/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2792887]

why did TS Eliot become a christian? I thought he was a really clever writer...wtf happened to him


>mfw I admire someone and then find out hes religious

[Anonymous No.2792893]

it's weird i know but you can have differences of opinions with authors you like

[Anonymous No.2792894]

>I'm a huge bigot please rape my face

geez op, I'm all unzipped already, are you sure you want this?

[Anonymous No.2792902]

i remember when i was 16

[Anonymous No.2792907]

>>2792894

you realize your bigoted against people like me?

people who have a benign aesthetic or logical preference...

strange

[Anonymous No.2792908]

Golly OP, you sure know how to push my buttons.

[Anonymous No.2792916]

>>2792887

>why did TS Eliot become a christian?

its a legit question, he converted later on in life for some
reason...anyone know what it was?

[Anonymous No.2792924]

>>2792916

the eucharist is delicious

[Standard Toaster !TOASTdnWDc No.2792925]

>>2792916
Probably because he knew that he could avoid having close-minded bigots for fans.
Just like OP......

[Anonymous No.2792955]

>>2792925

im still of a fan of his work, I just think less of him intellectually

[Standard Toaster !TOASTdnWDc No.2792961]

>>2792955
It seems he failed and his plan was for naught, then.

[Anonymous No.2792966]

A shit load of people go religious when they're old.

[Anonymous No.2792991]

You have no idea how dumb you sound, do you? This is such a stupid thing to get upset about. So one of your favorite authors disagrees with you about something. Grow up and get over it.

[Anonymous No.2792996]

What's wrong with being religious OP?

People turn to religion for questions like,

is there life after death?

do our sufferings have meaning?

and is there final justice?

[Anonymous No.2793001]

>>2792996

>final justice

great film

[Anonymous No.2793004]

>being a bigot

[Anonymous No.2793014]

>>2792996

Way to answer your own question.

What's wrong with being religious hurf durf

[Anonymous No.2793021]

>>2793014
What's wrong with those questions?

Are you saying that questions without definitive answers shouldn't be asked?

[Anonymous No.2793024]

OP here, how about you guys address the actual question?

I don't really care if hes christian or not, I find it silly, just like if he was a scientologist---I'd think hes a silly goofball

I still enjoy his work, but the fact that he converted to that strange cult interests me, anyone know why he did it?

you're all atheists and feel the same way, stop pretending

[Anonymous No.2793029]

>>2793024
in the 40 minutes you've been getting replies calling you a retard, you could've researched why he converted, along with his entire biography

[Anonymous No.2793044]

>>2793024
Let's not say that Scientology and all other religious faiths and sects are the exact same now. Surely you can appreciate the difference between a religion with mandatory membership fees that condemns Psychology and Psychiatry and all the others religions that don't.

[The Importance of Being On Time and Being !OjeNcMSGtE No.2793050]

>>2792955
why? i bet it's not for a specific, well-informed reason.
n.b.: there are plenty of real reasons to not like him, intellectually

>>2792887
A few people in his family were big figure in Unitarianism, and he was religious/spiritual for his entire life. So to answer your question:
indoctrination from an early age sparked an interest along with a later exploration of many religions/spiritual systems ending with his eventual conversion to Anglicanism. He viewed the Christian system as a good schema to go through, and use find meaning in, life, evidently, although I'm not sure why he chose Anglicanism in particular.

>why did TS Eliot become a christian?
Probably because he felt it answered questions in his life that other things either didn't address or answered unsatisfactorily.
~
Fun fact: Cats is based on his Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats.

[Anonymous No.2793088]

>hate on people who call themselves religious
>call yourself intellectual

this god damn atheist cult needs to go

[Anonymous No.2793105]

>>2793088
be more subtle with your reverse trolling

[Anonymous No.2793109]

>>2793105
atheist spotted

[Anonymous No.2793121]

>>2793021

Yeah, pretty much.

[Anonymous No.2793123]

>>2793109
Actually no.

But it's wrong to refer to atheism as a religion or a cult. Semantics and all that.

[Anonymous No.2793133]

Man OP, thank god TS Eliot is the only religious writer of the Western Canon. I was afraid that I was going to have to stop reading Milton.

[Anonymous No.2793138]

>>2793133
I know that feel bro. I just wouldn't be able to handle it if Tolkien were a Christian.

[Standard Toaster !TOASTdnWDc No.2793139]

>>2793138
Or C.S. Lewis. I love Narnia too much to have it ruined by religion.

[Anonymous No.2793154]

>>2793138
Fuck what would I do if I found out God was religious.

he wrote the old testament and revelations

[Anonymous No.2793162]

>>2793139

This thread is officially now about authors who would be shittier if they were Christian

[Anonymous No.2793171]

>>2793162
So now religious affiliation affects writing quality?

But all of you seem so stuck on the "death of the author" thing. What gives?

[Anonymous No.2793172]

>>2793044

>. Surely you can appreciate the difference between a religion with mandatory membership fees that condemns Psychology and Psychiatry and all the others religions that don't.

philosophically and scientifically they are both just as empty
and disingenuous.

they both harm people in different ways, christianity laid down the foundation for bigotry, persecution of heretics/witches/etc and holy wars and inquisitions, etc..

the bible has a lot more calls for violence and barbarism in it than Dianetics does.

Overall, scientology pales in comparison to the moral atrocities of christianity....but both are the same in terms of ABSURD metaphysics

[Anonymous No.2793178]

>>2793171
I believe it's what's known as a joke. As far as I know, Faulkner was a christian.

[Anonymous No.2793180]

>>2793172
>scientifically they are both just as empty

I wasn't aware that science had much of anything to do with either. The existence of God or thetans or whatever isn't something that can be studied objectively.

NOMA and whatnot.

>Overall, scientology pales in comparison to the moral atrocities of christianity

So Christianity is worse because it's been around longer and therefore there's been a greater number of Christian bigots?

[Anonymous No.2793186]

>>2793178
Oh, right. I missed the filename and didn't recognize the photograph.

[Anonymous No.2793188]

>>2793178

No, I'm pretty sure Faulkner couldn't have been religious. That would be preposterous.

[Anonymous No.2793239]

>>2793180

>So Christianity is worse because it's been around longer and therefore there's been a greater number of Christian bigots?

and because its text is more horrific and orders more brutality than Dianetics does.

Its a blueprint for disaster, and yes you are right, history gives us the rotten fruits of its teachings.

[Anonymous No.2793253]

>>2793239
>and because its text is more horrific and orders more brutality than Dianetics does.

Uh huh. You realize that all Christians don't exactly take the Bible, the Old Testament especially, at face value right?

So those parts about God ordering the Jews to massacre their enemies doesn't really have much of an impact on Christian theology, except for the fringe fundamentalists.

Really what atrocities have Christians committed because the Bible told them to do so?

And before you tell me the Crusades, please consider that Muslims had been in control of the Christian Holy Lands for hundreds and hundreds of years before the Crusades started, and the exact the exact sequence of events which led to the first crusade.

[Anonymous No.2793254]

>>2793253

>You realize that all Christians don't exactly take the Bible, the Old Testament especially, at face value right?

Yes because they have modern morality and disregard Christian teachings when they are immoral and absurd.

As they should, and they should go further and disregard the whole scheme.

[Anonymous No.2793258]

>>2793254
>Yes because they have modern morality and disregard Christian teachings when they are immoral and absurd.

Uh, no. Catholics, both Roman and Orthodox, have not taken the Bible literally for a long, long time.

Augustine mocked the idea of taking the bible at face value and he lived 1700 years ago.

[Anonymous No.2793259]

>>2793254
You don't know how morality works.

[Anonymous No.2793260]

>>2793258


>Catholics, both Roman and Orthodox, have not taken the Bible literally for a long, long time.

That doesn't excuse the religion for being batshit insane, and having horrible consequences on the human race.

eventually Scientologists might not take their religion "literally" and water it down and disregard the bad bits...so?

[Anonymous No.2793263]

>>2793258

how someone interprets the religion is an arbitrary matter

at face value the bible is full of shit.

You can interpret Mein Kampf favorably if you try hard enough...stop talking.

[Anonymous No.2793268]

>>2793260
>eventually Scientologists might not take their religion "literally" and water it down and disregard the bad bits...so?

Didn't you just read what I said? Catholics have never taken the bible literally, ever. If we want to be picky, Catholicism has existed since the Council of Nicaea, in the fourth century, around the same time Augustine was writing.

