Religious tales vs fairy tales

[rumborak]

I'm pretty sure several people gagged when reading the title

This is actually not meant in a derogatory way, i.e. fairy tales as juvenile stories. I'm talking about how both religious stories (especially stuff in the OT) and fairy tales are first and foremost cautionary tales that are supposed to teach you something. The OT invokes the means of divine punishment for undesirable human behavior, whereas fairy tales kinda use "fate" and poetic justice for this purpose, i.e. bad behavior sooner or later comes back to you, and the good guys live happily ever after.
In a way (religious stories a bit less so) they *are* kid's stories, at least they're being told from very early on to make the biggest impression.

I don't know. Not sure what the purpose of this thread is, but this connection always struck me. It seems to me that both cultures, pagan Europe and biblical Middle East needed cautionary tales for the education of their kids, but they incorporated it into their culture according to what made sense. Pagan Europe employed chants, witches and magic, whereas biblical Middle East used their monotheistic God for this purpose.
For example, the Genesis account to me always struck me as a tale combining several cautionary elements: Beware of disobeying your father, beware of temptations as they may lead to ill, and beware that women can't be trusted (not a surprising message in a patriarchal society).

rumborak

[Chino]

This is creepy, yesterday I was thinking about making a thread with this same title. However my thread was going to be more about why people understand one is a fairy tale and one isn't. It's like in the movie Religulous, Bill Maher asks a lady if the stories of the bible were switched with those of Jack and the Bean Stalk, and no one ever told her otherwise, would she still believe it.

[Jamesman42]

I see how you made the connection, and it's sorta fair. Cool perspective! (I did gag though, you heathen )

I always found it funny that kids (myself included) learned only the good parts of the OT stories. Nothing about the killing, gay sex, war, fornication, and all that other stuff. It makes sense not to tell a kid that (yet), but it makes for a shocking read many years later when you reread that junk.

Also, I think the primary purpose of the first 5 books is for origins/history as well cautionary anecdotes. I think that's the main purpose (look at the books, a lot of them contain laws and other facts that are really just a documentation of their history, like censuses).

[rumborak]

I always found it funny that kids (myself included) learned only the good parts of the OT stories. Nothing about the killing, gay sex, war, fornication, and all that other stuff. It makes sense not to tell a kid that (yet), but it makes for a shocking read many years later when you reread that junk.

That is a very recent development however, that kids are spared from these stories. I for one was read to (by my mother) tales such as "Struwwelpeter" (example: https://www.konkykru.com/pictures/comics-history/hoffmann_07.jpg ). And I think up until recently, religious families rather focused on the punitive stories too.

Also, I think the primary purpose of the first 5 books is for origins/history as well cautionary anecdotes. I think that's the main purpose (look at the books, a lot of them contain laws and other facts that are really just a documentation of their history, like censuses).

Well, the OT served as a one-for-all kinda of thing. It's a chronicle, a collection of tales, a means of cultural identification for Jews, all of the above.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I think the connection is to myths rather than fairy tales.  Many of the stories in the Bible are mythic in nature.

BTW, when I use the term "myth" I don't necessarily mean that the stories themselves didn't happen.  Necessarily.

[rumborak]

What do you include in your definition of myth? For example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is to me an educative story that clearly never happened that way. It is supposed to teach the listener of the consequences of sexual deviance.

rumborak

[jsem]

"your definition of a myth". His definition of a myth is THE correct definition of a myth.

To the topic: I agree that while the stories are not always 100% factual, it's the lesson in each story that is important - not the specifics.

[ack44]

Rumpelstiltskin is an awesome story but I'm not sure if it has a moral.

[Zook]

Moral of the story: don't talk to gremlins

[rumborak]

Rumpelstiltskin is an awesome story but I'm not sure if it has a moral.

Not super-clear, but the girl is essentially trying to trick a very powerful being, almost losing her firstborn.  She only manages to get out by luck.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

I'd add early histories to the list, too. Most early histories seem to serve some didactic purpose.

[ack44]

Rumpelstiltskin is an awesome story but I'm not sure if it has a moral.

Not super-clear, but the girl is essentially trying to trick a very powerful being, almost losing her firstborn.  She only manages to get out by luck.

rumborak

No no. She's in a position where she's helpless and the elf-thing helps her, but she has to give her first-born to him. She only manages to keep her child because she sends a spy to get elf-thing's name. Of course the story's probably changed a lot being told over and over and then finalized by Andersen. But it seems more like entertainment.

Moral of the story: don't talk to gremlins

Rumpelstiltskin does not like this.

