Religious teachings should not be written down

From Religions Wiki

Some writers argue that sacred teachings should not be committed to written form, since the codified form is inflexible and liable to be controlled by elites. Many religions and cultures depend on oral tradition which may promote understanding among adherents and allow for adaptation over time.

"Most moral thinkers-from Socrates to Christ to Francis of Assisi-eschewed the written world. Once things are written down they become codified. Passages of sacred or philosophical texts are twisted, reinterpreted and rewritten to accommodate those in power, bolster the unassailability of religious institutions, and silence dissidents. [...] Where rigid, formal obedience to law allows the adherent to avoid ethical choice, the truly moral life grapples with the inscrutable call to do what is right [...] The moment the writers of the gospels began to set down the words of Jesus they began to kill the message.[1]"
"From the very beginning, people feared that a written scripture encouraged inflexibility and unrealistic, strident certainty. Religious knowledge cannot be imparted like other information, simple by scanning the sacred page. Documents became 'scripture' not, initially because they were thought to be divinely inspired but because people started to treat them differently.[2]"
"Why would anyone communicate by text a very important message for such a long span of time, when we know that text can be altered, that it can be misunderstood, that languages change and languages die out? You can't put all the responsibility for the confusion on the wicked hearts of men when it is plainly obvious that even in a scenario of a god who was conveying a message, he chose an awful way to attempt to communicate clearly with countless people over millenia. What kind of communicator is this God? Why can't he interact in a way that is clear? [3]"

It is also common to see theists treating scripture as some sort of idol. Unrealistic certainty in religion is an enabling condition for religious fundamentalism. Arguably, a God that relies on a fixed written or oral scripture has poor communication skills.

Socrates[edit]

According to Plato, Socrates has the god Thamus say:

"...this discovery of yours [writing] will create forgetfulness in the souls of the learners, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. […] you give your disciples, not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality."

The Bible[edit]

2 Corinthians 3:2-4,6 Bible-icon.png was taken by many Church fathers, including Origen, Augustine and Jerome[4] to mean the Bible should be read allegorically. However, it really argues for rejecting any written source. (Later Biblical scholars reject both of these interpretations.)

"You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. [...] He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

2 Corinthians 3:2-3,6 Bible-icon.png (emphasis added)

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Chris Hedges, I Don't Believe in Atheists
  2. Karen Armstrong, The Bible: The Biography [1]
  3. [2]
  4. Randall C. Gleason, Paul's Covenantal Contrasts in 2 Corinthians 3:1-11