How can one reconcile Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy with Christian beliefs?

Why would you want to? She worshipped the accomplishments of man.

Why would you want to reconcile either of those with anything? Theyre both trash.

>love your neighbor as yourself
>fuck my neighbors, I gots mine
You can't, just like you can't reconcile Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy with her being on welfare and social security by the time of her death.

It's not a question of why, it's of how.

Christianity is communist

It's weird cognitive dissonance shit.

That's not to say Christianity advocates for a welfare state, as half of the people in this thread probably believe. But worshipping le free market is really in contradiction with Christianity.

As are a lot of things when taken very far, honestly.

Christianity claims to act altruistically while actually acting entirely selfishly.

tada, reconciliation.

rand was a moron, but she was smarter than Christians that can't see how self-righteousness is just selfishness.

Ayn Rand was dismissive of Christianity. As far as she would have been concerned it would be like trying to hammer a round peg in a square hole.

The reason all these Bible-thumping Republicans are jumping on the Rand bandwagon is because of billionaire donors who worship her.

>how do I do it? I'm an atheist but I love this shit they're basically becoming jews
step 1: let yourself get swept up by the thought of your own Bible-thumping qt3.14
step 2: join prosperity church
step 3: write a check for $150 dollars at church one Sunday so that your preacher can afford his own Bentley.
step 4: enjoy the life of a Christcuck, still marry a woman in your own league. But she's a prude and boring af in bed
step 5: write another check for $150 dollars because this time your preacher is adding his own entertainment studio onto the back of his mansion.
step 6: grow disillusioned after you start to suspect that it's all just a cynical ploy to get you to gibs monies
step 7: leave church after huge blow up fragments the parish, drift aimlessly until you find a new obsession to Chistfag out about and the cycle begins anew

You can't.

Death to all Objectivists. Literally the worst philosophy in history. Out into the darkness with all of them.

Big business figured out that they can manipulate the plebs through religious pandering. Just get them to scream about abortion and gay marriage and bathrooms non-stop and you can get them to swallow a bunch of other bullshit on the side. The religious right is a strange phenomena but it's certainly an effective political tool.

Why don't political opponents call out people like Cruz and Paul Ryan for having such a contradictory worldview?

>implying right wingers don't live with cognitive dissonance since they are already rich and powerful
Goldwater was the only Republican I respected.

6. His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"

Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed."

I imagine that any competent politician could deflect that sort of criticism by simply saying they don't agree with every single aspect of Rand's philosophy, though I don't know if either of those two have ever said anything to the contrary.

Really simple, a good Christian wants to end suffering, and the welfare state perpetuates suffering. If you support public assistance, you support hurting people.

The state supporting public assistance perpetuates suffering because bitter, enviou, spiteful and greedy people will vote in their representatives to manage it as they wish.

You can't. If you'd actually follow Christ a la lettre you'd be an anarcho-communist.

Even if you think that's true, there is much more to Ayn Rand than ending welfare. For example she was also against charity of any kind.

There are no contradictions. Her political philosophy does not disallow you from being a christian and true christians do not violently impose their religion on others. Ayn Rand didn't believe in god but all she was doing is voicing her opinion.

>Being in the Kingdom of God makes you greedy and lawless.

This is retarded. It absolutely does disallow Christianity. Jesus was dismayed because Judas bought an expensive bottle of wine instead of donating to the poor - Ayn Rand thinks that any act of altruistic giving is wrong.

By ignoring christian beliefs

You can't, but nobody in this thread has adequately explained why. She was an atheist who hated the idea that religious texts obligate that people help their fellow men. You could hybridize belief in God with her social darwinist elements and end up with something like , though

>against charity of any kind
False. She was against government-sponsored charity and people feeling obligated to act charitably. There's a clip of her somewhere explaining that if you take pleasure in giving gifts, then you can and should do so. It's just not an ethical imperative, and therefore shouldn't be enforced by institutions like the state.

t. former lolbertarian

>How can one reconcile Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy with Christian beliefs?
Protestantism. Specifically Calvinism and American brands.

>False. She was against government-sponsored charity and people feeling obligated to act charitably. There's a clip of her somewhere explaining that if you take pleasure in giving gifts, then you can and should do so. It's just not an ethical imperative, and therefore shouldn't be enforced by institutions like the state.
She was ok with charity as long as you did it for purely selfish reasons.

But she did compare altruism to jumping into a cannibal's pot and letting him cook you.

You kinda do everything for purely selfish reasons - i.e. the pleasure you imagine you'll get from doing them or observing the anticipated consequences.

>Christianity is socialist

FTFY. Although still a tad too simplistic.

I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.

'Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times.'

> tfw asked my dad why does everyone say such mean things about the devil at church when i was 8

what is helping people makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

That reminds me.

Even Martin Luther was anti-capitalist.

He went on a tirade against money lenders and merchants calling them all whores.

He would have been dismayed at prosperity theology.

Some thinkers, such as Ayn Rand or Marquis De Sade, argued that "charity" is a type of vanity. It's a person's way of fooling themselves into thinking they're making a difference when in the grand scheme of things all they're doing is trying to assuage their guilty conscious for all the people who were screwed over to make their lifestyles possible.

From Brad Smissen, Murrieta, CA:

Re: "No Country for Old Men": I'm a bit surprised that nobody has really touched on Chigurh's theology or lack thereof. In the book McCarthy makes clear that Chigurh is a non-believer. This is huge. I believe it's McCarthy's intention to say that Chigurh's atheism carved him into a Darwinian creature with a powerful survivalist function. That's the thing, Chigurh isn't meant as some reaper figure at all. He's an atheist/survivalist, plain and simple. It's not an accident that Chigurh is able to give himself first rate medical care after his leg gets shot up. Nor is McCarthy alluding to some military/medical background. Chigurh has equipped himself to live, he means to live above everything else.

No, no, you can't.

>Ayn Rand was an atheist
> Jesus taught to clothe, feed, and give shelter to the needy

What’s the concept of order? What does it have to do with things which exist? If they clash with each other, if there were contradictions, they wouldn’t exist. There is no such thing as a disorderly Universe. Our whole concept of order comes from observing reality. And, the reality has to be orderly because it’s the standard of what exists.

"I will not die, it's the world that will end"

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

But in a material sense, donating to charity makes it likely that someone somewhere is going to be helped, if even in the smallest manner. This vanity argument is worthless because in reality donating money when you can is helping someone.

Matthew 5:3—Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 14:7—For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

Acts 3:6—Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

That assumes a consequentialist perspective of morality. Are you prepared to answer all the problems that come with consequentialism to maintain this position?

> Are you prepared to answer all the problems that come with consequentialism to maintain this position?

What do you mean exactly?