How come older faiths with few followers are considered mythology, when they are no less belivable then mainstream religons.

Because it's a popularity contest.

Many older religions speak of things like Dragons and stuff like that, which is a lot of stuff people havent seen so they call it myths. Thus they call it Mythology.

The Bible speaks of dragons.

That too

But not in such large amounts as other, older faiths. The major world faiths now seem to have more grounds in reality.

yeah the bible speaks of dragons and giants and human/god hybrids.
mary's Yahweh's baby momma

True that, you have to excuse me, I havent studied the Bible. But take other faiths then, other main faiths, they seem to be grounded in reality more. They also include science too, which is a big thing.

I have to disagree with you here. The Bible speaks of many fantastic things. At times, there doesn't seem to be a basis in reality. You have talking serpents, beings with four faces, rods turning into snakes, etc.

...I retract my statement Truly, I havent sat down and read the entire Bible. but I know in other faiths, there are more grounds in science, and thats whats mostly lacking in the 'mythological' faiths.

I would say that since the Bible is interpretable, people say that it is scientific. However, plants were around before the sun was in the Bible. Not too scientific in my opinion.
What other faiths are you referring to?

I've only in depth studied Islam, so I will post some examples of science in the Qur'an.

Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe? [Qur’an 21:30]

That explains the Big Bang.


In the Holy Qur'an God speaks about the stages of man's embryonic development.
"We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of setllement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)..."

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings:
1)leech, 2) suspended thing, and 3) blood clot.

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two. Also the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.

The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” The suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.

The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage. Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week. Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

The next stage mentioned is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and the compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage is similar in appearance to a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teehmarks in a chewed substance” (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 8.)

And man was made of clay, that's interesting. Reminds me first man, Adam (in the Old Testament).
Adam means "of the Red Earth" (adama=reddish). Ah-Dam is Akkadian for "life blood" and the Sumerians used the word to mean "blood clot".

Thats interesting. So its all sort of inter-related. Red Earth huh? So, red sand?
And yeah, thats what I meant by science in world faiths.

Thoth knew was good with science

I just wanted to add this as a side comment. Its funny how it always draws down to us three debating something. Strange huh.

Or red dust. Because in Genesis, the punishment for the serpent was to "eat the dust" for all of his days. And I thought it didn't make sense. But my interpretation is that Adam was made of red dust. So dust must mean flesh. So the snake was set to eat the flesh of mammals, which it does.


I agree. It's evident in the Emerald Tablets. He inspired Mercury, etc.
"As above, so below"

"Or red dust. Because in Genesis, the punishment for the serpent was to "eat the dust" for all of his days. And I thought it didn't make sense. But my interpretation is that Adam was made of red dust. So dust must mean flesh. So the snake was set to eat the flesh of mammals, which it does."

Do you think it can be taken to mean a certain place which Adam originated? As in, he came from the land of red sand?

Aaleyah what faith are you

Wow, I haven't noticed that.


But he was made of dust, and when he dies, he'll turn to dust. It also says this in Genesis. His flesh becomes the earth and so on. But some people believe that Adam was symbolic of a tribe of people (from a certain land).
"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed" (Genesis 2:8). Then the majestic words become quite specific: "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates"
-Genesis 2:10-14
I think this would have been around Iraq. The dust would have been more "yellowish" then right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

All the good things come in threes. Before anyone says couples I have a girlfriend who has a girlfriend and her girlfriend's boyfriend is me. so we have a love triangle

I have a girlfriend too, does this make it a pyramid

On a serious note, three is a powerful number.

how is that a pyramid

Because it's more "dimensional" than a triangle, like a love triangle. But ignore me, I was just being sarcastic.

After reading that whole triangle thing, I realised what happens when Im gone So Im back and Im going to talk on topic about that red sand thing.

There's red sand in Australia and I'd imagine red sand being somewhere in the Middle East, right? You were right about that place being somewhere around Iraq, as we can see in the map.



However as you said, I think the dust is yellowish. I'm trying to find more information about where red sand can be located.

AnuKabal - I tend to find myself believing in things that Yogi's and Fakirs do. Something like a Buddhist Islamic...however that works. And I also believe that all religions have something to offer, as they all come from the same tree.

God Bless.

Not to hijack this thread, but Jesus was not a hybrid. John writes that in the beginning was the Word (jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God. He was in the beginning with God (Jn 1:1).

Clearly, Jesus was alive as God before Mary got pregga's. Thus fully God, not half

ANyhow, the simple answer to the original post is time frame. One could say Religion and Mythology are interchangeable words. It is in the modern context though that mythology takes on a negative connotation, whereas religion does not (at least not to the same extent). I suppose one could make a distinction between Ancient mythology and Modern mythology, but what would be the point?

Basically, it's simply a modern convention of the English speaking world.

At least that's my view.

