Religion v. Myth

Speak to me? Of course, true myths, I am waiting.

But I see now we are differentiating between true as historically, scientifically accurate and contain/express perennial truths. I buy the latter, withhold judgement till I see the former.
 
This feels a bit silly to ask, but what is the difference between religion and myth? Weren't ancient myths also part of a religious belief system?
Like everything else, depends who you ask and from what perspective they speak. Now down here, most religious folk are quick to dismiss Aboriginal accounts of creation as myth, legend and folklore. However, if you actually listen to the stories being told by the native peoples themselves, rather than anthropological interpretation, it's not that far off what's said in the book of Genesis.
 
However, if you actually listen to the stories being told by the native peoples themselves, rather than anthropological interpretation, it's not that far off what's said in the book of Genesis.
Yes, I acknowledge this. I also don't personally take the Genesis account as literal truth, so there's that.
 
Yes a lot of creation mythology has similarities..

Anyone that has been thru a flood, before satellites and aerial photos it isn't hard to believe that the water has covered the entire earth.
 
IMHO, what I have always taken as MYTH was the Greek and Roman Myths. In my mind Myth referred to the Greek & Roman Mythology of yore.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Difference Between Myths, Legends, And Fables
Myths, Fables, Legends, and Fairy Tales are all considered types of stories. Though they are all types of stories, they have some key differences. A myth is a traditional story that is used to explain a belief or perspective of the world. They are often used to provide a reason for the way the world is, such as the myths about the Greek gods. Each was a god of a particular part of nature or idea. They were said to be the reason that part of nature existed. A legend is a story that has been passed down through generations via oral storytelling. They are usually stories about real people, places, and events of the past. The facts within these stories are known to be somewhat exaggerated. A fable’s overall purpose is to teach a lesson or a moral using characters that cannot talk in real life (such as animals, plants, and forces of nature). Fairy tales are stories for children that often include a magical or supernatural element, such as elves, witches, or special animals. These stories most often begin with the phrase Once upon a time
Myths- are stories that are passed down about how or why something came to be.
Legends- are designed to teach a lesson about a real person in History, with a few facts dramatically changed.
Fables- are stories that are passed down, with a good lesson to be learned, and are about animals, plants, or forces of nature that are humanlike.
Fairy tales- are stories that are specifically for kids, involve magical characters, have good and evil characters, and generally start with “once upon a time.”
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/myth-legend-and-tall-tale/

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
myth (n.)
1830, from French Mythe (1818) and directly from Modern Latin mythus, from Greek mythos"speech, thought, story, myth, anything delivered by word of mouth," of unknown origin.

Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

General sense of "untrue story, rumor" is from 1840.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/myth
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

IMO it is a borrowed colloquialism. We are describing something as "Mythological" as an adjective.

And because it is a "Western European" word I relate the word myth to the Roman and Greek [where Greece had democracy and Rome had a supreme Fascist with a senate.]
 
Here's a modern creation myth: Once upon a time, there was this incredibly big flaming layered mass of fusing hydrogen, helium, carbon, silicon, oxygen, and iron (give or take a few elements). The pressure from the heat of each layer's nuclear fusion reaction was able to sustain the next layer's weight. and there was equilibrium, each layer's product feeding the next layer's reaction. One day, the reaction in one of the layers ceased out of lack of fuel, and it could not sustain the pressure and it collapsed under the outer layer's weight. The crashing layers compressed the inner core to such a degree that it ignited violent nuclear fusion reactions, resulting in the creation of many elements more heavy than iron, and the resulting explosion blowing most of the newly formed elements into space, where it accreted into new solar systems, one of them our own. Thus we were born from the death of a star, and we are the children of a supernova.

It has all the hallmarks of a myth, doesn't it?
 
Speak to me? Of course, true myths, I am waiting.

But I see now we are differentiating between true as historically, scientifically accurate and contain/express perennial truths. I buy the latter, withhold judgement till I see the former.

A moral truth also reflects the nature of the universe, doesn't it? If the universe demands we be violent, it would be pointless to build a moral ethics on kindness. I find your distinction between "true" and "moralistic parables" in post number 18 to be a false dichotomy.
 
Here's a modern creation myth: Once upon a time, there was this incredibly big flaming layered mass of fusing hydrogen, helium, carbon, silicon, oxygen, and iron (give or take a few elements). The pressure from the heat of each layer's nuclear fusion reaction was able to sustain the next layer's weight. and there was equilibrium, each layer's product feeding the next layer's reaction. One day, the reaction in one of the layers ceased out of lack of fuel, and it could not sustain the pressure and it collapsed under the outer layer's weight. The crashing layers compressed the inner core to such a degree that it ignited violent nuclear fusion reactions, resulting in the creation of many elements more heavy than iron, and the resulting explosion blowing most of the newly formed elements into space, where it accreted into new solar systems, one of them our own. Thus we were born from the death of a star, and we are the children of a supernova.

It has all the hallmarks of a myth, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't tell us why.
 
Thus we were born from the death of a star, and we are the children of a supernova.

It has all the hallmarks of a myth, doesn't it?

So we were born from the death of a star. Sounds like sacrifice is required for creation?
 
No, it doesn't tell us why.
Of course it does. The supernova had to create our solar system. It could not stop its own creative collapse any longer.
 
So we were born from the death of a star. Sounds like sacrifice is required for creation?
The one emanating the many.

Or Wisdom's foolish act of parthenogenesis...
 
Of course it does. The supernova had to create our solar system. It could not stop its own creative collapse any longer.

Okay. So why are we here? For what purpose? All myths answer this question. I think you need to expand on your myth.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think there is - just seems a bit blurred here at the moment - probably just me.

I mean, what gives you the impression there is no line being drawn in this thread? I am trying to understand why Wil labels only one side "true."
 
Okay. So why are we here? For what purpose? All myths answer this question. I think you need to expand on your myth.
We're here to tell the tale, the myth.
 
Back
Top