Nobel Prize Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
Sound of Trumpet
Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
Unspun America ^ | October 22, 2009
Posted on 23 October 2009 08:07:40 by PatriotJG
At the launch event for his latest book, Nobel Prize winner Jose
Saramago attacked the bible, saying that the world would be better
off
without it. The writers latest book "Cain" is an ironic retelling of
the story of Cain and Abel from the book of genesis. Looks like
President Obama is in great company.
"The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has a powerful
influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible,
we would be different, and probably better people," he was quoted as
saying by the news agency Lusa.
Saramago attacked "a cruel, jealous and unbearable God (who)
exists
only in our heads" and said he did not think his book would cause
problems for the Catholic Church "because Catholics do not read the
Bible.
"It might offend Jews, but that doesn't really matter to me," he
added.
In recent history, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to many extreme
leftists and anti-Christian figures, including Al Gore, Jimmy Carter,
and Yasser Arafat. The fact that it is being awarded to people such
as
this shows that the Nobel Prize has lost much of its value in the
last
half century.
LC
Deaf, dumb, and dumber "Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote
in message
news:efe1a379-1923-4b76...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> At the launch event for his latest book, Nobel Prize winner Jose
> Saramago attacked the bible, saying that the world would be better
> off without it.
Speaking the truth...how refreshing.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
A good observation. Have any religious zealots ever won the Nobel?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
raven1
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
And he's wrong how?
Quadibloc
quoted, in part:
> "It might offend Jews, but that doesn't really matter to me," he
> added.
Well, at least there is _one_ thing in this article that speaks badly
of this Nobel Prize winner!
John Savard
Father Haskell
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2369024/posts
>
> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
The recipes are lousy, too.
Enkidu
> "The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has a powerful
> influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible,
> we would be different, and probably better people," he was quoted as
> saying by the news agency Lusa.
Dude's right on.
--
Enkidu
panam...@hotmail.com
>
> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
And he's right.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Jon Schild
> http://www.snip.com
>
> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
>
>
> The fact that it is being awarded to people such as this shows that
> the Nobel Prize has lost much of its value in the last half century.
Yep. Can't have any prize or other recognition that isn't based on
hyperchristianity.
Yap
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2369024/posts
>
> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
>
> Unspun America ^ | October 22, 2009
>
> Posted on 23 October 2009 08:07:40 by PatriotJG
>
> At the launch event for his latest book, Nobel Prize winner Jose
> Saramago attacked the bible, saying that the world would be better
> off
> without it. The writers latest book "Cain" is an ironic retelling of
> the story of Cain and Abel from the book of genesis. Looks like
>
> President Obama is in great company.
>
> "The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has a powerful
> influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible,
> we would be different, and probably better people," he was quoted as
> saying by the news agency Lusa.
>
> Saramago attacked "a cruel, jealous and unbearable God (who)
> exists
> only in our heads" and said he did not think his book would cause
> problems for the Catholic Church "because Catholics do not read the
> Bible.
cryptoguy
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
>
> A good observation. Have any religious zealots ever won the Nobel?
"Mother" Teresa, 1979, won the Peace Prize.
pt
Spartakus
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2369024/posts
>
> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
>
> Unspun America ^ | October 22, 2009
>
> Posted on 23 October 2009 08:07:40 by PatriotJG
>
> At the launch event for his latest book, Nobel Prize winner Jose
> Saramago attacked the bible, saying that the world would be better
> off without it.
Stop EVERYTHING! Someone attacked the Bible??? That's never happened
in the history of the...
Oh, wait...
"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals
and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."
-- Mark Twain
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it
[Revelations],
and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no
more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences
of our own nightly dreams." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The characters and events depicted in the damn bible are
fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead,
is purely coincidental." -- James Madison
> Looks like President Obama is in great company.
What a laughable attempt at guilt by association! Jose Saramago would
make Barack Obama look like Barry Goldwater.
The Chief Instigator
Idiot Strumpet whines, no atheist gives a good goddamn about his psychotic
breaks, and no one will be watching at 10.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (December 26)
NEXT GAME: Monday, December 28 vs. Syracuse, 7:05
Olrik
That was a gross error.
