Philip Roth on religion

From his lovely little novel Everyman:

"Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol meaningless, childish, couldn't stand the complete unadultness — the baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No hocus-pocus about death and God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him. There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have located a philosophical niche for himself that was it - he'd come upon it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of it."

A part of me very much appreciates the Roth quote. When I think I've been wronged by someone an angry response seems natural and satisfying.

And I feel very wronged by the religious people in my past.

I sometimes wonder though if acid is always necessary, or if it needs to be full strength.

Perhaps I'm just weak.

I'm reminded of Pythagoras: "That which is good is limited and finite"

Revelation is a process. Now, was that cliche? Baby talk, sheep talk, or hocus-pocus? The opposite of this statement is true as well. There are writers whose words instantly expand our mind, open it up, give us knowledge of the deepest matters. None of it has to be the way it has been thought of in the past. The spectrum is so broad, the spectrum is so broad. Religion has many different aspects, and for me its been a road to knowledge, to peace, spirituality, and interconnectedness. It's been a road to transcendentalism. This statement by the narrator in Roth's novel is just filled with limiting and limited observations. For every observation there is a broader perspective. The one thing that has been true for me throughout my life is that there is more-- spiritually, in relation to the material-- the unknowable, its existence, if I look in its direction, I cannot fail to miss. I believe life is a dream, I can explain this if anyone is interested, anyway, if you think that it is, consider my second belief, does it seem like an implication that there's something then sleeping, resting? This is the soul, or perhaps buddha-nature. These are just some ideas. Consciousness and realization are things we have to make for ourselves. It's important-- the urgency, someone spoke of here, they said they had always felt, is perhaps because if we do not tend to our spiritual growth toward sustained awareness and consciousness, there is every chance that we will simply slip into deeper ignorance and bad habits. The main idea, in fact, is always one of only accepting what is true, or what works, etc., however you wish to put it. This is one side of religion I wish to put forward. There are very, very deeply intelligent religious persons, as well as ideas, and very conscious ones too. In fact in the Hindu religion, intelligence is described as one part of the process-- the material body and ego mind-- it is not exactly the same as "mind;" I am not sure now which is higher, mind or intelligence. What I described, or attempted to, is something similar to Ariadne's thread. It's logic, and it takes intelligence to be able to incorporate all of our knowledge together in our consciousness, although it isn't that hard. If we can integrate knowledge, information, and ideas in our consciousness, it can be a beautiful thing, however. Okay, I apologize for the rant.

The opening sentiment from Roth was hardly new, shocking or convincing. It has all been heard before and is hardly worth discussing. Worse yet, it is very weak literary tea for someone of Roth's writing ability -- unless perhaps he was intending to portray a rather stupid narrator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

The opening sentiment from Roth was hardly new, shocking or convincing. It has all been heard before and is hardly worth discussing. Worse yet, it is very weak literary tea for someone of Roth's writing ability -- unless perhaps he was intending to portray a rather stupid narrator.

---

1. I didn't say it was either "new" or "shocking", I simply like the quote. He phrases it welll

2. Surely, it is worth discussing.

3. No, on the contrary the narrator was an intresting and complex character. Why should he be stupid? Because he is an atheist? I happen to agree very much with that quote, on some level, and I don't consider myself very stupid.

Stupid? Well, choose your own word for a person who forms an opinion before any significant exposure to the world or life, and then is never again even willing to entertain any further thought about as he gorws older, much less to consider to changing it in any fashion, whether to a stronger or weaker assertion, by elaboration or modification, not to mention an unwilligness to see any possible merit in the topic from any point of view.
Or not even willing to give it as much discussion as this group will be giving it.
Stupid? Ignorant? Closed-minded? Narrow? Anti-Intellectual? Uninformed? Unaware?
There must be other possibilities. Please choose any you might think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

Stupid? Well, choose your own word for a person who forms an opinion before any significant exposure to the world or life, and then is never again even willing to entertain any further thought about as he gorws older, much less to consider to changing it in any fashion, whether to a stronger or weaker assertion, by elaboration or modification, not to mention an unwilligness to see any possible merit in the topic from any point of view.
Or not even willing to give it as much discussion as this group will be giving it.
Stupid? Ignorant? Closed-minded? Narrow? Anti-Intellectual? Uninformed? Unaware?
There must be other possibilities. Please choose any you might think of.

