On 31 Jul 2007 at 20:17, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > Just a couple quibbles. > > There are in fact stacks of religions which claim literalism. *All* > > fundamentalist interpretations of *all* sects do so.
... Absolute rubbish, I'm afraid. Within Judaism the tiny Kairite movement is literalist, and the only one of any size (15,000) whatsoever*. The "ultra-religious" Jewish movements like the Haredi or Chabad-Lubavitch are most certainly not litteralists. (Indeed, the Haredi stress on Panenthistic principles over Torah study caused some bitter divisions within the Jewish community when it was founded) (*Jews for Jesus are literalists. However, all the Jewish authorities consider them a Christian rather than Jewish sect.) > >> The Koran, Tripitaka, Bhagavad Gita, Bible et cetera are just texts > >> written by people and have no more claim to divine afflatus than the > >> Norse Eddas, the secret texts of Scientology or even my shopping list? > > > > Um, sharp differentation there. Scientology is an presently and > > actively dangerous *criminal organisation*. So putting it in a list > > with anything else is wrong. We don't tolerate the Mafia, why do we > > tolerate scientology again? Oh right, Tom Cruise. *thud*. > > That aside, the Catholic church actively engaged in hiding > priest-rapists for *decades*. There are strong indications they still > do so. This fits well into my definition of criminal behavior. There is no "aside" (and I'd have more to say otherwise). If you are willing to tolerate Scientology, then why criticise any religious ideology? If you are unwilling to condem the clear criminal actions taken by an actively and presently dangerous cult (which is NOT a religion - see for example its utter denial of being a religion in countries like Israel) which exists purely to enrich a core of non- believers... AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
