Jesus

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

About Jesus....(less than 2 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UQm4uF3OW8

Cheers.

Sriram

[Outrider]

If people take away the more inspirational messages of the stories of Jesus, Krishna and the like that's great, but there are two problems that come along with it.

Firstly, not all of the messages that come out of the Christian mythos, certainly (I'm less familiar with Hindu legends), are inspirational, and the parts that I might find inspirational are not necessarily the parts that others would aspire to.

Secondly, lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history, and those people typically aren't the people we need to be giving support, however unwitting, to. There are plenty of demonstrably real role models you can choose from, we don't need myths with baggage to inspire us.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

If people take away the more inspirational messages of the stories of Jesus, Krishna and the like that's great, but there are two problems that come along with it.

Firstly, not all of the messages that come out of the Christian mythos, certainly (I'm less familiar with Hindu legends), are inspirational, and the parts that I might find inspirational are not necessarily the parts that others would aspire to.

Secondly, lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history, and those people typically aren't the people we need to be giving support, however unwitting, to. There are plenty of demonstrably real role models you can choose from, we don't need myths with baggage to inspire us.

O.

Does saying that this is an inspiring message no matter if it's true lend credence to it being true? Not sure why it would.

[Outrider]

Does saying that this is an inspiring message no matter if it's true lend credence to it being true? Not sure why it would.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, there?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, there?

O.

You wrote 'lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history' - so I presumed you saw the clip talking as lending credence that  to the myth. Given the clip says it's inspiring even it it isn't true, I am questioning whether your claim is correct.

[Outrider]

You wrote 'lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history' - so I presumed you saw the clip talking as lending credence that  to the myth. Given the clip says it's inspiring even it it isn't true, I am questioning whether your claim is correct.

I see what you mean - I think that accepting the inspirational elements without accepting that the stories have any literal veracity will be interpreted by some as a validation of the claims, even if explicitly denied. There will be people who will interpret it as 'look, this is so spectacularly magically holy that even people who don't think they believe are actually influence by it, what a miracle'.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I see what you mean - I think that accepting the inspirational elements without accepting that the stories have any literal veracity will be interpreted by some as a validation of the claims, even if explicitly denied. There will be people who will interpret it as 'look, this is so spectacularly magically holy that even people who don't think they believe are actually influence by it, what a miracle'.

O.

So? Does that mean you shouldn't say something in case ir's misused by some people? Because in that case......

[Outrider]

So? Does that mean you shouldn't say something in case ir's misused by some people? Because in that case......

As an absolute, no. In this particular instance, where the benefits of aspiring to be like inspirational people can be achieved by adopting other inspirational people without the incidental damage of being interpreted as supporting a range of views from the benign to fringe lunacy... I think so, yes.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

As an absolute, no. In this particular instance, where the benefits of aspiring to be like inspirational people can be achieved by adopting other inspirational people without the incidental damage of being interpreted as supporting a range of views from the benign to fringe lunacy... I think so, yes.

O.

So you think the bloke in the video should not have said this because there are some people who would misuse his statement? Can you outline more about this magical dividing line between things that can be said even if they are capable of being misused, and things that shouldn't be said?

[Outrider]

So you think the bloke in the video should not have said this because there are some people who would misuse his statement? Can you outline more about this magical dividing line between things that can be said even if they are capable of being misused, and things that shouldn't be said?

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to suggest that he shouldn't say it - that I wouldn't isn't necessarily a benchmark anyone else has to live by - but I think we need to be mindful of the way these things are going to be interpreted.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to suggest that he shouldn't say it - that I wouldn't isn't necessarily a benchmark anyone else has to live by - but I think we need to be mindful of the way these things are going to be interpreted.

O.

It's how I interpreted what you said. So perhaps you needed to be more mindful of how it was going to be interpreted.

[Outrider]

It's how I interpreted what you said. So perhaps you needed to be more mindful of how it was going to be interpreted.

Perhaps. Communication is a two-way street, of course.

O.

[Sriram]

If people take away the more inspirational messages of the stories of Jesus, Krishna and the like that's great, but there are two problems that come along with it.

Firstly, not all of the messages that come out of the Christian mythos, certainly (I'm less familiar with Hindu legends), are inspirational, and the parts that I might find inspirational are not necessarily the parts that others would aspire to.

Secondly, lending any credence to these myths offers a blanket of acceptability to people who go further with their claims, people who claim these aren't myths or parables, that these are works of history, and those people typically aren't the people we need to be giving support, however unwitting, to. There are plenty of demonstrably real role models you can choose from, we don't need myths with baggage to inspire us.

O.

Historical quotes can also inspire.....but its all about the emotional content. If some legend can have an emotional impact it will be inspirational.

[Outrider]

Historical quotes can also inspire.....but its all about the emotional content. If some legend can have an emotional impact it will be inspirational.

