My departure from Rush

[JohnnyBlaze]

Hey, Czarcasm, that is not what I thought and or said. I don't want to listen to Tom Sawyer and Sweet Miracle because of ALL of their lyrics, which I deeply tried to interpret and analyze. And sorry if I didn't fully understood MalNar. I didn't know that the music video was made by a fan and not by the music business and Rush themselves. I'm insulted by their lyrics because I don't like it when they say that "Christians have no tolerance of other religions", like they did in Armor and Sword, which is definitely not the case for me. I never left Rush because of the fact they are Atheist, I left them because they had lyrics that I felt insult me and my Christian faith.

 

Anthem's lyrics don't bother you?

 

Live for yourself—there's no one else

More worth living for

Begging hands and bleeding hearts will

Only cry out for more

 

It seems to me that these lyrics would be much more insensitive/offensive towards a Christian's point of view...[lyrics stating that oneself IS the most important 'thing', not your fellow man or God/god].

 

 

Note: I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

Just to be clear: I'm only making a point. I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

I see Anthem as a song of motivation. The lyrics tell you to "Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down ". As for that single stanza, I don't see how it ties in with religion. I don't think that the people who have "begging hands" and "bleeding hearts" are actually people in prayer, if that's what you mean. I think it means that you should care about your life sometimes instead of caring about others all the time because all they will do is ask more of you until there is nothing for you to lose.

What you think I meant is not what I mean. The lyrics I mentioned talk about placing yourself before anyone else. That in itself doesn't seem very Christian-like since God would come first....and shouldn't others come before yourself (in a brotherly Christian pov)?

 

I doubt that's not what Neil actually meant. If so, then he's going against basic morality.

 

You're right, God does come first, but Rush isn't a christian band so I doubt they would mention God in any of their songs. Instead, they say that you are most important, but not in a selfish manner. You should always take care of others, but before that could happen, you need to take care of yourself. If you do put others before yourself, then others will "only cry out for more" from you, meaning that people will use you as a doormat if you don't care of yourself first. That's at least what I think of when I hear the lyrics.

Sorry, but the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

Objectivism and Christianity in their purest forms are not compatible.

 

Well, I know they've always told you

Selfishness was wrong

Yet it was for me, not you, I

Came to write this song

 

I just don't see it. Maybe I should look in to it more deeply.

 

"Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for"--Anthem

 

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."--Luke 18:22

You have given very precise examples of EXACTLY what I've been talking about. Well done

[comitatus1]

For the past 3 months, I didn't listen to a single song of Rush. After analyzing some of their lyrics, I found out that some songs just dissed my Christian faith (Yes, I'm a bit of a Jesus Freak). Because of it, I just dropped Rush altogether. However, I think I'm coming back. I can't help myself, Rush is too good.

 

A lot has happened within the 3 months I was gone. I started listening to other bands and trying other things to enjoy. Here's a list:

 

Sting

Fireflight

Building 429

Fall Out Boy

 

Although these are great artists, especially FOB with their new album, none could compare to Rush.

 

Many other things has happened when I stopped listening to Rush. Here's another list:

 

I started to suck at playing bass

I felt unhappy, bored, and angry all the time

I drifted away from my love of music

 

I feel kinda bad for leaving Rush in the first place, but I'm gotta stop listening to a few albums, or at least a few songs because of the lyrics that got me away from Rush in the first place. All I can say is that I missed Rush and I'm sorry for leaving you. It was a stupid idea.

 

Anyway, what are y'all thoughts on this? Have you ever left Rush? Why?

 

I sense you sarcasm.

 

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Neil's lyrics are about the ascendency of man, [i.e. man's supremacy in all things], and therefore are against the very basic tenant of Christianity: The Sovereignty of God.

 

I find this ironic, as Neil constantly uses Christian symbolism in his lyrics, even as he dismisses the validity of Jesus Christ.

 

My personal viewpoint is: love the art even as I have absolutely no respect fo the philosophy of the artist.

