Talk:Dying-and-rising god: Difference between revisions
This is much better than Start class |
|||
(39 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{afd-merged-from|List of dying or rising deities|List of dying or rising deities|19 October 2014}} |
{{afd-merged-from|List of dying or rising deities|List of dying or rising deities|19 October 2014}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Death |
{{WikiProject Death|importance=mid}} |
||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Mythology|importance=low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 2 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(270d) |
||
|archive = Talk:Dying-and-rising |
|archive = Talk:Dying-and-rising god/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=15 |units=days}} |
|||
{{findsourcesnotice||OR "death-rebirth deity"}} |
|||
== Self published citation == |
|||
==Reception in naive popular atheism/apologetics== |
|||
"Since the 1990s, Smith's scholarly rejection of the category has been widely embraced by Christian apologists wishing to defend the historicity of Jesus, while scholarly defenses of the concept (or its applicability to mystery religion) have been embraced by the new atheism movement wishing to argue the Christ myth theory" |
|||
It turns out that the scholarly discussion is completely relaxed and sane, it's about [[lumpers and splitters]], and how far you want to go with the "comparative" project, while it is ''people who have an agenda but no interest whatsoever in scholarly discussion'' are making a sorry mess of it, because it ''must'' be about whether "Christianty is true", mustn't it. |
|||
The citation goes to https://www.amazon.com/This-Sun-Zeitgeist-Religion-Comparative/dp/110533967X |
|||
So people who ''already know'' Christianity is true fawningly cite Smith (who is a serious scholar who was never interested in this discussion), while people who ''already know'' Christianity must be false fawningly cite Mettinger (who is ''also'' a serious scholar who was never interested in this discussion). |
|||
Unsurprisingly, this becomes the main angle of the "Wikipedia controversy", because of course Wikipedia must be about dissing your ideological opponents and not about genuine interest in scholarship. |
|||
It has already proven impossible to maintain a sane article on Christian mythology, but this is not the "Christ myth" article, so please try to restrain yourself if this is your interest. |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dying-and-rising_god&diff=prev&oldid=659113872 Here] I inserted a brief paragraph that yes, the topic has been used in the naive "Christians vs. new atheists" internet thing. I realize Wikipedia is ''itself'' part of this battleground, but, [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|it tries not to be]]. |
|||
The article can have a brief paragraph of such naive reception (or ideological abuse) of the scholarly literature, but this shouldn't dominate the article, nor should it become mixed up with the actual article topic. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 09:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* I completely commiserate, and applaud your pointing this out. [[User:Pandeist|Pandeist]] ([[User talk:Pandeist|talk]]) 05:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, thank you very much. I knew this article was a mess, but I hadn't looked at its problems in detail before. The articles on Osiris and his family suffer from similar ideological battles, so I know what they're like. I am uncomfortable with a couple of the sources you used, though. Porter and Bedard are clearly partisans on the Christian side, and McIlhenny's book actually seems to have been published by [[Lulu (company)|Lulu.com]]—that is, it's self-published. There may not be any better options, though, for making the points you used them to make. It's unfortunate that real scholars rarely pay attention to the way their work is distorted and misused for these online religious wars. [[User:A. Parrot|A. Parrot]] ([[User talk:A. Parrot|talk]]) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::: I actually think the best case for the category is now one by Richard Carrier in ''On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt'' -- he thoughtfully dismisses weak cases and focuses on Romulus, Osiris, and Zalmoxis. [[User:Pandeist|Pandeist]] ([[User talk:Pandeist|talk]]) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::That book might be worth citing here, then, if you have it. [[User:A. Parrot|A. Parrot]] ([[User talk:A. Parrot|talk]]) 19:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I will most assuredly get around to it. Blessings, brother!! [[User:Pandeist|Pandeist]] ([[User talk:Pandeist|talk]]) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
The author of this work seems to be a nobody who writes self published Christian apologetics. I'm not going to buy the book to check the source, but it's also unlikely that a Christian apologist would imply that apologists hang their hat on Smith while Christ Myth theorists appeal to "scholarly" works. This sentence seems to be editorializing Smith's work by giving an example of an apologist who cites him, but it's passing itself off as though it were a more comprehensive scholarly review of an article's impact. [[Special:Contributions/65.128.172.37|65.128.172.37]] ([[User talk:65.128.172.37|talk]]) 16:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know if this is excessive but somebody else transcribed it to Facebook, so: |
|||
:I've removed that text. I have no doubt that it's true—just look at the archives of this talk page, and you'll see examples of defenders and opponents of Christianity citing the scholarly works that seem to support their positions. But you're right that it needs a better source. My perennial lament is that scholars rarely address how their works are misused by laymen for polemical arguments, so Wikipedia can rarely outright say that such things happen even though they obviously do. If a better source is found, this text, or something similar, can be restored. [[User:A. Parrot|A. Parrot]] ([[User talk:A. Parrot|talk]]) 06:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{Quote|In Plutarch's biography of Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, becoming a lowly shepherd; then as a man he becomes beloved by the people, hailed as king, and killed by the conniving elite; then he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Just like the Christian version of Jesus. |
|||
:Hahahaha omg thank you for pointing this out. I fully support scouring the citations of this article overall for further devious influence, though I have not the time or particular knowledge on this subject to do so. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat]] ([[User talk:LesbianTiamat|talk]]) 03:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Is the popular culture section necessary? == |
