Category talk:Christian mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

There has been extensive discussion of the appropriateness and neutrality of the categorization of religious narratives and beliefs as "mythology."

Contents

[edit] Archive

  1. Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 1 The original discussion from this page introduces the issues of the academic use of the category, such as the scheme adopted by most libraries and university colleges. It compares this to the conflicting uses of the word, mythology, in various Christian trends and traditions and introduces various proposals for addressing the controversy which arises from this discrepency in meaning. The implications regarding other systems of belief and narrative traditions are also discussed.
  2. Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises has been archived at Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 2. This archive is an intensive discussion of the pros and cons of departing from the academic categories, steering a course toward a categorization scheme that is both, academically sound and non-controversial. The implications regarding other systems of belief and narrative traditions are also discussed.

Category:Christian narrative has been created as an alternative to (and perhaps ultimately a replacement for) Christian mythology. After arriving at a limited consensus, discussion of the new category is continued at its talk page, at Category talk:Christian narrative, with a fuller description of the category scheme. Discussion of this category continues below.

[edit] Continued discussion

This page is for discussion the "Christian mythology" category, its application, its neutrality or lack thereof, and whether or not its continued use is appropriate for Wikipedia. Or, of course, anything that the community finds relevant and appropriate. JHCC (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The theological narrative category of Category:Christian narrative has been created as an alternative to academic and scholarly Christian mythology category. Christian analysis of the Christian religous articles shoul be discussed at that category_talk page, Category talk:Christian narrative. JDR 15:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narrative vs mythology

However tempting it may be to remove the loaded language in this last paragraph, suffice it to say that:
  1. Just because Narrative theology seeks to express theology through narrative rather than through a theological system, this does not mean that describing stories told within and about Christianity as "Christian narratives" necessarily affirms that such stories are true.
  2. Similarly, those who describe stories told within and about Christianity as "Christian narratives" do necessarily embrace "Narrative theology", especially considering that "Narrative theology" as such is a late-20th century concept, and "narrative" has been used as a synonym for "story" for centuries.
  3. Category:Christian narrative categorizes stories by genre (New Testament narratives, Patristic historical writings, Christian fiction and allegory, etc). This is not a "Christian analysis"; it is a literary analysis, irrespective of the belief of the categorizer.
JHCC (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Narrative theology seeks to express theology through narrative presentation (eg., an interpretation of some aspect of the world that is historically and culturally grounded) rather than through a systematic theology view (eg., study of Christian theology organized thematically). The Christian faith is to be interpreted by the Christian community, and not by outside scholars or explorers. This implies the stories told within and about Christianity as "Christian narratives" that such stories are true. It is an "self-analysis" (or exclusive interpretation) of Christian writing; contrary of the apologist view for Category:Christian narrative (that category was also created because of analysis differences in this category).
  • Mythology (eg., belief structure) is a synonym for religion (eg., belief structure). JDR 17:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Christian" sometimes implies that the narrative is regarded as true. "Narrative" does not. Fables, legends, hagiographies, fairy stories, epic poetry, all are narratives. "Christian narrative" communicates unambigously that the stories originate from Christian tradition; and in some cases it also describes things that are believed to be fact - without implying belief to the slightest degree. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, what narrative theology seeks to do or not to do or whether its proponents think the Christian faith is not to be judged by those outside Christianity or not is 100 PERCENT IRRELEVANT. Using the term "Narrative" does NOT mean that one supports a "narrative theological method" or that Christianity should not be studied by academia or outside scholars. Category:Christian narrative was not created to prove or disprove the Christian faith, it was created to categorize STORIES (both true and untrue, biblical and biblical, historically verifiable and unhistorically legendary) told by and about Christians and Christianity. The fact that proponents of a new school of theological thought have chosen to maintain that Christianity should not be judged by those outside it makes no difference at all to the meaning of the word "narrative". Look in any dictionary you want. If you can find a definition that states or implies that "narrative" affirms or implies the truth of the story told, I'll reconsider. Until then, do not let the perceived anti-scholarly bias of a minority group of theologians taint your understanding of a standard English word. JHCC (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project page

(moved from Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 2)

As FestivalOfSouls has pointed out, writers under other religious topics might be interested in these proposals, and some of them might have different ideas. If we have steered an unbiased course, here, the proposals could potentially serve a wider purpose. Writers on Judaism and the LDS will undoubtedly have an interest in how these categories are used. Pagans, students of comparative religion and skeptical writers have already seen the significance of categories for arranging articles according to their standards of objectivity. I think that this discussion should be copied to a new project page, and invitations and an RfC should accompany our implementation of the plan.

