>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.

Okay, fair enough, but given the tone of your first reply, I was sure I had triggered offence, if not anger, when I replied, and I was trying to smooth that over before I did anything else.

>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.
>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.

They are criticisms indeed. Again, just because an ideal Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever wouldn't do these things doesn't mean that people don't. These types of behaviour are not universal, yes, but they *are* common enough to be worth pointing out. Perhaps I, too, betray my own experience, but I've seen enough of everything in that list to last me a very long time, and in more than one religious tradition.

>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.

That's a relief. I certainly didn't want to upset anyone so over a little Forum post.

>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.

There certainly are concrete reasons beyond "emotion and vague feeling" to treat the people around us with respect; for example, the consequences are much nicer. Now that I see more what you're getting at here, I agree that emotional vagaries alone are not sufficient for ethical decision-making, and that a phrase such as "because reason tells me it is right" would be more appropriate than "I feel it is right." Like you, I am not one for creating ethics based upon whims; far better to consider the entirety of a situation and settle on the course that does the least harm in that particular case.

>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.

I *think* you're saying here that fear and joy are both emotions and, subsequently, reducing them to this basic category and making them interchangeable. That's not what I'm looking at; I'm far more interested in the effects these different emotions have on people, and it should be fairly obvious that those impacts are very different indeed. Fear is a terrible and scarring thing, a violence upon the mind, and it is difficult for me to see anything done solely out of fear of obliteration as anything but a traumatic experience. Consider a woman who accepts her husband's touch because it brings them both joy, but accepts a rapist's touch because she is terrified to resist. That, to me, is the difference.

-Cynthia