Regards, PA

Actually, this is a concept borrowed from the ancient Egyptians who believed that Amun the Creator created the world as a bubble in an infinite ocean that totally surrounded it. All life was created from the water of the ocean, in other words, “life from the dead waters of the universal ocean”. This concept has been around since at least 2500 BCE and refined and retold by numerous ancient religions.

What you are showing me is that Muslims are just like Christians in that they attempt to show how “scientific” their mythology is! Good try, but no seegar! It really says about what that other mythological book (the bible) says, that god created man out of mud (the dust of the earth)…nothing more, no matter the pretty semantics you use!

Mako, a quick question- why don't you make a thread about your creators way of making us? Wouldn't it be nice to see us Christians say things about it?

Just a thought.

Not everyone likes their faith and reasoning butchered- why not deism or another?

Wouldn't it be just as fun?

Why is it always Christians or a abrahamic religion that is torn apart into pieces. Couldn't others be done the same.

I just don't understand why we cannot do the same?


PS: I am not mad at you.

101 what you percieve as ranking and bashing , some see as maturity and growth, A truly sound and worthwhile value structure can withstand alittle scrutinty, In alot of cases the bible is accepted on faith thats all good for religon it keeps the doors open but in the real world very little is taken on faith, IMO its a fools folly. As a mother yourself 101 you wouldn't want your daughter just beleiving anything excepting things on faith because someone you don't even know said so?? Would you???Namaste Sheri

Just to define myth, legend, and history through the literary lens:
1. Myth has no basis in fact. A myth is pure fiction, likely allegorical and metaphorical.
2. Legend has basis in fact, sometimes exaggerated and/or expanded.
3. History is slippery when it comes to factual information. This is why a minimum of three credible, irrefutable sources are now required by scholars to be considered the New Standard of Historical Truth. However, logic dictates that there are always multiple "versions" of a given historical truth, so that slipperiness still remains to an extent.

More on topic: Many Cultural Anthropology scholars/theorists believe that at some point during early pre-history "we" had something akin to a shared or an in-common experience which transcended the generations and evolutions which followed. A pragmatic example of this is the simultaneous acquiring of the knowledge to build boats and utilize them as transportation vessels. Explaining religious and/or mystical beliefs may very well have their impetus in much the same way. Since the origins of this theory are easily tens of thousands of years (at least) removed from us, the possibility of uncovering the who, when, what, how, and why, is remote.

No no Sherri, The reasoning for my post is because I really like deism. If I were not already a Christian I would be a deist. I love mako. He is my buddy.

I just think that all of this is always all about Christianity, islam, etc. Why is it so bad?

Could it be said that other religions are just as silly?

Yes it is. I think that any religion should be treated the same. Shouldn't it.

I think my little girl will know what is what. She is trully bright and already asks questions about stuff. I don't think she will be the tyope to just accept my belief without looking into it.

And if the "sun stood still" (not very scientific in itself) but anyway, if it "stood still" or the earth stopped its rotation, it would have been fried to a crisp.

101 IMO most religions are silly, You beleive in a construct that promotes marytdom, as being noble and the highest state of divinity, so it seems you may percieve yourself and your religon as picked on when in reality its not, it is what it is either you see that or you don't, be what you want you don't need our approval or exceptance, one that is confident in there beleifs speaks of them very little. namaste sheri

Why?

Why wouldn't someone want to share their way to heaven- their beliefs. That bring them comfort. This is something that should be shared with others. I love discussing what others believe.

But I guess that is what is different between Christianity and other religions.

Because beliefs are nothing more than how you live your life, who you have decided you are , they aren't who you are not really they are who someone has said you are to know anything you have to set aside your beleifs, You are sharing that you are religious, and that you 'know' the way, At my place there are only perceptions 101 the way is so obvious when you really look you will laugh at the ideas of man its simple as that mon amie. Truth needs no promotion or fanfare it stands strong on its own.Namaste Sheri

Part of the problem that is immediately encountered is the idea that Christianity represents an ultimate truth. In its most logical sense, a truth needs no promotion, ministry, evangelism or defense. Truth is self evident and is not open to debate or discussion as we have here. We think, we breathe, life exists . . . these are truths and there are no doubts about them. No one needs faith that they exist. They are immune to argument. That is truth.

The thing that attracts Christians (in my humble opinion) is the sense that they have achieved some elevated place in the scheme of things. You refer to being "inside" the knowledge (as I recall) which clearly eludes to others as being "outside." The feeling that Christians now possess the secret impact of God's participation in their lives and have the exhaulted state of living under his influence.

very well put namaste Sheri

Oh I guess that is why.

I suppose we don't argue about other religions because they accept all and that all are right. But if a religion accepts all do they accept Christianity?


What makes the ones you don't question right?

No, that's not it at all. First of all, other religions don't have missionaries hawking their beliefs to the rest of the world. Their belief system is self-contained and sufficient as it serves their lives without trying to convince others that it is right.

Other religions do not present the horrific tale of bloodshed, destruction and deception in its attempts to grow.

