Page 3 of 3

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:10 pm
by Willow
Someone said something insightful once.

Liberal Quasi Christians like me are reading the same Bible as fundamentalists and getting two completely different views.

I guess I am just as guilty as fundies for reading the book to serve my own purpose.

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:43 am
by Ragnar
I think it's the difference between an open mind (like you), or a closed mind, like these christo-fascists.

If I were you, I would take comfort from the fact I was the right one.


Because in a religion that purports "to do no harm" and to "turn the other cheek", the only correct interpretation is one that follows those principals. The christo-fascists, on the other hand, use the same book to cause harm.

Now we must start wondering if that actualy makes them "satanist". For do they not also take the bible and reverse it's meaning?

(.......Not that I am biased or pre-judging any one, of course. :roll: ).

I asked my Granny once why we did not have a book like the bible. My Granny replied "What, and leave evidence?"

Rather cryptic for a nine year old to understand. But if nothings written down, no one can accuse you of contradiction. Or breach of contract, or missrepresentation.

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:47 am
by Willow
I guess ultimately I think claiming "right" is a big risk. I tend to appreciate people who say, well this is what I've got and I am doing the best I can.

I wonder if there is less tendency towards fundamentalism in orally transmitted religions? Probably not because I know that people can memorize a lot of stuff when they need too.

One of the features of fundamentalism is a literal interpretation of tests or scriptures. the could probably be transmuted onto oral scriptures as well.

An oral society might be more prone because they are likely already a minority. Or in some sort of an enclave.

That would be really interesting to look into.

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:14 am
by Ragnar
Willow. I think you may be right. In Oral traditions, the storys are more open to change. As each person tells it differently, and no one knows the EXACT first edition, and every one hearing it knows that.

There is no foundation for the "fundementalist" to build on. Because the story is never the same twice running. There is, therefore, nothing tangible to fight over.

But when it is written down it does not lead to interpretation as easily. You will allways get people who hold it up as "proof" that they are right. Then some one else will do a quick re-write and includee the passage that every one must have forgotten about, that sais about when "god" said it was a punishable offence to alter the written word, so they couldn't possibly have changed it, because that would make them bad, and thy're NOT bad....Then one thing leads to another.

"Four legs good, two legs bad"

"Four legs good, two legs better".