---

So a person is close-minded if he or she doesn't reassess their religious stance every three or four years? If I decide now that I am an atheist, you will consider me close-minded if I don't, in a couple of years time, reconsider my position? How can it possibly be considered anti-intellectual to not believe in something for which there are no rational or scientific grounds to believe in?

Walter, I believe in an underground syndicate of large purple bunnies. If you disregard said belief as nonsensical, then I deem you to be "stupid...ignorant...closed-minded, the works".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

"stupid...ignorant...closed-minded, the works".

---

As you wish.

Revelation is a process. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Revelation is a process. :)

---

Haha, if you say so.

At the very least it is narrow minded not to consider and study new information as we mature. If we do not grow, and exercise our common sense we atrophy. So Walter I would have to agree with your analysis of

Quote:

---

....person who forms an opinion before any significant exposure to the world or life, and then is never again even willing to entertain any further thought about as he gorws older, much less to consider to changing it in any fashion, whether to a stronger or weaker assertion, by elaboration or modification, not to mention an unwilligness to see any possible merit in the topic from any point of view.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

At the very least it is narrow minded not to consider and study new information as we mature. If we do not grow, and exercise our common sense we atrophy.

---

But we are talking about religion. Is it common sense to believe? What "new information" are you referring to? Has religion become more "believable" scientifically or rationally in the past centuries?

It is religious people more than it is non-believers who are "narrow minded" and who do not "study new information as [they] mature", thank you very much. Why else is evolution not taught in so many high school? Why else is homosexuality so often considered a "sin"? Who are the people advocating abstinence and fighting abortion rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

But we are talking about religion. Is it common sense to believe? What "new information" are you referring to? Has religion become more "believable" scientifically or rationally in the past centuries?

It is religious people more than it is non-believers who are "narrow minded" and who do not "study new information as [they] mature", thank you very much. Why else is evolution not taught in so many high school? Why else is homosexuality so often considered a "sin"? Who are the people advocating abstinence and fighting abortion rights?

---

New to a person that has not studied any religion, or had any real exposure to the Bible, it is only common sense to explore every avenue of knowledge. I started life as an agnostic, and didn't much care one way or the other what was out there. But being someone always searching, I read a great deal of history and found one incontrovertible truth. Humans keep making the same mistakes over and over again, now either we are not terribly bright and cannot learn from our mistakes, or we were not meant to rule ourselves. I choose, note the use of the word choose, meaning I [as does every human] have the right of free will. I choose to believe after study of the Bible that we were not made to rule ourselves and do not have the...wherewithal...for want of a better word to do so.
We cannot learn to do what we are not capable of.

It is a shame that a great many people consider someone religious to be narrow minded, I am someone that believes in the Bible and I am not a narrow minded person. Exploration and study of the Bible is a fascinating thing to engage in and actually someone that flatly refuses to consider it is more narrow minded IMO, because they are refusing knowledge.

Another mistake many make is that they equate "religion" with the Bible, and frankly some of the most widely practiced religions do not follow Bible principles. Which is a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

New to a person that has not studied any religion, or had any real exposure to the Bible, it is only common sense to explore every avenue of knowledge. I started life as an agnostic, and didn't much care one way or the other what was out there. But being someone always searching, I read a great deal of history and found one incontrovertible truth. Humans keep making the same mistakes over and over again, now either we are not terribly bright and cannot learn from our mistakes, or we were not meant to rule ourselves. I choose, note the use of the word choose, meaning I [as does every human] have the right of free will. I choose to believe after study of the Bible that we were not made to rule ourselves and do not have the...wherewithal...for want of a better word to do so.
We cannot learn to do what we are not capable of.

It is a shame that a great many people consider someone religious to be narrow minded, I am someone that believes in the Bible and I am not a narrow minded person. Exploration and study of the Bible is a fascinating thing to engage in and actually someone that flatly refuses to consider it is more narrow minded IMO, because they are refusing knowledge.

Another mistake many make is that they equate "religion" with the Bible, and frankly some of the most widely practiced religions do not follow Bible principles. Which is a shame.

---

Perhaps, in your dilligent studies of history, you have noted the correlation between human "mistakes" and religion. The death, suffering and violence caused by religious people, or committed in the name of "god", is staggering.

