Christian Apologetics and Mythic Literalism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- For this video we're dealing with Braxton Hunter, a Christian apologist that I find both honest and interesting. However, I think that he still represents popular trends in apologetics that capes for the more harmful movements within Christianity, that honestly hurt Christianity more than anything else.
Discord: / discord
Patreon: / oceankeltoi
Twitter: / oceankeltoi
Twitch: / oceankeltoi
Avatar by: / tipsy_danger
Intro by: / synje_grafx
Divine Disbelief: / @divinedisbelief
Braxton Hunter / Trinity Radio: / @braxtonhunter
original conversation: / 1254262852225024002
DonExodus2 video: • Why Evolution and God ...
Oh cool new vid from ocean *Watches for 30 seconds* ur fucking cancelled BYE
I am the Pun-isher
@@OceanKeltoi *puns for the pun god*
@@JACandQuill yeeessss
@Luka Merkviladze probably.
@@OceanKeltoi
I am sorry but this is incorrect. Science doesn't refrain from considering God, they EXCLUDE A CREATOR as a possible explanation in advance.
As a Muslim, I'd like to offer the Islamic perspective:
Please use subtitles
ruclips.net/video/9daG8V0uJcc/видео.html
Mythic literalism is a common pitfall for new Heathens coming from Christian or Atheist backgrounds in my experience.
I can see that. I feel like, though, that usually that phase is shortlived when it exists because the rest of the community pushes back pretty hard against it.
@@OceanKeltoi yeah, it's one of the great things about the community
Yeah exactly this is also my spiritual problem and I don't know what should I have to do!😢
Then go be a atheies I hate poeple like u ... Gonna say oh the gods are not real they didn't believe a actual being named odin like u just a atheist who wanna look cool so y'all come to my religion. Go to scientology where u belong fam ....
Totally true about how many Reconstructionists being history nerds. I can't tell you how many Hellenic Polytheists I know who are/were either Classics or History majors
Never studied for history tests and I always got A’s in history.
Huge agreement from me. Sensible Christians need to step up and take responsibility for doing something about these creationists or else their religion is just going to keep crumbling as creationism pushes people away.
Agreed. I became a follower of Wicca and later Neodruidry and Asatru for different reasons. My parents are strong believers in evolution and I agree with them. I think that people who believe in the young earth theory need to look at it from a scientific view and that where they’ll find their beliefs lacking support.
This video really resonated with me. I used to see other atheists engage in mythic literalism all the time when I was an atheist. Some of them just couldn’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that religious myths ought not to be taken well...literally but rather metaphorically. In fact I used to engage in it sometimes as well. In my experience, I ended up engaging in mythic literalism more as an atheist than I did as a Christian or now as a pagan. A very relevant video, Ocean!
As a viewer of atheist youtube channels, I think part of the reason that happens is because a lot of these atheists were raised in families and churches that heavily promoted literalism. It was either take faith literally or burn in fire 🔥. So they're countering arguments from that perspective. I got out of my Angry Atheist phase once I acknowledged the metaphorical aspect of religion and not the hardcore "It's all real or you're a heretic!" stance.
@@hope-cat4894 yeah, I'm from alabama and it's just the way most people are here.
As a scientist and a Christian I think these are very important points for theists to really consider
You've really made me feel like it's "okay"again to practice norse paganism. Not just because of the political issues. I was originally brought to your channel because I used to watch wisdom of odin stuff, but stopped in the fall because I was just so unsettled by so many things and very uncomfortable with the amount of mythic literalism in that community. I didn't have a term for that until now. Thank you for being a trustworthy source.
I think Ocean and Wolf have "saved many lost souls" (myself included) from the clutches of WoO. I was always Pagan but became "lost" on my path and youTube algorithms decided I needed WoO, wrong I needed a trustworthy source like Ocean
There are multiple, contradictory creation myths from Ancient Egypt. If one is a Kemetic Polytheist, it's real hard to justify being a Mythic Literalist. At least in my experience.
Yeah. Their's Ra, Ptah, and Atum to named a few. And that's the God that created it. The method vary wildly as well. Some the God was was born out of a giant lotus flower, a massive expanse of water called Nun (which is considered a God in their own right), or appeared and spoke everything into existence. I'm not going to share one of more common one because it's rather explicit and I'm not if OK would like me sharing it here.
I am a Kemetic. No, I don't think any of these literally happened.
To quote the meme about that:
Question: "Which god created the universe?"
Answer: "Yes."
One big problem is that Christianity (and all of the Abrahamic faiths to some extent) is history-based, as opposed to philosophy-based. That is to say, the historical claims of Christianity supercede all of its philosophical underpinnings. The story and its claims need to be true in order for everything else to be justified. If the fundamental story is wrong, then all of it is potentially wrong (nevermind the fact that the interpretations change all the time in numerous, often contradictory ways).
You hit the nail right on the head. I am a Hindu, the vast majority of Hindus interpret the "Puranas" allegorically. (Puranas are the ancient myths and legends of the Hindu religion.) There is a flood-and-saviour-God myth in our Puranas as well, but I haven't met any Hindus who take this literally. On the other hand, we do pay very close attention to the interpretation of the Upanishads (Hindu Philosophical literature). There are different interpretations of the Upanishads (Dual, Non-dual, Qualified Non-dual etc.) and there are strong communities built around each of these worldviews. I am a believer/follower of the Non-dual school of thought, whose most prominent exponent is Adi Shankara (788 - 820 CE).
I can see the psychological insights, the spiritual meaning, of the Biblical stories as much as I can see them in our Puranas. But, when fundamentalist Christians try to convince me that the myths narrated in the Bible are literally true -- it is time to say goodbye!