"Mother" Teresa should be tried for crimes against humanity.
Mother" Teresa
Olrik
> pt
Olrik
Michael Grosberg
'Fraid not, gov. The Bible is a human creation and humans are to blame
for it and for their own behavior. People do what they will, It's just
the rationalizations that change.
Michael Grosberg
wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2369024/posts
>
> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
Well, at least it's on topic here at RASFW: Saramago's novels are
tangentially SF.
I can't think of a better use for this thread than to promote
Saramago's work. Of those I read, _The Gospel According to Jesus
Christ_ is Saramago at his anti-Christian best, and also his best
novel (of those I read).
_Blindness_ and _Seeing_ are social SF - _Blindness describes the
fragility of society and civilization, and _Seeing_ is an interesting
novel of what happens when the electorate of an entire country decides
not to vote in an election.
_Caverna_ is about consumerism and features a shopping mall that is
turned into an arcology of sorts.
Saramago's prose style is a bit difficult to get into - long run on
sentences with a plethora of commas but no quotation marks. But once
you get used to it it's beautiful in its way.
jcon
> Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2369024/posts
>
> > Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
>
> > Unspun America ^ | October 22, 2009
>
> > Posted on 23 October 2009 08:07:40 by PatriotJG
>
> > At the launch event for his latest book, Nobel Prize winner Jose
> > Saramago attacked the bible, saying that the world would be better
> > off without it.
>
> Stop EVERYTHING! Someone attacked the Bible??? That's never happened
> in the history of the...
>
> Oh, wait...
>
> "[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals
> and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."
> -- Mark Twain
>
I'm always amazed at the wisdom and wit of Mark Twain. He
was clearly born 100 years before his time.
-jc
Mark
wrote:
Well, duh. The Bible is a catalogue of how NOT to treat each other.
Mark
author of:
The Secantis Sequence
Remains
www.marktiedemann.com
Jim
wrote:
> At the launch event for his latest book, Nobel Prize winner Jose
> Saramago attacked the bible, saying that the world would be better
> off without it.
I thought _Blindness_ was a great story.
He can write. You can't write shit and you
are an evil anonymous nobody to boot. My little
rubber ducky can make a bigger impact than
your dumb assed tooty-toot-toot toy horn.
Now if you'd picked better parents, you
might've had a chance to take trumpet
lessons. But noooo. All you wanted to
do was blow on your toy and annoy
your poor little sister and Mrs. Nussbaum
next door whose last thought in this life was
of cramming it up a part of your body
where the sun does not shine. I was
at her bedside the night she died. Her
last words, "Dear God in heaven,
please cram that trumpet up his
ass!", and then she inhaled twice
quickly and just like that, Anna
Nussbaum was gone forever.
On her little gravestone is an
international symbol meaning
"DON'T" with a trumpet
inside and on the other
side is an engraving of a
cherub with the bell of
a trumpet flaring out from its
anus. Obviously the little
angel got on somebody's
nerves.
Jack Campin - bogus address
> leftists and anti-Christian figures, including Al Gore, Jimmy Carter,
> and Yasser Arafat.
Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and Arafat's wife was
a Christian.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Just Me
wrote:
> Hume and David Trimble. Al Gore (a Baptist, formerly
> Southern Baptist) is hardly "anti-Christian", unless warning
> about climate change has been declared religious heresy.
> Does Sound of Trumpet think that the Dalai Lama is
> anti-Christian??? Or that Aung San Suu Kyi is??? Or Bishop
> Desmond Tutu??? Or, perhaps SoT meant Bishop Carlos Felipe
> Ximenes Belo. Or Jose Ramos-Horta (Roman Catholic).
>
> SoT - do your homework before making wild statements.
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
>
> Oscuramente
> libros, laminas, llaves
> siguen mi suerte.
>
> Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
It was "Uncle Vic" with the "wild statements" questioning whether a
"religious zealot" had ever won the prize. Mr. Trumpet's comment was
strictly limited to noting the 'great' Nobel company of Pres. Obama.
Here's what he said . . .
> Saramago attacked "a cruel, jealous and unbearable God (who)
> exists
> only in our heads" and said he did not think his book would cause
> problems for the Catholic Church "because Catholics do not read the
> Bible.
Nor has Saramago, by the look of his naive, over-simplified sort of
Freshman Nietzsche, Humanities 101 take on it. I have yet to come
across an atheist with a comprehensive, thoroughly well-studied
familiarity with the Bible. No atheist can survive such a study as an
atheist. He will come out of it at least a Unitarian, if not a Jew. By
reverse analysis, no person who has ever independently read the Koran
cover to cover (without a Mullah standing over him with an AK-47) can
come out of it a Muslim. Howbeit, if you do read (let alone memorize)
the Koran and come out of it with an unquestioning faith in "Allah"
you are by every moral and theological definition: an atheist.
>
> "It might offend Jews, but that doesn't really matter to me," he
> added.
Hm! Just like taking this Nobel Prize winner and tickling him to
death with a pink feather would not matter to a Jew? And if I were a
Jew looking on, I'd be laughing even harder than he, going "It really
doesn't matter to me! Oh, hah-hah-hah!"
> In recent history, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to many extreme
> leftists and anti-Christian figures, including Al Gore, Jimmy Carter,
> and Yasser Arafat.
Well, there's your list of "extreme leftists". And it's doubtful Mr.
Trumpet meant for those names to come under the "anti-Christian'"
element. Arafat, I believe was married to a Jordanian Christian. As to
his own beliefs, aside from being a Soviet stooge--who knows? Jimmy
Carter was always running around on his Christian wife "committing
adultery in his head." Was it for the Playboy interview that he won
the Prize? Al Gore was always running around after the Grateful Dead.
Why hasn't the Grateful Dead won the Nobel Prize? Carter, Arafat and
this shit-for-brains Saramago get it, but the Dead don't?
There is no justice in the world.
--
JM
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
http://mackiemesser.zoomshare.com
Francis A. Miniter
> On Dec 28, 4:56�pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
>>
>
> Nor has Saramago, by the look of his naive, over-simplified sort of
> Freshman Nietzsche, Humanities 101 take on it. I have yet to come
> across an atheist with a comprehensive, thoroughly well-studied
> familiarity with the Bible. No atheist can survive such a study as an
> atheist. He will come out of it at least a Unitarian, if not a Jew.
I disagree with your comment about atheists and the Bible.
Myself, an agnostic by way of an upbringing in the Roman
Catholic Church, have survived recent studies of the Bible
over several years as an agnostic. I did come away with two
areas of appreciation: one, that Jewish explication of the
Jewish Bible can be light years beyond any Christian
explication, which inevitably gets bogged down in the
framework established by the author of Matthew; two, Roman
Catholic exegesis of the New Testament can at its best
(Thomas Aquinas, e.g.) approach the best in philosophy. Who
could not be moved by a lecture of Abraham Heschel? On the
other hand, getting through Numbers and Deuteronomy is like
getting through Finnegans Wake, but without all the plays on
words.
> By
> reverse analysis, no person who has ever independently read the Koran
> cover to cover (without a Mullah standing over him with an AK-47) can
> come out of it a Muslim.
Here I am much closer to your view. While I have not read
the book cover to cover, I have read a considerable portion
of the early suras. I felt shock at the xenophobia,
particularly as it is directed at the "people of the book"
(Jews and Christians) that supposedly Islam takes its
beginnings from. Perhaps, the Tafsir can explain away these
profoundly hostile passages, but I have not looked to see.
> Howbeit, if you do read (let alone memorize)
> the Koran and come out of it with an unquestioning faith in "Allah"
> you are by every moral and theological definition: an atheist.
>
Sophistry. One would more likely be akin to a Calvinist.
Just Me
wrote:
> Just Me wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 4:56 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
>
> > Nor has Saramago, by the look of his naive, over-simplified sort of
> > Freshman Nietzsche, Humanities 101 take on it. I have yet to come
> > across an atheist with a comprehensive, thoroughly well-studied
> > familiarity with the Bible. No atheist can survive such a study as an
> > atheist. He will come out of it at least a Unitarian, if not a Jew.
