Originally Posted by Atlas

I am somewhat amazed that other than you and I nobody seems to read Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt and others.

It's the dumbing-down of conservatism. You can thank Rush and Sean Hannity and George W. Bush for it.

I have always wondered why Whittaker Chambers gave Atlas Shrugged such a bad book review.

Von Mises and Rand seemed to respect each other. Yet Chambers seemed to really hate Rand for some reason.

As I've said, Chambers was a very religious man, and he recognized (as some, apparently, do not) the danger in Rand's so-called "philosophy." The review of "Atlas Shrugged" says it all. However, I don't think he "hated" Rand, or anybody else. He didn't even hate Alger Hiss, who was his greatest enemy on earth, and who tried to destroy him.

Von Mises and Rand had that European thing going; they both came from the "Old World." And Von Mises was not an outspokenly religious man, if he was religious at all, so Rand tolerated him.

As for the other things I said, about her adultery, and her literally tyrannical control of her followers, I refer you to several books, written by those followers: "My Years with Ayn Rand," by her "lover" and second-in-command, Nathaniel Branden; and "The Passion of Ayn Rand," by Barbara Branden (who was the betrayed spouse). Barbara Branden also maintains her own website. The Wikipedia entry on Rand is obviously written by a disciple, but it acknowledges the facts about the Rand-Branden affair. This is very sordid stuff, and speaks volumes about Rand's personal character. If you want to understand the "fruits" of Ayn Rand's life, consider this: during the adulterous affair, both of the wronged spouses were not only aware, but expected to approve, of what was going on. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Lu. 6:43). Ayn Rand wrote novels that are very exciting and provocative to uninformed, pseudo-intellectual adolescents who want an excuse to reject God. That is a pretty good description of me, when I discovered her books as a teenager. She made absolutely no contribution to the study of economics; she merely took the tenets of capitalism to a hysterical and irrational extreme. If she was a serious economist, then Steven King is another Shakespeare. (And please don't tell me that some serious economists, like Rothbard and Alan Greenspan, were early followers of hers; I'm already aware of it. But they eventually outgrew her, as most people do.) I don't usually make such sweeping statements, but I will this time: any Bible-believing Christian who reads Rand is wasting God's time and his own.

http://www.amazon.com/Years-Ayn-Rand.../dp/0787945137
http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Ayn-Ra.../dp/038524388X

Who ever said I was one of her " followers ? " I am not. Just because I have read a few of someones books do not mean I am one of their followers. I have read Hitler and Marx. Dose that make me a Nazi or a commie?

You needn't be so defensive on this subject. I never said or implied that you were a follower of Rand; I was referring to the members of her cult. They're all over the Internet; they're not hard to find. And, make no mistake, the Objectivist movement is a cult, albeit an atheistic cult.

I've read Marx, too, as well as Engels and Veblen and all the rest; but I don't waste time, in a Christian forum, telling people how valuable their insights were.

This quote is incorrect.

He told Rand she was to smart not to believe in God. If you are going to quote it quote it right.

I was quoting one of Buckley's own reminiscences of the incident, in one of his columns. It's possible that he said both things. Don't be such a grouch.

I wasn't planning to mention this, and I'd prefer to do it in a PM, but that is not an option. I met Buckley at a convention of Young Americans for Freedom in 1967; I was one of the State Chairmen. We corresponded a few times, before and after my conversion. My post-conversion letter to him is reproduced, in part, in his book "Cruising Speed." I agree with you that Buckley is probably in Hell, and it truly grieves me; he was very kind, and very encouraging, to me when I was a callow youth, and he had nothing to gain from the act. In any case, I'm sorry that my remarks about Rand triggered your ire, but I do not apologize for the remarks themselves. I could have said much worse.

I agree with you that everything, especially popular culture and personal morality, is influenced by "philosophy," broadly defined. There's as much "philosophy" in a television sitcom, like "The Simpsons," as there is in a Philosophy 101 class; it's just expressed differently. That's why I consider Francis Schaeffer, for all his Calvinism, to be so helpful: he addressed precisely those issues.