 

Must be why I like the instrumentals so much....nothing to ignore or filter out.

 

Chris

[Freeze-Frame]

Hey, Czarcasm, that is not what I thought and or said. I don't want to listen to Tom Sawyer and Sweet Miracle because of ALL of their lyrics, which I deeply tried to interpret and analyze. And sorry if I didn't fully understood MalNar. I didn't know that the music video was made by a fan and not by the music business and Rush themselves. I'm insulted by their lyrics because I don't like it when they say that "Christians have no tolerance of other religions", like they did in Armor and Sword, which is definitely not the case for me. I never left Rush because of the fact they are Atheist, I left them because they had lyrics that I felt insult me and my Christian faith.

 

Anthem's lyrics don't bother you?

 

Live for yourself—there's no one else

More worth living for

Begging hands and bleeding hearts will

Only cry out for more

 

It seems to me that these lyrics would be much more insensitive/offensive towards a Christian's point of view...[lyrics stating that oneself IS the most important 'thing', not your fellow man or God/god].

 

 

Note: I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

Just to be clear: I'm only making a point. I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

I see Anthem as a song of motivation. The lyrics tell you to "Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down ". As for that single stanza, I don't see how it ties in with religion. I don't think that the people who have "begging hands" and "bleeding hearts" are actually people in prayer, if that's what you mean. I think it means that you should care about your life sometimes instead of caring about others all the time because all they will do is ask more of you until there is nothing for you to lose.

What you think I meant is not what I mean. The lyrics I mentioned talk about placing yourself before anyone else. That in itself doesn't seem very Christian-like since God would come first....and shouldn't others come before yourself (in a brotherly Christian pov)?

 

I doubt that's not what Neil actually meant. If so, then he's going against basic morality.

 

You're right, God does come first, but Rush isn't a christian band so I doubt they would mention God in any of their songs. Instead, they say that you are most important, but not in a selfish manner. You should always take care of others, but before that could happen, you need to take care of yourself. If you do put others before yourself, then others will "only cry out for more" from you, meaning that people will use you as a doormat if you don't care of yourself first. That's at least what I think of when I hear the lyrics.

Sorry, but the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

Objectivism and Christianity in their purest forms are not compatible.

 

Well, I know they've always told you

Selfishness was wrong

Yet it was for me, not you, I

Came to write this song

 

I just don't see it. Maybe I should look in to it more deeply.

 

"Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for"--Anthem

 

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."--Luke 18:22

You have given very precise examples of EXACTLY what I've been talking about. Well done

 

Good point. But I REALLY and HIGHLY doubt Neil is a selfish scumbag. He's bigger than what these lyrics have to offer. If he was, then he shouldn't be respected as person. Thank God that's not the case.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Hey, Czarcasm, that is not what I thought and or said. I don't want to listen to Tom Sawyer and Sweet Miracle because of ALL of their lyrics, which I deeply tried to interpret and analyze. And sorry if I didn't fully understood MalNar. I didn't know that the music video was made by a fan and not by the music business and Rush themselves. I'm insulted by their lyrics because I don't like it when they say that "Christians have no tolerance of other religions", like they did in Armor and Sword, which is definitely not the case for me. I never left Rush because of the fact they are Atheist, I left them because they had lyrics that I felt insult me and my Christian faith.

 

Anthem's lyrics don't bother you?

 

Live for yourself—there's no one else

More worth living for

Begging hands and bleeding hearts will

Only cry out for more

 

It seems to me that these lyrics would be much more insensitive/offensive towards a Christian's point of view...[lyrics stating that oneself IS the most important 'thing', not your fellow man or God/god].

 

 

Note: I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

Just to be clear: I'm only making a point. I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

I see Anthem as a song of motivation. The lyrics tell you to "Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down ". As for that single stanza, I don't see how it ties in with religion. I don't think that the people who have "begging hands" and "bleeding hearts" are actually people in prayer, if that's what you mean. I think it means that you should care about your life sometimes instead of caring about others all the time because all they will do is ask more of you until there is nothing for you to lose.