>
> I disagree with your comment about atheists and the Bible.
Feel free to disagree with my jokes about atheists, Jews, Unitarians
and the Bible all you like, or which is the same, take them not with a
grain of salt, treat them seriously, even. I won't mind. I'll even
argue my case (whether seriously or not, who is to say?) in either
event.
> Myself, an agnostic by way of an upbringing in the Roman
> Catholic Church, have survived recent studies of the Bible
> over several years as an agnostic.
But here you set a distinction between 'atheist' and 'agnostic', as
you choose the latter over the former to characterize your position.
You do not say 'atheist', whereas I did. So your disagreement in terms
of 'agnostic' goes askew of my argument about 'atheists'. There are
many agnostics among practicing Jews and Unitarians. An atheist
claims to 'know' there is no God. An agnostic (having far better
sense) doesn't know one way or the other. See Camus, e.g. who
says . . .
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out
there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out
there is."
But lest he be misinterpreted, the emphasis here was not on Death and
Eternal Punishment, not on keeping his ass covered, but on "living my
life". For the first time since college, I am finally reading his
*Myth of Sisyphus* again, and as he conducts his survey on the thought
of Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger and others, I am surprised and
quite tickled to find that this famous existentialist agnostic shows a
great deal of affection and respect particularly for the ethical
positions of Kierkegaard who approached his religion through Christ,
the Rebel; first as Rebel and then only by virtue of that Rebellion,
as Lord and Savior. And that is the Christ that comes into my heart
as Messiah, through the passions of G. F. Handel.
IN short, Camus by way of Kierkegaard. sees an authentic versus an
inauthentic Christian (or Jewish) morality. You have Christ in his
Sermon on the Mount preaching peace and goodwill toward all men, and
then you have Paul preaching like Mohammad (and yes, Calvin) for an
eternal warfare against women, gays, long hair on men, and even, EVEN
any gospel that comes to speak of Jesus "after the flesh", or i.e.
stressing his Acts and Teaching, as from the Sermon on the Mount. Not
one word ever passed Jesus' lips demoting women to a lesser status
beneath men, or condemning anyone for their sexual proclivities.
Camus, through Kierkegaard has respect and affection for the morality
taught by Jesus when he saved the whore from a stoning. Christ as
Rebel. That's a Jesus that is sooooooo easy to believe in. You never
know WHAT to expect from a Christ like that.
So, what Camus is putting across there is simply to say that a life
lived in awe and respect for the morality of a Righteous Rebel is the
more rich and authentic life, the life more courageously and better
lived, whether there be any God and heaven behind it or not--it is a
life lived *as though* there were somebody so hip, and kind and good,
and brave and rebellious as Jesus up there ready to meet you at the
end--it is the life that is able to embrace the Absurdity of such a
position, believing, as Tertullian had it, only because it is Absurd,
only because it is an act of Rebellion against hate, unkindness and
death, sort of just for the fun of it. You can be crushed by the
Absurd or be brought to life, love and joy by it. You can be the Rebel
that the atheist only flatters himself to be.
For this reason you will find many, as yourself, brought up in the
Catholic faith who are observant of it, yet confess to being agnostic;
admit to knowing the Absurd. But all this is aside from Saramago's
point about Catholics not reading the Bible, which in some degree is
certainly true, as the same would be the case for many an observant
Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran. Martin Luther was agnostic over many
an issue, even to the extent of rejecting certain whole books of the
Bible. Trouble with his ilk is he wanted to throw out the good books
and keep the bad. He was totally from Paul, and hardly at all from
Christ.
> I did come away with two
> areas of appreciation: one, that Jewish explication of the
> Jewish Bible can be light years beyond any Christian
> explication, which inevitably gets bogged down in the
> framework established by the author of Matthew . . .
Rather than John? Why would that be?
> two, Roman
> Catholic exegesis of the New Testament can at its best
> (Thomas Aquinas, e.g.) approach the best in philosophy.
