noreen
SF Bay Area

Join noreen on tribe.net today!

noreen has invited you to join her at Tribe.net.

The Mythicist Position:

topic posted Tue, January 6, 2009 - 10:12 AM by  Rocky
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
I thought some here might find this post interesting or useful.

I have been searching for a well thoughout mythicist position to counter the theist, atheist and Euhemerus or Evemerist positions and was surprised that I was unable to find a good one anywhere. One may find these terms in dictionaries and encyclopedias but no mention of a well thoughtout mythicist position. I thought that was very odd - so I sent D.M. Murdock an e-mail and asked her about it and she organized what I consider the perfect mythicist position that works for me. It will be published in her latest book "Christ in Egypt." It takes us beyond the neverending theist/atheist debate to create a far more interesting position to take. Lets see what you think.

For those who don't know, here's some brief info about Euhemerus.

"Euhemerus was a Greek philosopher who lived about 330-260 BC who is known mainly for his radical interpretations of the Greek myths, which he felt were part of a long historical tradition by which the Gods were originally men, known for some great historical feat or some important social and cultural advancement and later raised to god-hood. This view was current in Greek intellectual circles and was popular in the early Christian period as well, probably as a way of defusing the idea of pagan religion."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

www.reference.com/browse/Euhemerism

This thesis developed by Euhemerus may be called "euhemerism," "evemerism" or the "evemerist position," defined as follows:

"Evemerism represents the perspective that many of the gods and goddesses of antiquity had been real people, such as kings, queens and other heroes and legendary figures, to whose biographies were later added extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes."

So, the info above may easily be found. However, you won't find any valuable information on a well thoughout mythicist position at all - I find this utterly WEIRD! I have to wonder if it's due to censorship or suppression.

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology." As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- From "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" by D. M. Murdock
stellarhousepublishing.com/chri....html

Now, I really like this mythicist position. I'm going to submit it as an entry into dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Join the "Solar Mythology ~ Astrotheology" tribe - tribes.tribe.net/solarmyth...rotheology

;
posted by:
Rocky
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: The Mythicist Position:

    Tue, January 6, 2009 - 12:36 PM
    why is that an alternative to atheism?
    • Re: The Mythicist Position:

      Tue, January 6, 2009 - 6:05 PM
      It's more of an adjunct or addition - it goes beyond the neverending theist/atheist debate which is really old and burned out, taking the discussion to a new level. Mythology is far more interesting than just "an absence of belief." Understanding myths, their meaning & purpose may be far more useful to us. Many ancient religious myths were based in natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, stars, planets constellations etc. I find that more fascinating in and of itself - more so than literal belief vs. non-belief.
      • Re: The Mythicist Position:

        Tue, January 6, 2009 - 10:29 PM
        I dunno - while lately I've been thumbing through a book I got for free, on ancient Celtic and Slavic mythology, as a kind of sociological interest, while sitting on the can, overall I'll still take the fascinating complexity of the real sun and Mars over Apollo and Ares any day.

        Cross-cultural comparisons are the most interesting thing to me - to see the same anthropomorphic projections and delusions repeating over and over again. But it gets old for me, thus a few minutes at a time. After exploring under the murk for a bit I really wanna get out into the clear sunshine of reality, out of the Bronze age back to now.

        As for the neverending debate. - it's only neverending on the theist side as far as I'm concerned. When you trump reason with faith you can always reboot the whole tired arguments all over again. Nothing like the fervour of faith to energize oneself to go over the same ground ad nauseam. (And to blind oneself to the fact that it *is* the same ground.) Whereas a good scientist moves on when an argument has been settled.
        • Re: The Mythicist Position:

          Tue, January 6, 2009 - 11:28 PM
          Most people know very little about mythology. And even less about the fact that most of our modern day religions stem from ancient religious myths that were based in natural phenomena i.e. the sun, moon, stars, planets constellations etc. I find that more fascinating.

          More to the point, people don't have a mythicist position option and they should. If the Euhemerus / Evemerist position exists then the mythicist position should also be made available as well. The fact that it's not and the fact that hardly anybody is aware of astrotheology concerns me - it's what's missing from the discussion. Wikipedia has deleted the astrotheology article several times - they won't even give people time to work on it. Something weird is going on - I get the sense that it's suppression/censorship.

          People don't seem to have any clue of the meaning & purpose of these astrotheological myths. It's a part of religious origins and history whether we like it or not. I find the meaning & purpose behind the myths more fascinating than the religions that are based on them.
      • Re: The Mythicist Position:

        Tue, January 6, 2009 - 11:48 PM
        it seems to me that non-belief allows one to pursue such questions and belief closes oneself off to a range of interesting observations because one imagines one already knows the answer.


        "I find that more fascinating in and of itself - more so than literal belief vs. non-belief. "
  • Re: The Mythicist Position:

    Mon, August 10, 2009 - 11:10 AM
    I have no difficulty whatsoever accepting the possibility that most of our gods and heroes have natural, histo-political, and cosmological antecedents. That theory seems very reasonable and likely to me.

    Mythicism however, takes a cognitive leap which I find to be spurious and flawed. Underlying nearly everything that I have read about mythicism is the implication that there is divinity in the heavens. In linking modern religions and mythologies to the ancient worship of the cosmos, mythicists imply that the modern faiths have in fact corrupted what was our first, and most authentic faith.

    You won't find it written in so many words, but there is a perceivable theme in mythicism which suggest a purpose and destiny to consciousness and existence, and even an acceptance of groundless theories such as alternate planes of reality and altered states of existence. As an intellectual pursuit, I find it to be arrogantly abstruse, and almost as pitiable as The Secret.
    • Re: The Mythicist Position:

      Mon, August 10, 2009 - 12:26 PM
      Well said, Joe! Well said!
      • Re: The Mythicist Position:

        Mon, August 10, 2009 - 10:24 PM
        Mythicism as I've been sharing here thus far demonstrates that our popular religions of today evolved from their astrotheological and mythical origins based on natural phenomena ie the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations etc. Nothing said here or in any of the links posted here have ever implied any belief in god(s) or "heaven" nor is there even a mention of any "destiny to conscience" or any other "plane of existence." That would constitute a belief, which, would be defined as theistic and therefore be diametrically opposed to mythicism. The standards for the Mythcism I'm talking about here requires valid evidence substantiating claims.

        www.stellarhousepublishing.com/my...tml

        tbknews.blogspot.com/2009/08...ist.html

        ;

Recent topics in "Secular Humanism"