I hope delving into religion doesn't offend anyone, but after reading about the creation of the universe in both the Bible and Edith Hamilton's Mythology, it appears that both are quite similar. They both begin with chaotic nothingness, and then light is separated from dark, then land comes out of the water, and finally, the earth is inhabited with creatures.
In both accounts, the source of man's woes is the female (Pandora and Eve). Are these simply coincidences, or something else. What do you think?
>I hope delving into religion doesn't offend anyone, but after reading about the creation of the universe in both the Bible and Edith Hamilton's Mythology, it appears that both are quite similar.
Joseph Campbell ("The Masks of God", et al) called this the monomyth (after James Joyce); everything has roots. [I'm greatly oversimplifying!]
>>In both accounts, the source of man's woes is the female
i don't know about anyone else, but the female is certainly the source of this man's woes.
>>In both accounts, the source of man's woes is the female
Jazzy, I've always thought it was because until very recently, sociologically speaking, it was the men who had all the power: the power to rule, the power to make his wishes (such as telling a story and making it come out the way HE wanted it to, never mind what really happened) predominate, and later the power of having the ability to read and write when most women did not, thus furthering his ability to relate "HIS"tory!
Are we then saying that the Bible, or religion in general, is false and merely the explanation from a male perspective of what is not understood?
Are we then saying that the Bible, or religion in general, is false and merely the explanation from a male perspective of what is not understood?
Whoa, whoa up a minute! Not necessarily, Doc! That's WAY
beyond what I meant. It's been too long since I studied other religions than my own for me to feel sure that what I'm saying is fact-based, so I'll stick to the Bible.
Barring another visitation by the Almighty, I don't think we'll ever know how close to the truth the Bible is. The cultures in the Bible were male-dominated. All or nearly all of the books of the Bible were written by men; and some were written only after centuries of word-of-mouth versions of occurrences. These might be completely accurate, for all I know. My point was that they were told and recorded by men, who like we humans today, were not perfect. The powerful rulers of their day were male, so it seems to me that they would have thought it was logical that the most
powerful ruler of all was male. And, it also makes sense to me that maybe a few of these early writers, being fallible, may have not denied their inclination to be self-serving, and have written women into a subservient role
(which was most definitely the societal norm then).
And, completely aside from human failings and plain error in recording, we can't know that we have everything that was written that should be included in the Bible. Almost certainly, some has been destroyed, and since some scrolls were found as recently as 1947, there may well exist some
others that we haven't found yet!
So no, I would not say that religion IS false; just that I can't really believe we have the complete, literal truth.
food for thought:
one of the gnostic scriptures (read apocrypha) is "The gospel according to Mary", which gives a very different picture of Mary Magdalene -- one of a disciple rather than a prostitute and supplicant, and a very different view of women in that time.
as always, the question to be asked is: why was this suppressed?
>>a very different picture of Mary Magdalene -- one of a disciple rather than a prostitute and supplicant, and a very different view of women in that time.
as always, the question to be asked is: why was this suppressed?
Author Laurie King, in one of her fiction series about
Sherlock Holmes and his heretofore-unknown assistant, brings up this very thing. In fact, the name of the book is
'A Letter of Mary'. The assistant stumbles across a letter supposedly written by Mary in which she refers to herself as a disciple.
I don't know what, if any, research Ms. King did, but her reason given in the novel was that it was suppressed in order to maintain male dominance (or the appearance of it).
I very much enjoy reading her books, incidentally, because she is an author who actually uses language that requires a higher than elementary-level education to comprehend.
>>I have met too many people who sincerely believe, and angrily insist, that "history" is a gender biased word. Talk about PC gone nuts!
Max, Max--calm down, Dear! I put "HIS"tory like as a reference back to the thread where this has been discussed, mulled, and chewed over. Unfortunately, I can't find it, or I'd tell you where to look. You have a lot of people on your side, Hon.
max, max, max... once again you are a day late and a dollar short!
all of these issues -- PC-ness & herstory & niggardly -- were covered under "political correctness" in Q&A. (but be forewarned; it is a LONG thread)
>>My dear Jackie, je suis desolé! I did not mean to imply that I took you for one of these criminals. It's just that you unintentionally pushed one of my biggest buttons, or waved a particularly carmine rag in front of this bull.
Calme-toi, Cheri! I did not mean to imply that I thought you took me for a criminal.
I advise you in all earnestness to read the thread aforementioned, now that Tsuwm has made it easy to find.
(Thank you, Tsu.)
I cannot resist this!
>>I realised that I was undoubtedly haranguing the converted
I sing in the choir, so I'm used to being preached to!
Max, Max, Max, MAX!! You've "maxed out" on your apologies, Dude! Enough already !!
