Biblical Mythology

Iv always been very interested in studying mythological systems from various cultures throughout history. And to an extent I believe in all of them simultaneously, in a loosely-interpreted way (they all bear remarkable similarities, if you look at it from the right perspective).

But perhaps my favorite of these to study and read, is biblical and other such Abrahamic mythological references (rivaled by Norse, which if you havn't, take a look at sometime!). I think what attracts me though (like so many people) To the Abrahamic mythologies are the simplicity and clarity one can view these depictions of our world from. In contrast to say Hinduism, where you easily lose track of the dynamics of the countless gods.

But, to the point...

Whenever I use the term "biblical mythology" when speaking with Christians on the topic, they've seemed to feel as if it was a ridiculous way to reference their beliefs.

But just because its "mythology" doesn't necessarily mean its any less true! besides, nobody can deny that stories from the bible and Qur'an (dont know much about the Torah) are just as fantastical and extraordinary as those in Greek, Aztec, Norse, or any other religion we would typically refer to as "mythological"

Between an Omnipotent god and his winged servants made of light, the corrupt spirits damned to rule inside our earth, tales of giants and great floods, magical Jin made of fire, prophets chosen to guide gods trouble-children, humans.. And dont even get me started with revolations!:willy_nilly:

 

I don't know if it really happened this way but this story is true.
(native american preamble to a culturally significant myth)

To say that myth is not true because it is not specifically accurate does not quite explain the case.

Myths may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are used to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach.

In the broadest sense we tend to mythologize anything that we don't directly apprehend like all of the discrete events when combined that make for a sports legend or even a personal reputation.

In the most specific sense all of our perceptions are representational. The mind being naturally abstract deals with the symbolic with words themselves being symbols of conditions.

 

True but, the myths of troy persist. The accurate consideration of what myth is needn't be suspended for the sake of distortions. It has been my experience that when we describe myth making as a common effort among all peoples that the word myth is not as threatening as saying myth represents that which is not real.

What does post modern have to do with fundamental? I was never pre-modern.

A belief that something is true because it is sacred scripture amounts to hearsay by definition and here it cannot be substantiated but taking myth as it is, it's symbols can be personally apprehended and a personal apprehension can be a thought shared. Myth has a legitimate role in communication.

 

There, that's more accurate. :2thumbsup:

 

Which is absolute: the devil or Jehovah, the creator? John Voigt asked me this this morning.:biker:

 

I disagree. I'm a fan of Joseph Campbell, who uses the term "myth" to describe a deeper truth which can be more effectively conveyed by allegory or metaphor than by literal, factual accounts. I owe my Christian faith to Genesis, which, taken literally, is not scientifically accurate. Early Christians and Jews of the fist three centuries understood this. Read Origen. Read Philo of Alexandria. Anyone who thinks the story of Jonah is just about a man who survived for three days in the belly of a big fish misses the point. I agree that much of the Bible is like much of the Greek, Aztec, Norse and other myths, and that we can learn from all of them. After all, Jesus often spoke in parables. Would anyone take them as factual? Not Jesus. Would anyone say they were false? Not Jesus.

 

authority is unacceptable . consensus is made by all who participate
in a council , and manipulating the consensus is sinful .

 

And we all talk like human beings each in his own way unaware about the meaning of Justice. Accept for the one strong man, who came and organized the meeting by the record of each one of the participant's scheduled time of activity.

 

You are dealing with God, creator of the heavens and earth, have you ever seen the ocean? A very powerful force it is, well God created it, Jehovah is not a weak God..just cause you cant see him, it does not mean he is not there..it is all about faith and you get that faith from knowledge, if you believe it is just myths, great, but dont just leave it at that, study each supposed myth individually from all angles and see what conclusion you come to.

 

Done... as Zarathustra said it; it was; I willed it. Personally, there was more (Upon the Mount of Olives: NIetzsche's; thus spoke Zarathustra: Part III); then we sound the trumpets; to me that's not myth; that's understood theology.

 

come on, Nietzsche? he was born to late, plus not inspired of God

 

Assuredly, he is not speaking Greek Philosophy after this point; only up to that point.

He wrote of the world as having occurred a place of foreboding and loomed unto the well of what He did also having to Be Injustice. The eternal recurrence was a problem of injustice in the biblical Myth which was for Jonah a consortium of responsible individuals determined to doing in false prophesy. That is the bible as a Myth: false prophesy.

 

Of the two uses of the word myth, you must discount one in order to come to the original conclusion of,
Yes it does. That's why we use the term myth, and if we are a consensus of learned individuals I cannot count myself among them for I am not so academically inbred as to conclude that the relevance of myth is that it is unreliable.

The two uses of the word myth do not reflect a single understanding or a single phenomena. Using the literal details of a specific myth as a defense for vain behavior is one thing, appreciating the whole phenomena of myth as it relates to origins and uses in human beings is another. The first description does not represent the verity or usefulness of myth but the foibles of self identification. What is false is by definition, not true and what is false then is not a defining characteristic. This is why I asked what post modern had to do with fundamental. Myth is a native expression of the naturally abstract mind and is no less relevant than our finest poetry.

Certainly there are those prudish imbeciles who think Walt Whitman was essentially vile.

 

the christian books for children are "bible stories" .

there was a time i thought it odd the grandparent's sunday school
class was still having bible stories read to them , and that they
smiled wonderously just like the children do . the smartest guy in
church read my thoughts and then said don't be concerned about
that because reading books and loving words are very important .

later on , those old folks invited me to their party . it was lovely .

 

Tikoo, I agree with your point. Philosophers can also consider the bible to look a little like clowns for the children. But the bible is also more than a myth: for reasons of prophesy, proverbs, and parables.

 

Some day the aliens left it to try to control the masses.