5 Common Accusations Leveled at Christianity
Depending upon whom you ask, Christianity either withers under constant assault from a secular humanist conspiracy or flourishes as a virulent social tumor threatening intellectual and moral progress. This Friday, two leading intellectuals will take up the question of whether Christianity is “Good or Bad for Mankind.” Prolific writer, scholar, and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza will trade arguments with professor of philosophy Dr. Andrew Bernstein. The debate will take place on February 8th at the University of Texas – Austin’s Hogg Auditorium beginning at 7pm CST, sponsored by The Objective Standard and the UT Objectivism Society. It will also be broadcast live over an internet stream. [Updated: see part 1 of Walter's analysis of the debate here.]
This intellectual confrontation “is guaranteed to set a new standard on the subject” according to The Objective Standard. That promise will be fulfilled. The arguments offered will differ from previous high-profile debates regarding Christian morality. While atheists whom D’Souza has engaged before have come from a position of skepticism or secular moral relativism, Bernstein’s body of work previews a fresh approach.
Bernstein will channel Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism, which not only rejects the Christian worldview, but emphatically indicts Christianity as a profound moral evil. While that may sound familiar and evoke recollections of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or the like, Bernstein’s argument will differ in that it will not merely cite alleged evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity but drill down to the root of what makes a thing good and assert that Christianity is the opposite.
Readers who have followed my recent work at PJ Media may have noticed two things. First, that I frequently evoke the work of Ayn Rand in support of my moral and political views. Second, that I am a professing Christian eager to contend for the faith. These two aspects of my person no doubt meet with frustration, confusion, or condemnation from both Christian and Objectivist readers who perceive their respective worldviews as irreconcilable. I dare to contend that, while there are certainly profound differences in these worldviews, they are not as wholly irreconcilable as either contingent thinks.
Let’s preview some of the arguments sure to be made in Austin. Next week, we’ll respond to these points along with any others which arise and consider just how incompatible Christianity and Objectivism truly are. Here are 5 accusations sure to be leveled against Christianity by Andrew Bernstein in his debate with Dinesh D’Souza.
5) Neither God Nor Scripture Reveals Knowledge
The root from which a philosophy springs is its epistemology, the answer to how we know anything at all. The Christian worldview requires an epistemology which allows for revelation from a supernatural source. Scripture is said to be inspired by God, meaning it embodies more than the rantings of a desert nomad. Christians believe that God speaks to us through scripture, imparting a portion of his unbound knowledge for the benefit of mankind.
Objectivism, as the name suggests, regards the notion of revelation as a rejection of reality. The only way to know something according to Ayn Rand is to perceive it with your senses or deduce it from facts of reality established through observation and reason. This root idea regarding the source of knowledge informs all of Rand’s conclusions in the other branches of philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, and politics.
Christians entertaining Bernstein’s challenge to D’Souza should understand that faith and reason are defined as opposites in Objectivism. To accept an idea on faith is to concede that it defies reason, that it cannot be supported by the facts of reality, and that it carries no true moral authority.
Epistemology proves an irreconcilable difference between Christianity and Objectivism. Nevertheless, D’Souza will not need to argue epistemology in order to push back against the assertion that Christianity is a profound moral evil. We’ll explore why next week.
4) The Supernatural Does Not Exist
It follows that, if reality consists only of that which can be perceived with the senses, God or any other supernatural being is not real. Rand’s epistemology informs a metaphysics which regards the universe as simply that which exists, not a creation, but a “metaphysically given.” In the vernacular, it is what it is. Rand’s intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, elaborates in The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series:
The universe is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of the universe. . . .
Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase “outside the universe” has no referent. The universe is everything. “Outside the universe” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”: there is no “out there.”
This view of the universe places God in an untenable position. If He exists, then he is part of the universe and therefore not God by definition. So, logically, we are meant to conclude He does not exist. As with the question of epistemology, D’Souza may be tempted to get bogged down in arguing this point. However, his time will be better spent focused elsewhere.
3) Original Sin Falsely Indicts Man
We approach an area worth debate when we reflect upon the nature of man. Christianity indicts man as fallen from an original perfection in the image of God. We call this state and its subsequent behaviors sin.
The concept of sin is unceremoniously rejected by a metaphysics which denies the existence of any god we need to live up to. Rand regarded man as a noble being whose productive activity in pursuit of happiness is objectively virtuous. In fact, a Christian may find no title more abrasive among those authored by Rand than The Virtue of Selfishness which she introduces thus:
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.
Rand’s appropriation of selfishness lays the groundwork from which we can not only reconcile certain aspects of Christianity and Objectivism, but actually understand Christ better. Let that be a tease for next week’s review of the debate.
2) Christianity Proves Immoral
Rand’s ideal man, characterized in her magnum opus Atlas Shrugs, lives by a selfish creed:
I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
This oath summarizes the practical application of Rand’s objectivist philosophy. Man is a moral end unto himself, and not a means to the ends of others. Rational action proves to be the chief requirement of human life, so men must be free to act upon their own judgment and not be bound by the brute force of others. Furthermore, objective morality calls for men to act in their rational self-interest and not sacrifice their values.
