/lit/ - Literature

most of the old worlds literature was lost when the library of alexandria was burned......literature that wasn't as convenient as the holy word of god...blame that for the meager texts we have of any other subjects not of religious subject

like it or not the vast majority of our laws/societal values are based on ideas found in the bible. So to answer your question, not really

You're an idiot, this is bullshit. First book printed was the bible because it was in the fucking 1450's. People clung and cling to religion to explain a world they do not, cannot, or will not understand. Humans will do anything not to face life. Everything is a crutch to lessen the blows of life.

FUCKING DEAL WITH IT AND SHUT THE FUCK UP. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, EVERYONE LEANS AGAINST SOMETHING. EVERYONE IS WEAK. YOU ARE JUST AS BAD AS THEM, EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY DO. YOU STUPID, SELF-IMPORTANT FUCK. YOU CAN'T SEE PAST THE END OF YOUR NOSE, CAN YOU? DAMN IT.

>>1571935
well damn.....life's a bitch and then you die

can't remember who said it but i think it applies to what this guy is trying to say

>>1571926

...is... is that a Hunter S. Thompson/Raoul Duke action figure? and if so, where can I obtain one?

The only people who could read back then where the clergy, so it makes sense.

edgy fucking Atheist.

The first widely influential moral texts were religious ones. Religion helped humanity to be where it is today. Whether or not we need it now is debatable, but its importance is not.

In conclusion, no.

>>1571929
Most laws come, with many changes over the years, from Roman and Germanic sources, and the old testament was only given serious consideration as a social model by protestants in the backwoods of America.

If it weren't for the monks, then almost no printed material would have survived the dark ages. With that in mind, I can't really begrudge them for focusing on their favorite books.

>>1571955
I think we'll still need it...religion can be a great bastion of virtuous principles and morals...and as being the opiate of the masses something will have to keep them in check in a new age of modernity and technical advancements...lest most of society forget all these "fears of heaven" and "moral correctness" and descend into amorality

>>1571929
>vast majority of our laws/societal values
Yeah, that's why if she cheats on me, Imma stone the bitch. Also, rest of Leviticus.

>And before you say 10 commandments
Yeah, thank the lord for telling me not to kill people, couldn't have figured how that could cause trouble on my own. Shame he missed rape in the first ten.

>>1571926
>first book published was bible
I was thinking about this the other day. I don't know much about the time, but it must have changed how people interacted with religion. Before printed bibles (and the literacy that followed), you had no way of studying religion. Imagine having a job with a very long list of company policies, but you had no way of knowing them or reading them or checking if they don't add up; it must have been infuriating! Once you had a printed bible in your house, and someone says that God says this, you can bring them back to your house, and say, no, fuck you, you're full of shit, I've got a copy of the damn bible right here and it don't say that. I mean, it added some transparency, which is always a positive thing.

>>1571966
I'm guessing that this is a good/subtle troll? Especially because you use "amorality" rather than "immorality"? Even if it is, it's worth responding to genuinely because you bring up some interesting points.

Morality is real. It's sloppy and lazy to pretend that there isn't a difference between "being good" and "being bad," and for most people, that aligns pretty closely with what Jesus taught. Why should we abandon the entirely useful moral framework that Christianity and most other religions teach?

>>1571976
you just paraphrased what i said : /

but in regards to morality, you're right. only fools try to make the distinction on the subjectivity of the idea...all you have to say is "what do you not want done to you" and everything else will be constituted as "bad"

>>1571976
I'm guessing that this is a good/subtle troll?

Thirty seconds of googling I founds Jesus endorsing the killing children of adulterers. See below, google the rest yo self. Now, tell me how this fits into your morality?
"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

>>1571966
In my experience, all gods do is justify hate and ignorance.

>>1571985
Sorry, I thought I was arguing against you because I thought you were being ironic. We agree :)
>>1571983
Revelations isn't the best book to quote as far as general Bible philosophy. It's a horrific/prophetic warning of the end times, and the rules for moral behavior recommended by the rest of the Bible largely don't apply. Pick something from John that you find objectionable if you really want to argue.

