What makes a myth?

I was recently browsing some forums on religion, and there was thread comparing the many "myths" of creation. I noticed a huge difference when it came to the Babylonian tradition of Marduk creating man from clay and the blood of a slain God, and the Christian tradition of man being made by God.

For some reason, the Babylonian tradition was defined as a myth, but the typical Judeo-Christian tradition was not. Now, why would this be?

What makes a myth, and how do we define it, if we even can?

"myth ~ From Ancient Greek (muthos), “‘word, humour, companion, speech, account, rumour, fable’”). English since 1830."

Note the first translation, "word". Now if we take the Bible: "In the Beginning, there was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God".

Word, myth, fable, perhaps it all points to the same thing. However, I'm pretty sure that most Christians wouldn't exactly like you if you called the Bible a myth. We speak of the creation myth, but why don't we address the entire Bible as being mythical? Or the Torah or the Qu'ran for that matter?

My guess is that because of its historical "evidence" (which is much more obvious in the Qu'ran than in the Bible or the Torah, for that matter) we stop to look at what is said is mythical.

If we compare this opinion to that of a Christian living five hundred years ago, or random Christians somewhere in Alabama nowadays, they will not see the 6-day creation of the world as being a myth, or mythical in origin.

Take for example the Greek legend of the birth of Dionysus. He was born from the mortal woman Selene and was the son of Zeus. While Selene was pregnant, she doubted the divine origin of the child and demanded that Zeus showed him to her in all his divine power. Seeing this, she died and Zeus took the unborn baby from her stomach and sewed Dionysus in his own thigh.

I suppose that most people will regard this as, in the words of Tribeseman, bollox. For a Greek man 2,500 years ago this was reality.

So why do we take Jesus, say he turned water into wine, magically duplicated loaves of bread and fishes and raised a man from the dead. Just like Isis and Osiris. But for some reason, that's mythical.

To cut a long story short, where do we place myths? How you can rationally call one explanation a myth and another real. Feel free to debate. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I was recently browsing some forums on religion, and there was thread comparing the many "myths" of creation. I noticed a huge difference when it came to the Babylonian tradition of Marduk creating man from clay and the blood of a slain God, and the Christian tradition of man being made by God.

---

They're the same Myth, really. Or rather, they have the same root.

Quote:

---

For some reason, the Babylonian tradition was defined as a myth, but the typical Judeo-Christian tradition was not. Now, why would this be?

---

Generally, people don't believe myths, and this was true of the Greeks and their own stories in later centuries.

Quote:

---

What makes a myth, and how do we define it, if we even can?

"myth ~ From Ancient Greek (muthos), “‘word, humour, companion, speech, account, rumour, fable’”). English since 1830."

Note the first translation, "word". Now if we take the Bible: "In the Beginning, there was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God".

Word, myth, fable, perhaps it all points to the same thing. However, I'm pretty sure that most Christians wouldn't exactly like you if you called the Bible a myth. We speak of the creation myth, but why don't we address the entire Bible as being mythical? Or the Torah or the Qu'ran for that matter?

---

Well, you're dealing with a very bad translation. The word in John's Gospel is Logos, not Mythos.

Logos: source and fundamental order of the cosmos (Heraclitus)

It doesn't mean "word" so much as "meaning".

My guess is that because of its historical "evidence" (which is much more obvious in the Qu'ran than in the Bible or the Torah, for that matter) we stop to look at what is said is mythical.

Quote:

---

If we compare this opinion to that of a Christian living five hundred years ago, or random Christians somewhere in Alabama nowadays, they will not see the 6-day creation of the world as being a myth, or mythical in origin.

Take for example the Greek legend of the birth of Dionysus. He was born from the mortal woman Selene and was the son of Zeus. While Selene was pregnant, she doubted the divine origin of the child and demanded that Zeus showed him to her in all his divine power. Seeing this, she died and Zeus took the unborn baby from her stomach and sewed Dionysus in his own thigh.

I suppose that most people will regard this as, in the words of Tribeseman, bollox. For a Greek man 2,500 years ago this was reality.

So why do we take Jesus, say he turned water into wine, magically duplicated loaves of bread and fishes and raised a man from the dead. Just like Isis and Osiris. But for some reason, that's mythical.

To cut a long story short, where do we place myths? How you can rationally call one explanation a myth and another real. Feel free to debate. :2thumbsup:

---

Well, that's a matter of perspective and opinion, nothing more.

Overcoming death is always a crowd pleaser....

splash in some nifty miracles, some interesting good guys and bad guys and this puppy will write itself!

Marduk was just the protector-god of the city of Babylon until he became the state god, the mythology surrounding him changes radically while christianity/jewism is much more stable. The believe in him is also gone, so the believe in other ancient gods, I also think the word mythical is just too easy to use, the mythical city of bla, the mythical god of bleh.

Oh, this is a easy question to answer:

Made up stuff some people still believe in = religion.

Made up stuff no one believes in anymore = myth.

With every year that pass we get more myths and less religion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Oh, this is a easy question to answer:

Made up stuff some people still believe in = religion.

Made up stuff no one believes in anymore = myth.

With every year that pass we get more myths and less religion...

---

So the proliferation of Novel Christian sects, as well as Scientology counts as "less"?

Usually the same crowd of people. Religion as a whole is decreasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Usually the same crowd of people. Religion as a whole is decreasing.

---

Not true at all, while attendence at mainline Churches has been decresing for 50 years, that decrease has now been largely arrested and is beginning to reverse. Further, attendance at particular Christian festivals, at Cathedrals and during week-day services is increasing. This does not include the Free Evangelical Churches which are growing at a staggering rate in many cities. About the only Christian denomination currently in overall decline in England are the Methodists.

This, of course, says nothing of the increase of Islam and Eastern Religions in Britain. Outside of Europe, religion has never even gone into decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Usually the same crowd of people. Religion as a whole is decreasing.

---

No It's shifting as some institutions lose power. What was the first thing the hippies did after fighting of the bible-freaks, they became new age freaks.

Exactly - religion will never truly decline and vanish, but simply shift and morph into new incarnations. Most people find comfort in religion, while many others use it to supplement their own ignorance, or reinforce certain beliefs.

New Age beliefs and spirituality, along with the embrace of "Eastern" PC religious beliefs all compensates for the loss of traditional, conventional Christian clientèle. I always had a rather unlikely, but possible hunch that we are about (in a couple of hundred years or less) witness a rise of a new religion. Christianity has been present for too long. It will either change into something entirely new (as the sect of Jesus over time departed from Judaism and became Christianity through the works of men) or lose its place to a new phenomenon.

Quote:

---

To cut a long story short, where do we place myths? How you can rationally call one explanation a myth and another real. Feel free to debate.

---

All religions are myths - except mine :juggle2:

Quote:

---

New Age beliefs and spirituality, along with the embrace of "Eastern" PC religious beliefs all compensates for the loss of traditional, conventional Christian clientèle. I always had a rather unlikely, but possible hunch that we are about (in a couple of hundred years or less) witness a rise of a new religion. Christianity has been present for too long. It will either change into something entirely new (as the sect of Jesus over time departed from Judaism and became Christianity through the works of men) or lose its place to a new phenomenon.

---

Cult of Dagon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Cult of Dagon.

---

No, the cult of Gaia. The Earth Goddess. Whilst the environmental hysteria reaches ever new heights, the earth is going to be revered and feared as if it were a deity.

Already quite few biologists, environmental activists and policy makers are seriously influenced by Lovelock´s hypothesis that the earth is a single organism and even regard it as a breathing, feeling and acting entity that takes ´revenge´ for mankind´s abusive behaviour.

I wouldn´t be surprised, let me put it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

No, the cult of Gaia. The Earth Goddess. Whilst the environmental hysteria reaches ever new heights, the earth is going to be revered and feared as if it were a deity.

Already quite few biologists, environmental activists and policy makers are seriously influenced by Lovelock´s hypothesis that the earth is a single organism and even regard it as a breathing, feeling and acting entity that takes ´revenge´ for mankind´s abusive behaviour.

