Mythology Questions

[SDragon]

interesting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.




edit- as for the whole 'christianity' thing, i figured that ws the response i was going to get, but i figured it was better safe then sorry. to be clear, however, i was simply using christianity as an example; the same idea could be carried to any currently practiced religion.

[limetom]

My quote came from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Patterns of Religion is not a dictionary.  Is it?  It is merely a single bombastic opinion, whereas an Oxford entry is as close to a universal denotation of a word as is possible in this world.

Patterns of Religion[/i] is not a dictionary, correct.  It is, however, a College World Religions textbook written by 2 University Religion Department chairs, 5 Religion Department Professors, and 1 Philosphy Professor each of whom has a unique religious and cultural background, making it a much more universal definition than a dictionary entry.  Waving titles around has never been to my liking, but in a case such as this, it seems fitting.  Patterns of Religion is no more bombastic than the Oxford English Dictionary, but in this particular case it is a much more appropriate citation, and is much more specific than a dictionary is.  

Furthermore, Patterns is not a definition, but rather an in-context explination.  For example, the Random House Japanese to English, English to Japanese Dictionary lists hai and iee as the respective definitions of "Yes." and "No."  This is not entirely correct.  When one responds to the question, "You like taking tests, don't you?", the (assumed) correct response in English would be, "Yes, I do."  However, in Japanese, you would answer with the seemingly incorrect response of, "No, I don't."  This response, to another Japanese speaker who is also a member of the Japanese culture, is considered polite.  You are flattering the speaker.  This is a part of Japanese culture seeping into language that a dictionary cannot include.  It would be unwieldy and confusing to define hai and iee as agreeing or disagreeing (respectively) with the previous statement.  Furthermore, in most other situations, hai and iee do simply mean "yes" and "no", respectively.

As such, a dictionary definition leaves out some things that a textbook or encyclopedia definition do not.  These things can be of importance to the meaning of a word, usually in-context, but sometimes out of context as well.  A universal definition would take all possible factors into acount, making it so that a speaker of any language, coming from any culture, that practicies any (or no) religion can fully understand the concept.  While accurate, the definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary is not complete or universal.  Many people internal to a particular religion would be hesitant to label thier own religion as having mythology, even if by others', and more importantly, academic standards, it does.

Its not that I disagree with you on the issue, Christianity has mythology, as do all religions, its just that there is no reason why a more complete definition is "wrong".

[SDragon]

semi- off-topic...

limetom, it took me a second to realize where your sig began... seems fitting that this is the thread where i notice what it says, no?

[CYMRO]

the same idea could be carried to any currently praciced religion.

True.  If it is religion, it contains myth.

, making it a much more universal definition than a dictionary entry.

Eight people defining a term, compared with the hundreds who weigh in on an Oxford entry is more universal?  
It is the difference between connotation and denotation. A dictionary listing is denotation. It is, at its most basic, universal.  One may not like to apply the definition to one's own religion, but that does not change the fact that the definition is true and universal.
The textbook excerpt, incomplete as you made it, is not universal, it is subjective, it is connotative.

[SDragon]

the same idea could be carried to any currently praciced religion.

True.  If it is religion, it contains myth.

sorry about the typos.... i just got a new-to-me keyboard, and im still adjusting to it.

[CYMRO]

the same idea could be carried to any currently praciced religion.

True.  If it is religion, it contains myth.

sorry about the typos.... i just got a new-to-me keyboard, and im still adjusting to it.

New equipment! :D Always fun!

Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, Odinism, Shinto, Scienstoology.  You name it, it has myth.

[limetom]

So now that this little connotative/denotative war is over... getting back to WitchHunt's question as to the origins of the walking dead, I'm going to have to go with Pre-History.  

It seems that almost every culture has its own form of undead.  More often than not, these are incorporeal undead; "ghosts" seem to be a universal staple in human culture.  Corporeal undead have much more variety between cultures.  Certian cultures, especially Native American cultures, make little mention of corporeal undead, however.

The belief in the undead, I think, is a way for humans to deal with death.  Since you cannot know what dead is like, you imagine what might happen.  Most Western religions believe in a linear path of the soul, while most Eastern religions believe in a cyclical path of the soul.  An undead does not fit into this, and thus, is the ultimate mockery of life.  They are apart from the "norm" of death, and thus, have a reason behind there existance.

In animistic religions, where spirits are (usually) benevolent, one might expect to become a spirit upon their death, and that is the norm.  In reward-punishment afterlife systems, an undead is something that is imposed on you do to either your own actions, or the actions of others.  In a cyclical afterlife system... I dunno.  I'm not familiar with them, but I assume its similar to a reward-punishment afterlife system.