Does this sound like a good idea, assuming an appropriate name might be found? If so, what should that project be called? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I would suggest going ahead with the "Christian narrative" category (no reason not to, really) and then start a "Project:Categorization of Religious Narrative" page. JHCC (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think if you broaden this out to all religious narrative, you'll be back bogged down in the 'myth' dispute. I'd suggest changing Christian myth for narrative - as there is a clear consensus here for that. If those involved in other religions wish to follow this lead, all good and well. But, per my arguemnt to Festival, I don't think all religion needs to be categorised the same. Myth has become controvertial for Christianity - so change it to something more neutral. If the problem emerges elsewhere - fix it then. If it ain't broke - don't fix it. If you broaden this out, you will never get an agreement for all religions and you'll be stuck with people putting the Resurection in the Christian myth category. --Doc (?) 23:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I would have to strongly disagree there. Modern religious mythologies should be dealt with uniformly. Buddhist mythology, Christian mythology, Hindu mythology, Islamic mythology, Jewish mythology, and Native American mythology should be similar ... thus neutrality can be achieved with a by a neutral categorization (eg., an objective uniform view).
Rememeber, being a "mythology" (or an item being part of a mythology) is not a negative thing. That is a subjective view put on the word (eg. opinions based upon subjective feelings or intuitions) ... it doesn't necessarily mean that it "false" or "wrong". JDR 18:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Doc has a good point. If there is such a project, it should not be to find a one-size-fits-all solution for all religions, but to make the solution reached here available to those discussing the same issue elsewhere. JHCC (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
A one-size-fits-all solution would be the most neutral thing to do. The categorization of all mythologies does this objectively. For example, "The Resurection" should be in the Christian mythology category to help Hindus see the structure of the Christian faith.
Sincerely, JDR 18:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "mythology" appropriate categorization

If a narrative category is made, the mythology category should still exist.

