Michael,

I wouldn't necessarily say this is about forgiveness, but learning to process your emotions in a healthy way. It's perfectly possible to hold a negative opinion of someone without obsessing over it, hating, or holding a grudge. If you have to deal with someone on a continual basis, you will have to find some way of coming to terms with situations in which they wrong you. You can forgive, understand, confront or disassociate based on the merits of the case. I don't think Christianity has a monopoly on insight in this area.

If your point is building a bridge to their Christianity to try to impart moral wisdom, I think it's likely you will just confuse them. They'll go back to their Bible to try to find a scriptural basis for understanding what you told them. I would try building a bridge to their rationality instead. If you have had luck with your approach, more power to you .

Christianity is good training in patience and you do become comfortable with the idea of forgiveness. Otherwise, you'd never make it through the preacher's sermon every Sunday

Jim

That which is 'true' of Christianity has nothing to do with it, but is in spite of it - and often cloacked in it to hide it's realness of not being, in fact, Christian...

James,

I will give you a perfect example of just one good part in a Christian principle: forgiveness. (There are even other good parts, but let me dwell on just the most selfish part, since this is an Objectivist perspective.)

If you look at the visible effects of carrying bitterness in your heart about any issue, you will see that you have poisoned your own happiness. When you forgive a wrong, the bitterness goes away. An obstacle to your happiness is removed.

What's wrong with that good part? It is poison? I would claim the contrary - that the bitterness is the poison.

The conclusion I come to is that IT IS IN YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST TO FORGIVE.

The trick is to learn how to forgive without sanctioning evil and things like torture (crucifixions and other fine goodies). That's the bad part. There is a way to do the first (the good) without the second (the bad). That is why I brought up this whole discussion anyway.

Then the other trick is to point out to Christians what the good part is and what the bad part is. I think they will relate to what I just said (just as I have seen them do in personal conversations, to tell the truth). Even if you don't get them to abandon Christianity, you plant a seed of reason. That is a good thing.

But it is hard to get Objectivist people to even admit that the good part of a Christian principle exists at all, so thank you for taking this discussion seriously.

Michael

Michael,

Which part of Christianity is true? It does talk about telling the truth, avoiding theft, not killing people. I suppose those are all good things. The main things that most good Christians learn is how to feel reasonably good about themselves, how to take a reasonable interest in the welfare of other people and not do harm to others.

But it's mostly brain-fogging aphorisms, a few commandments, Sermon on the Mount and a great deal of mysticism. There's a certain part that's true, not in the content but how Christianity is practiced. Benevolence, good cheer and a certain resoluteness in approaching the world.

For the most part, the content is pure poison. I think the attempt to try to salvage the good is misguided.

Jim

Michael,

The way you get Christians thinking about philosophy is you deal with things that impact their lives. You explain why capitalism and productivity are good. You emphasize that morality includes how you approach reality as well as how you deal with other men. You explain issues like unearned guilt and why it's noble to live for yourself. All of these things are things that they can apply right now to their lives and you will make headway.

But it's not enough. Eventually you have to build a social infrastructure to replace the one they already have. If you can't do that, you have to find people who are strong enough and independent enough to stand alone. And of course you use Ayn Rand as a spokesperson to those who are receptive to her.

What you don't do is tell them how rotten Christianity is. Because from their perspective it's not. It's the source of a lot of personal value in their lives.

Jim

Jim,

I fully agree. Those cognitive bells for most people, however, are too distant to be heard. One reason I think is that the statement "it isn't true" is way too general. Some parts are true and others are not.

What I seek to do is separate the true from the untrue from the perspective of the Christian, but within the framework of Objectivism.

That seems to me like a far superior approach to convincing them than the habitual scorn and avoidance I have seen.

Also, there is the fear thing. Can you imagine what would happen to the mind of some if they thought that there actually was a good part to a Christian principle? And that's the part most people adopt, not the evil part?

They would go into meltdown and may never recover.

Michael

No MSK, that isn't all it provides. I was a church every Sunday Presbyterian until I was 18. There was even the period after I had read Atlas Shrugged and Origin of Species and before I left high school. There's the camraderie of people you know, there's the celebrations of Christmas, Easter etc. There's the terrific choral instruction you can get if you have a good choir director. In the Presbyterian Church, they even have a Great Books Series and programs like Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth for those who are intellectually inclined.

All in all, I had pretty good experience with church. There was just one teeny, tiny little hangup for me. It wasn't true and I kept having the cognitive dissonances bells going off in my head.

Jim

James,

Those are powerful reasons and I, too, have observed them. Frankly Objectivism comes up a bit short on all of them in practical terms. How and why it does is an interesting discussion in itself.

But do think that this is all Christianity provides them?

And in order to get them to start thinking more seriously about the importance of philosophy, do you think we should explain to them that there mind is nothing but a mush of entropy?

