Even christians do the good they do from the motives in their heart and the choices they make are their own, so they are humanists and in general good people, so good humanists.
This line about how it is christ doing it for one is poppycock.
Every one makes their own way through life.
Christ is a literary construct that is meant as a tribute to what many consider to be a noble and honourable man. He is a legend. When people talk about "becoming Christ" or realising the "Christ in you," it is the recognition and understanding that what Christ achieved is within reach of every human being. All it requires is courage, resolve and mettle. It is actually not so hard to be or to be like Christ. We simply make excuses why we cannot be like him. This is why there is still so much poverty and injustice in the world. It's because we are too weak.
It's like what Yoda says to Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, "Don't try, just do."
This is semantical misdirection.
People either act noble or they do not.
"For the glory of God", has a very nice ring to it, but it means naught.
It all has to do with harmony.
.........
All the rest of these notions people come up with is just over-dramatization of simple things.
Heroics and adventurism is deeply entrenched in the story of Jesus Christ, the story of Christ, the story of Christianity. That's what you will find in the New Testament. That piece of literature is full of heroics and adventurism. Heroics and adventurism has always been a part of the mental framework of Christianity. A deeply nagging problem, however, is that many people overlook the existence of this mental and literary framework of heroics and adventurism and don't realise that not everybody cares about the heroics and adventure of Christianity. They want to know about the practical value of Christianity in the contemporary world. They don't want to hear stories about the heroes and legends of Christianity, of words and concepts that refer to an otherworldly reality.
When asked about Christianity, the response of many Christians is to define their devotion in terms of these heroics when it is of no interest to the person asking the question.
I believe that it is possible to express one's devotion to Christianity without reference to such heroics and adventurism. If these heroics and adventurisms are just a mental framework and literary construct, we must be able to express our devotion in completely different terms. We must be able to create new literary constructs to describe the same story. But if we can achieve that, we must also be able to discard the mental framework and literary constructs we have become so accustomed to in Christianity.
Why do such obvious things need all these useless explanations? One must be mentally ill to need an explanation for the above.(*)
Some people like heroics and adventure. It is what keeps us going each day, to think that we are heroes on a quest to prove or discover something noble in ourselves or engaging in some cosmic struggle.
The question of what constitutes a "mental illness" at this point in this discussion to me is a matter of opinion (unless you can meaningfully define what you mean by "mental illness"). If you want me to describe my experience of the term "mental illness," it is most often used to describe individuals whose behaviour, thinking or perception of "reality" differs significantly from the social norm, to an extent where they cannot function or communicate meaningfully or purposefully with the average individual in society. In these situations, "illness" in the term "mental illness" seems to have nothing to do with having a so-called "illness" but judging people on their ability to relate meaningfully among others in the same society or community.
When people become overly obsessed with heroics and adventurism, I don't consider that a "mental illness." It's more like a social disorder.
The term "mental illness" to me is much like a propaganda term used to achieve social hegemony. It's like a form of racism. "Mental illness" is used often by people who are trying to label someone as inferior, diseased or as functioning on a subhuman level. It's like you're saying to someone that they are not functioning at full capacity. They're malfunctioning. They're defective.
You're criticising people for being obsessed with heroics and adventurism. Heroes and legends are ideas, so this is an "ideological racism." It's a racism of ideas. You're devaluing someone's ideas, discrediting them, deeming those people less important in society and effectively creating "virtual social classes" in your mind.
I wonder who is the one suffering from a "mental illness" here.