You equate knowledge with the word of the Bible. There is no doubt the Bible holds great value, but no more than does The Odyssey, The Iliad or Hamlet. I know; I've read it. But the historical fact remains that knowledge has always been a natural enemy to organized, institutionalized religion. The case of Galileo comes to mind, as do the cases of countless other scientists and thinkers burned on the stake because of their attempts to advance human knowledge.

I don't consider a religious person to be narrow minded, but the amount of religious people who, in the name of their god/s, even in the 21st century, fight knowledge and enlightenment with such zeal, is disturbing. Considering this, and the facts of history, one cannot rule out that closed-mindedness has often gone hand-in-hand with religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

Perhaps, in your dilligent studies of history, you have noted the correlation between human "mistakes" and religion. The death, suffering and violence caused by religious people, or committed in the name of "god", is staggering.

You equate knowledge with the word of the Bible. There is no doubt the Bible holds great value, but no more than does The Odyssey, The Iliad or Hamlet. I know; I've read it. But the historical fact remains that knowledge has always been a natural enemy to organized, institutionalized religion. The case of Galileo comes to mind, as do the cases of countless other scientists and thinkers burned on the stake because of their attempts to advance human knowledge.

I don't consider a religious person to be narrow minded, but the amount of religious people who, in the name of their god/s, even in the 21st century, fight knowledge and enlightenment with such zeal, is disturbing. Considering this, and the facts of history, one cannot rule out that closed-mindedness has often gone hand-in-hand with religion.

---

I absolutely agree with your take on wars and organized religion going hand in hand for the greater part of instances of war and atrocities. No question about it. But please take into consideration that the people that committed those reprehensible acts were not, I repeat not following Bible principle. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" is not understood there? Not to pick on the Catholics in particular, but as example material only, Catholic killed Catholic in any war you care to mention, of course any religion has done the same with very few exceptions.

A glaring example of twisted Scripture...the Spanish Inquisition, the Mexican Inquisition just to name a few...the Bible does not say to persecute those that do not agree with it. Now don't go quoting the Old Testament to me, Christ did away with Mosaic Law, and only said to love God first and then their neighbor. The Greek Scriptures [New Testament] in fact tell Christians to leave those that don't want to hear, and to shake the dust from their feet and leave. If we love our neighbor, we are not going to kill him, cheat him, or commit any hostile acts towards him, that kinda lets out war in general doesn't it?

"Perhaps, in your dilligent studies of history, you have noted the correlation between human "mistakes" and religion. The death, suffering and violence caused by religious people, or committed in the name of "god", is staggering."

Perhaps you have noticed the relation between people breathing and people committing sin. That is, people who breathe commit these sinful or violent evil acts. Should we stop breathing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

It is religious people more than it is non-believers who are "narrow minded" and who do not "study new information as [they] mature", thank you very much. Why else is evolution not taught in so many high school? Why else is homosexuality so often considered a "sin"? Who are the people advocating abstinence and fighting abortion rights?

---

It seems as if you are stating that if someone doesn't believe in evolution, disagrees with homosexuality, supports abstinence, or is pro-life then they are narrow minded and have not learned anything lately. I don't think that's a fair assessment. Those views can be held intelligently and by people who are informed about both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

I absolutely agree with your take on wars and organized religion going hand in hand for the greater part of instances of war and atrocities. No question about it. But please take into consideration that the people that committed those reprehensible acts were not, I repeat not following Bible principle. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" is not understood there? Not to pick on the Catholics in particular, but as example material only, Catholic killed Catholic in any war you care to mention, of course any religion has done the same with very few exceptions.

A glaring example of twisted Scripture...the Spanish Inquisition, the Mexican Inquisition just to name a few...the Bible does not say to persecute those that do not agree with it. Now don't go quoting the Old Testament to me, Christ did away with Mosaic Law, and only said to love God first and then their neighbor. The Greek Scriptures [New Testament] in fact tell Christians to leave those that don't want to hear, and to shake the dust from their feet and leave. If we love our neighbor, we are not going to kill him, cheat him, or commit any hostile acts towards him, that kinda lets out war in general doesn't it?