What you think I meant is not what I mean. The lyrics I mentioned talk about placing yourself before anyone else. That in itself doesn't seem very Christian-like since God would come first....and shouldn't others come before yourself (in a brotherly Christian pov)?

 

I doubt that's not what Neil actually meant. If so, then he's going against basic morality.

 

You're right, God does come first, but Rush isn't a christian band so I doubt they would mention God in any of their songs. Instead, they say that you are most important, but not in a selfish manner. You should always take care of others, but before that could happen, you need to take care of yourself. If you do put others before yourself, then others will "only cry out for more" from you, meaning that people will use you as a doormat if you don't care of yourself first. That's at least what I think of when I hear the lyrics.

Sorry, but the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

Objectivism and Christianity in their purest forms are not compatible.

 

Well, I know they've always told you

Selfishness was wrong

Yet it was for me, not you, I

Came to write this song

 

I just don't see it. Maybe I should look in to it more deeply.

 

"Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for"--Anthem

 

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."--Luke 18:22

You have given very precise examples of EXACTLY what I've been talking about. Well done

 

Good point. But I REALLY and HIGHLY doubt Neil is a selfish scumbag. He's bigger than what these lyrics have to offer. If he was, then he shouldn't be respected as person. Thank God that's not the case.

I've never said Peart is a selfish scumbag. Hell, the core ideology behind Anthem itself isn't even his.

 

I only mentioned Anthem in the first place because you stated (occasional) problems you had with his other song lyrics and your Christian beliefs. Anthem (imho) would seem the most UNChristianlike [if I were a Christian of strong beliefs]. But whatever, you disagree anyway

[Freeze-Frame]

Hey, Czarcasm, that is not what I thought and or said. I don't want to listen to Tom Sawyer and Sweet Miracle because of ALL of their lyrics, which I deeply tried to interpret and analyze. And sorry if I didn't fully understood MalNar. I didn't know that the music video was made by a fan and not by the music business and Rush themselves. I'm insulted by their lyrics because I don't like it when they say that "Christians have no tolerance of other religions", like they did in Armor and Sword, which is definitely not the case for me. I never left Rush because of the fact they are Atheist, I left them because they had lyrics that I felt insult me and my Christian faith.

 

Anthem's lyrics don't bother you?

 

Live for yourself—there's no one else

More worth living for

Begging hands and bleeding hearts will

Only cry out for more

 

It seems to me that these lyrics would be much more insensitive/offensive towards a Christian's point of view...[lyrics stating that oneself IS the most important 'thing', not your fellow man or God/god].

 

 

Note: I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

Just to be clear: I'm only making a point. I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

I see Anthem as a song of motivation. The lyrics tell you to "Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down ". As for that single stanza, I don't see how it ties in with religion. I don't think that the people who have "begging hands" and "bleeding hearts" are actually people in prayer, if that's what you mean. I think it means that you should care about your life sometimes instead of caring about others all the time because all they will do is ask more of you until there is nothing for you to lose.

What you think I meant is not what I mean. The lyrics I mentioned talk about placing yourself before anyone else. That in itself doesn't seem very Christian-like since God would come first....and shouldn't others come before yourself (in a brotherly Christian pov)?

 

I doubt that's not what Neil actually meant. If so, then he's going against basic morality.

 

You're right, God does come first, but Rush isn't a christian band so I doubt they would mention God in any of their songs. Instead, they say that you are most important, but not in a selfish manner. You should always take care of others, but before that could happen, you need to take care of yourself. If you do put others before yourself, then others will "only cry out for more" from you, meaning that people will use you as a doormat if you don't care of yourself first. That's at least what I think of when I hear the lyrics.

Sorry, but the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

Objectivism and Christianity in their purest forms are not compatible.

