressives is "if you give a man a fish you feed him one meal but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime". Big government progressives are in the business of handing out fish. The beneficiaries of the taxpayers are waiting to be handed their daily fish instead of going about the selfinterested business of earning their living through productive work which is exactly what the progressives want.

That book sounds vomitous.

This is also why the Christians still hate the Gnostics. They have a hard time wrapping their heads around this other Jesus(Yeshua ben David). The Nag Hammadi Gospels are for those who wish to be rational and think. Gospel of Thomas and Phillip would work well for an Objectivtist.

Will make an ash of itself.

Aw, shucks! A-huck! A-huck!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDEkeH2x...

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.

The movie did a fantastic job of that.

I think it would count as a parody, and therefore fair use under US copyright law.

"The Wicker Man."

I agree that the bible does have many good things to offer, but here in the Midwest it is held up to fanatical standards, spreading heavy judgments between people based on its teachings, which are often misunderstood or misconstrued anyway. In my opinion it is an amazing story book with lots of great morals and excellent advice, but let's be serious, do you truly believe the bible to be 100% true? I personally do not, I simply cannot, despite years and years of study. Deep study when I was younger dabbling as I've gotten older. I have grown to see it more as an excellent piece of propaganda. I do believe in God, I have my doubt's about Jesus's existence, but I try not to question that too heavily. Let's be honest, he could have lived, but I have yet to meet him, if I ever do, I'll tell him you said hello.

Actually it was a girl and she seemed to understand my meaning. Though I think that she thought it was an original from me.

Did that student really say that?? Maybe he
meant the WATER "that's really deep man".
And he is America's future? Lord help us!

Thanks, JCLanier.

JoleneM:
While I could understand where you might be coming from and I too have differences with much of religious dogma....

However, I do not agree with your statements about the Bible. In fairness to all philosophies, I happen to think that there are works in the Bible that are brilliant and hold their own. I have never approached the reading of the Bible from a religious point of view- it can make a big difference.

No that is not altruistic and here is why.

I will go straight to the Greek word used in the passage you are referring to. Also keep in mind that the Greek had 6 different words for love, each with a very distinct meaning, unlike English where the word love means many things.

Matthew 5:43
hkousate oti erreqh agaphseiV ton plhsion sou kai mishseiV ton ecqron sou

This is the word used for love (agaphseiV )
a command for "tender solicitude" to more than one person.
Tender solicitude is a sincere care or concern, as for the well-being of another.

Psychologists will all tell you that "forgiveness" is for YOU not so much for the other person. When you harbor ill will, these feelings will eat at you making you a miserable person.

To "love" your enemy is to bear them no ill will, hence freeing yourself to focus on your own joy and happiness.

Isn't that a rational self interest? In other words "let it go." In the end this person, i.e. enemy may one day become your friend. I know I have had this happen to me personally. I had a neighbor, who was a royal jackass. While I did not associate with him, I also did not make it a point to wish him ill will. He got sick, and NOBODY came to visit. My wife and I took him some soup, and he became no longer a jackass to me, and we became friends, not best friends, but friends enough to help each other once in a while, loan tools back and forth and so on.

Keep in mind that the Bible in numerous scriptures talks about private property and YOUR rights and right to own the product of your labor. Communism again is the Abolition of Private property.

Back to your comment Love your enemy is NOT altruistic, since I am not sacrificing myself or my happiness in favor of another. I am not making myself a slave in loving my enemy in the term being used, bearing no ill-will, or having a concern for their well being.

Also here are some other Greek words for love.

Eros: Romantic love, (Wife, Husband, Girlfriend)

Agape: Empathy, care or concern, as for the well-being of another, . A·gaʹpe, however, is not without feeling but can be warm and intense, like military brothers or fraternity brothers, or club members.

Philia: a deep friendship

Ludus,: playful love

Pragma: longstanding love

Philautia: love of the self

allosaur:
You're killing me!
Serious and yet so comical.
I like your style!

Makes me weep too. Thanks.

Is "Love your enemy!" not altruistic? How is that one's rational self-interest?

The same KIND of overall contrast that you find between Christianity and communism exists also between Christianity and Objectivism. The similarities in either pair can be found by selecting some carefully chosen details. That procedure hides all the differences that are crucial. Just my opinion.
We shall have to agree to disagree.

"John Galt’s speech is long and ponderous and many an Atlas Shrugged reader has skipped over this yawn-inducing section of the book."
I liked the way she built up to the Galt speech and the Galt speech itself. I didn't find it boring in the slightest.

I hink the Limbo of the Fathers contains the 'Virtuous Pagans' celebrated in Medieval times. Yeah - that would be the place to be. (The Limbo of the Infants...not so much.)

Jan, had to look it up