---

Sam Harris counters this point by citing the following two passages from the New Testament:

From 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 - God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

From John 15:6 - If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and whithers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

And I cite the following myself:

From Matthew 12:30 - He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

From Matthew 13:40-42 - As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

Sam Harris counters this point by citing the following two passages from the New Testament:

From 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 - God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

From John 15:6 - If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and whithers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

And I cite the following myself:

From Matthew 12:30 - He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

From Matthew 13:40-42 - As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth

---

Each of those passages seem to be saying that God will bring vengeance on those people who do not believe. None of them sound to me like the writers are trying to give the impression that humans should harm people who are not Christians. Thusly, I don't agree that he has countered anything.

One must also take into account Paul's audience at the time. He was speaking to the Christian congregation at Thessalonica of course, and was referring to ones that were already within the congregation that were twisting his previous letter's meanings to some extent, by claiming that the presence of the Lord was to be soon, and using it as an excuse not to support themselves.

It says "repay with affliction those who afflict you", these were people that were within the congregation that were attempting to mislead the congregation.

More biblical wisdom:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Biblical tolerance:

3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

What "knowledge"! What "wisdom"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

It seems as if you are stating that if someone doesn't believe in evolution, disagrees with homosexuality, supports abstinence, or is pro-life then they are narrow minded and have not learned anything lately. I don't think that's a fair assessment. Those views can be held intelligently and by people who are informed about both sides.

---

Intolerance of homosexuality is no different than intolerance of race.

The theory of evolution is a theory, yes, but the most scientific. To deny it because you think "god" created the world in seven days is...well, that's just stupid.

The abortion issue is a sensitive one, yes. However, being pro-life has an inherent element of narrow-mindedness; they seek to impose their values on everyone (no abortion rights!), where as being pro-choice allows people to choose between having an abortion and not having one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

Intolerance of homosexuality is no different than intolerance of race.

The theory of evolution is a theory, yes, but the most scientific. To deny it because you think "god" created the world in seven days is...well, that's just stupid.

The abortion issue is a sensitive one, yes. However, being pro-life has an inherent element of narrow-mindedness; they seek to impose their values on everyone (no abortion rights!), where as being pro-choice allows people to choose between having an abortion and not having one.

---

I disagree with you on all accounts.

Intolerance of homosexuality is different than intolerance of race. I believe people have a choice in their acts of sexual orientation.

Believing God created the world in seven days is not stupid. If there is a God who is not bound by time or space, who can let all men act of their own accord and still have his will be done, who can create life out of nothing, then why would he not be able to make the world in seven days? If anything, seven days seems like a long time.

Pro-life does not have an inherent element of narrow-mindedness. Some adherents to that view may be narrow minded, but that doesn't come automatically from having that view. And pro choice people have just as much probability of being narrow minded.

And since when is it narrow minded for a person to try to convince someone that what he thinks is correct? Is it only narrow minded when it's something the hearer doesn't believe? What is the difference between stating your view and trying to impose your view on people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

More biblical wisdom:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Biblical tolerance:

3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

What "knowledge"! What "wisdom"!

---

It is evident in life that when people put their faith in Jesus, other people will turn against them. That is what the Bible is stating right there. Someone who can bring eternal life should be more important than anyone else on this world, even relatives. Christ didn't come to send peace, he came to give a way to salvation. Those who take that way will go to peace later.

I think it is wise to value someone who can give eternal life, even at the expense of other people turning against me. The opposite of that is to focus on the temporary at the cost of losing the eternal. That would be unwise.

In your second quote, the Bible is not making a distinction that those who believe in Jesus are better and more deserving of life than others. It is simply stating how things are. That should not be mistaken for intolerance. If I were to claim that people living in the jungle who throw sticks at tigers will die and those who do not throw sticks at tigers will live, then I am not being intolerant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

Intolerance of homosexuality is different than intolerance of race. I believe people have a choice in their acts of sexual orientation.9

---

In their acts, yes. But not in their sexual orientation. Generally, an individual is born homosexual. There is a debate, yes. But one doesn't choose to become homosexual just as one does not choose to be black or white. Discrimination against homosexuals is as dispicable as discriminations against specific races. The antipathy towards homosexuals in the U.S. with regard to their rights can be compared to the civil rights movements of the 60's. And the predominant anti-homosexuals are, of course, Christians.

Quote:

---

Believing God created the world in seven days is not stupid.