 

Well, I know they've always told you

Selfishness was wrong

Yet it was for me, not you, I

Came to write this song

 

I just don't see it. Maybe I should look in to it more deeply.

 

"Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for"--Anthem

 

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."--Luke 18:22

You have given very precise examples of EXACTLY what I've been talking about. Well done

 

Good point. But I REALLY and HIGHLY doubt Neil is a selfish scumbag. He's bigger than what these lyrics have to offer. If he was, then he shouldn't be respected as person. Thank God that's not the case.

I've never said Peart is a selfish scumbag. Hell, the core ideology behind Anthem itself isn't even his.

 

I only mentioned Anthem in the first place because you stated (occasional) problems you had with his other song lyrics and your Christian beliefs. Anthem (imho) would seem the most UNChristianlike [if I were a Christian of strong beliefs]. But whatever, you disagree anyway

 

I said that because Neil wrote them. If he had different ideologies than the lyrics, then why write them?

[JohnnyBlaze]

Freeze-Frame, you asked why.

How about one of these reasons?:

 

1) Peart actually believed in what he wrote.

2) Peart believed in SOME elements of that ideology.

3) Peart respected or was interested in the author Ayn Rand and her novella Anthem...though didn't necessarily agree with all of her ideas.

4) Peart simply wanted to play around with the words within that context of thought.

 

Who knows man? I don't know what Peart's thinking. And I certainly don't know what he was thinking 38 years ago when he wrote that song either

[ucsteve667]

I dont know whether to laugh or cry reading all this. But to be fair, I was a born again christian when i was around 14 or 15 for a lil while. Fortunately I grew out of it with the developement of critical thinking and logical reasoning. It amazes me to see and hear the things that people do and say under the cloak of primitive ideology. But this is a harmless example of conflict luckily. Scary thing is when people who think like this become poliicians and other figures of authority later in life and apply their 2000 year old selctively chosen ideologies on the rest of us. Incidently, thats what a lot of his criticizm seems to convey to me as well. And we see it every day, just watch or read the news. Rerligion is like clay, you can mold and shape it to fit any agenda that suits a person.

[Ancient Ways]

I dont know whether to laugh or cry reading all this. But to be fair, I was a born again christian when i was around 14 or 15 for a lil while. Fortunately I grew out of it with the developement of critical thinking and logical reasoning. It amazes me to see and hear the things that people do and say under the cloak of primitive ideology. But this is a harmless example of conflict luckily. Scary thing is when people who think like this become poliicians and other figures of authority later in life and apply their 2000 year old selctively chosen ideologies on the rest of us. Incidently, thats what a lot of his criticizm seems to convey to me as well. And we see it every day, just watch or read the news. Rerligion is like clay, you can mold and shape it to fit any agenda that suits a person.

 

I'm not sure the point of this thread is to criticize and question if the OP should be religious or is not as smart as you because he is. The point most people seem to be addressing is why he feels that rush is conflicting with those beliefs...

[JohnnyBlaze]

I dont know whether to laugh or cry reading all this. But to be fair, I was a born again christian when i was around 14 or 15 for a lil while. Fortunately I grew out of it with the developement of critical thinking and logical reasoning. It amazes me to see and hear the things that people do and say under the cloak of primitive ideology. But this is a harmless example of conflict luckily. Scary thing is when people who think like this become poliicians and other figures of authority later in life and apply their 2000 year old selctively chosen ideologies on the rest of us. Incidently, thats what a lot of his criticizm seems to convey to me as well. And we see it every day, just watch or read the news. Rerligion is like clay, you can mold and shape it to fit any agenda that suits a person.

 

I'm not sure the point of this thread is to criticize and question if the OP should be religious or is not as smart as you because he is. The point most people seem to be addressing is why he feels that rush is conflicting with those beliefs...

Right.

And interestingly enough, the one Rush song that I think MIGHT conflict THE MOST with his Christian beliefs, he doesn't see a conflict whatsoever. Oh well. People read different things in songs all the time anyway...

