Response to Notes on "Myth"

            It is my understanding that a myth is a story that has the feel and look of actually recounting history.  Although it may use an historical event as the basis of the story, it is however, less of a recounting of an historical account than it is a way of explaining an event, belief or practice.  With this in mind the fundamentalist does not see the story as myth since he or she believes the story of the Bible to be an accurate historical account showing how God has worked and does work in the lives of men and women.  While, on the other hand, the liberal believer sees the Bible as a story designed to explain why they believe the way they do, they do not necessarily view the story as an accurate historical account or even necessarily based on an historical event.

            It is not necessary for the liberal believer to believe that the Bible is a strict accounting of historical fact.  It is only necessary that these stories or myths help explain and bolster his or her own beliefs and convictions about God.  The secular humanist sees the stories of the Bible as myths designed, written or told so as to explain mankind’s existence, or at least his or her beliefs.  They do not look for God in these myths, and don’t even believe any of these myths offer proof there is a God.

            While the fundamentalist insists that our beliefs, moral code, and so forth, were given by God, and therefore never changes, the liberal believer and the secular humanist hold that our beliefs, practices and so forth have evolved over the centuries.  To the liberal believer and secular humanist these myths are a way of explaining the beginnings of that evolution.  If the myth does have some historical basis it is still apparent to these believers that the event being recounted has been somehow embellished in order to emphasize the reason why we believe the way we do today.   

I am not aware that the liberal believer or the secular humanist sees the story of Noah and his sons as a myth about the equality of all mankind.  What I am trying to point out is that these believers might interpret this type of story in this way so as to emphasize such a belief.  To them historical accuracy is not necessary as long as the myth helps us to understand why we believe as we do.

            They might therefore claim it is the story of the myth of the flood that is used to reinforce the idea of the equality of mankind.  And, more importantly, that God treated all equally.  Almost all cultures have a myth that speaks of a great flood.  In the Biblical version it is necessary to keep the idea of the equality of mankind from creation to the present.  Therefore, it is necessary to create a myth that included the idea of one beginning for all mankind.

            It is true that the myth of Adam and Eve should have met this need.  If, however, there was a natural catastrophic event that, to these ancient people, appeared to destroy much of mankind, as each culture’s myth proposes, then those who believed in the God of the Bible needed to ensure there was a reasonable explanation for the equality in the creation of mankind.  Thus the story of the flood; which included Noah and his sons.

            I felt the story of Paul and Silas, and the earthquake, was a good illustration of how any Biblical story could be taken literally or interpreted simply as a myth created to make a point.

            The fact of life emphasized by the story of Ananias and Sapphira might, according to the secular humanist, be that greed, lies and deceit is not an acceptable lifestyle in many societies.  We can often see in our own society that when someone practices this kind of lifestyle they are ostracized by our society through punishment, which may include imprisonment.  The death of Ananias and Sapphira would, in this case, not be seen by the secular humanist as God’s way of threatening people, rather they would possibly interpret this as a myth meant to show that this kind of behavior causes society in general to turn its back on this offender.  He or she may still be accepted by some, but the society as a whole has deemed it appropriate to ostracize by imprisonment, banishment or punishment.  As far as society is concerned this person is dead; no longer a vital part of their society.

            It is true that the liberal believer does believe in the redemption story, whether told through the accurate recounting of actual events or through myth.  My point is that once you begin to question the veracity of any part of the Bible you open the doors to the legitimacy of questioning all of its meaning.  Including the redemption plan.  This may not seem as important for the secular humanist who only sees the Bible as some writer’s way of getting others to believe as they believe.  Yet I believe even the secular humanist must be careful not to pick and choose out of the Bible only what he or she wishes to believe is beneficial for mankind.  Behavior in a society must be based on some absolute standards.  We have seen in our society today that when we change the standards, seemingly on a whim, society as a whole suffers as a result.  There is no absolute on which to judge and be judged. 

If the Bible does not have some absolute truths then the secular humanist cannot say that these stories help us, as a society, better ourselves by taking these so called myths as rudimentary outlines or guidelines for the way we should conduct ourselves.  I feel they cannot because they must then make a judgement as to which myths are good and which are bad.  These kinds of judgements are subject to each person’s proclivities, which may change during the course of a person’s life.  Therefore, what is good today might be judged as bad tomorrow.  With this kind of uncertainty ruling a society’s morality that society would be in constant upheaval, and likely not last. 

There must be absolutes.  If the Bible is used as a moral compass, then it cannot be open to pick out truths as one feels there is a need.   When this is done, the Bible becomes less trustworthy as a book that holds lessons for mankind.  If we can ask which myth do we toss out and which to we use today to better ourselves, then we cannot depend on any of them.  It does not matter, in this case, whether one is a fundamentalist, liberal believer, or secular humanist.

            This brings me back to the redemption plan given throughout the Bible.  If any part of the Bible can be questioned concerning its legitimacy, then all of it can become questionable.  This can be seen in the secular humanist’s point of view.  The secular humanist claims that the stories of the Bible offer no definite proof of God.  If God is not the reason for these stories, then what is the point of the redemption story?  In response the secular humanist might say that all of mankind needs hope that they can make a better place to live; a better society.  To them the myths of the Bible give that hope.

            It is my contention that there is no realistic hope if we cannot accept that the Bible is from God.  Once we call the story an account meant to explain a belief, but stop short of calling it an absolute truth, then we place suspicion on the reality of hope.  If one is given the latitude to choose what one believes to be true, then there is no guarantee that any of the Bible is valid.  Not even for the secular humanist, since his or her assumptions about what is good or bad for a society may be wrong.  Thus, any hope based on this approach is invalid.  It is not really hope, it is only wishes.  Hope is based on the belief that something is true.  Only if one believes in all of the Bible as truth can one have real hope, because believing only parts of it makes all of it suspect.