As for your general remarks about the formal study of philosophy, I simply disagree. It can, conceivably, sharpen the mind; but it also dulls the spirit and creates more doubts about God than it resolves. If you are pleased or edified by the study of secular philosophers, have at it; I've been there, done that, and can personally attest to the truth of Col. 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Originally Posted by Stephanos

I mean philosophy can be of use to a Bible student, I think Ruckman got his degree in philosophy, but the point is is that I would expect a Bible Believer to at least address the inherent dangers of Christians dabbling with secular philosophy.

Ruckman's degree is a PhD, which stands for "Doctor of Philosophy." But that wasn't the subject of his dissertation. His degree is in Practical Theology: he traced the history of soul-winning preachers through history, and made the point that no scholar who isn't personally involved in soul-winning is a fraud. You can see why BJU was so glad to get rid of him!

[atlas]

VR,

It's the dumbing-down of conservatism. You can thank Rush and Sean Hannity and George W. Bush for it.

This is the truth if it's ever been told. Many even think Rush is smart!



You seem to think I am some big Rand fan, I am not. I have read three books by her, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. I did not even finish the Fountainhead, as I said before it was worthless.

She made absolutely no contribution to the study of economics;

Maybe you should read " Capitalism the Unknown Ideal " again and make that statement again. I think it was a good little starter book on economics just like " Economics in One Lesson " by Hazlitt or " I, Pencil," by Read. All three are good little books to start out on.

I've read Marx, too, as well as Engels and Veblen and all the rest; but I don't waste time, in a Christian forum, telling people how valuable their insights were.

Nor do I but I was ask what I have read and I posted what I have read.

You needn't be so defensive on this subject. I never said or implied that you were a follower of Rand; I was referring to the members of her cult.

I have had the sad misfortune of running into some of these Objectivist. Calling them a cult is a understatement to say the least. I wanted you to know for sure I have never been one of those people nor will I ever be. I have also found a great deal of value in the Boy Scout Handbook this dose not mean I have ever been a Boy Scout. if you do not have this book I highly recommend you get one today. It is full of wonderful information. I'm not kidding.

One other of my all time favorite books is " Storey's Basic Country Skills. " Other than the Bible this is my all time favorite book.

If I could only own 3 books these are the three I would own.

1. KJV Bible
2. Storey's Basic Country Skills
3. Boy Scout Handbook

I hope we are both wrong about ole' Bill Buckley. He was a good man and I hope he found the Lord before he died. Sadly I doubt this is the case.

I consider Francis Schaeffer, for all his Calvinism, to be so helpful: he addressed precisely those issues.

Anything good worth getting? I may look him up and get one or two of his books. Anything you recommend?


I am also still amazed that nobody mentioned any industry publications that they read about their own industry. I have always found what a person dose for a living to be very important. In my life there is what I call the big three important things.

1. Faith
2. Family
3. Financial Planning



I always wonder why folks do not read all they can about their job. Why they do not try to advance their knowledge about what they do for a living. This is ok with me, but when I go to a CPA, carpenter or even Doctor. I want a man that did not stop getting his education after getting out of college. Knowledge, drive and God's blessings will make you better at your job no matter what your job is. We are to work as unto the Lord. We should all give our very best.



Atlas

[JaeByrd]

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

My favorite fiction authors are Arthur Conan Doyle

Wow. That's a shocker.

I have to say of the various people I've seen "play" Sherlock the one in your avatar was my fave.

[Diligent]

I recently read Atlas Shrugged. I had to skim some of the John Galt speech parts -- just too repetitive and wordy.

I think Rand really "got" what "works" in human affairs, with regard to the market, work, production, and mooching. But, obviously, she was militantly atheist and she essentially worshiped man's intellect. I certainly couldn't recommend Rand to someone who might end up being intrigued by her "religion."

