View source for ReligionAndMythology


one and the same
-JaLong

----
Refinement
* Religion is something that is still being practiced by a sizeable number of humans. Religions without a sizable following are not considered religions. They are considered cults by mainstream consensus.

Clarification
* Myths are not a related or wider superset to cults and religions. Myths do not need to include any actual framework of social behavior expected and maintained. Arthurian tales are myth. The tales of Paul Bunyion are myth. Comic books are modern myth. While individual myths are sometimes used as entertaining devices to illustrate a moral point or moral lesson, this is not always true.

Religions are belief systems with implied, if not explicitly stated, behavioral systems. Myths are not. In this sense, myths and religions are not the same thing. Religions may incorportate myths into them, as well as give rise to myths. There is a subtle difference, but it is an important difference never the less.
---StarPilot

----

Those pure of heart will prevail, so be pure of heart (King Arthur). Always play fair. Don't do drugs. Don't steal. Crime doesn't pay. (Comic Book heroes) I'm not really familiar enough with Paul Bunyon's politics to tell you his little tidbit of implied behavorial systems, but I'm sure there is something there. Myths are merely observed differently.
  - [[JaLong]]

Actually Arthurian tales was the Victorian equivalent to our society's romance books. And in fact, romance books grew out of the publishing of Artherian tales.

Comic book heroes? Depends on the era of comic books. Plenty of books around where crime pays, and pays big. Where doing drugs is good, as it makes you feel good, and damn the prudes trying to control your mind and wallet====
====

Myths tend to reflect the ''dreams'' of the people that tell them. Not their moral code. Examine myths. Dreams can be good or ill.

Story telling is an instrument that society will use to try and illustrate a moral point. But the 'moral of the story' tends to change as the society changes. Myths tend to remain steady, compared to morals, as human dreams don't tend to change as quickly in comparison.

---StarPilot
----
If we believe, we call it religion, otherwize it is mythology.

It is amazing the new evidence supporting the story of the Exodus.  That is clearly more History than Myth.

Most Myths have their roots in history.  It is not History that is Religion, it is more accurately Culture.  Independently, religion is personal belief, independent of Culture.

Religion can also be simple definition as in
* God is The Creator
* God is Love
* God is Truth
* God is the computer running the universe
* God is All
* God is Life
* God is The Unknown
* God is [[PopularScience]]

--JimScarver


Dear [[StarPilot]],

Certain Mythologies were at one time not only related to religion, they were in fact the religions dominating certain societies. So i must raise issue with one aspect of your argument. While in our day and age we may say mythology is  simply a bundle of fanciful stories which may or may not hold some moral implication, lets consider ancient Greece and the myriad of Gods revered and feared by the society of the time. Lets also consider that at one time, these cultures had developed a very defined set of behaviors in accordance with what, lets say, old Zeus would like them to do. There is a very dinstinct parallel here between the loving, forgiving God of today, and the wrathful, impatiant Gods of yore.
Perhaps we are confusing the Word myth with the word mythology.
The word myth has several definitions, but I think the one you are using in this context is what we consider "a fiction or half truth" That definition goes on to include "especially one that forms part of an ideology". Mythology, however, is A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. Sounds a lot like the current day bible to me. If i would have to distunguish between mythology and religion, I would make the assumption that the word mythology is a word we use for religions that the modern world has essentially abandoned or thrown by the wayside.

Also, just as an aside, a whole wealth of literature grew out of the Publishing of Authurian Tales. Current Day romance novels I think are a far stretch and if true, a sad example of how we have evolved literarlly. Where did you find this information? What about adventure books, travel books, and any number of other genres?

[[FishMonger]]
----
[[FishMonger]], I respect your post and viewpoint. However, if we examine myths, we find that they are merely stories, just as legends are stories. Stories are an interesting item in society. They are primarily used as entertainment. But they can be utilized for teaching. Often, we find that the better known old stories do both, or have done both. Why is this? Because we project meanings onto this stories. The reason these stories survive to reach us from ancient times though, is due to the fact that a story is effectively a mirror, unto which we project our understanding, thoughts, and emotions. As as mirrors for our projections, each culture can project their own social meanings onto the story. And each personal can project their own personal meanings onto the story.