When it comes to 'emotional content', my sense is that we're much more likely to get that from demonstrably real people, for two reasons: firstly, we're more likely to know something about them as a person, moreso the more recently they've lived; and, secondly, Jesus and Krishna, and other mythic figures, are not conventionally human - their mindset, their emotional landscape is going to be very, very different if the stories are true.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps. Communication is a two-way street, of course.

O.

I'd suggest it's much more complex than that. And that your 'rule' is merely one about what you feel comfortable about saying rather than anything more useful.

[Nearly Sane]

When it comes to 'emotional content', my sense is that we're much more likely to get that from demonstrably real people, for two reasons: firstly, we're more likely to know something about them as a person, moreso the more recently they've lived; and, secondly, Jesus and Krishna, and other mythic figures, are not conventionally human - their mindset, their emotional landscape is going to be very, very different if the stories are true.

O.

If they are mythic, they don't have a 'mindset'. They are human creations.

[Sriram]

When it comes to 'emotional content', my sense is that we're much more likely to get that from demonstrably real people, for two reasons: firstly, we're more likely to know something about them as a person, moreso the more recently they've lived; and, secondly, Jesus and Krishna, and other mythic figures, are not conventionally human - their mindset, their emotional landscape is going to be very, very different if the stories are true.

O.

The fact remains that Krishna and Jesus have inspired millions of people over several millennia. Some historical people like Mahavira, Buddha,  Mohammad and Guru Nanak also have inspired. Some one has to work out the different components that lend themselves to being inspirational and those that don't.

[Outrider]

If they are mythic, they don't have a 'mindset'. They are human creations.

And the nature of the writings from which we derive those myths do not delve into their notional mindsets in the way that more modern fiction tends to - that it's a fictional character doesn't stop us considering what mindset it might have.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

And the nature of the writings from which we derive those myths do not delve into their notional mindsets in the way that more modern fiction tends to - that it's a fictional character doesn't stop us considering what mindset it might have.

O.

Not in the fictional sense. The problem I have is that you are talking it being a myth, and true which seens to me to make no real sense. A myth might contain truth but it's not 'true'.

[Outrider]

The fact remains that Krishna and Jesus have inspired millions of people over several millennia.

Inspired to do what? In some instances it's clearly a generally good thing; charity, compassion, loving thy neighbour etc. Some might even argue these are the majority of the results. As I said, i can speak more to the effects of Christianity, but God/Jesus has been used to justify homophobia, misogyny, slavery, wars, sectarian violence, and all sorts of hatred, and not just historically. On the Hindu side there's a well-documented anti-Muslim sentiment in the ruling Nationalist parties interpretation of Hinduism in India, from what I can see.

Some historical people like Mahavira, Buddha,  Mohammad and Guru Nanak also have inspired. Some one has to work out the different components that lend themselves to being inspirational and those that don't.

It's less what that motivational elements are, and more what the traits and ethics we want to inspire people with are. Part of the problem with the mythic figures is that their purported divine nature risks the lesson crossing the line from 'inspiration' to 'edict' - divinely mandated expectations, things that can't be questioned by their nature, are dangerous.

O.

[Outrider]

The problem I have is that you are talking it being a myth, and true which seems to me to make no real sense.

The problem isn't that I see it as both myth and truth - although the nature of metaphor makes that entirely possible - but rather that what seems clearly myth to me is TO OTHERS truth. That's compounded when particular expressions of the myth are treated as somehow literal, absolute and unquestionable truths.

A myth might contain truth but it's not 'true'.

Yes, but one person's myth is another person's history.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem isn't that I see it as both myth and truth - although the nature of metaphor makes that entirely possible - but rather that what seems clearly myth to me is TO OTHERS truth. That's compounded when particular expressions of the myth are treated as somehow literal, absolute and unquestionable truths.

Yes, but one person's myth is another person's history.

O.

I didn't wrote you did 'see it' that way. I wrote that you were talking about it that way. To link tjis to your reply to Sriram, there is plenty of killing in the name is actual peopke, so not sure that something being a myth is particularly problematic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem isn't that I see it as both myth and truth - although the nature of metaphor makes that entirely possible - but rather that what seems clearly myth to me is TO OTHERS truth. That's compounded when particular expressions of the myth are treated as somehow literal, absolute and unquestionable truths.

Yes, but one person's myth is another person's history.

O.

The gospels are clearly myth, the universe is here unintentionally/ accidentally/ naturally etc. Isn't it about time you guys started justifying your assertions?

[Nearly Sane]

The gospels are clearly myth, the universe is here unintentionally/ accidentally/ naturally etc. Isn't it about time you guys started justifying your assertions?

Do you see no difference between 'The gospels seem clearly myth to me' and 'The gospels are clearly myth'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you see no difference between 'The gospels seem clearly myth to me' and 'The gospels are clearly myth'?

It depends what his purpose is in telling us, I suppose. If your going to say it publicly then you should expect interest in why you've said it.
A "clearly myth to me" sets me thinking about his definition of myth and clarity.