@@hkumar7340 But what about the Mahabharata or the Ramayana, both at least somewhat based on historical events and/or people? The problem isn't being based on history - all myths have at least one toe in historical events. Part of the problem is people projecting our modern concept of history (or science itself, for that matter) onto mythical stories - which can be true, and can have elements of history and fact in them, but are NOT history and science as we understand them today.
@@ritawilbur7343 In fact, you have to go one step further and say that 'myths' (within quotes because I use this word positively, not pejoratively as many people do) are deliberately designed to be non-historical and anti-science. History and science are oriented outward ('intentional' is maybe the technical term here), whereas the orientation of myths is purely inward. The problem when one is speaking of the unspeakable -- which is what myths are doing -- is that the unsophisticated are likely to pay attention to the fingernail, when the finger is pointing to the moon.
@@hkumar7340 Why do you say they are deliberately designed to be non-historical and anti-science? Because I wouldn't agree with that at all - mainly because it's an anachronism. On the contrary, I would say myths are ancient forms of history and science before we had modern history and science, and that there is actually an overlap. Your comment about science being "outward" and myths being "inward" - if by that you mean objective versus subjective - I would agree with that. Myths are about the subjective construction of meaning and community. They do not make objective statements about reality.
@@ritawilbur7343 "They do not make objective statements about reality." Precisely! The truth that myths express is not 'empirical' truth. I have seen many Christians, Muslims, and Hindus try to convince others that their holy book(s) contains empirical, scientific knowledge, if only it were interpreted "properly." Sorry, I am not going to waste my time "properly interpreting" the Bible, Quran or the Vedas so that Quantum Physics can be extracted from the text. That is simply not the purpose of any of these texts; nor does this fact lessen the value of the texts themselves. The insight that these works try to convey are sometimes psychological, very often it is spiritual. For example, "one who realises that his/her true identity is NOT that of an ego trapped in a body -- he/she has transcended death." That is a spiritual truth; that is precisely the insight conveyed by Jesus Christ's resurrection. The problem starts when the story is interpreted literally, as an empirical statement. However, that is precisely what most Christian denominations teach; unless you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ you are "damned," according to the church. That is an example of the confusing of spiritual truth with empirical fact. (And that is the point that I was trying to make.)
Thank you for clearing up this mythunderstanding
it's what I'm here for.
@@OceanKeltoi I'm very happy I found your channel looking forward to the next video! New Heathen here, and you're videos have been very helpful
Oh man this came out at a good time. I don't necessarily think it was your intention, but you provide some really good insight on how to debate with these people within this video and I really love that.
I think that although literacy is high, understanding is low. The Bible is a collection of old books, but often they are read as if they were written yesterday. Too many people care about how the Bible can be used today while ignoring historical context. The narrative as a whole is God interacting with humans wanting to lead them to eternal life while also showing us how to enjoy our earthly lives in a good way.
Denying evolution never made sense to me and when I first heard someone talk about it at my old church I kinda thought they were dumb. I know that's kinda rude but it's what was going through my head when speaking to them
Same!
Yeah honestly I never got Creationists really. Even as a Christian, even in my strongest Traditional Catholicism stage, I never stopped thinking evolution is true.
It is just a category error. My faith has no impact on my belief that evolution is a fact. It is just alien to me to think otherwise
Aya Brinly the book says god created the world in 6 days in about 4000BC. So if you believe the Bible is the infallible word of god, you’ve no choice but to be a creationist. That’s how.
@@nothanniballecktor9633 Infallible does not mean literal.
@@nothanniballecktor9633 Maybe, if you accept infallibility - but most Christians don't. The concept of the Bible as the "infallible word of God" - in other words, literal truth - is only a little over one hundred years old. And to say "you have no choice" is false. ALL religion is based on interpretation - even fundamentalist literalism.
Aya brinly based
"It would be kinda metal though," ...bruh, it would be definition of METAL!! lol keep the videos rolling, I love it!
As a Heathan who's just done their dissertation on human evolution - can confirm, no mythic literalism here
I hadn't realized how much I used the "there are no gods on Mt. Olympus" line as an example of gods I "know" aren't real. Ocean, sincerely, thank you for shining a light on polytheism, I never noticed how biased I still am because of my Christian upbringing, against such a fascinating group of belief systems. I hope I can unlearn a lot more of the junk that was hoisted on me by Christianity by listening to you and others in the polytheist-youtube-sphere! :)
As someone who was a creationist born again christian (taught creationism by Ken Ham no less), I can say for me, it was about believing what the god I believed in said. The deciding factor for me was the explanation of the word 'day'. In genesis, everything was created in a day. Ham explained, the Hebrew word for 'day' meant a 24 hour period. Not knowing any better, I chose to accept that - he seemed to know what he was talking about. So I became a creationist. For some really crazy reason I can't explain, that never ruled out evolution for me either. I look back on that now and cringe.
You're extremely good at explaining concepts I have understood intuitively all my life but couldn't put into words .
very enlightening, thanks to Arith Härger for introducing me to this channel
Huh! This is funny to me because Braxton reminds me a ton of what I was taught in confirmation classes. When I was talking to my dad about the different interpretations of creation and whether evolution was true (he was also the one teaching this class), he pretty much said that some people think that the creation story is a metaphor for the evolution our world went through, that the seven days weren't literal days and god created the animals as they appeared in the fossil record through history, or that it was a literal story... both were presented to me as equally good conclusions to come to and honestly, I just chucked evolution into the pile of cognitive dissonance I was already gathering at that age.
I can say having come out of a very literalist church myself that I remember distinctly at least one pastor, who insisted that a literal belief in the young earth creation was necessary, because if it was somehow disproven this would mean the sacrifice of Christ was meaningless.
