'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'

[ajblaise]

The very notion of a "Dark Age" has actually been discarded by scholars for at least 50-100 years now. The "Dark Ages" were a very rich era in terms of culture.

One recent work dealing with this topic is Julia M. H. Smith's Europe after Rome: A New Cultural History 500-1000. Of course this is only one among many many many MANY other sources one can consult.

There's also Peter Brown, who has written much about Late Antiquity and notes that the early Medieval period was far more vibrant an age than previously thought.

Just for fun, here's his remarks about one lasting legacy of the "Dark Ages" which still effects us to this day:

--The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000 pg. 23

Yes you heard it, the book as we know it today was developed by Christian scribes during the "Dark Ages". On a related note I should mention that the practice of putting spaces between words was also developed during this period by Irish monks.

Much has also been written about the great Renaisance of the 12-13th centuries.



It'd be more accurate to describe the Renaissance as "anti-Clerical" which is not the same thing as secular. Need we forget that the Papacy was the greatest parton for artworks during this time, which was a bone of contention with the more austere Protestant reformers.

How would you explain the surge of art and culture that came in the Renaissance, when humanism became popular? Even many of the theologians of the time shifted towards humanist thinking.

Shouldn't the Dark Ages have been the beacon of rich art and culture, instead of the Renaissance?

 

[Sniffles]

How would you explain the surge of art and culture that came in the Renaissance, when humanism became popular? Even many of the theologians of the time shifted towards humanist thinking.

Humanism at this time was based upon Christian precepts. This was especially true in regards to Desiderius Erasmus, although he wasn't alone:

Christian humanism saw an explosion in the Renaissance, emanating from an increased faith in the capabilities of Man, married with a still-firm devotion to Christianity. Plain Humanism might value earthly existence as something worthy in itself, whereas Christian humanism would value such existence, so long as it were combined with the Christian faith. One of the first texts regarding Christian humanism was Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's Oration on the Dignity of Man, in which he stressed that Men had the free will to travel up and down a moral scale, with God and angels being at the top, and Satan being at the bottom. The country of Pico's nativity, Italy, leaned heavily toward Civic humanism, while the firmer Christian principles took effect in places other than Italy, during what is now called the Northern Renaissance. Italian universities and academia stressed Classical mythology and writings as a source of knowledge, whereas universities in the Holy Roman Empire and France based their teachings on the Church Fathers.

Christian humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nothern Renaisance had a very strong religious element to it. So the "secularism" can only really be limited to the Italian Renaisance.

 

[ajblaise]

Humanism at this time was based upon Christian precepts. This was especially true in regards to Desiderius Erasmus, although he wasn't alone:

Christian Humanism "emanating from an increased faith in the capabilities of Man". Not from God or religion.

By your logic, art should have suffered at this time, surely Man is not the source of great art. And it should have flourished in the Dark Ages. Seems backward.

 

[Sniffles]

As usual, you're just grasping for straws at this point. Religious aspirations were still important at the time of the Renaisance. I'll even ask my one colleague for the studies he's read actually arguing that there was more fervent religiousity during this time than the late Medieval period.

Most of the "secular" thinking was largely anti-Clerical in nature, which meant being critical of religious authorities ironically for betraying the teachings of Christ.

One study that's on my reading list that deals with this issue even is Michael Allen Gillespie's newly released The Theological Origins of Modernity.

 

[ajblaise]

As usual, you're just grasping for straws at this point. Religious aspirations were still important at the time of the Renaisance. I'll even ask my one colleague for the studies he's read actually arguing that there was more fervent religiousity during this time than the late Medieval period.

Most of the "secular" thinking was largely anti-Clerical in nature, which meant being critical of religious authorities ironically for betraying the teachings of Christ.

Of course religion was still important in the Renaissance. It still plays a role in modern society. We are talking about trends. I can't make this any simpler.