>>1571991
>Pick something from John that you find objectionable if you really want to argue.
How about Leviticus? Wouldn't a book made largely of rules be a better thing to argue to be the basis of a system of laws. I'm going to lay out some quotes and you tell me how they are followed in today's society.

>Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
die fags

>25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
ie Rules for buying slaves

We can go on, but it's dumb.

>>1571926
ITT butthurt fags

>>1572000
Leviticus is worse than Revelations to pull from. Jesus's teachings superceded basically everything in the Old Testament the minute he said "Love thy neighbor" and "Turn the other cheek."

The philosophy of the Bible changes immensely from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

>>1572006
In Leviticus itself
>it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

In Matthew
>Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So tell me again how my society's laws are based on the Bible?

>>1572016
Leviticus, in its text, claims it won't be overruled. It was overruled.

Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus openly flouts Old Testament law. I get the feeling you're reading or searching the Bible to find contradictions, which is lazy: there are hundreds of contradictions. Nobody disagrees with that. Most good art--and most useful moral frameworks--have contradictions. The central and most frequently repeated message that Jesus conveyed was overriding and Golden Rule-ish in message and simplicity. If you don't realize that "Love thy neighbor" is the main concept advocated by most observant Christians, I'm guessing you've never been to a church service.

>>1572016
what are societies laws based off of then?

>>1572036
>I get the feeling you're reading or searching the Bible to find contradictions, which is lazy: there are hundreds of contradictions.
No, I'm googling the bible for contradictions. You've implied that I read it, and I haven't.
>The central and most frequently repeated message that Jesus conveyed was overriding and Golden Rule-ish in message and simplicity. If you don't realize that "Love thy neighbor" is the main concept advocated by most observant Christians, I'm guessing you've never been to a church service.
That's the main concept advocated by decent people, anywhere. It's just about the definition of decency. When you say something like that, you're just arguing that law and society strives for goodness; that's not really a reason to stop the presses.

The conflicting nature of the Bible's content is precisely it's strength as a rhetorical tool. Its fractured structure makes it difficult to think about all at once, and the extreme opposition of its maxims means that it has a quote for every purpose. Need to pacify uppity underclasses? Turn the other cheek. Need to keep the nobility in line? It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Need to lay low for a powerful enemy? My kingdom is not of this world. Need to inspire a crusade? I came not to bring peace, but a sword.

And it's not "religious texts". It's the Bible. You've never seen that kind of deference given to the Mahabharata.

I think its a shame OP can't find some wisdom in any of the religious texts.

>>1572183

Why should he?

It's an obsolete interpretation of reality by an early civilization.

>>1571926
All I hear is "bawww my mom took me to sunday school ill show her"
Seriously, are you from /sci/ or /x/?

>>1571935
>EVERYONE LEANS AGAINST SOMETHING. EVERYONE IS WEAK. YOU ARE JUST AS BAD AS THEM, EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY DO
lawl christfag detected
the fewer false beliefs we have the better we are, fag

Anybody who knows dick about literature recognizes the Bible's literary value. It's certainly the most alluded to work in Western literature.

>>1572227
Lol @ christfag! Fuck your God, if faith was taken out of the equation I dont possibly see how the Bible could compete as any kind of 'literary' work. Full of contradictions. You are weak if you need magic and 'faith' (lol wat a bs concept to trick the weak!!!) to live our life!

Try reading the book of Job sometime. Then maybe you'll understand why the bible is the bedrock of all literature.

>The first book printed was the Gutenberg bible for fucks sake

>Like...why not print shit like greek philosophy or medical and math texts?
>medical texts
Cut it off, apply leeches.

>>1572215
I'm sure you don't have any false beliefs about justice or morality. Nothing weighing this atheist down, no sirree.