---

No. You're right. But believing this is stupid:

Quote:

---

...a God who is not bound by time or space, who can let all men act of their own accord and still have his will be done, who can create life out of nothing

---

While he's at it, why doesn't he end poverty, hunger, violence, discrimination, disease, etc? Please tell me.

Quote:

---

And since when is it narrow minded for a person to try to convince someone that what he thinks is correct? Is it only narrow minded when it's something the hearer doesn't believe? What is the difference between stating your view and trying to impose your view on people?

---

I don't think you understood me. Pro-life supporters believe abortions are immoral, and wish for all of society to acknowledge this and adhere to it. Pro-choice supports believe abortions are a matter best left for the individual human being to decide, as her body belongs to her and not to society. It is of far more democratic nature than Pro-life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

Discrimination against homosexuals is as dispicable as discriminations against specific races.

---

I agree that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Discrimination against a group of people and intolerance of acts are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

While he's at it, why doesn't he end poverty, hunger, violence, discrimination, disease, etc? Please tell me.

---

I think that's an insignificant question in the grand scheme of things, though. If life on Earth is temporary, and only an instant compared to what will come, then why would bad times on Earth be an issue?

People don't come into the world with anything, so living in poverty is pretty much having what we're given.
If everything were perfect, then what would be the allure of heaven? If everyone were given heaven, then how would God give people the option to not love him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

I don't think you understood me. Pro-life supporters believe abortions are immoral, and wish for all of society to acknowledge this and adhere to it. Pro-choice supports believe abortions are a matter best left for the individual human being to decide, as her body belongs to her and not to society. It is of far more democratic nature than Pro-life.

---

I agree that the choice should be for the human to decide, but in light of the fact that we can't communicate with the person living inside the woman, it's the safest bet to suppose the child wants to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

I agree that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. Discrimination against a group of people and intolerance of acts are different.

---

Doesn't it amount to the same? Homosexuals = a group of people.

Quote:

---

I think that's an insignificant question in the grand scheme of things, though. If life on Earth is temporary, and only an instant compared to what will come, then why would bad times on Earth be an issue?

People don't come into the world with anything, so living in poverty is pretty much having what we're given.
If everything were perfect, then what would be the allure of heaven? If everyone were given heaven, then how would God give people the option to not love him?

---

This is why I don't believe. Such horrible cynicism and nonsense.

Quote:

---

I agree that the choice should be for the human to decide, but in light of the fact that we can't communicate with the person living inside the woman, it's the safest bet to suppose the child wants to live.

---

What? How so? In many cases, it isn't even a child yet. And what a horrible thing to "suppose"? What if it's parents intend to dump it in an alley? Is it then safe to suppose it "wants" to live? It has no free will yet!

Morten, you don't believe because of what dzebra believes? Because he's cynical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Morten, you don't believe because of what dzebra believes? Because he's cynical?

---

No. There are many reasons why I do not believe. The ridiculous notion that this life is but a shabby prelude to the glory of entering the kingdom of the lord, is one of them. I find that cynical.

Life is but a veneer. The soul is that within us which is sleeping, it is like buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is real. There are many different layers of being. Different levels of consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Life is but a veneer. The soul is that within us which is sleeping, it is like buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is real. There are many different layers of being. Different levels of consciousness.

---

Whatever you say.

I didn't mean to hi-jack your thread. I apologize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

From his lovely little novel Everyman:

"Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol meaningless, childish, couldn't stand the complete unadultness — the baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No hocus-pocus about death and God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him. There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have located a philosophical niche for himself that was it - he'd come upon it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of it."

---

In fact today religions have harmed us more than it has done anything good. Indeed in some religious books there are good points, of course there are moral stories, ethical anecdotes, prayers and sermons yet see how holders of particular religions are fighting to prop up their particular sectarian opinions or ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

In fact today religions have harmed us more than it has done anything good. Indeed in some religious books there are good points, of course there are moral stories, ethical anecdotes, prayers and sermons yet see how holders of particular religions are fighting to prop up their particular sectarian opinions or ideologies.

---

And these battles aren't happening outside the religious sector? It seems to me human beings always find reasons to fight and prop up their opinions or ideologies. In the secular world, they just call it political ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

And these battles aren't happening outside the religious sector? It seems to me human beings always find reasons to fight and prop up their opinions or ideologies. In the secular world, they just call it political ideology.

