A question on christian and islamic mythology

[The Dude]

So I've gotten more and more interested in christianity as of late and primarily it's mythology (no, don't worry, I'm not about to turn christian, my interest is purely born out of a love for fiction and symbolism). I've been doing a bit of general introductionary reading around the internet and will probably start my first proper reading of the Bible one of these days, but here's something I've just stumbled upon which raised a question for me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi..._progressivism

Christian mythology, which presents a linear, progressive view of history, has deeply influenced the West's emphasis on progress. Even supposedly secular or political movements such as Marxism and Nazism "announce the end of this world and the beginning of an age of plenty and bliss" Mircea Eliade believes movements such as Marxism would have been impossible without the conceptual framework Christian mythology provided: "Marx turns to his own account the Judaeo-Christian eschatological hope of an absolute goal of History."

Likewise, Joseph Campbell sees Marx's theory of history as a "parody" of Judeo-Christian mythology. According to Campbell, the Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian myth of the final triumph of good over evil appears repeatedly in Western intellectual, political, and spiritual movements:

"In the end, which is inevitable, the dark and evil power [...] is to be destroyed forever in a crisis of world renovation to which all history tends—and to the realization of which every individual is categorically summoned."

Robert Ellwood, a professor of religion, agrees. According to him, "Western modernism", with its belief in "emancipation through progress", is "to no small degree the secularization of Judaism and Christianity".

So if Christian mythology has left its mark so clearly on how westerners think, indeed with end times and rebirths and whatnot being so frequently posited in political ideologies aswell, how is it possible that we have supposedly been such a progress-focused culture whereas the Islamic world has proven to be so, well... uhm. Not-so-progress-focused, to put it mildly. Regressive is another word to use.

Don't the two share the same mythology for a large part? In which way does Islam's mythology really differ from Christianity? Does the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven on earth not play an equally big role in Islam? The most I can conclude on my own is that Jesus Christ and Mohammed were two distinctly different prophets, in that one was supposedly the son of god and the other was just some guy who spoke with god, which meant that distinctly different marks have been left on the mythological nature of each religion.

But at the end of the day they still have in common the concepts of angels, demons, satan, hell and heaven, etc. So all the ingredients for a fairly identical mythology are there, right?

Anyone who can shed some light on this would be most appreciated. I'm not interested in comments on which religion's the more true, though (basics I'm looking at you ).

[Mythos]

Interesting concept. Now that I think of it the ancient Greek (and Roman) religion did not have this dichotomy of good/evil or the whole end of times concept. I am not entirely sure but I think that neither did the Celtic and Germanic religions.

[Col. Tartleton]

The Germanic certainly did. They had their Ragnarök. Celtics seem more oriental in their cyclical beliefs. It's not a linear thing. It's seasonal. Celts have their dark before the light. Germans have a bit more Apocalypse in their beliefs. All the Gods know they are doomed to die in battle and every warrior in history will have to lay down his life again in order to assure a mutual destruction of good and evil so that a new world can be born.

I like Ragnarök. It's very Revelations. All sorts of hosts from the north and south the Jotunn and the hosts of Niflheimr and Muspelheimr. Freyr with dueling with the Black One and being destroyed for his flaw of lust. Odin riding at the head of the cavalry right into the hellmouth of the great wolf. Vast dragons who could only be called eldritch abominations in their ungodly scale and sheer horror getting wtfpwned by Thor who then is overcome by the poisons and sinks to his knees in defiance... Cosmic wolves eating the sun and moon, the stars falling, rivers of blood, the entire world put to the torch, the howling of wolves and the death sounds of the damned.

And when it's all over the Christlike Baldr will return from the dead and become the new King of Heaven and man and woman will have survived the war in hiding and the Gods and Men will rebuild a new world Okolnir which will be a warm paradise never touched by the cold under the light of a new sun.

Great stuff.

[Lord Rahl]

I think one big difference is that Islam has always been a religion that is Arab-centric. From its beginning it was a religion only for the Arabs but as time went on and they conquered city after city, region after region, empire after empire, they eventually allowed non-Arabs to convert. I understand that Islam has spread like wildfire all across the world so that not just Arabs are Muslim though. But the Islamic nations have stuck together because of their religion. My point will become more clear in a second.

Ask yourself, "Is there a Christian world?" My answer to that would be yes...but not really. When we think of Christian nations we instead defer to recognizing "Western" nations or the Western world. Although Christianity has been an integral part of the Western world, it is more of a cultural tradition than the tradition, or religion, of the Islamic world. When we think of the West we usually think of it in a sort of post-Enlightenment idea where politics and science became less based on religion. I don't believe the Islamic world has had their own Enlightenment and so Islam still remains the basis for their lives.

So, while the Western world has held this progressive culture for hundreds of years, the Islamic world has held its religion. Does that make sense? I'm not even sure if that's an answer you were looking for.

[Monarchist]

Don't the two share the same mythology for a large part? In which way does Islam's mythology really differ from Christianity? Does the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven on earth not play an equally big role in Islam? The most I can conclude on my own is that Jesus Christ and Mohammed were two distinctly different prophets, in that one was supposedly the son of god and the other was just some guy who spoke with god, which meant that distinctly different marks have been left on the mythological nature of each religion.

But at the end of the day they still have in common the concepts of angels, demons, satan, hell and heaven, etc. So all the ingredients for a fairly identical mythology are there, right?

Anyone who can shed some light on this would be most appreciated. I'm not interested in comments on which religion's the more true, though (basics I'm looking at you ).

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are under the gaze of the same God. Christianity is considered a fulfillment of Judaism, and Islam a sort of 'restoration' to true Judaism. It is rather similar to the Protestant-Catholic divide: Protestants consider themselves the restorers of an "original" Christianity, before it was corrupted by Medievalism. Just the same, Moslems say that Judaism was corrupted even before the Babylonian Captivity, and the days of the prophets must be restored without any Christian influence - or something like that.

Above all, the same angelic hierarchy is present in the Qu'ran. Mary is present, the prophets of the Jews are present, and the Garden of Eden is present (albeit elaborated considerably). The "Three Abrahamic Religions" are not lumped together for no reason. I tend to believe that this tight relation between the three is an indication of two possibilities: 1. their close proximity in the same area (all three place great importance on Jerusalem) simply affects their common mythology, all of which is made up; or, 2. they all contain remnants of a certain divine truth which rules the Universe, shown in their similar qualities.

[Boer]

While Islam no doubt plays a role in their lack of advancement compared to the west, it should not be the only reason considered.

Reasons for lack of advancement to consider stem from a history of occupation/colonization by the west. When we look at the major areas of Muslim populations, most lacked real independence until relatively recently. With the exceptions of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (which was obviously invaded twice by western powers) and Iran (which was partially occupied during WWII), basically no where else was independent until following WWII, and some had to fight to gain independence (Indonesia and Algeria come to mind): North Africa and the Middle East was split between France and England, with a little under Italy; Pakistan/Bangladesh were also British and Indonesia was controlled by the Dutch; and the USSR encompassed a few areas of heavy Muslim concentration as well.
Compare the lack of advancement in the Muslim world and in much of Africa and I think a lot of similarities pop up. Both tended to be somewhat exploited economically and stifled by European rule. Both tended to lack good infrastructure although terrain and spare population also play a role here. Both have tended to lack strong democratic institutions, partly because they obviously lacked true democracy under foreign control, but also due to other issues.

Another serious source of problems in the view of conflict between the Muslim and Western worlds, no doubt owing its existence in part to religious differences, but also flowing from colonialism, including what some view as neo-/economic-colonialism, and the west's support for Israel.
I cannot find it now, but I saw a survey a few months back that showed that may (want to say a majority, but don't remember for sure) Muslims polled viewed science as Western and some also saw it as atheistic/anti-Islamic.
There seems to be a distrust of anything western, even if it is something needed in the muslim world. I've seen people make comments like, "We need political or economic or human right reforms, but we shouldn't look to the west for answers because they have this or that problem."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Selections from http://www.thedohadebates.com/debate...ode=transcript as simple examples of this:
"in Nigeria, there have been a lot of case studies that women have been punished and men haven't been. That is un-Islamic. We need to fight that, I keep saying that, but I do not believe that the way forward is to go running to the West and bring in their foreign ideology."
"the Western model of equality is being forced on the Arab countries. You have to accept that, that's a fact. They're being told that if your women don't practise contraception the way our women do and don't have birth control and don't have abortions and don't go out to work, you will have some kind of sanctions"
"Do not look for your model to be the women of the West. Do not walk around with little bleached highlights trying to look like Western women. Look like Muslim women and know what your tradition and your culture and your religion are, and if there is a problem in the Arab world, it has to find its solutions in the Arab world and in Islam, not in Western democracy. You need your democracy here but you have to stop aping the West, that's all."

So some much needed advancements are being ignored or resisted simply because they are viewed as being tainted by western influence.

There is no question that religion in intertwined with most, if not all, of the ideas I've pointed out, but religion alone cannot be the explanation, as shown in part by other regressive areas that are non-Muslim. I've already mentioned Africa, but I suppose Southeast Asia could be mentioned too, although they seem to be mostly getting their act together now.
Actually, (Mainland) Southeast Asia may be an interesting micro-study: since Malaysia is Muslim, yet Buddhism is the majority in the surrounding countries; there is a mix of French and British colonies with Thailand as an exception; various degrees of post WWII conflict and paths to independence; large political and economic differences; and often rather divergent courses taken by the countries.

[Helm]

How dare you suggest that the Bible is a myth, that's Gods word you know. Though seriously I think it's a shame that Mohammed had to come along and remove much of the myth, then repace it with a harsh er moreaustere life for his followers instead. Particulary the women, they can't even have careers equal to men or walk around half naked, as Jesus must have sid somewhere in the Bible I'm assuming seeing as it's only Christian countries that seem to do this, Japan aside but they're just copying us.

[Gromovnik]

walk around half naked, as Jesus must have sid somewhere in the Bible I'm assuming seeing as it's only Christian countries that seem to do this, Japan aside but they're just copying us.

and thank Jesus for that...

[Phier]

I think the core issue here is that this...

Christian mythology, which presents a linear, progressive view of history, has deeply influenced the West's emphasis on progress. Even supposedly secular or political movements such as Marxism and Nazism "announce the end of this world and the beginning of an age of plenty and bliss" Mircea Eliade believes movements such as Marxism would have been impossible without the conceptual framework Christian mythology provided: "Marx turns to his own account the Judaeo-Christian eschatological hope of an absolute goal of History."

Likewise, Joseph Campbell sees Marx's theory of history as a "parody" of Judeo-Christian mythology. According to Campbell, the Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian myth of the final triumph of good over evil appears repeatedly in Western intellectual, political, and spiritual movements:

"In the end, which is inevitable, the dark and evil power [...] is to be destroyed forever in a crisis of world renovation to which all history tends—and to the realization of which every individual is categorically summoned."

Robert Ellwood, a professor of religion, agrees. According to him, "Western modernism", with its belief in "emancipation through progress", is "to no small degree the secularization of Judaism and Christianity".

Is not correct. I think the Western idea of progress is far older than Christianity. Some would even say that Christianity slowed this progress though I think thats a bit unfair.

If anything Christian mythology would point more towards a finally corruption of the Earth and Jesus returning to save the righteous in a wicked world.

[Monarchist]

If anything Christian mythology would point more towards a finally corruption of the Earth and Jesus returning to save the righteous in a wicked world.

I have to disagree with you, sir! The message of the whole Bible, expressed in the united covenants with God, is that we must have faith in God. It is a faith in His ability, strength, and immortality over this dull, weak, and mortal realm. The progressive ideal of God is not that "things will tend to get better over time", but that "God increases the quantity and raises the quality of sanctifying Grace over time". Salvation history begins in a narrow fashion with only two parents in Eden. As things progress, the umbrella of what God reveals to humanity grows and covers a wider spread.

At first, God limits His message almost entirely to a specific tribe of Israel (Juda), then confirming it over all Israel with Joseph's descendants. This broadens across boundaries until you have the acceptance of gentiles entering into the covenant, even in adulthood! Despite this acceptance of some gentiles into the fold, the Jews were not particularly interested in "making disciples of all nations". Since Christians believe Christ is the messenger of God (who can speak for God better than God?), we believe He widened the umbrella to finally cover every human being. It's not that God's wisdom or perfect being did not apply to all humans before Jesus, but that it was made manifest and clarified by the same.

The sense of progress, as a Marxist might define it, has nothing to do with Christian progress. Jesus said that the world has fallen, living in wickedness since the first sin. His righteousness is the same old virtue of God from all ages before and after. Progression is here seen in God's gradual revelation of His plan for sentient creation, not in the general betterment of sentient creation. The former appears to be what He had in mind from the beginning, and the latter is a secular corruption: it has moved utopia from its proper place (outside time and outside human effort) to a place where it cannot exist but for the rejection of God (in time, and in our own reach).

[Helm]

*snip*

It's very well thought out but without evidence it really is just thought out.

[Monarchist]

It's very well thought out but without evidence it really is just thought out.

Can you not accept that portions of the Bible might be genuine historical narrative? Why do you set up a different standard for authenticity when it comes to this book? You seem to be assuming that all sacred texts need to be verified by secular texts, because the former are taken as made-up unless confirmed by the latter. I've certainly never seen you ask for such stringent outside evidence of non-biblical, non-Qu'ranic books. When a tablet with some Socrates is discovered, that's all fine and good and plausible, but when some bit of scripture is found ... well, that must have been made up by the worldwide Christian conspiracy to indoctrinate us all.

It's really rather irritating. I do not delve into other peoples' consciences and beliefs, because I don't know them, but a person can make an educated guess based on others' behaviours and declarations. It seems likely that you just want to avoid Christianity like the plague, rather than being simply open to whatever is true.

[Helm]

Can you not accept that portions of the Bible might be genuine historical narrative?

I can but only in the same sense that I can believe Robin Hood could have been based on some historical events. In other words I think it's a myth. I think it's a very good and powerful myth don't get me wrong.

[Phier]

I have to disagree with you, sir! The message of the whole Bible, expressed in the united covenants with God, is that we must have faith in God. It is a faith in His ability, strength, and immortality over this dull, weak, and mortal realm. The progressive ideal of God is not that "things will tend to get better over time", but that "God increases the quantity and raises the quality of sanctifying Grace over time". Salvation history begins in a narrow fashion with only two parents in Eden. As things progress, the umbrella of what God reveals to humanity grows and covers a wider spread.

At first, God limits His message almost entirely to a specific tribe of Israel (Juda), then confirming it over all Israel with Joseph's descendants. This broadens across boundaries until you have the acceptance of gentiles entering into the covenant, even in adulthood! Despite this acceptance of some gentiles into the fold, the Jews were not particularly interested in "making disciples of all nations". Since Christians believe Christ is the messenger of God (who can speak for God better than God?), we believe He widened the umbrella to finally cover every human being. It's not that God's wisdom or perfect being did not apply to all humans before Jesus, but that it was made manifest and clarified by the same.

The sense of progress, as a Marxist might define it, has nothing to do with Christian progress. Jesus said that the world has fallen, living in wickedness since the first sin. His righteousness is the same old virtue of God from all ages before and after. Progression is here seen in God's gradual revelation of His plan for sentient creation, not in the general betterment of sentient creation. The former appears to be what He had in mind from the beginning, and the latter is a secular corruption: it has moved utopia from its proper place (outside time and outside human effort) to a place where it cannot exist but for the rejection of God (in time, and in our own reach).

Revelations.

[justicar5]

So I've gotten more and more interested in christianity as of late and primarily it's mythology (no, don't worry, I'm not about to turn christian, my interest is purely born out of a love for fiction and symbolism). I've been doing a bit of general introductionary reading around the internet and will probably start my first proper reading of the Bible one of these days, but here's something I've just stumbled upon which raised a question for me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi..._progressivism



So if Christian mythology has left its mark so clearly on how westerners think, indeed with end times and rebirths and whatnot being so frequently posited in political ideologies aswell, how is it possible that we have supposedly been such a progress-focused culture whereas the Islamic world has proven to be so, well... uhm. Not-so-progress-focused, to put it mildly. Regressive is another word to use.

Don't the two share the same mythology for a large part? In which way does Islam's mythology really differ from Christianity? Does the end of the world and the kingdom of heaven on earth not play an equally big role in Islam? The most I can conclude on my own is that Jesus Christ and Mohammed were two distinctly different prophets, in that one was supposedly the son of god and the other was just some guy who spoke with god, which meant that distinctly different marks have been left on the mythological nature of each religion.

But at the end of the day they still have in common the concepts of angels, demons, satan, hell and heaven, etc. So all the ingredients for a fairly identical mythology are there, right?

Anyone who can shed some light on this would be most appreciated. I'm not interested in comments on which religion's the more true, though (basics I'm looking at you ).

http://www.cracked.com/article_18911...-islam_p2.html

I know it's cracked, but it deals with the 'regressive' part fairly well, short answer: Regressive islam is new, well fairly new, coming about in the 19th century. Long answer: since the industrial revolution the islamic world has been playing catch up (or has caught up pretty much, depends where you look) before the renaissance they where ahead in most things, then equal and at the industrial revolution they fell behind.

[divinelight]

In my opinion its not right to call Judaism Christianity and Islam are following the same god,islam denies that Jesus Christ is the unique son of god,it declares that Jesus was only a prophet. islamic doctrine declares that 'allah' the god of Islam, does not have a son.Since the God of the Bible has a Son and allah, the god of islam does not have a son.
allah cant be the god of the bible.

the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too! you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he? 1 Corinthians 10:20-22

I am the LORD, and there is no other apart from me there is no God.(Isaiah 45:5)
I hope this helped you!

[Helm]

If there's no objective evidence I'm just not intersted in it, but I am very interested in subjective evidence, even though I currently have none so I'm not all far removed from atheism, but it's still early days yet. I'm yet to begin the prayer and mdeditation exercises, I'm going to have go at yoga as well but I'm only art the reading stage atm. As far as Islam is concerned I'm vaguely interested in Suffism but that's about it.

The thing about all this mystical stuff from what I gather is that if I were to achieve this coverted subjective experience I would be unable to tell anyone els what this experience is, it's ver much a find out for yourself deal. With any luck I should be able to distinguish wishfull thinking and self delusion from the genuine article.

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

The Bible and the Koran may share many of the same stories, but it's still not surprising that Christianity had a different impact on political/philosophical thought than Islam did.

As you said, Christianity takes a linear and progress-based approach to history. It is based on the idea that we live in an imperfect world, where things are only going to get worse with the tribulation etc, before a dramatic apocalypse and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. According to Marx we live in an unfair world, where things are only going to get worse through increasing capitalist exploitation, before a dramatic apocalypse as the whole system caves in on itself, and the workers paradise is created.

Marxism. Christianity. Same difference.

But as for teh Islam... it may share the Bibles stories but its narrative of human history is very different. Christians look forward to Christ's millenial kingdom, but Muslims look back to the glory days of the Caliphate. For a Christian human history is about moving towards a clear goal, for a Muslim human history is a story of moving further away from the ways earthly Caliphate.

This can be seen in the rise of Wahhabism and such purist ideologies in Islam today... the whole idea of removing all "innovations" in religion and returning to the purity of the Salaf... to the way things were in the days of Muhammad.

That is why Christianity had been forward-looking, Islam backward-looking.

[SigniferOne]

[SIZE=2]So I've gotten more and more interested in christianity as of late and primarily it's mythology (no, don't worry, I'm not about to turn christian, my interest is purely born out of a love for fiction and symbolism). I've been doing a bit of general introductionary reading around the internet and will probably start my first proper reading of the Bible one of these days, but here's something I've just stumbled upon which raised a question for me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi..._progressivism

This is all well put and very intriguing.

So if Christian mythology has left its mark so clearly on how westerners think, indeed with end times and rebirths and whatnot being so frequently posited in political ideologies aswell, how is it possible that we have supposedly been such a progress-focused culture whereas the Islamic world has proven to be so, well... uhm. Not-so-progress-focused, to put it mildly. Regressive is another word to use.

I think we need to distinguish the Christian from the Islamic mythology; the two are by no means identical, because we need to not confuse inheriting a mythology, from giving it a prominent place. The Muslims do indeed inherit the whole Christian framework, but they don't exactly accept Christianity do they. The very fact that they don't accept the 'end of times' redemption through Christ shows how little they take from it in practical terms. Their links to the previous Abrahamic religions are more academic than relevant or actual.

I think the Western idea of progress is far older than Christianity.

What evidence do you have to put this forth? The Greco-Roman ideal has always been cyclical, not progressive.

Some would even say that Christianity slowed this progress though I think thats a bit unfair.

Interesting, who.

[Phier]

What evidence do you have to put this forth? The Greco-Roman ideal has always been cyclical, not progressive.

Progressive in terms of technology and even social progress. From the birth of democracies and republics, to Roman innovation and gennerally good standards of living for the ancient world for the more average citizens. The lament of the dark ages is that Roman progress halted and regressed for so long.

Interesting, who.