[laughedatbytime]

Hey, Czarcasm, that is not what I thought and or said. I don't want to listen to Tom Sawyer and Sweet Miracle because of ALL of their lyrics, which I deeply tried to interpret and analyze. And sorry if I didn't fully understood MalNar. I didn't know that the music video was made by a fan and not by the music business and Rush themselves. I'm insulted by their lyrics because I don't like it when they say that "Christians have no tolerance of other religions", like they did in Armor and Sword, which is definitely not the case for me. I never left Rush because of the fact they are Atheist, I left them because they had lyrics that I felt insult me and my Christian faith.

 

Anthem's lyrics don't bother you?

 

Live for yourself—there's no one else

More worth living for

Begging hands and bleeding hearts will

Only cry out for more

 

It seems to me that these lyrics would be much more insensitive/offensive towards a Christian's point of view...[lyrics stating that oneself IS the most important 'thing', not your fellow man or God/god].

 

 

Note: I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

Just to be clear: I'm only making a point. I DO NOT THINK THE LYRICS IN ANTHEM ARE INSENSITIVE OR OFFENSIVE.

 

I see Anthem as a song of motivation. The lyrics tell you to "Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down ". As for that single stanza, I don't see how it ties in with religion. I don't think that the people who have "begging hands" and "bleeding hearts" are actually people in prayer, if that's what you mean. I think it means that you should care about your life sometimes instead of caring about others all the time because all they will do is ask more of you until there is nothing for you to lose.

What you think I meant is not what I mean. The lyrics I mentioned talk about placing yourself before anyone else. That in itself doesn't seem very Christian-like since God would come first....and shouldn't others come before yourself (in a brotherly Christian pov)?

 

I doubt that's not what Neil actually meant. If so, then he's going against basic morality.

 

You're right, God does come first, but Rush isn't a christian band so I doubt they would mention God in any of their songs. Instead, they say that you are most important, but not in a selfish manner. You should always take care of others, but before that could happen, you need to take care of yourself. If you do put others before yourself, then others will "only cry out for more" from you, meaning that people will use you as a doormat if you don't care of yourself first. That's at least what I think of when I hear the lyrics.

Sorry, but the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

Objectivism and Christianity in their purest forms are not compatible.

 

Well, I know they've always told you

Selfishness was wrong

Yet it was for me, not you, I

Came to write this song

 

I just don't see it. Maybe I should look in to it more deeply.

 

"Live for yourself -- there's no one else More worth living for"--Anthem

 

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."--Luke 18:22

You have given very precise examples of EXACTLY what I've been talking about. Well done

 

Good point. But I REALLY and HIGHLY doubt Neil is a selfish scumbag. He's bigger than what these lyrics have to offer. If he was, then he shouldn't be respected as person. Thank God that's not the case.

Peart's views have changed close to 180 degrees since he wrote Anthem.

[ucsteve667]

Well, the OP put it out there, referred to himself as a bit of a Jesus freak, and asked what we thought. And to boot wont listen to an instrumental because it goes against his beliefs?!!? Thats just absurd, sorry. Only thing I will grant him slack for is that he doesnt have years of experience hearing people call them over indulgent because they like to play vast and complicated musical arrangements. This person obviously, and naively doesnt get their joke.

But seriously, if someone posted on here that they wont listen to certain songs because RUSH thinks the world is round, and they know its flat. I would no doubt have a similar response when asked. what are y'all thoughts.

[Principled Man]

....the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Rand's objectivist philosophy on egoism was not just about rights and selfishness. The word "selfishness" is often misused when discussing Rand's ideas, which are about a human being's lifestyle, a fundamental way of existing. Rand believed that a person's true moral purpose is to create his own happiness. We as individuals MUST take responsibility for our own lives and happiness.

 

No other person or group of persons ("society") can make me happy. I and I ALONE am the only one who can make me happy. It's my life, my will, my choice. Similarly, I can never make anyone else happy, so I should never be held responsible for making anyone else happy.