Adventure and travel books started off one and the same. Travelogues. The original root from which Science Fiction and Fantasy both derive. In the early age of Science Fiction, the travelogue split into the Adventure story and Hard Science Fiction story. Adventure cared not if the science was possible. It was the adventure that was important, and everything else was background or plot devices. Hard Science was less... adventurous and stuck to what our Science and Understanding told us was possible, or even likely, given what we knew at the time of the writing.

While a young lad, I became very fascinated with the Arthurian tales, and spent long hours digging through everything remoted related to them. First publishings, anything I could get my hands on. Most of the printed tales, were printed for Victorian women in their private viewing. The first tale wasn't, but the publisher noticed how many '''women''' were seeking out the first published book on Arthurian legends, and they spotted an unfulfilled economic need, and filled it. The romance and the love triangle aspect between Gweniver, Arthur, and Lancelot was emphasised, and all the other aspects were tweaked into the background. New tales of romance were added to the mythos.

A motivated sociatal leader had the tales originally published from the monk's notes as a way to try and impress the younger generation's males (particularly his) to be more 'gentlemanly and honorable' to each other, according to the vague Victorian middle class notion of Chivalry and Fair Play. That fell on deaf ears with most of the gents. However, in the original monk's story, the motivation for Lancelot betraying the King (leaving and becoming a holy hermit) was not out of love for Gwen, but of a simple calling from the Lord (A feature more common in stories of 15th century, as it was more commonly known in happenings of that time). The editor thought it needed something more, as a story it certainly lacked drama and understandable motivations, and so he added in the tryst between Gwen and Lancelot. This created the first mass market published ''Romance Novel''. A few bored or curious Victorian ladies read the book, and wanted more like it. True love, a woman ignored/forgotten having an affair with her husband's best friend, the affair driving a wedge between the friends out of all the conflicting emotions... very much was read and projected into that tale. And as I said, when the publisher of the tale noticed all the sales going to women, they pursued it. The romance novel and its industry was born.

The original tales of Arthur were, if I recall correctly, taken from the writings of a 15th century monk, as told to him by a Anglo con-man. The monk provided the con with free room and board, safe sanctuary, and some minor pocket money, in exchange for the con's stories of the tales of Arthur and the knights. I do not recall clearly why the monk was so fascinated with the tale of the Once and Future King, other then some vague similarities to Jesus, and the monk's vague suspision that the folk tales of Arthur could have been a bastardization of Jesus walking the Island, or at least would be useful to the church to project a stronger connection between the Church and a local hero of folklore.

However, it's been a few decades (almost 3 now), and there is no telling how much of what I recall of the original information I learned in my personal researching of King Arthur is still correct. ;)

---StarPilot


Dear [[StarPilot]],
Thank you for the very fascinating recount of the connection between the tales of Aurthur and the modern day romance novels of our time. I had no prior notion of this connection and am pleased to be once again reminded of how much insight into great works of art we can gather by studying the times and cultures surrounding them.

And I will agree with you that myths are indeed stories. Certainly we all know that its impractical to believe that mighty Zeus could swoop down to earth in the shape of a swan to impregnate a mortal. And certainly we know that the offspring of such a said rape could not possess the supernatural powers of a God. We know that cant be true, we know it cant be verified, and thus we know it is a story.

But wait-  What about Mary? And who is Jesus if not the offspring of a God possessing supernatural powers of healing and resurrection and so forth?  If we compare a book of ancient Greek Mythology and the Bible we will find countless renditions of parallel stories (or myths, if we will). Sure Mary isnt raped by a giant bird, but is it more believable to say it was immaculate conception?  I'd be more than happy to detail other very similar parallels between these two books if needed, many have moral lessons at the root.

My point here is not to debate the literal truth of myths and stories, but to compare mythology with religion- acknowledging that at the core of both are various stories that are incorporated in order to explain and outline our origins, our value systems, our belief system, and in essence, our "religion".  And both rely on a certain suspension of disbelief in order to believe in them.  The difference betweeen the "myth" in mythology, and the "myth" in religion is simply the fact that one is no longer currently accepted as status quo anywhere. We have abandoned the suspension of disbelief that once allowed mythology to be the prominent religion of a certain time and culture.

I could get into why I think this happened, but i think that may be diverging from the topic.