It's actually pretty amazing to me -- Rand came out of the Stalinization of her home country and saw what atheism was doing there. But she was herself an atheist and ignored that component of Stalinism, only attacking socialism.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by atlas

Stephanos,



Anytime you read anything on any of these topics Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Esthetics you are reading philosophy. These five topics cover just about everything.

Even the news paper is full of philosophy, if you listen to the news you even get philosophy when you listen to the news.

You can not even read the news without reading philosophy. Even economics is part of philosophy.

Even when you read history it is full of philosophy. Go read any book about the Civil War and you will be reading about what happened because of the Politics of the day.

How can you not read or study philosophy if you read anything watch or listen to anything?


Atlas

Your points here are valid, but I was referring to the hard core philosphy that I was into back in the day like Sarte and Kierkegaard (I was really into existentialism back in the day). I don't think I could read this sort of philosophy anymore. My biggest fear with this sort of literature is that if one puts any serious weight in what they say then it is all to easy to end up as a modern day Philo.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Thank you for your courteous reply, brother. If my previous post sounded testy, it's because I've been burned by these people.

Originally Posted by atlas

You seem to think I am some big Rand fan, I am not. I have read three books by her, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. I did not even finish the Fountainhead, as I said before it was worthless.

Actually, I found it superior to "Atlas Shrugged," but that's a literary judgment. The plot wasn't so far-fetched, the hero was principled but not crazy, and it didn't have a long, John Galt-type screed included.

Maybe you should read " Capitalism the Unknown Ideal " again and make that statement again. I think it was a good little starter book on economics just like " Economics in One Lesson " by Hazlitt or " I, Pencil," by Read. All three are good little books to start out on.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I have read all of her nonfiction books, including "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "The Romantic Manifesto." The book you mention was, in my judgment, nowhere near the same class as "Economics in One Lesson." I realize that not everybody can handle "Human Action," by Mises, but the Hazlitt book is the best introduction I've seen, except perhaps for Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose." I haven't read "I, Pencil."

I have had the sad misfortune of running into some of these Objectivist. Calling them a cult is a understatement to say the least. I wanted you to know for sure I have never been one of those people nor will I ever be. I have also found a great deal of value in the Boy Scout Handbook this dose not mean I have ever been a Boy Scout. if you do not have this book I highly recommend you get one today. It is full of wonderful information. I'm not kidding.

The Boy Scout handbook was indispensable when I was a boy. It's terrific. I just hope it hasn't been "modernized", as the Girl Scouts have been: they now have Merit Badges for Ecology, Women's Studies, and all kinds of new-age crapola.

I hope we are both wrong about ole' Bill Buckley. He was a good man and I hope he found the Lord before he died. Sadly I doubt this is the case.

I know that he heard the Gospel a number of times; Billy Graham was on "Firing Line" back when he was still evangelistic. And I'm sure that lots of National Review subscribers wrote to him, expressing concern. But, toward the end of his life, he wrote a "spiritual biography" called "Nearer, My God," in which he very enthusiastically reaffirmed his Catholic faith.

When I shared my testimony with him in a letter, he responded: "I will have my priest make a mass of thanksgiving for you." That was lovely, but he completely missed the point.

Anything good worth getting? I may look him up and get one or two of his [Francis Schaeffer's] books. Anything you recommend?

Oh, yes. There are two authors who have, above all others, influenced the way I live as a Christian: Ruckman, and Francis Schaeffer. He coined the term "pre-evangelism," which is basically just planting seeds, that revolutionized my own witness. He shows how to present the Gospel to "modern thinkers." If you just add the King James part, it's a great approach, and it works. But we're talking about witnessing to "intellectuals:" the Schaeffer approach isn't necessary for everyone we meet. But he discussed the philosophical ramifications of everyone from Plato to Picasso and the Beatles. I'm telling you, you'd love this guy.

