[Mr. Jeeves]

I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.

And the author thinks his case is bolstered by holding this up as an example of how "horrible" Rand is - but it looks like a pretty accurate insight, to me. Not about who Jesus was, but about how the political entity known as the church have used Him over the centuries to make money.

[Pessimist]

Exactly.

I’m still waiting for a rational refutation of that statement here, but I think I’ll be waiting a while.

This is why I wonder sometimes if -at the core - Christianity is incompatible with freedom.

[Sherman Logan]

Ms. Rand was exactly right. The biblical story of Christ is one of a perfect or ideal man who voluntarily died to redeem those who were and are not perfect.

Ms. Rand may consider the "notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice" as being appalling, but I think most Christians will differ.

Does she really think a vicious man would sacrifice himself for others? Only a man of supreme virtue and heroism would do this.

it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors.

Quite correct. True Christians would never force others to do so, of course.

Mother Theresa was pretty obviously superior (morally, mentally, etc.) to many if not most of those she devoted her life to, but she freely chose to do so. That her life was therefore wasted, which I assume Ms. Rand would believe, is at best a debatable proposition.

I would contend she led a high and admirable life. If she chose it freely, I don't see why Ms. Rand should object.