Ernie: Of course, religion does not require scriptures in an absolute sense. You're right about that. Since religion seems to have begun as long ago as the Paleolithic Age, no-one can claim scriptural priority. But since the advent of written language the advantages of scripture seem so obvious ( to me, anyway ) that I have a hard time giving much benefit of doubt to oral tradition folks. What makes this advantage so clear, is that one after another just about all ancient religions developed their own sacred texts. Or at a minimum committed oral traditions down to writing. The result is that in our world about 90% of all believers have holy writings. This includes Buddhism, BTW, each such text generally known as a " sutra. " The Tripitaka of Theravada Buddhism is more or less a Bible for that school of Buddhism. It is a closed canon and cannot be added to. For, we might say, Buddhist "Protestants," the Mahayana, the situation is somewhat like early Christianity where you have scores of sacred texts with nothing at all like universal agreement about which are valid and which are not. A few, like the Lotus Sutra, are widely accepted by most schools, but most are only "kosher" for some schools and not for others. Anyway, there are plenty of scriptures. Several hundred would be a good estimate. I donno about Norse Paganism, although a near equivalent has come about in the 20th century, considerable reference to the Icelandic Sagas, plus to Beowulf and a few other extant texts. Interesting thing about the Cherokee and Iroquois. Both tribes became literate in the early decades of the 19th century. But the Cherokee never created a set of scriptures. However, the Iroquois did, at least one group did, those who followed the prophet Handsome Lake who, clearly influenced by Christianity, wrote his own revelation which came to be known as the Code of HL, but in the form, more or less, of a gospel, like Matthew. The tribes of what is now Washington state provide a test case of the staying power of oral tradition. In the mid 19th century era the Indians there were increasingly pressured by white settlement and loss of more and more tribal lands --plus the effects of Christian preaching by both Protestants and Catholics. That was when Smohalla came along with his "traditional" religious message. But, while it hearkened back to old ways and values, one thing it wasn't, was authentically traditional. Since the culture was oral Smohalla was essentially free to "remember" what had never been --and present it as if it had always been. Which is a pattern again and again in the history of pre-literate peoples. And is it really any different in our era ? In his case, the ( new ) old traditions may have had some good features, but some were very questionable as well. One advantage of a scripture concerns laws. Any religion which insists upon laws to regulate conduct is far better off with a written record of those laws, a proposition that one would think is unarguable. Hence Islam, the epitome of a religion of law. Indeed, as many or most Muslims insist, Shariah law, viz, based directly on the Qur'an, is absolutely essential . Orthodox Jews say about the same thing with respect to the Torah. But it is not exactly a problem to think of other advantages, like consistency, accuracy in referring to treasured sacred stories, no loss of words of wisdom by sages long dead, etc, etc. I think I get your point about this, namely the vitality of Pentecostals and Charismatics, who , while not disregarding the Bible, place emphasis on the Holy Spirit and, in so many words, new revelations. But things don't always stop there, do they ? How many quasi-Pentecostal cults have arisen in the past X decades ? The process of cult formation doesn't end. And some, like the one around Tony Alamo, are rather unwholesome, to put it mildly. Long ago I also "studied" a cult in Massachusetts, the Brotherhood of the Spirit. Fascinating experience. A commune that wasn't limited to its geographical intentional community. Spent about a year visiting the group and talking with all kinds of people in it. A heck of a lot I might say about it, good and bad, with some worthwhile innovations as well. But one thing was really clear, and while it wasn't strictly speaking within normative Christian tradition ( they placed great stock in the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ --who ended his days in India so it is claimed ), it still was Christian in basic outlook. And, needless to say, since the founder was given recognition as a font of on-going revelation, what was true 10 years before was not necessarily the truth 5 years back, and anyone's guess if it would be true next year. Maybe his revelations would have been all for the good, at least in the context of the group, but he also held a "loose" view of the binding power of the Bible, etc, which , as he saw it, could be superceded when he was inspired to do so. Possibly more than anything else, that turned me off from oral tradition religions. I knew some of the first generation, who joined up when the founder got things off the ground, and their disillusionment was rather stark. What the Brotherhood had become, while some was quite good in their eyes, was sometimes horribly wrong and not at all what had been the case 10 years previously. Including financial swindles disguised as divinely approved.. Learning all that was a lesson never to forget. So, now you know. Billy ================================================== In a message dated 4/12/2010 1:59:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
HI Billy, On Apr 12, 2010, at 1:51 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Ernie: As you can tell, except to the extent that Shamanism is important to understand if you want to know about the origins of religion, or if you have an interest in Iroquois or Cherokee culture, I'm not much for oral tradition. I hadn't noticed, but it makes sense, and explains a few things.. Guess this could be debated, but would it do much good to do so ? Actually, yeah, as this comes up quite a bit in our discussion of Islam... Religion, to me, requires scripture in something like the same way the US requires a constitution. Without it, too much is not dependable generation to generation. I think this may be your academic bias. Religious *consistency* may require written scripture, but religion in its *essence* certainly does not. I'll concede that the US *government* needs a constitution in order to function effectively and be held accountable. But if you date the U.S. from 1776 like most of us common-folk do, then it doesn't need a constitution to *exist*. I'm highly suspicious of oral tradition. That's the bottom line. Plenty of troubles with "literary religion," nobody needs to tell me, but, again, it is like having a constitution to appeal to. Fair enough, but it does seem inaccurate/unfair/condescending to *define* religion as only being Scriptural. For that matter, what would qualify: - Buddhism - Greek mythology - Norse mythology ? -- Ernie P. Billy ================================================ In a message dated 4/12/2010 10:57:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: Hi Billy, On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:01 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: > But it seems self-evidently true that if you are religious and > take your faith's scriptures seriously as vital to life, you will want to > read the texts closely to get full meaning. You will want to know > "all the details," and find out the best ways to analyze > various sacred writings. Interesting. Presumably that only applies to "literary" religious traditions., right? I don't think animism or earth-worship benefits literacy as much. -- Ernie P. >
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
