God and Ayn Rand

[newton3003]

It is by a quirk of fate, dating back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve’s eating the notorious apple, that we have the power to choose how we live our lives. We ourselves can either choose to fear God and love our neighbor, or to not fear God and love our neighbor, or to do neither of those things.

In 1957 a book came out by Ayn Rand called ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ The main theme of the book is that we have no obligation to anyone, and we are not beholden to anyone. We can choose to do whatever we want. If someone appeals to us for help, as in giving a handout, we can choose to give it or to just walk away. It is our choice, and we need only please ourselves.

It has been said that Ayn Rand rejected God and the moral obligations that come with it, such as the moral obligation to help others. But in reality, from reading ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ w cannot definitively say that she rejected God; we can only say that she rejects the yokes that are associated with God, such as the ideas of being beholden to others and living our lives by the way others may want us to live it.

She holds that the only obligation we may have is to ourselves, and in that regard, we make our own choices. So, in that vein we may CHOOSE to fear God, and in so doing we may CHOOSE to abide by God’s demands. And out of fear and love of God we may CHOOSE to be neighbors to those in need.

Those who’ve read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ see a novel made up of pure selfishness that implies a haughty dismissiveness of others. If anyone comes away believing that it’s what the novel promotes, they haven’t read the whole novel. I’ve read it. There is a scene in the novel in which the main character, whom many would deem as being selfish as such, brings a homeless person into her personal car on board her train, and she feeds him and spruces him up. She didn’t do these things because she felt any obligation to HIM, or to others, to feed him; she did them out of her own choice and out of whatever obligation she may have had to herself. In terms of God, she was a neighbor to that homeless person whether she knew it or not. Ayn Rand doesn’t speak of that character in terms of how a belief in God stands with her, so we don’t know, but the Bible tells us that God would consider it good that she helped the homeless person.

And what of those who have gone to war for us and laid down their lives? They had no obligation to go to war for us, they had a choice. They could either have chosen to sign up to go to war, or just stay home. They could either have chosen to answer the call of duty from the draft board, or they could have chosen to evade the draft. But those who did go to war for us were neighbors to us. And those who went to war and laid down their lives for us showed a greater love for us than anyone else.

You have a choice of fearing and loving God, or of denying His existence. But whatever choice you make, it has consequences.

 

[Magenta]

It is by a quirk of fate, dating back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve’s eating the notorious apple, that we have the power to choose how we live our lives.

The fruit was not identified as an apple.

As Christians, we are exhorted to bear fruit, and Christ was purposed from before the foundation of the world.

We know we are not trees, but only {metaphorical} branches, offshoots of the true vine, Jesus Christ. I believe He was the {metaphorical} tree of Life placed in the garden of Eden; He holds the keys to life and death; all life is in Him; He is author and giver of life etc, and eternal life is promised to those who surrender to and abide in Him (John 15:4-5).

The fruit we are to bear has different aspects to it. One is character building: the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Peter adds to this: make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from becoming ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately.

So our life surrendered to God, and our works through faith are fruit, and so are people who come to Christ through us (Rom 1:3; Phil 4:17), and there is also the fruit of our lips as we praise God and witness to others (Heb 13:15).

These are good fruits, partaken of when aligned with the will of God.

Evil fruits would be the result of disobeying God, defying God, following self will in opposition to God's will, severing ourselves from fellowship with Him, etc. That is the fruit Adam and Eve bore and ate (lived). They followed the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life, in turning away from God after being in fellowship with Him. It is what we all do before being regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God.

I think it will be wonderful to be restored to the garden in the new earth. Choose this day whom you will serve.Come LORD Jesus.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

And what of those who have gone to war for us and laid down their lives? They had no obligation to go to war for us, they had a choice. They could either have chosen to sign up to go to war, or just stay home. They could either have chosen to answer the call of duty from the draft board, or they could have chosen to evade the draft. But those who did go to war for us were neighbors to us. And those who went to war and laid down their lives for us showed a greater love for us than anyone else.

You made an interesting post, but I had to disagree with this part.

Since when have soldiers gone to war "for us"? They go to war because the government tells them to, and don't die on our shores fighting for us, they die on foreign shores, fighting to kill other people.

Let me qualify this with say, the American War of Independence and the American Civil War. In both of these wars, I believe it's possible that some soldiers died to protect their neighbours. But for the likes of Vietnam, and Iraq, and even World War I and World War II, the soldiers didn't die to protect their neighbours (maybe again an exception for Pearl Harbour). They were out, trying to kill the neighbours of the soldiers in other lands, and died as invaders.

