HO! HO! HO! Merry Mithramas!

Originally posted by David C
Lines like "According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God' " lead me to ask for sources.

Quite. It's a starting point, though. And I learnt the word henotheism from it.

Here's an overview of the origins of Mithraism, which doesn't adopt an anti-Christian starting viewpoint:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/mom04.htm

You all should read the works of René Girard:

The memetic desire: http://www.cottet.org/girard/desir1.en.htm

The Scapegoat mechanism: http://www.strauss.za.com/phl/wdb_scapegoat.html

Are the gospels mythical ? http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html


In the following, with the help of the above mentioned article, I will try and explain what the essence of René Girards's Theory of the Mimetic Desire and the Theory of the Scapegoatmechanism is all about:



Are the Gospels Mythical?

"What the myths systematically hide, the Bible reveals."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rene Girard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1996 First Things 62 (April 1996): 27-31.

"From the earliest days of Christianity, the Gospels' resemblance to certain myths has been used as an argument against Christian faith. When pagan apologists for the official pantheism of the Roman empire denied that the death-and-resurrection myth of Jesus differed in any significant way from the myths of Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, Attis, etc., they failed to stem the rising Christian tide. In the last two hundred years, however, as anthropologists have discovered all over the world foundational myths that similarly resemble Jesus' Passion and Resurrection, the notion of Christianity as a myth seems at last to have taken hold-even among Christian believers."

"The role of Satan, the personification of scandals, helps us to understand the mimetic conception of the Gospels. To the question How can Satan cast out Satan? (Mark 3:23), the answer is unanimous victimization. On the one hand, Satan is the instigator of scandal, the force that disintegrates communities; on the other hand, he is the resolution of scandal in unanimous victimization. This trick of last resort enables the prince of this world to rescue his possessions in extremis, when they are too badly threatened by his own disorder. Being both a principle of disorder and a principle of order, Satan is truly divided against himself."

"Beginning with the story of Cain and Abel, the Bible proclaims the innocence of mythical victims and the guilt of their victimizers. Living after the widespread promulgation of the gospel, we find this natural and never pause to think that in classical myths the opposite is true: the persecutors always seem to have a valid cause to persecute their victims. The Dionysiac myths regard even the most horrible lynchings as legitimate. Pentheus in the Bacchae is legitimately slain by his mother and sisters, for his contempt of the god Dionysus is a fault serious enough to warrant his death. Oedipus, too, deserves his fate. According to the myth, he has truly killed his father and married his mother, and is thus truly responsible for the plague that ravages Thebes. To cast him out is not merely a permissible action, but a religious duty."

Even if they are not accused of any crime, mythical victims are still supposed to die for a good cause, and their innocence makes their deaths no less legitimate. In the Vedic myth of Purusha, for instance, no wrongdoing is mentioned-but the tearing apart of the victim is nonetheless a holy deed. The pieces of Purusha's body are needed to create the three great castes, the mainstay of Indian society. In myth, violent death is always justified.

If the violence of myths is purely mimetic-if it is like the Passion, as Jesus says-all these justifications are false. And yet, since they systematically reverse the true distribution of innocence and guilt, such myths cannot be purely fictional. They are lies, certainly, but the specific kind of lie called for by mimetic contagion-the false accusation that spreads mimetically throughout a disturbed human community at the climax when scandals polarize against the single scapegoat whose death reunites the community. The myth-making machine is the mimetic contagion that disappears behind the myth it generates.

There is nothing secret about the justifications espoused by myths; the stereotypical accusations of mob violence are always available when the search for scapegoats is on. In the Gospels, however, the scapegoating machinery is fully visible because it encounters opposition and no longer operates efficiently. The resistance to the mimetic contagion prevents the myth from taking shape. The conclusion in the light of the Gospels is inescapable: myths are the voice of communities that unanimously surrender to the mimetic contagion of victimization."

"Instead of blaming victimization on the victims, the Gospels blame it on the victimizers. What the myths systematically hide, the Bible reveals. This difference is not merely "moralistic" (as Nietzsche believed) or a matter of subjective choice; it is a question of truth. When the Bible and the Gospels say that the victims should have been spared, they do not merely "take pity" on them. They puncture the illusion of the unanimous victimization that foundational myths use as a crisis-solving and reordering device of human communities."



Are the gospels mythical ? http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html

Originally posted by Nemesio
Wow.

This guy was born of a virgin, was killed and rose from the dead.

I wonder why he didn't have a big following?

Nemesio

Trial and error.

New comments from our readers on the "Readers Write" page, including this one from Stanley Hauerwas:

"Rene Girard has been a godsend to many, as he has helped--as Karl Barth and John Yoder help--many to rediscover the strange new world of the Bible. Indeed, part of that rediscovery involves the surprise that the Gospel frees us from the violence that grips our lives. This web site wonderfully provides resources for the kind of discussion we so desperately need if we are not to lose hold of the nonviolence of the Gospel."

http://www.preachingpeace.org/yearb/lent2.htm

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You all should read the works of René Girard:

The memetic desire: http://www.cottet.org/girard/desir1.en.htm

The Scapegoat mechanism: http://www.strauss.za.com/phl/wdb_scapegoat.html

Are the gospels mythical ? http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html



[b]Are the Gospels Mythical?


