It might look odd, that I hit "like" for both yours and von Koehler's posts, but I can integrate that and make it consistent.
As for reading to learn, in Rand's books if you've read any, is there sinning involved? Is there lying, cheating, stealing, greed of gain, fornication, anger toward others, etc.. where the end justifies the means, a perceived good over evil, and therefore such acts are considered OK? Knowing that I'm a sinner, and wanting my path to go forward, I really don't want to read about things that could tempt me. I'm that weak in the flesh.
Yes there is writing about all that. It is done in such a way as to show that the characters had put themselves into that situation by doing that which is not good for their own existence. The only failing I see in her writing is that those characters' errors of knowledge weren't corrected at once. As far as reading about things that evoke feelings of temptation, THAT is precisely what needs to be addressed: The strength of character and conviction to reject such temptation. For me, currently, it's the temptation to rush things, to impose
my will instead of His on events. Prayers of that nature are answered, and it seems immediate from my perspective. That allows me to follow the path in the right direction. It matters not what I might read about someone else doing; when I know that emulating them is wrong, I know also precisely where to go to fend off any desire to do any emulating.
Her pure philosophical texts are genius.
Precisely what I'm talking about. Her works of fiction contain illustrations of her philosophy which are absolutely consistent with her non-fiction.
The infidelity doesn't bother me nearly as much as the concept of a man who was snookered by 'society' into putting himself in a position in which he found himself. To me, it would've been equally abominable to suffer for life denying himself the love of his life, and I don't think that a loving God would demand that of one of His children. There are provisions for being deceived into matrimony and the remedies for that. While Rand didn't come right out and state that was the basis for the switching of horses in midstream, so to speak, it is clear that the shift in the man's loyalty was more a recognition of a deep and insidious betrayal and not just a pack rat dropping one shiny for another shinier. Put another way, am I wrong if I were to tell you not to commit murder because it is wrong, instead of quoting the Commandment? They are not any different in the result, from the contemplated victim's point of view.
Admission of any fault, including weakness and sinfulness means nothing, without the resolve to do something about it to gird yourself against continuing it. Do that, and when you combine it with your well-honed discernment between 'false goodliness' and Godliness, you can rest assured that you've made yourself a witness-in-deeds as well as words, for the Lord.
I'm way past getting some sleep. Been a long day for me, and possibly longer tomorrow. Thank you for this conversation, though. It's given me something to think about to keep me from having idle (mental) hands tonight.