And to those brave enough to say no to the government, "No, I am not scared of you, and I will not become a murderer in your evil wars", I say all the best to them. To me, these people are the true heroes, people who put their own lives at risk for the sake of conscience, morality and our freedom, who dared to say to the government "You don't own us. We serve God, not men. We will not become your hired thugs."

 

[dcontroversal]

The fruit was not identified as an apple.

As Christians, we are exhorted to bear fruit, and Christ was purposed from before the foundation of the world.

We know we are not trees, but only {metaphorical} branches, offshoots of the true vine, Jesus Christ. I believe He was the {metaphorical} tree of Life placed in the garden of Eden; He holds the keys to life and death; all life is in Him; He is author and giver of life etc, and eternal life is promised to those who surrender to and abide in Him (John 15:4-5).

The fruit we are to bear has different aspects to it. One is character building: the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Peter adds to this: make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from becoming ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately.

So our life surrendered to God, and our works through faith are fruit, and so are people who come to Christ through us (Rom 1:3; Phil 4:17), and there is also the fruit of our lips as we praise God and witness to others (Heb 13:15).

These are good fruits, partaken of when aligned with the will of God.

Evil fruits would be the result of disobeying God, defying God, following self will in opposition to God's will, severing ourselves from fellowship with Him, etc. That is the fruit Adam and Eve bore and ate (lived). They followed the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life, in turning away from God after being in fellowship with Him. It is what we all do before being regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God.

I think it will be wonderful to be restored to the garden in the new earth. Choose this day whom you will serve.Come LORD Jesus.

When I start reading a thread and in the first line I see error or supposition that is not found in scripture.....I quit reading..........error begats error

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

When I start reading a thread and in the first line I see error or supposition that is not found in scripture.....I quit reading..........error begats error

You think the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was an apple? Or I missed something...?

 

[PennEd]

It is by a quirk of fate, dating back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve’s eating the notorious apple, that we have the power to choose how we live our lives. We ourselves can either choose to fear God and love our neighbor, or to not fear God and love our neighbor, or to do neither of those things.

In 1957 a book came out by Ayn Rand called ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ The main theme of the book is that we have no obligation to anyone, and we are not beholden to anyone. We can choose to do whatever we want. If someone appeals to us for help, as in giving a handout, we can choose to give it or to just walk away. It is our choice, and we need only please ourselves.

It has been said that Ayn Rand rejected God and the moral obligations that come with it, such as the moral obligation to help others. But in reality, from reading ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ w cannot definitively say that she rejected God; we can only say that she rejects the yokes that are associated with God, such as the ideas of being beholden to others and living our lives by the way others may want us to live it.

She holds that the only obligation we may have is to ourselves, and in that regard, we make our own choices. So, in that vein we may CHOOSE to fear God, and in so doing we may CHOOSE to abide by God’s demands. And out of fear and love of God we may CHOOSE to be neighbors to those in need.

Those who’ve read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ see a novel made up of pure selfishness that implies a haughty dismissiveness of others. If anyone comes away believing that it’s what the novel promotes, they haven’t read the whole novel. I’ve read it. There is a scene in the novel in which the main character, whom many would deem as being selfish as such, brings a homeless person into her personal car on board her train, and she feeds him and spruces him up. She didn’t do these things because she felt any obligation to HIM, or to others, to feed him; she did them out of her own choice and out of whatever obligation she may have had to herself. In terms of God, she was a neighbor to that homeless person whether she knew it or not. Ayn Rand doesn’t speak of that character in terms of how a belief in God stands with her, so we don’t know, but the Bible tells us that God would consider it good that she helped the homeless person.

And what of those who have gone to war for us and laid down their lives? They had no obligation to go to war for us, they had a choice. They could either have chosen to sign up to go to war, or just stay home. They could either have chosen to answer the call of duty from the draft board, or they could have chosen to evade the draft. But those who did go to war for us were neighbors to us. And those who went to war and laid down their lives for us showed a greater love for us than anyone else.

You have a choice of fearing and loving God, or of denying His existence. But whatever choice you make, it has consequences.

Ayn Rand did a brilliant job exposing PART of man's corrupt nature in the dangers of succumbing to government control, and welfare, and especially a lack of competition. Atlas Shrugged completely destroys and exposes the evils of socialism and communism.

