I think that the question of holiness can be answered quite simply:
"Holiness" of certain texts and phenomena is connected to taboos and survival strategies.
I like to see things in a long-time perspective, as so it is easier to understand why things today are they way they are.
Some texts and phenomena are older than other, and some were written/practised by societies more viable than other, and therefore tradition becomes the justification for the existence of a certain expression of holiness.
Like it or not, tradition IS a justification for something: it may be without logical proof, but fact is that people adhere to tradition, and so tradition must be accepted as a justification for something IN PRACTICE.
But think what is actually the reason for tradition being so important: Tradition (to some people) gives a sense of identity, it tells you where you come from, who you are, what you can expect from life. It gives you CONTEXT.
And we all need some context to feel as a worthy individual and be able to live a life.
It is the ancient tribal feeling of belonging to a community.
As soon as we speak of tribal feelings and communities, we must keep in mind that mechanisms must be ensured to keep a community going, to ensure its stability. Therefore, the most important things (the ruler and his rights and duties; procreation; resources) must be tabooed, so that nobody questions them, or gets (severely) punished for tresspassing. It is about social stability.
Believing the same thing kept a society together and alive, and more or less thriving. And the thing that is keeping them together is not to be questioned, lest their own survival would become endangered.
In this sense, "holy" and "tabooed" mean the same thing: untouchable truth.
Of course, in the ancient times, when most religions were established, the struggle for life was more visceral, more direct, more obvious -- in the sense of facing imminent death if you didn't have enough food. Look at life expectancy rates, infant death, death due diseases and such things in those times.
Today, we have many postponement mechanisms, like social welfare that help you to get through the hard times. Back then, it must had been much harder. No wonder that economical lacks had to be met with a lot of faith (faith is believing in things that are not there (yet)).
And you shouldn't doubt that what keeps you alive!
If I go and write something, I might call it "holy" -- but the thing will lack social acceptance, and as such it won't pass as "holy" for others. Since I don't live alone and need a (social) context, that thing won't pass as "holy" for me either. Unless I am totally fanatical, of course.
I think that the reason why some newer writings are considered holy (for example what the Apostles in the modern Mormon church say) is because their author has a certain connection to the tradition. Never forget that Rome wasn't bulit in one day, so it takes a lot of little steps to convince people that what a modern apostle says comes from God too.
***
But on the whole, I think we have something like a need for "holiness", a need for "purity" and "innocence", "beauty", and "ultimate truth"; maybe to compensate the force of our reason. (And this "holiness" doesn't necessarily have something to do with the kind of holiness/taboo mentioned above.)
This need can then be expressed and elaborated in VERY different ways: some people belong to an organized religion, some are fully dedicated to their work, some hug trees, some worship their dead pet, or they worship their lover (and put him/her in a golden cage), ...
Also, it has been established that a part of the brain is in charge for religious feelings, whatever these religious feelings may be. When a Buddhist monk meditates, the same region of his brain is active as in a Franciscan nun praying. The common denominator seems to be a feeling of "happiness". But there's more to it ...
"Holiness" of certain texts and phenomena is connected to taboos and survival strategies.
I like to see things in a long-time perspective, as so it is easier to understand why things today are they way they are.
Some texts and phenomena are older than other, and some were written/practised by societies more viable than other, and therefore tradition becomes the justification for the existence of a certain expression of holiness.
Like it or not, tradition IS a justification for something: it may be without logical proof, but fact is that people adhere to tradition, and so tradition must be accepted as a justification for something IN PRACTICE.
But think what is actually the reason for tradition being so important: Tradition (to some people) gives a sense of identity, it tells you where you come from, who you are, what you can expect from life. It gives you CONTEXT.
And we all need some context to feel as a worthy individual and be able to live a life.
It is the ancient tribal feeling of belonging to a community.
As soon as we speak of tribal feelings and communities, we must keep in mind that mechanisms must be ensured to keep a community going, to ensure its stability. Therefore, the most important things (the ruler and his rights and duties; procreation; resources) must be tabooed, so that nobody questions them, or gets (severely) punished for tresspassing. It is about social stability.
Believing the same thing kept a society together and alive, and more or less thriving. And the thing that is keeping them together is not to be questioned, lest their own survival would become endangered.
In this sense, "holy" and "tabooed" mean the same thing: untouchable truth.
Of course, in the ancient times, when most religions were established, the struggle for life was more visceral, more direct, more obvious -- in the sense of facing imminent death if you didn't have enough food. Look at life expectancy rates, infant death, death due diseases and such things in those times.
Today, we have many postponement mechanisms, like social welfare that help you to get through the hard times. Back then, it must had been much harder. No wonder that economical lacks had to be met with a lot of faith (faith is believing in things that are not there (yet)).
And you shouldn't doubt that what keeps you alive!
Some texts have the value of being holy, probably in the greatest extent due to the reasons sketched above.
If I go and write something, I might call it "holy" -- but the thing will lack social acceptance, and as such it won't pass as "holy" for others. Since I don't live alone and need a (social) context, that thing won't pass as "holy" for me either. Unless I am totally fanatical, of course.
I think that the reason why some newer writings are considered holy (for example what the Apostles in the modern Mormon church say) is because their author has a certain connection to the tradition. Never forget that Rome wasn't bulit in one day, so it takes a lot of little steps to convince people that what a modern apostle says comes from God too.
***
But on the whole, I think we have something like a need for "holiness", a need for "purity" and "innocence", "beauty", and "ultimate truth"; maybe to compensate the force of our reason. (And this "holiness" doesn't necessarily have something to do with the kind of holiness/taboo mentioned above.)
This need can then be expressed and elaborated in VERY different ways: some people belong to an organized religion, some are fully dedicated to their work, some hug trees, some worship their dead pet, or they worship their lover (and put him/her in a golden cage), ...
Also, it has been established that a part of the brain is in charge for religious feelings, whatever these religious feelings may be. When a Buddhist monk meditates, the same region of his brain is active as in a Franciscan nun praying. The common denominator seems to be a feeling of "happiness". But there's more to it ...
