Talk:Religion and mythology

message: If anyone has any specific complaints about the quality of article, then post them here. Because the one who added the npov tags did not bring forth any arguements I'm going to remove the tags. If specific arguements arise I'm welcome to restore the npov tags. Androg 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - POV arguementation 

message: It seems to me that this article about the difference between religion and mythology should not exist. In this sort of logic there could be articles like "Religion and Sorcery", "Mythology and Magic" and so on. There are people that certainly can relate Sorcery to Religion saying that religious rituals are forms of sorcery or people that relate mythology to religion saying that certain stories or events are described to make us believe about God.
I consider religion as matter of faith and revelation wich has nothing to do with allegory, prose or paranormal and supernatural beliefs. Mythology in religion seems to me as a poetic form of describing a certain excepcional event, fact or moral. Mythology in primitive or pre-scientifical societies was made to explain the order of Universe or natural events like rain or disease. Science has it´s own "mithology"; in fact, no one can proove the Big Bang. But this discussion is endless (and interesting) because we cannot determine or have any absolute resolutions about the beggining, meaning and end of all things, therefore, this article does not contain information but opinion or belief and should not exist and both questions should be dealed separate.I finish saying that The Monster of Loch Ness is also a myth.--Fpenteado 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial 

message: This article is woefully incomplete.  How can you discuss "Religion and mythology" without having a section explaining the etymology of "myth" as it is used Biblically to mean fable, and without clarifying that that dictionary definition is still the popular usage of the world, as opposed to the academic?  This article takes only the definition it likes, and ignores the other, precisely the reason why the academic usage is problematic. Codex Sinaiticus 18:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Addressing  "myth" as it is used Biblically should be covered in the Religous views section. (now done) The addressing the religious and academic view is NPOV. It doesn't ignore any view, but put the terminology in context. I'm removing the tag. JDR 18:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also put in the "This is a popular usage in the world." JDR 18:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Would you take some time to include those balancing factors, so that the disputed tag can be removed as soon as possible, Codex? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh for crying out loud... this Codex guy spent ages trying to redefine myth to meet his Biblical understanding of the word (and specificually that it never, ever could be applied to anything in his religion)... the last thing we need is him pushing his POV here any more than he already has, as his attempt to modify the definition on the myth and mythology articles failed spectacularly because people who understood the definition were there to stop him. DreamGuy 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is a perfect example of the sort of ad hominem argument / personal attack that wikipedia could really do without. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more sections 

message: To describe Christianity as a Mystery religion immediately conjures connections with the POV that Christianity is a form of Gnosticism, or that it is the product of the same stream of mythos as that from which Gnosticism arises.  This highly speculative and contrarian view is very emphatically not the way that Christianity views itself; and it is also not a sustainable perspective on Judaism or even Islam at all, in my opinion.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mystery religion" POV

message: The statement "There may actually be ample precedent and justification for such a view. For example, a similar statement was made by the 'academics' at the time of the French Revolution, fostering a climate in France where even speaking of the Bible as anything but a myth came to be viewed as treasonable." sounds right, but it needs a citation. I'll look around for one. JDR 05:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: French revolution and academics

message: A myth, according to Webster, is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon: parable, allegory." The rest of the definition also implies a certain unverifiable or imaginery nature.
While your discourse on the 'academic' nature of the topic is well-written, we must remember that most readers of this article will still, primarily, read the word "myth" to mean what was noted above. With this in mind, there should, perhaps, be two brief mentions: the first, being the difference acknowledged within a religion between canon and myth (that which is scriptural, and those stories that have grown outside of scripture); the second, a specification that since academically 'myth' as a term applies to the nature of the story and the meaning thereof, meaning that, in some cases, the same event can be both factual and mythical. For example, the trials and sentencing of five of the Apostles are retold in the Talmud and other documents, making portions of Acts factual by most current conventions. We could go so far as to mention the references to Jesus, but as these are under such heavy dispute, I think it would be better left out.
Will this calm all the critics? No..nothing will. I do, however, believe they are warranted for such a broad-view discourse on the topic. I welcome your response.
Peace!
User:Deleted_user_jj1 22:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: Having read the article, I'm left wondering why the original author created it. What point was he/she trying to make, what information needed to be conveyed? Because I can't honestly see how anything can be written here that can't be written in quite separate artciles called religion and mythology. What's the point in drawing them together like this? PiCo 12:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering the people involved and the content, looks to me that the article was created to push a certain viewpoint. I really see no point to this article either as it currently stands.  DreamGuy 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is to explain how these topics compare, how they differ, and how they relate to one another.Goldenrowley 05:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this article created? 