//;-)

Michael

Grey,

Forgiveness isn't sanctioning evil provided somebody recognizes what they did was wrong, makes amends, and changes their future behavior. It is also possible to live with people when you understand, without necessarily forgiving, their actions.

Jim

I was a newbie when the old SOLOHQ shut down, so perhaps you all can explian this to me. How is forgiveness sanctioning evil? I dunno about others, but my life would damn miserable and angry if I didn't forgive people who warrant the action.
______________________________________________________________________
"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one. – Thomas Paine

MSK,

Christianity hits the spot for many people because it reduces the psychological entropy in their consciousness. They no longer have to worry what will happen when they die. They no longer have to beat themselves up over past sins. They can be reassured that God is watching out for them no matter how crappy their lives are right now and they can focus on what they need to do with a reasonable amount of serenity.

Jim

Jason,

Here is the misunderstanding. It is one of perspective. I am looking through the eyes of the run-of-the-mill Christian and seeing me, you, Christianity, and the world as he does. You are presuming that because of this perspective (to try to understand what he is thinking), I am saying that I believe what that guy does.

I don't.

I imagine that this is why you keep trying to push me into the Pragmatism camp and can't see that I am talking about something else entirely.

I am not saying that the Christianity is a valid worldview in terms of fact. But there are enough elements that have been tempered by reason in it these days that it comes off as very much valid and effective to a modern-day believer.

When you talk to that person, you are going to talk to him about something that, for him, is working in his life just fine. And you are going to try to tell him that it isn't really working at all. He will listen only up to a certain point, then he will have more important things (for him) to do.

What you say might be interesting for a while, but when you tell him his morality is "invalid," doesn't work," "evil" and so forth, he will look at his own life. In terms of his values at that moment, he will see "valid," "it works," "good" and so forth, So he will simply not listen.

Of course, you are free to reject the whole Christianity thing as nonsense, which any God that needs to be flattered, talking snakes, torture (crucifixion) as a symbol of the good and so forth is.

It kind of depends on what you want out of life. If you want to study Rand only, any discussion of Christianity is a waste of time.

When I see our President, however, call a preacher to help give him guidance on when, where and how to deploy the USA military capacity, or whether or not increase taxes, or overturn the Bill of Rights, or... you get the picture, I start thinking that maybe this thing needs another approach.

Islam, also, is an issue that is growing.

What I see in the world is a coming clash - a severe one - between Christianity and Islam. Not between faith and reason. Between faith and faith. And we will still be over here, hopefully not blown to bits, arguing over whether or not the Brandens are the root of all evil and denouncing religion as something that does not "work."

Well, it "works" well enough to get people to go to war and kill each other.

The only way to fight religion is to talk to those who practice it - especially those who practice it poorly. They are the ones usually open to reason. Thank God that modern-day Christianity is diluted (pun intended). There is a chance to reach these people.

But like Nathaniel Branden said, try to convince him to change because he is rotten. See how far you will get.

I am confused by a statement of yours. You wrote, "And you go on to suggest that most people are just fine with a set of dogmas and a social structure so that they can avoid thinking about ethics and just live their day to day lives by a set of prescribed rules. Not exactly arguments that I would expect to see on a website for individualists and certainly not something that Objectivists should look to incorporate into their own lives..."

What argument? I made an observation. And I not only suggest that people are just fine with their dogmas and social structures, I am stating it quite clearly. This is based on what I see.

Have you noticed the world around you? Do you find it inconvenient or somehow stupid to look at what is going on for real, so you can figure out what to do about it? I don't. I find it to be essential to see what exists so I can evaluate.

Just because you see a problem does not mean that you want to be a part of that problem too. Why on earth would I advocate that Objectivists (1) adopt mythology as a philosophy, (2) compromise its nastier elements, and (3) incorporate this into their own lives?

Anybody who knows me knows that this is nonsense. Yet you insinuate that. Why? (Seriously, I am curious.)

Now to the last part. Objectivism is a wonderful philosophy, but it is very much incomplete. There are many areas where religion has it beat hands down simply because religion has been doing things longer. How to deal with death is one. Forgiveness and overcoming guilt is another. Plain old decency is another. I could go on, but we are still deciding on whether or no it is valid for Objectivists to discuss these things.

Michael

I'll leave Rich alone in this thread. I am of the opinion that he has earned all of the ridicule that he gets.

As far as your above statement, it is really no different then William James's view that "If the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense then it is true". His definition of "true" being that an "idea is true so long as it is profitable to our lives". In a similar manner you said : "Here is what I mean by "work." The business of living to most people is living. It is not an intellectual journey on trying to find the meaning of existence." and built your arguement from that.