-FishMonger

----
[[StarPilot]],
    I had a hard time making relevance of how King Arthur stories spawned romance novels within the context of the difference between mythology and religion. I say that if you know what the myth is, it is just as alive as if you went to the church to retell it. What is lost, is different. What is myth, what is known of, is just as alive as any religion. All swimming in a [[SeaOfLies]]. Also, religious values and morals need not in any way reflect even the overt morals and values of the religion. I doubt Muhammed would have flown a plane into a building. I doubt Jesus would have tortured people if they did not pledge their devotion to him. And I'm sure there can be found many other examples.
-JaLong

----
[[FishMonger]], you make my point exactly. A story is a mirror that people project their own viewpoint and understandings onto.

I do not see you having made your point, unless it is that religions make use of myths. Which I never disagreed with. Just the fact that myths are merely stories, and that we bring our own viewpoint and understanding to the story.

I do disagree with the viewpoint that myths are religions. I see it as seperate. Not because of any greater truth or untruth or whatever involved. But due to the fact that a myth is a just a story.

Star Wars is just a fictional series of stories. Yet there are people out there trying to create a full religion out of the few bits of the story. They've projected their beliefs onto it, and grown it. Should the Cult/Religion of Jedi succeed or fail, that does not make the myth of Star Wars: A New Hope a Cult or Religion. It is merely a story.

There are several cults of vampirism. Most are based on a few modern fictional stories. That does not make the stories religion.

A story is merely a story. One can take look through any religion that was practiced for long enough time to leave records of itself, and one will find stories that were used as teaching tools/aids in that religion. Whether it is to explain how the earth and mankind was created, or why it is good to be kind to strangers, or to beware the evil that lurks in the unknown. (For a few examples.) The stories themselves may make use of holy icons (people, powers, etc) of the cult in question, but that doesn't make it religion. If I tell a tell of Mohammed or Jesus or Budda, that doesn't make it instantly part of the proscribed religious belief and behavior. Only the community that participated in that religion can do that.

Stories are only stories. A myth is just a story whose origin is clouded to us. We know Steven King authored 'Christine'. We do not know who authored the story of the haunted car of route 16.

Myths, having been around for a while, also tend to have several flavors around. As the stories mutate and morph, from teller and telling to teller and telling. How many different tellings are their of the star-crossed lovers?

A study of stories will show that there are certain re-occuring story frameworks. Perhaps you'd be interested in reading up on such?

The fact that a story is a story does not make it a religion. Titantic (the movie), after all, is certainly no appendix to the New Testament or the Koran.

[[JaLong]], The publishing of Arthurian tales turning into the modern Romance story publishing industry has nothing to do with Religions and Mythologies. I just found it an interesting footnote and thought I'd share it with the rest of this Collective.

In my view, a religion is a belief/behavioral system, while a myth is just a story. How Moses was given The 10 Commandments is a ''story''. The 10 Commandments themselves are the keystone to modern Christian behavior expected guidelines. Respect your beliefs, respect your elders, respect your neighbor, do no harm to others. (ie, play nice together)

---StarPilot

I'm going to look to my old buddy Merriam-Webster Online for this topic. www.m-w.com

-religion -- 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith.

-myth -- 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

-myth -- 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone.....

-mythology -- 2 a : a body of myths

If a myth is a belief and mythology is a body of myths, then mythology can be taken as a synonym for religion in some cases.  Put another way, there is no practical difference between a 'system of beliefs' (religion) and a 'body of [[beliefs]]' (mythology).

It is important to note that both 'religion' and 'mythology' have many meanings.  Semantic arguments are best undertaken with the help of a dictionary.

-OutRadulous

----
Once again, [[OutRadulous]] articulates my thoughts in a way that I could not.
You can't argue my definition by deciding what the words mean with arbitrary useages.

-JaLong
----
Actually, the debate is over whenever someone pulls out a dictionary. That's a sign that they have run out of ideas, conversation, and debate.

Note that [[OutRadulous]] picks the narrow meaning of 'belief' when Webster states all a ''myth'' is a story (and then details what the story is about: A person, place, or thing. A belief is merely a thing that belongs to one or more people or organisations of people).

You are out and done, [[OutRadulous]]. Your own selective dictionary quotation does not back you. You cannot narrow down a myth to just about a belief, using the dictionary as a 'more knowledgable/objective/authoritative source". Therefore your further thought trail that mythologies, as sets of myths, are sets of belief and therefore religion, fails the test of basic logic.

2 biggest signs any debate is over on the Internet:
* quoting a dictionary.
* invoking of Hitler, Nazis, or Nazi Germany.

There's a few other signs that an Internet debate is over, but those are the most common.

A myth is merely a story. Consider the myth of how Aphrodite (Venus) is born. Zues (Jupiter) defeats his father, and whacks of his manhood (for whatever reason). Zues then tosses the man bits into the ocean. The blood from Chronos mixes with the ocean's foam, and from that immortal foamed blood springs Aphrodite, grown and whole. Where's the behavior system? Nowhere. This is an event, not a 'how you should act'. Event: Birth of Goddess and circumstances leading up to it. We can project into that all sorts of morals, but that is us projecting our beliefs onto the framework of the story.

Myth is merely a story. Consider the myth of Excalibur. There are several myths about that sword and how Arthur comes to wield it. One is that it is the Sword in the Stone, placed there by various means. In those myths, it will only allow itself to be drawn by the blood line of Pendragon. In other myths, Arthur goes to the Lady of the Lake, who gives to him the Pagan Sword of Kingship. In yet others, Merlin takes the best man forged steel, enchants it with the strongest magics suitable for a blade, and gives it to Arthur, to make sure his friend/student has the best sword a fighting man could possibly have. Again, these are merely stories of an event; specifically how Arthur gains the magical sword, Excalibur. We can project onto these stories all sorts of possible meanings, and again, that is we, the audience, projecting our understanding and world views unto the framework of the story.

If you want to believe that myth and religion are the same thing, fine. But that isn't true, in my viewpoint and understanding. Religions are behavioral frameworks for its community of believers. Myths are simply stories. While some stories can be about how you should act, and why, that are taught according to a particular religion, that does not make the myth a part of the behavioral system of that religion. Merely a tool used in the religion.

Furthermore, I can take your stance, and point you at what some people are calling [[RealScience]] around here. That is nothing more then a belief set as well, regardless of how one splits the hair. So all of Science is just a mythology/religion then? I see your position set forth here as having to agree with that. Otherwise you are being inconsistant in how you apply your boundary on where mythology stops.

---StarPilot

We, [[StarPilot]], are agreeing on using a dictionary to define a word. You are making up your own definitions. But, yes, Science is just a mythology/religion. Mythology has as much behavioral relevance as a religion. And in the end, all three end up being discarded as primitive at worst, merely closer but still not actually the truth at best. They are a set of beliefs. And, while I had intentially opened a can of worms by claiming that religion and mythology were one and the same, only to watch other people (hopefully religious ones) struggle with the concept, the point of my discussion was not to develop new and false arguements defending the [[AbsurdityOfMorality]]. My point was to make my statement and watch someone try to show me I'm wrong. Being wrong would have been refreshing, but I think you've failed miserably at leading me to that conclustion.
-JaLong

If quoting a dictionary serves to demonstrate that two people, i.e. [[StarPilot]] and [[JaLong]], are having two different conversations, then it might actually help the conversation to continue.  Perhaps I'm not up on my blog etiquette, or have committed some meme faux pas, but words have definitions.  Those definitions swim, float, sink, and get real soggy in the [[SeaOfLies]].  The dictionary does not impose the meanings; it lets one see how others in the world are using words so that we might come [[CloserToUnderstanding]] one another.  I'm just as entitled to use the narrow definition of the word 'belief' as anyone else is to use a broad definition.  If one fails to regard with any concern the meaning a speaker or writer intends to communicate, conversations become only conversations with oneself.  My use of the dictionary was intended only to highlight what I saw as the meaning [[JaLong]] intended to convey with the word 'mythology,' which began the conversation, not to limit the definition of the word in any broader context.  That your response was so lengthy dispels the MYTH that quoting the dictionary ends a discussion, [[StarPilot]].  You said "Myth is only a story"; I think you were quoting the dictionary [[InYourHead]].