This concept is ripe with potential confusion. The word “sacrifice” has a positive connotation in our culture and is often used to denote any deferment, denial, or donation which either benefits another person or contributes to a long-term investment. For instance, if a college student stays in on a Friday night in order to study for a big test on Monday, it may be said they are “sacrificing” their night out. More profoundly, if a parent gives their life in the process of saving their child’s or a solider throws himself on a grenade to save his squad, we call it a “sacrifice.” Rand bristled at such misnomers:
Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.
Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.
True sacrifice involves the trade of a greater value for a lesser one or nothing at all. When our politicians ask us to sacrifice, this is generally what they mean, not charity which serves a purpose the giver judges worthy, but giving for the sake of giving.
Thus Objectivism views Christianity as immoral since it appears to uplift sacrifice. God commanding Abraham to kill his son Isaac is frequently cited as an example of Judeo-Christian immorality, particularly egregious because no rational basis for the action is perceived. The episode serves as a test of faith, which Objectivism decries as a rejection of reason.
1) Church History Chronicles Death and Tyranny
Objectivists see the Christian affinity for sacrifice as enabling two thousand years of tyranny, slavery, and murder. From the Spanish Inquisition through the Crusades past the chattel slavery of the early American south right through the modern drive toward a global socialism, objectivists like Bernstein see the blood-soaked hands of the Church. As offensive as this may be to Christians, especially conservatives who regard themselves as champions of liberty, a certain degree of introspection remains appropriate.
Accepting that there exists some distance between the Church as a varied history of ecclesiastical institutions and biblical Christianity as a way of life, we must certainly recognize that atrocity has been justified in the name of Christ or by an appeal to alleged Christian principles. An examination of whether objective evils have been truly Christian or merely associated with Christ will have to wait for our review of the debate. Suffice it to say that objectivists and other critics of Christianity are understandably put off by Bible verses taken outside of context, and can hardly be blamed when the same error has been made by professing Christians over the centuries resulting in the atrocities cited.
Going into the debate this week, let us be content to establish that the Christian concept of sacrifice has been leveraged to promote a culture of altruism, which stands opposite the egoism which Rand argued to be man’s proper moral orientation. Again, we must combat connotation and understand that altruism is not merely caring for others and egoism is not merely caring for self. In Rand’s view, altruism is irrationally living for others at the expense of self, and egoism is living intentionally in service of rational long-term self-interest. State imposed redistribution of wealth or charity motivated by unearned guilt is altruistic. Caring for loved ones or charity in service of one’s values is not.
The preceding serves as a primer for this week’s debate between Andrew Bernstein and Dinesh D’Souza entitled “Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind.” Next week, we will review the points raised throughout the debate and begin an ongoing introspective, both critiquing Christendom and defending Christianity. We will do so by viewing Rand’s moral discoveries through the lens of the Bible. What will emerge is a Christian virtue of selfishness, what Pastor John Piper controversially calls Christian hedonism.
Continue reading: A Reason for Faith: Christianity on Trial
****
Previously from Walter Hudson at PJ Lifestyle:
There’s a common misconception about Christians, even amongst many who themselves Christians.
It is true that we our taught to be like Christ. The problem arises in the difficulty of this task with all Christians struggle, all mankind struggles. It is not difficult to be like Christ – it is impossible. And that is the point of the New Testament.
Objectivism is still a subjective, political philosophy endowed by the opinions of man. To frame this as a “debate” is a conceit. Christ was not political; I would not even call Christ philosophical. Christ’s claims are something much more. Christ claimed to be God and by definition if you are to believe Christ’s claims, everything else stems from His universal truth not subject to debate.
While interesting for the viewers and I’m sure I would tune in, Christianity is indeed a matter of faith. And that is the point of the entire New Testament too. Christ cannot be simply a good man and teacher. Christ cannot simply be a philosopher. Christ was either Lord or lunatic.
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.” ~ C.S. Lewis
When all is subjective, calling it objectivism is the same as calling a leg an arm.
There is more to truth than what can be communicated, where ever, and by whomever.
It is a cold place that post-modernists want to exile people to, because misery loves company.
These arguments are such utter tripe, they’re not even wrong!
This is what happens when people whose intellectual horisons extend only to Ayn Rand try to do philosophy.
If you want *real* philosophy, by a *real* philosopher, check out Edward Feser: edwardfeser.blogspot.com;
If you want *real* history, by a *real* historian, go to Armarium Magnum:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com
And a nice conflation of the two is found on Mike Flynn’s blog:
http://tofspot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/struth.html
Really, you think a philosophy professor at a major university hasn’t studied anything besides Ayn Rand?
“From the Spanish Inquisition through the Crusades past the chattel slavery of the early American south right through the modern drive toward a global socialism, objectivists like Bernstein see the blood-soaked hands of the Church.”
So, in essence, Objectivism is akin to liberalism: There can never be any salvation for those who belong to philosophies that did bad deeds. Except for Objectivism and liberalism, of course, where salvation is just a stone’s through away by simply saying you accept their tenets.
Sins of the father transfers to the son? I thought that the Objectivist would find such a disposition immoral?
