What's in a Name?

Why must 'Christians' label themselves as such and proudly
boast? I thought the point was the action and the effect of
'goodness'--for its own sake? With these folks it's all ego and
PR campaign.


The idea that good deeds are limited to those who have a
self-believed 'higher calling' is mistaken. Nonetheless,
self-professed Xians have a preponderance of self-importance
and tend to dismiss the good deeds of non-religious folks.

As if by virtue of being separated from the church and the idea
of 'god' and 'believers,' good deeds are hollow and ineffective.
After all, how could there be any possible motivation to help
people and be an upstanding person without god?!?


There are--and can be--many motivations for doing good;

*Conscience
*Reason
*Compassion
*Kindness
*Humanity
*Sense of Community
*Empathy
*Paying Back (or Paying it forward)
*Choosing Civilized behavior over selfishness

It certainly isn't limited to attempting to mimic a higher being or
winning brownie points to make it into a cloud-kingdom post-death.


But the misconception, as always, is that labeling oneself 'covered
in god's name' provides a legitimacy that is not owned by others.
There is a question as to why someone who doesn't believe in god--
or at least voice it vociferously-- would be trying to get involved.


I'd wager a terribly minuscule amount of religious people actually
do good at all, and of those who do, fewer still do it when no
one is looking and there is no acclaim to be garnered.


Most that I have seen have actually use the name and concept
of god and their religion to do immeasurable harm to their fellow
man.

Let the good do good. When you attach the provision that one
who receives charity must also be subjected to proselytizing,
you eliminate any semblance of actual kindness.

****************************************************