I remember thinking at the time, 'wow that is just not a position you should put yourself in,' even before eventually realizing that evolutionists were just pretty evidently correct and gradually finding my way out.
On my path into the realm of heathenry or paganism, I would read numerous texts from different religious point of views. I grew up fairly atheistic/agnostic. I never wanted to even give the Christian god my time of day, but I would read the Bible as a source to combat Christians. Anyway, I would read some of the stories about the Jotunn and how they were taller, bigger, dull, slightly ugly etc. With my background of a young scientist and hard believer of evolution, the Jotunn to me were the Neanderthals of ancient Earth. Which has kind of locked me into heathenism/paganism. The stories seem to hold some truth to the histories of man kind. Some lines of the stories are either lost in time/dialect or shortened to make them easier to pass down through "telling" stories. Food for Thought
Ocean - I thought I was alone in terms of reading Raptor Red lol. That was an awesome book. I just wish I still had it, I wouldn't mind reading it again.
Yeah i think i wanna reread it too.
RAPTOR RED shooutooooooooooooout!!! I presented that book as part of a 6th grade book review and the other kids were like "whaaaaaaat is she on about, frikken dino nerd!?"
30 years later, and I'm an archaeologist, so, neener-neener to them, LOL.
That is awesome! Mad props for making your dreams come true in archeology. 🦕 needs unite!
I was told once that because im Portuguese I should be celtic because most of my ancestry was probably celtic and being heathen would bother them. Although because im European there was probably some germanic ancestry in there so it wasn't too offensive to them.
I'll never forget that. Because some people logic just baffles me.
Hi Ocean, I have some questions.
Do you know rather or not people in the past regarded myths as actual events or metaphors and allegories?
What do you think about myths that are mixed with historical events?
And do you think that some myths represent historical events or at the very least are based on them?
Thank you very much I love your channel.
I'm not Ocean, but I teach both World Religions and history, so I'm going to address your questions. People in the past did generally see myths as actual events, but not the way we see the news as reporting actual objective events. But they saw those myths primarily as saying something important about their values and about who they are as a community - which can include seeing metaphor and allegory in the myths. In fact, the point of those myths was not to talk about something that happened in the past, but to teach people something about who they are in the present. The book/movie "Whale Rider" is an excellent example of this, where the main character identifies with her people's ancestral hero Paikeia. Is she literally Paikeia, or does she just take on that role and harness its power to heal the fractures in her community? Either way, she's really Paikeia, although she may not be literally Paikeia. If that makes any sense. Huston Smith refers to this as "actively participating in archetypal paradigms."
Many myths are indeed based on historical events. Up to about 100 years ago, most scholars thought myths had no basis in reality, but not only has that now been disproved (the discovery that there really was an ancient Troy was a game-changer), but there is a lot of scholarship today that explores myths for both historical and scientific evidence. For example, some Native American myths have been found to describe ancient geologic and climatic events, as well as migrations. Thomas Carlyle in his book "On Heroes and Hero Worship" explores the possibility that Odin may have been based on a real person, though heavily mythologized, like Rama in the Ramayana, or Moses in the Jewish bible. I don't know a lot about this modern scholarship, but what I've seen is very fascinating and intriguing!
I appreciate the memes in this video! Really on point!
I feel like atheists have a tendency to cling to science as this infallible, perfect, all-knowing concept, like how followers of Abrahamic faiths hold their god, when, in reality, history has proven time and time again that science is just as fallible and imperfect as, say, a pagan deity. Science is 100% compatible with religion, and maybe I’m just biased as a pagan/polytheist myself, but I think it’s especially compatible with polytheism considering its imperfect and constantly-changing nature.
I think some do, but I also think this is often a misunderstanding of what atheists are saying. They're often meaning that they trust the scientific process precisely because it can change and adapt, and admit when it's wrong, as new evidence is uncovered, but that's taken to mean they think Science is equivalent to God and can't be challenged.
A very good video. As an atheist, a university graduate in philosophy and history, I'm usually upset when an atheist says something stupid like "evolution proves that God doesn't exist". Overall, I am wary of scientism (quite dangerous ideology). I am not an atheist because "science is true and religion is false". I an atheist bcuz : I choose immanence over transcendence. I'm a nominalist. I believe in the autonomy of the person. I believe that society has the duty to defend freedom of conscience. Many Christian theologians reject literalism. My hypothesis is that the apologists of Xtians want to convert others more than to explain it. Chrissy Stroop denounces this trend, she rightly fights proselytism. There is a gap between explaining / discussing and converting / proselytizing. Literalism is easier than good exegesis or testimony like God is Grey.
Totally random... I used to work at Barnes and Noble in Boulder, and Robert Bakker (or Dr. Bob as we lovingly called him) was a regular there... He'd come in and spend most of his time just chatting with us... We had some wild and fun conversations!
Loved the video. I'm a huge fan of Braxton, but I think this issue is important. That's why I like IP. Also, out of curiosity, why do you think Christianity harmful?
The amount of terrible puns in this makes me wonder if you have a channel on the way.
Holy fuck I wrote this last night and my phone auto corrected child to channel.
In my experience, a lot of creationists tend to use "Evolution" as a catch-all term for everything from the Big Bang to Australopithecus.
Apparently the "banana man" is not a botanist
My theory on creation vs evolution was always, even as a young child, that a day to man could be the blink of an eye for God and a day for God could be millions of years to humans.
i miss that series of books,, myth adventure,sigh
Holy shit you loved Raptor Red? 😻
Practical Theist Utahraptor became my favorite dinosaur after that book and I became a =real= nerd.