As I said in the last thread, Walter, use Ayn Rand for her economic views ONLY. If you find that you are attracted to her and Christianity, well, I think she would be the first to tell you to “check your premises”.
Oh but Walter Hudson has checked his premises. And Rand’s too. And he found Rand’s premises wanting every time she strays from the natural moral law (which isn’t often, but when she does errs big time).
The only problem with that is that economics flows from morality. The two cannot be divorced.
“From the Spanish Inquisition through the Crusades past the chattel slavery of the early American south right through the modern drive toward a global socialism, objectivists like Bernstein see the blood-soaked hands of the Church.”
I like this one the best – and LOVE it when liberals bring it up! BOTH the Inquisition AND the Crusades sprang up from the invasion of islam into Christendom. Islam was about the ONLY thing that got all these petty principalities to stop squabbling long enough to join forces and push the bloody invaders OUT!
During the time of the Crusades, at least half the Christians in the world had no part in the Crusades or even condemned the Crusades. Most of the Christians of the world never knew there was an Inquisition until long after the fact.Americans and Europeans seem to think that Christianity equals Europe and only Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians exist. Large parts of Asia—including China and India, North Africa, and the Middle East all had then and have now Christians.
Those are so . . . feeble.
5) This is predicated on a conceit, and an utterly hypocritical one at that.
Yes, Christianity, or any other religion, is predicated on a divine first cause.
What however is Objectivism, or any other secular ideology, predicated on but an individual first cause?
Rand, like every other philosopher, phrased her beliefs as being based on “reason”, but who exactly defines what constitutes “reason”? Why Rand herself! (Or the other philosophers for their philosophies.)
So we must take the word of Objectivists that Rand was right above the word of priests that whoever wrote the Bible was right “because”.
Thanks, but your assertion that your first cause is better than my first cause because you say so utterly fails the test of . . . reason.
4) Yet another conceit.
What are “senses”?
Yes, yes, taste, touch, sight, sound, and smell.
But wait, what about emotion?
Do emotions not cause physical effects?
Are our emotions not the “sense” or empathy?
Is the “supernatural” then just the “non-physical but still natural”?
Certainly we can get diverted with the vagaries of parapsychology and cryptozoology and what not, but that is just a dodge to ignore the very real effects of feelings, which even “reason” must admit exists.
3) Not being a Christian, this is irrelevant to me.
And of course it reveals a flaw in Objectivist and other secularist objections to religion – not all religions are built on original sin, and without a key element of the objections is lost.
2) This is where the parsing of “senses” in the previous point comes to a head.
While admitting that “sacrifice” might not be “sacrifice” in an Objectivist context, there is a complete failure to recognize that “sacrifice” in a Christian or other religious context might in fact not be a “sacrifice” either.
By making various “sacrifices” for others, even if at the suggestion of an external source, a Christian or other person of faith can effect a quantifiable improvement in their personal condition, then it fully meets the Objectivist requirement of not actually being a sacrifice.
And thus again the inherent conceit – Objectivism is required to explain to “stupid” people what “sacrifices” are not really “sacrifices”, but Christianity and other faiths are prohibited from citing their first source to help explain to otherwise “stupid” people that certain “sacrifices” are not really “sacrifices”.
1) How exactly it can be “reasonable” to condemn by such collective guilt is perhaps the amusing conceit of all.
Apparently personal responsibility is irrelevant, and any group not only may be judged by the worst excesses of any of its members, but in fact must be to thoroughly discredit it.
Shall we then apply such standards to Objectivism?
Shall we consider the immorality of Rand?
What about the immorality of Randian libertarians?
Yes, let us fully and thoroughly discredit Objectivism by guilt by association, and having done so, fully discredit any standing it has to indict Christianity or other faiths.
Gee, that was easy.
Ultimately it all comes down to where I started – pointing out the absurdity of claiming your First Cause is better than everyone else’s First Cause, and dressing up that claim in the mantle of Reason.
I’m sure that impresses everyone, secular or religious, Objectivist, Christian, or otherwise, who does it. It even impressed me – when I was five.
Now? Particularly after years of working with children?
Not so much.
You’re right, but I would go a step further. Objectivism seems to claim that belief in the supernatural is irrational, but I would argue that actually, the term supernatural is even questionable. There are things that we used to consider supernatural until we understood them. What we call natural and supernatural are often merely a distinction between what we have the requisite knowledge to understand what that which we don’t.
That being said, I find that given evidence in science and philosophy, a belief in the existence of God is quite rational. To me, Christianity’s only real fault is sometimes rejecting science when oftentimes, science vindicates many Christian premises. Also, as you said, reason is ill-defined by Rand. You made some very profound points that I won’t be forgetting any time soon.
Thanks.
)
Nietzsche combined with Smith is a rather neat prescription for rebutting Rand, even without the core Western political treatises thrown in.
And of course that just addresses the surface issues with immediate refutations. Deeper analysis and rebuttal leaves those arguments crying in a corner. (Even with all my typos. I seriously need a better editor.
And I agree; having subjected it to my own “reason” and “logic” (whatever those are, but clearly they are critical – or something), I came to the same conclusion – there is sufficient functional evidence to establish that the core values of the Bible are mentally, physically, and even economically, beneficial, and with that the Divine First Cause becomes sustainable.