Sincerely, JDR 18:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Reddi, if you haven't read through the archives, please accept my invitation to do so. Mythology does mean something distinctive in the traditions of Christians and Jews, which granted it does not mean in other traditions. The modern comparative religion and comparative mythology approach tramples this tradition - that is, it is biased against it - in deference to a way of speaking about all religions and narrative traditions as though they are the same sort of traditions, or even an identical or single tradition.
I understand why you might disagree, and would call it "subjective", if and when Christians ever derive their understanding of what mythology is from out of their own tradition. However, do you not see that by forcing upon them a meaning that is contrary not only to their doctrine, but to their basic understanding of words, you are asking them to change their opinion in order to agree with you; that you are saying that they are wrong about their own views?
Your standards of objectivity should be given every consideration. But, there are other standards besides uniformity that weigh into what should be regarded as "neutral". I would recommend that all categorization schemes of religious narrative would conform to what is being aimed at, here. "Narrative" is unambiguous, academically respectable, and non-prejudicial. However, I understand that some religious traditions, such as Paganism, adopt the terminology of mythology as their native tongue and the best way of describing their view of themselves, and of other religions in relation to them. If that is so, I recommend that you please specify this use in the description of Category:Abrahamic mythology and sub-categorize Category:Christian narrative, to accommodate this point of view in an unprejudicial fashion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Mark, and would also add that the inherent ambiguity of "mythology" (i.e., it can be objectively understood as implying "falsehood") makes it inappropriate for categorizing belief. JHCC (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Mythology may mean something distinctive in certian traditions (eg., religous POV). Speaking about "religious mythologies" is not prejudicial against any religion and does not "trample" on a specific tradition. It's not biased to talk about various "religious mythologies". The bias comes in when one religion says it's not a "mythology". The various religous mythologies should be called what they are.
It is "subjective" and not a NPOV when the Christians understanding of what mythology is is used ... and the POV of articles are thus changed to fit this POV. Are you proposing that Wikipedia takes a Christian POV in reguards to "Christian articles"? Are you proposing that Wikipedia should not be contrary to any religous doctrine? "Forcing" any particular point of view (be that religous or non-religous) to a NPOV is what is needed.
As to their basic understanding, it is insufficient. The ambiguity is thus created from their misunderstandings. It is a misunderstanding of the meaning and certian use of "mythology".
They are not "wrong" or "right" about their own views ... such judgements would be dependent on a POV. Change their opinion and POV? No ... they can feel any ways that they choose and have any POV. But, to change facts in order to agree with a certian POV should not be done. How about augmenting their understanding? Hopefully ... as the meaning and use of mythology is more than what the religous doctrine states. Increase their knowledge? Hopefully.
Standards of objectivity should be adhered to ... not standards of subjective religous POVs. I would concur that a categorization schemes of religious structures include a narratives category. A mythology category should exist seperately, though. Having both would not be a bad thing.
Sincerely, JDR 19:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
"Standards of objectivity" are not the same thing as "standards of neutrality". You tell me that I "misunderstand" what it means to categorize "Trinity" as myth. I do not misunderstand. I know what you mean by it (and therefore have suggested that the entire category of Christian narrative should be sub-categorized as "Abrahamic mythology") and I know what I mean by it (which has two meanings: "False", and "narrative"). You don't need to change your perspective in order to adopt the current proposal. Rather, you would need to accommodate a perspective that is different from your own, in order to arrive at a solution to which both of us can agree. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
"Objectivity" is "neutrality". It is undistorted by emotion or personal bias. It is having the "quality or state of being" "unbiased, unaligned". A person may "misunderstand" what it means to categorize "Trinity" as part of a mythology ... but that should not change the objective and neutral position of categorizing it as part of a mythology. It is an element in a religous structure (and the religous struture is the mythology).
If I believe that something (such as "the trinity") is true, that should not make me force others to believe that is true ... nor color the language to do so. You have made reference to my personal views in this discussion and the one @ religion and mythology'. Personally, I do believe in the Trinity, but that is my personal view. I also have no problem in describing it as part of my choosen religous mythology, because I understand that I am not saying that my convictions are false ... I am saying that it is part of a religous structure. It still stands, though, that this and other elements are part of a religous mythology. If I were Hindu, I would take various dieties as true ... but they would be part of the mythology. If I were Lakota, I would believe the existance of Haokah ... but he would still be part of a mythology.
Wikipedia would need to change it's perspectives on NPOV in order to adopt the proposal to remove the objective use of mythology. Any such change would also hurt uniformity. A solution should only agree with, 1st and most importantly, the policies and, 2nd, the guidelines of Wikipedia ... with NPOV being observed.
I personally would not support changing terminology because a few "believe" something is wrong. This would prevent the completion of the proposed goal and go against the guidelines of Wikipedia. For Wikipedia, religions must seen from the perspective of the objective use of mythology, not from any one subjective religous perspective. Again, I would support a narrative cat, but the mythological cat should stay.
Sincerely, JDR 21:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact here, is that mythology is not the unambiguous term that you want it to be. It is colored by the fact that it communicates two different meanings. It is not objective (an absurd myth in the context of this discussion) to employ the word without any regard to the way that it is used by others, simply because it fits your point of view to do so. You are projecting your perspective as though it were a deliverance from unassailable Olympus. It makes no effort whatsoever, toward consensus.
In contrast, our proposal accommodates the fact that people think differently about their own, and others', traditions. You are trying to change the fact of this difference, when there is no need to do so in order to agree with one another. That may fit your standards of objectivity, but it does not fit mine - for which you have the utterly contemptuous opinion that it is merely a product of my ill-informed and erroneous understanding. Please read WP:NPOV and see which of these two approaches better fits Wikipedia. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Mythology is susceptible to different interpretations. It can be seen as objective to employ the word (eg., a religous structure in the context of this discussion; contrary to the exclamation that it only means an "absurd story"). Addressing alternate ways it is used by others can be done and still use it, because the word fits an objective view. The perspective is not "from high" as though it were a deliverance from unassailable Olympus. The classification that mythology means only things are false is, though, supposedly delivered from high through unassailable "sacred doctrine". Sticking to that religous POV in reality makes no effort whatsoever toward consensus.
As to your statement "'you have the utterly contemptuous opinion that it is merely a product of my ill-informed and erroneous understanding'" ... I am not expressing extreme lack of respect nor do I have any feelings of intense dislike toward your viewwpoint. I am trying not to make this a personal issue between us. We may even agree on the religous doctrine. I also make no evaluation on the quality of your education nor any qualification if your reasoning may contain errors. I will speak in generalities, though, and address the general concept of adherents to a religion and their views.
Now, has there been a change facts of this difference? No ... Wikipedia can present competing views. PLEASE read the section WP:NPOV#Religion. A neutral point of view presents controversial views without asserting them. Writing unbiasedly is representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them. NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past. Adherents of a religion may object to a critical historical treatment of their a faith, claiming that this somehow disrespects their religious beliefs. That is not true. Using mythology objectively fits this standards of neutrality, but it may not fit a religous adherant POV.
Sincerely, JDR 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The following is taken from some comments I made in reply to Festival on the second archive, that I want to transfer over here for further comment... Codex Sinaiticus 21:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ... I was never suggesting that other world religions' "sacred texts" being called "mythology" is any more appropriate. Just for example, perhaps some Muslims would like to call the Hindu writings "mythology", while some Hindus in turn would try to label Muslim writings as "mythology". But since wikipedia does not take sides, it is indeed questionable whether any world religion ought to have its "sacred texts" thus tagged. My position has been strictly for the cause of neutrality, since the beginning of this discussion. Codex Sinaiticus 16:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem from the other side is that, it's to be supposed apparently, that from some perspectives mythology is the very best, most appropriate, and most "neutral" way of describing all traditions of religious narrative without implying that any of them are false. This finds accord with the skeptical opinion, which likewise considers religious stories true in exactly the same way: that is, not the truth. From the abundant evidence of academic literature, this appears to be exactly the case. It is neutral because it does not imply that any of them are true, or alternatively, it implies that all of them are comparably untrue and true.
Why not "tradition" then? Why not "narrative? Because academically, the first order of business is detachment. It must be denied that any tradition, or view of tradition has an exclusive claim, therefore all are subject to the most inclusive category, embracing not only belief but also unbelief: "myth". Everything else is opinion.
I'm not a scholar, and for that reason I have to view this from the outside. What is remarkable is that, the word and idea of "mythology" is actually used in very distinctly different and biased ways by various factions or "schools". There is Bultmann's idea of Christian mythology, which seeks to separate the things that a historian would care about, from the things a religious person cares about: the search for the historical Jesus, as opposed to the Jesus of Myth. There are the "one myth" people, Campbell and his ilk, who allege that the Christian religion is actually merely a branch of a tree of comparable ways of looking at things. Jung, Cassirer, Spong - none of them think of "myth" in the same way, or with the same nuances. They use the enormous breadth, the ecclectic and accrued meaning, the ambiguity of the word, to read into it just what they want. People who approach the issue of religion from the secular perspective of psychology, like the word "myth", too. In short, the word is preferred because it means all things and nothing. You can take sides on the meaning, invent new meanings, without taking sides on the word. All of these by the way, mean what Christians used to mean by "historically false".
