Category talk:Abrahamic mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Abrahamic mythology is a point of view

The description says, "Abrahamic mythology category covers objects and topics from a relatively cohesive set of ancient traditions and stories in the Abrahamic religions." This is not the normal way that this terminology is used, as far as I've found. Abrahamic mythology doesn't apply to every story, person, artifact, or doctrine found in the so-called Abrahamic religions. As far as I've found, Abrahamic mythology is a perspective adopted by some historians and sociologists of religion, pertaining to some of the narratives in the Bible, the Quran, and the Hadiths. There are more appropriate and neutral categories for almost all of the articles that have recently been categorized "Abrahamic mythology". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Categorizing a story as a myth doesn't necessarily imply that the story is untrue - but it does imply that it is is a story. Trinity is not a story. Allah is not a story. Son of God is not a story. This category is being used in such a way that appears to suppose that a Religion is the same thing as a myth. Even our own article, Religion and mythology, points out that they are different. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not mean it is fiction. It can be non-fiction (eg., facts, true or untrue). JDR 21:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant to my comments. A myth is a narrative. Trinity is not a narrative. Allah is not a narrative. Son of God is not a narrative. Furthermore, "mythology" is not another word for elements of a story. George Washington is the subject of a patriotic myth, but the narrative belongs in the category of mythology, whereas the person does not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "mythology", from the Greek words muthos, meaning a narrative, and logos, meaning a word or argument, literally means the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that feature a specific religious or belief system. Mythology figures prominently in most religions, and most mythology is tied to at least one religion. Some use the words "myth" and "mythology" to portray the stories of one or more religions as false, or dubious at best. Some people may take offense at the characterization of any aspect of their faith as an expression of myth. Most people concur, though, that every religion has a body of myths that express deeper truths that are ineffable on the surface level. Mythology is used to refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes (eg., viewpoints and beliefs of the country, time period, culture, and/or religion which gave birth to them).. The Trinity, Allah, Son of God items in the body of myths. One can speak of a Jewish mythology, a Christian mythology, or an Islamic mythology, in which one describes the mythic elements within these faiths without speaking to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history. JDR 17:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This view of mythology is not compatible with the Bible, as some interpret it. Are you aware of that? It is not compatible with several forms of Christianity, or with Orthodox Judaism. For example: 2 Peter 1:16-18 specifically contrasts "mythos" with "eye-witnesses". "For, skilfully devised fables not having followed out, we did make known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but eye-witnesses having become of his majesty" (Young's).

This isn't really a matter of "most people" thinking this, or that. The question is whether Wikipedia is going to declare these people incorrect about their own religion, and presume to issue dogma on the matter. I think that Wikipedia is supposed to be the opposite of dogmatic, for better or worse. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a matter of the religious people misunderstanding the definition of a word. They are not "incorrect" they are using incorrect words to describe things. 134.161.241.176 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TO DO

Move items into specific sub-cat. JDR 21:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do would be to remove the disputed terminology and categorization from the articles, and apply a more appropriate category. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The appropriate thing is to cat and sub-cat the religious mythology (in the sense of noting the mythic elements within these faiths without speaking to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history). JDR 17:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. 134.161.241.176 13:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization discussions

In order to reduce wasted time, please put all categorization discussion here, since Codex will insist on using the same irrelevent arguemtns on every page in an effort to maintain his bias, one central location to discuss all arguemnts will help get this over with wasting the lease amount of time. 134.161.241.176 05:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)