[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[tesco samoa]

MY GREAT GREAT.....GREAT Grandparents were once the rulers of Ireland.... 300 BC or 300 AD. I cannot remember exactly...As the documentation is not here but back in ireland

It is as far back as we can trace our family tree on my mothers side...

WOW eh

[DavidG]

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.

Statements like "Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. " seems pretty arrogant to me.

[Chronon]

Since Fyron has left it lying on the ground, I suppose I will pick up the secular humanist banner and carry it for this discussion. Since it's late (almost midnight local time) I'll try to keep these brief.

1) In our modern scientific culture "myth" has a negative connotation of falsehood and superstition - thus the reluctance to associate myth with the Bible. I think Fyron has a a good point about this, though, and I don't think he was trying to be gratuitously dismissive. "Mythos," as defined by my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, is "The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people." I don't think that has negative connotations at all, and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

2) I think the Bible can be quite a useful historical document (if used correctly and not taken literally on all accounts), especially when corroborated with other sources. The information on the Hebrews and Philistines, for example (Saul, David, etc.) can be very useful in sorting out the history of the Ancient Near East. The Babylonian Captivity is another clearly historical event, as is Cyrus the Great's restoration of the Hebrews to Israel. I recognize, though, that using it as a historical tool is a completely different endeavor than using it for personal salvation (if one believes that is possible).

3) I think the question of reading the Bible literally has actually been quite a problem for theologians and scientists for quite some time. It certainly created tension between Galileo (arguing for a metaphorical reading) and his Jesuit enemies (arguing for a literal reading "the sun moves through the sky") - eventually resulting in his trial. On the other hand, such highly admired theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have urged caution in reading the Bible literally. For example, St. Augustine wrote, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians" De actis cum Felice Manicheo Or Saint Thomas Aquinas, "First, hold the truth of scripture without wavering. Second, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon if it proved with certainty to be false: lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers and obstacles be placed to their believing."

I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).

[ZeroAdunn]

Hey guys: Don't bother with the Mythology thing. I have had this argument with Fyron already, you can't win.

[ZeroAdunn]

and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

By this statement then, I can assume that the left behind series of books, the movie bless the child, and any other book/play/movie involving any religious figures/ideas is therefore a religios text?

[Krsqk]

Wow, how much can happen in 18 hours...

The Bible is indeed a collection of stories. So what? That is the entire purpose of the Bible: to be a collection of stories to help guide you to develop "proper" morals. That does not do anything to minimize any impact. In fact, that is the impact it has had. I have not forced it into any literary categories where it does not belong; I have merely stated the correct Category where it belongs, religious mythological works.

The Bible can hardly be categorized as religious mythological works. The Bible is hardly a collection of stories, either (anyone expecting a storybook and opening to Leviticus or Isaiah or Ephesians will be greatly disappointed ). The Old Testament, in part, is an account of the world's beginnings, the selection of Abraham and his descendants, and the events surrounding that nation. It also sets forth the tenets of the Jewish religion. It also predicts the coming of the Messiah, one who would fulfill the Jewish law and open the way to God for all men through His priesthood. The books of the Minor Prophets, in great majority, are calls to the Jews to repent and return to the spirit of their religion instead of the law (much like the discussion of modern Christianity). The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions). The New Testament begins with four accounts of the life of Jesus, written from four different perspectives for four different Groups of people. It continues with a description of the spread of Christianity and the shift of the church's center from Jerusalem to Antioch. It also introduces the author of the majority of the New Testament, Paul. The next 21 books are strictly doctrinal. They were written to deal with problems, to answer questions, and to exhort believers to stay true to the fundamentals of their faith. The Last book, Revelation, goes back to prophecy.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.

[Edit] Oh, and let's get this straight. It's Jonah and the great fish, not Jonah and the whale. *mutters something about details under his breath*

[ March 12, 2003, 15:02: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Chronon]

Interesting points Krsqk. Here are a few counterpoints for discussion purposes.

Mostly, I think our disagreement comes from an undervaluing of mythology, which in my opinion is critical for the survival of any culture (American mythologies: the melting pot, manifest destiny, equality, etc.). Mythology, in my opinion, has an undeserved bad reputation in our modern, scientific culture - mostly because of its association with superstition (which is what the Enlightenment philosphes called religion). All cultures have stories to tell themselves (ie mythologies) or they wouldn't be unified cultures. In other words, I'm arguing that mythologies are critical to any culture; they are fundamental building blocks of the whole cultural belief system. So, in my opinion, there is no shame in comparing the Bible to mythology, it does, after all lay down the fundamental value system of Christian culture, and that is the basic function of a mythos.

The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions).

Good point, and in a metaphorical sense I think "Western Civ" is a secular mythology. It tells us stories about our beginnings that reinforce our value system, morals, and world view.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.

Ah, here is the crux of our disagreement. I would argue that Greek religion, in it's time and place, was every bit as accepted as Judeo-Christian religion. It was neither superficial, nor superstitious (unless one believes, like the philosophes, that all religion is superstition). As Thucydides pointed out in The Peloponnesian War, Greeks interpreted Sparta's victory as a sign of approval from the Gods. How is that superficial? It is essentially the same as saying that David defeated Goliath because he was favored by God.

Since Greek religion did not have a Bible, per se, Homer's accounts fulfilled some of the same functions. Like the Bible, Homer provides history: Troy was real (I've visited it myself - a nice spot really), and historians think that some of the wars he related were true (Mycenaean civilization fit his descriptions very well). His accounts very clearly describe the heroic warrior ethos (arete) and general religious mythology that any Greek person (regardless of polis affiliation) would instantly recognize. As a tool for cultural diffusion and language standard, Homer worked in a similar manner as the King James Bible.

So, I don't think one should dismiss Greek religion, or Homer, as superficial superstition. Yes, the Bible has other elements to it (Homer never claimed to be the voice of the Gods), but I don't see that the Bible is in any way defamed in a comparision with Greek mythoi, any more that it is defamed by a comparison with the Norse mythoi, Islamic mythoi, Hindu mythoi, or Buddhist mythoi.

Edit: I can't spell...

[ March 12, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Chronon ]