Interestingly, I have seen the claim made on these boards that Ed Zotti cannot possibly be Cecil Adams because of stylistic differences between the Cecil columns and Ed’s board posts. Same claim, same deal.
Are you asserting that Ed Zotti is Cecil Adams? I must cry, Cite? 
Anyone have a copy of Harold Bloom’s delightful Book of J handy? Perhaps we may resort to authority to resolve this argument… 
I actually do have The Book of J right here with me. What should I look up?
Are you also a Europa inhabitant slumming in this forum, who has chosen to retain the same nick? 
Polycarp:
In case it wasn’t clear from your reading of the thread, chad, some of “the Christians” don’t try to “reconcile” the two varying accounts of God’s creation of fowl, but take it as a given that the stories are non-literal mythical accounts of how a very real God operated in Creation.
That’s a very nice euphanism for saying that the creation stories were just plain made up. I know you have your homemade version of christianity where you try to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be reasonable and live in everlasting bliss.
Still your version of chistianity is not one I was argueing. If I were, I’d ask why out of a book that you admit is so full of “non-literal mythical accounts,” what makes you think heaven isn’t another one of them. I know personal revelation bla bla bla.
If you ask me, your belief system is every bit as unreasoned if not more so than the fundies.
It would seem that only the seventeenth century translations and the (to me rather bizarre) Third Millennium Bible hold with the idea that the waters are supposed to be bringing forth the birds in the Genesis 1 account.
So if you were one of the christians who actually believed in the bible, I would have to ask which of these versions were the word of god and which were heresys. Since your not, I guess there isn’t much to debate.
It is not a euphemism for anything, and your rather snide answer demonstrates that you have never bothered to explore the study of anthropology, since you seem to be ignorant of the purpose, use, and origins of myth.
Given that you acknowledged that you were simply wasting your time even reading the thread, one wonders why you return to it simply to make unfounded charges that display ignorance. (One may disagree with any number of positions taken by various posters, here, but failing to understand the positions expressed while hurling uninformed insults is hardly a good way to engage in a debate.)
Thanks, Tom~. I’d have to ask, badchad, what you found so reprehensible in my post. “Myth” means something told in figurative language. I used to have a copy of a quite accurate account of World War II retold as a myth; it made for interesting reading!
Read this very carefully: The Genesis creation stories were not "just plain made up"; they were attempts, through story, to reveal what God did in creation. They differ from a factual chronological account in much the same way as Shakespeare’s Hamlet differs from “A Psychological Analysis of the Role of Introspection in the Decision-Making Process in the Context of the Moral Imperative for Revenge.”
And I would be interested in knowing just what you are arguing. Maybe then we can have the kind of dialogue that makes this sort of forum interesting to people. If you wish to impugn my beliefs, feel free – but do it in the Pit, where that sort of slam is permissible, not here.
Polycarp:
I’d have to ask, badchad, what you found so reprehensible in my post.
Nothing too reprehensible other than bringing up the question of which version of the bible is supposed to be the one free of contradictions. Of course with your “collection of myths” stance you don’t have to face any contradictions, you just pick the stance you like the best, say opposing statements are in error or in this case call it all figurative and believe whatever you want. All while being so sure that the what the bible says about your heavenly reward is to be taken literally. It’s the self deception that is required for believing in the bible (figuratively or literally) that I find reprehensible.
“Myth” means something told in figurative language.
That’s not one of the definitions in my copy of Webster’s, however an invented story “made up” is. However definitions are moving targets and I can work with yours.
I used to have a copy of a quite accurate account of World War II retold as a myth; it made for interesting reading!
Well I haven’t read your WWII book and from what I gather you’re not a young earth creationist. So do you think that either of the two creation stories in Genesis acurately depict what we know about cosmology and biology in a similar way as the book you are making the comparison to? Night and day before the sun and moon? Man a few days before or a few days after the first onset of plants and animals. Plants before the sun…
I mean come on, that stuff doesn’t sound like figurative language acurately depicting a real event, it sounds like stuff that’s just
MADE UP.