Your argument on this issue is nothing but pure undiluted pragmatism. And you go on to suggest that most people are just fine with a set of dogmas and a social structure so that they can avoid thinking about ethics and just live their day to day lives by a set of perscribed rules. Not exactly arguements that I would expect to see on a website for individualists and certainly not something that Objectivists should look to incorporate into their own lives but I will carry this conversation on with you a few more rounds to make sure that I am not misunderstanding you.

- Jason

Jason,

Before going off on this, it would be a good idea to define "work." I specifically mean provide a moral and philosophical structure that allows a person to be happy and fulfilled in life. Christianity as practiced today does that.

The proof is there. All you have to do is look at the Western world and see it growing and thriving. (Don't forget that it is maintained primarily by donations. Nobody is forcing anybody to give money.)

The whole question of the parts of what I call "diluted Christianity" that work is a vast one. Why don't we stay with forgiveness for now? That happens to be one of the ideas that works that is on the table.

Also, I am not advocating pragmatism. I am advocating the analysis of why Christianity is growing and works for the majority of the Western world. That is not pragmatic. That is analysis.

About Rich, there is a very easy way to deal with him. Ask him, "what do you mean?" and then say, "I disagree" when you do. Then move on.

Just like he does.

I do not see him gathering a huge contingent of people who are influenced by his posts on any one issue. His posts are mostly entertaining. He is just another voice in the crowd. So I don't even see any detour of purpose - merely a different perspective that is admittedly non-Objectivist in parts. He certainly is not seeking converts, like others I personally have conflicted with.

Thus, I see no reason at all to try to silence him. Unless you are afraid of thinking about what he says. Posts like his are so easy to skip.

(Sorry, but I see it that way... Not trying to be offensive.)

Michael

EDIT - Jason, here is what I said about "work" on another thread that might help keep things clear:

Here is what I mean by "work." The business of living to most people is living. It is not an intellectual journey on trying to find the meaning of existence.

However, everybody has his moments. There are universal doubts and fears that come with being human. There is an urge to find some kind of structure to discipline value choices. Just because Rand asked what are values and why are they important in defining Objectivist ethics does not mean that other people do not value according to a standard (however crooked it may be). What Christianity does for many is address all these issues in an organized manner, provides a social life to boot, and leaves people with their minds free to use on their professions, hobbies, families, friends and other values.

That's what I mean by "works." On that level, it works well too, because in its diluted form taught in churches (with reason sprinkled in varying doses), people prosper and are relatively happy.

Why are they going to question that? To them, God is giving them a good life.

MSK, please answer two questions :

1. Exaclty what parts of Christianity "work"? Are you going to utilize pragmatism to make your point?

2. How is Rich Engle being feared?? As far as I can see he is getting exactly what he deserves for his hit and run, meaningless, reasonless attacks on Objectivists on their own forum.

- Jason

Linz,

You hit the crux. How can a ludicrous set of beliefs from start to finish (and frequently vicious) have so many followers? Why does it grow? Why does it satisfy so many? Why are there so many happy and fulfilled people practicing it?

Either you think mankind is both ludicrous and vicious at the core (and how's that for benevolent universe?), or you HAVE TO LOOK AT MATTERS WITH YOUR OWN EYES AND THINK WITH YOUR OWN MIND. Rand won't give you a predigested opinion here.

I am beginning to believe that this is the real fear I sense. Rand only addressed some of the written beliefs of Christianity, not the ones practiced - except for an occasional remark about the man who gives lip service to morality one day a week, common sense or vague statements about compromises.

The parts of Christianity that work (the Christianity that is practiced, not merely some of the written parts) simply slipped through the cracks.

Most of the Objectivists I have met do not know what to do with the good parts of Christianity except to snarl at them or ignore them. Push him hard to think for himself and the fear pops up.

Blank-out.

(I keep hammering on the "blank-out" term in the hopes of awakening some kind of awareness on this issue.)

On forgiveness, I agree about context. Bid Laden cannot be forgiven in my view, except maybe for something like accepting his apology, if it is sincere, before executing him - and I am against the death penalty!

But it goes deeper than context because of the wholesale rejection of the concept of forgiveness by so many. Tell most any happy Christian that forgiveness is evil and see how far you get in the conversation. Anyway, there are benefits to learning how to forgive properly (and in context). I believe they should be discussed - and yes, examples provided from Rand's literature.

(gasp... there he goes again...)

Michael

I still don't see fear, Michael. I see indifference and hostility based on the perfectly rational ground that, purely as a set of beliefs, Christianity is ludicrous from start to finish, and frequently vicious. The question is, So how come it "hits the spot" still, especially when embodied in a standard-bearer like the late Pope?

Forgiveness? Context, as always. Bin Laden et al should never be forgiven. On a personal level, I know some inveterate grudge-holders eaten away by a stubborn refusal to let go when there's no good reason *not* to let go. One can make one's point, yelling if necessary, & then wipe the slate clean if the point has been absorbed.

