What Are The Building Blocks Of Our Faith ?
- Thread starter unsafe
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
And where does Iolaus burning the necks to stop the heads from re-growing fit in? Or the fact that Eurystheus disallowed this from being one of the labours because of Iolaus' involvement? What about the fact that not all classical writers give the same order for the labours (e.g. Apollodorus gives the hydra as the 2nd labour)? What about Heracles/Hercules use of the hydra's blood as a poison when he fought the centaurs (and, indeed, in some accounts this blood was used to kill Heracles/Hercules mortal self, after which Zeus deified him)?
To be honest, I've never heard this version before (raising the hydra into the air) but I have no doubt that there is some basis for it. The familiar version that I know is from Apollodorus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Apollod. 2.5.2&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0022). It would help if you would give which classical source you are using (not one of your New Age or other modern writers but an actual classical writer like Apollodorus). One of the problems in giving a definitive interpretation to any classical myth is that the concept of "canon" was non-existent. The same story was often told and re-told in different ways by different authors for different purposes. Therefore, it is always important to cite which version of a given story you are using.
Last edited:
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Badum pum.
airclean33
Well-Known Member
--I always feel defensive when others are comparing, there belief of a called god . To the GOD.Hearing a thousand years of rain sounds pretty depressing Airclean. {wink} {wink}
Airclean post--Yes I see your meaning. I will now and then let my fingers get ahead of my mind. I have been working on this. I believe I have improved some . Remember ,I did not say . I was perfect;
---Neo--post--
But seriously, "casting satan, the dragon, down and binding him and sealing him into an abyss" could also mean the raising of our awareness above the evil (of matter). Think about this, as we rise the things of the world appear to descend. The symbolism of John's vision is very strange and really should not be taken at it's face value. The Book of Revelation is rich in metaphor, figures of speech that are not meant to be taken literally.
,
--Airclean--post--
I guess you can say what it means to you. But I would take note . From were the word satan or evil is used . It was the fallen angel , called the dragon. I would agree with you . That the book John The Apostle is hard to understand. Indeed it is not till near, the end of the time of Man" . Would it be understood. Here once more I believe it is GODS Holy Spirit ,that gives understanding.
--Neo --post---
Have you ever read any of the Labours of Hercules? This is another story of allegory and symbolism.
In the 8th labour Hercules also fights the dragon, the nine headed hydra of Lerna. See http://www.souledout.org/hercules/herculesscorpio/hercscorpmythaab.html for a good read. Know before your read it that the 12 labours Hercules performed represents Hercules' passage through the 12 signs of the Zodiac in an "anti-clockwise" direction, e.g. from Aries to Pisces via Taurus. Most people traverses the Zodiac in a "clock-wise" direction, e.g. from Aries to Taurus via Pisces. This difference in direction is the difference between an ordinary person and an initiate upon "the way".
Hercules was warned before starting his 8th labour that if he cut off one head of the dragon, two more would grow in it's place. And only through by kneeling (humility) and raising the dragon high above his head (into the plane of the mind and spirit, the air, wind and sunlight) could he defeat the beast. Each of the nine heads represents a different vice that Hercules had to overcome in his labours: 3 physical vices (sex, comfort, money), 3 emotional vices (fear, hatred and desire), and 3 mental vices (pride, separateness and cruelty). All of which had to be raised into a higher realm before the labour was completed. Attacking any one of these vices with conventional means only made them stronger. He had to find another way.
--Airclean--post--
I left this in . but really have no belief, on any of it. Nor do I follow or believe in Thor , or Oden. The Apostles of Jesus yes.
--Neo--post--
In the end, after raising the dragon above his head, into the air and the sunlight, the hydra falls limp. Only then does Hercules see the 10th head: an immortal and mystic head. Hercules then "cut off the hydra's one immortal head and buried it, still fiercely hissing, beneath a rock". Much like the hero of Revelations who binds the serpent with a chain and seals it in an abyss for a thousand years.
--Airclean--post--
To compare The Son of GOD to Hercules, just don't seem right Neo.
--Neo--post---
Anyways, I only mention this story to change the pace of the thread a little. The story of Hercules is the story of the human soul and is as applicable today in our modern world as it was way back when. We have the same lessons to learn now as Hercules did in his labours, and especially in this, his 8th labour of Scorpio.
Cheers.
--airclean---post--
Cheers to you as well Neo.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
@airclean33 , I don't think @Neo necessarily believes in Hercules literal existence and neither do I. However, a story can be full of meaning even if it is not literally true. I am reading the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman right now. I do not believe in the world he creates, but there are themes and ideas that speak to me and can lead me to truths if I think about them. It's fiction but that does mean it is meaningless.
