I started drinking coffee as I turned on my PC and a sign said my PC failed to turn on and that I had to click on something to get it fixed.
I clicked the something and as bars swept by I read "the computer may restart several times before it is fixed."
I'm drinking my second cup when I think, ya know, the PC really did start in the first place.
I'm on my third cup and reading a book before the screen when I'm told the fix is successful.
Not one restart was required.
I get yet another cup and begin to read a news story on my home page when my anti-virus protection gets activated. I click a "click here" to restart my PC. Virus says bye.
Then I go to the Gulch and read the article here.
Sheesh!
Well, I'm a Gulch misfit who believes in God and I'm asking--Lord, why me today?
(I'm trying to be funny. Let's not balloon the mole hill here).

I don't think I'll waste my time reading this steaming pile of -- words. I once edited and published Patrick McCray's parody of "Atlas", called "Elvis Shrugged" and was done in graphic novel form. Unlike the "Atlas and Jesus" however, it was the plot of "Atlas" with all of the characters transformed into show biz personalities. As we got letters about the story, we referred many people to the Rand work, and when we got letters from Rand advocates (they were afraid to call themselves Objectivists) some were pro praising us for our homage, and some were con, being pissed-off at our attempt. I'm not sure if A.R. would have been angered or amused, but we had a lot of fun doing it.

Am I naive to think that one can be an objectivist and a Christian? What if your life's passion is being a good Christian, pastor, caretaker, whatever. My understaning of AS is one should pursue their passion for their own satisfaction which, in my mind, can be the satisfaction garnered by helping others.

Yes you can...
Keep in mind the FULL context of that scripture. Ask yourself "Why are you "denying yourself" TODAY to follow?" Answer is in verse 25. Because you are looking out for YOURSELF and the future, and your inheritance. Rational Self Interest. This within the context means I am willing to sacrifice today for a larger reward in the future.
We do this with finances. We sacrifice today's pleasure for tomorrow's investment growth. The Ant sacrificed his immediate pleasure to store up[ food for the winter. Rational self interest. The grasshopper did not excersise rational self interest since he took his immediate pleasure then starved in the winter.

Value is an indirect principal taught in Christianity and the belief in God. It is the deviation of the principals that causes all the confusion, all the dribble about shades of grey.

Love your neighbor as yourself. "The Golden Rule." All are rational self-interest.

One old saying, "Be careful of the toes you step on today, since they may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow." Sounds like the golden rule and the Love your neighbor principal.

Rational Self Interest.

Weeping is one of the few reasonable responses to a society so woefully out of whack as this one is.

More than just shrugging, John Galt invented his own little paradise to move to. If Jesus is to be believed, then he went to his own paradise as well. Interestingly, both John Galt and Jesus laid out ground rules for us getting to their own paradises. John Galt made selective invitations. Jesus made a general invitation, but realized that most would never accept it given the terms of the agreement.

One cannot be an Objectivist and a Christian simultaneously. While you must love yourself in order to be able to love others, to be a Christian, you must deny yourself and take up your cross daily. One can agree with Ms. Rand's views on the economic message of Ms. Rand and still be a Christian, but the outcomes one comes to come from fundamentally different premises for Christians vs. Objectivists. One CAN argue, as Pascal did, that one is making a trade of sorts (more of a high stakes gamble) of giving up one's life for a potential post-life reward. We agree on the enlightened self-interest part.

If one does not put self-interest first, one has no value to oneself or to anyone else. If I don't take care of myself first, I am no good to anyone else.

I think what they have in common is a sense of value. In a society that seems divided down the middle between value and not, Objectivism has more in common with the sacrificial tendencies of the Church than the collective hoards of chaos.

Your Objectivist criteria is mine. Similarly, if I don't pay what the Church would call a "living wage" I will not retain the services and production of my labor force.

I believe the tactic is, "shoot the messenger".
That only takes one bullet.

May I pick on one item in your comment that may demonstrate the difference between Objectivism's approach and the Christian view that you bring up? "Fair wage," you mention? How do you determine a "fair wage?" By the requirements of the employee, by the requirements of his family, or by your measure of your guilt in capitalizing and profiting from the labors of your employee? That, I believe, will be the Christian formula. The Objectivist formula is much simpler and totally devoid of the guilt part - how much does one needs to be paid in order to the retain the services of the desired individual in a competitive market. A fundamental difference.