------- ...[text shortened]... re the gospels mythical ? http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html[/b]

This difference is not merely "moralistic" (as Nietzsche believed) or a matter of subjective choice; it is a question of truth. [b]When the Bible and the Gospels say that the victims should have been spared, they do not merely "take pity" on them. They puncture the illusion of the unanimous victimization that foundational myths use as a crisis-solving and reordering device of human communities."
[/b]

How is that difference not merely moralistic?

The reordering of human communities can be achieved (history serves as proof) through the mentioned victimization. To wonder if they are imperfect or not relies only on moral issues.

Originally posted by Palynka

As the article states it is not merely a moralistic difference, but of truth. The Gospels "puncture the illusion of the unanimous victimization that foundational myths use as a crisis-solving and reordering device of human communities."

So, it's not merely "moralistic".

Originally posted by ivanhoe
As the article states it is not merely a moralistic difference, but of truth. The Gospels "puncture the illusion of the unanimous victimization that foundational myths use as a crisis-solving and reordering device of human communities."

So, it's not merely "moralistic".

Thank you for repeating the text like a parrot and ignoring what I said.

Originally posted by Palynka
Thank you for repeating the text like a parrot and ignoring what I said.

Because the text answers your question. What can I say ?

Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean if you think I missed your point.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Because the text answers your question. What can I say ?

Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean if you think I missed your point.

Victimization has served society before the gospels and has continued to serve afterwards. One may say that there is another, more moral, way to reorganize communities, but you cannot say that victimization was ineffective.

Note that there is no way to back up the statement that it victimization was less efficient since history cannot be rewritten, hence we would be comparing different points in time with absolutely different conditions.
The question here cannot be posed regarding efficiency, but effectiveness.

Hence, since both are effective, a comparision between the two reordering devices is merely a moral comparision.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You all should read the works of René Girard.

It appears we shall all have to, at some point in this discussion. Right now, though, I'm trying to achieve a better understanding of Mithras.

Originally posted by Palynka
Victimization has served society before the gospels and has continued to serve afterwards. One may say that there is another, more moral, way to reorganize communities, but you cannot say that victimization was ineffective.

Note that there is no way to back up the statement that it victimization was less efficient since history cannot be rewritten, hence ...[text shortened]... h are effective, a comparision between the two reordering devices is merely a moral comparision.

" but you cannot say that victimization was ineffective."

It depends on what point of view you take. From Satan's point of view it is most effective, but from the point of view of promoting truth, justice and lasting true peace victimisation of innocent scapegoats certainly is not effective.

Fact is that the resemblance to certain myths have been used as a weapon against Christian Faith. Also in this thread this is being done. What René Girard's discovery is about, is that it explains what the difference is between the Gospels and certain myths. The myths are, if you like, effective lies. In restoring peace they blame the innocent victim and clear the true victimisers of the blame. Thát is the lie of the myths. The Gospel reveals these mythical lies by exposing the underlying mechanisms of memetic desire and the scapegoatmechanism. Myths have the function of hiding these mechanisms and the underlying truth. The Gospel reveals them. The Gospel is about installing Justice and Truth. The myths are about covering up the truth to let "peace" return to society, until a next scapegoat, a next victim, is necessary to bring "peace". The Gospel is therefore not mythical.

The role of Satan should be considered in all of this. He is the cause of all instability and desintegration in society. If he wants to continue his rule he needs stability in his realm. He achieves this by continually apply the mechanism of victimisation if the desintegration becomes a threat to his rule. We see that on one hand Satan is the force that disintegrates society, but on the other hand, if the desintegration goes too far, he has to stop this by victimisation. Satan is a principle of order and of disorder. He is truly divided against himself.

It is of vital importance to realise that the Gospel has revealed these mechanisms, who are in a way effective, but in order to brake Satan's rule these mechanisms have to become known to humanity. This is what the Gospel does, it reveals. The myths conceal. There lies the difference. The Gospel is very effective in breaking Satan's rule, myths are not.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Also in this thread this is being done.

No, it is not. Speaking for myself--and them.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, it is not. Speaking for myself--and them.

I was talking about the first post, its author and those who are very zealous in, lets say, "neutralising" Christian faith.

It is best to speak for yourself here .... you never know what comes up next 😉

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It appears we shall all have to, at some point in this discussion. Right now, though, I'm trying to achieve a better understanding of Mithras.

Then my contribution explaining the differences between the Gospel and myths must be very helpfull in achieving your goal. That was the main idea behind it all. The difference between Mithras and the Gospel is that Mithras is a myth and the Gospel is not, according to René Girard. I have explained why he states this. I hope my contribution was enlightening in this respect.