What I find so interesting is that it's obvious that the story of Genesis is a creation myth, but it's the foundation of the Christian faith. It's the foundation of original sin; which is supposed to be why Jesus died for humanity in the eyes of Christians. I think that's why so many do take it literally, because it's the foundation of the religion.
Here's how I explain it. this is also how I experience it from when I was a child and thought I once came to be a Christian ... when I might later understand things. It didn't happen.
I have never experienced anything personal that would indicate that there is a God, so this is out of the picture. But, in addition, I have rejected all arguments that I have heard that there is a God, either because the phenomena pointed out can be better explained in other ways, or because they presuppose an assumption that I am unwilling to make. This means that when someone asks if I believe in God, I do not treat the question as a matter of whether I have weighed arguments or against and come up with an answer, then it would feel like an absurd question. It would be on par with whether I think there is a monster under my bed. I think of the question as a question of how I experience the world around me. The answer is still no ... but it's not about ontology. So, on the question if I find that there are good enough arguments to believe in a god, then the answer is hell no ... but on the question if I think there is a god, then the answer is I don't think so.
If you stay long enough alone under your bend, you'll probably make up a monster. God is not about what you think or what you see most of the time. It's what you let yourself believe and have faith in. It's a way to cope with the fact that you'll never answer your question, no matter how well you think you estimated it.
Remember this dialogue from "The King and I"? The king is reading the Bible in his study when in comes Anna.
King: Mrs. Anna, I think this Moses [who was thought to have written Genesis] should have been a fool!
Anna: Moses, Your Majesty?
King: (pointing to Bible) Moses, Moses. He say whole world created in six days. Now, you and I both know it took many ages to create the earth. How can I discover truth if different English books tell me different things?
Anna: You must understand Your Majesty that the Bible was not written by men of science but by men of faith. This was their way of explaining the miracle of creation.
King: (thinks a bit) I still think this Moses should have been a fool.
I'd really like to hear a defense of belief in gods that cannot be demonstrated through the means that one would use to show a newly discovered species to the world.
Peolple often don't realise that Creationism does not necessarily mean YOUNG EARTH Creationism. OLD EARTH Creationism often includes Big bang (Catholic Priest postulated it) and evolution. It is simply the belief that God created everything.
Just came across this video, I think this was much needed! I have a weird view (I think?) when it comes to mythic literalism. Perhaps the Gods were born from Ymirs armpit? However I don't believe we were created from the Ash and Elm. I love the story, but that is exactly what it is, however, some things, such as the 9 realms, I struggle with. I have always believed there is something beyond our world and as a pagan I finally realized what I believed. The 9 realms do exist, entertwined in the roots of Yggdrasil. I believe the Gods walk the realms every day.. however, I don't believe Odin is wearing his brimmed hat, robes and Gungnir in his hands. I think they are more as spirits, they show themselves when necessary, to those who need it, in a way that is needed. Maybe this is the former christian in me? Thoughts? Is it wrong to sort of play both sides between Literal and Metaphorical?
It’s funny to me as I reflect upon my Catholic upbringing. My personal struggles with the teachings of the Church were more of my being scared out of my wits that I was going to hell because I had questions all the time about everything, and regardless of denomination, Christianity stresses the goodness inherent in unquestioned belief or adherence to ritual. My little mind, same as my older mind now, wonders about everything. I absorbed information like a sponge. Moreover, my father who was only ever nominally Catholic (he’s atheist now) is very interested in evolution. I ended up getting my BA in Anthropology with a strong emphasis on physical anthropology and evolution. We moved from a smallish town in Ohio where most everyone in our area was Catholic, so I never grew up hearing creationist arguments. It wasn’t until we moved here to SE Texas, that I became aware that there are people who don’t believe in evolution. 35 years later it still boggles my mind that this is still a thing in our day and age.
- listening to the intro: oh man, he sounds pretty serious. No puns in the intro? Damn, okay then.
- hits 0:29: DAMMIT HE GOT ME!
I wasnt quite intending on doing a pun every vid at this point. But rewatching it i surprised myself too.
@@OceanKeltoi
@@williamchristensen7354 In my case it's an IRL thing that made its way into my videos.
Did that clip show a person tipping a dinosaur?
I loved reading as a kid so of course I read the Bible but I never really held any strong belief; as my parents were non-practising Christians, in the way that a lot of people in modern culture are by default Christians. I was at the same time I was moving out of the fiction section of the library and into the non-fiction; with old encyclopaedias and reference books, there was no clash between the religious and secular learning but I never felt a spiritual connection. By the time I was coming out of my autistic bubble, I started to pay attention to news. This really took me away from Christianity, as it was around the time that many powerful Christian figures were being exposed as child molesterers, being a sponge it stuck with me and kept me from forming a firm connection to religion. However I turned to learning mythology and separated from religion seeing it as separate from reality; ironic as I was living in a constant bubble of either learning or imagination.
In truth, I don't see any creation story of being "the way" the world was made. With modern science i think we may be on the right track, and we may get insanely close to figuring out how exactly the world came to be, but ultimately we won't know 100% for sure what happened because we weren't there to see it. Creation stories do have an important role however, to explain to us our role in the greater cosmos. How we are supposed to interact with the world on a very basic level.
You went Robert Asprin there for a second...
The idea that God created our souls and places them in our naturally formed bodies sounds *A LOT* like Xenu from Scientology (unless my understanding of scientology is wrong)
Genuine question but from an athiest. Without mythic literalism what do you know to be true about your gods? What do you know of the nature/additude/atributes of your gods? How do you differnetiate myth and reality? Does it become living like or somewhat a kin to the additives of your ancestors?
This was one of the core questions my pentecostal church used to raise. If the Bible is not a perfect, infallible and literally true book, how do we know anything objective and solid about God? That's why they held that it was literally true and thus opposed evolution. I'm still not certain how I would answer that, the concept that myths are not literally true but gods are actually real.