Ethics were already discussed last week.

I think Jesus should stop crying and listen to what John Galt is trying to tell him? Maybe then he could have taught for another 50 years saving the lives of millions after his sacrificial crucifixion. Dying is easy. Living well as parasites are trying to suck away your life essence due to their own emptiness, is hard. When Jesus comes again maybe he should read Atlas Shrugged before challenging the temple ands it's looting social/political influence. He might have better success at fighting evil instead of sending a message to his Kingdom to throw themselves as victims before their accusers for a better life in the resurrection. That is kind of a dumb idea.

I will repeat things I have written here, that Ayn Rand and Christianity is NOT, repeat NOT really at odds with each other as some portray.

Point for point Ayn Rand says almost 100% the same thing as many fundamental Bible Scriptures. She did not believe in God which is certainly hers or anyone choice, however the Biblical Writings are also not at odds with her either.

Let me give, in my opinion, a Perfect example.

(John 15:13) 13 No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends.

Is that altruistic? I put it to you that it is not. If I am sacrificing MY life, for the sake of MY belief and MY principal for the value I percieve, that I personally value YOU, then MY choice is to perform and act that benefits ME and makes ME feel good about what I am doing.

That sounds like rational self interest to me. Look at what Ayn Rand said in an interview about love, value and sacrifice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9... 2:00 - 6:00 minute mark.

It sounds like this is not meant to be an interpretation at all. I think it's supposed to be a rebuttal of some sort. In any event, somebody else will have to read it to fill us in. Life is too short to be wasted reading this.

Thank you, I think I'll pass on reading this book. It serious misinterprets Ayn Rand's theses. I happen to disagree with her take on Christianity, because I believe she has misinterpreted it. Yes, Christianity values voluntary self-sacrifice for the sake of another. But Christianity says "love others as you love yourself." Theologians through the ages point out that for this to apply, one must FIRST love oneself. Ayn Rand advocated self-interest first in the same manner. Enlightened self-interest does not screw over everyone else. It recognizes, for instance, that if I pay my employees a fair wage, my business is more likely to prosper, so that while helping them make ends meet, I am helping myself. I am both a Christian and a follower of Ayn Rand's. I think one can be both, if one does not misinterpret either.

Let me see: I am selfish (in Ayn Rands definition), an atheist (an outcome of my rational thought process), and very happy. Oh dear, I don’t fit this persons mental model. Please don’t call me a liberal or a conservative. I am an Objectivist, and proud to have been one for the best part of my life. My life is full of meaning.

There are so many obvious distortions I won't even bring them up. But usually, I am offended on Rand's behalf. BUt here the author brings the fight directly to me:
"I will argue, however, against her championing of self-interest and disparaging religion. Those who follow and promote such a philosophy will end up as unhappy and diminished as she ended up."
The presumption of the author to know my happiness is absurd. Obviously he knows nothing about Rand's happiness either. I often read that blatant myth that Rand died unhappy and broken-which is nonsense, but it's an interesting new twist to threaten readers and promoters of Objectivism with the same mythical fate. Ultimately, he is scared to death of sites such as this one, that successfully bring together Conservatives, Libertarians and Objectivists. I'm glad to play a role in the irony of his piece as a post in here. :)

It does make one desire something to assuage the pain of that tripe.
Thank you. :-)

yep

Non_mooching:
I need a drink and it's still morning!!
Good response.

Khalling: I hope you achieve your objective.
Your efforts are appreciated.

Thanks for that input. Sounds like you nailed it.

JC, I'm actually in a FB group with this writer, who is clearly a christian conservative. I don't think that was the tactic (unlike Salon using it three times a week!) In this group he has been exposed to Rand frequently and experiences the dissonance between his views and objectivist ones. My issue , of course, is stop spreading the bad information or outright lies about Rand. If he wanted to critique her work, that might be interesting-but overall he needed to have a little rant because he doesn't like her influence in our culture overshadowing Christianity's. that's his real beef and he should have focused on that instead of the false discrediting.