Compare this to "narrative". What a drab, colorless word. "Story", even "religious or symbolic story" is nearly the same. None of the richness, none of the "whatever that means to you" kind of pay-off, that returns from the word "myth". The problem is that these words are too neutral, too vanilla, too undecided. These words don't join in; they remain stubbornly singular in their connotation, non-elite and unevocative.
And yet, this preference for the idea and scheme of "mythology" will remain, and must be accommodated somehow: yes, by policy. Regardless of whether anyone is "offended" or objections from the meaning of words (see, we are told, your feelings of offense are proof of your bias), there will always be those whose goal remains to "Force" (the word used) people to join in, for their own good; who will demand that others change the way that they think, to shut up and to stop objecting, to stop intruding their "subjective opinion". Does it look as though all this talk of "force" looks a lot like "trampling of tradition" and deconstructionism? Pish posh, they say. Nothing of the sort. We respect your beliefs - that's the point!
Very well then. I see that we are forced to accommodate the fact that this is how people think, and this is the agenda that they have; and I am willing to let them take what I believe and force it into their mold of opinion. I will not force them to change the way that they think. However, I will plead that if they are going to do this, that they fairly distinguish between neutrality, and their biased agenda of forced manipulation of opinion. Do it in a way that does not force sides to be taken. Leave us "narrative", and then make of "narrative" what the various opinions make of it: various categories of opinion about Christian narrative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Mark makes a very good point about the many different uses of "myth" and "mythology" even in an academic context. Add to these the popular uses that imply falsehood, and the ambiguity of the term becomes even more evident. What is the use of a category that can mean almost anything? Such ambiguity is inappropriate for any subject matter, be it religious, secular, scientific, literary, musical, botanical, or scatological. It would be like having a Category:Physical stuff and trying to maintain that this is for articles about the physics of matter. Yes, "physical" can refer to "physics", and "matter" and "stuff" can be synonymous, but there's too much ambiguity for this to be a useful categorization.
Mark may very well be right in his characterization of scholarly and skeptical agendas, or he may be wrong. Regardless, those agendas are not relevant to whether or not we should use "mythology" as a characterization. The only issue for us is: what does the word mean, and is that a useful and appropriate categorization for Wikipedia? The answer to the first question depends almost entirely on the intentions of the person using the word — as Mark points out, it means what they want it to mean, which means it can mean almost anything. Since categories in Wikipedia are supposed to increase our readers' knowledge and understanding, such vagueness makes "mythology" both useless and inappropriate as a Wikipedia category. JHCC (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
If categories in Wikipedia are supposed to increase our readers' knowledge and understanding, then "mythology" is both useful and appropriate as a Wikipedia category. As I have stated above, addressing alternate ways it is used can be done and still use it. Because some religous adherant or religous group has a certian doctrine that should not change the objective and neutral position of categorizing it as part of a mythology (eg., an object of idea in a religous structure). Adherents of a religion may object to a critical historical treatment of their a faith, claiming that this somehow disrespects their religious beliefs. That is not true. Using mytholoigy objectively should be the course explaining the different word meanings. Sincerely, JDR 15:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all, whether or not "Adherents of a religion may object to a critical historical treatment of their faith" or whether or not such a treatment actually is disrespectful is not the issue. The only issue here is whether or not elements of religious narrative are being categorized neutrally, without implying the truth or falsehood of any belief.
Secondly, if you insist that "mythology" can be used neutrally and objectively, how do you propose to make clear that the only intended sense is "an object of idea in a religious structure"? Amended and more neutral category descriptions have not eliminated the dispute, and disclaimers and tags to the articles have not received consensus support. Given that you yourself concede that "Mythology is susceptible to different interpretations", how do you suggest that we "address alternate ways it is used [...] and still use it"? Practical solutions would be greatly appreciated. JHCC (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
First, whether or not "Adherents of a religion may object to a critical historical treatment of their faith" is an issue to the neutral point of view policy. Whether or not such a treatment actually is disrespectful should also be discussed, as to address any precieved offense (in any critical historical treatment of religion(s)). The issue is whether or not elements of religious mythology are being categorized neutrally, without suggesting as a logically necessary consequence the truth or falsehood of a belief.
"Mythology" can be used neutrally and objectively. How to make this clear that the only intended sense is "an object or idea in a religious structure"? State it ... plainly and simply. The suggested "Narrative" alternative is as ambiguous. In it's simpliest form the word means a series of events in a sequence, many times factual (though occassionally fictional). That is why in the narrative article, it states narratives are "historically and culturally grounded".
Mabey individuals should ask why amended and more neutral category descriptions have not eliminated the dispute? Mabey it is because the classification that mythology means only things are false being delivered from high through unassailable "sacred doctrine". Disclaimers and tags to the articles may never receive consensus support because of this. Mythology is susceptible to different interpretations, but editors plainly and simply address alternate ways it is used (such as the disclaimers and tags) and state what is meant by the use.
Now ... should Wikipedia takes a Christian POV in reguards to "Christian articles"? More generally, should Wikipedia take a religous POV in reguards to religous articles? Should Wikipedia should not be contrary to any religous doctrine? These question go to the heart of NPOV and objectivity.
Sincerely, JDR 16:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
"Contrary to any religious doctrine"? The paradigm for wikipedia (so far) has been absolute strict Neutrality - not "contrary" to any prevalent religion or other world-view. There are societies on Earth where the Gospel is the dominant text "of rule", just as are those where the Quran is, and those where Karl Marx's writing is, and a few others in other places. All this is elementary comp religion and sociology. Wikipedia is sprawling in many directions, but all things eventually take the language and form of neutrality in the long run, and abuse of improper category schemes that are really labels, and are harder to edit, ought to be checked from undermining this, lest it run rampant throughout the wiki, imo. I can't think of a more prejudiced misuse, than wading into a religion or sect one knew little about and casually labelling competing viewpoints as "mythology". Noone has a monopoly on truth, not even the scientists of any nation. This is clearly a subjective term if tehre ever was one. As we have seen, one man's mythology may be another man's bread of life. No person or group can make this determination for everyone. It reminds me of accounts of ancient runic texts being destroyed in mediaeval Europe because they weren't in Italic alphabet and were "not approved" for people to believe in. If destroying them fails, at least label them as "mythology", to signal that they are "not approved" - I can only wonder if that is still the thinking of some today. Codex Sinaiticus 17:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The question is "Should Wikipedia not be contrary to any religous doctrine?"? The Neutrality policy states exactly, concerning religion, that "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.[...]Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective" ... it goes on to state that the use of "contrary" notions to any religion or other world-view is acceptable. As with "fundementalism", editors should take care to explain what is meant by a term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (some people being unaware of how this word is being used.)
It is irrelevant to a NPOV if there are societies on Earth where the Gospel, Quran, or [insert your favorite POV]) is the dominant "rule". The abuse of category schemes to affirm a religous view in contrast to a NPOV should be checked.
Sincerely, 18:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Reddi, what we are trying to do is NOT adopt a religious point of view (or a point of view regarding religion) that prejudges how the story should be viewed, as "mythological" does. "Mythological" is an interpretation, or rather, a number of competing interpretations. "Abrahamic mythology" reflects an interpretive choice, from among the choices that the "Mythology" interpretive scheme offers. In stark contrast, "Narrative" is a factual description. Why is it unacceptable to subcategorize the factual descriptions within the appropriate interpretive scheme? Why must the interpretation be imposed in an ambiguous way, on the articles themselves, where it cannot be discerned what is meant by "Myth" - regardless of the fact that the word means "False" in the context of Christian religion? Why must the "Trinity" page be categorized as "Abrahamic mythology"? Is it not because you believe something that others do not, about how to categorize all Christian doctrines? Then take all "Christian doctrines" (the category of fact), and subcategorize them within your interpretive grid (such as "Abrahamic mythology" - category of opinion). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It's NOT irrelevant that different cultures with different pov's happen to exist in parts of the Earth. The procedure for achieving a NPOV article is to allow all the major viewpoints there are on a different subject to be expressed, but to use encyclopedic voice, not writing as if any one viewpoint were the only truth. Sometimes even things assumed to have been a given, or common knowledge, have turned out to be disputed in this fashion. There is enough room in the article to accommodate every significant viewpoint, AND write it out neutrally. But your viewpoint in re: mythology is by no means a universal one, and its nigh impossible to accommodate the multiple viewpoints in such a dispute in neutral language, when you're talking about a category label that is either there or not there -- short of drastic measures like affixing a disclaimer template to each article. The categories can serve a useful purpose, but only if they are neutrally worded and actually assist people trying to find similarly classed stuff, like JHCC and Doc's schemes. Codex Sinaiticus 20:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google test

