1. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    01 Oct '10 02:42
    Hi All,

    This is an excerpt from the "about" section on a site I have recently discovered.
    I post for both the thought expressed, and to point to a site some here may appreciate. Other links there worth exploring too (imo).
    >>>

    "Isn't a myth something that is usually considered to be a lie or falsehood?

    "A myth came to be considered a falsehood as the result of the transformations of science which proved that the Bible was factually wrong. So the word "myth" came to mean falsehood in common parlance as the result of the fact that that we now know the creation mythology of the Bible to be incorrect.

    But a myth is only a falsehood insofar as poetry and metaphor and the imagination generally would be thought of as being "false," i.e. in the sense of being physically untrue. Nobody but a blockhead would say a poem is worthless because it is imaginatively untrue. Now, there is no such thing as a centaur or a minotaur, but the images nevertheless convey a reality that is inwardly true to the psyche. These are images of the human soul given over to its animal impulses, its lower degenerate nature. Thus, the image, while factually untrue is nevertheless inwardly, spiritually or metaphysically true. This is what metaphor is all about. When we say, "that guy's a clown," we don't mean he is literally dressed like a clown; we mean that he behaves with the same level of incompetence as a clown. So this idea of myth being invalid because it is factually false is merely a prosaic understanding of what myth is all about."

    - John David Ebert"

    http://www.singleeyemovement.com/about-sem
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91660
    01 Oct '10 05:23
    I think myths are very important to convey stories about things that mankind experienced long ago.
    Many myths have endured because they do contain some truths.
    Some types of info/stories can only be expressed in myth form because our means of interpretting data is not suficciently evolved enough to understand the message directly.

    Does anyone have any specific myths that has any significance for them or that they just resonate with?
  3. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    01 Oct '10 08:302 edits
    Myths, in general, are backbones for messages.
    We have a lot of supernatural stuff representing inner psyches (gods depicting hubris or anger or some other exaggerated emotion/people doing incredible feats and acts) going along in these things. The setting is necessary to provide a familiar scenario and foundation to get the idea across. This is where we see religious stories bearing strong connotations with the culture is was founded within. Perhaps a simplistic twist on it- allegories to provide a connection for a viable means to express a message.

    Then there is another point that was touched on. If we were to ignore a myth having a certain meaning, message or "moral/virtue" (even for sake of argument it doesn't matter if it does have it), the fact remains that people will react to it and form their own perspectives around it. The physical existence of Jesus is an example I'd like to use. Whether or not he did walk the earth, we still have people revolving a lot of thought and action around him. So in this sense, he does exist because people base aspects on his teachings etc. regardless. The same flow of thought applied to any mythology.

    Interesting to note the strong representative symbology seamlessly flows across a lot of myths. Archetypes such as gods, sacrifice, nature, demons, destruction (by a greater power), rebellion... I wonder what could be said for this? Do peoples inherently have the same/similar instinctual symbols for conveying whatever the message is supposed to be?
  4. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    01 Oct '10 13:40
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    I think myths are very important to convey stories about things that mankind experienced long ago.
    Many myths have endured because they do contain some truths.
    Some types of info/stories can only be expressed in myth form because our means of interpretting data is not suficciently evolved enough to understand the message directly.

    Does anyone have any specific myths that has any significance for them or that they just resonate with?
    The Christian/Judaic Creation myth is very rich in wider meanings for me. There are lots of others too of course. The first paragraphs of Genesis are favorites of mine when approached as poetry-myth. It is an almost exact copy of earlier Babylonian creation myths and they are amongst the earliest human recorded responses of awe to the fact of existence. I understand in the original languages they are written in a poetic metre.
  5. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    01 Oct '10 13:58
    Originally posted by ua41
    Myths, in general, are backbones for messages.
    We have a lot of supernatural stuff representing inner psyches (gods depicting hubris or anger or some other exaggerated emotion/people doing incredible feats and acts) going along in these things. The setting is necessary to provide a familiar scenario and foundation to get the idea across. This is where we see ...[text shortened]... e the same/similar instinctual symbols for conveying whatever the message is supposed to be?
    Backbones for messages", I like that.
    Joseph Campbell, the great American comparative mythologist did vast lot of work on how myths from all over link in, and Carl Jung saw so much similarity that he developed his theories on collective or universal unconscious from it. Myths are quite powerful.
  6. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    01 Oct '10 15:25
    Originally posted by Taoman
    Hi All,

    This is an excerpt from the "about" section on a site I have recently discovered.
    I post for both the thought expressed, and to point to a site some here may appreciate. Other links there worth exploring too (imo).
    >>>

    "Isn't a myth something that is usually considered to be a lie or falsehood?

    "A myth came to be considered a falsehood as t ...[text shortened]... all about."

