Talk:First man or woman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
I need to track down the (Greek?) myth of the first human being a woman formed from the blowing wind.Vicki Rosenzweig
Can someone explain what it means by saying that scientifically, the first hom. sap. was a woman? It's not as if you could point to a particular member, male or female, of a population at any time and say "this is/was the first of a new species" (other than in an X-Men comic...) Malcolm Farmer
- indeed. it's "the chicken and the egg" all over again... ;-) -- Tarquin
-
- The comment about the missing link proves more or less that whoever wrote the statement didn't have a clue. So it's gone, now. Someone else 17:40 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)
-
- Well, if you ask certain people I know, most males still ain't human!
Why do we list (e.g.) Hotcâk mythology using that word mythology but list the (e.g.) Christian creation myth without the descriptive "mythology" term? This is higly discriminatory. We should either describe all creation myths as "mythology" or none. We cannot pick and choose and play favourites. Tannin 03:08, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I know nothing about [[Hotcâk mythology]. If there's anyone who believes it, then the term should probably be changed for NPOV. Feel free. Anthony DiPierro 22:21, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry Anthony, I was unclear. That was just a random exampe. What I was trying to get at is that we term all the minor religion creation stories "mythology", but for the major religions, we don't use that term. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it seems to me that we should use the term "mytholohy" for all of them or none of them. Who is to say that the Islamic creation stories are superior to the creation stories of a Native American people, for example? Either they are all "mythology" or none of them are. Tannin 22:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- My answer was quite general. If someone believes that something is true, we shouldn't be calling it "mythology." We don't (or at least, we shouldn't) term minor religion creation stories "mythology." If we do, then that should be corrected.
- I'd like to add that there are some places where using the term is pretty much unavoidable, and in that case I think it's acceptable. On the other hand, if we're going to use the term for "all" or "none" of them, maybe we should start calling it the "big bang myth" and the "superstring myth." Anthony DiPierro 01:56, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry Anthony, I was unclear. That was just a random exampe. What I was trying to get at is that we term all the minor religion creation stories "mythology", but for the major religions, we don't use that term. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it seems to me that we should use the term "mytholohy" for all of them or none of them. Who is to say that the Islamic creation stories are superior to the creation stories of a Native American people, for example? Either they are all "mythology" or none of them are. Tannin 22:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