Not only does 'the word means "False" in the context of Christian religion', it also means "False" in the context of common English usage. A Google search on the phrase "the myth of" brings up (in addition to a gaming site and two references to Camus The Myth of Sisyphus) "The Myth of the Melting Pot", "Debunking the Myth of a Desperate Software Labor Shortage", "The Myth of the Magical Scientific Method", "The Myth of Racial Profiling", and "The Myth of Cyberterrorism" on the first page alone. It's not until the third page of results that you get a single "Greek Mythology Today" and there are very few results of "Myths" as religious stories. All the other results up to that point use "myth" in the negative sense of "a false or untrue story or idea" — including, interestingly enough, a site on "The Myth of the Historical Veracity of Jesus." A search of "myth" by itself fares somewhat better, but even here there is a fair number of "myth as falsehood" results distributed among the "myth as religious story" results. JHCC (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It can means "False" in the context of common English usage ... but as been said over and over ... that is only one meaning that can be applied in common English usage.
If you want to try a google test ... use "mythology" : 28,400,000 hits vs "religion": 239,000,000 hits. So all cultures' mythology article should be replaces with religon in the title? example ... greek mythology -> greek religion. (Seem though both are occupied (eg.,. practical counterparts) ... explaining mostly the same thing.)
"religious mythology" comes in @ 4,020,000. Many critical articles on religion in general.
"Christian narrative" 7,110,000 vs "christian mythology" 3,070,000 ... Christian narrative comes in higher, but with results that are mostly affirmative of this religous belief. Christian mythology has more objective articles examining the Christian beliefs.
Sincerely, JDR 19:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (PS. can't both exist for Christianity?)
Are you saying that because "Christian narrative" is used on webpages that (in your assessment) affirm Christian beliefs, it is ipso facto not objective? JHCC (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narrative?

