Clivedurdle

Imagine a book store

Celtic Myths
Irish Myths
Norse Myths
Greek Myths
Roman Myths
Aboriginal Myths
Zulu Myths
North American Myths
Chinese Myths
Indian Myths
Siberian Myths
Jewish Myths
Christian Myths
Arabic Myths

gurugeorge

Because those lists were originally developed by Protestant and atheist scholars with axes to grind, so that they claimed too much for the parallels that they saw, and those lists are now being repeated because some people have rediscovered them, and they are interesting and provocative (not provocative because they show borrowing, but provocative because they open a window on religion and culture of the time that takes it away from the rather twee, monotonous received image from the Bible, of a monolithic Judaism and naughty pagans - not news to most scholars, but news to ordinary folks raised on the Bible).

But the parallels, or analogies, or similarities exist - they don't need "proof", they are self-evident. What would need proof would be going on from the bare existence of those similarities to show, further, that those similarities existed because there was deliberate copying from one tradition or theology to another.

And the biggest similarity, the big idea in the air at the time was this: become a devotee of the cult entity and he or she would guarantee some kind of post-death comfort. It's neither necessary nor particularly interesting to show where and when there was deliberate copying. We can expect that there sometimes was, but more likely it was simply a case of cultural conditions, in the context of human psychology and spirituality, suggesting certain ideas simultaneously to many people (like parallel evolution).

Solitary Man

I don't see the relevance, but if you must.

Similarities are not self-evident. You have to show how. Moreover, please reread what I said you needed to demonstrate.

Not always.

I'm into origins. I don't care much for Jungian pseudo-bullshit.

patcleaver

If 3,500 years from now, after the next Christian dark ages, the only evidence that Atlanta ever existed is Gone With The Wind, then anyone at that time would be insane to believe it actually existed.

The Iliad is just not a reliable sole reference for proving that Troy ever really existed.

Ben C Smith

This explains a lot.

Ben.

gurugeorge

Unfortunately the kinds of people who originate religions aren't nice, sensible rationalists like you

Religions aren't a rational response to the world (except perhaps in the evolutionary sense of "rational"), they are the result of doing weird things to the body and mind that bring on weird experiences - everything from repeating phrases, to hyperventilating, to moving the body in certain ways, to bringing on near death experiences, to taking drugs. That's how they originate, when someone has a new way of doing weird stuff that brings on another kind of weird experience that perhaps changes them and gives them conviction, which makes them charismatic and attracts followers.

If you just look at texts and the evolution of ideas in themselves, that isn't actually going to tell you much except about the philosophy of ideas, but that's not the whole story about origins. There has to be a broader context about what's physiologically and psychologically possible to the human being - i.e. visionary experience and mystical experience. And that's also what gives the commonalities and similarities across cultures.

badger3k

Damn, schooled again.

Sorry, my kids give me worse than this every day. Thanks for playing.

I figured that since I get enough of this from the students, why should I bother with it here, so...let me try it one more time, in clear English:

Do you believe that Christian mythology surrounding their savior-god has not borrowed elements from other religions of the time?

If not, then do you believe that the converts to Christianity did not try to understand their new religion based upon the mental framework their old religions and philosophies provided? Do you not think that this was incorporated into the development of the theologies surrounding the Christ?

Do you think that Christianity bears no resemblance to the mythologies of the cultures that were active in the region around the first few centuries that it took for the orthodox views of Christianity to crystallize?

Finally, do you believe that there is evidence that points to a historical Yeshua who was not mythologized as time went on? The key point is still the mythologizing - personally, I have seen no evidence for any human at the heart of the myth, since most of human mythology has no historical basis - why believe there is one unless there is evidence of it?

Maybe if you can understand and answer those, then maybe you can realize you do a great job misunderstanding the arguments of others, and do a fair pit of strawman creating yourself, since you apparently still have no comprehension of the points I (and others) are making.

