Philip Roth on religion

[plainjane]

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?

[NikolaiI]

"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?

[dzebra]

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.

[Morten]

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

[dzebra]

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.

[plainjane]

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.

[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"!

[Morten]

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.

[dzebra]

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?

[dzebra]

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.

[Morten]

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.

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

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

...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.

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.

[dzebra]

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.

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?

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.

[Morten]

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.

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.

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!

[NikolaiI]

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

[Morten]

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.