summing up, 'cause it finally summed up in my head

[acroyear]

Being Christian is neither the exclusive requirement of, nor fundamental evidence of, being a moral person.

I have met far too many moral, caring, sharing and contributing atheists to think that atheism is proof of amorality.

I have met and have read about far too many assholes who call themselves "Christian" to ever think that claiming to have faith (any faith) or being part of a church is automatically proof of leading a moral life.

If anyone throws out the word "atheist" like it is automatically proof of their position, I will redirect them to this post.  Regardless of whether or not the subject actually is an atheist, it is IRRELEVANT to their moral character.

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

effectively, yes.

but isn't that my entire point in starting this post?

the Religious Right would have you think that by mere virtue of being atheist, they therefore have no (religiously defined, which they insist is the only) morality and thus MUST have either done reprehensible things or are encouraging others to do so. THAT is the great lie.

[eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com]

I didn't understand your point. And I guess my point is, no one can see the heart.

Once, Jesus or some other biblical dude wrote something like "If I do tons of good things, and finally surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, it is worthless."

The opposite, having the good deeds and the love, is for me a working definition for morality, until I have a better one. It implies sacrifice, doing lots of good stuff, and also having the love, the intangible thing that extends beyond yourself and beyond your person.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

watch the pseudoquotes, please, when discussing Jesus or his parables and teachings, particularly in a discussion that has reached the seriousness this has. its one things to openly paraphrase with the understanding of the inherent meaning in a better attempt to get that meaning across, per the Godspell example cited above and the means by which it was derived. its another to guess, and by guessing, perhaps easily (and accidentally) produce a strawman.

the specific quote comes from Paul, not Jesus. 1 Corinthians 13, often quoted as "the wedding passage" because with its emphasis on love (later in the chapter), it takes its place with excerpts from Songs of Solomon and others at most Christian wedding services.

1
If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2
And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
3
If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

That last verse is an extension of and clarification of the passage discussed earlier, of the rich man who was told "sell everything and follow me" - again it was all to easy for some to take that as a literal meaning, to return to the idea of rules and regulations and "do X,Y,Z and all is forgiven" and here Paul was trying to get back to the root, to the choice of Love, and away from just the actions that mimic love without it being real.

It actually shows that even within 2 generations, the original message of Jesus was already being lost.

Monty Python's Life of Brian beautifully demonstrates exactly how that happened.

[eatsoylentgreen.livejournal.com]

pseudoquotes? you just cut and pasted that from bible net.

I agree, though, except I don't know anyone who would give away their posessions and their body up to the flames, atheist or not. Do you know of sacrifice?