I was on a business trip, eating lunch with a collegue I had only known a couple days. I noticed that my coworker prayed before eating, which I likely would have forgotten about if the conversation hadn’t gone the way it did later. We were at a chinese place, and there was hot sauce on the table. As I often do when the subject turns to hot sauce and peppers, I mention that humans are the only animals that actually enjoy the heat, which had actually evolved as a defense mechanism for the plant.
My collegue then says “I don’t believe in the evolution myth.”
I replied, “I feel the same the same way about the Jesus myth.”
OK, actually I though of that reply later, and even if I had thought of it at the time I probably wouldn’t have said it.
But if I had, would my comment have been rude? Was his rude? Was one ruder than the other, and if so why?
I almost put this in IMHO, but decided it would likely be a debate. Of course, mod’s choice to move it if they want.
Unless you have deep emotional investment in the idea of evolution, and he knew it, his comment wasn’t rude. But at that point, you know he’s probably pretty emotionally involved with the idea of Jesus, so yes, your comment would’ve been rude.
No, he wasn’t rude. He was merely expressing an opinion on a new conversational subject (unless he already knew that you were a strong Evolutionist, in which case yes, his remark would have been rude).
Yes, it would have been rude for you to riposte with, “Oh, yeah? Well, I don’t believe in the Jesus myth, so there…” (Yes, I know that wasn’t what you thought you might say, but the “oh yeah” and the “so there” would have been implicit.) You had information about him–he prayed, so you knew he was probably a Special Creationist, and sure enough, he was. So kudos to your mother, your grandma, and all your aunts for teaching you when to keep your mouth shut.
Yeah, your comment would have been rude. Basically, ultrafilter nails it. You brought up the evolution thing, sort of. He said he didn’t buy it. Assuming he didn’t say something like, “I don’t buy the evolution myth and you are evil and going to hell for not believing it, either” then your coming out and slamming his religion like that is rude.
Well, let me be the first to chime in, then, and say Mr. Creationist was rude, specifically because of his choice to call evolution a “myth” – he did not say, “I don’t believe in evolution.” He said he did not believe in the myth of evolution.
“Myth”, in this context, is undoubtedly a loaded word, just as it would have been had you returned the volley with the “Jesus myth” comment. Both comments would have been rude; the difference is he voiced his.
I agree completely with Darwin’s Finch. You collegue clearly used the word “myth” in a derogatory/dismissive sense. If his comment wasn’t entirely “rude”, he certainly lacks diplomacy. Responding in kind would have carried the same negative connotation.
Jesus wasn’t a myth, so your witty comeback has the weakness of a factual error. I’m a stone-cold atheist myself, but I have no doubt that Jesus a/k/a Joshua bar-Joseph did exist and that a religion has been built around him.
If you’d said “the heaven and hell myth”, you’d at least be factually correct.
Evolution has none of the markings of a myth, no heroes and villians, none of the personal elements that construe a mythology.
So his calling it a myth, he probably made a conscious choice to use that term. His usage of that term was designed to belittle those who advocate it, drop them down to the level of Zeus-worshippers. So it was rude and uncivil in a certain sense, as it contained loaded language choice. You don’t use loaded language like that unless you want to make a point beyond simply stating your simple affirmative or negative belief.
If your acquaintance with him is such that things like that are generally frowned upon as mealtime conversations, if you generally avoid baiting someone into controversy (which sounds like what he did), then I would consider that remark of his a break in civility.
If he breaks civility, I wouldn’t have considered you out of line to respond in kind, turning his language choice against him. However, it wouldn’t have been very nice, so perhaps you were right to “be the better man” by abstaining.
What evidence outside of the New Testament is there for the existence of Jesus? And in the New Testament is there testimony from actual eyewitnesses to the existence of Jesus? And if there is such eyewitness testimony is there any corroboration?
I would suggest there there is at least the possibility that Jesus is a myth.
The word “myth” also has the meaning–in fact, it’s the American Heritage Dictionary’s primary meaning–of a “traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society”. So, even if Jesus is seen as a “hero” rather than a “supernatural being” of the order of Zeus, the story of his virgin birth, his pre-existence as part of the Godhead and/or his ascension to deity, and his death and resurrection as taking away the sins of the world, all do fall in the category of “myth”, in the scholarly sense (and, I believe, in the original meaning of the Greek word “mythos”). (Of course, in my opinion, all that also fits the AHD’s definitions 3 or 4, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.)
Whereas, calling evolution a “myth” makes no more sense than calling the periodic table of the elements or the germ theory of infectious disease “myths”, and doesn’t really fit any definition of the term.
Whether there was a person Jesus or not, it is still perfectly right to speak of the mythical Jesus.
That said, though your friend’s comment was not in the interests of honest discussion (since myth is a loaded word), it is a LOT more loaded in a religious context. He certainly wasn’t being polite, but even though you responded seemingly in kind, you escalated things considerably. Most people don’t rest deep moral and spiritual significance on whether or not evolution actually happened, whereas people do for Jesus.
Though I have to say, the people I like the most are those who are happy to admit that their beliefs are myths AND yet still find them deeply meaningful.
I have to agree, with Darwin’s Finch. Both comments were intentionally confrontational in a neutral social setting unrelated to the point of contention. For the school lunchroom, it was not rude. For a public restaurant in polite company, both were rude.
The fact that emotional investment in Religion might be greater than the emotional investment of not being thought a credulous fool over your understanding of science is not germane to the concept of good manners. You don’t deliberately raise the stakes on an incipient difference of opinion over dinner. Both comments have the specific intent of making a value judgment on the beliefs of the other person. For dinner, that’s rude.
Whether or not he (the creationist) was rude is almost irrelevant to the question of whether the (Jesus myth)reply would have been rude; sure it would be part of the consideration as to whether the reply was justifiable, but in terms of rudeness, surely the two comments must each be judged alone.
David Simmons There has been much controversy over whether Josephus mentioned Jesus in his histories. It is fairly clear that some of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum was doctored, but there may be some kernel reference made by Josephus even though some apocryphal gospel quotes were inserted by later transcribers.
It’s a common tactic among creationists/fundamentalists to score debate points by changing the subject to the supposed ‘rudeness’ or ‘insulting’ quality of remarks by their opponent. It’s like entering a fencing match with a large balloon attached to your chest, saying “If you pop this, you lose”.
A long time ago, all the creatures of the world were given their powers. The rabbit was given the power to run fast, the bear to climb and crush things with its great strength, the fish to swim, and the bird to fly. But the bacteria was given no powers. Upset, it said to the Creator, “You have given the rabbit the power to run fast, and the bear, the power to climb and crush, the fish to swim, and the bird to fly, but you have given me no powers.”
Then the Creator said, “Be patient and watch.” The bacteria waited and watched. He saw Man come, and kill the rabbit, in spite of its speed, and the bear in spite of its strength, the fish, in spite of its swimming, and the bird in spite of it’s flight.
Then the Creator said, “I have given to Man the power to hunt and kill all of my other creations. But to you, I have given the power to hunt and kill Man. You may feed on Man, and he will sicken and die, and your sons will hunt and kill his.”
And the bacteria heard and was content.
Would that be a germ theory of infectious disease myth?
