A Defining Anecdote

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

A Defining Anecdote

Post by Clemsy »

This is precious. Around the world people are killing each other as 'others' defined by religious differences. One dismisses the other as not only wrong but quite worthy of suffering and then damnation... which means eternal suffering.

A colleague of mine, an avowed atheist mind you, was confronted with an interesting problem: A student threw away a Bible.

"Wait!" said he. "I don't think you should do that! Mighty disrespectful!" (He may be an atheist, but he can be politic.) So he fishes the book out of the garbage and tracks down colleague 'B', a long time fundamentalist Christian.

"Are Bibles sort of like flags," he asked, "requiring proper dispossal?"

"Of course!" Said she. "You can't throw a Bible in the garbage!" She took the Book which, on its front read, King James Version, The Bible.

At the bottom, in smaller print read the following words: "Brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

She promptly threw the book in the garbage.

The atheist once more rescued the "sacred" text and tracked down another avowed Christian.

"You can't throw a Bible in the garbage!" she exclaimed, looked at the cover and... threw it in the garbage.

Sit back a moment and appreciate the deep irony contained therein.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Clemsy

Thank you for that story.

The atheist showed more respect towards others beliefs than the believers did.

I try to show respect to the holy texts of all religions. But most people show little respect for the holy texts of others. Though I must admit, even I have trouble when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Don't get me wrong, they are great people who follow Christian beliefs closer than many. As a Native American Indian however, I am bothered by parts of their Bible, feeling that it is a misrepresentation of native history. Their representation of Christ as he appeared to the native tribes is a clear misrepresentation of a great teacher, Dadganadia. There are several spellings for his name, I probably got them all wrong. He was known as "The Peace Bringer", his right hand man, Hiawatha, is more known in pop culture due to a famous poem. "The Peace Bringer" was born of a "Virgin Birth" and performed many miracles, gave predictions for the future, and left the people by walking across the waters of the lake so they could not follow. He never claimed to be the son of God, nor ever spoke about the "kingdom of heaven" or the one God. There is no other person it could be. I can see how their founder thought it was Jesus, and invented "the golden tablets" that "disappeared" to back up his belief. So I tend to think of them as a cult rather than a mainstream religion. But that still leaves me making a judgement about another's beliefs, which I find uncomfortable.

Cult or Religion

That is one of the things that causes some to dishonor the holy texts of others. A cult does not get the same level of respect. By putting a group in the cult heading, we feel safer in bashing their beliefs.

Even I fall into this trap, with no way out it seems.

How can someone make an objective evaluation of a religious doctrine, and not become judgemental in the process?

Little Feather

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Hi Little Feather and thank you for your response.
As a Native American Indian however, I am bothered by parts of their Bible, feeling that it is a misrepresentation of native history.
This is an interesting statement because, if you think about it, sacred texts are quite often misrepresentations of history. But that's the whoe point Campbell brings to the table. Once you lock your myth into historical terms, you trap not only yourself, but everyone else associated with that history.

What is the source of the Jewish-Islam conflict? The history in their religion.

It is so amusing to me that one group of Christians can so dismiss as absurd the beliefs of another group of Christians when, looked at historically, they're all absurd.

If everyone just looked at what the myths mean, what those stories, the metaphors, the poetry of faith is supposed to activate in one's self.

The Mormon's problem is that their history is still fairly recent... which leaves them in cult territory as far as other Christian sects are concerned.

How long does a cult have to hang around before it becomes a sect?

The Mormon issue is playing out in our presidential campaign.

Romney Objects to Campaign Attacks
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Clemsy

While it is true that sacred texts are often a misrepresentation of history, history is itself a misrepresentation of history.

History is written by the victors and survivors to justify their actions. What version of history would the Picts, Celts, Minoans, Akkadians, and many others give us if they were alive to speak today.

People record history as they see it. Sacred texts are therefore just history from the personal viewpoint of believers of a given faith. Nothing inherently wrong with that, it just has to be examined in context. Much history has been revealed by archaeologists who dared to follow scared texts for clues.

As you pointed out, the historical source of Jewish-Islam conflict is clearly given in their holy texts.

