The truth must never version (i.e. change over time). =========================================================================== Jesus said "Love each other". A profound statement, for in it we find the "ethic of reciprocity", which is the basic cornerstone of concepts like honor, compassion, and friendship. But this statement is almost too profound for just 3 words. And its conciseness may have been how it could latter be twisted into Social Security and Medicaid. Which are essentially examples of human laziness, a desire to seek short-cuts. As the scientific and technological world advanced, so did it enter our conciousness that maybe LOVE could be made easier. If carrots were only a dime a dozen now, maybe love can also cost less. Then the pavenment hit the dirt, a whimisical idea became a frankenstein reality. For those who looked objectively at what governmental kindness was, they saw something abhorrent. But for others the desire was so strong to have cheap love, the ignored such issues or deemed them only temparory set-backs, something that could be overcome if we kept the faith in the ultimately goal of easy love, and persisted in our efforts to find it. So the contradiction was layered in many forms of deceit and self-deceit, to either keep the wishful thinking afloat, or for those who were actually profitting from the monster, to prolong its life. For those who saw the contradiction and looked at it long enough, they ran the risk of losing all faith in the whole concept of love. Ayn Rand pointed out, in great detail, the problems of such institutional solicalism. After studying her points, I was one of those who lost faith in love. And let me tell you, it was not a plesant place to be. I'll briefly describe what it was like. On many occasions, I'd see someone in a tragic situation, in need of help, and I'd say to myself "they dug their own pit, it would be wrong to help them out, I would be teaching them the wrong lesson". Even if bad luck is the cause of their tragedy, they should have known the risks and should still bare the consequences. Any desire in me to help them is "wrong", and I have to consciously override it. I have only just now seen my error. I had completely warped what love was, in thinking that all charity is misguided. http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=1559 God commands helpfulness to one's neighbor, in several places. Rand critiques this as religion's fall into support of the ethical monstrosity of collectivization. This has been too true among too many preachers, especially in the 1930's and 1940's when American intellectuals were believing Stalin's own press releases. But what, then, is the true ethical basis for God's command to help one's neighbor? When Jesus in the New Testament was asked to interpret the identify of one's neighbor, Jesus did not describe the sloth living in your attic waiting for dinner. Jesus described a victim of a crime, who because of the violence done, was incapable of helping himself. This is precisely the attitude seen among Rand's heroes when they mount a rescue of John Galt from his federal prison. Here is the key point: God nowhere commands that the productive become co-dependent enablers of the slothful. In fact, another New Testament rabbi, named Paul, stated quite firmly that "those who will not work shall not eat." Willful sloth is not to be coddled. Rand is quite right. I, a preacher, applaud her. But let us then return to Jesus's example of love. All of us do not want the just man to lose faith in virtue. Do we not wish to help someone who has led the honest life, but been struck down by evil men? Do we not, at the very least, want to go up to them and say "it's not as bad as you think, not all men are evil, so even though it may be hard in this moment, try to keep your faith by knowing that others too believe as you do". But more then just words of encouragement, we desire to undo the evil, because we want to believe we live in a world where evil is not the last word. Ultimately, it requires faith to be an honest and just man. You must give of yourself, and hope that it will be for an eventual good. When you are struck down, in spite of, or perhaps "because of", your honorable nature, its hard to keep your faith. When we see this battle in someone else, do we not long to help them? And isn't this in fact the true purpose of charity, not a financial giving but a soulful giving? The simple desire to help someone who's soul is down-trodden? Who is in danger of losing faith? So no, it is not wrong to be kind, to give, to love. What a horrible distortion it was to ever think that. In fact, I believe now that if you write-off love, you may very well start to feel you are living without hope. That's what it started to feel like for me. And I have to wonder if it is only love, faith, and courage that take us past the miry pit. I'm reminded by Frodo's journey, the archtypal example of how long-durating faith and courage overcomes an evil that initially seems overwhelming. And the protagonist does not take this journey alone. If he had, he probably would never have been able to sustain his faith. Others helped him stave off discouragement, reminded him of the ultimate hope, so that he was able to continually believe each step was worth taking. =========================================================================== Jesus said "I am the truth". The Theist will exhibit objective principles through all of life. This does not occur out of a dutiful obedience to external commandments, which is the refuge of the unawake and has led to the kinds of abuses that Rand rightly criticizes. Instead, the Objectivist principles that Rand recognized are true because they are revealed to be true. It is no surprise that a conscious Atheist can articulate a moral world-view; in the New Testament Romans Chapter One states that the truth is revealed in nature and occasionally great minds have glimpsed it. To Christians this is called "general" or "natural" revelation. That which Rand has determined to be true in nature is true in scripture and true to the heart of God.