Where Rand utterly fails, is in understanding that man's total heart is desperately wicked and corruptible, and that only God can remove that heart and give a new, GOD centered, loving heart. History has proven many times over that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So maybe in small, sporadic ways gestures of kindness will manifest in Rand's world, but overwhelmingly, without the moral compass of God, the strong will ALWAYS oppress and destroy the weak.

In the book Rand elevates man as the pinnacle, to be almost worshiped. Make no mistake, Ayn Rand was a rabid atheist that had a true disdain for God and those that believe in Him. She absolutely rejected Him, and therefore the great work she did exposing the evils of Socialism, and Communism is marred IMO.

 

[dcontroversal]

You think the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was an apple? Or I missed something...?

No.....I do not believe it was an apple........NO ONE can accurately say exactly what type of fruit it was......My view is that the fruit was irrelevant.....it was the act of eating from a tree they were told not to eat from.....what type of fruit it was is irrelevant.....but for sure do not believe it was an apple

And by the way....it was the TREE of the knowledge of Good and EVIL......that HAD fruit on it........

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

No.....I do not believe it was an apple........NO ONE can accurately say exactly what type of fruit it was......My view is that the fruit was irrelevant.....it was the act of eating from a tree they were told not to eat from.....what type of fruit it was is irrelevant.....but for sure do not believe it was an apple

And by the way....it was the TREE of the knowledge of Good and EVIL......that HAD fruit on it........

Well, if it was doing what God told it to do, it should have been producing fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil, right? As apple trees produce apples, and pear trees produce pears, and orange trees produce oranges, each according to its kind, the knowledge of good 'n' evil trees would likewise produce fruit of the knowledge of good 'n' evil, right? You already said you don't believe it was an apple...

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

In the book Rand elevates man as the pinnacle, to be almost worshiped. Make no mistake, Ayn Rand was a rabid atheist that had a true disdain for God and those that believe in Him. She absolutely rejected Him, and therefore the great work she did exposing the evils of Socialism, and Communism is marred IMO.

Well said. She's not an atheist anymore, by the way. As of 6 March 1982 by my reckoning, she started believing in God. Too late, sadly.

 

[newton3003]

Well said. She's not an atheist anymore, by the way. As of 6 March 1982 by my reckoning, she started believing in God. Too late, sadly.

Too late?

It wasn't too late for the condemned criminal on the cross next to Jesus to accept God. After he did so, Jesus in Luke 23:43 says to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

If it wasn't too late for the condemned criminal, it wasn't too late for Ms. Rand.

 

[RickyZ]

You made an interesting post, but I had to disagree with this part.

Since when have soldiers gone to war "for us"? They go to war because the government tells them to, and don't die on our shores fighting for us, they die on foreign shores, fighting to kill other people.

Let me qualify this with say, the American War of Independence and the American Civil War. In both of these wars, I believe it's possible that some soldiers died to protect their neighbours. But for the likes of Vietnam, and Iraq, and even World War I and World War II, the soldiers didn't die to protect their neighbours (maybe again an exception for Pearl Harbour). They were out, trying to kill the neighbours of the soldiers in other lands, and died as invaders.

And to those brave enough to say no to the government, "No, I am not scared of you, and I will not become a murderer in your evil wars", I say all the best to them. To me, these people are the true heroes, people who put their own lives at risk for the sake of conscience, morality and our freedom, who dared to say to the government "You don't own us. We serve God, not men. We will not become your hired thugs."

Well, it's only a matter of time before someone jumps all over this.

But I think you're right. Soldiers in Afghanistan/Iraq/wherever aren't fighting for the US. They are fighting for whatever country our leaders have sent them to. NOT to disparage soldiers, God bless them all for taking on this duty. But to claim they are defending the US ... in most every case, that is NOT the case.

That is why we should not send soldiers to ANY country, until that country agrees to pay for their after-war care.

 

[Nehemiah6]

In the book Rand elevates man as the pinnacle, to be almost worshiped. Make no mistake, Ayn Rand was a rabid atheist that had a true disdain for God and those that believe in Him. She absolutely rejected Him, and therefore the great work she did exposing the evils of Socialism, and Communism is marred IMO.

Correct. Whether it is Nazism or Communism or just plain Atheism, they all make man (or the State, which is also man-made) into a god, which is idolatry. This was the primary temptation presented to Eve -- "ye shall be as gods".

And no, that fruit was definitely not an apple. Apples are considered good by God, and He uses the metaphor "the apple of his eye" for His people.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Since when have soldiers gone to war "for us"? They go to war because the government tells them to, and don't die on our shores fighting for us, they die on foreign shores, fighting to kill other people

That is only half the story (or one-quarter of the story). The reason the soldiers were sent in the first place was to prevent evil men from taking control of the free world (initially). But after WWII, the free world handed over Easter Europe to evil men, who enslaved millions, and slaughtered millions. So much for fighting for life and liberty.