That indeed it can, but really more, among some modern Catholic
philosophes, although I forget the names, some of whom come highly
recommended from the pages of J.D. Salinger in "Seymour, an
Introduction".
> Who
> could not be moved by a lecture of Abraham Heschel?
Not familiar with him, though I've found much to admire in Buber.
> On the
> other hand, getting through Numbers and Deuteronomy is like
> getting through Finnegans Wake, but without all the plays on
> words.
That's a whole topic all to itself. Though I'd say Numbers and
Leviticus (and the large sacerdotal portions of Exodus) to the
exclusion of Deuteronomy which has sufficient poetry to highly
recommend it to my tastes.
>
> > By
> > reverse analysis, no person who has ever independently read the Koran
> > cover to cover (without a Mullah standing over him with an AK-47) can
> > come out of it a Muslim.
>
> Here I am much closer to your view. While I have not read
> the book cover to cover, I have read a considerable portion
> of the early suras. I felt shock at the xenophobia,
As you must.
> particularly as it is directed at the "people of the book"
Quite.
> (Jews and Christians) that supposedly Islam takes its
> beginnings from. Perhaps, the Tafsir can explain away these
> profoundly hostile passages, but I have not looked to see.
They do find a way, but it always goes contrary to evidence and
reason. And there are too many Islamic scholars who stand firmly by
those passages, all the more particularly because most of the harshest
suras are the most recent, which gives them the greater authority in a
standard Islamic exegesis.
>
> > Howbeit, if you do read (let alone memorize)
> > the Koran and come out of it with an unquestioning faith in "Allah"
> > you are by every moral and theological definition: an atheist.
>
> Sophistry. One would more likely be akin to a Calvinist.
Humbug! I can argue it with much vim and vigor. Just try me. ;-)
Happy New Year, Francis.
Just Me
> On Dec 29, 9:29 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net>
> > Catholic exegesis of the New Testament can at its best
> > (Thomas Aquinas, e.g.) approach the best in philosophy.
>
> That indeed it can, but really more, among some modern Catholic
> philosophes, although I forget the names, some of whom come highly
> recommended from the pages of J.D. Salinger in "Seymour, an
> Introduction".
Gilson! It finally came to me. Gilson is the Catholic scholar Salinger
was always raving about. But you're right, he also was a Thomist,
right along with Maritain . . .
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philneothomism.htm
I had a Humanities prof who was always going on about Teilhard de
Chardin, but it would appear that it was such philosophy as his that
the likes of Gilson came in direct opposition to, as in their view,
Chardin's emphasis on science, trying to apply the methods thereof to
metaphysics was like trying to split a hair with a meat cleaver. God
is not empirical, which would be to make him identical with the world
and the flesh. Where is the science for determining the nature of
"anti-matter"? Without an anti-matter telescope, microscope, cyclotron
or super collider? Forget it. Soon as it's there, it's gone--or
rather, before it's there it's gone, just a puff of smoke in a cloud
chamber.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty shows why science can't approach God, for if
the mathematical tools of physics can't so much as pin down, both at
once, the velocity and position of an electron--how then could such
tools ever be put to pin down the divine essence of God. The very
nature of God would be such as to prevent it--and do you know why?
--
JM
Marko Amnell
"Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
26b33cd3-859c-4ea6...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> See Camus, e.g. who says . . .
>
> "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out
> there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out
> there is."
When did Camus say that? It seems like a misquote. There is a
discussion of this question over at
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Camus
where one person claims that "a quick google shows this is just
one of those misquotes that randomly turns up on fundamentalist
christian websites."
Jim
> "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
> > See Camus, e.g. who says . . .
>
> > "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out
> > there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out
> > there is."
>
> When did Camus say that? It seems like a misquote. There is a
> discussion of this question over at
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Camus
>
> where one person claims that "a quick google shows this is just
> one of those misquotes that randomly turns up on fundamentalist
> christian websites."