[El JoNNo]

What do you include in your definition of myth? For example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is to me an educative story that clearly never happened that way. It is supposed to teach the listener of the consequences of sexual deviance.

rumborak

I can see it being educational if god was removed from the story and I'm not saying this because I'm an atheist. Think about it, if it was about someone who realized that cities would destroy themselves or go to war with each other that leads to their destruction. Then it might be an upright story for children. A child should not be taught to fear, they should be taught to be kind for sake of others and themselves. Most of the stories in the bible are about fear of a cruel god; Dora the explorer is more suitable for a child. 

[rumborak]

What do you include in your definition of myth? For example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is to me an educative story that clearly never happened that way. It is supposed to teach the listener of the consequences of sexual deviance.

rumborak

I can see it being educational if god was removed from the story and I'm not saying this because I'm an atheist. Think about it, if it was about someone who realized that cities would destroy themselves or go to war with each other that leads to their destruction. Then it might be an upright story for children. A child should not be taught to fear, they should be taught to be kind for sake of others and themselves. Most of the stories in the bible are about fear of a cruel god; Dora the explorer is more suitable for a child.  

Well, consider that when the stories were written, essentially all disasters were considered acts of God. Floods, diseases, famines, and also burnt-down cities. So, from that mindset it is only normal to incorporate God into the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. He is the agent of morality in the story.

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

What do you include in your definition of myth? For example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is to me an educative story that clearly never happened that way. It is supposed to teach the listener of the consequences of sexual deviance.

rumborak

I can see it being educational if god was removed from the story and I'm not saying this because I'm an atheist. Think about it, if it was about someone who realized that cities would destroy themselves or go to war with each other that leads to their destruction. Then it might be an upright story for children. A child should not be taught to fear, they should be taught to be kind for sake of others and themselves. Most of the stories in the bible are about fear of a cruel god; Dora the explorer is more suitable for a child.  

Well, consider that when the stories were written, essentially all disasters were considered acts of God. Floods, diseases, famines, and also burnt-down cities. So, from that mindset it is only normal to incorporate God into the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. He is the agent of morality in the story.

rumborak

So you meant educational for that time or in general?

[rumborak]

Hmm, not sure what you mean by that question. My post's point was that yes, many of the OT stories would be equally as instructive without a God executing the punishment, but given that it also includes a lot of natural disasters, which were attributed to a deity in those days, it was simply natural to have God be the punitive agent.

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

Hmm, not sure what you mean by that question. My post's point was that yes, many of the OT stories would be equally as instructive without a God executing the punishment, but given that it also includes a lot of natural disasters

I see then we are in slight disagreement; I think they would be more instructive and constructive if a god was taken out of the equation.

which were attributed to a deity in those days, it was simply natural to have God be the punitive agent.

Yes natural for that time which was what I was asking originally.

[soundgarden]

of the OT stories would be equally as instructive without a God executing the punishment,
rumborak

Equally as instructive, sure; but not taken as seriously if God wasn't in it.  Take Aesop's tales for example; they provide many morals and lessons easily found in the parables of the Bible, yet how often are they invoked?  When eternal damnation is put in the mix, things gets for reals.

edit..and interestingly; when God is in the mix, its easier to bend and/or ignore those morals (ie, Crusades against heathens, jihad against infidels...etc etc...)

[hefdaddy42]

When eternal damnation is put in the mix, things gets for reals.

Eternal damnation isn't put into the mix in any of the OT stories.

[El JoNNo]

Right, Jesus is the righteous man that promises to punish the dead.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm just sayin'.

[Ħ]

From Wikipedia:

Job 7:9 "Just as a cloud dissipates and vanishes, those who go down to Sheol will not come back."
Psalm 6:4-5 "Turn, O LORD, deliver my life; save me for the sake of your steadfast love. For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?"

[El JoNNo]

From Wikipedia:

Job 7:9 "Just as a cloud dissipates and vanishes, those who go down to Sheol will not come back."
Psalm 6:4-5 "Turn, O LORD, deliver my life; save me for the sake of your steadfast love. For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?"

Sheol is heaven nor hell, it is the afterlife regardless or your choices in life.

I'm just sayin'.

I was pointing out who said it.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, "Sheol" doesn't really mean anything, it is just death or the land of the dead.  It isn't a heaven of eternal reward or a hell of eternal passion.  The dead are no longer on earth, they are in Sheol.  That quote from Psalms is an excellent example of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, where they say the same thing twice, but worded slightly differently.

In death there is no remembrance of you
In Sheol who will give you praise?

Sheol is death.

[Zook]

In Sheol, no one can hear you scream.

[rumborak]

When eternal damnation is put in the mix, things gets for reals.

Eternal damnation isn't put into the mix in any of the OT stories.

Not that I'm super-versed in OT stories, but I've had that impression too. It's much more "I like you" and "I smite you".

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

In Sheol, no one can hear you scream.

This is true.  Because they are all dead.

Oh, and you're dead too, so there is no "you" to scream.

So there is no scream.

There is no spoon.

