In what ways is your religion different from a mythology? (No offense intended)?

Question

I think one of the problems I have with joining a religion is that so many are similar to a mythology. Take for example the Christian religion and Greek mythology, there are so many parallels.

What makes your religion different from a mythology of the past or a religion of the present that because they aren't worshipping the right God that they are in fact just a mythology themselves.

Answer 1

This answer was particularly amusing:
1. Mythology speaks of things happening long ago, lost in the mists of time. Christianity speaks of things that happened during the lifetimes of the writers. (Really? You mean like that gospels that were written 50-100 years after the death of jesus?)
2. Mythology is unscientific. Nothing in the Bible has ever been contradicted by science (although some scientists have argued against it). (Yeah, there isn't anything unscientific in the bible. Good thing we have world wide floods and unicorns to tell us the truth about science.)
3. Mythology is not historically accurate. Everything in the Bible agrees with secular history and archeology. (Everything in the bible is historically accurate? I don't even know where to start on this one.)

People who believe in religions just aren't capable of seeing outside of their system. I suppose the ancient Greeks couldn't imagine a world where Zeus was considered 'mythology'.

PS Why isn't anyone posing as Trinity? We're missing a vital part of the Matrix family here.

Answer 2

1. Mythology speaks of things happening long ago, lost in the mists of time. Christianity speaks of things that happened during the lifetimes of the writers.

2. Mythology is unscientific. Nothing in the Bible has ever been contradicted by science (although some scientists have argued against it).

3. Mythology is not historically accurate. Everything in the Bible agrees with secular history and archeology.

Answer 3

I think they separate them, because they are different, even though they involve the slightly same thing, such as belief in something farther than your understanding on faith alone, but the difference between the two are that religion is something you base your whole life on (such as how you live) and mythology and folklore are stories and stuff that really have not much to do on how you live your life, because mythology and folklore isn't a religion... they are just superstitions (for lack of a better word) where as religion is an entire belief system set up to where you must follow it and live your life accordingly.

Answer 4

"Bang: The theory of Evolution of the Coca Cola Can"

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it's surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola... 12 fluid ounces."

Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.



Here is another:

"The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare"

Note that the banana...

1. is shaped for the human hand.

2. has a non-slip surface.

3. Has outward indicators of it's inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.

4. Has a tab for removal of it's wrapper.

5. Is perforated on wrapper.

6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.

7. Is shaped for the human mouth.

8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.

9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.

10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.

To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test 1.

The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it's muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.

The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Agreed... it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.

If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact... man can't create anything from nothing... we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop... but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye... is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.

Again... another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:

"George Gallup; "If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing... why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this... then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble."

Test 2:

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?

2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?

3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?

If you answered "Yes" to any of those statements... please give details:_________________________________________



Third analogy:

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.

Test 3

Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?

Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?

3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? _______________________________

To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: "There is no gold in China."

Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China?

B. Partial knowledge of China?

C. Absolute knowledge of China?

"C" is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.

Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let's say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an "agnostic." You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn't seem to know if there is a builder.

Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there is a builder is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive

In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on... that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear... because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor... so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.

God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible... like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn't, forget it.

Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God... as a thief can't find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?

My suggestion is read what others have done when reviewing this work. Lee Strobel of the Chicago Tribune sought for answers as many skeptics do. He wrote two books on it. The Case for Christ and the Case for the Creator. Josh McDowell a former atheist professor who went from campus to campus across the country converted to Christianity... he wrote many books. His most recent is "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict". There are others William Dembski and Michael Behe defies Evolution using microbiology. Dr Fred Heeren; a 20 year NASA COBE chief scientist wrote a nice book on why God exists based on astrophysics and that this universe is finite with a beginning.

Answer 5

Mythology is a religion that's out of fashion.

A fable is mythology that never reached the religion status. It's believed that fables were usually too moral to become a religion.




Add some sarcasm to the mix, please.

Answer 6

Religion like mythology was used to explain things from the earth to nature to natural phenomenons.

To why we are here, why we breath...etc...

Answer 7

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. There is no mythology in that. It's truth, and you should take my word for it on faith. ;-)

Answer 8

the difference in mine comes down to the Idea of eye witnesses.