It is out of character for Camus who was
also a Nobelist. In fact, Mr. Trumpet, the
poor sot, would have a stroke if he knew
what past Nobelists think of God,
Jesus & Associates. The French
are predominantly atheists. Nobelists are
predominantly atheists. Many Jews are
atheists. Without generalizing, one might
conjecture that a Jewish French Nobelist is
a long shot for evangelism.
Camus's sudden death, so unanticipated at a time
of personal triumph, remains for me some kind of
irony in the classical sense, that is, as if "the gods"
knew something that he didn't. It marks about the
first time I actually grieved for the death of a writer
whose stuff I had read but had no particular aspiration
of meeting. The next incident in that category
would be the death of Ernie Kovacs who
died two years later to the week in a
similar way.
Just Me
> On Dec 30, 6:30 am, "Marko Amnell" <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > 26b33cd3-859c-4ea6-bb6b-e64f25169...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [...]
>
> > > See Camus, e.g. who says . . .
>
> > > "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out
> > > there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out
> > > there is."
>
> > When did Camus say that? It seems like a misquote. There is a
> > discussion of this question over at
>
> >http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Camus
>
> > where one person claims that "a quick google shows this is just
> > one of those misquotes that randomly turns up on fundamentalist
> > christian websites."
>
True, insofar as it comes with the implication that the life of the
agnostic would be 'safer' (in view of eternal damnation) than that of
the atheist. That goes against the grain of most everything Camus had
to say. I guess it pays to be careful of what you find on those
'famous quotations' sites.
> who was
> also a Nobelist. In fact, Mr. Trumpet, the
> poor sot, would have a stroke if he knew
> what past Nobelists think of God,
> Jesus & Associates. The French
> are predominantly atheists. Nobelists are
> predominantly atheists. Many Jews are
> atheists. Without generalizing, one might
> conjecture that a Jewish French Nobelist is
> a long shot for evangelism.
>
> Camus's sudden death, so unanticipated at a time
> of personal triumph, remains for me some kind of
> irony in the classical sense, that is, as if "the gods"
> knew something that he didn't. It marks about the
> first time I actually grieved for the death of a writer
> whose stuff I had read but had no particular aspiration
> of meeting. The next incident in that category
> would be the death of Ernie Kovacs who
> died two years later to the week in a
> similar way.
Well, I'll take the Absurdist world view of Ernie Kovacs any day, over
that of Camus--Kovaks at least had a sense of humor about it. Camus
seems to have failed to get the joke. Imagine writing a philosophy
based entirely on the question, "Shall I commit suicide or not? And
if not, why not?" At least when George Sanders (one of my most
favorite actors) did it (via five bottles of Nembutal) his dry sense
of Absurdist humor stayed with him to the end, as witness his suicide
note . . .
"Dear World, I am leaving because I am bored. I feel I have lived long
enough. I am leaving you with your worries in this sweet cesspool.
Good luck."
Well, it got a little sweet/sour toward the end there but what do you
get from Camus? Anything truly courageous? I don't think so. In his
Sisyphus, the section "Absurd Freedom" he is yet wresting with
Kierkegaard over the prescription for a "leap" into the unknown, for
which something called 'faith' would be required--well either that or
complete recklessness, but for Kierkegaard it would be the former.
Camus fights with K. over the view that it is a "sin of pride" to
suppose that meaning may be found in an existence which has been shown
in all too many ways, and every time one turns around to be absurd.
For K. the absurdity of existence is the jumping off place for the
realization that there must be something truly grand transcending
existence, in whose light, and only by whose light may the Absurd be
seen.
But Camus finds the realization of the Absurd on less grand terms, as
being on the level of mere paradox and contradiction, in the tension
between man's demand for meaning, and the lack of anything in
existence to grant it. Camus finds no answer in existence as to its
purpose, no solution to the question, "Why am I here? Why is anything
here?" In Camus' dialectic, this logically leads again to the main
question, "Why should I not commit suicide?"
Camus will not argue with K. that existence is absurd and that despair
is the only possible outcome for man, with God or without Him. Both
agree that existence must become the art of living in the teeth of
that despair, embracing it for what it is, namely all we've got. The
only point of disagreement is over Kierkegaard's "sin of pride".
