I'd prefer Jesus' freaks.

1. Objectivism opposes altruism.
2. Jumping on a grenade (to save others) is altruistic.
3. Objectivism does not oppose (and actually condones) this action

The answer is : 2
You assume that this action was altruistic, but maybe it wasn't? Maybe these two teammates were very dear to Petty Officer Monsoor ? Besides, this was his obligation as a soldier to fight and, if necessary, to die for his country. I cannot see any contradiction

"...and his calls for the obedience of wives..."

Well, he did get SOMETHING right...

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

The question is whether jumping on a grenade is ever the selfish thing to do. Under most circumstances, the answer is "no." Under others, the answer is quite different.

You're looking at it backwards.

Reminds me of the Young Ones episode where the following dialogue takes place.

BALOWSKI: Are you a virgin?
NEIL: [Panicking] No, no!
BALOWSKI: I'm not really asking, I'm just using it as a sort of general term of abuse.

For 'virgin', substitute 'altruist', and I think you'll have your answer.

Christianity obviously condones altruism. The position of Objectivism regarding altruism is not so clear...

All 3 of these statements cant be true.

1. Objectivism opposes altruism.
2. Jumping on a grenade (to save others) is altruistic.
3. Objectivism does not oppose (and actually condones) this action.

Which of these statements is false for objectivism?

... that a sound mind was operating behind all of those intelligent posts, my good buddy.

"Jeepers, Marcus, I'm staring think you've not read the Good Book..."

Of course I've read Atlas Shrugged!

I've never read the bible cover to cover. Even though I tried to do so as a teenager. I quickly discovered that only a masochist would make such an attempt.

Anyway, thanks for your insight. I was only playing devil's advocate to find out what your opinions were based upon. I must have done too good a job if you really think I have been influenced by Christian revisionists.

If you've read my review of Dawkins' God Delusion in the FR you would find that I'm staunchly atheist. I have been so for about the past twenty years.

I don't get it either. I come from an experience whereby AS blew my Christianity right out of the water. The ideals are so antagonistic that I can't see it working.
The site that you link to really stretches the sugar rug right over the Christian ideals. They reached the conclusion that Jesus was not an altruist. Ha! the bible practically throws altruism in your face from beginning to end.

They should refer to the Lexicon on God, Universe, Existence and Altruism (for doctrinal reference). They should also re review the scriptures, rather than modern Christian books, in order to obtain valid opposition for their contention that objectivism has a place in Christianity.
I really do assume they have not done this, as the masquerade is absurd.

"Christian Objectivist" is rather a paradox....like a communist who trades on the stock exchange or a Tory who believes in something

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

1. "Blessed are the poor."

You see, the poor are the fortunate ones in Jesus' estimation. So are those who pay no heed to "what they wear" and "what they eat." So are the disciples should they hold all of their property "in common." And the rich, it seems, will have a hell of time (forgive the pun) getting into heaven -- and the Rich Young Man, however virtuous he has been, had better give all of his money to the poor, if he wants to get there, etc., etc. (and pant, pant.)

Jesus thought poverty downright cool, the thing to be.

2. Jesus spoke of "eunuchs." Real physical ones -- and those who are symbolically this way "for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake," i.e., celibates. Jesus tells those "who can receive this doctrine" to receive it, echoing Paul's stated preference (and, yes, Paul's assertion is probably the older.)

3. No, Jesus specifically attacked being concerned with "what you wear" and "what you eat." He praised the "lilies of the field" and "the birds of the air" in this respect, since they "neither toil nor reap." Jesus specifically warned that piling up one's "treasures" in this world would be of no value -- that rust and moth and decay will inevitably get at such material "treasures" -- and he advised gathering our real wealth in "the Kingdom of Heaven."

So, yeah, Jesus opposed earthly and material ambition, as such.

4. Jesus told the disciples that he was giving them -- secretly -- his real teachings -- but that he spoke to the masses only in parables. He was saying that he has hidden knowledge that the unwashed hordes won't be getting. This is mysticism of the lowest sort -- not merely the observation that some things are not known.

Speaking of rank mysticism, take the famous John 3:14, in which Jesus makes a belief the sine qua non of salvation. This is epistemological blackmail.

5. The model for ideal human relations in Christianity is the slave, as Nietzsche understood: Jesus washed the disciples' feet -- he said that "the last" of this world shall be "first" in the Kingdom of Heaven -- that the virtuous man "walks the extra mile" for the Roman -- etc., etc.

6. "Do unto others" provides no substantive moral guidance whatever, does it? But does the sacrifice of Jesus -- I mean, he gave his whole life for others -- and the extolling of Jesus as the ethical paradigm to imitate ("pick up your cross and follow me"), suggest nothing "sacrificial" about his doctrine to you... I mean, even ignoring the material cited above?