Read this very carefully: The Genesis creation stories were not “just plain made up”;
Cite?
*they were attempts, through story, to reveal what God did in creation. *
So if I say that the universe was created out of the ejaculate of a supreme being after having sexual relations with his lover Satan, after which they both walked away; is that something that was just made up, or is it an accurate though figurative way of revealing through story what god did in creation?
Isn’t my myth better than Genesis? I mean at least it’s not self contradictory.
Your story is not myth, which, in the context of this sort of discussion, means a story told by a people to explain their understanding of truth. Simply making up a story and throwing it out as an example of nothing much does not make it a myth. (Note that Poly described his WWII tale as version “described as” (i.e., in the manner of) myth. He did not claim that it was a myth.)
You might want to look over the following threads to get an understanding of what myth is, especially in the context of religion:
Religion and Myth
Is Christianity the last bastion of Western Mythology?
Is “mythology” an offensive term?
tomndebb:
Your story is not myth, which, in the context of this sort of discussion, means a story told by a people to explain their understanding of truth. Simply making up a story and throwing it out as an example of nothing much does not make it a myth.
I still maintain that several of the definitions for myth from webster’s fit this context. My favorite being:
“any invented story, idea or concept”
A few others fit too but I think I can also work with your definition. What my story (god/satan lovers) needs is some good PR to dress it up and get people to believe it, tell it to their kids, and walla, it’s now a story to explain their understanding of truth. A true myth in the anthropology sense of the word. 50, 100 or 1000 years from now people will have long since forgotten it was made up on the internet to make a point. But regardless of how many people believe it and teach it, it won’t change the fact that many years in the past it was simply made up, thus making all faithful believers a bunch of suckers.
You might want to look over the following threads to get an understanding of what myth is, especially in the context of religion:
Religion and Myth
Is Christianity the last bastion of Western Mythology?
Is “mythology” an offensive term?
I read through the threads but did not seem to find any agreed upon concensus. While I think it debatable whether myth by your definition serves or once served a useful societal purpose, I don’t see much to debate on whether belief in a myth has any bearing on whether it was made up or factual.
Of course, not. From the perspective of myth, that is irrelevant.
BADCHAD:
If your point is that saying that something is “truth told in the form of myth” allows too much wiggle-room for sheer invention to take the place of specific information–that’s a worthy point, I’d say.
And I’d say as well that POLYCARP and TOMNDEB would agree with you.
The Nonliteralist school isn’t claiming that one ought to go to scripture to find scientific details about how Earth–or the whole shebang–came to be. The claim, rather, is that there is a further layer of truth beneath the scientific/historical account.
There is a sense in which a poem “tells the truth.” The truths told by a poem are, arguably, truths well worth knowing–and even relevant to the surface “subject matter” of the poem. But they happen to be kinds of truth which by their nature are not accessible to the techniques of scientific study and validation.
Isn’t it possible that, IF there is something like a “God,” he might choose to communicate his involvement in things by inspiring (“breathing in”) poetry, myth, fable, song, ceremonial ritual?–which eventually becomes the Bible as we now have it.
Poly and Tomn–if I’ve misrepresented you, do set me straight.
badchad,
When Martin Luther King said that he had “been to the mountaintop,” do you find it necessary to take that statement lterally in order to say that it was true?
Scott Dickerson:
If your point is that saying that something is “truth told in the form of myth” allows too much wiggle-room for sheer invention to take the place of specific information–that’s a worthy point, I’d say.
I’m saying that this truth in the form of myth allows for complete invention and does not represent truth in the least. The only truth in these all the creation stories, of which the christian version is only one, is that the universe seems to exist now.
The Nonliteralist school isn’t claiming that one ought to go to scripture to find scientific details about how Earth–or the whole shebang–came to be. The claim, rather, is that there is a further layer of truth beneath the scientific/historical account.
Evidence for that further layer of truth is what? This loving world, free of evil that could only have been designed by a loving being? Give me a break.
