From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 07 2004 - 19:05:55 GMT
sam, msh and all MOQers:
msh asked:
So how do miracles differ from myths?
sam answered:
As episode to story? I think there is a clear overlap between them.
The trouble comes when 'myth' is taken to mean 'not factually true'
as I think there is an irreducible factual claim at the heart of
Christianity, ie that certain things did happen, most importantly the
resurrection, however we are to understand that (this is where DMB
and I differ most I think. I think he would say that Christianity
doesn't necessarily involve such a factual claim).
dmb says:
Apparently, I have to stop being so nice about asserting my pov. It seems my
excessive softness has lead to a misunderstanding. Its not that I think such
factual claims are unnecessary. I think such factual claims DISTORT and
DESTROY the meaning of the myths. Before you dismiss this view as mere
bigotry, Sam, I'd like to point out that I'm not pre-judging anything and
i'm not even talking about any class of persons, I'm talking about the
specific views you've expressed here....
Sam said:
I've often thought that Jesus was buried in an unmarked grave, along with
other criminals, and his
"body" decomposed. I don't know if I still believe that, my thoughts are a
little in flux, but
certainly my understanding of resurrection entails that it is not
resuscitation, and so the precise
end-point of the physical body is an open question. (I'm unorthodox on this
point, to a minor
extent). On the other hand, if I came to believe that (for example) the
resurrection was a put-up
job by some of the disciples, designed to manipulate the masses for some
other purpose, such as
preserving his blood-line through a marriage to Mary Magdalene et cetera -
then that would
completely undermine my faith as a Christian, and it would make me unable to
continue my life as a
priest. So I would maintain that there are factual elements in the faith
which are essential, and
which cannot be compromised if something is to remain 'Christian' - as
traditionally understood.
dmb says:
Whew! Flux indeed. This is a dizzying display of equivocation. Its a good
thing I was sitting when I read it. ;-) But really, to read a myth as if it
were a fact is to misread the myth. This is the problem with faith and
theism. It doesn't have to go as far as fundamentalism to fall into this
trap, as you have demonstrated. Its a confusion of levels and categories. It
seems the task of theology is to provide intellectual justification for
social level, premodern thinking. But myth was never meant to be taken that
way. Myth, language and ritual functioned perfectly well without intellect
for tens of thousands of years. And when we subject these things to
intellectual scrutiny, we can't rightly start from the premise "that there
are factual elements in the faith which are essential, and which cannot be
compromised." (I wonder how common this attitude is among theologians. This
would be a case of begining with the conclusion, no? Reminds me of most
right-wing think tanks, which is probably NOT just a co-incidence.) In any
case, the basic idea here is that myths are NEITHER factually true NOR
factaully false. They express a spiritual reality, not an historical or
literal one. This kind of misunderstanding is not the exception, but the
rule. Alan Watts left the Anglican priesthood, moved to America and spent
the rest of his life trying to reconcile East and West. He couldn't have
expressed it in Pirsig's terms, but he encountered a problem translating
Oriential metaphysics into Christian Religion because, he found, they
operate at different levels. (Religion and compartive religious studies
operate at different levels in much the same way that myth and mythology
operate at different levels. Basically it a social/intellectual
distinction.) In the introduction to his THE SUPREME IDENTITY: AN ESSAY ON
ORIENTAL METAPHYSIC AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGON he writes...
"Many people felt that the introduction of a certain type of mysticism into
the structure of Christian theology threatened to break that structure, to
annihilate its essential historical and sacramental emphasis. I believe that
this criticism was to some extent justifed. But this kind of confusion has a
long history. It is not only that in recent years we have tried to
understand oriental traditon as religions and theologies comparable to our
own - to our immense befuddlement. It is also that certain remnants of these
traditions have, through Greek sources, penetrated Christian theology from
the earliest times, and have never been properly assimilated and understood.
For example, the strict concept of eternity as timelessness rather than
everlastingness is such a remnant. We have tried to incorproate this and
similar concepts in our theology, in a single framework of doctine, without
understanding that this is trying to speak two utterly different languages
at once. A theology dealing with dogmatic, historical and sacremental ideas
is an approach to Reality utterly distinct from a 'metaphysical mysticism'.
The two kinds of language cannot be mixed without hopeless confusion - a
confusion which lies at the root of the major difficulties of theological
thought. Furthremore, the fact that Western man has not percieved this
difference is the result of a certain 'metaphysical blindness', which, as I
shall try to show, is the most serious weakness of our civilization."
It may be of interest to know that Watts also wrote a book called MAYTH AND
RITUAL IN CHRISTIANITY, where he takes parts from both the Catholic and
Orthodox theologies to portray Christ as the classic hero who takes the
classic hero's journey, as Campbell would describe it. (Apparently both are
missing several pieces of the puzzle, but together paint the whole picture.)
But more to the point, there is Joseph Campbell in THOU ART THAT....
"Jesus dies, is resurrected, and goes to heaven. This metaphor expresses
something religiously mysterious. Jesus could not literally have gone to
Heaven becasue there is no geographical place to go. Elijah went up into the
heavens in a chariot, we are told, but we are not to take this staemtn as
description of a literal journey. These are spiritual events described in
metaphor. There seem to be only two kinds of people: Those who think that
metaphors are facts, and those who know that they are not facts. Those who
know they are not facts are what we call 'atheists', and those who think
they are facts are 'religious'. Which group really gets the message?"
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 08 2004 - 17:39:38 GMT