figuer

The definition of myth does not exclude the inclusion of "talking animals" (that would be "supernatural"). The story of the fall is definitely mythological in character, which does not imply that you can't view it as a fable, if such is your pleasure.

aa5874

I think it shoud be published as Mythology. We already have Egyptian, Greek and Roman Mythology. It is time for the Jewish God of antiquity to be retired, and then we will probably have the domino effect. All Gods may then be mythicised, including Allah.

figuer

Events are entirely natural phenomena.

JGL53

Let's take a pause here, Chris, and let you define "religion", "a religious person", and a "religious belief" for the rest of us. I think this might be one of our problems, in terms of talking past one another.

E.g., I am religious about having ham, eggs, and hot tea with milk each morning. Am I following a religion because of this? Am I a religious person because of this? Compared to me, are people who only eat oatmeal for breakfast atheists, members of another religion, what?

Chris Weimer

Equivocation.

Chris Weimer

More equivocation.

Chris Weimer

I've got no problem admitting that the Bible contains Jewish and Christian myths and fables (although to be technical about it, where are the Christian fables?).

Figurer said the entire Bible is myth, and thus should be published with the title "Judeo-Christian Mythology". He claims that mere discussion of the supernatural makes something mythological, or that thinking the supernatural has played a part in an event makes it mythological. I then asked him to back that up. He shifted the burden asking me to prove that anthropologists don't use that.

figuer

That would imply that you consider that events are not natural, which would imply that you believe in the supernatural, although I think it is rather that you are refusing (or unable) to think rationally.

I think your failure to understand why the Bible can be described as Judeo-Christian Mythology is do to a very limited, perhaps antiquated definition of myth. It seems that you limit the concept of myth to explanations pertaining to things like the origin of the Moon, the Sun, the Earth that is, cosmological myths, or to quaint stories about the lives of the gods. As previously mentioned, a myth pertains to the application of the supernatural to explain any aspect of life. Thus the story of the covenant with Abraham is the foundational national myth of the Hebrews. When Moses came with the Laws written by god in stone tablets, that is the myth of the divine origin of Hebrew law. The story of Jesus supernatural conception and resurrection etc. are myths about the divinity of Christ. The story of Paul's conversion due to Christ appearing to him in a blinding light is mythical.

The Bible is a collection of different texts that endeavour to explain and interpret both cosmological and human history/psychology by way of the supernatural. It is therefore mythology.

figuer

Well, if you are making a specific claim (that the idea was not consistent with anthropology), you should back it up. I didn't bring up the subject of anthropology, you did.

I don't see how my usage of myth contradicts anthropologists like Fraser or Campbell. It is also in line with the point of view of a psychologist like Jung (and perhaps Freud?).

Amaleq13

It quite obviously is. It is simply perverse for your to argue otherwise.

Except for the talking snake, of course.