Firstly, from my readings, Rand didn't think of capitalism as superior to socialism inasmuch as she thought of capitalism as the only economic system capable of being integrated with reason, individual rights and private property in a moral society. She was dismissive of Socialism since it is based on the collectivist, class-warfare principles of Marx.

In the 1960's, Nathaniel Branden, a student and associate of Rand's taught a course titled Basic Principles of Objectivism. To answer the question "What is Objectivism" he wrote as follows:

"a. that existence, reality, the external world is what it is, independent of man's consciousness, independent of anyone's knowledge, judgment, beliefs, hopes, wishes, or fears – that facts are facts, that A is A, that things are what they are;

b. that reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provides by man's senses, is fully competent to know the facts of reality;

c. that man's perception of the facts of reality must constitute the basis of his value-judgments, that as reason is his only guide to knowledge, so it is his only guide;

d. that man is an end in himself, not a means to the end of others, he must live for his own sake with the achievement of his rational self-interest as the moral purpose of his life, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself;

e. that no one has the right to seek values from others by the initiation of physical force;

f. that the politico-economic expression of these principles is laissez-capitalism, a system based on the inviolate supremacy of individual rights, in which the exclusive function of government is the protection of rights;

g. that the absence of these principles from men's minds and actions is responsible for the present state of the world." (Any errors in transcription are mine)

As can be seen, Objectivism is an individual-centric philosophy of life. Underlying capitalism is the concept of the individual's right to own property.

Marx and Engels saw history as the endless struggle of classes and all individuals solely in the light of which class they belonged to. They said as much in their Communist Manifesto i.e. "The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles." and "The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

This last sentence places Capitalism and Socialism as polar opposites not open to comparison.

Lastly, the economic expansion of the U.S. from the 1830's abolition of the Central Bank to the turn of the 20th Century would have had a huge impact on Rand as did the colossal failures of the Socialist states of the 20th Century (USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, et alia.)

Should you desire to read more of her thoughts, I would suggest Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Voice of Reason.

You might also want to try Capital: A Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx edited by Frederick Engels as a comparison to both Rand and the Austrian School of Economic Thought.

The Catholic Church does have a problem on its hands. Some of it is because of the failure of some Christians to live up to the values and standards that they claim to profess. Some of it is because of a deliberate infiltration by those wishing to destroy the Catholic Church. Regardless, the Catholic Church has not been effective at policing itself. I am not sure how widespread the problems are. They are not small, certainly, but they certainly have received more news coverage than the problems of non-Christians. This scrutiny of Christianity is acceptable. If one professes a set of values and does not live up to those values, one should expect to get to called hypocritical.

Blarman and Robbie53024 were historically accurate on the biblical statements they made.
Blarman said that God actually respects and reveres personal choice. In addition,
although unstated, the reasoning behind the warning about asking for a king (eventually Saul) in the books of Kings and of Chronicles was that the biblical God viewed earthly kings as a burden that would be too much for the Israelites to bear, which indeed proved to be the case.

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph, blarman.

Jesus made no claim that what eventually became Christianity would be clear and precise. In fact, he spoke in parables and said that many people would not be able to understand the messages contained in those parables.

The de-evolution of Christianity into hundreds of denominations was inevitable once the Catholic church lost control when the printing press was invented and people learned how to read. The Catholic Church has never said that faith should be in the absence of reason. A good summary of the Catholic view of the relationship between faith and reason can be found in St. Augustine's "Confessions".

It is hard to find REAL Christians. Those who are REAL Christians will live a non-contradictory lifestyle. By non-contradictory, I mean this in the same way that was described in Atlas Shrugged (non-hypocritical). REAL Christians will base their faith on reason and historical evidence that the one offering a trade of eternal life in exchange for acceptance of lordship is trustworthy. This is indeed a leap of faith, and acceptance of such lordship means that REAL Christians will NOT be able to fully accept Galt's oath. REAL Christians will not have asked someone Jesus to live for them, but just accept that he did so prior to their lives here on earth. However, REAL Christians will not be able to say that they have not lived their lives for another man (Jesus). On the vast majority of other points, Christians and objectivists will be in agreement, but this point will be a stumbling block for both.

Acceptance of Jesus' lordship is a burden that objectivists will say is an intolerable one. Both real and lukewarm Christians will say that they have gladly bear this burden. To distinguish the real Christians from the lukewarm ones, you can either ask them to take Galt's oath, or you can ask them who is on the throne of their lives. If they have accepted Jesus as lord in addition to savior, then they will unhesitatingly say that Jesus sits on their throne and that he has dominion over their lives. Any Christian who does not respond in this way is unworthy of respect.