Without the myths we don't have the Gods. Its ridiculous (to me) to say the myths are not real, they are just for entertainment as some Pagans say or metaphors as others say. I'm not saying the myths ARE true mind you, I personally hold they are, but at the same time that is just my own view and I acknowledge I could be very wrong lol.
But it is clear to me that the ancients believed their myths to be true, they weren't just making them up to explain the Gods, they truly believed them to be historical events, just like how many conservative Christians view the Bible and the Muslims the Quran.
If we say the myths are false or made up, then why couldn't we go a step further and say the Gods themselves were made up. Made up to explain natural things in the world the ancients couldn't explain. Of course, that is the atheistic view and one, while not adhering to myself, I understand the rationale behind it and I respect it.
To me, divorcing the Gods from the myths and literalism is a modern attempt to make the ancient religions more 'modern' and more appealing.
I mean if you tell most people today you literally believe Odin and his brothers killed their grandfather Ymir and built the universe from his remains, they're gonna either assume you're joking or you're insane eh lol. I do believe in the story, but I interpret it slightly differently, however I do believe it happened.
That's what it all boils down to I believe, wanting to make our beliefs seem 'rational' to a modern audience while still believing in the Gods and Goddesses.
Me? I'm upfront about it. I'm a mythic literalist. I believe in the myths and the Gods as literal beings. But I caveat it with saying I'm an agnostic Polytheist. I hold these things to be true, but I'll never make the claim that they are true objectively. I don't know if the Gods exist, no one does, just as no one knows if they don't.
Germanic Polytheism is what speaks to me and makes me feel fulfilled, so whether or not its true doesn't really bother me. It brings me happiness and if, at the end of the day, I die and there's nothing, for one I won't know lol but I'd be fine with it.
Being a good person and respecting others, whatever they believe (or don't believe), how they look, how their different etc, is what is most important in my opinion.
Hel yeah, Raptor Red! And with the gimmicky holographic cover, no less!
that's the only way to read it.
Ive always found the naturalism arguments frustrating.
It always seems to be assumed that we know everything there is to know about nature and reality.
And this assumption seems to be made by religious and non religious people.
How do you know that your god is not subject to the laws that govern nature?
On the other side, how do you know the laws of nature so well that all things that seem supernatural must be excluded from being real?
Personally, I've always found it amusing how humans, who inhabit a hunk of rock spinning in the middle of blackness with thousands upon thousands of galaxies throughout the universe, think we have it all figured out.
My suspicion is that we have barely scratched the surface of what we think we know. Whether the Gods truly exist? I can't say. I'm an agnostic Polytheist. I believe in the Gods as literal beings, I'm a mythic literalist, but at the same time I acknowledge I could be wrong about it all, and at the end of the day I'm OK with that.
Well, I can see someone saying he doesn't believe in evolution and proposing theistic evolution as a possible alternative, I think what they mean by evolution is "darwinism". They are proposing that random mutations and blind natural selection aren't exahustive of evolutionary forces or suficient to account for the vast complexity of life in general and human inteligence in particular and some sort of supernatural intervention could have helped stear and guide the process in some key moments. That sort of spiritual evolution idea is something worth speculating by monotheists or polytheists, or even by someone like me who is inclined to believe something like karma. Specially given new mechanisms of evolution like epigenetics and lateral gene transfer that seems to make evolution seems much more complex.
I'm a mythic literalist, I don't hide that fact. But at the same time, I recognize and respect most other Pagans don't see things how I do and for them the myths are allegories or metaphorical. I'm fine with that, and I don't have any wish to force my understanding onto others, but yet the same basic respect isn't shown to mythic literalists. We're mocked, called stupid, scoffed at and so on.
Its one thing to believe we're wrong, which is fine, but its another thing to look down on someone just because they understand things from a different perspective.
I'm not trying to say that our views should be accepted as truth or the 'real way'. Far from it. People should believe whatever makes the most sense to them so long as they aren't hurting others or trying to make them change to suit their beliefs. What I'd like to see is that, even if people see us as wrong or silly in this regard, they still treat us with basic respect and not mock us or try to change our minds because you (you in the general sense) think it makes the community look bad.
By all means if some jerk who touts the mythic literalist 'banner' if you will comes around saying you aren't a true so and so Pagan because you don't agree with them, tear them apart or poke holes in their beliefs if you can, but when it comes to someone like me, who believes it because, for me and me alone, it makes the most sense and has no wish to change others minds on the issue, why can't we just agree to disagree and find common ground elsewhere?
Those are my two cents.
I am relatively new to the RUclips Pagan/Heathenry/Skeptic/Atheist scene, but been around with a similar form of reconstructionist paganism. There are times I feel that I run up against a lot of very anti-religious (regardless of what religion or belief).
Also, would be totally metal if the Earth was made of a skull. Hardcore.
Hi
Interesting video.
In what way are the myths true without being literal? Curious as to what you mean
In the way I see it, the myths are metaphores, like lenguaje and philosofy
Don't know if you read posts on older videos, but there's a late author, Stephen Jay Gould. He worked in one of the sciences, but had an interest in the humanities. He had an idea for non overlapping magesteria I think it was called, though I may need to check the spelling. The idea was science and religion had places the research didn't touch, therefore should take care in how they commented on the respective fields. Though not really followed it seems in the contemporary setting, is this the kind of approach that the broader pagan movement follows in reconciling the spiritual with the naturalist claims? A certain strain of christians and contemporary atheists are always butting heads on the literalist views, but I often wonder if the Jay Gould thinking might be worth a reconsideration.
Okay, so Carl Jung called, but when I opened Twitter while watching this video, a tweet from Braxton Hunter was at the top of the page.
