[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.

Statements like "Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. " seems pretty arrogant to me.

---

Not when it's true. No, seriously, that may have come off as a wee bit snotty. It was not intended as such. It just gets my hackles up when someone calls me an arrogant, ignorant hillbilly (and tries to quote one of my own Posts to do it). Perhaps my response could have been a bit more moderate. Bah, so be it. What's done is done.

Originally posted by Chronon:
Greeks interpreted Sparta's victory as a sign of approval from the Gods. How is that superficial?

Any time the sh*t hits the fan people look to god (or the gods). Its much easier to blame things on the big man's disfavour that to admit that you screwed up. This is as true today as it was then. There were a lot of people asking why god let 9/11 happen and George W. invokes god in every one of his speeches. This does not mean that north american cultures pay anything more than lip service to any divinity. It is quite normal to hold religion in contempt and still invoke god when you are in trouble.

Originally posted by Chronon:
Since Greek religion did not have a Bible, per se, Homer's accounts fulfilled some of the same functions. Like the Bible, Homer provides history: Troy was real (I've visited it myself - a nice spot really), and historians think that some of the wars he related were true (Mycenaean civilization fit his descriptions very well). His accounts very clearly describe the heroic warrior ethos (arete) and general religious mythology that any Greek person (regardless of polis affiliation) would instantly recognize. As a tool for cultural diffusion and language standard, Homer worked in a similar manner as the King James Bible.

Homer may have been a recruiting tool for the greek way of life but that doesn't put it in the same Category as a religious text. That's like saying that the movie Top Gun is an effective instructional tool for learning how to fly a fighter jet. Tis not, but it was a very effective recruitment tool. Using aspects of a religion as a literary tool is not the same thing as being the defining force behind said religion.

Also, the bible itself isn't much of a recruiting tool. Have you ever tried to actually read it? Few have. Most people maintain their faith in spite of the bible, not because of it.

Originally posted by Chronon:
I don't see that the Bible is in any way defamed in a comparision with Greek mythoi, any more that it is defamed by a comparison with the Norse mythoi, Islamic mythoi, Hindu mythoi, or Buddhist mythoi.

Because these other mythoi (possibly excluding norse, I don't know enough about it to be sure) are derived from their religious texts. This makes it, theoretically, possible to go back to the text and seperate the myth from the historical accounts. This cannot be done with the Odyssey or with Beowulf because they are purely literary constructs whose religious content is there only as the backdrop for a story. Citing the accuracy of this background only proves that the author wanted the story to be beleivable (which is also why you don't see anyone on 'the west wing' sporting a three foot lizard tail).

Originally posted by Chronon:
"Mythos," as defined by my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, is "The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people." I don't think that has negative connotations at all, and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

My copy of Websters has this for 'myth':
1. "a traditional or legendary story, esp. one that involves gods and heroes and explains a cultural practice or natural phenomenon.
2. "a fictitious person, story, etc."
3. "an unproven or false belief."
The first definition can easily apply to parts of the bible. The book has numerous myths, parables, etc., all of which fit well within this meaning. The problem is applying this def. to the entire book (especially in light of the other two definitions). Much of the bible is basically a socio-political record of the jews (looking at the old testament here, where much of the debate seems to be based), and not of much mythological interest. Another problem is that the latter two definitions of myth are the more commonly accepted ones and so heavily weight any argument in which they are used.

In short, we would make far more progress in this debate if we found a term to use other than 'myth'. Its meaning is far too biased to be useful.

[ March 12, 2003, 20:17: Message edited by: QuarianRex ]