Christianity doesn’t reject science – certain Christians have, but Christianity doesn’t. I like to always remember that people are fallible – God isn’t. In my reading of the bible I sometimes get to the “That isn’t something you can know now,” part where I feel a lot of “scientific” questions will get answered once we reach the Pearlies and God becomes our Teacher. I can’t wait!
Not even all Christians believe in Original Sin. No one even used that concept for at least the first 400 years of Christianity.
You mean nobody referred to it as such. The fact that babies, who had no actual sins of their own, were baptized from as long as we have records for, indicates belief in the concept of Original Sin, even if it wasn’t called that.
Actually, infant baptism didn’t start to spread until the third century AD. And original sin didn’t show up until the sencond century AD.
One of the main problems with Ayn Rand’s underpinnings in a debate is the term “reason” and “rational.” It/They are largely undefined and pretty subjective.
How many people do we encounter daily–and sometimes its us, ourselevs that either can’t or won’t act in a reliably “rational” manner. Nor can IMO humankind be expected to do so.
Christians often do NOT behave as they “should” and great harm often results. So often what christians are aiming for is “asperational” (sp)
In the same way as humans are seldom “rational” so acting as if we are is kinda “irrational.”
Which pretty much defeats the purpose.
Should be a fun debate though.
After reading the article and the comments, all I can say is that both Christianity and Objectivism seem to inspire people to think some very strange things.
Amen to that … so to speak.
I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
That attitude probably explains why so few followers of Rand ever grow up and have children. Or rather why those that do almost always leave objectivism far behind.
Objectivism is a heresy just as Hilaire Belloc defined it; the Christian schema and mode of thought with potions removed and replaced with random pagan-inspired crap. Some from bona-fide hellenic sources, (that whole thing with Aristotle….) but we’ve been through and gone over that already. Anyway, the thing melded over and offered as a valid and functional philosophical system. The underlying assumption made but never articulated is the subject accepting this new mode had, or retained; essential Christian habits of mind governing thought, concept of self and obligations of morality – or else the whole steaming pile will fall apart. Just as what happened to Marxism and what we would hope, to Islamism………..
The title of Rand’s masterpiece is “Atlas Shrugged,” not “Atlas Shrugs.” Quit reading right there.
She was scheduled to write a sequel called “Atlas Runs Around Pulling Peoples Heads Off” for Amazing Stories but it fell through.
Christianity is a babe in the devilry stakes.
If you want to annoy a liberal just remind them that Hitler was a leftie too.
There’s a great illustration of that in the 1943 Nazi film “Titanic”. I’m not kidding. It was the most expensive film that they’d made to that time.
There’s a clip of it in: “Titanic Lie” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2012/04/titanic-lie.html
“The only way to know something according to Ayn Rand is to perceive it with your senses or deduce it from facts of reality established through observation and reason.”
This is an extremely simplistic notion: I was troubled by the logic of it when I finished high school, and so would anybody who takes a serious high-school level course in philosophy.
In fact, I have since discovered that Aristotle already saw the problems with this view.
“This root idea regarding the source of knowledge informs all of Rand’s conclusions in the other branches of philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, and politics.”
So much for Rand’s metaphysics, ethics, and politics.
“1) Church History Chronicles Death and Tyranny”
Disclaimer: I am agnostic myself (which is why I take Rand’s atheism to be inane).
However for me the best take on this issue is that of Rodney Stark, i.e. that, on the balance, Christianity had a positive influence on human development.
And actually Rand’s influence might also have been positive, as an introduction to libertarian ideas sensu lato.
Firstly, these sorts of debates are a joke. The sort of ‘it’s so controversial that it must attract attention’ type of thing I’d expect from reality television.
Second, D’Souza? Really? Why not somebody who is legitimate Christian apologist like Ravi Zacharias?
This is not a debate, it is an entertainment debacle, similar to another recent “debate” on Christianity held between Kirk Cameron and a pornstar. Real smart.
Rand’s “philosophy” is intellectual pornography.
Enjoy it if you will, but it is not something to be taken seriously.
I greatly enjoy “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”, but not so strangely, I don’t at all like their author’s trying to explain her own material, it is often that way with good fiction, it outpaces the author.
In my High School debate team, we called an argument that tried to tag the behavior of a belief system on actions that totally contradicted that belief system, a “Straw Man Fallacy.” The attempt to accuse Christianity of slaughters and genocide is like accusing Beethoven of violent gangsta lyrics and inspiring gang violence. It is the height of absurdity. I say this as a devotee of Ayn Rand since I was 14, original subscriber to The Objectivist and Reason mags (still have them in a box in the attic.) When I finally informed myself about Christianity, and stopped being “informed” by its adversaries, I learned it is NOTHING what they claimed it was, and everything I hoped it was. But, hey, onward through the fog, Bernstein. You actually sound a lot like Nietzsche and, well, we all know who like him and adopted his ideas. But we shall not go there.
