That the Bible is no different from Mythology

[Unraveller]

Given the level of interest in the Debate section I figured we should have a formal debate on a religious topic.

The full motion I was considering is: "That the Bible is no different from Mythology, early fantasy spiced with morals and historical figures and events." I am open to suggestions though.

I envisage it as a team debate, with two on each team. I suggest Clouded_Perception and either Anakin or Padme for the Proposition and perhaps Alchemist and Foinikas for the Opposition.

In format there would be three rounds, opening remarks and two rounds of rebuttal, each team speaking alternately in each round. Each team member will be allowed one post in each round. One member from each team will then be allowed to make a closing remarks post to sum up the arguments made. A public poll will then decide the victors.

Sound good? Any suggestions?

 

[Alchemist]

Well, you see. I am not fully opposed to that. I do consider it to be mainly...fiction or mythology. I will not claim any story in there is 100% fact. I do believe in Jesus, and his teachings.

 

[clouded_perception]

Sounds interesting; however, I am not a biblical scholar and only understand about half of what my biblical scholar friends say, so while I could put up a decent argument it would not be particularly thorough.

Still, the basic premise of this argument seems unfairly biased in the favour of mythology side. It would be extremely difficult to erect an argument in favour of the bible being reliable and thus the speakers in favour of this are handicapped; it is not really a fair competition and we cannot expect superior debating skill to decide it.

 

[Unraveller]

So give me an amended motion.

 

[Overread]

Interesting - in truth the only difference is that mythology was the early religion and belife of the (pagan - going at it from a UK base here) peoples which was then partially adapted and also supressed by the onset of the new christain religion. In that sense they are both similar.
Further, some say that christianity is more real because Jesus was a real man and there is evidence to show that - but I do not doubt that many of the folk stories of great heros are based on real men at the times.
In addtion some mythologies to us today are considered a real religion by some groups.

In the end I don't think its a bad analogy to make, but I think that generations after generation of similar thought and oppesion and such has made a subcategory for different groups that does not really stand up under close study - there might be more to it than this, but this is what I think is the most likley

 

[chimera_789]

Since no one seems to have posted here in a very long while, I don't suppose it matters if I jump in.

I think it's possible to argue that the Bible is different from mythology (some parts perhaps more than others). The key is the alternative categorization. Obviously one would experience difficulty in showing that it is not at all like myth, or that it is a factual historical record, but the statement to be opposed is that it is NO different from myth. This I think could be done - suggested area of exploration: the origins of mythology vs. the origins of the Bible/Bible stories. - myths seem to sort of develop organically, overtime, through word of mouth, with many variations, by many people; whereas, much of the Bible was intentionally written, supposedly unchangeable, by one or a few people (individual books anyway), made up in a set time period, for a specific purpose or agenda, compiled by an elite group of individuals (and in the case of the new testament) from an entirely different culture than that in which the orignal stories were created. - Where are the differences? Are they significant? etc., etc. - just one avenue of exploration/argument.

Requests clarification of what more precisely is meant by such key terms as "myth" "legend" "folktale" and "fantasy." And perhaps examples: Is Greek mythology the model? Does organization matter? Is Islam (a very organized religion with specific sacred texts and laws) a mythology by virture of its mix of the fantastical and historical? As opposed to say Celtic pagan myths and legends which are of looser construction and did not have a restricted set of religions practices or literature? What impact if any does the prehistorical vs. historical timing of a culture's creation stories and worship practices have on status as mythology vs. say "legitimate religion?" Or is all religion myth? If so what separates myth from merely a fantasy story?" For example, could Tolkien's works be considered myth? Arthurian legends? Do people have to believe in them or at one time have believed in them?

These are just a stream of random thoughts in an attempt to suggest things to get this debate going again, cuz quite frankly I think it would be fun. And I'll volunteer to participate with whoever on whichever side or judge or whatever.

 

[Unraveller]

Yes, Greek and Roman mythology would be the models, but pretty much every 'folktale' could be classified as mythological.

The central idea is that primitive societies developed spirits, gods and stories to explain what they could not understand. Why do we have winter? Because the daughter of the sun goddess/goddess of the harvest has to spend half the year in the underworld.What do we learn from Icarus? Not to be over ambitious. How did the Universe begin? Magic Man/God done it.

In order to prevent going off on massive tangents and keep the scope to a (reasonably) manageable level we'll just focus on the Bible, although obviously the same arguments could be applied to all religion.