FULL CIRCLE TO THE MATRIX MOTHERFUCKER

[AndyDT]

Didn't Hercules and various other ancient figures come back from the dead? I've heard Christian people say that Jesus is the only person ever to have come back from death.

What about bigfoot? That potentially precedes all civilisation - I head it was passed down by word of mouth from the first human settlers in north America.

[GuineaPig]

Spiderman's come back from the dead.  So has most comic book superheroes.

Actually, when I come to think of it, the Bible has some resemblance to a comic book series in terms of narrative format.  You've got a bunch of "in-universe" characters, who all have their origin stories and sometimes supernatural powers, and they just go around fighting evil.  I can imagine all the young boys saving up their bronze coins to purchase the newest Hebrew League edition every month.

[hefdaddy42]

Didn't Hercules and various other ancient figures come back from the dead? I've heard Christian people say that Jesus is the only person ever to have come back from death.

What about bigfoot? That potentially precedes all civilisation - I head it was passed down by word of mouth from the first human settlers in north America.

I think that Hercules qualifies as a legend, not a person.  So Jesus would still qualify as the the only person ever to have come back from death.  Besides, Hercules didn't come back from the dead.

And I suppose that you are mentioning Bigfoot as a fairy tale or myth?  But there is no point to the story, AFAIK, just a legendary creature of the woods.

[rumborak]

I think that Hercules qualifies as a legend, not a person.  So Jesus would still qualify as the the only person ever to have come back from death.

Doesn't that lie in the eye of the beholder though? While Jesus certainly was a person, he also has strong legend-ary aspects to him. In fact, the very act of resurrection puts him firmly into legend territory.

  Besides, Hercules didn't come back from the dead.

That's true, but many other Greek characters did.

rumborak

[AndyDT]

Didn't Hercules and various other ancient figures come back from the dead? I've heard Christian people say that Jesus is the only person ever to have come back from death.

What about bigfoot? That potentially precedes all civilisation - I head it was passed down by word of mouth from the first human settlers in north America.

I think that Hercules qualifies as a legend, not a person.  So Jesus would still qualify as the the only person ever to have come back from death.  Besides, Hercules didn't come back from the dead.

And I suppose that you are mentioning Bigfoot as a fairy tale or myth?  But there is no point to the story, AFAIK, just a legendary creature of the woods.

I thought Hercules was resurrected and people got to know about it? There are many references to Hercules-why is he a legend and Jesus more?

[El JoNNo]

Didn't Hercules and various other ancient figures come back from the dead? I've heard Christian people say that Jesus is the only person ever to have come back from death.

What about bigfoot? That potentially precedes all civilisation - I head it was passed down by word of mouth from the first human settlers in north America.

I think that Hercules qualifies as a legend, not a person.  So Jesus would still qualify as the the only person ever to have come back from death.  Besides, Hercules didn't come back from the dead.

And I suppose that you are mentioning Bigfoot as a fairy tale or myth?  But there is no point to the story, AFAIK, just a legendary creature of the woods.

I thought Hercules was resurrected and people got to know about it? There are many references to Hercules-why is he a legend and Jesus more?

Jesus is only more than legend to people who are Christian or (insert other religion here). As far as I'm concerned he may have existed but any claims to magic are hokum. The legendary journey's of Hercules could be based off a real guy who might have had extraordinary strength or just realized the more you lift heavy object the stronger you get.

I don't doubt that Jesus will eventually fade from our minds and take his place among the rest of the non-worshiped deities of the past.   

[hefdaddy42]

Didn't Hercules and various other ancient figures come back from the dead? I've heard Christian people say that Jesus is the only person ever to have come back from death.

What about bigfoot? That potentially precedes all civilisation - I head it was passed down by word of mouth from the first human settlers in north America.

I think that Hercules qualifies as a legend, not a person.  So Jesus would still qualify as the the only person ever to have come back from death.  Besides, Hercules didn't come back from the dead.

And I suppose that you are mentioning Bigfoot as a fairy tale or myth?  But there is no point to the story, AFAIK, just a legendary creature of the woods.

I thought Hercules was resurrected and people got to know about it? There are many references to Hercules-why is he a legend and Jesus more?

Hercules was the son of Zeus.  There were many legends about him, including the Twelve Labors, and he sailed on the Argo, supposedly.  But then he died.  The end.  No resurrection.

[ack44]

Didn't Hercules and various other ancient figures come back from the dead? I've heard Christian people say that Jesus is the only person ever to have come back from death.

What about bigfoot? That potentially precedes all civilisation - I head it was passed down by word of mouth from the first human settlers in north America.

I think that Hercules qualifies as a legend, not a person.  So Jesus would still qualify as the the only person ever to have come back from death.  Besides, Hercules didn't come back from the dead.

Didn't Elijah or Elisha bring a boy back to life? And aren't there a bunch of other examples in the NT?