"Narrative" is an affirming description. I have no problem with such classifcation of articles, IF it is explained what is meant by a term (that it is non-fiction (which can be true or false)) AND other applicable cats can be applied. But it is not acceptable to categorize articles with affirming descriptions alone. Though .... if course was taken, the mythology category would be acceptable ... as the explaination would avoid causing unnecessary offense (note that it's not important to not offend), and it would not misleading the reader on it's use. Within objective mythology scheme, editors should take care to explain what is meant by a term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (some people being unaware of how this word is being used.) This is from the NPOV policy! JDR 18:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC) PS., it seems that User:Ihcoyc has jumped the gun and removed the acceptable "christian mythology" cat tag from many articles.

FWIW, I have been replacing the Category:Christian mythology tag with the somewhat sharper Category:Christian legend and folklore tag, on those articles which seem to me to fall clearly within that category. This was based on what appears to be a fairly broad consensus that has emerged on. . . a number of talk pages, the most recent of which is Category talk:Christian narrative. In the interim, some kind of cross reference does probably belong at Category:Christian mythology. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Reddi, I have no idea what "affirming description" means - is this some sort of positivist idea: that there are no facts, only descriptions?
There is no such thing as an "objective mythology scheme". These are all categories of opinion - some of them mean (always) false; some of them do not necessarily mean false; and some mean (in a kind of ironic way) true in one sense because they are false in another sense. I do not object to categorizing according to opinion. My objection is to categories of opinion, with elitist and counter-intuitive definitions that require explanation in order to be understood, that represent themselves as being "objective".
I do not see any need for the Christian mythology category. It's only purpose would be to include everything that is more neutrally categorized as "Christian narrative". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
If you do not see any need for the Christian mythology category ... that is your POV. It's not counter-intuitive (though it may be doctrinally counter-intuitive to a religous POV) nor elitist (from special position of authority; this is a common way to see many religions, but mabey not a person's own). Sincerely, JDR 19:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
That is correct. It is my POV that Christian narrative contains all that "Christian mythology" contains, except without the connotation of falsehood, or implying that the kind of truth it may contain is of a certain type and not another. However, "Christian narrative" is not my POV; it is a category of fact that is serviceable to both, belief and unbelief. It also is not a point of view, that "mythology" is ambiguously defined, one definition of which, in English (and in the Bible), is "historically or conceptually false".

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "Narrative is an affirming description"? What is being affirmed? A narrative is a story, a description of events, with no reference to whether these events are real or imagined or whether the narrative is a true account of these events or not. Nothing is being affirmed; events are being described. JHCC (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The events are being described as true. See comment @ 16:58, 15 September 2005. The suggested "Narrative" alternative is ambiguous. In it's simpliest form the word means a series of events in a sequence, many times factual. That is why in the narrative article, it states narratives are "historically and culturally grounded". JDR 19:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The narrative article is badly written, and we'll have to get to that later. Yes, a narrative is "a series of events in a sequence", and yes, these are "many times factual". However, these "events in a sequence" are not necessarily factual nor does a narrative structure necessarily imply that they are — or are not. Practially every novel ever written is a narrative; does that mean that every novel ever written is to be taken as true? Or that the author is claiming that it is true? A narrative tells a story. Sometimes the story is true. Sometimes it is false. Sometimes it describes real events, but adds fictional characters. Sometimes it describes imagined events, but includes real characters. Some narratives convey belief. Some narratives merely entertain. Some narratives simply inform. All of them, however, are descriptions of events, and none of them has any truth or falsehood simply from being told in narrative form. JHCC (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The narrative article is badly written? Is that because it doesn't agree with the point you are tryin to make? Fictious narrative novels are by defintion false ... but non-fiction novels are ambigous (they can be true or false). A non-fiction narrative is "a series of events in a sequence" and these are "many times factual". This is the problem of the "narrative" term use.
I agree that "events in a sequence" are not necessarily factual nor does a narrative structure necessarily imply that they are — or are not. BUT, Mytholoogy does not necessarily mean factual nor does a mythology necessarily imply that any set of beliefs are not — or are.
If the defintions of narrative is stated ... aka., that this qualifiactions that "none of the descriptions of events has any truth or falsehood being told" ... that would be great. But if that was the case .... Mythology would be acceptable, as it can as ambigous.
Sincerely, JDR 20:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's see if I follow this without (quite) descending into absurdity: if a "myth" is defined as an "explanatory narrative", it might be used to affirm of belief: as in "the Christian narrative is inerrant". Therefore, it's not "myth" that needs to be explained (although pedestrians and dogmatists think it means "false"), rather, it is "narrative" that needs to be explained because it never connotes falsehood.
Perhaps then, the clearest, most informative definition of "myth" is "explanatory myth", since then, no one will know what it means.
This is what you mean by "objectivity"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Nope .... wiktionary:Mythology and wiktionary:narrative mean what they mean. Both can be ambigous. One is mostly used by proponets of a story subjectively (eg., systematic recitation of an event or series of events). The other is used objectively concerning a story (eg., collection of wiktionary:myths of a people, concerning their origin, history, deities, ancestors and heroes).
I find the greek mythology and greek religion articles enlightening ... greek narrative though falls short in this discussion. Should the "Greek religion" cat have a "Greek narrative" cat instead of "greek mythology" cat? JDR 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
A good example. The reason that Greek mythology is called such, in the west, is because it has been subjected to Christian and skeptical evaluations. It is not the Christian story, and it is not literal history, and thus it is "myth". Now, academia is returning the favor. Christian story is being subjected to the very same sort of scrutiny without reference to Christian belief. After all, from the perspective of other religious viewpoints, the Christian viewpoint is neither more nor less mythological than the Greek stories, in that both describe deities that not all believe in, and both describe heroes and other classic archetypes. Thus, what makes "myth" attractive is that it is already used to describe critical approach, detached from consideration of historicity. It is a convenient term of comparison of the entire milieu of human symbols and beliefs.
What needs to be faced however, is that "narrative" vs "myth" compares as medical science to forensic science. The patient best served if he feels no pain, in either case. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The narrative article states "a narrative is a story, an interpretation of some aspect of the world that is historically and culturally grounded and shaped by human personality" and then goes into literary theory and semiotics. When I say "badly written", I mean that it is not clear whether "that is historically and culturally grounded" modifies "interpretation", "aspect", or "world". You took it to mean that (as you say above) 'narratives are "historically and culturally grounded"', but the article is not that definite.
Regardless, why rely on the narrative article? What about Wiktionary? "The systematic recitation of an event or series of events" [1] What about Merriam-Webster Online? "something that is narrated : STORY" [2] What about the American Heritage Dictionary? "A narrated account; a story." [3] None of these have any connotation of truth or falsehood AT ALL. Simple, unambiguous, neutral. JHCC (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Christian narrativity of christian articles is not a NPOV. I find the article about narrative theology interesting (especially, "The Christian faith is thus also to be interpreted by the Christian community, and not by outside scholars or explorers".)

