From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 10:10:11 MST
>
> *Bill, regarding your comment on the OT vs the Qur'an (I was pleased to hear
> that you had read it - difficult though the task is), I am assuming that you
> have not read the Old Testament recently, as your comparison does not match
> mine. While the Qur'an is a nasty, confused and boring piece of work of
> dubious authenticity, the Old Testament is, in almost all aspects, just as
> bad when it is not being worse. My reading is that the Arabs of the 9th
> century were vastly more advanced (ethically and socially) than the Hill
> Gods of Judea, but both are unacceptable even by the most barberous modern
> societies.
>
Although I agree with you point here, It's not the quality of the writing that I
like, it's the epic nature of the story. The early attempt to explain creation,
and the basic "storyteller" nature of the writing. In the way that if I were to
go to a primitive tribe, I would rather hear the story of how they think it all
came to be, interwoven with other aspects of the mythology (the Old Testament),
then have rules dictated to me between salutations to their god like in the
Koran.
>
> I suspect that most Western raised people prefer the babble, not because of
> what is written in it, but because they have had it "interpreted" to them by
> others, in the light of modern society. A "non-initiate" reading the bible
> (as attempted by the PhinMaid at my suggestion), will find the mish-mash of
> malicious and confused concepts completely incomprehensible without
> "explanations" which are completely subjective and interpretive. I would
> suggest that if this were done for other <em>wholly</em> fictitious works,
> they would end up looking better to a Westerner than a raw reading of the
> words conveys - just as the babble usually does.
I agree, the best the non-initiate could do is to enjoy an old story - something
I can't get from the Koran.
>
>
> As I mentioned a while back in a post addressing something said by Richard
> (and I remember correctly), the worst thing about religions is that they
> freeze the development of ethics. The most inevitable thing about religions
> is that they tend to reflect the society that create and follow them to them
> - and as societies are creatures of the enviroment - so too are religions.
> To this let me add that the one thing that all the major religions I am
> familiar with share, is that their "sacred writings" all provide books of
> intensely opaque "cold-readings" - which mean only what their followers
> assert them to mean - presumably even when the followers contradict
> one-another's interpretations. How else could the same book be used to
> justify and oppose - simultaneously - e.g. slavery, abortion or capital
> punishment.
>
> If these books were written by gods, these gods would have to receive a
> failing grade in "effective communications." As it is, this "honor" goes to
> their followers.
>
I can't disagree. It's as simple as prefering a book of stories to a book of
rules.
Best to you as always
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT