[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[ZeroAdunn]

Hey guys: Don't bother with the Mythology thing. I have had this argument with Fyron already, you can't win.

[ZeroAdunn]

and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

By this statement then, I can assume that the left behind series of books, the movie bless the child, and any other book/play/movie involving any religious figures/ideas is therefore a religios text?

[Krsqk]

Wow, how much can happen in 18 hours...

The Bible is indeed a collection of stories. So what? That is the entire purpose of the Bible: to be a collection of stories to help guide you to develop "proper" morals. That does not do anything to minimize any impact. In fact, that is the impact it has had. I have not forced it into any literary categories where it does not belong; I have merely stated the correct Category where it belongs, religious mythological works.

The Bible can hardly be categorized as religious mythological works. The Bible is hardly a collection of stories, either (anyone expecting a storybook and opening to Leviticus or Isaiah or Ephesians will be greatly disappointed ). The Old Testament, in part, is an account of the world's beginnings, the selection of Abraham and his descendants, and the events surrounding that nation. It also sets forth the tenets of the Jewish religion. It also predicts the coming of the Messiah, one who would fulfill the Jewish law and open the way to God for all men through His priesthood. The books of the Minor Prophets, in great majority, are calls to the Jews to repent and return to the spirit of their religion instead of the law (much like the discussion of modern Christianity). The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions). The New Testament begins with four accounts of the life of Jesus, written from four different perspectives for four different Groups of people. It continues with a description of the spread of Christianity and the shift of the church's center from Jerusalem to Antioch. It also introduces the author of the majority of the New Testament, Paul. The next 21 books are strictly doctrinal. They were written to deal with problems, to answer questions, and to exhort believers to stay true to the fundamentals of their faith. The Last book, Revelation, goes back to prophecy.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.

[Edit] Oh, and let's get this straight. It's Jonah and the great fish, not Jonah and the whale. *mutters something about details under his breath*

[ March 12, 2003, 15:02: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Chronon]

Interesting points Krsqk. Here are a few counterpoints for discussion purposes.

Mostly, I think our disagreement comes from an undervaluing of mythology, which in my opinion is critical for the survival of any culture (American mythologies: the melting pot, manifest destiny, equality, etc.). Mythology, in my opinion, has an undeserved bad reputation in our modern, scientific culture - mostly because of its association with superstition (which is what the Enlightenment philosphes called religion). All cultures have stories to tell themselves (ie mythologies) or they wouldn't be unified cultures. In other words, I'm arguing that mythologies are critical to any culture; they are fundamental building blocks of the whole cultural belief system. So, in my opinion, there is no shame in comparing the Bible to mythology, it does, after all lay down the fundamental value system of Christian culture, and that is the basic function of a mythos.

The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions).

Good point, and in a metaphorical sense I think "Western Civ" is a secular mythology. It tells us stories about our beginnings that reinforce our value system, morals, and world view.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.

Ah, here is the crux of our disagreement. I would argue that Greek religion, in it's time and place, was every bit as accepted as Judeo-Christian religion. It was neither superficial, nor superstitious (unless one believes, like the philosophes, that all religion is superstition). As Thucydides pointed out in The Peloponnesian War, Greeks interpreted Sparta's victory as a sign of approval from the Gods. How is that superficial? It is essentially the same as saying that David defeated Goliath because he was favored by God.

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.

So, I don't think one should dismiss Greek religion, or Homer, as superficial superstition. Yes, the Bible has other elements to it (Homer never claimed to be the voice of the Gods), but 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.

Edit: I can't spell...

[ March 12, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chronon:
I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).

In this area I steer a middle course. The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.

I don't believe that the Bible attempted to explain all of the details of the physics of creation to nomadic tribesmen and shepherds with no frame of reference to understand it (perhaps we don't even have sufficient knowledge to completely understand it today), and the six days of creation seem more of a mnemonic device for remembering order than anything else. The important message that Genesis was trying to convey was that creation was an act of God.

I heard an interesting speculation by a physicist who believes in the veracity of the Bible. In Genesis 1:2 there is a description of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. The word in Hebrew for hovering conveys the idea of fluttering like a butterfly. The image of this verse then is the picture of God stirring up the "sea" of matter that He used to form the universe.

An interesting picture, if nothing else.

[Aloofi]

Science its just another religion. You need a lot of faith to believe that the age of a rock can be found.
I'm all for Technology, but Science, as in the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution, looks to me like modern day religions.

[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 ]

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Science its just another religion. You need a lot of faith to believe that the age of a rock can be found.
I'm all for Technology, but Science, as in the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution, looks to me like modern day religions.

There s truth to this but there are major differences. The main one is that religion is an argument from authority. The only way to accept it is through faith. Science, on the other hand, is an argument from evidence. Once you see that A+B consistently equals C you can accept it as truth. From this foundation you can move on to big bangs and such. It may not be completely accurate but at least you have a reason to believe it.

[spoon]

[quote]Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.

Unless time was also created by the Big Bang. Then there would be no "before".

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Science its just another religion. You need a lot of faith to believe that the age of a rock can be found.
I'm all for Technology, but Science, as in the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution, looks to me like modern day religions.

In more ways than you know - when the various dating schemes are all tried on the same rock, they have a very strong tendency to disagree with each other by multiple orders of magnitude.

The 'date' that is most often used for the 'age' of the rock in question is based on the so called 'index fossils' found either in the rock itself or in the same geologic strata. However, the scientists then turn around and use the 'evidence' of the age of the rock to 'support' the theory of evolution, which is circular reasoning, as they used the theory of evolution to date the rock.

Even when the scientists go by one of the other dating schemes - perhaps potassium-argon dating - they will normally run the test numerous times on the same sample, and get widely disparate results, with many of the values returning zero (to within a few thousand years, anyway). However, the testers simply claim that the zero results don't make any sense, and throw them out, levying chages of contaimination on the sample. However, the only reason they 'know' the sample was contaminated is because the result doesn't agree with evolutionary theory, which again is an example of circular reasoning when the rock is then used to support the theory of evolution. The dates aren't experimentally determined, they are selected.

Further, when samples are taken of rocks that formed at a known time (via historical records, such as rocks form the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens) the dates of those samples sent back to the dating laboratory are generally in excess of the known date by several orders of magnitude.

Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.