/lit/ - Literature

Who's King Arthur?

Aesop's Fables would have been just as profound if people used it for moral basis in place of that bullshit collection of fantasies.

>>1671073
King Arthur of Camelot

Okay. So what?

I only hope that the same isn't said about L Ron Hubbard centuries from now.

Whether you're an pagan or not, you can't deny the massive impact that The Odissey has had on literature.

Homer Simpson would've been named Joe, for one

>>1671077

This.

It's a pretty boring read, especially the New Testament. Chuck full of Mary Sues, plot holes, shock humour and repetitive, narcissistic praising and masturbation on the supposed author's part.

>>1671077
Where do you think people get "morals" from?

Here's something I've thought of lately:
>if you take away the talking snake and that stupid concept of "original sin" from the story of the garden of eden, it becomes an almost-decent tale about human nature and how we desire only what it is forbidden to us.
But they had to put the snake and sin in there and make it a stupid justification of why life=suffering.

Augustine of Hippo had to fabricate a bunch of bullshit to even get people to believe the Bible. Shit doesn't add up if you just read the book. It's the things that you are told about how to interpret it all that attempt to put it all together. Otherwise, it's a big crock of shit. Then there is the Book of Mormon... Fucking hell, don't even get me started. It was all pieced together by some illiterate alcoholic who saw all these visions. Sorta like the Qur'an, too. A whole lot of people followed some fucking wierdo around because they believed that some fucking angels had talked to him in a mountain. Did you hear me? PEOPLE REALLY FUCKING BELIEVED HIM. It's all so fucking absurd. At least Aesop gives it to you from the get go.... You know right away that a fucking grasshopper isn't literally going to be conversing his laziness with an ant. That's not the point of it and it's not what he wants you to "believe." It's just for entertainment in presenting a message. I don't care how scholarly someone is: Aside from Proverbs, not one iota of sewage makes a lick of sense in the Bible. Ever wonder why you have to go sit with a bunch of other dumbasses in front of some asshole who has to tell you the message behind some random ass group of passages? Holy fucking horsecock....

/rant

I always thought the bible was a well written, incredibly deep book with an airtight story and well developed characters.

and then I read it, I mean you think that this shit would be good considering an entire religion follows it to death

>>1671707
Not really, considering the vast, vast majority of Christians and Catholics haven't given it a good read themselves.

I'm surprised the Old Testament has been totally rewritten yet, it's such a clusterfuck.

Guys listen,

guys

hey

listen,

guys, guys.

Check it out, what if...

What if people from /lit/ rewrite the bible to be completely up to date, and able to satisfy even the most demanding of modern readers?

OT, but anyone got that link to the bro reading some of the bibla each week? On youtube, you know.

The Bible has had a massive effect on the world, and no sensible person will argue otherwise. Of course you can't say the world would be a better place without it, because there's no possible way of knowing that.

What is the point of this thread? Are you trying to speculate what literature would be like without the bible? How about the whole rest of the world?

>>1671058
Yeah, but I would gladly sacrifice the massive impact that The Bible has had on literature for it to have never existed. No King Arthur? Boohoo.

The Bible has permeated Western literature like nothing else. I'm decidedly non-Christian, but the King James Bible is one of the masterpieces of the English language.

itt: we speculate what the world would have been like without jews.

>>1671077
Angry atheist detected.

>>1671163
That is exactly what the Bible depicts. The serpent did not make anyone sin, Eve did it and Adam knew what he was getting into as well and did it anyways. There was no real reason for them to want to eat it, "being like God" was only part of the argument the snake tried using. The snake also and more effectively mentioned how God just didn't want them to eat it because He was selfish.

ITT: We smugly remark how dumb the Bible is and deny its impact that permeated not only nearly ALL literature but all almost ALL philosophical thought and was a driving force behind the development of science and the justification of a government supported by consenting people.

Regardless of who esteems the Bible nowadays, the above truths cannot be denied.

But OP is a troll anyways, as is evident by the fact the only literary implication he lists is something that was not influence by the Bible at all. King Arther was more of a culmination of various mythologies that were preexisting, same with Robin Hood. That is why Tolkien wanted to make Lord of the Rings because besides Beowulf, England did not really have its own unique mythologies or epics.

how is king arthur at all influence by the BIble?

>>1671757
they see op trollin'......

>>1671730
>the King James Bible is one of the masterpieces of the English language.
I hope you mean in respect to the historical value it's had, and not the literary value it holds. It's a pretty boring read by comparison of other words around the time of the translation. Hell, Francis Bacon did a better job translating Psalms.

>>1671756
Well agree somewhat with the Bible implications.

but the stuff you mentioned on Lord of the Rings, I was just watching the bonus discs the other day and they were talking about that.

>>1671756
>jews

>>1671720
>>1671720
>>1671720
>>1671720
>>1671720
>>1671720

>>1671720

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheChainsProject

>>1671718
People from /lit/ wouldn't be on /lit/ if they could write.

Lord of the Rings, and fantasy as it is today probably wouldn't exist without the influence of the bible.

inb4 hate and butthurt.

Morality doesn't necessarily have to come from religion. Even in the beginning of man, even before language... Just because we may not agree with some of the same principles that early hominids practiced doesn't mean they didn't (obviously) care for their fellow person. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. Yes, a lot of moral principle stems from the bible, but it was obviously around before "God" because some assholes had to know it in the first place to make up some story that God said it in some form or other. Several cultures had no contact with any religion outside of their own polytheistic practices and, yet, still managed to have morals. Morals without God are entirely possible. Don't let your current position on the timeline skew you into believing it stemmed from just the Bible. Go back a little further and I'm sure you can find some established moral principles. Once again, maybe they aren't up to par with what is acceptable today, but neither were a good measure of early Christian practices.

There's more morality in a George Elliot novel than in the bible.

I don't think that the reason the bible was so influential was because of the quality of the content of the book, but because it was enforced by a totalitarian judeo-christian theocracy upon civilization for thousands of years.

The bible is only significant within the cultural boundaries of our cultural christian heritage, where as Shakespeare and Kafka will be appreciated forever.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

MFW you probably just figured this out and it most likely blew your mind.

>>1671743
The bible shows that women only drag men to hell with them. Never listen to a woman.