There is a sense in which a poem “tells the truth.” The truths told by a poem are, arguably, truths well worth knowing–and even relevant to the surface “subject matter” of the poem. But they happen to be kinds of truth which by their nature are not accessible to the techniques of scientific study and validation.
Which truths are you talking about? Infidels should be killed, every man woman and suckling child put to the sword. God hardens your heart and then kills you and your children for the path he made you take. She bears killing 42 children in the name of the lord for making fun of a bald man. I love you, believe in me or I’ll cast you into a lake of eternal fire. You have read the bible haven’t you?
Isn’t it possible that, IF there is something like a “God,” he might choose to communicate his involvement in things by inspiring (“breathing in”) poetry, myth, fable, song, ceremonial ritual?–which eventually becomes the Bible as we now have it.
Sure it’s possible. I think the question is how probable. About as probable as Zeus, Odin, Vishnu and invisible pink dragons. Sure they might exist but you would be foolish to bet on it. At least that’s my opinion, yours may differ.
Diogenes the Cynic:
When Martin Luther King said that he had “been to the mountaintop,” do you find it necessary to take that statement lterally in order to say that it was true?
When Jesus claimed to be god, the son of, or whatever by performing miracles, yes I think it is important that he actually did them. King never made any such claim, so I wouldn’t hold him to such a high standard. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence yadda yadda yadda.
badchad,
I don’t think Jesus ever claimed to be God, that was an interpretation that came after the crucifixion. I do think it’s reasonable, however, that those who believe in God can interpret Jesus as one who, at least spoke for God, that the totality of Jesus’ teachings was the divine [symbol]Logos[/symbol].
I think it’s also possible to view the “miracles” as allegorical rather than literal. If Jesus, for instance, passed around a basket of of loaves and fishes an inducement to a crowd to share with each other, then the ensuing event of celebration and brothership could be remembered as a “wonder” or a “sign” of Jesus’ divine message.
When the disciples were on a boat, in the dark, on rough seas, and they were afraid for their lives they were comforted by the sight of Jesus “walking on the water” (a phrase, which in idiomatic Aramaic can simply mean walking along the water’s edge). When Jesus entered the boat, their fears were calmed and they made it to the shore. The message: when times are rough, take comfort in God. The message is true (for those who believe) regardless of the historicity of the event.
Jesus’ “healings” were largely spiritual rather than physical. Those with physical afflictions, especially with regards to skin conditions, missing limbs or other visible imperfections such as blindness, were regarded as spiritually unwhole (or unholy) and were shunned as being unclean. Jesus “healed” and accepted them spiritually, asserting by his actions that compassion was more important than legallistic ideas of ritual purity.
One of the most significant aspects of Jesus’ ministry was what John Crossan referes to as “open commensality,” or common dining. Who one sat and ate with was very important back then. One could not break bread with those who were considered less clean, or who were sinners, or who were considered to be enemies of the Jews. Jesus ate with anyone, drunks, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. It was one of the things he was most frequently criticized for. Jesus was teaching egalitarianism to a virtual caste system.
Now take a look at this story from John about the two disciples on the road two Emmaus:
Notice that the men did not recognize Jesus until they broke bread, in other words, when they sat down to eat with a stranger, the recognized the presence of Christ. This can be read literally or it can be read allegorically, either way it is “true” in its message.
FTR, I am agnostic but I just wanted to show that you can read the gospels entirely materialistically if you want and still come away with “truth” if you’re willing to look for it.
So how is that gnat soup?
A very interesting and thoughtful post, Diogenes.
My own opinion of Jesus (coming from a Jewish “athiest”, in the sense that I do not believe in a transendental diety) is that he was a man moved by a very powerful mystic experience, who tried to teach others to see the world in the same way he did - as parts of the living god. To love god, and to love others as one loves oneself, is I think at the core of his message - and these two were not different commandments, but rather the same.
Jesus was indeed “the son of god”. As is everyone else.
[I base this on nothing more than my own reading of the gospels]
Malthus,
I also believe that Jesus was a mystic and I agree with your assessment that loving God and loving one’s neighbor were synonomous in Jesus’ teachings. In fact, Jesus said so himself: