Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; (emphasis on TRUE) they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion.Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

Myths were the exoteric representation of an esoteric 'truth' told as ways those of limited understanding (peasants) could more personally represent a basic, fundamental and TRUE principle. Supposedly wise men today look at the myth that has entered into 'common' understanding and only see the fairytale of a man god throwing a lightening bolt representing the 'true' reason lightening happens and so equates myth with superstitious 'untrue' rubbish incapable of scientific scrutiny, rather than understanding the higher truth the myth actually represents.

It is analogous to how future generations of pygmy's might 'understand' their ancestor's first meeting of 'gods' who flew to earth in a big shiny bird made of silver and gold. The truth is far removed from the later 'myth'.

Man consistantly fails to properly understand our own past and our current reality, partly through imperfect translation of word meanings and poor logic structure. Sadly, we are human and falible after all.

As many posts here from otherwise quite intelligent people prove.

West,
i sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your words but if, as I suspect I am not, I would be ashamed of possessing such a poor ability to correctly use logic as your last post demonstrated. Reading that i am inclined to agree with Sells concerning standards of education over the last 500 years and that galls me more than you can imagine. (agreeing).

Pericles,

Thank you for your post.

1. Mao carried forward indigeous beliefs for his own purpose. Historically, the leaders of the Middle Kingdom held the Mandate of Heaven. In this frame, the Chinese people (peasant revolts aside)tended to be conditioned to be deferential to secular religious authority. Mao played on this cirumstance, for his own opportunity.

Moreover, he made pronouncements, punished his "sinners", as counter-revolutionaries, and, was said to have achieved superhuman feats, such as, swimming at better than Olympic times. His thoughts were codified in a doctrinal Bible (Thoughts and Words)>

Mao's thoughts were the locus of a secular ideology. All of human invention. Mao used the secular "religious predispostions", pre-existing to be exploited. More like creative accounting (carryng a figure forward)than circular confirmation.

My definition of "secular" religion to be broad, "a reference group worshipping an object/person".

Pye actually refers to Maoism as a "cult". Also, I noted compliance was manatory, so they were "Clayton's_ believers. However, children did turn-in, to authorities, their parents on the basis of Maoist doctrine. So there were serious disciples: Give up your parents and come with me>

2. In the West, priesthoods came into existence in Sumer to control/administer (read: have power over)land (owned by gods). In our tradition, these ministeries morphed.

The Jesus event (may have) happened four thousand years later. New Churches and priesthoods, more primitive structures, captured the Jesus event and have managed in for the past two thousand years. That is, churches and priesthoods, are also secular:

Equally, contrived as, Maoism.

3. In this sense, both Mao and the Churches are intercessionist. If there were God or Heaven, or, a residal aftermouth of the same; Mao and the Churches, have stepped into the shoes of the divine, for "them" to control and for "them" interpret. Sells, is a perefect example:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5101

4. Secular religionism was a topic much debated c. 1800-1850. Compte and French revisionist thinkers supported individualism and independent thought, which, of course, put them on a collision course with collective self-authorative churches and elite ministeries, whom were/are also secular, but pretended/pretend to be divine, by proxy.

Oliver, if I follow your argument correctly, it would be equally valid to say "there is no such thing as religion".

To most ordinary folk, the words "religious" and "secular" are antonyms. Somehow you (and Sells) have managed to force-feed these poor words with the corn of marginal meaning until they have become the foie gras of synonyms. Distended, bloated, but somehow tasty.

In order to help me with this dilemma, could you please explain the difference between the two words, secular and religious? But without the use of qualifiers - i.e. no hiding behind constructs such as "secular religion" or "political religion" - or even "secular politics" - until we have sorted out the basics.

If you can separate them, I think you will find that the artificiality of the premise will suddenly appear in plain view. Pol Pot was never a religious figure, nor was Stalin.

If you cannot, then we have the situation where, the two terms being indistinguishable and/or interchangeable, you have single-handedly caused religion (and its trappings, such as God) to disappear.

Good work!

Pericles,

THE LITTLE BIG HORN

"To most ordinary folk, the words "religious" and "secular" are antonyms.

I do appreciate what you are saying. Just the same, one will find there exists a significant body of literature on "secular religion". It was major topic of discussion, and, was, so called, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when liberal individualism clashed with orthodox religion. Discourse, freely used, the, perhaps, inappropriate, "secular religion/ious" construction.

"Secular" religionism? Maybe, because the freedom to think for oneself was seen to be "in substitution" for the church (religion)? Secular religionists? John Stuart Milne? Voltaire? I will check.

Maybe, I see "religious" valid mainly as an adjective. But, as The Religion of the God Zot, it becomes problematic, because gods are secular constructs.

As an adjective, "religious", rightfully or wrongly, seems to be used, as a "zealous belief" in something: gods, a leader, a political party, with or without theistic connotations... Pericles, you say inappropriately. Herein, I do appreciate your point... A etymological bastardisation, true, but, an accepted bastardisation.

It appears there is divergent understanding of the meaning of the word - religion. A reference was made earlier that it meant “scrupulousness, exactness, of people”… in other words, being a good, upright and moral boy or girl.

I understand its root is in the Latin term ” religare” – to bind together.

Our stories bind us to meaning and purpose. And stories abound in the Israel-history and Jesus-history that Peter (Sells) seeks to inform us of. And these stories are all about revealing Truth in inspired work as the God of Promises revealing Himself.

Stories are not limited to myths. They can be based in truths; refer to the nursery rhymes and games we sang as kids.. Ring around the rosy – being a direct reference to the human horror of the Black Plague.

One man’s story is another woman’s nice piece of music. This week, I attended the Sydney Opera House for a performance of G.F. Handel’s Messiah. What a delight; the work and its performance. My friend, a believer rather than of faith, took great pleasure in the wonderful music and performance of the soloists, choir and orchestra with Conductor.

I had the extended delight in having my story related through the libretto so beautifully crafted from biblical commentary. It is my story owing to my humanity in comman with Jesus and my response in faith in him as the Risen Lord. It is a story linked back to Abraham and living on “for generations yet to born”. I take this delight as a bonus in living experience.

Continued

Continued...

Can I pose a question? What price do we pay as a people when disconnected from our story and not connected to a better, more sustaining one? Or is linking to a story only for the emotionally crippled, the fearful and ignorant. It always astounds me when I hear people gushing over the Rainbow Serpent Story, splendid and meaningful as it is in the time and place of Aborigines, yet disparaging any reference to our own Israel / Jesus story. A story grounded through a time in advance of, the actual time of the Presence, and the time since, all across many millennia into the future for a completion with all in Him – the Omega point.

Can I ask of our secular friends; what is your story. Surely not just a biological - chemical mix which we will some day know more of, but hardly any of, but enough to prescribe happiness, joy and peace amidst an inevitable oblivion.

Surely it isn’t the removal of ecclesiastical shackles or the adornment of mechanistic reason. What is the binding agent in secular religions? Or is it all a myth