MD myths and facts (was On Faith)

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 16:54:22 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching"

    Hi DMB, anyone interested,

    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.

    Sam now says:
    I'm interested to see/hear your reaction to Scott's comments on this (in an excellent post),
    especially when he points out "there are also a few who understand that the metaphor/fact
    distinction, taken in this absolutist way, is a product of SOM. To the pre-modern intellect, all
    reality was as much metaphorical as factual."

    It is my suspicion that your understanding of mysticism and mythology is compromised by a more or
    less unspoken inheritance from SOM, but I want to pursue that in the James thread. For now, I want
    to explore one question with you. Do you think that the first Christian communities understood the
    resurrection mythologically or factually? If the former, at what point did the understanding change
    from the factual? Or was it never seen as factual (in which case how do you understand Paul's
    writings)?

    Thing is, one of the main objections to the idea that Christianity is just a trans-historical myth
    is that it happened 'in historical time', in other words, there are historical actors present and
    involved - it takes place within the 'historical' world, and not 'a long time ago in a galaxy far
    away' etc. Do these factors make any difference to your perspective?

    Sam

    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 : Sat Nov 13 2004 - 17:47:54 GMT