So, want to try again? If not, I'm not going to waste more time going around in circles, which seems to be what is happening.

patcleaver

I do not usually waste my time answering you, but you claimed to know about this subject, so I was expecting to see some evidence of all this "actual training" with supported arguments and references to primary sources. I was disappointed in you as usual.

Wow, all your actual training and expertise has enabled you to make an unsupported assertion <edit>.

I was just describing the man. Saying that we was a wealthy amateur archeologist is accurate - its not derogatory. <edit>.

Your <edit> if you think that the Iliad is non-fiction, or that ancient epic poetry is usually non-fiction.

If your claiming that its all true and factual then prove that all the ancient greek gods existed.

You just said just above that its real - now you say that no one is assuming that its real. You can not even be consistent within a few lines of your own statements.

It is just your unsupported assertion that "its a simple case of identification". You have no evidence that the description of Troy in the Iliad is reliable

NO IT'S NOT. Your the one who is claiming that the Iliad is reliable. Your the one who has to prove that it is, and you can't prove it because its not true.

My assertion that "Whenever there is a fictional description of some place, then there must be some real place that most closely parallels that fictional place." is self evident.

My assertion that "There are hundreds of ancient cities and ruins along the Mediterranean coast." is indisputable - anyone who is the least bit familiar with the history of the Mediterranean would know this.

I wonder if you even know what an assumption is.

I do not have to provide evidence for speculations.
You have to provide evidence for your unsupported factual statements.
Where is your evidence for your wild theories?

Is this the only type of response that all your "actual training" can provide?
People who attack other people over spelling errors are usually low class snobs.
Where did you get your "actual training" - in a high school history class?
You don't seem to know anything substantive about anything.

This is the first substantive comment that you have made, and I do not think you would have even known this if premjan hadn't already pointed out this error several comments ago.

The area would have been under the influence of the Hittites c. 1250 BCE when the war supposedly took place.

badger3k

Not all religions involve mystical experiences. Some (to my eyes at least) started out more as philosophies or ethical systems, some with more supernatural elements than others. Of course, you are right in that it is usually the weird "I'm special" kind of things that often attract and keep followers, and in many cases the believers use their beliefs to achieve that sort of mystical experience (look at the pentecostals and their speaking in tongues bit or the numerous body-piercing rituals used by some religions).

The origins of religions have to be understood in the context of all that - no religion evolved in a vacuum, and in many cases (as in Christianity) it originated with many different sects and beliefs that were gradually pared down (until later, when the whole kit and kaboodle splintered into the thousands we have today).

gurugeorge

No they don't, but any religion that has people talking to or communicating with "gods", "spirits", etc., etc., likely involved visionary experience.

(I take these as broadly two different functions of the brain - mystical experience, the realisation that one is God, or whatever ultimate concept one holds of the universe, being equivalent to a kind of depersonalization, and visionary experience, the seeing of and communication with apparently discarnate intelligences, being something similar to psychosis or mild schizophrenia. What I mean is, the same parts of the brain are probably being activated in the religious and clinical "versions", but the different social context is what decides whether the event is dysfunctional, scary, clinical, or functional, benign and religious.)

Philosophies are philosophies, ethical systems are ethical systems. They can certainly be ways of life (as we see in the ancient world) but they are not religions (though they may be related in various ways to religions). Nearly every religion involves this: purported communication with some kind of discarnate intelligence, and the bringing back of some kind of message to the tribe/village/mankind. AFAICS that's basically how religions usually start, although eventually with time and distance this kind of charismatic activity declines and the religion servers other purposes (e.g. social glue, philosophical talking shop, ideological backup for oppressive political systems, etc., etc.).

I think it's of capital importance to have this as the foundation of any historical inquiry into religion: you've got to get it into perspective that these things seem real to these people, they're not usually con jobs, and they're not usually just erudite lucubrations on philosophical subjects. Deeply religious people meet and talk to their "gods" (or rather, they seem to themselves to, but this has to be respected as the "heterophenomenological" basis of inquiry into religion). It's not just a metaphor, it's a description of what seems to them to be happening.