Thus I do not find these beliefs absurd, but rather an informative insight into group beliefs and group dynamics throughout history. Gems of information often overlooked by others, if taken in the right context.

I also see Holy texts as being multi-layered. A given passage can be historical, and have a mythological aspect, provide metaphors and give moral guidance, all in one.

My problem with the Mormons is that they took another's cultures history and myth, then twisted it to suit their own ends. If "The Peace Bringer" "Law Giver" had appeared to their founder, than that would be another story. Instead he stole another's belief and twisted it for what seems to me, personal gain.

I also put the Jehovah Witnesses in the cult group also, but for a different reason. It is a cult of Man, based on the misinterpretations of one small bible study group who refused to read history or the Bible, except the parts they liked. It is a well known historical fact that Jehovah is an anagram created by the same man who put in the chapter headings and sentence numbers in the Bible. A less well known fact is that he was a drunk, and was suspected of being drunk at the time he did this, which is why some of the chapter breaks are at strange spots, and some sentence numbers begin in the middle of a sentence. Jehovah never was and never will be the name of God, regardless of how much they preach otherwise.

The Church of Christ Scientists is not as old as the Mormons, but I put them in the "religion" group. Because they did not subvert or misrepresent any other teachings that I am aware of.

So for me the difference between a cult and a religion is not a factor of age, but of soundness of doctrine and internal consistency. Soundness of doctrine is judged on an individual basis. If wholly original, no problem. If derived from another belief system, then other factors come into play.

So all in all, religion is a very complex and touchy subject.

But, let me state again, I found it informative that the Atheist in your story showed more respect for the scared texts than did believers. That alone is a revelation that should trouble believers.

Little Feather

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

It is absurd to claim any myth as history.

The atheist showed respect towards all religions maybe because though he thought all of them false, he was aware that they were sacred to the people who believed in them. For the true "believer", only his "faith" is true: others are all "mistaken".

I was amused by the hue and cry raised in Saudi Arabia over the incident of American GI's urinating on the Koran; this from a country, where the sacred books and symbols of other religions are destroyed as a matter of Government policy!

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

It is a well known historical fact that Jehovah is an anagram created by the same man who put in the chapter headings and sentence numbers in the Bible. A less well known fact is that he was a drunk,
Not well known to me, LF. Do you have a reference for this? I'm curious.
So for me the difference between a cult and a religion is not a factor of age, but of soundness of doctrine and internal consistency. Soundness of doctrine is judged on an individual basis. If wholly original, no problem. If derived from another belief system, then other factors come into play.
Even Christian Scientists aren't "wholly" original, no? What religion is? Christianity is a mixture of Judaism, Zoroastranism and Greek thought. Christianity would never have occurred if not for the cultural stirring of Hellenism. Christianity was first a Jewish sect, then a cult when it claimed to ba a new religion, which was a bizarre thought to the classical mind.

Before you know it, we have 'new religions' popping up right and left, all variations of one theme or another, but all claiming exclusive rights to the truth.

Thus, one sect of Christianity believes Christ is on his way and he's pissed so get ready for the Tribulations you heretic dog because I have a membership card that gets me raptured right out of my clothes up to heaven, while you burn forever in the furnace of despair.

Another believes you hang out for some amount of time in Purgatory until you've burned off your sins. Then you go to heaven. To each the other is illigitimate.

The beliefs become absurd when taken literally, as far as I'm concerned.

What's ironic in this story is that the atheist has respect. The Christians are judgemental, condescending and self-righteous.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Clemsy

I was almost a minister in the Methodist Church at one time, but that's another story. One of my courses was in the field of Apologetics. Apologetics is the art of proving the Bible by logic and reason, and was the means by which most of the Greeks were converted. Today you can not find people who can be swayed by logic and reason. The story about the man who put in the chapter headings and such came from my textbook for that course. It has been over 25 years now, so I do not remember the name of the textbook we used. It happened at the time printing was just getting started. The man was sent with the manuscript to the printers and undertook the journey by donkey, and it was a lengthy journey. Along the way he thought chapter headings and sentence numbers were a good idea, and undertook it without approval. While doing so, it bothered him that God was referred to by a number of names, and the anagram Jehovah was born. As it appeared in one of the first printed versions of the Bible, we have been stuck with his work ever since. He also made other name changes, in his mind, to avoid confusion. No Jewish scribe would have ever tampered with the holy text this way.

You mentioned the Rapture and Purgatory in your post, and state that "The beliefs become absurd when taken literally,"

I could not agree more, but for different reasons. These concepts are not in the Bible at all, LITERALLY speaking. So anyone who takes them literally is someone who has never read the Bible in the original texts, literally. That's what happens when someone listens to the teachings of man rather than reading the Bible for themselves. A common human failing it seems.

In the story you related, it was the Christians who were judgemental, condescending, and self-righteous. All of which are literally against the Bible teachings.


Nandu

You said that "It is absurd to claim any myth as history" So true

However history can have myths attached to it, post mortem. Take the story of Abraham for example.

We have lots of evidence about him found in the clay tablets of Sumer. These people were as bad as us when it came to paperwork, only their paperwork was in clay. Lucky for us. We even know the exact number of followers, servants, animals, and goods he left Sumer with. The account we have from these clay tablets paints a slightly different picture than the Bible does. He was forced out of the land of Sumer, exiled. His father was High Priest of the city of Ur. Abraham felt that the religion of Sumer had become corrupted by the inclusion of other Gods from those city states brought into the empire. He wanted too return to the old ways, and had a number of followers. He was too important to kill, exile was a better option.

Of course this is the official version of events as recorded by Sumer, he most likely had a different take on the subject.

But it is a historical fact that he lived, and that he left Sumer for religious reasons, both accounts at least agree on this.

There are many other examples I can give that shows historical events in the Bible to which myths were later attached.

So how do you know what is pure myth, what is history, and what is a little of both?

To dismiss all Bible stories as pure myth is as wrong as those who accept it as pure history.

Truth is most often found somewhere between opposing viewpoints.

Little Feather

tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi »

Here's a good source for studying the origins of the sacred tetragrammaton: www.yhwh.com

tat tvam asi/space

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

In the story you related, it was the Christians who were judgemental, condescending, and self-righteous. All of which are literally against the Bible teachings.
Well, all depends on your perspective. While the teachings of Christ are decidedly catholic, meaning universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all, the precedent of his Judaic roots allow his followers a rather tribal or, as Campbell put it, ethnic point of view. So you wind up with an Old Testament attitude toward those outside the group, and the mercy and love of Christ reserved for those on the inside.

As far as I know, the commandments were Hebrew laws. Thou shalt not kill, murder, whatever, applied only to Hebrews. This left Joshua free to kill every living thing within the walls of Jericho.... which was under the Lord's ban.
When Joshua comes to Jericho, Joshua is simply carrying out the commands of God given through Moses. In fact, the same account which tells of the massacre of the inhabitants of Jericho also tells of God's command to carry out that massacre (Joshua 7:12) LINK.
You and I may think such behavior a violation of Christ's teachings. However, our opinion matters little to those whose faith tells them otherwise. Indeed, there are modern day Joshua's calling for genocide today, in the name of Christ.

Go figure.

As the bumper sticker says, "Religion is a great comfort in a world torn apart by religion."
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Clemsy wrote:
You and I may think such behavior a violation of Christ's teachings. However, our opinion matters little to those whose faith tells them otherwise. Indeed, there are modern day Joshua's calling for genocide today, in the name of Christ.

Go figure.

As the bumper sticker says, "Religion is a great comfort in a world torn apart by religion."
Dear Clemsy,

May I respectfully disagree with you on your implied claim that our world is torn apart by religious conflict? Although, no doubt the literal interpretation of religious texts, especially the Christian Bible, can lead to all sorts of vehement disagreements, I simply cannot accept it to be true that our main problems are related to religion in general.