Objectivism to me is the Atheist/Secularist/Agnostic last hope to salvage some kind of moral high ground without religion. The refrain and repeated mantra “God doesn’t exist” or “God is dead” have failed. Christianity is still here. It isn’t enough to take it down. Generations have passed since Darwin, the industrial revolution and scientific advancement. Christianity is still here. Since just wishing away God has not worked maybe Objectiviism will.
The problem for Objectivism is that it is not a compatible philosophy for a socialist/communist agenda. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar” is much easier to manipulate that masses than “not living for any man”.
Objectivism and socialism fail. Why? Because neither is true. First Objectivism fails in the face of one biological genetic fact: Family.
Socialism exploits the human family for a few on top. Objectivism rejects the whole which is worse than socialism.
Both rely on ignorance of history, The Spanish Inquisition was a political purge. Was the Church guilty of letting it happen or continue? Yes. One thing that is forgotten is that Christianity is not a NATION. As much as we like to claim it the US is NOT a Christian nation. There is no Holy Roman Empire or other country to make accountable for these supposed injustices or evils of Christianity. There are hundreds of separate sects. The closest religion to make that claim on are the Catholics. They are held accountable to the laws of nations. No longer an empire.
Abraham heard a voice. He saw angels, heavenly messengers, and was saved himself from sacrifice. So what was irrational of hearing the voice of God who demanded the life of his son? Nothing. Many forget that Isaac obeyed too in obedience and faith as well. Both knew the goodness of God. They obeyed and were blessed. The truth of that blessing was in their lives and in the generations to follow.
If men could live up to that oath or the philosophies of Objectivism and Socialism the world would be a better place. The main problem is both rest on a foundation of sand.
If you insist on believing in a flat earth, that does not represent a “failure” in the round earth theory. It merely demonstrates your resistance to facts and logic. Likewise, the continued existence of religion is in no way a failure of Objectivism. The failure is all yours.
I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
I’m struck by that statement. It is the exact opposite of Jesus Christ. From Philippians the second chapter:
Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too. You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.
You just can’t get any more opposite than that.
Did He them hide from Himself that He was not going to die at all? That this brief escapade among mortals would be as a blink of an eye to a being that does not experience time save through His own will?
Perhaps in some way this process gathered all the extant and future ‘sin’ of those who chose to believe in Him, but He made no sacrifice, because He knew He would not die.
Walter, you’re kidding yourself.
Objectivism and Christianity ARE irreconcilable!
And I do wish Conservatives would get over their love affair, with the selfish, highly disfunctional, Ayn Rand. Really, there was nothing conservative about her.
Christianity and Marxism are irreconcilable, too, but this is because Marxism and Objectivism are both gross perversions of Christianity, not that either of them is directly antithetical to Christianity like they are to each other.
Very clear writing by you, Walter, thanks for this project. Grand commenting too. So far, the number is up to 25. In a way I’m replying to all 25, but this neighborhood of comments here really impressed me.
So we have three categories: One is nothing, Two is God, and Three is the Universe of everything there is. One can’t be in Three. Can Two (God) be in Three, if Two is separate from, different from, and also the creator of Three? Well sure, all the other things is the universe are separate and different from each other too, or they’d be the same thing, and they are not.
So how is God in all the universe and yet the universe is not God? God’s power/force constantly balances every atom to prevent all from spinning apart into oblivion. ‘Wisdom’ is the first creation. Wisdom was the apprentice carpenter to the Creator. Everything that is made, seen and unseen, was made by Him, and Wisdom his helper. (see Proverbs 8:22-31 for the specialized narrow definition where Wisdom explains her essence.) New-ager psychologists are onto something true with their concepts of Intention/Attraction! I see Wisdom as master of the universe and every feedback loop and relationship there is, and connecting all of it with God. Jesus believed in his heart and said with his mouth, and miracles followed.
By God I mean Holy Spirit (power and knower of all secrets); with Son (Eternal Word who was born into God made out of human-stuff, who suffered, died, buried and eternally alive again savior Messiah); and Father God most high.
Jesus was in general a servant to all, yes, but certainly not a servant to anyone in particular. In many ways Jesus and his apostles acted toward other people as a good objectivist would- in complete obedience to his beliefs but never enslaving another. Jesus said he always does what the Father tells him to do. His teaching and works of power modeled God to men, revealing what a Father is ours. The main purpose of it all was to defeat evil and gain all the people that God loves, win them back to God for ever-increasing love while defeating every stronghold of the enemy.
In our time-frame, this is still an on-going process even though victory was made certain by Jesus’s birth, life, death on the cross, resurrection and ascension. The next time he comes to earth he adds overwhelming fire-power to his arsenal of goodness.
Rumor has it the last Pope will have the name of Peter. Watch for it. We may be living in the most interesting time of all.
Respectfully, Zorro_rides.
Ain’t much intrinsically conservative about Christianity neither, BettyBlue.