Camus says he doesn't know what "sin" is. Kierkegaard seems to have no
question in his mind about it. It would be, for one thing, any thought
of suicide. Can ecstasy arise out of depair? Of course! It's the only
thing despair is good for, indeed we would know no ecstasy but for the
despair which is there to render the contrast--and you can't have the
one without the other. Ecstasy comes only out of the despair from
which it rises, as it separates, sees despair fall behind as the first
stage rocket that bore the shuttle forth into space. Ecstasy is that
feeling of despair being left behind, and it is nothing else. Only the
despair of gravity had men's eyes turned toward the heavens, asking,
"What can we build to get us up there?"
But I charged that Camus' world view is not the courageous one. At the
beginning of the section where he confesses to no knowledge of what
'sin' may be, he acknowledges that . . .
"History is not lacking in either religions or prophets, even without
gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully
understand, that it is not obvious. Indeed, he does not want to do
anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the
sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin . . .
hence, what he demands of himself is to live solely with what he
knows, to accommodate himself with what is, and to bring in nothing
that is not certain. He is told that nothing is. But this at least is
certainty. And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants to find
out if it is possible to live without appeal."
Of that, I would have something to say, but as other things are
pressing, I leave it at that, for being on the face of it a merely
tautological argument in justification of moral cowardice. He doesn't
know what 'sin' is? Well, how about intellectual dishonesty, for one.
I will call that "sin". And here it is: he wants the 'certainty' of
knowing nothing is certain--but will not honestly acknowledge THAT for
no certainty at all, because where nothing is certain, to say "nothing
is certain" is NOT certain.
For any that might be interested, here is the entire unexpurgated
passage from Absurd Freedom . . .
"History is not lacking in either religions or prophets, even without
gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully
understand, that it is not obvious. Indeed, he does not want to do
anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the
sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that
perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to
visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but
that seems to him an idle consideration. An attempt is made to get him
to admit his guilt. He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all
he feels -- his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him
everything. Hence, what he demands of himself is to live /solely/ with
what he knows, to accommodate himself with what is, and to bring in
nothing that is not certain. He is told that nothing is. But this at
least is certainty. And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants
to find out if it is possible to live without /appeal/."
--
JM
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
http://mackiemesser.zoomshare.com
Jim
Died a bit young himself. He must've been in a professional
funk after an accomplished career. In that era (1960-62), I had
read his _Memoirs of a Professional Cad_ or whatever it was
called. It was very funny in places like where he describes
his Russian uncle shooting at flies on the wall with a pistol,
or (do I have this wrong from memory?) being a cowboy
in Argentina. Picturing George Sanders, who did often play
an urbane cad, as a South American Roy Rogers was
difficult.
ObCurrentBook: Leo Tolstoy, _Resurrection_
Read it years ago; the occasion for re-reading presented
itself in a book discussion group I attend. This was
filmed in Russian (logically enough) during the Soviet
era. I'd like to get my hands on a copy. However,
I can only do a limited time in a single sitting
of a couple in insufficiently vented close
quarters in Siberia. Just thinking of Zhivago and
Lara causes watery eyes and slow asphyxiation
from all the smoke. Never mind the Reds
and Whites going at it outside.
tirebiter
And if you get leprosy, don't follow the bible's cure, unless you want
to lose parts of your body.
---
a.a. #2273
Michael Price
> Le 2009-12-27 21:55, cryptoguy a écrit :
> > On Dec 27, 2:46 pm, Uncle Vic<addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, Sound of
> Trumpet<soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> >> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>> Nobel Winner Calls Bible "Handbook of Bad Morals"
> >>
> >> A good observation. Have any religious zealots ever won the Nobel?
> >
> > "Mother" Teresa, 1979, won the Peace Prize.
>
> That was a gross error.
>
> "Mother" Teresa should be tried for crimes against humanity.
>
Every year it's a toss up whether it's won by someone who should
be locked up forever.
> Mother" Teresa
>
> Olrik
>
> > pt