Linz,

I mostly agree with everything you just said except for the motive you attribute to me. (Good Lord, when will you ever read me right?)

I have very little bone to pick on the turning the other cheek affair. I have an idea on how to deal with that thing in a very positive and productive manner, but that is for later.

When I talk about fear, I am NOT referring to that affair. (OK, there was some fear shown, but I was more fascinated by the crowd psychology of "follow-the-leader" than anything else.)

I have several months of posting on the old SoloHQ way before that and observing that every time a Christian theme pops up, there is great HOSTILITY and the same old bromides get spouted (like the "forgiveness is sanctioning evil" thing. And yup, there are several other highly diluted Objectivist bromides and they are in great use on these occasions.)

If you want to see the fear in full bloom right now, look at how Rich Engle's posts are treated on the "other" forum. The ideas he covers are not discussed at all - fingers are simply pointed at him in accusation of some kind of moral despicability because he claims to have another definition for mysticism (basically, an intense subjective mental experience) that he adds to his own assimilation of Objectivism.

There is a complete and widespread lack of understanding Christianity, from what I see. Whatever happened to the "know your enemy" approach? That kind of tucks its tail between its legs and slithers off when Christianity is mentioned.

Do you see knowledge of Christianity anywhere in these discussion - even ancient Christianity - hell, even basic Biblical knowledge?

Look at what happens when you say that the Christianity practiced today needs to be studied, since it is diluted. Out come the same old bromides, many of which were once very original observations by Ayn Rand. The bromides cover the text of the Bible as it is NOT practiced today. They are spouted in righteous anger and that seems to make the spouters feel good.

However, Ayn Rand read things like the Papal Encyclical. I would wager that most posters on this site don't even know what that is.

Whenever a great deal of people are completely hostile to what they do not know at all, in my experience, the reason has been fear.

Objectivist fraidy-cats.

On the forgiveness thing, there are many sides to forgiveness that make it a virtue. Those sides are what most of today's Christians practice. I don't see them using forgiveness to sanction evil at all. I see them using it as a way to start over when the mess is so great that cleaning it up isn't worth the effort - usually so that other values can be preserved. I see them using it to get the poison out of their own emotional life. There are other productive uses. Frankly, I see it used selfishly all the time.

Now try to tell your run-of-the-mill Objectivist that.

Michael

MSK - Good on you for running with the ball. However, I disagree with you on several counts.

1) I don't think O/ists *fear* Christianity at all. Here you're simply misreading the hostility toward your cheek-turning article, which, I hope, we don't need to relitigate.

2) It's true that O/ists "bicker." Always have, always will. I'd be worried if they didn't. Are we all supposed to agree on everything?

3) Christianity is scarcely a bicker-free zone!

4) Yes, it's (re)growing. But note, it's not the milksop variants that are growing, but the oldtime hellfire & brimstone versions! Those specific beliefs are unspeakable, to be sure, but their resurgence is healthy in one respect - it indicates an exasperation with tepidness & weasel-words, a deep-seated craving to have the moral passions fuelled. Objectivism properly conveyed can and should succeed in that fuelling, with life rather than death as the standard & happiness rather than suffering as the purpose. True, this is happening on a miniscule scale at the moment, but "it's earlier than you think," as some wise person observed. In any event, the answer to Christianity must be an uncompromising "No way."

What point did you wish to make about forgiveness?

Linz

Linz,

You invited me to open a thread on why I think Christianity is winning the world against Objectivism. Then you posted this essay.

It is a pretty good essay, too. I liked it the first time out and I like it now. Still, it does not deal with Christianity per se, merely some Christians (especially top dog) and their attitudes.

I decided to wait and see what would happen as a test. I thought few would be interested. And look what happened. Hardly anybody around here showed up to talk about it.

I am starting to come to a theory that Objectivists in general are afraid of Christianity - learning about it I mean. They don't want to say anything about your article so they don't have to face the possibility of talking about Christianity. They are afraid.

I don't know what the fear is yet, but I see it. I smell it. I have interacted with it and it gets hysterical. I am thinking strongly about this and observing carefully.

The causes of this fear have to be properly identified, then maybe something can be done about it.

Meanwhile the bickering among Objectivists continues while Christianity grows.

Nah, wait a minute. That's too easy to dismiss it like that. Wanna see the fear? Forget about turning the other cheek for now.

Let's talk about FORGIVENESS and what it means other than the standard "sanction of evil" Objectivism knee-jerk, i.e., what FORGIVENESS really means to a present-day Christian and why he thinks Objectivists are out to lunch on this.

Any takers out there?

Michael

He was quite a fellow. Though I was displeased with how he handed the molestation. (Though as a former Catholic, I'd like to remind people that the Church doesn't condone molestation, and the number of incidents versus the number of parishes shows that there were realitivley few cases.)

"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one. – Thomas Paine