---

Why am I not surprised? :whip:

Probably because the person referring to it as something other then a myth is a follower of one of the monotheistic religions or someone trying to be a nice. Visit a atheist forum and your see Jesus listed up there with Apollo, Thor, and Baal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Word, myth, fable, perhaps it all points to the same thing. However, I'm pretty sure that most Christians wouldn't exactly like you if you called the Bible a myth. We speak of the creation myth, but why don't we address the entire Bible as being mythical?

---

The Bible is a bit big to generalize that way. It's got sections that are myth (unless you choose to believe they're real), sections that are history, sections that are poetry, sections that are manuals for religious ritual, sections that are morality fables, sections that are philosophy, sections that are advice literature, sections that are prophetic (you might call them myths set in the future), and sections that are action-adventure literature. That's why I wouldn't call the whole Bible mythical.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

The Bible is a bit big to generalize that way. It's got sections that are myth (unless you choose to believe they're real), sections that are history, sections that are poetry, sections that are manuals for religious ritual, sections that are morality fables, sections that are philosophy, sections that are advice literature, sections that are prophetic (you might call them myths set in the future), and sections that are action-adventure literature. That's why I wouldn't call the whole Bible mythical.

Ajax

---

Hax has a grudge against religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Already quite few biologists, environmental activists and policy makers are seriously influenced by Lovelock´s hypothesis that the earth is a single organism and even regard it as a breathing, feeling and acting entity that takes ´revenge´ for mankind´s abusive behaviour.

---

That's not quite what Professor Lovelock has proposed. I will agree however, that it is what many environmental campaigners have manipulated his theory into. (The same people that also ignore his eloquent arguments for nuclear power).

Anyway, I always thought a myth was a female moth. :clown:

Quote:

---

Hax has a grudge against religion.

---

That's pretty hard for a Buddhist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

That's pretty hard for a Buddhist.

---

No, it's TCV. Don't ask how I got mixed up, my long-haired friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

That's pretty hard for a Buddhist.

---

I am concerned that you do not quite understand the facets and tenets of your own religion. Or, to put it better, what you beleive in does not reflect what indigenous Buddhists beleive in. The Western perception of Buddhism is hefty with misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Buddhism was a reform movement which originated as a response to the overtly liberal Hinduism and excessively oppressive and radical Jainism. It is the "Middle Way" for numerous reasons, not simply because of its theology.

Now, are you a "Little Vessel" or a "Large vehicle" (Theravada and Mahayana) Buddhist? I would assume you are the latter, as almost all "export" Buddhism is of the Mahayana variety. The former is simply too conservative and restrictive, not to mention much less widespread form of Buddhism - definitely something that is not well-received in foreign cultures, and something that is not exported either. But still, I would rather not make assumptions and know what you are, despite the overwhelming probabilities. And who knows, the books I read on comparative religious studies are quite old, by Huston and Campbell.

Now, are you a Tibetan, Zen, "Original", or some other smaller sect Buddhist? Chances are you are the first one, as for some odd reason it is the first that became the most-exported-to-the-West one. Despite the fact that it is heavily burdened by superstition, rituals, unique animistic Tibetan traditions, and such. Peculiar, but their liberal stance on teaching to foreigners and spreading their missions did pay off. Even though Buddhism, at least originally, was definitely not a missionary religion - none of the Eastern religions are.

All of them have mainly one thing in common, and that is that they are meant for the natives, and the adherents of them do not beleive that converting individuals of different cultures makes any practical sense. A view which I share, despite myself rather inclined to side with Hinduism as my most favoured religion. Particularly when you apply the nirguna principle, which states there is but one God-entity - making Hinduism the oldest monotheistic religion, as the thousands-of-gods is the saguna concept, which is merely presented to make the religion more palatable for the uneducated, simply-minded masses. The ancient Vedas, the Upanishads particularly, always speak of only one God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That's not quite what Professor Lovelock has proposed. I will agree however, that it is what many environmental campaigners have manipulated his theory into. (The same people that also ignore his eloquent arguments for nuclear power).

