Excellent article about myths and religious faith. What it leaves out is the viewpoint of Radical Fundamentalism. This phrase does not mean those Christians who are Biblical literalists, often who regard the KJV as the only valid translation of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, who tend to have a very narrow view of morality, etc. Rather, the phrase "Radical Fundamentalism" refers to the principle that the original Bible contains fundamental truths that must not be ignored and that the task of believers is to find that original text (actually collection of texts) and discover what they mean and apply those meanings to life. As it turns out, major parts of this quest have already been accomplished -in the form of a wide variety of Mesopotamian texts upon which large portions of the Hebrew Bible -Old Testament- are based. That is, the Bible we are familiar with is largely, certainly partly- derivative. The source texts for the Bible are accessible, the Garden of Eden story in its original form, the Flood story in its original forms, and so forth, all of which predate the Hebrew Bible by anywhere from 1000 years to 2000 years. Hence, the best interpretation of the OT must start with these source texts and find meaning in the Bible that, certainly in various ways, necessarily reflects the truths of ancient scriptures of Mesopotamia. If CS Lewis has a valid point that Christian truth is special, and this truth transcends all myths, then the Christian story, which also rests on Mesopotamian foundations, must be looked at anew to identify these roots, for example Assyrian Ahiqar wisdom literature found within some of the sayings in the Sermon on the Mount. As well, parts of the Book of Acts rest upon Plato's dialogues, and so forth. In short, it is time to look at the Bible objectively, rather than doctrinally as if the only conceivable way to read the text is the way which is assumed by Christian tradition that essentially dates to the era of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation -or to developments in the Jewish world that effectively date to the era of Baruch Spinoza. That is, yes, there are basic truths that are there to be found in Judaism and Christian faith. However: (1) they are not necessarily what conventional doctrines say is true and (2) since Mesopotamian ideas sometimes were foundational to Persia and the Indus Valley, we see some of the same truths emerge in different form as parts of Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism -and through these faiths there are connections to ancient China. That is, Zoroastrian morality reflects the morality of Mesopotamia, Krishna reflects the life of Tammuz, and the story of Buddha's life is, in large part, a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but set in India. The relevance of Mesopotamia to the 21st century is easy to understand. The Mesopotamians invented civilization itself and wrestled with the problems of living in a radically new kind of society We are living in a time when civilization is being reinvented and we need to find ways to make sense of a new kind of civilization. It turns out that the Mesopotamians, in effect, foresaw our problems clearly and provide valuable guidance for us as we seek to create a viable new kind of civilization. Either you know the relevant history or you do not. Unless you have made a serious study of the history of religions (plural) you do not know the relevant history. The remedy is to study that history, not to insist that you don't need to do so or to insist that faith rests on belief rather than knowledge. Actually, faith demands solid and reliable knowledge as its foundation or all you get is myth. Can't be bothered to study the history of religions? That would be a colossal intellectual blunder. Maybe I have made all kinds of mistakes in my life but that has not been one of them. Billy ============================================ Real Clear Politics Real Clear Religion
February 10, 2015 C.S. Lewis, Joseph Campbell, and Myth By _James Menzies_ (http://www.realclearreligion.org/authors/james_menzies/) Joseph Campbell and C.S. Lewis approach myth and Christianity from opposite ends. Campbell believed that religion, in this case Christianity, starts in myth. As humans struggle to find meaning in life, they turn to the imagination and from the imagination comes myth and a spiritual existence. As a result of this process, myths ultimately end up at a final destination be it a person (god), or a place (paradise), or a constant recycling (reincarnation). But myth must lead somewhere and in the Christian faith it arrives at the triune God revealed in the life, death, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Campbell points out, the idea of a savior is not unique to Christianity. As he says, "The interesting thing is that when you read the life of the saviors -- Jain saviors, Buddhist saviors, Hindu saviors, the Christ -- the same motifs are there, time and time and time again." What Christianity did is take the universal mythical motif of savior and apply it to its own savior, Jesus Christ. So Christianity grows out of elements of myth because myth has always been in the mind of humanity. But Lewis argues the opposite. He contends that the human imagination is able to devise myth because God has implanted within the human psyche a realization of His existence and involvement in creation. It was Lewis's love and respect of myth that actually triggered his belief in the incarnation, once he made this myth-Christian connection. Lewis writes: To me, who first approached Christianity from a delighted interest in, and reverence for, the best pagan imagination, who loved Balder before Christ and Plato before St. Augustine, the anthropological argument against Christianity has never been formidable. On the contrary, I could not believe Christianity if I were forced to say that there were a thousand religions in the world of which 999 were pure nonsense in the thousandth (fortunately) true. My conversion, very largely, dependent on recognizing Christianity as the completion, the actualization, the entelechy, of something that had never been wholly absent from the mind of man. And I still think that the agnostic argument from similarities between Christianity and paganism works only if you know the answer. If you start by knowing on other grounds that Christianity is false, then the pagan stories may be another nail in its coffin: just as if you started by knowing that there were no such things as crocodiles then the various stories about dragons might help to confirm your disbelief. But if the truth or falsehood of Christianity is the very question you are discussing, and the argument from anthropology is surely a petitio. Lewis argues along lines similar to the apostle Paul in Romans 1:19-20 that "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Lewis concludes that in any given culture humanity creates myth that reveal someth ing of the divine nature. Both men understood myth as a social force that reinforces cultural values. But Lewis would not put long-term value on myth. As he said in The Four Loves, "All that is not eternal is eternally out of date." Because he was supernaturalist and believed the triune God would bring time and creation to a conclusion, that "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all," Lewis saw something greater than myth and realized that myth did not have eternal significance. Myth was not an end in itself; instead myth was a shadow, a reflection of something greater, and the purpose of myth was to prepare and point people to that something greater, the gospel of Jesus Christ. But as Robert Segal notes: For Campbell, myth is not only necessary for the deepest human fulfillment but also sufficient. One needs nothing else, including therapy. In fact, therapy is only for those without myth...Myth for Campbell contains all the wisdom humans need. They need only learn to interpret it. They need never venture beyond it. Moreover, myth is easy to interpret. It has a single meaning, even if "sages" are required to decipher that meaning. Campbell understood myth the way Lewis understood the person of Jesus Christ. While Campbell saw myth as an end in itself and all religions and metaphysical beliefs, even those concerning Christ, through the lens of myth, Lewis's approach was, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." Lewis looked at myth as a vehicle of communication imparted by God to his creation. Joseph Campbell and C.S. Lewis devoted much of their lives, teaching, and writing to understanding the role of myth in religion and in a technological society. On the importance of myth the men agreed that myth has a place and plays a significant role in culture irrespective of how technologically primitive or advanced the culture might be. But concerning the specifics of myth and the relationship myth has to the Christian faith, the men came to very different conclusions. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