[SDragon]

generally speaking, unless oherwise "designed", belief in reincarnation has little to no room for the belief of undead- especially incorporeal undead. i imagine the only way reincarnation-based beliefs leave room for any form of undead is a soulless, spiritless corporeal undead; how, exactly, that would work, i have no clue. its my understanding that most beliefs state that the soul is responsible for any form of animation.

generally speaking, however, corporeal undead is more commonly viewed as the result of terminally losing the way to the final resting place; the myth of jack of the lantern fits this perfectly, as his resting place was utterly destroyed. i wont deny that an afterlife justice system is involved in some beliefs, but i will say that no examples come to mind.

[Hibou]

interesting tidbit: kobold, goblin, and leprechaun were cultural equivalents of each other. not only that, but from my understtanding (which may or may not be mistaken), kobold refers to the exact same creature as goblin, simply in a different language.

There seem to be several groups like this where two or three of the creatures are actually the same thing in a mythology or mythologies. I learned of the kobold/goblin/leprechaun conspiracy on Wikipedia, of course :)

[CYMRO]

As a pointer for anyone with some interest, looking up the word "demon" on Wikipedia.org brings up some curious information. It's cool, but kind of saddening (to me at least), to see that some ancient cultures saw their versions of demons as spirits that weren't necessarily evil.

Most demons in the Judeo-Christian mythology are just the gods of other cultures/belief systems, just as many of the saints are(example:  St. Hubert is a Christianized version of the Odinic god Uller).

The belief in the undead, I think, is a way for humans to deal with death.

You say that now, but you will be singing a different tune when the zombies attack.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

It's cool, but kind of saddening (to me at least), to see that some ancient cultures saw their versions of demons as spirits that weren't necessarily evil.

â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦ :huh:  :wtf: What's wrong with that?  What you have to realize is that ancient cultures didn't see things exactly the same way as your modern Judeo-Christian-Islam-etc. view.  Doesn't make them wrong.  In fact it makes much more sense: the demons were viewed almost like a natural force, which can both harm and help humans and thus earn "evil" and "not evil" in different contexts.

[Lmns Crn]

It's cool, but kind of saddening (to me at least), to see that some ancient cultures saw their versions of demons as spirits that weren't necessarily evil.

â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦ :huh:  :wtf: What's wrong with that?  What you have to realize is that ancient cultures didn't see things exactly the same way as your modern Judeo-Christian-Islam-etc. view.  Doesn't make them wrong.  In fact it makes much more sense: the demons were viewed almost like a natural force, which can both harm and help humans and thus earn "evil" and "not evil" in different contexts.

And if we were to call them anything other than "demons", a morally-charged term, we wouldn't even be having this conversation-- nobody thinks twice when you say a "spirit" or a "ghost" is not necessarily evil.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

And if we were to call them anything other than "demons", a morally-charged term, we wouldn't even be having this conversation-- nobody thinks twice when you say a "spirit" or a "ghost" is not necessarily evil.

Ah.  Finally, someone explains it in terms I can understand.  I still think it's silly to feel weirded out or saddened by a culture believing that demons aren't all bad: "demon" is just a concept, and like any concept can occupy any place you give it.

Let me give you an example: Pazuzu (not the Exorcist demon, the real mythological one from Mesopotamia), king of the evil wind demons was also the protector of pregnant women because he scared off another demon.  So even an evil demon can have beneficial applications.  I think that's how "demons" in ancient cultures could be viewed as not evil (and maybe they aren't evil): they served a useful purpose at least some of the time.  It's like a posinonous snake that keeps the rat population down.

[SDragon]

the term demon, as LC said, is very loaded. on top of that, if im not mistaken, most ancient cultures didnt believe in demons per se, but beings that could be described as equivalent; in other words, it would be much easier to view pazuzu as an elemental then a demon. even then it wouldnt be entirely accurate.

remember, pazuzu was a being from mesopotamian beliefs, and the type of being that pazuzu was most likely had a mesopotamian name. to say pazuzu was a demon, elemental, spirit, ghost, angel, diety, hostess cupcake, etc. would be inaccurate.

[Hibou]

What's wrong with that? What you have to realize is that ancient cultures didn't see things exactly the same way as your modern Judeo-Christian-Islam-etc. view. Doesn't make them wrong. In fact it makes much more sense: the demons were viewed almost like a natural force, which can both harm and help humans and thus earn "evil" and "not evil" in different contexts.

Perhaps I worded my intent wrong. Until I saw the information on Wikipedia I had not really heard of 'demons' or their equivalents being anything but evil, sadistic things from a dark fiery place. It doesn't sadden me so much as leave me uninterested, because that traditional evil style of demon is what I've always known and what I've come to like. I like seeing how the mythology of fiendish beings has evolved, but at the end of the day I'm still doing to see that word and think of a sinister creature with massive bat wings, twisted horns, glowing red eyes, massive teeth, and a way of movement that doesn't seem quite right.