    - John David Ebert"

    http://www.singleeyemovement.com/about-sem
    "A myth came to be considered a falsehood as the result of the transformations of science which proved that the Bible was factually wrong..."

    The myth IS the myth that science has proven the Bible factually wrong. In fact, science, archeology, has proven the Bible is in fact, factually accurate.

    Yours is an anal post. And that's a fact.
  7. Joined
    02 Feb '06
    Moves
    106698
    01 Oct '10 19:11
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"A myth came to be considered a falsehood as the result of the transformations of science which proved that the Bible was factually wrong..."

    The myth IS the myth that science has proven the Bible factually wrong. In fact, science, archeology, has proven the Bible is in fact, factually accurate.

    Yours is an anal post. And that's a fact.[/b]
    Science and archeology has proven that a serpent spoke to Eve and told to eat the forbidden fruit? Really Joseph? Really?

    Did you actually believe what you were saying when you typed this post? Because I've got a bridge for sale.
  8. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51469
    01 Oct '10 21:001 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"A myth came to be considered a falsehood as the result of the transformations of science which proved that the Bible was factually wrong..."

    The myth IS the myth that science has proven the Bible factually wrong. In fact, science, archeology, has proven the Bible is in fact, factually accurate.

    Yours is an anal post. And that's a fact.[/b]
    Joseph what are you wittering on about now?

    Evolution proves animals weren't created according to their kinds. There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs. mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn't show a bottle neck in the human popualtion around 4,000yrs ago according to the flood myth. There is also no geological evidence for a global flood anywhere.

    Now what science are you talking about?
  9. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    02 Oct '10 00:37
    Joseph, dont take the bible literarily, it will lead you into a world of confusion, animals and man have been around for millions of years.
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    02 Oct '10 01:06
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Joseph what are you wittering on about now?

    Evolution proves animals weren't created according to their kinds. There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs. mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn't show a bottle neck in the human popualtion around 4,000yrs a ...[text shortened]... geological evidence for a global flood anywhere.

    Now what science are you talking about?
    "Now what science are you talking about?"

    Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.


    "There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs."

    What does fossil evidence have to do with time?


    "mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn't show a bottle neck in the human popualtion around 4,000yrs ago according to the flood myth."

    Doesn't show much does it?


    "There is also no geological evidence for a global flood anywhere."

    Yes there is. But your almighty scientists "who hold the truth in unrighteousness;.." Rom. 1:b, are covering it up. And all you can do is walk in lockstep with them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.
  11. Joined
    02 Feb '06
    Moves
    106698
    02 Oct '10 01:40
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"Now what science are you talking about?"

    Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.


    "There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs."

    What does fossil evidence have to do with time?


    "mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn' ...[text shortened]... h them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.
    Hey it's one thing to say that there are holes in Scientific and Archeaology that leave many questions unanswered. It is quite another to claim that they prove that the bible is factual. That is a level arrogance that is just beyond belief. Joseph you are demonstrating the meaning of willful ignorance.
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Oct '10 01:57
    Originally posted by josephw
    "Now what science are you talking about?"

    Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.


    "There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs."

    What does fossil evidence have to do with time?


    "mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn't s ...[text shortened]... h them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.
    Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.
    I'm all ears...what is this "Real science"?

    What does fossil evidence have to do with time?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating - pay particular attention to the Computation of ages and dates section.

    Doesn't show much does it?
    Mentioning a small number pertinent of things the evidence doesn't show does not imply there is only a small number of things it does show.

    Yes there is. But your almighty scientists "who hold the truth in unrighteousness;.." Rom. 1:b, are covering it up. And all you can do is walk in lockstep with them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.
    Right...tell you what, why don't you present us this evidence and I'll have a look see on google to see if it's been refuted.
  13. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    02 Oct '10 05:03
    "Yours is an anal post. And that's a fact."

    Oh good! I've saved thousands of dollars in Freudian psychoanalysis! Never could work out why my office is always so messy.

    Seems like you are doing a Custer, mate, along with all your "Bible is Science" platoon. Very courageous if nothing else.

    Update is respectfully suggested.

    Cheers.
  14. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    02 Oct '10 14:39
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    ... man [has] been around for millions of years.
    Where do you get these "facts" from?
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    02 Oct '10 17:171 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    "Now what science are you talking about?"

    Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.


    "There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs."

    What does fossil evidence have to do with time?


    "mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn' h them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.
    Joseph, if you want to have opinions about science, then you actually have to learn something about science. If not, you look just stupid.

    If you object about science methodology, then you actually have to know something about this methodology. If not, you look just stupid.

    And you just don't like to look stupid, do you?

    If you try to mix religion and science, then you will fail. Don't try.
Back to Top