>>1572245
Guy loves god, god allows satan to fuck him over (desite lucifer having a gay tiff with with god in genesis which is why he got thrown out out heaven) yet still god allows job to get fucked as tho to prove a point to his ex gay lover. IMO Job should have told god to go fuck himself.

>>1572251
You're missing my point. I agree we'll all have many false beliefs. But the fewer the better.

another sneaky pro-bible thread.

LET'S GET SOME AYN RAD UP IN THIS BIZNITCH

>>1572260
Why? If there's no objective point to stand, then who cares if a belief is "True" or "false," as long as it can be applied to reality.

oh look another sneaky piece of shit thread

>>1572275
that's better

>>1572275
>If there's no objective point to stand
Why would I accept something like that?

>>1572282
because looking at science itself should be enough to show that even when people are trying to be absolutely objective, their own prejudices creep in.

>>1572304
science is terminology

>>1572304
Ok then, so maybe we should take an instrumental approach to science? Most people do anyway, as far as I know, at least for the dubious quantum physics shit.
Still not seeing why truth and falsity doesn't matter.

I completely agree with you. Religious "morality" etc has been extracted from Philosophical teachings. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all built the very foundation on which we stand...yet praised are the false tampered teachings of so called "truth". I want a philosophical bible.

>>1572326
This board is finished.

>>1571955
>The first widely influential moral texts were religious ones

Not really true: the Greeks and Romans developed their ethics in the absence of agreed religious texts. Just because you come from a Christian-dominated society, don't assume that morality is equivalent to religious ideology. Historically, religion is one of the venues in which moral ideas are worked out and propagated, but it's not the only one.

>>1571976
>Why should we abandon the entirely useful moral framework that Christianity and most other religions teach?

That "moral framework", insofar as it exists, and its spread are due far more to the alignment of the church with state power from the late Roman Empire down to recent and in some cases present times. And it changes substantially over that time. Modern Christians don't generally think killing people of other sects is moral, for example; yet less than 500 years ago state and church colluded in burning people like William Tyndale, for daring to make the Bible available to English readers in the vernacular. The Church of England was among those compensated in the 19th century for the loss of property when Britain outlawed its highly "moral" practice opf slave-owning.

>>1572365
>burning people like William Tyndale, for daring to make the Bible available to English readers in the vernacular

Do you enjoy distorting history, or are you just ignorant?

>The Church didn't object to William Tyndale's translating the Bible into English. Rather, she objected to the Protestant notes and Protestant bias that accompanied the translation. Tyndale's translation came complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people…."

>>1572326
You have no idea about what you speak of.

>>1572369
I'll just leave this here:
>The fifty-four independent scholars who revised extant English bibles, drew significantly on Tyndale's translations to create the King James Version (or final "Authorised Version") of 1611 (still in mainstream use today). One estimation suggests the King James New Testament is 83.7 % Tyndale's and the Old Testament 75.7 %

Well, no problem with that version.

>>1572040
>what are societies laws based off of then

Considering that the current laws of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, much of Africa, and South Asia, owe a lot to European colonial administrations, their law codes, like Europe's, have a variety of sources, including Roman Law (propagated by the Roman Empire, and later the Catholic Church), the traditional laws and codes of European societies prior to Christian influence, and specific law codes promulgated at various times (e. g., the Napoleonic Code, the US Constitution). In addition, outside Europe, regional customary laws and codes also influence current practice. To claim that the Bible is the fons et origo of modern laws is fundamentally historically ignorant.

>>1572375

What does that have to do with what I said?

>>1572369

You make a less than convincing attempt to obscure my original point. Do most modern Christians or churches endorse the killing of other Christians or other people with whose religious ideas they disagree? Do Catholic priests circa 2010 have to perform the Mass in secret in England, for fear of their lives? No. Therefore, one cannot argue that there's a consistent Christian morality over time. Christian morality once endorsed killing to enforce orthodoxy; now the Catholic Church (and others) officially opposes capital punishment in every case.

