- as of 10/01/2021, I identify as a Christian
I am not convinced that being Christian is the best. My concern about Christians is that they are ultimately willing to sacrifice their life on Earth because their reward is in heaven. The Christian is at odds with the Anti-Christian who does not want to sacrifice their life on Earth because they do not believe their reward is in heaven.
- A Christian is willing to sacrifice their self for their people out of Love. This can be literal and symbolic. Symbolically, a king of kings should be seeking another king who would be more qualified and deserving of being king. Symbolically, a king of kings does not seek glory and the process of governing the church should facilitate a king’s anonymity. Literally, a king would sacrifice their life if given a choice between their own life and their people’s life. There would be no better death than this. A long and challenging life would be better than the best death.
Translation of Jesus' Teachings on the Mount
You may as well inject the words “what if” in front of each sentence that follows.
Jesus was a homeless man. Jesus expressed negative emotions. Jesus tried to be righteous. Jesus showed mercy. Jesus had pure intentions. Jesus was persecuted for being righteous. People told lies about Jesus because he was righteous. Jesus was very happy when people persecuted him and lied about him. Jesus did not hide his good works. Jesus did not get angry with his brother. Jesus did not judge his brother as being worthless. Jesus did not judge his brother as a fool. Jesus kept harmony with his brothers. Jesus would lie to the enemy. Jesus did not lust after women. Jesus did not swear. Jesus did not resist evil. Jesus loved his enemy.
Jesus made secret donations. Jesus prayed in secret. Jesus was forgiving. Jesus would fast in secret. Jesus did not have treasures on Earth. Jesus' treasure was in heaven and that is where his heart was also. Jesus did not seek wealth and instead sought God and righteousness. Jesus did not plan and worry about the future. Jesus did not worry about food, water, and clothing.
Jesus judged carefully and judged people based on the fruit of their labor.
This analysis was done based on Matthew 5, 6, and 7. I did this analysis because I was told that Ayn Rand’s objectivism ideology was an inverse of what people thought of as moral and good for the previous 2000 years before Rand. I think the major difference between Rand’s teachings and Jesus' teachings is that she taught that it was good to worship the self and wealth. Rand taught that it was bad to be willing to sacrifice yourself for others.
I can imagine a world where the Randians who claim the world for themselves indirectly persecute the homeless Christians who want to wander the land serving God but have no land to wander because it is all privately owned. In the end, the two ideologies can only coexist because the Christians love their enemy, love being persecuted, and are ultimately willing to sacrifice their lives on Earth for their eternal life in Heaven.
- The Church can transform deserts and places that nobody wants to claim. The land can be transformed into a land of abandunce: a land overflowing with milk and honey. The gifts coming out of the transformed lands of the Church will cause neighbors to appreciate the good works of the Church.
I would classify ideologies into four general categories. You have individualist ideologies, collectivist ideologies, violent ideologies, and non-violent ideologies. Jesus' teachings seem to be non-violent collectivist. I think the person I spoke with recently would classify Rand’s teachings to be violent individualism. I understand his perspective because I can imagine the righteous Christian wandering into a privately owned forest and eating fish out of a privately owned pond then being sent to a privately owned prison. I can also imagine a world where there is nowhere for the righteous Christian to miraculously acquire food, water, and clothing because everything is privately owned.
- The Church will eventually be able to produce better goods and services than the capitalists and the Church will be able to do it more efficiently. The capitalists will be unable to compete with the Church.
I think the person who spoke against Rand believes in taxing wealthy people and providing services to the non-wealthy people through government programs. I classify this ideology as violent collectivist because taxation is a form of theft and a form of violence. The violent collectivist and the violent individualist perceive a form of theft and violence being perpetrated by the people who possess the other ideology. They often perceive the other to be immoral. I perceive violent people to be immoral. The violent individualist and the violent collectivist are both immoral because they are both violent.
- The Church and its government will receive donations but these donations will not be required. It is the responsibility of the Church to use the donations in ways which encourage more donations.
I prefer non-violence. Whether or not you possess a collectivist or an individualist ideology is less important than having a non-violent ideology. With regard and agreement with the collectivists, I do not agree with hoarding away resources like the people who purchase large amounts of land and restrict people from accessing and developing that land. And with regard and agreement with the individualists, I do not believe I should be willing to sacrifice my life for the benefit of others.
- I like to imagine land owners like Alabama Power facilitating the Church and its ability to emerge.
I believe that we must fix our failing justice system by which people can make claims of injury. The homeless Christian should be able to make a claim of injury against the government which requires them to purchase a fishing license. And the wealthy Randian should be able to make a claim of injury against the government which requires them to pay taxes to people who are not willing to learn how to fish.
- I like to imagine the Church takes things to the next level. We don’t need to give a fish. We don’t need to teach fishing. We need to be shephards of the animals to create a land of abundance. This is different and better than conservation.