When Christianity was new the conservatives were all about conserving paganism, exposing unwanted infants, slavery, and so forth. Should today’s neo-pagans succeed in becoming the Establishment, within 100 years conservatives will again be conserving paganism, abortion, slavery, and so forth. Yet the 2 millenia old moral teachings of Christianity (at least the Catholic sort) won’t have changed
Judeo-Christianity IS conservative. You have the small government of the children of Israel, the “if he won’t work he doesn’t get to eat” ethic in the New Testament as well as the “widows who are widows indeed” aspect of charity. In other words, don’t give your hard-earned money to lazy people. Sounds pretty conservative to me. Pharaoh’s slaves only paid 20% in taxes too. God only wants 10% so He can teach us to hold on loosely to the things of this world. I think 15% for the government would be a great place to start.
In other words—quit constantly trying to shovel Objectivism at us! It’s not a conservative philosophy.
It’s the mirror image of Marxism—selfishness, as opposed to collectivsm, pushed as the highest good for humanity. But, just because it claims to be against Marxism, does not make it a viable philosophy, or remotely conservative; Conservatives are frequently religious, tradition minded and pro family; Rand was none of these things.
Sometimes, a woman hater is just a woman hater, not a brave fighter against feminist wack-jobs; sometimes a racist is just a racist, not a bold warrior against affirmative action. Sometimes a jerk is just a jerk.
And, no, objectivism isn’t compatible with Christianity.
The universe is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of the universe. . . .
Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase “outside the universe” has no referent. The universe is everything. “Outside the universe” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”: there is no “out there.”
Define Hopeless: the above comment.
Kind of makes me think of a mouse in a cage. Perhaps, a theatrical satire is in order: a mouse in a cage with another mouse. A white mouse tells a brown mouse, “I have discovered the secret to happiness. It is to realize that this is all there is.” The brown mouse answers, “I believe there is more beyond this”. White Mouse exclaims, “You fool!”
Interesting is if you follow the analogy further you would find that the Objectivist mouse is the superstitious one, believing that food simply “grows on trees”, while the brown mouse might know that food is given to it.
Um, no.
The Law of Causation does you in, ably assisted by the Law of Non-Contradiction (sometimes also called the Law of Contradiction, which seems contradictory, but I digress).
Formal logic proves a Creator who is both eternal and outside of, apart from, his creation.
Logic does not prove Christianity, of course. For that, relation is required.
I see the value in atheist. Some that I know I admire their loyalty toward one another acceptance and their love need then we they experience loss of someone they need so much from love it is devastating and betrayal the ache is beyond belief howl to the moon
They may complain the christian looks right through you and have big smiles at funeral loved ones are in nice place because they were Christians but what if professed christians have more of a make believe religion never having their faith test dwelling in the pleasures of easy life in USA ,their god is nothing more than rabits foot they rub to get something
I on the other hand hear the voice of God everyday. Still this is not good enough because an hour latter just a memory and I could not complete my missions for God when face death almost everyday unless i hear the voice of God
So those who do not hear the voice of God are they not very close to agnostics? You may have been touched by God’s love , then your faith has a more sure footing then trying to just flee sin to look good in the mirror
Yet even if you are on the broad and spacious road leading to Jesus hell just like Ayn Rand , God send the guardian angel to you in hell to remind you one day you will hear the voice of God just like I do.
next question
when you hear this voice what do you think God will say to you? Pray to hear God’s voice and you will find out
more latter to put me pieces of the puzzle together or just skip this post if it offends you but I am trying to help don’t worry to much being on this broad and spacious road leading to hell because only God can rescue you
footnote
God sends souls in the Jesus hell on missions as well as souls in purgatory by way of guardian angels and they are deprived of hearing the voice of God like i hear but the quardian angel satisfy them. How do I know this you may ask? I visit purgatory and hell every week do do the business for God. I can see the demon of doubt in your minds about this but it is true and it is ok for you to doubt my words
I don’t know who is responsible for picking the picture of Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac however who ever did has displayed a profound lack of scholarship and understanding. At the time of the event Isaac was an adult of 37 years and Abraham an old man of 137 years.
Isaac was aware of his fathers intent and could easily have overpowered him. The lessons and understanding of this event are so profound that to misrepresent them as to convey an entirely different story is a profound act of evil.
I can see in my eye faithful Isaac on the alter of sacrifice with a sweet sweet smile on his face knowing only his father have the ability to pick a wife for him so he doesn’t mind this slight hurdle figure of speech and their in vision without knowing her name he see Rebecca and his father must have so such rapture in his son’s face that it must be like God give him approval to do his business with Isaac but the angel arrive
What about 2013 in this very hour? I walk down to the holy river that flows into the great ocean where the 6th heaven has come down to the earth. And there I see how this 6th heaven in the flesh earth is given to Saint Paul the 13th apostle I believe. There was a man who would not take a wife because like Issac he waited for his father figure of speech to show him his earth Rebecca . How a saint man that has gone to heaven this of this 6th heaven earth bride is a mystery to me but it sure is beautiful in the 6th heaven on earth. Of all the places I have traveled on earth I always come home to say this is the most beauty filled place I know
then the song of Rebecca came carried by way of the power of a heathen ring nose under submission to her guardian angel
And finally I come home my fingers all red my cheeks bright red. My nose in past year look like it double in size . This must be my curse for making fun of the big nose . Not so bad maybe look better as the red leaves
footnote
from this day forward, when i arrive at the gate of the 6th earth heaven , I bow my head to Saint Paul in great honor of his sacrifice and his mission in doing the business of God’s Divine plan of the ages
Hmmm. There may be Jewish traditions which state so, however, the text itself doesn’t give us enough on which to pin exact ages. However, it’s certain that Isaac was not a child – he had to have been in his teens, at least.