Most other religions are no so arrogant as to propose that their belief is the ONLY belief acceptable to God. And it is good to remember that God is God by any name and many of those belief systems represent a God akin to the Old Testament.

I just don't know what to say to that.

I never go around telling of the bloodshed to win a persons heart. I also never have tried imposing a belief on anyone. I just love them and if they ask I share. I don't think someone would want me to just go about shouting that they are hell bound. When they may very well not be. I would not know. So why should I yell at them and convert them?

That was my point about politics, as well. I personally think Bush is an idiot but that opinion does not extend to the people of the United States.

You represent YOU in your personal beliefs even though you call yourself a Christian. In that light I completely accept you and your beliefs with the utmost respect.

Christianity, however, is another matter and what it has done to the world and millions of its people defames it as a religion. The doctrine itself proclaims that you should be a disciple of your faith. You may do that in your own way, such as presenting your views here in UM. But Christianity has a long and horrid history of zealots who burned the Library of Alexandria, intentionally gave blankets infected with smallpox to those who would not accept their faith, destroyed the priceless works of the Aztecs and Mayans . . . .

We will not get into the Holy Land Crusades here or the Albigensian Crusade or other conflicts inspired by the Christian ideal . . . .

iaapac again well said!!!!


101 you are a dear sweet girl who means well but you do preach that christianity is the only way, Re read your posts I would say, Of course its cloaked in the many reasons as to why you can't betray your religion. You just said earlier you are interested in diesm but you can't pursue it, for religious reasons. Why would you not explore other constructs paths?? Maybe because you have excepted on faith that christainity is "right' yet when the truth of christianity is presented with proof you dismiss it , I would call that arrogance. wouldn't you?? Humbleness will not be found in religion only righteousness !! To actually profess that ther could only be one way to divinity is funny. namaste sheri

Again we agree Sherri . . . .

I often wonder why we need structure and printed words to be greater than ourselves. I wonder why we cannot discover the realm within ourselves. I wonder why we cannot communicate with the world and universe in which we were placed. I wonder why we are not sufficient unto ourselves. I wonder why we dwell within the myths and superstitions perpetuated from an ancient past. I wonder why we cannot believe that God lives within us and we within him.

I believe that God is something that everyone feels. I mean what would a blind, deaf, and mute person know of a god? If God exists wouldn't they know him. How could they know Christianity or any other religion all they might know is God. Not the God of the Bible or anyone else but them.

Very beautiful Iaapac, these are truly great questions!!!! ones I have and still ask namaste
sheri

Now we agree . . . . even though they might not call him God . . . . It might be something far more spiritual than doctrinal.

Sorry, today has been very hectic and I am just now getting where I can post an answer to 101:


Actually, Deists don’t have a dogma or a set of scriptures, so there is no creation story for the Deists. We believe that we can discover the Creator through exercising our thirst for knowledge and our logic. Right now, we tend to buy into the scientific explanation of the beginning, but are open to any other explanation (as long as valid evidence is also presented). It is rather hard to butcher a belief that has no dogma, that operates only on logic and knowledge and that doesn’t subscribe to any type of mythology.


The Abrahamic religions are usually butchered because their members have a very limited knowledge of the history of their religion and tend to let faith blind them to the inconsistencies of their dogma, whcih leads them to make claims that don't hold water and is usually inconsistent with their own dogma. So far, no Buddhist, Taoist, etc has come on the forum making the claims that Christians make, else they too would be butchered, I’m sure.

Thanks for that

As the Wheel of Time turns, Ages come and pass, leaving memory that becomes Legend. Legend fades to myth and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave its birth comes again..... *quoted from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series*

Legend, myth, fact. I believe they are all inseperable. It just depends on ones viewpoint.

Regards, PA

You know, I had a discussion recently with a Hare Krishna guy standing in the street stopping people at random. Would this not be considered a "missionary"?

I've also been stopped by Buddhists doing the same................

I know what you mean
I agree with you. Organized Christianity has a very bloody past, not one that I (or indeed most Christians today) would be happy with. As I've said before, we cannot change the past, only learn from it. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so they say.
And you preach that Christianity is false and full of lies, a victim's construct.

We all argue things from our own point of view. Since a Christian does believe theirs is the only way *insert bible quote here to backup statement * naturally in argument, that will show. What 101 said, I quoted earlier in this post. Stating our belief is different to pushing it on someone else, or trying to convert them or scare them or any such thing. Right?

Regards, PA

iaapac,

Regarding your post, #41: defending a clear-cut separation (both in time and ideology) between religion and politics (in terms of construct and agenda) would make for the Ultimate, Best Ever, Unparalled Dissertation Defense. Just the mere thought of considering the "cause and effect" aspects has my neurons spinning dizzy.

And, #43: You wrote an excellent, personalized, and cultivated definition (I love definitions that contain questions--like Socrates) of Humanism.

*Superb additions to this thread... to this forum. Thank you.*