 

My personal drive to achieve happiness can easily coexist with treating others as I would have them treat me. I can take responsibility for my own life and ALSO give to charities, volunteer my time and energy to help others, and do whatever I want, as it makes ME happy to do such good works.

 

 

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 22:39) This can be interpreted in many ways. If we respect ourselves, if we take care of our own happiness, then we can easily respect and care for others, and we expect the same treatment in return. It is in every individual's best interest to be good to others, as that ensures everyone's happiness. Cooperation and mutual respect, rather than dependency on and exploitation of others.

 

:) :) :)

[laughedatbytime]

....the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Rand's objectivist philosophy on egoism was not just about rights and selfishness. The word "selfishness" is often misused when discussing Rand's ideas, which are about a human being's lifestyle, a fundamental way of existing. Rand believed that a person's true moral purpose is to create his own happiness. We as individuals MUST take responsibility for our own lives and happiness.

 

No other person or group of persons ("society") can make me happy. I and I ALONE am the only one who can make me happy. It's my life, my will, my choice. Similarly, I can never make anyone else happy, so I should never be held responsible for making anyone else happy.

 

My personal drive to achieve happiness can easily coexist with treating others as I would have them treat me. I can take responsibility for my own life and ALSO give to charities, volunteer my time and energy to help others, and do whatever I want, as it makes ME happy to do such good works.

 

 

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 22:39) This can be interpreted in many ways. If we respect ourselves, if we take care of our own happiness, then we can easily respect and care for others, and we expect the same treatment in return. It is in every individual's best interest to be good to others, as that ensures everyone's happiness. Cooperation and mutual respect, rather than dependency on and exploitation of others.

 

:) :) :)

 

 

I actually don't disagree with most of this. Selfishness is not innately wrong. We ARE responsible for providing for ourselves and our own happiness. But where I don't think the two are reconcilable is the view toward altruism and duty. Rand rejected it out of hand; while not being opposed to charity, if one had the means and desire to do so, Christ required obedience to God beyond self, and, in the case of the story in one of my posts above, required of the "rich man" well beyond what Rand considered healthy.

 

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

 

Playboy, March 1964

 

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

 

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

 

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

 

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

[Principled Man]

....the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Rand's objectivist philosophy on egoism was not just about rights and selfishness. The word "selfishness" is often misused when discussing Rand's ideas, which are about a human being's lifestyle, a fundamental way of existing. Rand believed that a person's true moral purpose is to create his own happiness. We as individuals MUST take responsibility for our own lives and happiness.

 

No other person or group of persons ("society") can make me happy. I and I ALONE am the only one who can make me happy. It's my life, my will, my choice. Similarly, I can never make anyone else happy, so I should never be held responsible for making anyone else happy.

 

My personal drive to achieve happiness can easily coexist with treating others as I would have them treat me. I can take responsibility for my own life and ALSO give to charities, volunteer my time and energy to help others, and do whatever I want, as it makes ME happy to do such good works.

 

 

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 22:39) This can be interpreted in many ways. If we respect ourselves, if we take care of our own happiness, then we can easily respect and care for others, and we expect the same treatment in return. It is in every individual's best interest to be good to others, as that ensures everyone's happiness. Cooperation and mutual respect, rather than dependency on and exploitation of others.

 

:) :) :)

 

 

I actually don't disagree with most of this. Selfishness is not innately wrong. We ARE responsible for providing for ourselves and our own happiness. But where I don't think the two are reconcilable is the view toward altruism and duty. Rand rejected it out of hand; while not being opposed to charity, if one had the means and desire to do so, Christ required obedience to God beyond self, and, in the case of the story in one of my posts above, required of the "rich man" well beyond what Rand considered healthy.

 

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

 

Playboy, March 1964

 

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

 

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

 

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

 

http://aynrandlexico...on/charity.html

 

Oh, for sure.....altruism as a moral duty is not a virtue at all. Requiring someone to be altruistic is inherently oppressive.