And no, I am not ignorant. Of course it wasn't only the fact of translation that led to Tyndale's killing, but translation (and the ideology it embodied of taking the reading and explication of Scripture out of the sole, authoritative hands of the Church and the educated) was also not immaterial as you pretend. I know perfectly well that, within a century of Tyndale's death, his versions were influential in the text of at least three separate English Bibles ('Great Bible', 'Bishops' Bible', KJB) endorsed by church and / or monarch, as had been (by Henry VIII) the practice of having a large-format *English-language* Bible permanently available for consultation in every church. I know also that, despite containing notes offensive to monarchy and ecclesiastical hierarchy, the Geneva Bible was allowed to circulate and later be printed in England. The KJB was meant to supplant it, BUT by the end of the 16th century there was no attempt to suppress the Geneva text, and no risk to anyone in possessing or using it; very unlike the case with Tyndale's version only a matter of decades earlier.

>>1572395

>Therefore, one cannot argue that there's a consistent Christian morality over time.
I would argue that most of today's "Christians" aren't actually Christians. "Christian morality" has certainly changed over the years, but this changing was always slow, gradual, and organic. Modern Christianity is characterized by ruptures with the past. We are dealing with something different.

>Christian morality once endorsed killing to enforce orthodoxy; now the Catholic Church (and others) officially opposes capital punishment in every case.
Aie. The Church has lost its way.

>>1572369

BTW, you kind of make my point for me.

>the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people

Modern Christians and churches don't generally favour the suppression, indeed destruction, of Bible versions and books of other groups, or the prosecution and execution of those responsible for them. They don't generally favour the imprisonment of people who hold and express ideas contrary to their own orthodoxy, yet as lat as the mid-19th century, a British citizen could be imprisoned for blasphemy on the basis of lectures deemed offensive to the established church. When the (much diminished, and hardly used for a century) English blasphemy law was finally abolished less than a decade ago, few in the established church objected, and some in it were very much in favour.

>>1572395
the church obviously changes. Notwithstanding your jejune examples, a more reasonable observation was usury was a sin until the 16th century, when a council decided to ease laws on it.

That said, the Church is engaged with the greater humanity, history and dignity of mankind. The atheist has no use for any of these things, except as a cover. The optimum behavior for the atheist is to only be good when he thinks he can be caught. One of the major points of Matthew, on the other hand, is being good only counts when you aren't caught.

>>1571926
If the Guttenberg Bible is the first printed Bible why is everyone so obssessed with King James' version?

However, arguing the Church merely reflects societal changes rather then imposes them kind of leaves society as an actor without causes. For example, female infanticide was extremely common under roman/greek law and morals, and had all but disappeared (selective infanticide) by the 8th century.

>>1572417

>why is everyone so obssessed with King James' version?
The beauty of its language for one thing.

>>1572415
>That said, the Church is engaged with the greater humanity, history and dignity of mankind. The atheist has no use for any of these things, except as a cover. The optimum behavior for the atheist is to only be good when he thinks he can be caught.

Even most Christians I know don't believe that for a moment. But if it suits you to present a caricature of people you don't happen to agree with; hey, that's up to you.

>>1572417

Because it's in English.

>>1572507
uh, if you deny the supernatural, how else you going to order action? Utilitarianism is a facile joke (no one can sum, differentiate or maximize disparte utilities), some variant of hedonism remains. The optimum is to claim utilitarianism and hope some rubes fall for it, and privately be a hedonist. Epicurean for the more tasteful, leaning more towards caligula for the less.

Seriously, behold your barbarian culture.

Huge amounts of mad and butthurt in this thread by people too stupid to even contemplate the possibility that they might not know the context.