With respect to Viet Nam, it was a losing war to begin with, because it was asymmetrical warfare (just like Islamic Jihad today ) with guerillas fighting regular soldiers. As to the Koreas, North Korea should not have been allowed to exist. And the Cold War never ended. It was simply the West which chose to be blind to that reality, and continues to be blind to Russia's ambitions.

 

[posthuman]

Too late?

It wasn't too late for the condemned criminal on the cross next to Jesus to accept God. After he did so, Jesus in Luke 23:43 says to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

If it wasn't too late for the condemned criminal, it wasn't too late for Ms. Rand.

she died on March 6 1982.

what he means is, now that she is dead, the lies she preached are revealed to her as lies. there was no indication she ever recanted her atheism during her life.

 

[posthuman]

In the book Rand elevates man as the pinnacle, to be almost worshiped. Make no mistake, Ayn Rand was a rabid atheist that had a true disdain for God and those that believe in Him. She absolutely rejected Him, and therefore the great work she did exposing the evils of Socialism, and Communism is marred IMO.

i dunno man. her argument was essentially humanistic & false: that socialization of wealth is tantamount to altruism, and that altruism never works, and is evil because it deprives the individual human from benefits of ownership.
but the scriptures tells us we do not own anything: it is all Gods, and we are sojourners and aliens living on His lands and borrowing His things. and the scriptures instruct us without doubt that we should be altruistic.

so if what she called 'evil' about socialism & communism are things the Bible calls good, how can i agree that she 'exposed their evils' ? it was all based on vain, self-worshiping premises.
she said herself "check your premises" -- but having rejected God, she was unable to carry out her own advice.

 

[newton3003]

i dunno man. her argument was essentially humanistic & false: that socialization of wealth is tantamount to altruism, and that altruism never works, and is evil because it deprives the individual human from benefits of ownership.

But to whom was she speaking to? I believe she was speaking more to those in authority, than to individuals. That's because she makes clear that individuals should have the freedom to choose whether they want to help others or to keep everything to themselves, and they should have the freedom to decide to whom they should give help.

And as Ms. Rand has demonstrated by her own words, we should have the freedom to express our own opinions.

As far as her denouncing socialism and communism, she also does this in her first book "We the Living," about life in Russia after the socialists took over. And in this book it is more obvious that she denounces socialism and communism as at least practiced by the Russian government. She has no quarrel with individuals who choose to share with others.

But a true government under God, acts with God in mind. So, if the people choose to share among eachother, as the Bible says we should, and they appoint a government that facilitates this, then it is a fulfillment of the Bible. As it says in Romans 13:1, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

That is only half the story (or one-quarter of the story). The reason the soldiers were sent in the first place was to prevent evil men from taking control of the free world (initially). But after WWII, the free world handed over Easter Europe to evil men, who enslaved millions, and slaughtered millions. So much for fighting for life and liberty.

That was the marketing ploy, else who would sign up? In reality, I believe it was partly to rid the world of good men so the evil could prosper, and also to set up Communism to take over the world. I believe General Patton, at the end of the war, wrote that the Allies had been fighting the wrong enemy, and it was the Communists who were the real villains. He offered advice to take them on then and there, and estimated he could have Stalingrad within a matter of days. Unfortunately, the reason those in charge had arranged the war was the set-up of Communism, and they weren't about to let a war hero put their plans to bed so easily. So they had Patton killed (for this, or their other crimes he had promised to expose on his return).

With respect to Viet Nam, it was a losing war to begin with, because it was asymmetrical warfare (just like Islamic Jihad today ) with guerillas fighting regular soldiers. As to the Koreas, North Korea should not have been allowed to exist. And the Cold War never ended. It was simply the West which chose to be blind to that reality, and continues to be blind to Russia's ambitions.

Deliberately blind. The plan all along was to bring about world Communism, or some Hegelian Dialectic from it, which amounts to the same. Had Germany been allowed to destroy the Communists, which I believe was their aim (although Hitler appeared to hinder his generals), I don't believe Vietnam would ever have happened. Had Patton been allowed to destroy the Communists, same result. Most in the West today naively believe they live in freedom, but every day, their "freedom" becomes more and more like Communism. However, since "freedom" is a prettier name than "Communism", most people don't even notice.