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.
I think Rand would consider Mother Theresa among her heroines. John Galt worked on creating motors, because that is what gave him satisfaction in life. Henry Rearden worked on alloys, because he enjoyed doing that. Mother Theresa helped the poor because that was what she wanted to do with her life, rather than anybody convincing her she owed her life.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to give your life for others. The Randian tragedy is doing what you don't want to do, because somebody has convinced you that you OWE your life to others, if you catch the distinction.
“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.”
You don’t really believe that, do you? I know you think you do, but exactly where is the redemption? Seems men were exactly the same way after Christ died as before, so evidently the redemption didn’t take.
Right?
Hank