It is true that in the past human history was full of religious wars, Christian crusades, Hindu fanaticism, Muslim expansion etc. but I think these wars had a clearly identifiable aim of conquest and organization of new governance. Before the ‘information age’, all territorial claims had to be solidified with the ideological and administrative structure being aligned with the conquering nations own ideological and administrative structure. In that sense those religious wars were kind of justified ( hmmmm…) since their real aim was perfect integration of the abducted territory. Muslims and Christians for example provided an advanced state of governance in places where their ideology managed to win by force; there was no conquest without the conquering party taking varying degrees of responsibility for the welfare of the conquered. But even in those times, I do not believe anybody nurtured such naïve idea that Native American Indians or devout Hindus and Muslims really believed it was their religion that was conquered instead of their hold on territory and resources. In essence, these battles were not ideological but brutally physical, and religion played the part of ‘ideological back-up’ for real economic gain. We all know that, don’t we? Though in the past such ideologies as fighting in the name of God were somewhat believable – if we accept that Muslims for example brought civilisation, science and high ideologies to some of their conquered, or Christians brought a monotheist culture to South America – today it is rather difficult to claim that any war is fought in the name of the Almighty. Why? Because if I wanted to spread Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or Judaism, I could just make a very compelling web site and everyone on this globe could gain access to the ideology I’d preach. Its not good enough explanation that some people from poor socio-economic background can be persuaded by business interest to blow them selves up in the name of God, since if what they really wanted to do was spreading salvation, they could do it without suicide. Besides, what suicide bomber could seriously believe that killing a number of innocent civilians – even if the number is over a hundred thousand - will stop the ‘Jewish conspiracy’? (I don’t know if such conspiracy actually exists since I’ve only heard some fleeting and rather illogical explanations of it.) What we do know for a fact is that there are large numbers of very poor people in the world willing to make money in any way they can. We also know that the stock market reacts more to information than to real value, hence huge amounts of money can be generated by sporadic outbreaks of fighting and political insecurity. Even more importantly, we know that national governments had lost most of their influence over international organizations, which corporations compete with each other for maximum profit ruthlessly. There are privately owned armies and the socio economic status of different nations is almost entirely ‘ruled’ by said corporations monetary interest. Do you see religion or ideology having anything to do with this alarming situation Michael?

I agree, there have always been serious disagreements over religion and ideology between people due to religion being a highly emotional matter and these disagreements are unlikely to disappear, but perhaps we could stop the destruction of humanity if we managed to identify the real problem. I’d venture so far as to say that there has never been an occasion in our history when humanity needed the help of God more than today. :cry:

Evinnra

tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi »

Briefly, if the world needing God more than ever, right now, means that the world needs a transcendent realization more than ever, I would have to agree with the above statement. If we moved into a perspective of everything being connected to everything else there wouldn't be very much use for borders, boundaries, In-groups, chosen few, and so on - no fuel for the fire of warfare.

Come on people, let's go conquer and pillage ourself! lol

tat tvam asi/space

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Evinnra

Well said.

If mankind had never "invented" religion, our history would be just as bloody, just different reasons to justify it would have been given.

People would be talking about how philosophy is the scourge of mankind.

Crusades fought over the Temple of the Big Bang theory.

And lets not forget that some people look different.

So things would have been much the same without religion as the scrape goat.

JR
Associate
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 6:00 am
Location: transition to permanence
Contact:

Post by JR »

Interesting topic, yet again.

Clemsy, I had a similar anecdote involving a vegan friend of mine in the states. Se was served meat by accident, but rather than refuse it or offer it to someone else, she spat on it and demanded it be thrown away. I asked her why she would ruin something that someone else who may not share her opinions about meat, could make use of. Her logic was to the effect of "the animal has already been defamed by being killed and cooked for consumption and so I defamed it more to prevent it from being further defamed by being consumed". It was her opinion (driven by her blind faith) that in order to keep the ideals of the faith, one must occasionally sacrifice one's ideals. She is no longer a vegan by the way, and I'm tempted to call her up and ask if she is in the process of one protracted sacrifice. :twisted:

Anyway, on the topic of religion and conflict, I have to agree with Aireal, human beings are inherently warlike creatures. Not in the main though, but when you are given a choice by a vocal minority to fight or die (or otherwise negatively change your life) one tends towards conflict.

