> Nowhere in my post did I attack any religion, and I was very startled to find out that you'd read that quotation as an indictment of Christianity in particular. I'm very sorry that quotation offended you so, but it wasn't meant to at all. What you took as caricatures of Christian beliefs, I took as human abuses of religion in general. Whether they're supposed to or not, people sometimes *do* use the tenets of their religion (not necessarily Christianity, but it can be) to try to get God to do what they want, and so on and so forth, and many people *do* obey the tenets of said religion (again, possibly, but not necessarily, Christianity) out of a fear of punishment either on earth, in an afterlife, or in a successive life.

The question is not about whether I am offended or not (I'm not). It is the one quotation in particular that I took issue with. I know that you did not specifically attack religion in general, or Christianity in particular. However, the particular criticisms within your quotation are, in my experience, commonly leveled against religious people in general, and Christians in particular. The statements apply to more than just Christians, but I wanted to explain why I disagree with the particular criticisms from a Christian's perspective and a Christian's theology.

This may just betray my experience, but I do not believe that I am alone in having heard just the criticisms of religious views (as opposed to those of deist) that are expounded in your quotation. And I do not believe that they could be considered otherwise; they may not be "attacks" per se, but by parallel contrast with 'deistic' views, they are looked down upon, and therefore thought to be wanting.

I do not feel attacked by what you said, I just wanted to refute the quotation. You certainly shouldn't feel bad about anything, as you did nothing wrong.
>
> I agree with you, based upon my reading of the Bible, that ideal Christians would not fall into these traps, but Paul writes in Romans that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Still, I never said that this was the way that all Christians behave and I was surprised and a bit confused upon learning that you interpreted my post this way.

You did not say that all Christians behave in such ways, and it is true that some Christians (and other religious people) have some of the failings mentioned. But, the quotation left little room for that kind of nuance; I can still disagree with the particular points, and considered them in the general context in which they were brought. Of course there can be mitigating circumstances, and I assume that you know them as well as I. The fact that the man or woman you quoted thought that the erroneous practices were common enough to point out, however, shows just that it is a criticism that needs to be dealt with in some manner.

>
> ... I thought "I feel it is right" implied an ethical judgment. I'm really not sure what you mean here; please clarify it for me. (I think arguments about the divine inspiration of the Bible, etc. have been done to death on this forum, so I'll just let that part pass and we'll all be happier for it. ;))

Sure. I really don't need to make any theological points at all to make this make sense to you. My point was simply that your feelings, or my feelings, are not the proper basis for good ethical judgments at all. What you wrote was indeed an ethical judgment; I simply questioned the validity of such a judgment if it is based only on emotion and vague feeling. A judgment backed by reasons is far better, in my opinion, than any based on feeling alone. Your feeling may lead you to a right judgment; in this case, I agree with you, and think that it has. But I think that we would probably agree that feelings are inherently worse as foundations for ethics than reasons are. This is a simple but important point, in my opinion.


> > As far as doing what is right out of fear of punishment, only the most immature Christians act only or primarily because of such motivations.
>
> See above.

My response stands. I have heard this criticism of religious people so often that I cannot dismiss it as a judgment made of a few religious people. Obviously you don't believe that all religious people, or Christians, act out of fear of punishment. But you did quote it, and I know too many people who think that most Christians think this way to let the point slide unchallenged.

> >But even for those who do what is right only out of fear of punishment, surely you don't believe that your own personal joy is a better motivation for doing right than fear?
>
> Ah ... yes?
>
> >If it is (and that is an open question, needing reasons to accept one motivation over the other) it does not seem that one vague and partially reasonable personal feeling is much better than another as a motivation for right action.
>
> Would you rather go swimming because it's fun to splash in the water, or because someone is pointing a gun at your head and saying, "Get in the pool"?

As TOM wrote, what I would rather is irrelevant. My point is about whether or not one emotion (joy) is better than another (fear) as a motivation for action. I would probably prefer the former merely because it is positive, but that is not much of a reason. What I was asking is this: what reason does one have for thinking that joy is a better motivation than fear? It is not obvious, and I am curious, even if you give personal reasons. My point is that there is no good particular reason, on the face of things, to think that joy or any emotion whatever is an inherently better motivation for action than fear, or any other emotion whatever.

> The universe is a huge and incredible gift in its complexity and variety. I know I certainly didn't do anything to deserve even something as simple as the elm tree in my front yard. How can I be anything but grateful to and awestruck by the One who put all of this together?

That is a really good answer, actually. I was merely making the point that love of the universe does not in itself provide the motivation for loving God. Your explanation adds several premises that make it quite reasonable to do so. In my experience, most people who merely believe in God, in the way that deists do (whatever generalizations one can draw about deists) have what might be considered a love for the universe, but no resulting love for God. Sometimes, there is a good, healthy respect for God, but I don't class those as the same thing. Again, perhaps just my experience.

>
> > It follows the other way; if one loves God, one probably will take on the same loves He has, which include the universe and the people and creatures in it.
>
> Not really. I still find it pretty difficult to love mosquitoes, even though I know God made them, too. ;)

Yes really. You just don't know the wonders of mosquitoes!
Seriously though, what you wrote brings out my point nicely. I did not say that loving God would make it easy to love the things He made, just that such love would probably follow. The fact that you find it difficult to love mosquitoes is not the issue; the fact that because of love for God you would even try to is. For myself, this is exactly the situation I find myself in; I try hard to love people and respect and cherish the physical world not only because it is right and proper, or for any sense of fulfillment I get, but because I love God, and that motivates my to love the things He loves.

>
> > That, and only a badly misguided Christian would really believe that "loving" God would result in His "doing your bidding". Not only is the belief itself nonsense in its stated terms, it does not characterize the true motivations of anyone who actually loves God, as opposed to trying to bargain with Him.
>
> See above, again.

O.K. But I think the point I made is an important one, because so many people think that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Native American spiritualists, etc. are doing exactly that, doing what is right and praying just to get God or the gods or the spirits to do what they want. And for most religious people, this is simply not the case. I felt it needed to be said, and though I am sure that you do not believe all religious people are this way, I am not sure about the individual you quoted.

> You misunderstand me. I don't seek a rest after death, but in death itself. I don't know if there's anything at all after death; all I expect from it is a cessation of my presence on earth. I have no desire to live forever. There's a lot to be done in this life, and I'll do as much of it as I can. Eventually, my body will get worn out, and when it does, it will stop functioning, and that simple ending is all the rest I meant to imply by my inclusion of that section of the quote.

I did misunderstand you. I still think that eternal reward is better than rest of the kind I described, and the mere cessation of life that you describe.

> I hope that perhaps this time around, things are a bit clearer. If not, I'm willing to try again.

I think I did understand you the first time. I was merely arguing with the points you presented in the quotation, as they were presented. I made no other assumptions, other than the fact that as the points made against 'traditional' religious belief and for deism told against many religions in general, and Christianity in particular. As such, I refuted them from the position I know best, the Christian position.

From one of the responses, it seems that I have been too harsh in my criticisms, and too personal. I am sorry if I offended you; I am only interested in arguing about ideas, not personal details and beliefs as such, so I will try to make that crystal clear so that there are no more misunderstandings. If I caused the same for you, please, accept my apology:)
>
> -Cynthia

frum