Now, to take that one step further, that is how people like @Neo and I tend to approach a lot (not all, but a lot) of Bible stories, too. We don't take them as literal truth, but still find meaning if we think about the images and ideas presented. I don't necessarily believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, but the idea of resurrection can be meaningful to me nonetheless.
Now, to take that one step further, that is how people like @Neo and I tend to approach a lot (not all, but a lot) of Bible stories, too. We don't take them as literal truth, but still find meaning if we think about the images and ideas presented. I don't necessarily believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, but the idea of resurrection can be meaningful to me nonetheless.
@Mendalla, Sort of makes you wonder why the Bible wouldn't have taught the lesson in a more straight forward way doesn't it? I mean we wouldn't have included a physical resurrection with just a deeper meaning would we have? Unless of course we are to understand it also as something that actually happened. Unlike Hercules, Jesus did exist.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Almost every historical figure is the subject of apocryphal stories or legends unrelated to the facts of their lives.
MacBeth in Shakespeare is a conniving usurper, but many of the histories of the time show him leading the nobles in a legitimate "regime change" against a weak king. Duncan died in battle, not as the result of a scheming assassin host murdering a guest. MacBeth was not a tyrant, but a fairly competent, capable ruler who lasted 14 years on the throne until, like Duncan before him, he was overthrown and died in battle. A capsule history from the BBC sums the real MacBeth up nicely.
Why did Shakespeare do that? Because one of the nobles on MacBeth's side was Banquo, who appears on the family tree of James I of England/James VI of Scotland, who was on the throne when the play was performed. Portraying an ancestor of the king being involved in the overthrow of a king would not have flown politically so Shakespeare twisted the story around to portray MacBeth as a usurper and Banquo as a victim of MacBeth's tyranny.
There's other examples. George Washington and the cherry tree comes to mind as a common one today. Even among figure within our lifetimes, there's a host of exaggerations and misquotes that are designed to spin meaning a certain way.
I do not deny that Jesus was an historical figure. I think he likely did exist. However, that does not mean every story written about him is history or literally true. To me, miracles and resurrections in the Bible look no different from the ones I see in other traditions and mythologies, so I approach them the same way. Because I don't see Jesus as the "Son of God", I have no reason to treat him differently from other mythologized historical figures.
Heracles may be a bad example since whatever history might have inspired him is lost in the mists of time, but look at King Arthur. Some of the stories line up with histories of the time that point to one or another historical figure as inspiration for the legends. Others seem clearly made up to convey various meanings. And that doesn't stop with Malory. Even modern Arthur writers are spinning and changing the stories to suit their narrative needs. Zimmer Bradley's Avalon novels, for instance, are a modern feminist spin on the stories (that, alas, some actually think are more historical though the evidence is weak).
Last edited:
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Heracles/Hercules was actually worshipped. He was not a common god and didn't have massive temple like the Parthenon but the fact that his myth cycle ends with him being deified by his father Zeus (Let's not forget that Heracles was the son of a divine father and a mortal mother who was raised up to become a god himself after his death. Yes, I'm emphasizing that for a reason.
) led to him being worshipped. The remains of a temple of Hercules:
What myths and legends will lead to religions isn't actually easy to pin down. In general, I'd say that they need to address something fundamental about our relationships and our world. So the various stories around Arthur are really more about British culture and history and haven't really addressed anything "bigger" while Heracles and Jesus clearly "went big" in some way.
In our modern age, cults generally arise as cults of personality (e.g. Scientology began as L. Ron Hubbard's personal religion) but it's not as clear for older religions. Christianity appears to have been a cult of personality to some degree, focussing on the stories around Jesus Christ. Judaism, OTOH, is grounded more in stories about a people and culture. Great figures like Moses, David, Isaiah, and so one arise, but no one of them becomes the focus of the faith. Classical paganism has elements of both. It was rooted in the stories of the gods and heroes, but could be used by people like the Roman emperors as the basis for cults of personality. The mystery religions often had a very specific focus, too, like Mithras or Isis (who, of course, was borrowed and evolved from Egyptian myths).
You are oversimplifying the relationship between myth and religion. It's a chicken and egg problem, really, and since religion predates civilization and recorded history, we may never know exactly how that aspect of culture evolved. In historical times, the relationship between them is actually fairly complex with one giving rise to the other and then vice versa on and on through history. Religions may arise from myths, but can then also spawn new myths themselves which then become religions.
Look at the various legends about saints and their miracles in Christianity. Those are myths or legends arose from an understanding of God's work in the world rooted in the story of Christ and Old Testament stories.
Look at the classical mystery cults, which often built up from an existing myth or figure in an existing religion, then created their own system of myth and ritual around that.
