Religion as Human Expression (ritual, Creator, myth, experience, dogma)

[angellous_evangellous]

Although I think that religious myth-making is a form of human expression that is important, obviously people have used myth-making for destructive purposes. Ancient and modern examples abound: the Taliban, conservative Christians voting for Bush, the Crusades, American slavery, etc.

We shouldn't forget that people create myths for the purpose of action. It's hard to seperate myth from being a cause of danger if the myth is created to harm people. We just can't use the same logic behind "guns don't kill people, people kill people" to all objects or ideas. Guns can be made to kill animals. Some things are invented specifically for harm.

For example, if I was the leader of an army and we conquered a nation and did the following:

1) killed all of the educated people and
2) cut the rest of the people off from all that they needed to rebel
3) invented a myth that said that I was god and the people had to sacrafice 100 virgins to me a year, and their station in life was pleasing and they would get a better life in the netherworld, provided they made sacrafice and did not rebel == otherwise I kill them in this life and punish them for eternity in the next.
4) I train my children as preists and have them perpetuate the myth, and train more preists among the people
5) I kill all heretics and have a mythic text written
6) I give new mythic meaning to all ancient rituals (eating, bathing, fasting, birth, death, even sports, and especially education)

Viola! The next great world religion.

Myths are written for a reason! Unfortunately, sometimes the reason not good.

A healthy attitute towards religious mythmaking is to approach it like poetry, art, and music. We are forced to recognize that religious myth-making is a human expression that some of us have. We cannot ignore the awesome gift of art and music simply because a lot of people who are not gifted and produce ignoble and useless work. However, quality music, art, and poetry is difficult to distinguish for people who are ignorant and tasteless.

[bunny1ohio]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I have been thinking for a while now that religion is a universal form of human expression, much like art and music. Religious myth-makers and interpreters have been at it since the dawn of humanity, sculpting and painting beautiful peices of theological art, which is the expression of the human spirit. There is just something more to a person who is endowed with a special talent for art and music, and I think that a similar quality is found in poets and myth-makers.

Some groups have paintings and art interpretations, and say that there really is no other "true" art. Their art is from the only artist! Of course we know that there are many artists, and many wonderful types of art. Or, some will defend their musician with dogmatic ferver. They only listen to one type of music, nevermind that the 12 note scale is far more sophisticated than the 5 note scale. Some will read only one type of poetry, ignoring Shakespeare or Keats.

Very much so. Each person's religious views are an expression of what they consider themselves to be. As to something more to people with those talents, the same could be said of "natural mothers", teachers, and even scientists. They all display wonderfully unique qualities that not everyone possesses.

Hmmm never heard about anyone denying art from other artists... but denying that other forms of art are as "special" as the one they prefer definately... I think this is a very good interpretation of the human need (in some cases) for religion. They cling to what they feel is the best and refuse to see other views as being as worthy of their time to study... very good post angellous

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by bunny1ohio

Very much so. Each person's religious views are an expression of what they consider themselves to be. As to something more to people with those talents, the same could be said of "natural mothers", teachers, and even scientists. They all display wonderfully unique qualities that not everyone possesses.

Hmmm never heard about anyone denying art from other artists... but denying that other forms of art are as "special" as the one they prefer definately... I think this is a very good interpretation of the human need (in some cases) for religion. They cling to what they feel is the best and refuse to see other views as being as worthy of their time to study... very good post angellous

Squabbles in the art world are just as nasty as the religious world.

[evearael]

Religious myth-makers and interpreters have been at it since the dawn of humanity, sculpting and painting beautiful peices of theological art, which is the expression of the human spirit.

That is quite lovely. Thank you for sharing!

[Sunstone]

I agree with the OP to an extent. So far as I know, there has never been a culture or society without at least one religion. So, I agree that religion is a universal human expression. But I disagree with the Op that religion is all about producing warm and fuzzy feelings. That might be true for some people: I've certainly seen churches and congregations that seem like a sports stadium full of excited fans, each trying to outcompete the other for enthusiasim, each feeding off the other for emotional validation. But surely the warm and fuzzies those people are experiencing are not all that religion has to offer them. Perhaps there are even many people in this world who are religious but whom have seldom or never experienced anything like a Sunday morning fan fest in connection with their religion. But whatever the case, it would not be difficult to find examples of people for whom religious belief is motivated by intellectual consent, or by fear, or by agape, or by some mystical experience they had, etc. So, the premise of the OP that religion can be reduced to warmth and fuzziness is one I don't agree with.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I agree with the OP to an extent. So far as I know, there has never been a culture or society without at least one religion. So, I agree that religion is a universal human expression. But I disagree with the Op that religion is all about producing warm and fuzzy feelings. That might be true for some people: I've certainly seen churches and congregations that seem like a sports stadium full of excited fans, each trying to outcompete the other for enthusiasim, each feeding off the other for emotional validation. But surely the warm and fuzzies those people are experiencing are not all that religion has to offer them. Perhaps there are even many people in this world who are religious but whom have seldom or never experienced anything like a Sunday morning fan fest in connection with their religion. But whatever the case, it would not be difficult to find examples of people for whom religious belief is motivated by intellectual consent, or by fear, or by agape, or by some mystical experience they had, etc. So, the premise of the OP that religion can be reduced to warmth and fuzziness is one I don't agree with.

I don't mean to reduce religion to warm and fuzzies, and I do believe that there are definately various degrees of warm and fuzzies.

Some people are driven to kill others because their W&F are off the charts. Some allow snakes and scorpions to bite them. Others just feel a "supernatural" peace knowing that everything is going to be ok.

Fear is W&F inverted.

There is no such thing as an intellectual assent to a religious myth.

[Runt]

I'm not so sure religion is warm and fuzzy (in fact, I would be more inclined to say many religious beliefs are more than a little scary), but I would agree that religion is a cultural expression. It is yet one more way people attempt to interact with their envrionment (in this case, the "invisible landscape" rather than their purely physical surroundings).

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Angellous

There is no such thing as an intellectual assent to a religious myth.

Can there be intellectual consent to a theology?