>>1572422

Partly its language, yes, but it may not be simply the subjective standard of beauty at play. The KJB was of course not the first English translation (Wycliffe and his followers, Tyndale, Coverdale, the 'Thomas Matthew' Bible using their versions, the 'Great Bible', the 'Bishops' Bible', the 'Geneva Bible', and the Catholic 'Douai-Rheims' version all preceded it), but partly through official adoption it gradually achieved a prominence among English-speaking Protestants that no other Bible version ever has, and was the single text far more likely to be read and heard by English speakers than any other, so that in time it came to feel to many as if the KJB *was* the Bible in English (and of course it still influences the language of many modern versions: it was even the basis of a Jewish version of the Hebrew Bible about a century ago). This is taken to extremes by some sects that reject all (and in a few US cases even burn) other versions, but it's a widespread feeling even among some who acknowledge its flaws (the state of textual scholarship was not then what it is now, the language was archaizing even in 1611 and is often obscure now, and certain ideological biases were imposed on its makers). It is also among the texts that played a role in the standardization of English, purely by being so widely used over such a long period of time.

>>1572520

If you accept the supernatural, how are you going to reconcile the competing historical and contemporary claims to know it and to speak authoritatively on its behalf? The thoughtful and critical believer is in the same position as the atheist or agnostic: left to her or his own resources in interpeting ethical tradition and reaching conclusions as to what constitutes good conduct.

>>1572546
Of course, you may never know for certain which one or if any of them are right on all issues. Honestly, the competing claims to supernatural revelation indicates many different cultures reacting to the say object.

Religion is a response is more similiar to the aesthetic than to the legal or the natural sciences. A more refined, important, and complex response. An example would be the religionist says "this is what the beautiful is". The atheist says "Beauty does not exist".

Religion is the other difference. A "spiritual" but not religious person is in the same situation as the atheist, as he can just use texts to justify his prejudices. But in a community you are forced to react to the history of the institution and the totality of the congregation.

>>1571926

Actually, it's widely agreed that more secular books and prints, including erotic ones, were as instrumental in the early success of the printing press and movable type (of which Gutenberg was the first to demonstrate the practical utility with his 1452 Bible) as the Bible. Because of course the Church was fundamentally conservative, and had no real problem with availability of its core texts.

There were erotic prints available in the 15th century, and at least one manual of sexual positions in the early 16th, and of course the printing of texts of classical literature such as Ovid introduced both erotic material and the opportunity to illustrate it. Indeed, there's even a 1572 printing of the so-called Bishops' Bible in which the beginning of Hebrews features a woodcut meant for an edition of Ovid's Metamorphoses, showing Jupiter visiting Leda in the guise of a swan.

>>1572567
>the religionist says "this is what the beautiful is". The atheist says "Beauty does not exist".

Caricature again. Ho hum. You consider religion superior, so you say it produces superior responses and ideas.

>in a community you are forced to react to the history of the institution and the totality of the congregation

In a community, you can also come or be coerced to focus on particular, narrow ideas of what the tradition is or allows, your certainties reinforced by the echo chamber. Iconoclasm was communal too, and represented a radical rejection and destruction of tradition. And you assume that non-religious people cannot form intentional communities. Which history kind of refutes.

If I am a chemical machine, why do I have a duty towards anyone else? Naturally I should help others when it helps myself; but why should I help others when it hinders myself?

What I meant by the beauty statement, was that although religion is cultural, that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't make a claim. Same as with beauty. And once you have made a claim, there is all the attendent demands. No atheist ever considered for a moment that he was wicked. Why ever would he do so? However, that is a very real possiblity to grapple with for the religionist.

>>1571985
What? I don't want to be sacrificed to some African God, but many people did, and some still do, perform human sacrifice. It's part of their religion, I might not like it but if they want to do that, I don't find anything morally objectionable with it.

I don't want to be tied up during sex, but some people do. Should I find this amoral since I consider it "bad?"

>>1572609
>>1572609
divine command or nihilism, ur move atheists!

shows how shallow the moral thinking of fundamentalists actually is.

i might get called a troll for this, but whatever.

i think that a little religion is fine. i grew up as a christian, but not one of those fanatics (like my grandmother). i mean, nowadays i'm more agnostic or whatever, but christianity (and other religions) do have some good moral standings. there are some bad ones too, but not as many.

just think, how many times have you heard "love thy neighbor" or "he who has no sin shall cast the first stone". what that's saying is "be nice to people" and "don't be a fucking idiot".