Did you say mythunderstanding?
couldn't be me
I think I'm a literalist but not too much, I always try to incorporate science in my beliefs, because nobody can deny the evolution theory since we have so much proofs. And even when I was a bit into christianity, I always said that God didn't create our world in seven Days, nor created Adam and Eve in a snap, but in my mind, he could have used his powers to influence the universe and life within Earth to create us
And maybe his view of time is different, so 7 days for him is like billions of years here
And the same goes for the Allfather, did Odin used Ymir skull? Maybe
I'm not able to explain my thoughts fully since I'm french, so it's difficult for me to understand everything in the video and write my thoughts in the comments. But anyway, I'm glad that I've found this channel, this is very informative and it helps me in my journey into Norse Paganism. Hail to you
Did Odin not create Humans by blowing the breath of life into a piece of driftwood? Or am I wrong.
On evolution, I always felt, if 1 second for God is a millenia to man, what can't the first 6 days of creation for god have taken place over millions of years to us? Or maybe not. I just find this idea interesting.
Curiously... how to most polytheists reconcile the differences between their beliefs, and the material reality of the world like round Earth, or heliocentric universe? Like, obviously the sun is not a shiny chariot being drawn across the sky... do they accept it as a metaphor?
yes, obviously. that's what this video is about. pagans usually think that everyrhing in their religious texts is a metaphor.
I dont think I’ve ever met a pagan that argues that the sun is a chariot.
Allegory & Metaphors. Man creates myth to explain their interactions with divine or to teach sociological ideals & morals. I don't know any Pagans that believe the Gods wrote their myths and I doubt they ever really have.
Even the Havamal is noted as being 'The Sayings' and not 'The Literal Word' of Har . I think that's the closest it gets in the Teutonic - Norse stuff to my knowledge. Which there's a lot more written material for; thanks Iceland.
@@ktulurob Thx for the kind answers.
One more question though: then if many pagans hold the tales of their gods as allegory and metaphors, then what is the line that splits pagans from treating the gods themselves as an allegory and a metaphor for the natural world?
Would it be something like.. individual conviction? Experiences? Difference in the ontology they hold from the start?
It would be metal af if earth was fashioned out of a dead god's skull... Maybe it was a metaphor? What would it be a metaphor though. hmm...
So, Tiamat...
I want to add another difference your goal is to educate on polytheism but Baxter's goal is to convert people
I have a question. What sources of information to you have on your gods which are not mythology? I am am atheist trying to understand. Like Judisum and Christianity by extension starts with myth, evolves into ledgend which evolves into prophecy, evolves into testimony, which maybe evolves into apologetics. So peoples knowledge of there god is based not solely on myth and non literalist can dismiss this. But due to religious precaution it seems lile for many polytheism this evolution is halted at myth or legend. I don't think prophecy or testimony are good sources of knowledge but they are at least ment to be taken as true.
did you just kinda say that we should help Christians as fellow theist???? that hurts me to even think about
At least help them with some science literacy. Science literacy is good.
@@OceanKeltoi science literacy is good
...I thought this was going to be about Christians who are apologetic about their religion when I clicked on this... ^_^' I was way off! Which would make since, we Christians have a LOT to apologize for, because...we have a definate tendency to be horrible, and I am constantly disappointed and/or genuinely afraid of other Christians due to my own beliefs and my friends' beliefs
Whats a palaigyian? He says it in the vid
Pelagius was a British Christian theologian of the 4th century who believed that humans could go to have on their own merits and that one did not necessarily need to believe in Jesus Christ's sacrifice to be granted access to heaven.
The Church saw this as a heresy of course and so branded him a heretic.
I can understand you taking issue with the 'lack of belief' thing when an atheist is being obnoxious. But if an atheist and polytheist are just having a respectful and understanding conversation without trying to undermine each other's positions then I don't see why the 'lack of belief' thing is a problem.
Though, I personally think that the 'lack of belief' position is better articulated as 'I don't believe that any gods exist, but I don't know whether they do or not.' Essentially agnostic atheism.
