Yet they're perfectly okay with their members being on the free lunch program and/or food stamps after cranking out half a dozen kids because God wants them too. I guess no one taught them how to fish in Sunday school.

This is where our society is going to have to go to have success against those who monopolize power. Not unions, not socialism, but for those with common cause to use free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and equality to make a united front when we share reason.
We have access to more information individually than the Library of Alexandria, and our ability to coordinate grows virtually weekly (weekly virtually?)

Those of us seeking to change things will go out of our safety zones to find those with common cause in specific areas and help them achieve their goals, rather than letting our differences sabotage our communications.

Reach out and help those with common cause. It doesn't always have to have the "Ayn Rand" brand on it. Go find those commonalities. Share them with us, so we can help as well.

GODS HAIRY BALLS! This is the gulch, get over it.

*You* don't choose to be Christian :)

Let's not go down that rabbit hole, hehe

Interesting... the church is moochers huh?

Last I checked the Christian church teaching was "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies."

Why not? I am a Christian too. I choose to be a Christian. You don't have to buy 100% or nothing to agree with the majority of what Ayn Rand has written. I am glad to have discovered both. They work better together than Ayn might have suspected.

She was clear that the argument is used by "some."
My knowledge of the Bible is rusty at best, but don't phrases such as "render unto Caesar" advocate for Kings? and what about God's -well I'll call it weakness-where David is concerned?
The argument regarding virtuous dictators is pointed out many times in the Austrian Economic school's philosophy. Hayek states it boldly, Von Mises more veiled.

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that it is hard to interpret the Bible. As an atheist, when you say REAL Christians, there is no way for me to know who the REAL Christians are. The Christians you describe are my allies, but the majority I've met call themselves real Christians as well and are completely against both mine and your virtues. 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, 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.

God gave us free will.

I think some of the disagreement here spawns from where those of us who are Christians see the root cause of what drives our behaviors is different from what Objectivists and others see it. And I don't necessarily see problematic conflicts with that. The Bible, in this context, gives an explanation for the human condition, our tendencies, etc. If, ultimately, this or Objectivism both can point to similar observable behaviors, then I contend it's not a distinction that warrants a lot of battling if our collective goal is to promote such ideas as free enterprise, self-determination, etc. I don't believe competition in and of itself is sinful--I can find no scriptures that make this claim. As a Christian I happen to believe that if we are made in God's image, if we are wonderfully made, then we have a built-in desire to be the best at whatever talents we have, even in a fallen state. As a singer/musician, I like to use other performers as examples. Since scripture says God gives without repentance, it's not surprising that people with musical talents can be successful whether they using them to glorify God or themselves. So, I really do agree that the desire to be good at something is not evil. In fact, scripture makes a point of saying that it's pretty difficult to help others in need if we ourselves are lacking (this, of course, upsets the sensibilities of those who believe in a "vow of poverty"). So, if it happens to be my PERSONAL desire to bless others out of my successes, that is not a bad thing. That simply means that the "invisible hand" and the "visible hand" of my success benefits others. Where the fallen state actually comes into play in a bigger way, in my opinion, is the laziness--which is what gives us our looters and the socialist/communist tendencies.

"Man must try to best his neighbor? That's this writer's understanding of A) Capitalism, and B) Ayn Rand's philosophy? Some "endorsement"...

I agree that the author's claims to the depravity of man being the foundation for economics doesn't ring true to me. However, Rand falls victim to the logical fallacy which I believe is "affirmative conclusion from a negative premise". She posits that while Christians don't want a dictator because they view themselves as fallen, they DO want a dictator if they are virtuous.

Rand misinterprets fundamental Christian doctrine in her assertion that Christians want a human dictator to rule over them in either case - virtuous or fallen! The Bible is quite clear on this matter with respect to the ordination of kings . The Lord warned Israel about the effects of kings prior to the ordination of Saul. They chose nonetheless to pursue a monarchy. Kings then led to the downfall of Israel as a nation only a few hundred years later.

I will point out, however, that if she is referring to the Christianity that came from the Dark Ages, her criticisms are quite apt. It should be noted, however, that one can not simply lump in ALL Christian sects under one heading, as the doctrines of the various Christian religions differ to such a degree that attempting to categorize them all under the same dogmatic roof leaves much to be desired. From what I have read, it would be more appropriate to substitute Catholicism for Christianity when reading Rand's statements.

If she is attempting to extend the title of "dictator" and apply it to God, then I will grant her her ignorance as a shield for such a proposition. I can only hypothesize that she comes to this conclusion in order to satisfy herself that there is no God such: that if Christians long for a virtuous dictator to rule over them (God), then He would be present in person to do such and that because He is not, there is no God. She mistakenly attributes the human desire for control over others to God in the first place.

Instead, I would posit the situation thus: the reason God does NOT rule personally is because He actually respects and reveres personal choice to the point that He chooses NOT to personally rule and interfere. In fact, it is even quite plausible and reasonable that His respect of personal choice extends to the point of removing our remembrance of anything prior to this life in order not to unnecessarily bias our ability to choose our own path.

To be fair there are more logical reasons to be offended by rape than the mocking of something many people on this site consider fictional.

He was only asking. No harm in that. Everyone has their preferences. Just don't keep your hopes up lol.

I suggest that the Soviet "teaching" on religion was simply to avoid competition between the looters (Communists) and moochers (the church). Rand's atheism was the result of establishing that reason trumps belief. It had nothing to do with Soviet teaching. To "believe," one has to disregard reason, suspend rational thought. AR came to atheism rationally; the Soviets, to eliminate competition.

Don't forget Matthew 25 ... the Parable of the Talents!

There is no basic difference between REAL Christianity and Objectivism. I see Objectivism as "Christianity without the Catholic overtones and dogma".

Most Christians miss the mark when they don't understand that Jesus's ministry was basically to get the Pharisees and their concrete-bound rules and regulations out of the lives of the Hebrew people and launch them into the realm of the abstract.

If you read of the instances where Jesus remarked at the "faith" of this or that person, He is referring to folks who could abstract and extrapolate meaning from the Torah and from life itself.

When He admonished (in giving) to: "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.", He is telling the Pharisees and folks who see need amongst the Hebrew people to help one another bear great burdens...not to meet basic needs that you can work toward by yourself. Basically, He is saying "Value the Jewish People because you're all you've got!"

This thought of the "collective" overwriting the will of the individual is more of a construct of the Catholic religion than it is of the teachings of Jesus. In fact, Jesus told His followers: "I came that you might have and own your own life." ...and THAT'S Individualism.

Thanks for posting this k. I got as far as "She defends capitalism eloquently but fails to understand exactly why it works better than socialism or communism." "fails to understand" has been the second-raters method of asserting their intellectual superiority for centuries. It doesn't work but they keep on trying.