His greatest books on evangelism are "Escape from Reason" (very short, only about 125 pages) and, best of all, "The God Who Is There." The latter is absolutely indispensible. It's available in paperback, as are most of his books; there's also a hardcover edition of all the books together. Check Amazon.

He also did a book called "Genesis in Space and Time," all about the importance of the first three chapters of the Bible; and "Death in the City," which is a Jeremiah-like depiction of our modern world.

But if you only get one, it should definitely be "The God Who is There."

He also wrote an entire book on epistemology, "He is There and He is Not Silent."

But he was very "Reformed." Don't look to Schaeffer for prophecy, or church polity; he was a Presbyterian, although obviously a very evangelistic one. His son, Frank Schaeffer, has completely apostacized, written a foul, scurrilous book about his father, joined the Eastern Orthdox Church, and supported Obama. He's a bum.

The best way you can get a flavor for Schaeffer is from this site, which has quotes from each of his books. (I use them as my sig quotes at Pravda.) Just be sure to scroll all the way down, in each section, to see the actual quotes:

http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/

Just click on the "Writings" section for the quotes.

He also did a lot of anti-abortion work with C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General; and wrote a book called "A Christian Manifesto" that would really appeal to Bro. Parrish.

Check it out: you'll be delighted.

Originally Posted by Diligent

I recently read Atlas Shrugged. I had to skim some of the John Galt speech parts -- just too repetitive and wordy.

I think Rand really "got" what "works" in human affairs, with regard to the market, work, production, and mooching. But, obviously, she was militantly atheist and she essentially worshiped man's intellect. I certainly couldn't recommend Rand to someone who might end up being intrigued by her "religion."

It's actually pretty amazing to me -- Rand came out of the Stalinization of her home country and saw what atheism was doing there. But she was herself an atheist and ignored that component of Stalinism, only attacking socialism.

Yes, that astonishes me, too. But when you look ather personal life, you can easily see that her rejection of religion may have been based on her own sexual licentiousness. In that respect, she was no different from two teenagers who sneer at their parents' religion as they hop into the back seat of a car. Which is one reason I embraced Rand so enthusiastically when I was one of those teenagers!

Originally Posted by JaeByrd

Wow. That's a shocker.

I have to say of the various people I've seen "play" Sherlock the one in your avatar was my fave.

Yes, that's Jeremy Brett. I agree: he was the definitive Sherlock. Just watching his face, watching him react, is a sheer joy. He was born to play that part!

Trivia: in his younger days, Brett played Eliza Doolittle's no-good, shiftless boyfriend in the film "My Fair Lady!" LOL!

Here's the picture I use as an avatar over at Cody's site:

[atlas]

VR and Diligent,

It's actually pretty amazing to me -- Rand came out of the Stalinization of her home country and saw what atheism was doing there. But she was herself an atheist and ignored that component of Stalinism, only attacking socialism.

Yes, that astonishes me

I am not amazed in the least. We all want to belive in an ideal man. I understand this. She believed in a type of super man just like Stalin and Marx. She believed in ideal man. They had no concept of fallen man. I will admit man has done many wonderful things live inventing the car, TV PC and other such things. There is no super man that can be made by the state ( Marx ) or made by his own mind. ( Rand ) Hitler also believed in a super man.

Even these ideal men are in their heads wee fallen men. We are creators because we were made in the image of a creator. Just think if Adam had not have sinned how many things we could have made? We still have some of God's image that we were created in, we lost some of it, but we still have some of what we were created to be. Do not take this as me making man equal with God as one other person has done on a forum a few years back.

I will admit I believe in a super man myself. His name was Jesus and he was the God Man. In my saved but fallen state I am still the same man I was born. One day in the future I will be more of an ideal man. A man just like God created in the garden. I will be a perfect man and never die. I will be more of an ideal man than Marx, Hitler or rand ever thought an ideal man could be. If you are saved one day you to will be an ideal man.



Atlas

I can sum up most of my reading in one name, Louis L`Amour.