An incidental use of the word, not a definition implying or affirming belief. It is an approach to the Christian narrative assuming that the narrative is addressed to Christians. Come now. You know that the word narrative does not affirm belief. Compare this to the word, "mythology". The Jesus Seminar is called "demythologizing" project - a search for the "historical Jesus". Myth is all about subjectivity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Narrative is more affirmative ... and used mainly within the Christian religion. Mythology is used more outside of the Christian religion and is abit more objective to the faith's tenets. Sincerely, JDR 15:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narrative theological views vs Scholarly academic views

The theological narrative goes against objective investigation by scholars or intellectual explorers. Mkmcconn's rant about scholars (eg., "one myth" people and their 'ilk') shows the contempt many have about any objective or critical view of the Christian religion. The Mythology cat is applicable and should be applied. The Christian faith is not to be only interpreted by the Christian community. Outside scholars or academics can and should evaluate Christianity. These outside scholars do designate aspects of that religions as "mythology" (eg., a religous structure).
I personally am fine with the use of both. Narrative and mythology cats. Narrative is the Christian POV'ed categorization of Christian religion. The mythological category (eg., Christian mythology) is quite appropriate to Christian religions articles. The mythological category need only to adhere to the outline of NPOV (eg., define what is meant).
Sincerely, JDR 15:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
A category that requires explanation, in order for the average reader to understand the special sense in which it is being used, is not NPOV. A category that would ordinarily be used to speak of narratives, applied to doctrines (such as "Trinity", or "Original sin") is a further problem. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It is part of NPOV policy to help readers understand the sense in which a word is being used, explanations are in order (especially for contested words). This category speak of elements of a religion (such as "Trinity"). Sincerely, JDR
Do you have the same problem with "story"? If this were applied to articles, would you still insist on labelling the same articles as "myth", because it more richly implies academic opinion? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
... as I have stated in another talk ... "myth" (aka., a ficton or non-ficton story) is NOT "mythology" (aka., a religous structure).
Also, academic opinions are sought in Wikpedia .... for "higher standards". The Christian faith is not to be only interpreted by the Christian community. Outside scholars or academics can and should evaluate Christianity. Your contempt for academia is amuzing, though.
Narrative is the Christian POV'ed categorization of Christian religion. The mythological category (eg., Christian mythology) is quite appropriate to Christian religions articles.
Sincerely, JDR 17:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It is only via "mythology" (an analysis of belief structure) that "Trinity" can be categorized as "myth". I recommend that you do so, by including Category:Christian doctrines under Category:Abrahamic mythology.
It is a red herring to confuse "narrative" with the very recent interpretive school of "narrative theology". We could create a category called Category:narrative theology, however (which would be very small indeed). This would contain links to articles pertaining to a handful of theologians who distance themselves from the philosophically rationalistic methods of systematic theology. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
"Mythology" is not "myth". I think we are stuck there. The "Trinity" may or may not be a "myth" ... but that is not necessarily implied by the use of "mythology".
And ... the option to change this category to "narrative" goes to the heart of "narrative theology", no outer examination (aka., "get rid of the academics" that you hold so low in your opinion).
Sincerely, JDR 18:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Mark...you're quite correct in making the differentiation between a Christian narrative and narrative theology, which is a distinctive approach to theology that intentionally does not label the stories or systematize them. PS - I'd like a narrative theology category, as one who thinks there's great merit there, but, as you say, it would be relatively small! KHM03 18:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Such a category might include articles on literary analysis and textual analysis, the article on genre, and the category Category:Christian mythology (which would contain, "Christian theology" and "Christian narrative"). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Christian mythology" scheme