 

As for Jesus teaching the rich man, I interpreted the moral of the story to be more about shedding one's material baggage than about giving one's riches to others. It was a good way of saying, "You can't take it with you." Spiritual goodness and salvation is all about the person within, and not what the person owns. I didn't see the lesson as one of obligatory charity.

[gangsterfurious]

All I know is that if there NEVER was anything called religion, meaning it was never started, never thought of, written about, it was always non-existent, nothing or no one to pray to, no such thing as a prayer, no religion ever - there would be one hell of a lot LESS arguing in this world. Less murders, less wars. Actually, almost NO wars. And, no people knocking on my goddam door wanting me to believe what they believe. And, people wouldn't have to "leave" a band for a while because of the lyrics.

 

I doubt that when you consider that it was godless communistic regimes that have been responsible for the most mass murders.

[laughedatbytime]

....the lyrics in this song couldn't be any more a reflection of Randian Objectivism (not to mention the title was taken from one of Rand's works), and this philosophy does emphasize the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective, and is explicitly a selfish ideology. As such, it does go against what Christ preached, in the second Great Commandment in Matthew 22.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Rand's objectivist philosophy on egoism was not just about rights and selfishness. The word "selfishness" is often misused when discussing Rand's ideas, which are about a human being's lifestyle, a fundamental way of existing. Rand believed that a person's true moral purpose is to create his own happiness. We as individuals MUST take responsibility for our own lives and happiness.

 

No other person or group of persons ("society") can make me happy. I and I ALONE am the only one who can make me happy. It's my life, my will, my choice. Similarly, I can never make anyone else happy, so I should never be held responsible for making anyone else happy.

 

My personal drive to achieve happiness can easily coexist with treating others as I would have them treat me. I can take responsibility for my own life and ALSO give to charities, volunteer my time and energy to help others, and do whatever I want, as it makes ME happy to do such good works.

 

 

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 22:39) This can be interpreted in many ways. If we respect ourselves, if we take care of our own happiness, then we can easily respect and care for others, and we expect the same treatment in return. It is in every individual's best interest to be good to others, as that ensures everyone's happiness. Cooperation and mutual respect, rather than dependency on and exploitation of others.

 

:) :) :)

 

 

I actually don't disagree with most of this. Selfishness is not innately wrong. We ARE responsible for providing for ourselves and our own happiness. But where I don't think the two are reconcilable is the view toward altruism and duty. Rand rejected it out of hand; while not being opposed to charity, if one had the means and desire to do so, Christ required obedience to God beyond self, and, in the case of the story in one of my posts above, required of the "rich man" well beyond what Rand considered healthy.

 

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

 

Playboy, March 1964

 

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

 

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

 

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

 

http://aynrandlexico...on/charity.html

 

Oh, for sure.....altruism as a moral duty is not a virtue at all. Requiring someone to be altruistic is inherently oppressive.

 

As for Jesus teaching the rich man, I interpreted the moral of the story to be more about shedding one's material baggage than about giving one's riches to others. It was a good way of saying, "You can't take it with you." Spiritual goodness and salvation is all about the person within, and not what the person owns. I didn't see the lesson as one of obligatory charity.

I actually read that the same way you do in terms of it not being a lesson of obligatory charity. But it's clear to me from the parable, don't put your own needs first...put others, and the needs of his kingdom before your own.

[ucsteve667]

Not sure what the stats are on The Crusades are, or the Middle East in general over the last millennium or so, But I'd say the godly are doing their best to catch up lately too.

*count down to bump to Sense O Clock News...10....9...8....7...*

Edited November 30, 2013 by ucsteve667

[laughedatbytime]

Not sure what the stats are on The Crusades are, or the Middle East in general over the last millennium or so, But I'd say the godly are doing their best to catch up lately too.

*count down to bump to Sense O Clock News...10....9...8....7...*

The number killed by the Communists in the 20th century is about equal to the entire population of Europe and Asia during the Crusades.

