Why is YOUR Mythology "True" but not Others'

[Wannabe Yogi]

If you're christian, what makes the myth of the resurrection "true" while the myth of mohamed's night journey is not?

If you're muslim, why is it the other way around?

Any other mythology to which you might adhere?

I adhere to any Mythology or philosophy that makes sense to me. I toss the rest.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

No, they don't.

They are not dependent on literal mythology at all.

I agree...

I find Shakespeare to be true because his plays speak to me about the human condition. Is the same not true about Mythology. If it speaks to from the ages and helps you to better understand the nature of reality then by all means follow it.

 

[YmirGF]

If you're christian, what makes the myth of the resurrection "true" while the myth of mohamed's night journey is not?

If you're muslim, why is it the other way around?

Any other mythology to which you might adhere?

To me, this is a glaring difference between my viewpoints and others. I say repeatedly that I may not be right, but this is how it seems to me. I think this is where most people lose sight of reality, in that they take their potential delusions more seriously than they should.

 

[Riverwolf]

Don't get out much, do you?

Go to any Fundie littered area of the US and try stating that their relgiion is metaphorical, and that the bible isn't the word of Jehovah and to be taken litterally, and you can consider yourself lucky to be merely run out of town on a rail.

What do certain Fundie beliefs have to do with all of Christianity? They don't represent all of Christianity at all; they're just a piece of it. I know both Jews and Christians who accept the stories as metaphorical yet retain their religious practices and beliefs.

It's called "reading between the lines."

Some people have no choice but to take literalistic readings, and they're, of course, the loudest voice. But, as the old saying goes, "he who speaks doesn't know, and he who knows doesn't speak." :angel2: (Of course, that shows how much I actually know. :yes

 

[AxisMundi]

What do certain Fundie beliefs have to do with all of Christianity? They don't represent all of Christianity at all; they're just a piece of it. I know both Jews and Christians who accept the stories as metaphorical yet retain their religious practices and beliefs.

It's called "reading between the lines."

Some people have no choice but to take literalistic readings, and they're, of course, the loudest voice. But, as the old saying goes, "he who speaks doesn't know, and he who knows doesn't speak." :angel2: (Of course, that shows how much I actually know. :yes

Look at Church doctrines thrughout the ages, you will note that the bible was to be strictly adhered to as the infallable word of Jehovah. People who put to death for questioning biblical precepts, don't forget.

Look at any poll concerning religion in the US today. You will see that, by far, more Christians believe the bible is litteral.

Are there Christians who have reconciled their religion with scientific facts and/or have always viewed the relgiion as metaphorical? Certainly, but this is far from the norm.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Why can't more than one be true?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Go to any Fundie littered area of the US and try stating that their relgiion is metaphorical, and that the bible isn't the word of Jehovah and to be taken litterally, and you can consider yourself lucky to be merely run out of town on a rail.

The Ancient Christians seem to be smarter about biblical interpretation then the modern American fundamentalist type of Christian

St. Augustine (The most importent theologian in the western church ) said this.


"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).


Origen ( my favorite Christian thinker.)


"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225])


Alexandria, Clement (c.150 - c. 215) also believed you should interpret the Bible by " means of parable and metaphor, leads those to whom God would reveal himself from the sensible to the intelligible world."

 

[Riverwolf]

Look at Church doctrines thrughout the ages, you will note that the bible was to be strictly adhered to as the infallable word of Jehovah. People who put to death for questioning biblical precepts, don't forget.

So?

Look at any poll concerning religion in the US today. You will see that, by far, more Christians believe the bible is litteral.

Again, so?

Are there Christians who have reconciled their religion with scientific facts and/or have always viewed the relgiion as metaphorical? Certainly, but this is far from the norm.

Considering the fact that I, personally, have never seen those polls, I think we can say safely that they don't represent the entirety of Christianity.

I don't have enough information to say one way or the other which one represents the majority. Now, I can assume that in America, the majority are literalists, not because of any polls, but considering the fact that American education SUCKS!!! But that hardly represents all of Christianity.

The fact that ANYONE can reconcile Christianity with modern science, scholarship, archaeology, etc., is evidence enough for me that the religion is not dependent on literal mythology.

You know, I do wonder if the idea that Christianity is based on literal mythology is one of the reasons people leave it: they don't stop to think about how they can adjust their beliefs to fit modern studies. (Then again, many of them are taught not to do that.)

 

[Willamena]

If you're christian, what makes the myth of the resurrection "true" while the myth of mohamed's night journey is not?