-OutRadulous

----
One someone brings into a debate such as this a dictionary, it is done purely for the purpose of trying to invoke an ''''authority'''', to make the other guy give up and surrender. That's general Netiquette. It is not done as a matter to bring about mutual understanding. The invoker has run out of reasons, counterpoints, or patience. When someone wants to discuss what the meaning of a particular word is, they may start the conversation with the defination, or examples of what they think the word means, and then ask if that is how others use the word. If I am wrong about why you decided you needed a dictionary, my apologies, but that is my experience.

However, since I was feeling like there may still be few paths of interesting viewpoints to be explored, and that we might still come to a mutual understanding on this, I am still continuing with my side of this conversation.

A myth is merely a subset of all stories. (Not all stories are myths, but all myths are stories.) Not even the entire set of myths that are traditionally associated with a particular religion will deal with religious behaviors or beliefs. Again, a drop point, a point of failure for the statement religion = mythologies.

A religion is an organised belief and behavioral system. Note that. Religion is the community. It is the collective of those that participate in it. It is not a story. A religion may have teachings that utilize stories and myths which include some part or even the entirety of the religions beliefs and behavioral code, but that still does not make the story/myth a religion. That myth is still a story. It may be perhaps a long, boring epic to you and me, but that's still a story.

Look, all the local police in my city use Ford Crown Victoria cars. However, that does not make all Ford Crown Victoria cars in my city part of the local police force. In the same fashion, religions use myths and stories. But not all myths and stories are used only by religions.

When a religion is no longer practiced, it is not unusual for its stories and myths to continue to exist/be told. Look at all the ancient Egyptian and Aztec stories and myths we know today. Again, this does not make them a religion. Merely stories.

I do not think I am using these words as merely known to myself. We seem to be using the same meanings for the word story and myth. Where I see our disagreement, is some implied values in the term: ''''religion''''.

Religions are organizations. Organizations are communities. A story is not a collection of "individuals cooperating" (basic meaning for community). So how can a religion, a community, be a story?

The impression I am gathering, is that someone has some issues with individuals from their past, and how those individuals acted as members of their religion(s). I do not know if this is right, but it is the impression I am recieving.

I am not claiming that religions have a specialness to them that other organisations or communities do not. I am disagreeing with the ascertation that myths are organisations. To state that all religions are myths is incorrect, and mixes your apples with your cinder blocks.

---StarPilot

[[StarPilot]], you are right.  Now I think you've adequately made the distinction between religion and mythology.  Now a question for this thread:

Why distinguish between ancient myths and religious doctrines?  The Old and New Testaments of Christianity are stories -- even the Ten Commandments are set forth in the STORY of Moses, not as an omnibus declaration. Is a persistent popular belief in a doctrine really a good reason not to regard it as myth? Are we engaging in political correctness for its own sake if we treat the doctrines of modern religion more delicately than the doctrines of 'extinct' religions?

-OutRadulous

Ah, now, there's a fine question.

Why should we treat practiced religions doctrine differently from no-longer practiced religions doctrine? That's simple... social repercussions. If I am willing to risk angering or hurting the feelings of that community, then I do not need to treat their doctrines with any special handling. However, if I do not wish to be upset the members of that religion, I will then have to be more circumspect/polite in discussing their doctrines.

It's the same with any social group. A basic bit of tribalism, rearing its head. Of [[UsVersusThem]] (I mean, [[UsAndThem]]) thinking. The ego of the individual having extended out to cover all the group, rather then the lone individual. I think this is just an effect of the mechanism of idetification with the group. After all, as an American citizen, I get irate with my foreign friends that make insulting comments about 'America' (refering to politics, military, corporations). I include myself in the group of 'Americans', and therefore my ego is hurt by such insults when I am not conscious they mean a different group then I do when I say that word.

Regardless of the groups orientation (political, religious, ancestorial, hobby, whatever), anything that picks on the group can be seen as insulting by its members. The groups they are emotionally invested in are part of their self-identity, and as a consequence, anything that picks on that group, for whatever means, picks on them. And therefore the individual reacts accordingly.

So, if you are willing to upset the members of that religion, go ahead and treat it like anything else. If are not, then be more 'socially polite' about it. It's not that the religion is special organization. Indeed, it is just a community, as any other.

A side flight: The epic story of Moses includes how his people gained the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments themselves are merely the summation of the Top Ten rules of expected behavior. ;-)

---StarPilot