|||
Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being performed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The sacred story told at this event went basically as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by a conspiracy of the Senate (just as Jesus was 'murdered' by a conspiracy of the Jews-in fact by the Sanhedrin, the Jewish equivalent of the Senate), the sun went dark (just as it did when Jesus died), and Romulus's body vanished (just as Jesus' did). The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, 'for he had risen to join the gods' (much as a mysterious young man tells the women in Mark's Gospel). Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but 'some doubted' (just as all later Gospels say of Jesus: Mt. 28.17; Lk. 24.1 1; Jn 20.24-25; even Mk 16.8 implies this). Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus 'on the road' between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, 'Why have you abandoned us?', to which Romulus replied that he had been a god all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven (pretty much as happens to Cleopas in Lk. 24.13-32). Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power. |
|||
There are only two short references mentioned, both fairly niche, they don't really seem to add any value to the article. [[Special:Contributions/195.226.14.2|195.226.14.2]] ([[User talk:195.226.14.2|talk]]) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Plutarch tells us that the annual Roman ceremony of the Romulan ascent involved a recitation of the names of those who fled his vanishing in fear, and the acting out of their fear and flight in public, a scene suspiciously paralleling the pre-redacted ending of Mark's Gospel (at 16.8). Which would make sense of his otherwise bizarre ending-we are then to assume what followed his story is just what followed the story he is emulating: an appearance of the Lord, delivering the gospel, which is then proclaimed to the people (the very thing Mark tells us to anticipate: 14.28 and 16.7). In fact, Livy's account, just like Mark's, emphasizes that 'fear and bereavement' kept the people 'silent for a long time', and only later did they proclaim Romulus 'God, Son of God, King, and Father', thus matching Mark's 'they said nothing to anyone', yet obviously assuming that somehow word got out. |
|||
:Yes. They are both direct examples of the topic of the article, and the topic of the article is a major part of both works. |
|||
It certainly seems as if Mark is fashioning Jesus into the new Romulus, with a new, superior message, establishing a new, superior kingdom. This Romulan tale looks a lot like a skeletal model for the passion narrative: a great man, founder of a great kingdom, despite coming from lowly origins and of suspect parentage, is actually an incarnated son of god, but dies as a result of a conspiracy of the ruling council, then a darkness covers the land at his death and his body vanishes, at which those who followed him flee in fear Just like the Gospel women, Mk 16.8; and men, Mk 14.50-52), and like them, too, we look for his body but are told he is not here, he has risen; and some doubt, but then the risen god 'appears' to select followers to deliver his gospel. |
|||
:Both Homestuck and Ace Combat are highly notable, with enormous amounts of culture surrounding them - music (including by professional orchestras), large quantities of fan works, numerous published articles about them, and extensive documentation on Wikipedia. |
|||
:Just because they are modern stories in modern formats does not make them less important. |
|||
:"Popular culture" means exactly that, culture that is currently popular. Everything cultural was "popular culture" at one point. |
|||
:This is a significant article and could use some restructuring to have greater breadth. Something that could be cut down is the section on scholarly criticism, which is way too long and detailed for Wikipedia. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat]] ([[User talk:LesbianTiamat|talk]]) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I could expand the entries if their short length is an issue. [[User:LesbianTiamat|LesbianTiamat]] ([[User talk:LesbianTiamat|talk]]) 04:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move 30 June 2024 == |
|||
There are many differences in the two stories, surely. But the similarities are too numerous to be a coincidence-and the differences are likely deliberate. For instance, Romulus's material kingdom favoring the mighty is transformed into a spiritual one favoring the humble. It certainly looks like the Christian passion narrative is an intentional transvaluation of the Roman Empire's ceremony of their own founding savior's incarnation, death and resurrection. Other elements have been added to the Gospels-the story heavily Judaized, and many other symbols and motifs pulled in to transform it-and the narrative has been modified, in structure and content, to suit the Christians' own moral and spiritual agenda. But the basic structure is not original. |
|||
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
There were, in fact, numerous pre-Christian savior gods who became incarnate and underwent sufferings or trials, even deaths and resurrections. None of them actually existed. Neither did Romulus. Yet all were placed in history, and often given detailed biographies. We cannot claim to understand the Christian religion and its documents if we ignore such background knowledge as this.}} |
|||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Quadrantal|Quadrantal]] ([[User talk:Quadrantal|talk]]) 05:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
[[:Dying-and-rising deity]] → {{no redirect|Dying-and-rising god}} – Common name. This was original name of article before it was moved to be 'gender neutral' but the motif is much more often named dying-and-rising god in scholarly literature. [[User:PikaSamus|PikaSamus]] ([[User talk:PikaSamus|talk]]) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Dying and rising deity? == |
|||
