The Bible used to be the linchpin of Western morality, art and literature, but that's passing

The Bible used to be the linchpin of Western morality, art and literature, but that's passing.

Is there any secular thought to another text that should function as this linchpin? Do you want one? There was a big movement for Shakespeare's corpus to effectively take the place in the Romanticist movement, but that's not as common now except among hold outs like Bloom.

Any thoughts on what would should be THE book?

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linchpin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Deadly_Sins_and_the_Four_Last_Things
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Tao Te Ching

Capital

If you're going for an Eastern text, why not the Analects?

>The Bible used to be the linchpin of Western morality, art and literature, but that's passing.

In ancient Athens and in ancient Rome? When it wasn't written yet?

Kinda see it as limited insofar as inspiring artistic works.

Homer was then.

Avesta

Humata, Hukhta, Huvarshta

because no one wants Anal in the title.

what a first reply, not ready for that

i second tao teh ching tho this is a p bs question still.

Why is it a bs question?

The bible was never actually the lynchpin. Societial morality predates the bible by millennia.

because society is growing in complexity.. sheeeit the bible wasn't many people's lynchpins already!
we couldnt all agree on a lynchpin anymore, nor even, i personally believe, should we have to.

not op but while true id still admit it certainly held a certain structure to an extent.
i mean, u know u got a structure when one of the biggest things that happens to ur church for a long time is just protestantism.. not even total denial.

It does, but it didn't have a definitive reference for immutable morality shared by so many cultures

You need to read up on christian history a bit.
The bible was created and changed to fit our morality not the other way around. Thats what eccuminical councils are. They change the interpretation to suit the current trends.
Iconophiles/iconoclasts, trinitarians/nontrinitarains.

Yes it does. To be a lynchpin it most certainly does. We chanbe the bible it does not change us

The only lynchpin is the fact that we need to get along as a people that supersceeds all.

that claim is pretty soundly invalid

it assumes the bible has no essential element at all (which is certainly a pretty preposterous claim given Christianity)
because if it had even any SOME essential element, it wouldve shaped us in addition to us shaping it.
thus, if we are shaped by it to some extent, and if we are in fact 'creating' this constantly evolving neo bible as you say, then the original bible STILL had a lynchpin-like thing to say of that.
the bible does exist

An influence is not the same thing as the book of books that is the direct source of most art and morality. Plato greatly shaped us too, that's not the same thing.

and thats why this question is bs.
weve come full circle.

No, because the Bible was not just an influence, it was the hub and final word on art, philosophy, morality, politics, family, pretty much every aspect of society.

The bible is not the direct source. It may be the inspiration, but, we as human beings are the source of all creative endeavors.

No it wasnt. No matter how much you say it it wont be true.

The Bible furnishes the material and the guidelines and the language.

It sure was. Read any treatise on monarchy from the Middle Ages until the end of the European Renaissance, the Bible will be the chief reference.

So what you are saying if not for christanity we humans would never have created art. You know that is false. Religions dictate the form art takes not whether or not we will do art. Every people at every time have art.

How deep in your own bullshit do you have to be not to notice it in human nature to be creative?

>So what you are saying if not for christanity we humans would never have created art.
No, where did you get that from? I'm saying the Bible became a linchpin to art that connected it all and provided a worldview for understanding all art.

That the implication of your argument. Do you not pay attention to what you write?

You are wrong. The bible cannot be a lynchpin unless it makes art possible. It like all religions are simply inspired it. It only lets you understand the culture from which the are came not art it self. It functions the same and hindu are african art mesoamerican art.

Your thinking is not very nuanced. You only ever speak from ignorance of all cultures except your own.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I don't particularly buy the claim the bible has ever been the "lynchpin" of our morality or that there is any need whatsoever to try and "replace" it with one specific book.

>The bible cannot be a lynchpin unless it makes art possible.
"one that serves to hold together parts or elements that exist or function as a unit"
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linchpin

These elements are art, morality, politics, and so on. I'm saying the Bible was a book that incorporated them all into a very cohesive and dynamic worldview.

But we dont need christanity for that.
That shit predates Christianity because society predates Christianity. Christianity is a mere tool to express

I'm not saying these things don't predate Christianity, I'm saying Christianity provided a centralized text that tied them together in an extremely cohesive and dynamic way. In ancient Greece, for instance, art did not tie in so very strongly with morality or philosophy, and while Homer was considered a central text, he was seldom consulted as guide to politics.

No it bound our cultures together. It did not inform them we chose what was christian and what was not based on our cultural mores at the time we reached consensus of interpretation.

Art is best divided by local region not faith. The christians in england created different content than the ones in italy or soain. Christianty made the tranfer of ideas easire because it tied us together loosely.
What moral art are you thinking of i am not aware of any. Christianity simply is not a philosophy so that goes in the trash.
Homer has nothing to do with politics because that was not its intent. The greeks used other things to fill those roles oracles and the like.

Its lime you think christanity made us function as a society and thats just wrong.

>The christians in england created different content than the ones in italy or soain.
No kidding. But they shared the same motifs and subjects.

>Christianity simply is not a philosophy so that goes in the trash.
If Confucius and Plato are, then Christianity surely is.

I never denyed that. What i denyv is that christanity is somehow crucial to the art and its quality and production. Anything can inspire art love ,nature. I dont even understand where you are going anymore.

How do confucius and playo justify that?

>What moral art are you thinking of
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Deadly_Sins_and_the_Four_Last_Things

>What i denyv is that christanity is somehow crucial to the art and its quality and production.
It was language that expressed the themes, in fact it provided some themes that really aren't found elsewhere

>How do confucius and playo justify that?
The point is you're pushing too sharp a distinction between philosophy and religion that didn't exist until Spinoza.

Mein Kampf

That really has no morality to it in an of itself. Its just a representation.

Thinking about you damaged the point you hoped to make in your opening statment.
You admit there is no lynchpin now yet we still produce wonderous art. Thus proving we need no lynchpin. The only thing religions do is give the art context.

>That really has no morality to it in an of itself. Its just a representation.
What. You could say the same with writings.

>yet we still produce wondrous art.
That's because our conception of wondrous is different though. Today, wondrous is synonymous with avant-garde; back them, wondrous was the absolute

I dont think my distinction is to sharp. Yours is too blurry. Confusionism became religious like due to its influence. I was clearly a philosophy to start with.
You only have this blurriness because it supports your bullshit.

Religious thenes are found every where you can see the heavy eastern influence in christanity through art the corona for example.
The very concept of souls is not Christian.
You ar still talking about mere inspiration nothing you say is uniquely christian.

Yes i could say the same about SOME writings. Nowhere does the christian cannon describe the oersonification of the seven deadly sins. This is pure from the artists imagination.

Thats your perception not mine. There is no absolute to the quality and taste of art.
Now i am starting to see how full of shit you are.
It is as i have been saying you are biased you only see things through a christian keyhole.