However, that aside, your point about being able to overpower his father is exactly correct. The submission of the Son here is as much a part of the story as the obedience of the father (though the focus is on Abraham’s obedience).
It’s a very touching prophecy of the Son of God offering Himself up willingly, in obedience to His Father.
And from that the faith of them both, that God cannot fail to keep His promises, and so even if Isaac was burned to ashes, God would raise him from the dead so that he may beget children, in fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham many years earlier.
PJmedia conservatives have the Ayn Rand followers as allies in the main question of the free market,honest free capitalism,patriotism,though Paleo-conservatives,Libertarians are in the strong oppozition to some of the ideas.The peaceful “coexistance” of the allies must prevail.The contemporary Christianity has the main virtue-the tolerance.
The problem has never been a religion per se-as long as it is kept in the individual realm: your choices, your business.
However, as soon as religious people start going political (you need to understand the concept of politics: science to teach you how to deal with other human beings), ANY religion is bad.
Think about this:
Christians were persecuted for like 300 hundreds years, were on the victim part, yet they were determined to live and die faithfully to their principles. While you may not agree with someone else’s views, you can recognize someone else fidelity (like Amish not liking all high tech living, for instance).
However, the corruption started when it left the ethic realm and went into political arena. How to avoid it… Constantine himself converted thus creating the mix religion-politics.
My point is: given political power, you can create a bloody tyranny out of vegetarians, buddhist, soccer fans, etc… ecologism anyone?
The power corrupts you, in my view. Not your religion. I wouldn’t care about islamists if they were concentrated on living their strange principles while leaving me alone. But the line separating fidelity to your own views and political views is… usually misunderstood.
In Matthew 4:8-9 Satan offers Jesus all the power in the world and Jesus doesn’t dispute his (temporary) right to do that. All Jesus has to do is worship the devil, which is a terrific commentary on most poitics. In John 14:30 Jesus talks of the devil as the prince of the world. This supports your point that any religion which goes political is going bad. Christianity however has the Bible continually pulling it back to Jesus even though many so-called leaders of the Churches, whether Roman, Orthodox or Protestant keep trying to accept Satan’s offer.
Your point explains why so-called christian leaders persecute other Christians and other Religions instead of praying for them. It also explains why so many religions like Islam, atheism, secular humanism etc persecute christians; they also have accepted the offer and they don’t even know it.
I can’t see how Constantine was wrong to plunder the pagan temples. The pagan temples had no complaint when they were given special favors from the government and benefited from the persecution of Christians both through government-mandated sacrifices and Christian efforts to convert pagans being hampered by the persecutions, so it’s only fair that they also accept the government taking away their privileges and giving them to the Christians.
So instead of “turn the other cheek” it is “payback is a ” as a defining value of Christianity?
Are you sure you want to run with that?
Constantine wasn’t even a Christian when he did that, but yes, “You reap what you sow,” is both a Christian principle and an iron-clad law of nature. They made a deal with the devil, and when the time came, they had to pay up. If you make Caesar your master, then Caesar can do with you as he sees fit. The lesson for us is not to give politicians powers that we wouldn’t want in the hands of our worst enemies, for there may come a day when our worst enemies are in power over us, and if we destroy the rights of our enemies now, we will have no protection against them should they ever gain power.
bull***t,
Throughout human history religion and polotics have been intertwined.
Save your nonsense for someone else.
How about this: through History, most tyrants tried to justify themselves by saying they’re defending the Liberty of the people? Every commie army conquering a country always said: we have just liberated you now.
Oh dear!
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson
common misconception about Ayn Rand and objectivism: that it opposes altruism. What Objectivism is, was an answer to the irrationality of COMTEAN altruism– the philosophical belief that it was the “unselfishness” of a deed that imbued it with virtue, rather than its contents, its goal or its results. That the less good it did YOU, the more virtuous it was.
Taken to absurdist lengths, this would mean that the most virtuous deed in the universe would be a deed that not only did no good whatsoever for you, but that did the most possible harm to you and to anything you valued. Modern secular morality insists that you self-immolate for “the greater good.” Objectivism rightfully laughs at that.
Christianity holds that the greatest virtue is love, and the greatest form of love is that which denies the self for the sake of the beloved. Now, Rand could reasonably say that Jesus dying on the Cross amounted to Him paying the required price to procure something He wanted, namely, the redemption of humanity and the salvation of sinners. What she could not condone, however, are the actions of the martyrs, laying down their lives in service to the Gospel, for they loved Christ more than their own lives. It is the love, not the dying, that makes their act virtuous, for giving up one’s life apart from love is suicide, not martyrdom.
“Christianity either withers under constant assault from a secular humanist conspiracy or flourishes as a virulent social tumor threatening intellectual and moral progress.”
Few will like what I’m about to say on this particular subject of attack on Christianity.