---

Well, politicians in secular societies don't ('far as I'm concerned) strap bombs to each other or chop off one another's heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a lost weekend

Well, politicians in secular societies don't ('far as I'm concerned) strap bombs to each other or chop off one another's heads.

---

Nope, they just occasionally throw you in the gulag or commit mass murder through other sometimes "legal" means. There is many an atheist/atheistic political ideology that has killed swarms of people in the name of that ideological beliefs (Communism anyone?).

Certainly, it is fallacious to claim atheism caused these people to commit atrocities as many conservative pundits attempt to do, but it is not fallacious to demonstrate that in fact people can kill for many other reasons besides religious devotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

From his lovely little novel Everyman:

"Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol meaningless, childish, couldn't stand the complete unadultness — the baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No hocus-pocus about death and God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him. There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have located a philosophical niche for himself that was it - he'd come upon it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of it."

---

I have not gone through that book at all, and I would like to read that. Maybe I will get something intellectually thrilling in that book. In point of fact I too think that in history I have read instances of people misusing religions and now we all are not unfamiliar with cases of fundamentalism in religions.
Hitler too defined religions in his own narrow vocabularies.

Of course there are some points in religions, good points indeed, and we really can benefit from them, But more often religions have been taken to misuse or they are used for violent purples.

I notice it has been more than 3 years since anyone has posted in this thread.-Ron Price, Tasmania
------------------------------------
AUTOBIOGRAPHY: Philip Roth and Me-A Personal Retrospective

Philip Milton Roth(1933-) is an American novelist who first gained fame with his 1959 novella Goodbye, Columbus. The book was an irreverent and humorous portrait of Jewish-American life and it earned him a National Book Award. I was only 15 at the time, in grade 10 in a small town in southern Ontario, had just joined the Baha’i Faith, and only read what I had to. I memorized everything on the curriculum and its several syllabi because that was the way, then, to get the highest possible marks at high school. I was an ace in my studies as well as in baseball, even a home-run king back in the pee-wee baseball league.

In 1969 Roth became a major celebrity with the publication of the controversial Portnoy's Complaint the humorous and sexually explicit psychoanalytical monologue of "a lust-ridden, mother-addicted young Jewish bachelor," filled with "intimate, shameful detail, and coarse, abusive language." By 1969 I had had my own experiences of lust as well as psychiatry due to my bipolar disorder. But I was no longer a bachelor, having got married in 1967. That same year I moved to Baffin Island to teach Inuit children.

Since those late 1950s Roth has become one of the most honoured authors of his generation. His books have twice been awarded the National Book Award, twice the National Book Critics Circle award, and three times the PEN/Faulkner Award. He received a Pulitzer Prize for his 1997 novel, American Pastoral, which featured his best-known character, Nathan Zuckerman, the subject of many other of Roth's novels. His 2001 novel The Human Stain, another story of Nathan Zuckerman, was awarded the United Kingdom's W.H. Smith Literary Award for the best book of the year.

Roth’s fiction is set frequently in Newark New Jersey. It is known for an intensely autobiographical character, for a philosophical and formal blurring of the distinction between reality and fiction, for a "supple, ingenious style," and for its provocative explorations of Jewish and American identity.(1)

Since those late fifties and late sixties, I have become a successful, but quite ordinarily ordinary, teacher and lecturer of my generation. I have received no honours for my writing although, in the last three decades, I have written and published several million words. My writing is also intensely autobiographical, but the main character in my writing is me and I do not blur the line between reality and fiction. I would like to think my writing is, like Roth’s, supple and ingenious in style and provocative in its explorations of life, mine and society’s. I would like to think that, but I must leave such judgements to readers.-Ron Price with thanks to (1) Charles Simic, “The Nicest Boy in the World,” The New York Review of Books, 9 October 2008.

I’m intensely autobiographic, too,
Philip; but I go about it in a very
Different way that you. And fame
is not part of my story…..my life-
narrative…..We go after reality in
our own unique ways and I went
after it in writing much later in life
than you. I was just getting into my
profession in my twenties and you
were on your way to fame and glory.

You wrote about Jews you had known,
but always adopted a strong atheist
position; we all go down different
roads, eh Philip: have you ever heard
of the Baha'i Faith, a new world religion?

Ron Price
12 November 2011