7. It is no mere "symbolism" for Christ to consistently demean and belittle and even condemn all of the various "things of the body" from clothing to food to money to sex -- nor in his whole doctrine of "earth versus the kingdom of heaven"...

Priest, monks and nuns taking vows of poverty and celibacy, mortifying the flesh, and devoted to the purely "spiritual," for the last thousand years have had a sound Biblical basis for their beliefs, Marcus. These are not arbitrary inventions on their part.

Jeepers, Marcus, I'm staring think you've not read the Good Book... or, rather, that you've bought into the contemporary revisionism of "Christians" eager to rewrite its Message and make it digestible for a modern audience.

Just for fun, let me be the devil's advocate. (Just being a sophist to keep you on your toes).

Jesus...

"worshiped poverty"

How about the heavy criticism Jesus got for taking supper with a wealthy Roman and blessing him? Something he made no apologies for doing.

"advocated celibacy"

How exactly? Apart from supposedly being celibate himself, he never spoke on the subject.

"attacked earthly and material ambition"

Remember Jesus started his life as a carpenter (like his father) and joined forces with some fishermen? As far as I know, he never denounced having a career or earning a living.

"spoke of true, "hidden" knowledge"

So what? Knowledge can be both true and hidden without being irrational.

"took slavery as the model for human relationships"

When did he do that? Lots of shepards and lambs as far as I remember.

"...and altruism the moral ideal"

Remember the old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? That's not altruism.

"embraced a soul-body dualism"

Yeah, but even Rand talked of the human "spirit". Maybe it was just symbolism?
......................................

So here's my Objecti-christian joke.

Potential objecti-christians bumper stickers.

"Honk if you love reason."

"Jesus loves first-handers."

"The productive shall inherit the earth."

I was listening to the tributes to the late George Carlin, including recordings of his classic performances, and among his many pearls of wisdom was his reflection on the oxymoronic nature of the concept "jumbo shrimp."

"Christian Objectivism" is such a concept -- only there's not even a context of still smaller "shrimp" in which it is valid.

St. Paul's disdain for secular philosophy is explicit -- his reports of his own mystic visions are disturbing -- his contempt for the "love of money" is equally so -- his preference for celibacy and his calls for the obedience of wives and slaves are infamous -- his contempt for the notion that humanity might earn its salvation by its ethical conduct is the essence of his theology -- his focus on "faith, hope and charity -- but, above all, love" is world-renown -- his advocacy of selfless altruism equally so...

Jesus, too, worshiped poverty, advocated celibacy, attacked earthly and material ambition, spoke of true, "hidden" knowledge, took slavery as the model for human relationships and altruism the moral ideal -- and embraced a soul-body dualism which has left its mark on every one of the last seventeen centuries of Western thought.

I tried to come up with a joke, Linz, I really did...

It's just that a philosophy which teaches mysticism and attacks reason -- one that demands a self-abnegating "turning of the cheek" -- makes renunciation of the material world a virtue -- extolls slavery and dictatorship -- and holds the entire human race in a kind of super-charged Platonic contempt -- strikes me as the very opposite of Objectivism in every one its fundamental particulars.

ObjectivIslam. It is this great fusion of two completely incompatible idea systems. It is really exciting and "the answer"! And we behead those who do not agree with us!

Didn't The KASSless Society team up with Islam earlier this year? No need for beheadings, though—listening to their lecturers is punishment enough.

...And it came to be that Paul said unto Peter and Peter said unto Luke "Thou must check thy premises, lest ye be struck down by the hand of Dagny." And Lo! it was that all the sheep and squirrels and rabbits! and eggplants! and Belgians and fruit flies and platypi and gophers and Ye! even the loutish kiwi, did whisper unto themselves that it was unfortunate that God relied upon reason and knowledge and gave unto us Ayn Rand and Ojectivism, because He was unknowable, and they spake unto the Ass that He had seriously fucked up.

ObjectivIslam. It is this great fusion of two completely incompatible idea systems. It is really exciting and "the answer"! And we behead those who do not agree with us!

Everyone should give it a try.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

There have to be some great jokes in this. Here are some feeble ones to get the ball rolling:

"We believe in the constitutional separation of the left palm-hole from the right."

"On the third day he ascended into Galt's Gulch to sit at the right hand of John. But John said unto Jesus: 'Ye altruist/intrinsicist/mysticist/collectivist subjectivist Platonist ... fuck off!'"

That gave me a bit of a laugh... and then I felt an awful sense of pity. I read the article about what Jesus did being an act of great will in line with his values; eg ...it was an act without which, he would have had to go against his values, and therefore, even though he suffered in one sense, he dominated in another sense, by using a will so powerful that it was greater than death... Some major premises need to be checked! ...the Gospels being the original shadow of Atlas Shrugged... puleeease!

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll