Atlas Shrugged

[Jeff K.]

I appreiciating your opinion and your interpretation of LDS scripture as applied to modern times, but there are distinct differences between your interpretation and the scriptures and of course you understanding of modern philsophical economics. Granted, Hitler for example was a socialist, so socialism in all its forms should, by your logic be conceded as evil (nationalist socialists) did indeed carry out many of the mandates you believe in, however those of a more balanced view with an understanding of both scripture and history know that the Lord can make even the evil acts of some do good. So those of us with knowledge in the arena of history will acknowledge some of the actions of the Nationalist Socialists as being beneficial, to the people of Germany. You in fact would be forced to argue that the Nationalist Socialist used some of the very same ideas presented at the Bible. Using your logic then the Nationalist Socialist were good, or the Scriptures are evil. I find either choice to reflect a certain lack of thought beyond the very simplistic. One must balance the actions often with the results and more importantly the motivations (those we can divine) of all acts in order to determine whether or not people were driven by evil or good to make policies that were acted upon. Was genocide acceptable in the Old Testament? Was it acceptable in the New Testament? Is it acceptable to us? Interpretation of scripture can easily be incorrectly viewed when one decides to place one's own political stance as the goal and the reading of the scriptures as a means of attaining that goal.

So your quoting LDS scripture is not fallacy, your interpretation of such quotes is indeed fallacy.

[Jeff K.]

I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,' that is not exaclty someone who is willing to live with "all things in common" who convenants to live in such a way that there be "no poor among"

In context of women's rights, and the question of servitude especially the wholesale enslavement of people under the socialist democracies of the Soviet Union, would the statement change in context?

"To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous.If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free."

that is an afront to almost all religions including the LDS Church.

Are you stating that children are born with a tendency towards evil? If so why are they then allowed to enter the kingdom of God without baptism? She raises the point that inherent tendency towards evil is not necessarily correct. Within the purview of everyone having the light of Christ her statement has some validity doesn't it?

[frankenstein]

Was genocide acceptable in the Old Testament?

God commanded it. And if I remember correctly, King Saul spared the King of a people, that he (saul) was commanded to completely kill, and if I remember correctly the Prophet of God killed that king, to complete the task.

Was it acceptable in the New Testament?

we do not have instances of God commanding genocide so I can not say.

Is it acceptable to us?

Who is "us" the LDS or the world in general? As best I can tell, the LDS do not consider murder to be murder if God commands it, so do the LDS find the genocide of the Old Testament acceptable, one can only deduce that since the LDS accept slicing off the head of Laban to be justified because God commanded it, then the LDS would also accept the God commanded genocide of the OT.

Interpretation of scripture can easily be incorrectly viewed when one decides to place one's own political stance as the goal and the reading of the scriptures as a means of attaining that goal.

perhaps then you can find a way to mesh rand anti-god, selfishness is the greatest good philosophy of man with Moroni 7. and yes, itchy ears are always willing to hear the message they want to hear; seems very applicable principle to Atlas Shrugged.

as for children the LDS scriptures and Doctrine cover this sufficient. tendency to do evil is pretty much what Christian religions including the LDS religion teach, else there would be no need for the Atonement.

[Jeff K.]

perhaps then you can find a way to mesh rand anti-god, selfishness is the greatest good philosophy of man with Moroni 7. and yes, itchy ears are always willing to hear the message they want to hear; seems very applicable principle to Atlas Shrugged.

My point is that I can also find a way to mesh your anti-god destroy free will as the greatest good philosophy or greatest evil philosophy. The priniciple I think applies to you as much as you seem to think it applies to Atlas shrugged.

So unless you can speak for the Lord to the general populace that your particular interpretation of scripture is the one true interpretation (shall we call it the FT Frankenstein translation), it would appear you cast your net in the wrong part of the lake and presume that you are fishing where you need to be. Otherwise the attempt to wed Christ to your own views comes off as rather simplistic and boorish.

[Jeff K.]

for children the LDS scriptures and Doctrine cover this sufficient. tendency to do evil is pretty much what Christian religions including the LDS religion teach, else there would be no need for the Atonement.

You are wrong, it is not the tendency to do evil but the ability that makes the Atonement necessary. It is part of free will, maybe you have heard of it?

If you had tendency without ability (as some have proposed) then you would not need an atonement. Ability to choose has to exist, not merely tendency towards.

[frankenstein]

simplistic and boorish.

15For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

[Jeff K.]

It is plain "if you have the spirit of the Lord" with you. Can you think of another way to achieve perfect knowledge without the spirit of the Lord?

[Jeff K.]

My point remains that if you call all of Ayn Rands political views evil due to your interpretation, then one must question your own proclivity towards socialism and how those have produced "bad fruits". You seem quick to question the views of others yet somehow reticent to apply the same standards to yourself.

[Deborah]

"I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,' that is not exaclty someone who is willing to live with "all things in common" who convenants to live in such a way that there be "no poor among" him.

Considering she isn't a member of the church nor under such covenant what is the point of this? I happen to be able to judge that such a statement would not apply to me as I am under covenant. I suppose if someone is unable to make such distinctions they shouldn't read the book. I btw was a teen when I first read the book and I understood the difference. When I taught my primary lesson on the WOW, the lesson pointed out that because someone drinks or smokes they are not bad people; they just may not know better.

"To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous.If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free."

that is an afront to almost all religions including the LDS Church.

Huh? I don't believe man is inherently evil either; that in fact is a non-LDS doctrine that man is born in sin. I believe we are in a fallen state but have the choice to choose good or evil.

[WalkerW]

Regarding men being "inherently evil":

We are the natural sons and daughters of our natural parents, and spiritually we are the natural children of the Father of light and natural heirs to his kingdom; and when we do an evil, we do it in opposition to the promptings of the Spirit of Truth that is within us. Man, the noblest work of God, was in his creation designed for an endless duration, for which the love of all good was incorporated in his nature. It was never designed that he should naturally do and love evil (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 9:305).

Natural man, with all of his new and wonderful but as yet unbridled and unregenerated potential, must be made ‘submissive’ to the Holy Spirit, a spirit that still entices and lifts us upward. . . . Our deepest desires, our premortal yearnings, are still divine in their origins, and they are still deep in our souls. The echoes of our earlier innocence still reverberate, and the light that forsakes the evil one still shines. Our hearts can—and in their purity, do—desire that which is spiritual and holy rather than that which is ‘carnal, sensual, and devilish.’ If that were not so, we would be in a hopeless condition indeed, and the idea of real choice would be jeopardized forever. We praise God our Father that our true heritage is of him and that by yielding and submitting to his eternal influence we can overcome the enmity which separated us from him and turn those gifts from nature to our blessing rather than our cursing (Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 205–7).

[Stargazer]

nope wrong again, I was being serious that hitler - that many are willing to admit was evil - helped in the developed of the a good system of transportation is a very good counter point and a point to ponder against the statement something evil can not bring forth good; it is a conundrum.

....

I am quoting LDS Scripture. There is no fallacy.

Eh, you make me tired. I spend a considerable amount of time I could have devoted to something productive trying to respond to you, and you just blow me off with a couple of self-rigteous and ill-thought out sentences I could have gotten from some ignorant Bible-thumper whose most sophisticated expression is: "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

As far as Hitler and freeways is concerned, I was trying to get you to see that even a bad person can produce good things sometimes, but I see you believe this already, contrary to what I understood.

It turns out I was misleading you intentionally to make a point, but since you've conceded my point, I should correct the record. There is some folk-legend to the effect that Hitler created the original freeway, called the Autobahn, but he didn't. The very first limited access highway, called a Parkway, was built back in 1908 in New York City. The first true freeway was built in Italy in 1925, but the term "freeway" was coined by the same man who invented zoning, and his conception is pretty much how the world nowadays sees all freeways. Essentially, the freeway was an American development that has been adopted worldwide The first stretch of German freeway, not yet called the Autobahn, was built in 1931, before Hitler came to power. But when Hitler came to power in 1933, he enthusiastically endorsed the idea and thus Germany had the very first national freeway system. But he didn't invent it.

[The Nehor]

Also wrong, this guy invented it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gURUMv7qZW0

[Stargazer]

Also wrong, this guy invented it:

Speechless. I'm simply speechless.

Which is a good thing, too, since this is a computer forum, not a conversation parlor. Heh.

[frankenstein]

Eh, you make me tired. I spend a considerable amount of time I could have devoted to something productive trying to respond to you, and you just blow me off with a couple of self-rigteous and ill-thought out sentences I could have gotten from some ignorant Bible-thumper whose most sophisticated expression is: "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

As far as Hitler and freeways is concerned, I was trying to get you to see that even a bad person can produce good things sometimes, but I see you believe this already, contrary to what I understood.

It turns out I was misleading you intentionally to make a point, but since you've conceded my point, I should correct the record. There is some folk-legend to the effect that Hitler created the original freeway, called the Autobahn, but he didn't. The very first limited access highway, called a Parkway, was built back in 1908 in New York City. The first true freeway was built in Italy in 1925, but the term "freeway" was coined by the same man who invented zoning, and his conception is pretty much how the world nowadays sees all freeways. Essentially, the freeway was an American development that has been adopted worldwide The first stretch of German freeway, not yet called the Autobahn, was built in 1931, before Hitler came to power. But when Hitler came to power in 1933, he enthusiastically endorsed the idea and thus Germany had the very first national freeway system. But he didn't invent it.

i have not research highway developement but i do remember when Leona Helmsly (sp) got racked over the coals by the media for saying something about Hilter and higways. I just took you for your word for it.