It's a web, not a simple cause and effect relationship, just as the evolution of the universe or of life is not a simple cause and effect relationship.
airclean33
Well-Known Member
Hi Mendalla--I have walked with GOD now for around39 years . I have seen a Christian go off path, by not Listening and following , to that which has been said. Liston to our English .Something is wrong" . right, write, rite, IT. Really without the person who wrote this, can you understand what it is he or she wants? If GOD wrote His Word, The Bible and I believe He did. Then should we, not go to Him" for understand of His Teachings" ? I have seen others who can not see, telling other to follow them , and they will show the way. When I travel , I try and find others who have been there . To tell me what they found there. As We all die , would it not be wise to know someone who has been there? I think so , that is just one of the reasons , I follow Christ Jesus. This is but some of the reasons . I, as Thomas said, "My Lord and My God".
Last edited:
Now to me a religion does require a degree of literalism whereas a myth does not.Heracles/Hercules was actually worshipped. He was not a common god and didn't have massive temple like the Parthenon but the fact that his myth cycle ends with him being deified by his father Zeus (Let's not forget that Heracles was the son of a divine father and a mortal mother who was raised up to become a god himself after his death. Yes, I'm emphasizing that for a reason.
What myths and legends will lead to religions isn't actually easy to pin down. In general, I'd say that they need to address something fundamental about our relationships and our world. So the various stories around Arthur are really more about British culture and history and haven't really addressed anything "bigger" while Heracles and Jesus clearly "went big" in some way.
In our modern age, cults generally arise as cults of personality (e.g. Scientology began as L. Ron Hubbard's personal religion) but it's not as clear for older religions. Christianity appears to have been a cult of personality to some degree, focussing on the stories around Jesus Christ. Judaism, OTOH, is grounded more in stories about a people and culture. Great figures like Moses, David, Isaiah, and so one arise, but no one of them becomes the focus of the faith. Classical paganism has elements of both. It was rooted in the stories of the gods and heroes, but could be used by people like the Roman emperors as the basis for cults of personality. The mystery religions often had a very specific focus, too, like Mithras or Isis (who, of course, was borrowed and evolved from Egyptian myths).
You are oversimplifying the relationship between myth and religion. It's a chicken and egg problem, really, and since religion predates civilization and recorded history, we may never know exactly how that aspect of culture evolved. In historical times, the relationship between them is actually fairly complex with one giving rise to the other and then vice versa on and on through history. Religions may arise from myths, but can then also spawn new myths themselves which then become religions.
Look at the various legends about saints and their miracles in Christianity. Those are myths or legends arose from an understanding of God's work in the world rooted in the story of Christ and Old Testament stories.
Look at the classical mystery cults, which often built up from an existing myth or figure in an existing religion, then created their own system of myth and ritual around that.
It's a web, not a simple cause and effect relationship, just as the evolution of the universe or of life is not a simple cause and effect relationship.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The main difference between myth and religion is time. Today's myths are usually yesterday's religions. What we call "Greek mythology" was not called "mythology" in ancient Greece.
Many people today view Christianity in the exact same way as other mythologies, because it's really Christian mythology - there is nothing to separate Christian myths from other myths, except local popularity.
I don't regard the ancients as a pack of myth followers. Too convenient to disregard their achievements and expertise and claim ignorance drove their societies. They discerned their belief systems as much as we do today. God has always been in the world....some were able to articulate that through their belief systems.
Myths are not the same as religion.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Every religion has myth as part of its structure. Every one. So, yes, religion requires a degree of literalism and discerning how far to go with that is an important part of one's spirituality. Some of it can be taken literally, some of it cannot and should not. The Bible is a mix of myth, poetry, law, wisdom/philosophy, history, and so on. Genesis (all of it, not just 1) is myth. Books like Kings are mythologized history. The Gospels are, to my eye, mythologized biography and where the myth ends and the biography begins is not always apparent. I would argue very little of it can be taken purely as myth (except Genesis) but very little of it can be taken purely literally (history, biography, whatever) either. You almost need to discern chapter to chapter how to approach it in some books while others are clear. Ecclesiastes is clearly philosophy, the Psalms are clearly poetry, to give a couple examples. No one takes poetry literally (I hope) just as no one is going to take Ecclesiastes as myth or history, though it can be taken literally as philosophy with some metaphor.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
*Christians* are generally a pack of myth followers. And following myths does not mean you can't achieve something. Following a myth doesn't make you stupid. Were they ignorant of many things? Sure. But ignorance only means you don't know something. We're all ignorant of so much. We get so worried about being ignorant that we try to fill the holes of our knowledge, but when we try to spackle over that ignorance with superstition, we're not only still ignorant, but we're also wrong.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Well a Christian might think you were the ignorant one (doesnt know), much the same as you might feel believers are ignorant/superstitious.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The better approach is for neither side to cast aspersions on the other's level of ignorance and instead to try to learn and understand each other's position.