aikido7

That's going to be the problem for all of us for the next millenium. How do we remain true to our own mythogical outlook (and I am saying we ALL have one) and at the same time allow others to have theirs? This will not be just a matter of "live and let live," but a matter of "live and let others live in our face."

Education and understanding open up areas for leniency. Jesus' parable of the Samaritan hints at this. And of course, "love your enemy" is totally defiant to our "fight or flight" human evolution.

mike_decock

Why do you assume we all have a "mythological outlook"? Why should we remain true to our own (assuming we have one, of course)?

-Mike...

aikido7

At the risk of having this post moved to the "Philosophy" section, I define myth as the deepest possible structure level of living out reality as "shared story." Claude Levi-Strauss and Edmund Leach have done much of the heavy lifting in this area. And not remaining "true" to a myth is yet another form of myth. And we cannot be not true to myth. As Pierre Maranda in Structural Models of Folklore once wrote:

(Myth) is the expression of the dynamic disequilibrium which is the (acknowledged) powerlessness to build adequate homomorphisms between incompatible and hence distrubing facts. It is the expression of the reluctant acknowledgement that the event is mightier than the structure. But myth is also and more than anything else the hallucinogenic chant in which mankind harmonizes the vagaries of history--the chant hummed for generations in the minds of men and humming itself in the human mind (that innate dream to reduce continuous randomness to a final pattern) as hinted at by Plato and Jung or, better, as amlified by Chomsky and Levi-Strauss.

I think he is saying that myth is the story we tell ourselves to make the Story make sense.

gilly54

Tseng,

My apologies if I'm just being dense here but from your previous posts, you were justifying the Biblical contradictions saying that the reason they were possible is because the men were really angels.

I lumped angels with imps, fairies, and the Messenger-God Mercury.

Then you said that you believed in angels and talking animals and provided a Bible quote, but now you say that it was intended as a joke. Do you believe in angels or not? Because if you don't, then that leaves those pertinent questions in the quiz unanswered.

So, you have the intelligence to know that there are no such things as talking animals like in Aesop's tales. Yet Bible readers suspend their intelligence to believe its stories of talking snakes, angels, unicorns (in the KJV) etc, because the Bible (i.e.God) says they are true.

SLD

Ahh, but that's just it, is the situation for either or. Aesop's fables don't claim to be anything but moralistic tales. The Bible is claimed to be the word of God. Where in the bible does it say it is supposed to be taken metaphorically? Paul did not take Christ's death and resurrection metaphorically. It really happened according to him and if you don't believe in him and bow down to him, you will be cast into a lake of fire.

I don't think that's a good metaphor. I don't see how anyone can take that as metaphor. It is meant to be believed according to Paul, and the other authors of the Bible. Aesop, to my knowledge, never claimed his stories were true. Granted there are many who don't, but then they are just picking and choosing from the Bible as to whatever they want to believe in.

SLD

Secular Pinoy

According to the Jesus Mythicists, Paul did refer to Christ's death and resurrection metaphorically. Paul wasn't describing something which he thought to be actual events.

SLD

Interpretations of what event? The resurrection? What is it Aikido: Are you saying you believe in the resurrection or are the gospels just another Aesopian fable, to be understood only as a nice story?

And what exactly are you saying is this "meal" that is going to waste inside?

The point I'm trying to make is that if the gospels are just another touchy feely story to make me feel good about myself and about god, then frankly they do a piss poor job of doing so - regardless of whether you think they are to be taken literally. The story is ultimately nonsense, both metaphorically and literally.


SLD

aikido7

First of all, it's ALL metaphor. If I say I don't believe in America anymore, I am not talking about the land mass between Canada and Mexico.

I believe in the resurrection, but I don't think it has anything to do with Jesus' body.

We need to clearly distinguish between what is explained in clear and logical scientific language and what can only be shown in poetic and indirect ways. Some people are like Peter Bell, the character of whom Wordsworth sang:

A primrose by the river's brim
A yellow primrose was to him;
And it was nothing more.

Some meet the primrose with recognition and empathy, responding to the pattern which connects. This is indeed a splendid meal.

Leaving aside the complex blend of theology and history in the gospels, if you ever feel the need to find that "touchy-feely" story that makes YOU feel good about--worth living for--act it out with integrity and vision on earth. In the spirit of (my interpretation of) Jesus....

mike_decock

You've just relegated "myth" to being a meaningless term when it is generally accepted to have a specific implication. Do you classify science as myth, too?

Still, you haven't come close to addressing my original question:

-Mike...

SLD

If it's all metaphor, then why Christianity and not some other metaphor? But the problem is, it isn't all metaphor. No one seriously argues that the entire story is metaphor today, or a thousand years ago, or 1900 years ago. They taught that it was a real event - and even liberal christians today teach it as a real event. I doubt even Spong says it's all a metaphor.

SLD