Lisheo, on Nov 26 2008, 05:40 PM, said:
It is interesting, I agree. You should look up more creation myths. Ive looked at a good dozen in depth, a few years back, and there are so many similarities between them all... Then they almost completely vanish in the Old Testament.
Oh, I have. I grew up in a western hippie Hindu mythology, fell in love with Greek and, subsequently, Roman mythology in 7th grade, then moved on to Celtic mythologies and Wicca by 8th and 9th grades, throughout high school became interested in the tradition my crazy Southern Baptist relatives were coming from, delved more deeply in Hinduism throughout college, started watching anime and got into Japanese mythology, then toward the end of college got into Sumerian/Babylonian mythologies as research for a short story, and have subsequently fallen in love with folklore as a field of study. So yeah, I've looked into a fair few creation myths.
Aleksandrov, on Nov 27 2008, 02:01 PM, said:
@Lisheo, I think Judeo-Christianity offers perhaps an alternative route, I mean the Old Testament it was smiting and killing but there were no void or "darkness", it's easy to be explained that way. If you are going to have one, people will inevitably argue and try to find it's origin and why. Judeo-Christianity was better adapted to surviving the rest of the weaker religions.
There was no void or darkness explicitly stated or personified, as in other traditions, but there is an implied void since before God created everything, there was nothing.
Lisheo, on Nov 27 2008, 02:16 PM, said:
Successful conquerers usurp the conquered people's customs. A lot of Christian customs originally began as pagan rituals and such that were adopted. I'm studying Christianity in early Ireland in college currently, and a lot of records and such have been editted and altered for various reasons, whether to advance one church or region (over here, the Church of Armagh basically made up everything most people regard as truth about Saint Patrick, for one) or to ease transition from paganism (local dieties just sort of became saints). Christianity is basically Judaism with all the most successful bits of other, now dead religions thrown in, which aided its success and prevalence.
I would say that it's less conquerors usurping the conquered people's customs and more that the oppressed find ways to sneak their traditions into those traditions being forced on them: Green Man faces on medieval churches, Christmas trees, All Hallows Eve, the traditions of African slaves carried on under the blanket of Christianity.
frookenhauer, on Nov 27 2008, 08:05 PM, said:
Consider this: Jesus and christianity had such an impact on them and this coupled with the guilt of being the perpetrators of Jesus' Death might have made them change the story so that Jesus actually sacrificed himself for Mankinds sins. By doing this they absolve themselves of putting him to death. The Roman culture had absolutely no problem altering their faiths as we can see from the past, so we can see how they could so readily change their beliefs. Interesting, no?
While its an interesting theory, the Gospels' message, particularly the idea of Jesus' redemption of humanity, is not a Roman invention and is intrinsic to the spread of Christianity. The grip, I think, of Christianity is in the idea of a God who loves you so much that he will die so you can go to Heaven. The only impact any guilt would have had would have been to change the interpretation of the Gospels. Then again, I'm not sure how much of my thoughts on this matter are based on Milton.
Darkwatch, on Nov 30 2008, 04:33 PM, said:
In relation to other myths, we once again have the primordial waters. In parallel with Greek mythology the creator gods must be put out of comission in order for the world to be in order, or else they cause chaos by continually creating.
Oh, I had never thought of it that way. That makes sense and fits in with the Hindu conception of a creator, maintainer, and destroyer.
Darkwatch, on Nov 30 2008, 06:30 PM, said:
In Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianism and Islam) God creates the world with the intent to populate it. Humanity is the final goal of creation, God makes the world for us. That means the world had to be stable. And if you stick to the creation stories God is as much a creator (as in ex-nihilo, see: Light) as he is an organizer (see the whole primordial waters and God's partition of them). Also in Abrahamic faiths God is not the embodiment of a primal force of creation (such as Gaia, Ouranos, Tiamat and Apsu) he is the controled final cause of existence. In other words he creates with purpose other than just creating, the other primeval Gods create simply to create, that's what they are, generators with no more purpose than that.
Which seems like the draw. A religion in which man was the whole point of existence is going to have a greater draw than a religion in which man was an afterthought.
Quote
In the Enuma Elish and Greco-roman mythology humans are basicly an afterthought. In the Mesopotamian myths we're created to replace the lesser gods who rebelled and refused to toil for the greater gods (long after the world was set in order). In Greek myth were basicly an accident when Prometheus' brother forgot to save one attribute for man, and so Prometheus gave us reason.
It reflects the uncertainty of man's position in the world at the time these myths came to be, as well. The world was still a frightening swath of forces arrayed against man, whereas, by the time monotheism popped up, cities and agriculture were developing/had developed and the wilderness was less of a frightening concern and man seemed less hopelessly alone in the world.
<--angry purple ball of yarn wielding crochet hooks. How does that fail to designate my sex?