message: I looked through this article, and I saw almost zero endnotes. A good article should have endnotes scattered thickly throughout the text. Could anyone add them? --Phatius McBluff 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS ARTICLE NEEDS REFERENCES!!! 

message: Here is a potential good looking source article: "Myth and Religion: The Same or Different? Evaluating the Good and the Bad" By William Doty, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at the University of Alabama and editor of Mythosphere. Goldenrowley 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Source(s)

message: Sociologists and historians of religion are not primarily interested in these stories for their historical value.  They analyze religions in terms of the role which their stories and histories play, within the religious system.  Histories and imaginative stories alike are treated as a body of myths, when they are regarded by a people as expressing profound truths. Describing the essential and traditional stories accepted as mysteries and historical narratives considered true is consequently just a tool for theological studies and study of the systems of common experience in general. Without necessarily speaking to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history, these mythological elements are studied for their mythic value.
Sorry; I couldn't leave this passage in. It seems redundant: that is, it seems to be saying stuff that's already repeatedly covered nearby in the article (with a rather odd and unsupported emphasis on "sociologists and historians of religion"). Or if it isn't redundant, then I'm clearly not understanding it. Either way, it's unreferenced and worded confusingly. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed a passage

message: A current case of religion and mythology is found at the Father Damien article and discussion page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien
Focusing on the Catholic standards for approving posthumous miracles.  Myth Florida (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Please add any material you feel is relevant. Please keep in mind, though, that mythology is not the same as theology, ritual, etc. Material on Father Damien should focus on the stories of his miracles. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Example of Religion and Mythology 

message: As the title says. Apotetios (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Religion is a branch of Mythology then the article is Biased 

message: Religion is what believers of a mythology call their mythology. ex. Greek mythology must of been refered differently by their believers thousands of years ago as a religion. No one believes it now because they think it's false thus they refer to it as mythology. that's bias, because they call their mythology a religion because it is widely believed, but it doesn't make it necessarily true. ex. people believed the world was flat, the world was at the center of the universe, the planets and sun revolved around the earth, sponteneaus generation, and much more, does that make it true?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordomono (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't the article need to "Mythology and mythology"? 

message: I would like to invite all contributing editors on this page to take part in the discussion at Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles, which has a bearing on this article.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc on ambiguous words in religious articles 

message: Ancient and modern Religions, Mythology, etc, has ONE thing in commmon.  Everyone that is followed, everyone that follows and everyone that seeks truth is 100% right from their own point of reference, experience and their own framework that they built their OWN world on.  Everything can be argued, negotiated and changed as time goes on and we learn more. Keep you morals in check, respect what you don't understand yet and understand that if you were born on a different part of the planet your outlook on life, religion, etc. would have been to opposite of what you are privileged to base today's aruguments on.
Arno Le Roux  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.31.201.116 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  100% Right!!! 

message: This article has been whittled down into a discussion about whether religious stories can be classified as myths. This is neither the place for this nor is it required. I want to read about mythology from different religions, from different points of view by people who know what they're talking about. I don't want to read inane dribble about whether or not myth is an appropriate term or the etymology of the word. That doesn't even need to be mentioned, yet this article has it as a running theme. Wikipedia isn't here to preserve the feelings of every group of people in the world; it is about openly exchanging ideas and knowledge and some of the more immature people will be upset by opposing views; pandering to this stifles discussion and learning. I am offended by this attitude but that isn't the reason I want it to stop, it is about integrity and honour which should be beyond reproach in this kind of endeavour. I removed a couple of paragraphs but I really think this needs more deleted and much, much more added. If you're offended by my desire for information then this isn't the place for you. I will return and if there has been no discussion I will go to work on this article, calling for mediation where I think appropriate. 86.162.37.228 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is ridiculous 

message: Has there been any discussion about expanding the scope of this article to describe how specific myths influenced other myths?  I.e., create different sections within the article that highlights similar themes within disparate mythologies (like the flood myth, etc.).Jasonnewyork (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of article 

message: This problem of one people's Religion being another's Mythology is very serious, and requires a staple of most, if not all, modern Religions: the Golden Rule.
Not only can a Religion seemingly pass entirely into Mythology, but a body of entirely novel Myth may become a Religion, and there really need be only one basic rule: a Religion has living, willing, and active adherents, while a Mythology simply does not. If there is someone to be offended, do not go out of your way to offend them. Science has its own logical premises, upheld by mere mortals. Have a care. TheLastWordSword (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution of Conflict