First, let me get the bottom line out in the open. The single most thing that attacks Christianity or any religion, is individual freedom — societal freedom! Human nature and freedom eventually prove to fail a free society including its religion(s).
For an individual or society to honestly and truly live in strict accord to a religion, that religion, through its leadership, must have very strict control of the followers of that religion. Within a free society a good case in point would be that of the Amish. To maintain ‘control’ of their religion and its followers, they essentially isolated themselves and their religion from the rest of the free society. Now, over time we see more and more of the younger followers allowed to experience freedoms outside their religious controls and more and more of them are now rejecting the religions ‘control’ over their lives and experienceing the ‘fruits’ of freedom contrary to their religion.
Intellectuals can intellectualize all they want too, but the answer to the failures of religion, society and government are simply human nature being exposed to individual and societal freedoms. There would be few if any laws made by man IF all of society lived in strict accord to their religion and the laws of that religion.
Human nature + freedoms are eventually akin to water and oil.
As a side note! For myself, I measure the success of a religion by the behaviors of their followers. Those who have a deep appreciation and extend a compassionate heart and understanding to all they meet — they are members of a religion that has not failed their following and their following has not failed their religion. On the other hand, those who live in condemnation of everything and everybody around them, their religion has failed them and they’ve failed their religion. The latter is hardly living in the image of God nor Gods words!
“God’s doing the best He can. But He’s got a dirty job.”
I understand Mr. Bernstein’s POV. But call me sentimental. I can’t think of any large organization in human history that is as beautiful as the Catholic Church. IMO, it’s a grand beautiful mess. Yes, it has done some unseemly things. But today is what we have.
And think of how fortunate we are. In this debate we have a rationalist Jew debating a Christian apologist. Yet we take this for granted. We don’t draw swords and slaughter each other. It wasn’t always this easy. Christians slaughtered Jews, Muslims still slaughter both Christians and Jews. Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew or Muslim, it is possible to honor our heritage and still live a moral life – despite our religions.
I don’t believe Jesus was divine. I don’t believe that Exodus ever happened. I see no evidence for either proposition. So where does that leave both Judaism and Christianity?
Nonetheless, I love parts of what they have left behind for us. I prefer the author of Ecclesiastes to Ayn Rand. I’m in awe of the beauty of some of the writing in both the Book of Job. I love the beauty and wisdom of the Gita.
I love the Catholic Church too. Call me a sentimental old fool.
A sound self assessment. But what you choose to believe or disbelieve does not, in any way, disaffect the subjects of your focus- unless you are really Oprah or Shirley, of course.
And Pajamas Media is, supposedly, a conservative website?
“With friends like these. . . “
First, to debate meaningfully, we must define our terms;eg, “The Church”. No protestant denomination even existed when the RCC warred its crusades and papal persecutions prior to the 15th century. And since the RCC ignores much of the New Testament, which claims to be the sole source of our religious information, 2Tim.3.16-17, it, too, cannot be the church described in the NT. Acts 2 says that God adds to the church those being saved; who are, in context, those penitent, confessed believers immersed for the remission of their sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit; without Whom one cannot, Rom.8.9, belong to Christ.No catholic or protestant creed is congruent with the biblical specifications. Find, please, a religious group whose teachings are a reiteration of the NT and you will find the Church of Christ. Once man fails to “follow the pattern of sound words” or “goes beyond what is written”, he disobeys God, and ends up wrong. As the politician who votes contrary to his party’s platform is not really, say, a Boopahoovian, so the religionist who adds to or subtracts from scripture is not really a Christian.
And, without God there can be no objective morality, because one man’s delusions are as valid as anyone subjectively chooses to accept them. The very first law of logic is that “a thing is what it is”; no matter what YOU say it is.You may perceive me to be a little green man from Mars. That doesn’t make it so. Who shall dictate our morality, abortion-sodomy loving Obama, or Jesus Christ? For two consecutive elections the american people have rejected Christ and opted for obama. Do you really believe they have chosen the moral course?
“For two consecutive elections the american people have rejected Christ and opted for obama.”
That, as a personal ‘opinion’ is quite a stretch! Its that kind of irresponsible and reckless condemnation of unknown fellow man that suggests a ‘religious’ pride and arrogance. I think God, through His words in the Bible, had something to say about such!
Since when is an election for president, in the United States, about seeking ‘A’ Godly figurehead? I think the founders of our constitutions, in motive and in word, had something to say about that also. Maybe review the First Amendment to the constitution and Article II, Section 1 of the constitution for the qualifications to be elected to the office of president.
“As the politician who votes contrary to his party’s platform is not really…”
Actually, our constitutional system is one of representation of the ‘people’ and not representation of a political party. Thats why elected officials with the powers to ‘legislate’ are elected by the majority vote from individual ‘districts’ across all the states. Presidents don’t have the powers to legislate and therefore, are elected via the popular vote and electoral college system.
What I have never understood is why Terry Jones is wearing an old-style open-cockpit aviator helmet. Unless of course Biggles was Catholic. Hard to believe that given his place in pre-war English culture. As for Christianity, its opponents are post-rational on the subject. A conversation is almost impossible to have.