If you're muslim, why is it the other way around?

Any other mythology to which you might adhere?

Because it's actually mythology. D'uh!

 

[AxisMundi]

The Ancient Christians seem to be smarter about biblical interpretation then the modern American fundamentalist type of Christian

St. Augustine (The most importent theologian in the western church ) said this.


"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).


Origen ( my favorite Christian thinker.)


"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225])


Alexandria, Clement (c.150 - c. 215) also believed you should interpret the Bible by " means of parable and metaphor, leads those to whom God would reveal himself from the sensible to the intelligible world."

Exception to the rule do not make for a majority.

 

[AxisMundi]

So?



Again, so?



Considering the fact that I, personally, have never seen those polls, I think we can say safely that they don't represent the entirety of Christianity.

I don't have enough information to say one way or the other which one represents the majority. Now, I can assume that in America, the majority are literalists, not because of any polls, but considering the fact that American education SUCKS!!! But that hardly represents all of Christianity.

The fact that ANYONE can reconcile Christianity with modern science, scholarship, archaeology, etc., is evidence enough for me that the religion is not dependent on literal mythology.

You know, I do wonder if the idea that Christianity is based on literal mythology is one of the reasons people leave it: they don't stop to think about how they can adjust their beliefs to fit modern studies. (Then again, many of them are taught not to do that.)

As noted above, exceptions to the rule do not make a majority.

When a handful of people, out of over 2 billion, consider Christianity to be based on hypothetical, and the remainder of that 2 billion plus take the bible litterally... well, you should get the point.

 

[logician]

The best course is not to hold to any mythology, but to be skeptical of all claims, until proven to your satisfaction.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

but to be skeptical of all claims, until proven to your satisfaction.

I agree.

 

[Willamena]

The best course is not to hold to any mythology, but to be skeptical of all claims, until proven to your satisfaction.

Unless, of course, you know what mythology is.

 

[Jeremiah]

Truth is contingent on subjectivity?

I only know of one form of truth. Either a claim reflects reality accurately or it does not. What other form of truth exists?

"Either a claim reflects reality accurately or it does not."

So "truth" is what you decide it to be? Sounds like a subjective "truth" to me.

"Truth" is a concept, therefor it is subjective; you have just chosen to only classify things as "true" based on a certain subjective system of classification aka the scientific method and it is true things gain more credibility between ourselves when they are within these bounds. But individually, it is, I feel, justifiable to favor, in some cases, "subjectiveness" over "objectiveness". In truth we are the ones who created all these subjective classifications & organization of thought and that means we are also free to break them.

 

[McBell]

"Either a claim reflects reality accurately or it does not."

So "truth" is what you decide it to be? Sounds like a subjective "truth" to me.

"Truth" is a concept, therefor it is subjective; you have just chosen to only classify things as "true" based on a certain subjective system of classification aka the scientific method and it is true things gain more credibility between ourselves when they are within these bounds. But individually, it is, I feel, justifiable to favor, in some cases, "subjectiveness" over "objectiveness". In truth we are the ones who created all these subjective classifications & organization of thought and that means we are also free to break them.

Seems to me you need to look up the definition of the word...

truth
n
1: a fact that has been verified;
2: conformity to reality or actuality;
3: a true statement;​

 

[Riverwolf]

As noted above, exceptions to the rule do not make a majority.

When a handful of people, out of over 2 billion, consider Christianity to be based on hypothetical, and the remainder of that 2 billion plus take the bible litterally... well, you should get the point.

So, the majority gets to decide, and screw all the minorities? (Besides, you haven't actually given me the polls, or given me any polls that actually take the votes of ALL human beings on the planet.)

It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid; not with regards to religion. The foundation of Christianity is set in the Christian Biblical canon. (Whichever one.) I think the ones who were closer to the original writings, i.e., the commentators who lived BEFORE the Dark Ages, would have been closer to the ball than the ones inspired by the Dark Ages priests.

 

[Riverwolf]

Seems to me you need to look up the definition of the word...

truth
n
1: a fact that has been verified;
2: conformity to reality or actuality;
3: a true statement;​

Which dictionary?

 

[Jeremiah]

Seems to me you need to look up the definition of the word...

truth
n
1: a fact that has been verified;
2: conformity to reality or actuality;
3: a true statement;​

I know the definition of the word truth, Mestemia, I do not need to look it up. If you feel like having a real conversation let me know.

 

[Jeremiah]

Unless, of course, you know what mythology is.

What is mythology, according to Willamena?