Anyway, I always thought a myth was a female moth. :clown:

---

I thought he was a moderator here.

Quote:

---

I am concerned that you do not quite understand the facets and tenets of your own religion. Or, to put it better, what you beleive in does not reflect what indigenous Buddhists beleive in. The Western perception of Buddhism is hefty with misconceptions and misunderstandings.

---

Perhaps, but this might very well be found in any religion, especially as you state, the eastern religions, who happen to be somewhat unclear on their ethical rules (especially found in the Shinto tradition of Japan and in Taoïsm and Confucianism as well, to a degree). I completely agree with your view that the western idea of Buddhism might very well be an incorrect one, and Buddhism is often broken down to this simple view of "Do what seems right and it'll be cool", as it's used in a lot of New-Age sects.

Quote:

---

Now, are you a "Little Vessel" or a "Large vehicle" (Theravada and Mahayana) Buddhist? I would assume you are the latter, as almost all "export" Buddhism is of the Mahayana variety. The former is simply too conservative and restrictive, not to mention much less widespread form of Buddhism - definitely something that is not well-received in foreign cultures, and something that is not exported either. But still, I would rather not make assumptions and know what you are, despite the overwhelming probabilities. And who knows, the books I read on comparative religious studies are quite old, by Huston and Campbell.

---

Neither, Vajrayana. This would of course be the closest to the Large Vehicle (Mahayana) branch of Buddhism, as it kinda originated from that branch. Some people do not regard Vajrayana as a seperate branch of Buddhism, but mostly as an "extension" of Mahayana Buddhism. To move on to your next point:

Quote:

---

Now, are you a Tibetan, Zen, "Original", or some other smaller sect Buddhist? Chances are you are the first one, as for some odd reason it is the first that became the most-exported-to-the-West one. Despite the fact that it is heavily burdened by superstition, rituals, unique animistic Tibetan traditions, and such. Peculiar, but their liberal stance on teaching to foreigners and spreading their missions did pay off. Even though Buddhism, at least originally, was definitely not a missionary religion - none of the Eastern religions are.

---

Once again, I'm afraid I must disappoint you :clown:. I adhere to the Shingon tradition which was founded in 811 by the Japanese monk Kukai (known posthumously as Kobo Daishi) and took a lot of elements from the Chinese "Zhen Yan" sect, which is a direct translation of the Sanskrit word "mantra". Therefore Vajrayana Buddhism is also known as Tantrayana, seeing how the numerous mantra and tantra play a central role in this form of Buddhism.

Quote:

---

Chances are you are the first one, as for some odd reason it is the first that became the most-exported-to-the-West one.

---

Exactly right.

I've never taken a real look at Zen/Ch'an Buddhism, but as long as people find security in their beliefs I have no problems with it whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Or, to put it better, what you beleive in does not reflect what indigenous Buddhists beleive in.

---

I'm afraid your first statement is somewhat of an overhasted generalization, but a justified one.

Quote:

---

The former is simply too conservative and restrictive, not to mention much less widespread form of Buddhism

---

Exactly right, again. I'm impressed with your overall knowledge of the eastern religions, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

The Bible is a bit big to generalize that way. It's got sections that are myth (unless you choose to believe they're real), sections that are history, sections that are poetry, sections that are manuals for religious ritual, sections that are morality fables, sections that are philosophy, sections that are advice literature, sections that are prophetic (you might call them myths set in the future), and sections that are action-adventure literature. That's why I wouldn't call the whole Bible mythical.

Ajax

---

You missed Erotic Poetry from that list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You missed Erotic Poetry from that list.

---

Hehe, Songs of Solomon was the Playboy of BC :laugh4::2thumbsup:

Well, the kids were not allowed to read it, and when they were, it was a rite of passage - just liek today!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You missed Erotic Poetry from that list.

---

I mentioned poetry. I'd consider erotic poetry a subset of that category.

Ajax