Religion Vs. Mythology

[Guest jrob8503]

whether it (religion) can be taken literally is not really up for debate. Anyone whose done any serious research knows that all religions stem from the same roots, and all are traceable back to that first human who became out of touch with nature (i.e. no longer felt one with the nature and others). Religion, in fact all myths (all religions are mythologies), are an attempt to experience life. The religious rituals are meant to close the gap between the mind and the transcendent mind that feels as one with everything else. The problem is when people mistake the metaphor for the thing. All religions and mythologies are metaphors for the same thing and to fight over stupid [stuff]like who, Allah or Yahweh, or Mohammad or Jesus.. its just the most ridiculous thing ever.

How could I combat this in the most secular way possible? It can 't just say, because we believe it to be ture. This isn't a question on the existence of a God, but the definition of religion.

I really don't have the authority to answer this so I need some help. I mean, I need the best of the best on this board. The uber scholars.

And tell me, as religous people, how do you find this offensive? If not, why?

Thank you.

Edited September 23, 2003 by jrob8503

[Jake Huether]

Whoever wrote this statement has a very shallow understanding of the "roots" of religions, and a shallow knowledge of factual history.

If they [religions] all sought the same thing, and the origins are all the same, then how on earth do you explain the HUGE difference in beliefs! While some think that homosexual acts are cool, others forbid it. While some think that ritualistic sex outside of marriage is right, others condemn it. While some believe in human sacrifice, others have laws protecting life.

If they all saught, in origin, to connect us with God (and from that persons passage - he seems to think the "gods" are all the same) then "God" has really gotten us all confused.

I would help this person out by trying to explain the definition of "myth" and how religions (in particular Jewish or Christian) cannot in anyway fall into the definition of "myth".

A myth has no historical root - it can only be traced back to "legend" or hearsay. Christianity can be traced back HISTORICALLY, with real people and real events. Jesus isn't a myth - there is historical evidence for his existence. And even if they can't prove his existance, there is historical evidance of his witnesses! The Apostles (i.e. the Church!).

A quick history lesson would set him straight.

Very very shalllow analysis if you ask me.

[Theologian in Training]

How could I combat this in the most secular way possible?  It can 't just say, because we believe it to be ture.  This isn't a question on the existence of a God, but the definition of religion. 

I really don't have the authority to answer this so I need some help. I mean, I need the best of the best on this board.  The uber scholars.

And tell me, as religous people, how do you find this offensive?  If not, why?

Thank you.

Wouldn't call myself the best of the best, but I will take a swing at it.

First of all, you have to realize that this person is not really defining his/her terms, and using broad generalities for the terms, "religion" and "myth."

I would also be inclined to ask him/her what serious research he/she has done to draw the conclusion that all religions stem from the same roots and to better define who this person is who became "out of touch with nature." This is beginning to sound a lot like Creation Spirituality.

If religion is an attempt to experience life, then why must religion be subservient to life, couldn't life be just as subservient to religion?

Also, where does he/she get the idea that all religious ritual is inherently transcendent? If he/she is trying to be inclusive then there should be an allowance for all religions, even those that don't point to a deity, like that of Buddhism, secular humanism, or Satanism.

The metaphor for the thing....this is an interesting observation, however, I would ask if there is a way to express the thing in itself. What is basically is being said is that we get caught up in the metaphor and never look to the thing in itself. However, what happens when the only way to explain is by means of metaphor?

Can we explain God without the use of metaphor? Is it possible to pin Him down in one or two words, can we truly put God in a box?

Also, in a similar vein, but not entirely the same, how would this person explain the sacraments being that they are "outward signs of inward grace." We certainly know that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, yet the reality itself of it being the Body and Blood of Christ would be the "thing in itself," how do you explain a reality that can only be understood by faith?

God Bless