In article <1102336629.4a871d8fcc3bbbbb5464078852b5e8e3@teranews> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:co2vhl$1bq$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <4ko9q0dfaj7s7k2r2btqch0uiaunmqo0b7@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.com> wrote:
Anything religious MUST be quoted directly from the founding document
of that religion.
Obviously not, since many religions have NO "founding document".
Dude! Of course they do. Consider: "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
Stone".
"Pokemon and the...the...Pokemon and the..." OK, I'll have to get back
to you on that one.
Since the great majority of all religions which have ever been arose
in pre-literate societies, one has to wonder what in the world
Frank was thinking with that particular bit.
Perhaps you guys haven't noticed, but religious oral transmission has
pretty much ceased since writing was invented. That means that today most
religions are based on a document.
If you want to argue a known religion on the basis of your very own
personal and private prejudices, instead of its founding literature, then
you will be merely talking to yourself.
I'm curious why you reposted this; we saw it already. And I'm doubly
curious why you resposted it but failed to respond to my answer to
the first transmission, which went something like:
Anything religious MUST be quoted directly from the founding document
of that religion.
Obviously not, since many religions have NO "founding document".
Dude! Of course they do. Consider: "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
Stone". "Pokemon and the...the...Pokemon and the..." OK, I'll have to get back
to you on that one.
Since the great majority of all religions which have ever been arose
in pre-literate societies, one has to wonder what in the world
Frank was thinking with that particular bit.
Perhaps you guys haven't noticed, but religious oral transmission has
pretty much ceased since writing was invented. That means that today most
religions are based on a document.
If you want to argue a known religion on the basis of your very own
personal and private prejudices, instead of its founding literature, then
you will be merely talking to yourself.
Silly me, I assumed when you said "anything religious" meant "anything",
and not just the tiny fraction of all religions which arose in post-literate
societies.
Even among those, where's the "founding document" of Shinto? Mithra
worship? Zen Buddhism? Vodun? Jainism?
The idea that any religion must have _a_ "founding document" is
a chauvinism found among followers of the religions of The Book.
-- cary
.