Also, may I ask if you think that other religions are quite as evil as Christianity? Can secular ideologies have "horrible consequences for the human race?"

[Anonymous No.2793306]

>not taking the bible literally
>believing in God's bible
Pick one dick licks
Also
>implying God didn't write the bible to be taken unliterally
Fuck off

I hope you realize why you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.2793314]

>>2793306
Not taking the ENTIRE bible literally.

The bible isn't a book. It's a collection of books written by a variety of different authors hundreds of years apart.

And to most Christians the only part that was ever taken at face value were the gospels. Everything else is either a history or morality lesson in some way or another.

[Anonymous No.2793316]

>being an unthinking member of an unthinking cult
>calling yourself intellectual

For shame /lit/, I didn't know so many of you were religious. Explains a lot, though.

OP you could at least justify authors such as Eliot and Lewis as they lived in a time period so elementary in critical thought.

[Anonymous No.2793317]

>>2793316
>>>/r/atheism
>>>/highschool/

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2793321]

[Anonymous No.2793320]

>>2793316
>unthinking member of an unthinking cult

Here's a question for you, if religion is all about not being allowed to ask questions, then what is theology?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2793324]

>>2793320
Endless attempts to arrive at the conclusion already set forward by ancient rabbis. A worthless doctorate, though I admire Martin Luther King well enough

[Anonymous No.2793325]

>>2793320
The religious study of religion

[Anonymous No.2793328]

>>2793320
The study of religion? What's your point?

[Anonymous No.2793330]

>>2793324
>Endless attempts to arrive at the conclusion already set forward by ancient rabbis

Do we have their conclusion?

[Anonymous No.2793334]

>>2793328
>The study of religion? What's your point?

Study is the key word here. Asking questions is the first step of studying something.

Isn't reading Aquinas' proofs part of every philosophy 101 class? Those proofs are questions and Aquinas' answers to them.

And then Agustine wrote something about keeping an open mind, it's how he, formerly a pagan, became Christian in the first place.

Anyway my point is that asking questions is not something explicitly forbidden in Christianity or any other major religion.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2793335]

>>2793330
That there is a god and that these be the words of god passed down to us. Don't go joshing with us and claim that they question these things in theology.

[Anonymous No.2793336]

People often encounter moments when they perceive a connection between all things that transcends quantification.

When faced with this moment, they become interested in the paradigmatic God as culture perceives it.

Logically, 'god' in it of itself is not a sound explanation. It is, however, the most accurate linguistic representation of that feeling.

[Anonymous No.2793338]

>>2793336
I heard "God" described by a Bishop as "the being from which all being derives."

[Anonymous No.2793340]

>>2793336

this

being religious or believing in a deity is irrelevant to intelligence. when you age past 20 or so you might realise this.

im an atheist btw

[Anonymous No.2793344]

>>2793335
Ah okay, well I guess if we are given a groundwork we shouldn't build upon it. Those silly ancient rabbis and their midrash.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2793349]

>>2793344
Alright. I guess we're done here.

/Thread

[Anonymous No.2793364]

>>2793334
>Anyway my point is that asking questions is not something explicitly forbidden in Christianity or any other major religion.

Cool. I never said that. My point is that religion itself, especially today, leaves no room critical thought and vice versa. It's obviously erroneous, arbitrary, and a thousand-year-old cop out. Believe whatever you want to believe; there's no need to have this trite discussion. Just don't call yourself an intellectual. I'm not even one of those atheism warriors, just saying.

[Anonymous No.2793371]

>>2793364
>Just don't call yourself an intellectual.

I didn't. But it's ridiculous of you to say that intellectuals can't be religious.

>It's obviously erroneous, arbitrary, and a thousand-year-old cop out.

"Obviously erroneous?" How so? Arbitrary? Look at religion's impact on history and the world today for fuck's sake. Also, religion is much older than 1000 years.

Oh and please see this post >>2792996

Does desiring answers to those questions make one stupid, somehow?

[Anonymous No.2793374]

Gnostic theism is stupid. So's gnostic atheism. If there's proof in either direction, then where's the proof?

Stop acting like it's a cut and dry issue you twits.

[Anonymous No.2793390]

>>2793371
It is physically impossible for me to stoop to your level of dumb in order to respond that