REAL Christians are not lukewarm. Revelations 3:15-16 is relevant here. "I know all of your ways. You are neither hot nor cold. How I wish you were either hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth." Most churchgoers, regardless of denomination, are lukewarm nowadays, but there are some who are not and are worthy of respect even if you choose to disagree with them.

REAL Christians may engage non-Christians in debates like those here in the Gulch, but will be tolerant of those who make one of the following three possible responses to the Christian message: acceptance, rejection, or a desire to seek more information.

Regarding "so when I talk to any Christian, I have to throw a blanket statement of judgment on them until I get to know them better", this is exactly the correct approach, as khalling notes below.

For centuries the Catholic church agreed with Rozar on "This makes it extremely confusing to people who don't care to read the bible or study it for as long as it takes to gather our own interpretation." Their solution to that was to make themselves sole arbiter on biblical interpretation, which in an era prior to the printing press may have been a reasonable approach at the time that decision was made, but certainly is no longer. That has been a stumbling block for non-Catholic Christians as much as it has been for anyone in the Gulch. If one is to become a Christian, such a decision must be made individually.

To come to any individual decision on any topic, one must inform oneself thoroughly enough that one can objectively come to a conclusion as to how to proceed. This is not to say that such decisions will be ones where we know the outcome. For example, when a business owner decides to expand or shut down his/her business, he/she does so based on a critical analysis of all of the available evidence and judges that the decision that he/she makes is one that he/she can live with (i.e. the risk to reward ratio is sufficiently in one's favor). This is not to say that we will always make right decisions, but only that we are willing to live with the consequences if we are in error.

REAL Christians are worthy of respect even if one disagrees with them. They are living non-contradictory lives. They have simply made a decision that they deem to be in their best interest and are willing to live with the consequences, burdensome as they are.

As I just mentioned to someone else, I have always found it nearly impossible to convince a theist that there is no evidence for a supernatural. When you add snide remarks as above, then I again find no value in continuing.
Remember: the burden of proof is yours, not the atheist's.

It doesn't have to be clear or precise. I just prefer the guide lines to how I live my life to be that way.

I don't know much about physics, but I wonder if they could find the exact location of an electron. I wonder if it would change how people live their lives if they did.

That may very well go into my commonplace book under the top ten brilliant comments EVER.
whew!

"closed minded" is a comment people make when they have run out of rational arguments, but they want you to agree with them anyway.

No it is simple logic if you use the philosophical definition of Faith - which is the belief in something not based on logic and evidence and in which you will not alter your belief based on logic and evidence.

Blarman you are not using philosophical definitions. What you appear to mean by faith is confidence. "I have faith that I can make this free throw." Really means I have confidence based on my past experience that I can do so. Philosophically, Faith means a belief in something for which you have no logic or experience to base that on and no amount of evidence or logic will persuade you from your belief. Philosophically Reason and Faith are the exact opposite and cannot complement each other because Faith denies that Reason is a valid entomological tool.

Have you seen the "spokesmen" for atheism these days? Most can't stand on principles. I certainly would not use Lewis as an example either.

This thread was based on the point that a Christian can agree with AR. I and others have simply been trying to show that there is a necessary limit to that agreement, and partly because of the contradiction between religious faith (not the pseudo-faith you have been talking about) and reason. Of course, I never really expect to convert a Christian because that contradiction is so fundamental and that would require a total re-think of his philosophy.

Because definitions dictate so. Read AR more.
"Infallible" means can't make a mistake. But AR showed that it is certainly possible to hold rational principles without contradiction.

I've already responded in a different thread.

What I find quite puzzling is that you - a man who decries faith - is trying to tell me - a man of faith - just what faith is and how it works. You are trying to make this into a fight between atheism and Christianity and trying to claim that any belief in God isn't reasonable. You are welcome to your non-belief just as AR was welcome to hers. That being said, you are gravely mistaken on your stance that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. I can tell you without hesitation that there isn't a single principle I believe in that isn't reasonable.

If you don't believe that a person can be reasonable and believe in Christianity, I'd suggest you read C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain". What you might not know is that Lewis was a rigid atheist - before his philosophical reasoning led him to Christianity.

"Accept" as in morally accept? One has to fight it; that's what philosophy is about.

There is govt. - don't drop context.
Objectivism gives govt. a monopoly on the initiation of force. Govt. misuse of it is a different problem.

Objectivism is a philosophy that is fully rational. What would it mean to follow it blindly if one came to that conclusion on his own?
An objectivist would not likely ask such a question.

On that we agree.
The question is why? There is evidence available to tell us that. Faith is not employed - "faith" of a religious nature that blarman does not want to address.