Talk:Life-death-rebirth deity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
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


Contents

[edit] Older

This article is extremely biased. The external references are entirely slanted. This is a Christian POV article and should be edited to meet Wikipedia standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.83.174 (talk • contribs)

do elaborate, preferably including suggestions for improvement? dab (ᛏ) 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing POV in layout and content

I've made some changes. I'm thinking that this page should be merged with Chthonic, since that's what they both are. The Criticism of Universality subsection (which I renamed as such, "category" is too general. If "universality" is objectionable, peraps "categorization" would do.) needs major citations "for extended arguments in this vein see also Burkett (1987) and Detienne (1991)" while being acceptable for legal citations, is not acceptable citation for two entire paragraphs on WP. In an academic environment, it would constitute plagarism/academic dishonesty (if that were handed in as a paper, it would fail and possibly be brought up for review). I don't mean to chastise, merely point out why it is important to give sufficient citations. Introductions (sentences and opening paragraps) do not need citations as they refer to material that is cited in the body of the article. I haven't personally read either of the two books, so maybe the original editor could provide some page numbers. If they cannot be cited with reliable and verifiable citations, I suggest replacing them with argumentation that can. I also placed this section below the Christianity section because, with more added info on Adonis, it makes more sense to explain who he is before rendering a critique. Thanks. Phyesalis 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bias

This article is absolutely ridiculous in dealing with Jesus. It acts as if most scholars believe Jesus was either a myth or that the Gospels were influenced by earlier mythology. This notion was proposed in the mid 19th century and finally rejected in the early-mid twentieth century. Scholars DO NOT hold to this view.

Kabain52 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

scholars do not hold that Jesus is entirely a myth ("Jesus myth"). He is still part of a "reborn god" mythology. This is regardless of the historical individual. See also Christian mythology. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur

I know Arthur is not a "deity". He has nevertheless been connected with this mytheme. Le Morte d'Arthur: "the only hope Malory can offer the reader is in Arthur’s second coming to recover the throne, a hope fostered by the inscription on Arthur’s grave: REX QUONDAM REXQUE FUTURUS". This is comparable to the Barbarossa legend. Alain de Lille in the 12th century warned that if you proclaimed Arthur was dead, you were running the risk of being stoned by your audience. Searching for "King Arthur + second coming" gives me 35,000 hits. JFK was compared to Arthur not least because of this legend. I see no reason not to make the connection here. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear Language

This sentence in the section on Jesus as a dying-and-rising god:

More typically, Christian apologetics (outside Christian fundamentalism or Evangelicalism) do not insist on the historicity of the resurrection but rather postulate it as a tenet of faith beyond rational verification. Understanding of the resurrection as a form of the "risen god" mytheme is strictly independent of acceptance or rejection of the historicity of the event.

I'd like to say this is a misleading statement, but honestly I'm not sure what it even is trying to say. Is it saying that, outside of fundamentalist and Evangelical circles, Christian apologists generally hold that one can think of the resurrection as not necessarily a historical fact, but merely the expression of a "mytheme"? Or is it saying that that Christian apologists don't hold that the resurrection can be proved? If the first statement is the case, then I think that such apologists would more appropriately be called Unitarians than Christians. But then again, the sentence is so confusing that I'm not sure. Corbmobile 05:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is clearly saying, as you say, that Christian apologists other than fundamentalists and Evangelicals "don't hold that the resurrection can be proved". The more confusing second sentence seems to mean that regarding it as a "mytheme" doesn't (or shouldn't?) affect whether people consider it historical. I don't know whether this sentence is also describing what "apologetics ... insist" upon, or whether it's the article's own statement. EALacey 07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 : This is my opinion of this discussion: First, removing this paragraph again would be the beginning of an edit war, which I won't participate in, but I will ask an administrator to lock the article until issues are resolved on the talk page. Secondly, Christian recognition that belief in the resurrection is based on faith rather than verifiable evidence of fact is encyclopedic. Agreement with that recognition or understanding of it should be irrelevant to editors. If this belief causes its believers to fall into a different religious category, that is encyclopedic and should be noted. If this belief is nonsensical to some, that is irrelevant to editors in terms of removing listing of that belief, although conflict created by that belief could be noteworthy. If the statement of that belief (that acceptance of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ is based only in faith rather than verifiable evidence) is not well-stated, it should be edited by re-writing, not removing.--Markisgreen 16:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence, as reworded, is saying that "some Christian groups" think the resurrection is "beyond rational verification". I'm sure this is both true and encyclopedic, but I don't see how it's relevant to the rest of the section, which is about how Jesus can be viewed as a life-death-rebirth deity. Is the sentence trying to imply that some Christians think the resurrection is unverifiable because it's a mytheme, or that they think the resurrection can be studied as a mytheme because it's unverifiable, or that its status as a mytheme is evidence against its historicity but they don't care about this evidence, or something else altogether? As it stands, it's not saying any of these things clearly, and I can't see how it's more relevant to the article than any other statement one could make about the views of Christians on the life, death or resurrection of Jesus.
As for the second sentence, I still don't understand what it means, as I explained above. Is it saying that "understanding of the resurrection as a form of the 'risen god' mytheme" doesn't or shouldn't affect "acceptance or rejection of the historicity of the event"? And is this a statement by the article itself, or is it part of the view attributed to the "Christian groups" of the previous sentence? (If the meaning is that "some Christian groups" think it shouldn't affect "acceptance or rejection", then I think that's adequately covered by the Lewis quotation above.)
I'm not going to remove these sentences again, but I can't see at present how they're saying anything that is both clear and relevant. EALacey 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the clear reasoning and anti-edit war attitude being exhibited by EALacey. At the same time, in reading the article, I feel there is an understandable point being made in these lines. I made an attempt just now at clarifying that point, as I understand it. I'm not sure I did a great job, but I still don't think the lack of clarity justifies removing the lines from the article. Hopefully a better writer than I will take a whack at making the point in a less confusing manner. --Markisgreen 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That paragraph is clear enough to me now, and I think you're correct about what it was originally intended to mean. EALacey 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An additional comment, if anyone is interested in adding them, it seems that the section devoted to Christianities attempts to deal with having their central god figure described as one of many life-death-rebirth deities suggest that there should be other sections focussing on other active religions reactions to this seeming "attack" on their religion. Just an idea. (of course, maybe none of these other religions are active, I'll have to re-skim the article) --Markisgreen 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In truth, my main objection was to the unclear prose, not necessarily to whatever it was trying to express. My main problem was that I wasn't even sure what it was saying the the first place. Corbmobile (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change Suggestion: Jesus as life-death-rebirth deity

OK. So I re-read the article and perhaps this article should be re-titled to place it more clearly in the category of articles about Jesus and Christianity. While the article makes a good list of other life-death-rebirth deities, most of the discussion is really about Jesus being in the category and reactions to Jesus being in the category. Most of the religions listed are ancient or, in my guessestimation, could only have a very small number of unorganized adherents. Unless more is going to be added about the other life-death-rebirth deities, it seems this article is really about Jesus as a mythical religious figure rather than being about a bunch of different life-death-rebirth deities.--Markisgreen 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The "Osiris-Dionysus" article actually covers the same topic, just giving these two gods as examples. Hence the articles should merged. We already have legit articles on these two deities (who are indeed two separate deities). Str1977 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)