I will go further, and suggest that the "mythology" interpretive scheme would include Christian mythology. And that, this category would include Category:Christian narrative and Category:Christian theology, according to that manner of the analysis of belief-structures. It would also include all of those articles that pertain to theologians who use this approach to analysis, perhaps including theologians who prominently refer to myth as an appropriate interpretive approach to Christian narrative, such as liberals like Spong and conservatives like Howard Vantil (of Calvin College). However, this categorization scheme would make it unnecessary, redundant and misleading (because of the ambiguity of the word), to categorize each article on the specific doctrines and narratives as "mythology". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The ambiguity of the word is removed when it is stated how it is being used.
"mythology" scheme:
That would be a good start. JDR 18:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not "unnecessary, redundant, and misleading" to include the appropriate article in the appropriate cat ... and to list the apropriate categories in order. Sorry if you I didn't think I wanted that. "Mythology" and "Narrative" does though need to be explained to the reader though. JDR 18:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (PS., the Category:Christian mythology was removed from the Category:Christian narrative before)

Sorry, but "Trinity" is not "Christian Mythology" by any definition and should not be categorised as any "Mythology", because that's not what it is. It is a doctrine (a church teaching), and not a narrative or a literature or a story, and hence not even "true mythology" (as opposed to false mythology?). It is what the Church teaches and hundreds of millions believe about the Nature of God, it cannot be disproven; thus if it is true that God consists of three persons, then it encompasses an needless insult cloaked in scholarly language. There is already enough illogical contempt on the part of academia, for complaints of contempt on behalf of academia (which seems to be guided by a quite unmathematical set of philosophies at times.) Codex Sinaiticus 18:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The category was removed on the assumption that it would not be necessary. As I expected, however (and have argued from the very beginning - as you can see throughout the archives), this removal will not be acceptable to the Wikipedia community at large, because it is not acceptable to academia at large. I may not like that, but that is only my opinion. I must insist, however, that there be no confusion or misinformation about what "narrative" connotes. It has never been a term of "affirmation of belief". It is used by people who affirm belief, the same way that "text", "story", "tale", "pericope", "description", "explanation" and "episode" are used - to discuss the issues with detachment, and without implying, even accidently, that the story is either true or false. Mythologists would be helpless without such words as "narrative". So would Christian theologians. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, if the only concern is to categorize "Religion", what's wrong with Category:Religion? Or if that's too vague and you want to categorize "Religious structure", what's wrong with Category:Religious structure? If you only want to a category for the people, stories, and beliefs of Christianity, what is wrong with Category:Christianity? JHCC (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem is explained on the Religion and Mythology page. There is overlap between a study of a religion, and a study of the structure of religious beliefs and the traditions associated with them (including also things which arise from them but are not believed by them to be true in any sense); however, these are not identical fields of study. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regional mythology

Can I suggest that this category should be a subcategory of neither Middle East mythology nor European mythology. Wil Christianity obviously has Middle Eastern origins, much of the mythology derives from European sources. We should only make a category a subcategory if all of its contents belongs in the parent category, and cleary (from the fact that the two parents are mutually exclusive) articles should not belong in both. We can add individual articles to Middle-East or European as appropriate. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last night at Mythology

I hope everyone who contributed to this mammoth 3 page discussion is aware of what happened at mythology article last night. To sum up, the editors there insist that the Bible IS "myth", as if this were an unassailable, undisputed, and proven fact. They have reverted every attempt I made (with one editor even making 8 reverts) to either find a more neutral wording or indicate that this viewpoint is disputed, because to their way of thinking, there can be no dispute whatsoever to the "Bible-is-a-myth" line. Many churches and millions of believers, even the Roman Catholic Pope has explicitly rejected this terminology, but in that article, it must not even be mentioned that there are any ooposing viewpoints, and they are pretending that this is called "neutrality". With all that has been said here by an overwhelming consensus of editors about the slipperiness and ambiguity of the two dictionary definitions of "mythology" (and then there is also the question of whether or not everyone agrees without dispute that the Bible meets either definition, the traditional one OR the newer one) I just thought you all would like to know, and possibly help try to bring some sensibility to that page. This should be a lot easier to fix than a Category, because it is wording within a wiki article, and I for one would be satisfied if only it said the Bible "is seen as" a myth, instead of stating unequivocally that it IS a myth, but even that is apparently too much neutrality for the two or three (mainly one) editor(s) who were at mythology last night. ??? (????) 12:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Collaboration" can be made irrelevant with a little arrogance and persistence. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Ironically this STILL holds true of one person refusing to allow edits to this day (in regards to this issue) to this day.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/Category_talk%7EChristian_mythology_70f0.html"