 

[kyuuei]

You know, I notice this a LOT in school. It seems religious archetypes of ANY sort are never picked up when critically analyzing pieces, and English class itself revolves around the picking apart and analyzing authors and their pieces and the messages behind them. The end result is: Even if present authors are excluding religious pieces.. Critical Analysis on a scholarly level done on any well-written material takes lots of time.. Many author's best works aren't even discovered until well after their deaths. Religion will be a prevailing theme in many parts of literature, and it's definitely not going away.

Not caring for religion is NOT the same as not educating yourself on religion. You CAN be an atheist educated in the true meanings of Christianity. But it seems more popular and trendy now-a-days to brag about the inability to catch Biblical references, or to remain ignorant of religion. People who haven't read a bit of scripture seem to be appauled and resist everything imploring them to read it.

I have no problem reading any text and trying to understand and grasp the concept.. even if those concepts don't line up to my religious views. I think education in every form is essential, and that includes opening your mind up to the foundation of the things you analyze. People aren't capable of putting pieces together, my English class is absolutely horrid.. It's one dumb shallow comment after another from the flapping jowls of un-caring students trying to get a grade and flee as quickly as possible.

 

[Sniffles]

Not caring for religion is NOT the same as not educating yourself on religion. You CAN be an atheist educated in the true meanings of Christianity. But it seems more popular and trendy now-a-days to brag about the inability to catch Biblical references, or to remain ignorant of religion. People who haven't read a bit of scripture seem to be appauled and resist everything imploring them to read it.

Interestingly I decided to buck that trend even as an atheist. I remember people in class would be shocked whenever I made overt references to verses in Scriptures. I may not have believed in God at the time, but I still recognised the Bible as a major source of wisdom for our society.

Apparently I'm in good company in that respects, since Christopher Hitchens is no friend of religion yet had this to say:

"You are not educated if you don’t know the Bible. You can’t read Shakespeare or Milton without it, even if there was nothing else of it. And with the schools now, that’s what I hate about secular relativism. It’s afraid of insurance liability. They don’t even teach it as a document. They stay out of the whole thing to avoid controversy. So the kids can’t quote the King James Bible. That’s terrible. And I quite understand Christian parents who want to protect their children from a nihilistic solution where there’s no way of knowing what’s been discussed."

 

[Haphazard]

We seem to be arguing two different things here.

Is it that religion is the foundation of art or that people should have a sturdy understanding of religion to understand religious references in literature?

Because I can agree to one and not the other.

 

[kyuuei]

^ This is exactly what I got out of the thread. I think other comments were narrowing the topic. Focusing on the details rather than the OP's discussion topic.

 

[Kangirl]

You are not educated if you don’t know the Bible.

I totally, completely agree with Hitchens. It's a travesty of liberal arts 'education' that so many graduate lacking any real understanding of what underpins all the things/philosophies/art/literature etc. they were studying the whole time. I genuinely don't think a person who lacks knowledge of the bible can describe themselves as 'educated'. And don't even get me started on lit graduates who have only read pieces of one Shakespeare play, or who have completely avoided Milton etc.

 

[Geoff]

With religion, you have something aspiring man's talents towards to the highest heavens. Without that, what do you have? Nothing really, but petty self-absorption. Great art is like a water spring: eternal but always fresh.

The grandeur of Classical, Medieval, Renaisance, Baroque, Neo-Classical, Romantic, etc. art will stand for generations to come because it sought to give expression to such eternal themes. But in order to do that, one must first believe in eternity to begin with.

Not so, one must simply have an inspiration, I do not see how eternity is required. Perhaps a simple illustration will help. Much of what is viewed by many as great "art" is and was inspired by the beauty or hope of a desired lover, for example and not by religious themes.

 

[Nocapszy]

I'd agree with you that the Bible has been extraordinarily influential in literature and art, and so it's definitely useful to study it from a literary standpoint.

This is something I've been wondering on for a good while.

I'm actually going to make a thread about it instead of responding here though. It deserves more focused attention.

However, I don't really understand your statement that "a strong religious base is at the heart of cultural development."

It's true. On the other hand, if it weren't for the Beatles, we wouldn't have Metalocalypse, and I doubt anyone in Dethklok likes or has heard of the Beatles.