In reply to:
one of the gnostic scriptures (read apocrypha) is "The gospel according to Mary", which gives a very different picture of Mary Magdalene -- one of a disciple rather than a prostitute and supplicant, and a very different view of women in that time.
as always, the question to be asked is: why was this suppressed?
In reply to:
I don't know what, if any, research Ms. King did, but her reason given in the novel was that it was suppressed in order to maintain male dominance (or the appearance of it).
The Gospel According to Mary exists in a very fragmentary state (a translation is here http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/marygosp.htm ) so we can't really say what view of women of that time it gives. We have to beware of reading modern preoccupations back into other past societies. I'm not saying they never mentioned the power relations between the sexes or that males were not dominant, just that it wasn't a major issue for them, more of an undiscussed assumption.
I suspect that the reason the Gospel of Mary was "suppressed" or not included in the canon was more to do with the nature of the spirit journey that seems to be being described with the soul having to meet challenges from powers and so on, which does not really fit in with Christianity as it was developing at the time the canon was being fixed.
I was interested to see the spellcheck wants to change "an undiscussed assumption" into "an undisturbed assumption".
Bingley
>>This is NOT an apology, rather an explanation.
My dear short-nailed (likewise) friend--
that was a joke, just so you know. I had hoped you would post an apology for over-apologizing, at which point I
planned to thoroughly exercize my predilection for fussing!
(Fussing is one of my favorite hobbies--just ask my family, they'll tell you!) I have even been accused of spluttering!
>after reading about the creation of the universe in both the Bible and Edith Hamilton's Mythology, it appears that both are quite similar.<
I checked out Edith Hamilton's 'Mythology' on Amazon. It is based on the Greek and Roman myths.
Roman civilisation drew heavily from Greek civilisation. Christianity originated in Rome. All are part of 'Western' civilisation.
I'd say similarities are not so much coincidence as signs of common ancestry. Perhaps you should explore the creation myths of some other civilisations? Native American? Chinese? Aborigine? I don't know any of them in enough detail, but I think they're more different.
BTW, I believe the 'great flood' in many western mythologies including the Bible is meant to be based on the creation of the Meiterranean. Originally dry land below sea level, then the Straits of Gibraltar 'opened' and there was a very big waterfall for a while.
>like a tsunami?<
Not in my mental imagery anyway! As far as I'm concerned a tsunami rolls forward and up over the land. Waterfalls fall down, not up (except if you've just been thinking about Escher and perpetual flow machines, but that's another thread...)
However, I will concede a tsunami may have made its way outward from the area around the base of the waterfall! So perhaps there was a waterfall AND a tsunami.
(or is that 'perhaps there were a waterfall and a tsunami'? Neither sounds correct any more. At least I'm in a good place to ask for help!
)
In reply to:
I believe the 'great flood' in many western mythologies including the Bible is meant to be based on the creation of the Meiterranean.
I heard it was the creation of the Black Sea. There is a review of a book putting forward this theory here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n13/fort2113.htm
Bingley
BTW, I believe the 'great flood' in many western mythologies including the Bible is meant to be based on the creation of the Mediterranean
Actually, there was an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer recently concerning the Great Flood, sort of. The man who used his submarine and little roving sea-pod to locate and explore the remains of Titanic has searched the bottom of the Black Sea and found what appears to be an ancient city.
If this proves to be true, then this would make the creation of the Black Sea an explanation for the Great Flood. A city in a valley being completely flooded out of existence would definitely be a cause for commotion. Both the Greek and Hebrew religions include a monstrous flood (Noah, for the Bible, of course, and the story of Baucis and Philemon for the Greeks). Both cultures were located reasonably close to the Black Sea and they interacted quite a bit, so this would explain the existence of many parallel stories.
does this also account for Atlantis?
In reply to:
does this also account for Atlantis?
There could be a connection, but, assuming Plato didn't make the whole thing up, the most commonly accepted theory is that the story of Atlantis stems from the eruption of Thera (aka Santorini) in the Aegean in the mid second millennium BC, which devastated Minoan Crete.
Bingley
>..make the creation of the Black Sea an explanation for the Great Flood <
As far as I can remember, the Bible story also includes the re-emerging of the land. But there seems to be no demand for explanation when a catastrophe ends.
But there seems to be no demand for explanation when a catastrophe ends.
I suppose everyone just assumes the phenomenon has
run its course. Sort of like finding something in the
last place you looked--since you have found it, there is
no need to look in any other places!
As far as I can remember, the Bible story also includes the re-emerging of the land. But there seems to be no demand for explanation when a catastrophe ends.
Perhaps they colored their prose by saying that the waters receded when really they just found land on the banks of the newly created Black Sea.