All of these threads about the Bible...

Last I checked the Bible is literature.

I don't think debating over the moral values of religious texts is literary discussion. The Bible is absolutely literature though, and I totally think it should be read by anybody interested in significant literature, along with most major religious texts. But the moral, philosophical and ethical debate about its message and content is not literary discussion.

Both philosophy and theology belong here. Janitors being lazy faggots and allowing low effort shitposts for hours is another topic, which is pointless to discuss.
>very little of it is scholarly
I can not even imagine the absolute state of someone who would surmise that shitposting on a Kyrgyz yak shearing web-conclave should be scholastically rigorous.
No, that would just result in Veeky Forums 2.0: poltardian boogaloo.

Define literary discussion. What are we supposed to discuss?

>analysis of literary works' contents is not literary discussion

The text. Discussion shouldn't center around your feelings about the text, but the text itself. In conversation it gets ambiguous, but you can tell what threads here are discussing interpretation of text, and then what threads are discussing the interpretation of meaning and value of things the text is in conversation with.

it is like discussing Shakespeare and one of the tragedies when someone speaks up and says, "I don't like the way that women are treated in Shakespeare's plays, and I think it's a little messed up how much power men have." It's a valid observation, valid feeling, but it is just external conversation to literary discussion. Maybe not the best example, but please see the spirit of my argument.

A God which is an end in itself is the condition for all morality.

You may say

>I don't need God to be good, I can be good for goodness' sake

But then you need to explain, what is goodness?

If you say, goodness is when people in society are in harmony with one another, or goodness is health, or goodness is a "perfect society", what you are saying is that goodness is conditional.

Well, then, it is not goodness which is good, but these conditions which it achieves, and this is nonsensical. A good is that which is sought above all other things, i.e., not conditionally. A good, then, cannot be a means to certain conditions, but must be an end sought for itself.

So you see that God, who is the end which we seek above all other things, is universally good, and therefore the foundation for a universal morality, as opposed to a merely contingent utility, and this is in the Christian teachings, among other places.

I feel it, bro. It's an interesting (although obvious) topic to talk about, but I just wish it was less common here and maybe had a place where people could cultivate rhetorical and philosophical interest or ability away from Veeky Forums.

It's only natural for people to express their viewpoints even if they're not objective literary critique. You seem to be under impression that Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums in general is some sort of high-quality topical resource that through sheer vicissitudes of fate is currently terribly overrun by stupid memesters and contrarians. It's not. It's a shitposting heaven/hell that manages to sometimes produce half-decent discussion or generate valuable OC once in a blue moon. Realize it and stop creating shit threads.

I don't need to be good for goodness sake, I can be good because in most scenarios where you're not a CEO or politician, it's logical to be good. I can be good because I feel empathy for people. I can be good simply because I am a conscious being and I choose to be so.

The question is not about "can", it's about "should", brainlet.

I do sort of believe that Veeky Forums is an exceptional place for internet discussion, but I totally concede to and appreciate the reality that it is, by its free-wheeling nature, a home for shitposting and acting retarded. I take part in that myself, sometimes.
What I am asking for wouldn't remove any of that, a single board could not compromise Veeky Forums so much. Veeky Forums is at its best when people are playfully exploitative with analysis and interpretation, but it's never been good when spergs come flying at each other and REEEEING over differing philosophical views. That's totally chaff, and it's a kind of chaff that could be moved somewhere else where it is more fitting. Have people REEEE at each other here over which translation of The Odyssey (Fitzgerald) to read instead of being pedants about philosophical rhetoric trying to suss out the lessons to be internalized by reading the Word.

You can have shitposting and excellent literary discussion, responding to rising increase of philosophical and theological discussion won't remove shitposting I assure you, newfriend.

I think Veeky Forums can be better than it is, but I don't think that it would be much better. Veeky Forums's honestly a great board - I don't buy into the cynical self-hating 4channer thing a bit, I love this place.

Why though? Please explain to me, because you're clearly an intellectual who actually uses the term brainlet.

Totally agree. Get these phil-cucks out

>I am good when it suits me.

This is to say that goodness is only a means to an end for you, viz., to achieve some desired result in business or to act out some transient passion or feeling that you have.

To "be good" then, is not something that you hold to be worthy of being sought by itself, but only as something which can be utilized to achieve some end.

What you are discussing is not morality, but utility. A system of morality requires goodness to be held as the highest aim of life, an end in itself.

they're already off-topic and will get deleted if you report them enough (as much as anything else that should get deleted does)

I don't believe it. But I'll try it out.

We do not want them deleted though. We want them to have their own board