I would say though that there is one common denominator, that were it removed would cause some great reduction of human conflict, and that is the need for ownership. Money, power, expansion, etc... are the primary cause of wars, both ideological and otherwise. However, to say that there would be now war without the desire of ownership is like saying there would be no war without the desire to fight wars. The two are inextricably linked. But, never the less, it is our basic desire to master everything and call it "ours" and thus, we destroy and fight and cheat and lie to get what we want, usually to find we have killed it in the process.
JR

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Heh, heh. See what bumper stickers can do?

Evinnra I don't necessarily disagree with you, but would point out the hyperbolic nature of bumperstickers in general. There is something true here that should catch your attention. The world in general may not be suffering from religious conflict to the point of being torn apart, but there are areas where this is oh so very much true (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, etc). Here and there (everywhere?) there are these 'little tears' that serve to draw lines (chasms, astronomical voids) between us and can feed themselves to the point of larger conflict.

Of course humans will always fine a reason to 'have at it', but "Because God said so" goes to the top of the pile because it can't be argued. Kill me for my money, my natural resources, my skin color, tribal affiliation, for greed, etc...

But don't lay divine instruction over it all in order to justify it and please, PLEASE don't hurry us along to the end of all things becuase YOU believe in some guaranteed greater reward. (That's a rhetorical 'you', not you personally.)

That fundamentalist Christian throwing away anothers bible is a microcosm of the worst of all possible reasons to define someone as not only other, but as illegitimate.
I’d venture so far as to say that there has never been an occasion in our history when humanity needed the help of God more than today.
Ah! What god? Whose god? Islamic Jihadists want the whole world and are letting blood daily for precisely the words you've used to define a global need. Tat makes this point:
Briefly, if the world needing God more than ever, right now, means that the world needs a transcendent realization more than ever, I would have to agree with the above statement. If we moved into a perspective of everything being connected to everything else there wouldn't be very much use for borders, boundaries, In-groups, chosen few, and so on - no fuel for the fire of warfare.
Evinnra:
Do you see religion or ideology having anything to do with this alarming situation Michael?
This is an insightful question. There is a relationship between these two terms very much in line with, "What came first the chicken or the egg?"

Is religion the wrapping of an ideology, or do ideoligies wrap themselves around religion? Or do they leapfrog from one ethnic tribal ideology to the next, morphing the founding principles until they are unrecognizable from their origins?

Jung said the purpose of religion is to keep us from having an experience of god.

Campbell said our religion keeps us from having an experience of god.

JR, I don't not believe human beings to be essentially warlike creatures. The human capacity for compassion is as essential to our nature as that of aggression.
it is our basic desire to master everything and call it "ours" and thus, we destroy and fight and cheat and lie to get what we want, usually to find we have killed it in the process.
I would edit this: Not "ours" but mine.

Only one may wear the One Ring...

Tat is closer to the truth of the matter.
Come on people, let's go conquer and pillage ourself! lol
Yes, let's laugh! However, if we don't grow up beyond these childish desires for power and ownership (I, I, me, me, mine...), what possible future can we have, given the toys we now play with?

One important first step in establishing a hope of a future is eliminating god as a reason to kill each other and establishing god as a reason to live with each other. Don't we have to slough off god the Tribal Big Daddy for God?

Don't forget, we still invoke god to be on our side. I have nothing but disdain for the 'god' who would bless America, but consider, rather, the God Jefferson invokes when he says, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" worthy of consideration....
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Any kind of ideology which says "I'm right and you are wrong" contributes to intolerance. This includes the Spanish Inquisition who burnt and pillaged in the name of the Christian God; the Jihadis who blow themselves up in the name of Allah; the members of the Soviet government who tried to eradicate Christianity; and the US in her insistence to ram "Democracy" down the throat of others.
The moment I have realized God sitting in the temple of every human body, the moment I stand in reverence before every human being and see God in him - that moment I am free from bondage, everything that binds vanishes, and I am free.

- Swami Vivekananda


And "every human being" includes Osama Bin Laden... and George W. Bush!

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Locked