[ucsteve667]

Oh theres that Europeans in North America thing too

[gangsterfurious]

Oh theres that Europeans in North America thing too

 

I'm going to tell you what I told all of my white liberal friends on Facebook on Thanksgiving - abased off of the assumption that you are a white American. If you feel so bad about the whole "Europeans vs. Native Americans" thing you can always pack up and go back to wherever your European ancestors came from.

[Principled Man]

All I know is that if there NEVER was anything called religion, meaning it was never started, never thought of, written about, it was always non-existent, nothing or no one to pray to, no such thing as a prayer, no religion ever - there would be one hell of a lot LESS arguing in this world. Less murders, less wars. Actually, almost NO wars. And, no people knocking on my goddam door wanting me to believe what they believe. And, people wouldn't have to "leave" a band for a while because of the lyrics.

 

I doubt that when you consider that it was godless communistic regimes that have been responsible for the most mass murders.

 

Those communist regimes have been around for a mere 100 years. Mass murders and genocides have been occurring for many millennia. Check out the exploits of Genghis Khan and his Mongol Empire. They slaughtered millions and millions from Russia to Iran to China.

 

Tyrants slaughter people over land, wealth, and the thrill of conquest. Their political/religious persuasions are irrelevant.

[ucsteve667]

yeah sure, Ill do that. we were talking numbers and communists,

[Tony R]

Oh theres that Europeans in North America thing too

 

I'm going to tell you what I told all of my white liberal friends on Facebook on Thanksgiving - abased off of the assumption that you are a white American. If you feel so bad about the whole "Europeans vs. Native Americans" thing you can always pack up and go back to wherever your European ancestors came from.

 

How does that even make any sense?

 

If you don't like it f**k off? WTF???

[gangsterfurious]

Oh theres that Europeans in North America thing too

 

I'm going to tell you what I told all of my white liberal friends on Facebook on Thanksgiving - abased off of the assumption that you are a white American. If you feel so bad about the whole "Europeans vs. Native Americans" thing you can always pack up and go back to wherever your European ancestors came from.

 

How does that even make any sense?

 

If you don't like it f**k off? WTF???

 

Let me give you a more drawn out explanation since the meaning of my shorter statement eludes you.

 

On Thanksgiving day my Facebook wall was bombarded with posts by white liberals bemoaning the treatment of Native Americans by white Europeans. They were complaining of things which happened before any of us were born and so I asked them what they were doing now to help living Native Americans, other than posting stupid memes on their bloody Facebook walls and was met with silence.

 

What I was telling ucsteve667, in the spirit of the season, was the same thing I was telling them. This was due to the comment he made regarding Europeans vs. Native Americans that if he was so concerned about it that he could take the advice I gave to my other friends that were concerned about it as well. I hope that explains things for you.

[Tony R]

Oh theres that Europeans in North America thing too

 

I'm going to tell you what I told all of my white liberal friends on Facebook on Thanksgiving - abased off of the assumption that you are a white American. If you feel so bad about the whole "Europeans vs. Native Americans" thing you can always pack up and go back to wherever your European ancestors came from.

 

How does that even make any sense?

 

If you don't like it f**k off? WTF???

 

Let me give you a more drawn out explanation since the meaning of my shorter statement eludes you.

 

On Thanksgiving day my Facebook wall was bombarded with posts by white liberals bemoaning the treatment of Native Americans by white Europeans. They were complaining of things which happened before any of us were born and so I asked them what they were doing now to help living Native Americans, other than posting stupid memes on their bloody Facebook walls and was met with silence.

 

What I was telling ucsteve667, in the spirit of the season, was the same thing I was telling them. This was due to the comment he made regarding Europeans vs. Native Americans that if he was so concerned about it that he could take the advice I gave to my other friends that were concerned about it as well. I hope that explains things for you.

 

It certainly explains you. I applaud you for your candidness, most people try and hide their stupidity.