Personally I see the past as a projection, especially past a certain point. I believe that the projection points to evolution and I tend towards Atheism so I can say I agree with the statement that evolution seems to describe better than other theories put forth the projection. I lack the belief that time is linear and progressive and see time as we perceive it as just the 1 entropy across which we evolved. I find that there are way too many unnecessary assumptions tied with our concept of time that try to force time to a singular dimension(and no i'm not talking about multiverses, I am not talking about multiple timelines, I am saying time doesn't have to be a line and it's just the fact that we hold a vector in time that makes us perceive time as one-dimensional, aka a line) you can trace back indefinetely. As a result if I were to believe in creation, any point in time could do for the creation of the universe, including 1 second ago, the past from there becomes a projection, a pre-arranged state you can project back into but that inherently loses value past creation. Let me give two examples, first imagine seeing a ball that doesn't interact with other matter and moves at 1 km/h without ever slowing down or accelerating, scientific rigor would say that for all intents and purposes the ball predates the universe itself or decellerates/accellerates at a rate too small to be perceived by our instruments, if no other data could be found, while the fact that it has a direction and a stable movement doesn't imply it never accellerated nor slowed down or never switched directions just that we cannot know them at this time. The second is imagine writing a novel, it has a start and an end and that is all there is to the story, its characters and its world, yet you can take information within that book to make projections that reasonably explain what happened before and even what happened afterwards, for example imagine the book started by saying "he was mid-jump and touched the ground." and, after a full story, finished by saying "he tripped and started to fall, without any chance of breaking its fall." we can surmise that even though the world started with a character in mid-air from within the world the character for all intents and purposes began before the world because he was mid-jump when time started for the book, similarly we can say that the character fell down after the end of time, so we can make projections that trace back before creation and forth beyond time but that doesn't mean that there is something before just that there are backstories, that the characters had pre-existing lives and the places had an history, or in our case that time started with forces already applied to matter, which inherently means that we can't infinitely trace back vectors to find the previous position of something because it started with a vector, in other words why the fuck should energy not start existing at the same time as matter and matter should de facto predate it? It makes no sense and it's why the big-bang starts from a singularity because our understanding loses meaning once we reach a point where there is an effect going forward but no cause going backwards. In short we know we are wrong or incomplete and simply do not know how. Science is utilitarian by nature, it doesn't need to ascertain something that is true, it aims to find the most useful interpretation of reality, not the truest one, we live across a seemingly one-dimensional timeline and so time gets boiled down to a number, and the approach has clear advantages, it's useful just like Newtonian Physics were useful at the time, Einstein already went one step further and said: "guys, we can see time as a variable" and found a way to make that useful and so it stuck around, proving that we aren't above using more complex ideas of time but to move on and start seeing time as I imagine it to be, there needs to be a bloody good reason in science and so far no-one clearly found one, it doesn't mean my idea is false, it is simply shaved off by Ockham's razor(or a version of it, it has less postulates but increases complexity while adding no immediate or forseeable advantages, it's like polytheism in a sense, less postulates than monotheism but those give rise to a wider complexity that doesn't make the stance any easier to convert into carthesian certainty), and I'm okay with that. It remains useful as a phylosophical study and certainly could come back from the rear once science hits a bottleneck and needs to reinvent itself or perhaps explain something unexplainable with the current understanding of time and entropy.
How am I to interpret figurative mythicism that is more than "This is a story I use as a mnemonic device to remember how nature works."
I dont know what the fuck "cartesian certainty" is, but I know that I dont see enough evidence for gods. I dont see whats unreasonable about wanting evidence.
The lack of belief argument is not a "nothing burger." It's a concession to the fact that the atheist in question is not a mystical seer, a hedge wizard, the Beyonder, or a physicist with supernormal intuition, and thus incapable of rigorously disproving any proposition about a divinity (the difficulty in proving such assertions cuts in two directions, but that need not detain us). The atheist is simply saying that they find a certain type of claim implausible. You can ask the atheist whether they have well thought-out reasons for their judgement on the theist's claims, but asking them for knowledge about whatever lies beyond the phenomenal world (if that's even a coherent concept) is playing dirty pool.
The question is about belief, not knowledge. And the statement of lacking a belief is also about belief, not knowledge.
"Accepting evolution makes no difference to the truth of Christianity" are the weaseliest words an apologist can utter. It's trying to sound as though you're not denying science, while all the time denying science. If it makes no difference, then why not just accept the facts? The more mercenary emperors of apology do steer clear of the topic so as not to alienate and lose supporters - but the biggest reason for not accepting evolution is that it would in fact have a massive effect on their religious picture, or at least they fear it would have an effect.
It's pretty clear that Braxton doesn't know much about evolution, and it seems equally clear that he doesn't want to know about it.
That's why, he, like his apologista friends, are not honest. Every time they start with a comment about how they are rational and philosophical and logical, and not at all just going with faith - that's them trying to fool themselves, or their audience.
I feel bad and rather embarrassed saying this, I'll probably be called names by other commenters but I need to be honest.... I don't think I really understand any of this.... I can't seem to wrap my head around what a Christian apologist is, though i've heard this term before. so much of this video, though i've watched form start to finish... I don't quite get.
I hope you've found an answer in the year since you posted, but just in case...It's somebody who defends and promotes the Christian faith. They tend to hold debates and try to use logical arguments to demonstrate that Christianity is true.
Hey Kelt, been watching you for a while - you make some interesting videos. I was Catholic, was Heathen for a while, but ultimately went back to Catholicism. I have a question: at what point do you draw between something being a solid doctrine of your faith in Heathenry, and it being purely myth? When I was Heathen I wasn't able to ditch mythic literalism because I felt like if Ragnarok, or Odin and his brothers slaying Ymir were false, then in what sense were the characters in it even real? I would go to blots and sumbels where people would believe in the gods, yet they reject nearly every story from the Eddas that made the deity who they even knew to be. So where do you draw the line? Because to me it seemed inconsistent and like I was lying to myself at the same time trying to say that Odin did this or Odin did that because Heathens were ultimately pushing me to think "well, it didn't really happen" - yet had 100% faith that said deity was real, all while denying the source from which they were able to derive the deity from in the first place. So then I pondered "well is Odin even real?" and if you come to the conclusion that he's not then you're not longer a theist. No longer a polytheist. No longer a Heathen. You're simply an atheist.
Just so we are all clear the norse people belived odin etc were real being infact they claimed direct defendant of odin etc. So stop with the oh the goda are just metaphor etc . Like just go be a scientologist n stop tryna change my culture
Honestly, the only thing I got out of this video is that you guys have as many buzz words as Bible Baptists. I will listen to more of your stuff to see if the lingo is going to be a barrier to my developing an interest in the topics you discuss.
Mythunderstanding and "got my noggin joggin" are phrases I want on a shirt now
My guess is that he doesn't want to peg himself as having a position and limiting his audience. Sort of like the focus on apologetics being non denominational.
That is exactly the problem.
@@OceanKeltoi Similar to how many atheists YT's don't like calling out the obnoxious and harmful elements among them. Ad revenue is ad revenue.
When I am having a conversation with a "Christian" who wants to hide their denominational bias behind generic theism or generic Christianity, I give them hell for their waffling. What good is it to have a belief and not stand up for it?