And for an actively economically focused culture (rather than religious or literary) it's harder to believe that something which is almost two thousand years more fresh, and (I'd estimate) 300 times more profitable was forgotten so quickly. Granted, there are still people who go crazy for the Beatles, but at the same rate, there are still people who go crazy for the bible as well.

...or merely that it has been a crucial part of Western cultural development?

The fact of the matter is, that's irrelevant.

I didn't bother to see what Peguy's point actually was, but if the former, then...
*sigh*

... and if the latter then it's irrelevant.

Maybe inconvenient, but ultimately, irrelevant.

Sorry bible guys; no one cares anymore.
At least you have free speech though right?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't think a person can really consider themself a literature studend without being fairly well acquianted with both Shakespeare and the Bible.

It's true. On the other hand, if it weren't for the Beatles, we wouldn't have Metalocalypse, and I doubt anyone in Dethklok likes or has heard of the Beatles.

I don't think a person can consider themself a student of music without being fairly well acquaited with the Beatles.

 

[Sniffles]

I didn't bother to see what Peguy's point actually was

Likewise in regards to your supposed point.

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't think a person can really consider themself a literature studend without being fairly well acquianted with both Shakespeare and the Bible.
I don't think a person can consider themself a student of music without being fairly well acquaited with the Beatles.

Well not that it matters -- record companies will still record them, and people will still listen, despite the lack of bureaucratic glue to hold their reputation together, the same way people will still write, and the public will still read -- but no one said anything about being a student of music. Only that regardless of their extended influences, the instruments will still make publicly appealing sound.

 

[Nocapszy]

Likewise in regards to your supposed point.

You would ignore.
Sheesh... at least I gave you the credit of having one...

 

[Venom]

It's true. On the other hand, if it weren't for the Beatles, we wouldn't have Metalocalypse, and I doubt anyone in Dethklok likes or has heard of the Beatles.

im quite confident Metal still would of come about even without the beatles. the beatles may be the fathers of pop, but not even close to being the fathers of guitar driven song.

Cream, together with The Jimi Hendrix Experience, made a significant impact upon the popular music of the time, and along with Hendrix popularised the use of the wah-wah pedal. They provided a heavy yet technically proficient musical theme that foreshadowed the emergence of English bands such as Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and The Jeff Beck Group in the late 1960s.

I would bet that Clapton and Hendrix would probably sight their biggest influences as being african american style blues... from these points --> bands like Lep Zepplin and Black Sabbath laid down the foundations for later metal etc etc etc....

 

[Nocapszy]

im quite confident Metal still would of come about even without the beatles. the beatles may be the fathers of pop, but not even close to being the fathers of guitar driven song.

The point still remains: at some point, there had to be an influence.

I can go all the way back to classical music if you like.

The point is, there's deviation enough that it's feasible for many people not to know that one sect exists.

 

[Venom]

The point still remains: at some point, there had to be an influence.

I can go all the way back to classical music if you like.

The point is, there's deviation enough that it's feasible for many people not to know that one sect exists.

i know. and i would happily join you in retracing music back to classical!
and you know what would happen?

Peguy would probably jump in and go on about how "because the Papal bankrolled said classical music writer, religion would then get credit for being the source for all of modern music...meaning there can be no future meaningful music without a religious society".

(could it be that the church had so much fucking control, that religion was the only POSSIBLE 'accepted' art outlet? this would hardly PRECLUDE there being OTHER inspirational sources of human motivation, then Or now).

gosh, i ...feel like im having a premonition...im betting Peguy is going to accuse me of a strawman here. Maybe it is. its really only my attempt at putting his little "religion is the root of everything" game into practice.

 

[Sniffles]

im betting Peguy is going to accuse me of a strawman here. Maybe it is. its really only my attempt at putting his little "religion is the root of everything" game into practice.

Well considering the fact that I mentioned that religion is the primary factor, while of course there are other secondary factors at play. After all, ones view of eternity tends to influence ones views of everything else.

So nice try on that score.