>>1572609
Because the chemical machine that is you has a desire to help others. This is because in tribal days, it was an evolutionary advantage to want to help your chums, as living in a group was hugely beneficial. Your desire to help and be kind to others is probably mostly due to evolution.

>>1572660
*hypocrite, not idiot

>>1572609

"materialism" =/= "atheism". But even a materialist can find reasons for altruism. One possible argument is that human beings (and other animals) are living things with a finite term of life; therefore there is reason to act so as to make their lives as good as possible (and no space to argue that their suffering in this life serves a higher cosmic purpose). This is kind of like the argument for preserving biodiversity: forms of life exist, and are worth preserving because they exist. Additionally, the human life form usually exists in a social environment, and for that environment to survive and prosper seems to require certain things of those in it, so that social duty can be derived from a pure materialist narrative. I'm not saying that's how I would reason, but these are two simple examples of arguments by which a strict materialist could justify either altruism or social duties.

>No atheist ever considered for a moment that he was wicked.

You do have a lot of certainties about what atheists must think. Again, any self-aware, thoughtful, critical person, religious or otherwise, is capable of examining her or his own character and motives, wondering whether they are good in themselves or beneficial in their effects (not necessarily the same thing), and so on. Again, you think religion superior to its opposite, so you describe religious people as better than non-religious. Doesn't make it true.

Nonetheless one of the oldest texts is about brewing beer so take that bible.

>>1572660

Yes, but the value of ethical , or any,ideas is independent of the motivation for stating them. If I believe there is no water on the surface of the moon, that belief is true no matter whether I base it on records of observation (empiricism), on the say-so of prominent scientists (logically invalid argumentum ex auctoritate), or on a personal belief that the moon is a ball of cheese (patent falsehood).

It is perfectly possible to believe that Jesus of Nazareth (for example) was a human being who offered a number of good ethical precepts, without believing that he was the incarnation of deity, and especially without accepting the theology or authority of any specific Christian church; and even a person who directly and wholly rejects a religion can share ethical notions with it: the so-called "Golden Rule", for instance, is proposed by various characters in Sade - about as vocal an anti-Christian context as you can find - as the basis of ethics (e. g., in the Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man), and something similar is also offered by existentialist thinkers.

>>1572710
This may be so but it's not a simple proposition to educate the unwashed masses in centuries of epistemeology, ethics and comparative religion just so that they know the origins of the golden rule. Why not simply say 'Love thy neighbor?'

>>1572834

No problem with the notion; problem with tying its authority to a specific belief system. Because, if you do that, then a person who comes to doubt that system loses her or his basis for its precepts; whereas, if you advance human reasons for observing certain ethical principles, those reasons remain as valid regardless of belief system. This is part of what (former Bishop of Edinburgh and head of the Scottish Episcopal Church) Richard Holloway was getting at in his book Godless Morality (1999): as a bishop, he obviously is not arguing that there is no god; he's recognizing that non-religious people aren't automatically immoral, and arguing that a strong moral argument will be one that doesn't rely on the authority or details of any specific religious system, precisely because that just pushes the argument back one step, from an argument over ethics to an ultimately irresoluble argument over the content and authority of religious ideas.

Bible was first printed because the church were the richest people.

Kings and Queens? Christians.

I'm not going to bother reading through what probably IS another edgy atheist teen thread anyway, but I'd just like to say:

The Bible is the struggle of Man to understand the mind of God, a struggle that is both with and against Him. If you read it with this perspective in mind I think you will get more out of it.

>>1573118

Not quite. If you were Gutenberg, working on a new invention in printing, and needing to made a certain return (since he was in debt, and could not afford not to deliver), you'd want your first product to be something important that anybody with the money to buy it would want to have. The (Latin) Bible was the single most important text in continental Europe in the middle of the 15th century, no matter who you were, or where. It's the obvious choice.