I mean, after all, my Bible Baptist preacher dad always preached that every other church was the wrong one. So much so that you would have to get re-baptized to join his church. But then they linked arms and walked hand in hand with Pentecostals and Catholics to elect the POS Reagan and his criminal consortium.
And if you think my remarks about Reagan's criminal consortium miss the mark, Google how many of his administration were found guilty of crimes.
Personally, I believe both can be possible. Ymir crawled out of the waters of creation, much like how science believes the first life forms began in water. And that makes sense, water is physically required for all life functions. But I must ask is this. Who cares? I know it’s important to know where you came from, Hel I’m a history major, it’s literally the basis of my study and profession. But in terms of creation vs evolution, it doesn’t really affect us in the present. We should look back at our history to understand where we came from, but focus more on looking forward to the future. A good allegory somehow once told me is this. Can we comprehend our existence, before birth? Do you need to remember being a zygote in you’re mothers womb? No, you just need to know that’s where you were and focus on where your going.
I'm a current Episcopalian! (Or my Parish and Spiritual Director and Rector tolerate my heresy). I often call my Christianity my mythology. Archeology of course has shown that that events in the Bible such as the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, etc have no evidence of happening, but it is still a beautiful book, and even its contradictions reveal truth of a kind to me. Enjoying your channel, just discovered it
I was a christian who was forcefeed the ideology of YEC. Coming out of that and christianity itself feels like an accomplishment. Sure this sounds odd for anyone who never had this problem but being freed to accept something obvious like evolution feels pretty great.
Out of curiosity: as a Polytheist, what exactly is your view of the Christian God? Do you deny His existance or do you believe He exists but that, contrary to what us Christians believe is taught in Scripture, He is only one of the existing deities?
Is it possible to believe both 🤔 I have a hard time believing in the big bang, but at the same time don't believe that science backs the YEC. I grew up with my mother home schooling my sister and I. She was an extremely religious pentecostal who was a YEC and believed the Bible to be quite literal. I have struggled with these beliefs as an adult and definitely feel that Christianity is an abusive relationship/religion.
Oh boy a new Ocean vid!
Ocean the Barbarian puts on his detective cap once again to root out the hidden secrets of Braxton's theistic perspective...
Someone needs to Photoshop a Sherlock Holmes hat on his Ocean Elemental
I just heard that physicists now contend that after the Big Bang there were 3 sunswhich contained all the elements of this universe. I made an immediate connection to Odin, Vili, and Ve, the 3 sons of Ymir.
Just a thought.
"Mythunderstanding"
When I had to act christian, I never once considered that evolution wasn't accurate, my parents tried to push the creationist bs on me early on, but couldn't answer my many questions like: "Why is evolution evil?" Their answer was "Because that would say that we were made from monkey's and god made us in his image which would mean you're calling him a monkey." They couldn't answer the follow up questions "What's wrong with being a monkey?" and "Wouldn't the dinosaurs have killed us if we lived at the same time as them?".
Years later, with my dad removed from the protestant rhetoric that had short-circuited his degree in biology I was able to bring up my understanding of things as a kid and current which was, if a god created time and space, how is it subject to time in the same way that we are? Therefore, why isn't evolution the mode of transformation of something so vast that 1 day could easily equal millions if not billions of years? Yeah, he changed his tune when he was able to think for himself... I wish there were more positive memories with him, I suppose I'll count that as a win anyway.
*mythunderstanding* .... very nice pun
This is so interesting to me, when comparing with what my fundamentalist pentecostal church thought and taught. For that group, the Bible was literally true, they believed in that very solid form of inerrancy which not only meant the original text was perfect, but that it was historically and factually accurate too, in a literal sense. So when they say Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead, they mean those things literally happened. And it was very important that they literally happened, because without that actual blood sacrifice, the price for our sins was not paid, and so salvation had not been won and we're all still going to hell. They were also Creation literalists, and it was directly connected. For them, the authority of God to be worshipped apart from any other gods is because he was the creator (we accepted that there were other spiritual beings, but they were either good-but-lesser, or evil). He was our maker and so he was the only one who had any right to tell us what to do. He was the source of the law and the enforcer of it, so we are accountable to him, and thus salvation is tied up in his actions. That's why they opposed evolution so strongly, because it says that things were not created but came about by random chance, and if there is no creator then there is no law and no sin, and thus no need for salvation, and no need for Jesus.
If atheists have come from this kind of fundamentalist background, it makes sense to me that they hyperfocus on evolution, because it completely tears down their version of Christianity. Of course, once you open up the possibility that these stories aren't literal, then you remove that line of argument. This was part of how I got out of that group - I found that what they taught didn't resonate with the reality I saw around me. And part of my journey was about realising that people don't all interpret christianity the way we did, and beyond that, other people had different takes on god which weren't utterly destroyed by the "proof" my church claimed there was, most of which was lies.
Nah Bruv, in Utah God lives on a different planet.
Hi I'm new to norse paganism and I'm hoping someone can answer this question! It's burning in my 1 am brain haha
So, I completely believe in evolution, but it's confusing because Norse paganism has it's own creation story, from which odin and others were born. If I am to worship the gods, as I do Freya, how am I to know they came to be if their creation never existed? I believe I'm just taking the mythology literally, because I was raised Christian, But I would absolutely love an explanation! Thank you
I find mythic literalism annoying
I don't understand why it matters? I mean I get it if a mythic literalist is trying to force it down your throat, absolutely I get it then. But, just say you know someone who personally holds that way but doesn't try to make you believe it or even brings it up besides confirming they are a literalist, why is that bad?
I ask as a mythic literalist who doesn't 'beat' people over the head with it. I know its a very small minority position in Pagan circles and its usually disagreed with strongly. Its just what I believe on a personal level.