What makes the story of the Iliad and Julius Cesar different?

one was written by one man and another was testified by thousands of eye witnesses and their writings.

thats the difference between the two

Answer 9

Mythology is for fun and makes interesting read. It often has exagerated tales of local heroes , some bits of history, some tales are just symbolism and need to be undertand in that way only.

For example hinduism has a vast collection of mythologies and symbolism and icons. But When you read philosophies from Vedas or Upanishads they are deep philosophies and commentries about god, spirituality and even atheism.

Few non Hindus and especially westerners realise that Hindu vedas were monotheist to start with. Rig Veda written at least before 3000 BC itself says
"Ekam sat vipraha, bahudha vadanti" (Sanskrit)

"Truth (God) is one, the wise call it by various names"
Yes, said he, but just how many gods are there Yajnavalkya?" "Thirty three". "yes," said he, but just how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" "One."
- Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III, IX, I

Only in India the mind went beyond monotheism to monism, from dvaita to advaita — to a god without form and attributes.


The Hindu religious system can be divided into two major systems. The Orthodox system (called astika in Sanskrit) accepts the authority of the Vedas.

1. Sankhya - founder Sage Kapila
2. Yoga - Sage Patanjali
3. Mimamsa - Sage Vyasa / Sage Jaimini
4. Vedanta - Shankaracharya, Ramanuja/Chaitanya/ Madhava/Vallabha
5. Nyaya - Sage Gautama (not Buddha)
6. Vaisheshika - Sage Kanda

The Heterdox (Nastika) system rejects the authority of the Vedas. This system includes Carvaka (materialism), Jainism, and Buddhism. The Carvaka system denies existence of the individual self(atman) apart from the body and rejects the notion of moksha (salvation) for the atman.

Again Hindus accept Both concepts - NIRGUN BRAHM (formless God) and SAGUN Brahm( God can have any form and he is in everything)

Transcendent (impersonal) and Immanent (personal).

In the transcendent aspect, the Supreme Reality is called Nirguna Bramh, that is Bramh, without attributes. "Bramh is He whom speech cannot express, and from whom the mind is unable to reach Him, comes away baffled" states the Taittiriya Upanishad.

Nirguna Bramh is not an object of prayer, but of meditation and knowledge. It cannot be described, and the most one can say is that It is absolute existence, absolute knowledge, and absolute bliss (sat-chi-ananda). It is unborn, self-existent, all-pervading, and the essence of all things and beings in the universe. It is immeasurable, unapproachable, beyond conception, beyond birth, beyond reasoning, and beyond thought". God cannot be defined in terms of any specific manifestation, nor indeed in terms of their sum total. He is beyond all possibility of definition. The Bhagavad Gita, the best-known scripture of India, states this point clearly:

"Though I manifest Myself in all things, I am identified with none of them".

In its Immanent (personal) aspect, the Supreme Reality, is called Saguna Bramh. He is the personal God, the creator, the preserver, and the controller of the universe. In Hinduism, the immanent (personal) aspect of Bramh is worshipped in both male and female forms. In the male form, he is worshipped as Ishvara, Maheshvara, Paramatma, Purusha. In the female form, as the Divine Mother, Durga, and Kali. The Vedic God has no partisan attitude of the jealous and vindictive God.

God in Hinduism is not the creator of the individual soul, (atman). The atman is divine and eternal. Greater wisdom was never compressed into three words than by the Chandogya Upanishad which proclaimed the true Self of Man as part of the Infinite Spirit - Tat twam asi : That Thou Art".

In the beautiful words of Vedanta: "Samvit or pure consciousness is one and non-dual, ever self-luminous, and does not rise or set in months and years and aeons, past or future."

Hinduism provides for the ultimate Truth but not for a final and last statement of that Truth. Hinduism provides for self-renewal. The concept of Kalabrahma or Kaladharma is central to the Hindu way of thinking. Thus making for effective use of the built-in mechanism for change for centuries. It accepts explicitly the inevitably of change with the passage of time. The past is not superseded but modified according to the demands of the spirit of the times. Thus, the Vedas are followed by the Upanishads and these by the Epics and the Puranas; nothing is final. Hence, Hinduism's striking ability to adapt itself to changing circumstances and conditions.

Hinduism emphasizes Experience of Reality and Truth rather than belief.

I guess this much is enough to give you an idea and answers your question .

Answer 10

All religions are composed of both mythos and logos.