:
|
Yeah. If you'd actually bothered to read my post, you'd understand that that is the goddamn point. Keeping the law oral meant it developed with time and remained current and relevant; the religion didn't stagnate.
|
Yeah but I don't see how a set of rules can be at all useful if anyone can change them ever so slightly when they see fit.
Like, the original rule might be 'Murder is bad'. But 100 years later someone needs an excuse and makes 'Murder is bad... unless it's black people'. Or something, I dunno.
I get that it keeps the religion dynamic, but what's the point of having rules if they aren't documented in any way?