[Stargazer]

i have not research highway developement but i do remember when Leona Helmsly (sp) got racked over the coals by the media for saying something about Hilter and higways. I just took you for your word for it.

I know you did. I intended you to. It was ultimately pointless.

Sorry for bothering you.

[Jeff K.]

i have not research highway developement but i do remember when Leona Helmsly (sp) got racked over the coals by the media for saying something about Hilter and higways. I just took you for your word for it.

Side note, Eisenhower was a young captain when the army decided to send a convoy across the US (1920 I think). It took them two months, and they barely made it. It also made an impression on Eisenhower in regards to sending men and machines across country quickly in order to defend the nation. Hitler saw the autobahn as a way of moving troops and material. The lesson was not lost on Eisenhower either.

[WalkerW]

Like I said before, I think this whole "bitter tree" thing has little to do with Christian ethics and more to do with political distaste for Rand.

[frankenstein]

Like I said before, I think this whole "bitter tree" thing has little to do with Christian ethics and more to do with political distaste for Rand.

can we cherry pick good fruit from an otherwise bad tree?

[WalkerW]

Your above statement just demonstrates that you haven't really taken the time to actually take the responses given already into consideration. There is a difference between, say, nothing good comes from atheism and nothing good comes from atheists. There are people and there are principles.

I don't think Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion is "good," but I think his The Greatest Show on Earth is. Is science evil?

I don't think Christopher Hitchen's god is Not Great is "good," but I think his A Long Short War is. Is liberation from tyranny and genocide evil?

I don't think Sam Harris' The End of Faith is "good," but from what I've read of The Moral Landscape, I'd say it is. Is objective morality evil?

Christian philosophers (including the likes of David Bentley Hart and our own James Faulconer) appeal to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, despite his support for the Nazis.

There are plenty of good U.S. Democrats, despite modern liberalism being rooted in the eugenics-based intellectualism of the Progressive Era.

There are plenty of good U.S. Republicans, despite the fact that the party began with an anti-polygamy (i.e. anti-Mormon) platform.

[thesometimesaint]

WalkerW:

The modern Liberal/Progressive movement got its start in the farm and labor movements of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

[Jeff K.]

It was also tied to the eugenics movement of intellectuals who were a party to the labor and farm movements.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Yes and no.

Yes in that eugenics was part of its beginnings. No in that that idea was totally discredited by the end off WWII.

It remains to be seen if the sociopathy of Ayn Rand will lose its hold on movement conservatives

[Jeff K.]

The idea of eugenics was discredited, but the idea of control to the level needed required for eugenics was definately not discarded. It is one of the issues I have with the left. Indeed during the 1960's there were more than enough Malthus driven Saturday Warrior types that felt licensing of children (a type of banal eugenics) should be required.

[WalkerW]

WalkerW:

The modern Liberal/Progressive movement got its start in the farm and labor movements of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

I'm quite aware. The concepts of human hierarchy, scientific efficiency, and social control are part of the intellectual make-up of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All these ideals were manifested in the eugenics movement. See the work of Princeton economist Thomas C. Leonard. For example, "American Economic Reform in the Progressive Era: Its Foundational Beliefs and Their Relationship to Eugenics," History of Political Economy 41:1 (2009).

A great introduction to progressive thought across party lines is American Progressivism: A Reader, eds. Ronald J. Pestritto, William J. Atto (Lexington Books, 2008).

It remains to be seen if the sociopathy of Ayn Rand will lose its hold on movement conservatives.

I hope so (though I find the label "sociopathy" a bit harsh). I think conservatives should pick up Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, ed. Paul J. Zak (Princeton University Press, 2008). Despite her condemnation of altruism (to be fair, she was condemning a socialist interpretation of altruism), it turns out that markets foster the altruistic side of human nature.

At least one major conservative voice doesn't care for her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMH8SxpeJ9Y

[frankenstein]

Rand quotes to Phil Donahue:

I am against God for the reason that I don't want to destroy reason.

[belief in Religion is not] foolish, I think its a bad sign psychologically, its a sign of a psychological weakness of a man who is afraid to stand on his own mind and his own responsibility ... I regard it as evil to place your emotions your desire above the evidence of what your mind knows.

It is not right, it is not proper to take anything on faith. You accept a religion emotionally or you were born into it, you have not chosen it rationally.

Rand quotes to Mike Wallace:

[Love for fellow man] is immoral if it is love placed upon oneself, it is more than immoral it is impossible ... when you are asked to love indiscriminately, to love without any standard, to love another regardless of the fact of whether they have any value or virtue you are asked to love no body.

You love only those who deserve it (personal note, loving those who deserve it or being kind to those who deserve it, is a "teaching" from the Satanic bible, yes I have read excerpts from the Satanic bible)

A weak person does not deserve love.

There are very few who are worthy of love.

--------------------------

It is not so difficult considering the quotes why certain groups cling to rand so much.