:'''Support''' per nominator. Completely misplaced gender neutrality concerns. [[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]] ([[User talk:Killuminator|talk]]) 20:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This is an antiquated concept and it needs to be presented as such. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.95.219.79|65.95.219.79]] ([[User talk:65.95.219.79#top|talk]]) 20:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:'''Support''' per Killuminator. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 20:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support''' speedily. I don't think a discussion should be needed over correcting such a major, careless, unilateral, and nonsensically wrongheaded move[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dying-and-rising_deity&diff=prev&oldid=813280216] that contradicts the article's cited contents. There is no gender concept here, and "god" is inclusive or neutral. Also, [[WP:COMMON]]. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Smuckola|Smuckola]][[User talk:Smuckola|(talk)]]</span> 08:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --> |
|||
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|||
== Death-Rebirth/Resurrection deity == |
|||
Pinging due to involvement in the above discussion: [@[[User:PikaSamus|PikaSamus]], @[[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]], @[[User:Srnec|Srnec]], @[[User:Smuckola|Smuckola]]] |
|||
The above move discussion focused on the term in the title (dying-and-rising god), so I have updated the lead in accordance. I do not, however, have access to the sources mentioned in the discussion, so I have not updated references in the article to "Death-Rebirth"/"Resurrection" '''deities''' (most notably in the infobox). Are these terms also usually used with "God" instead of "Deity"? |
|||
(Before the previous page move, the infobox had an entirely different title) [[User:Quadrantal|Quadrantal]] ([[User talk:Quadrantal|talk]]) 05:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:From what I've seen they do use deity for those alternate terms, though it's life–death–rebirth deity and not just death–rebirth deity. Dying-and-rising god (also without hyphens as dying and rising god) is a ''much'' more common name for the motif though. [[User:PikaSamus|PikaSamus]] ([[User talk:PikaSamus|talk]]) 21:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 04:01, 25 August 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dying-and-rising god article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 270 days ![]() |
![]() | List of dying or rising deities was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 October 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Dying-and-rising god. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Self published citation
[edit]"Since the 1990s, Smith's scholarly rejection of the category has been widely embraced by Christian apologists wishing to defend the historicity of Jesus, while scholarly defenses of the concept (or its applicability to mystery religion) have been embraced by the new atheism movement wishing to argue the Christ myth theory"
The citation goes to https://www.amazon.com/This-Sun-Zeitgeist-Religion-Comparative/dp/110533967X
The author of this work seems to be a nobody who writes self published Christian apologetics. I'm not going to buy the book to check the source, but it's also unlikely that a Christian apologist would imply that apologists hang their hat on Smith while Christ Myth theorists appeal to "scholarly" works. This sentence seems to be editorializing Smith's work by giving an example of an apologist who cites him, but it's passing itself off as though it were a more comprehensive scholarly review of an article's impact. 65.128.172.37 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed that text. I have no doubt that it's true—just look at the archives of this talk page, and you'll see examples of defenders and opponents of Christianity citing the scholarly works that seem to support their positions. But you're right that it needs a better source. My perennial lament is that scholars rarely address how their works are misused by laymen for polemical arguments, so Wikipedia can rarely outright say that such things happen even though they obviously do. If a better source is found, this text, or something similar, can be restored. A. Parrot (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hahahaha omg thank you for pointing this out. I fully support scouring the citations of this article overall for further devious influence, though I have not the time or particular knowledge on this subject to do so. LesbianTiamat (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Is the popular culture section necessary?
[edit]There are only two short references mentioned, both fairly niche, they don't really seem to add any value to the article. 195.226.14.2 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. They are both direct examples of the topic of the article, and the topic of the article is a major part of both works.
- Both Homestuck and Ace Combat are highly notable, with enormous amounts of culture surrounding them - music (including by professional orchestras), large quantities of fan works, numerous published articles about them, and extensive documentation on Wikipedia.
- Just because they are modern stories in modern formats does not make them less important.
- "Popular culture" means exactly that, culture that is currently popular. Everything cultural was "popular culture" at one point.
- This is a significant article and could use some restructuring to have greater breadth. Something that could be cut down is the section on scholarly criticism, which is way too long and detailed for Wikipedia. LesbianTiamat (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I could expand the entries if their short length is an issue. LesbianTiamat (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 30 June 2024
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Quadrantal (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Dying-and-rising deity → Dying-and-rising god – Common name. This was original name of article before it was moved to be 'gender neutral' but the motif is much more often named dying-and-rising god in scholarly literature. PikaSamus (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. Completely misplaced gender neutrality concerns. Killuminator (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Killuminator. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support speedily. I don't think a discussion should be needed over correcting such a major, careless, unilateral, and nonsensically wrongheaded move[1] that contradicts the article's cited contents. There is no gender concept here, and "god" is inclusive or neutral. Also, WP:COMMON. — Smuckola(talk) 08:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Death-Rebirth/Resurrection deity
[edit]Pinging due to involvement in the above discussion: [@PikaSamus, @Killuminator, @Srnec, @Smuckola]
The above move discussion focused on the term in the title (dying-and-rising god), so I have updated the lead in accordance. I do not, however, have access to the sources mentioned in the discussion, so I have not updated references in the article to "Death-Rebirth"/"Resurrection" deities (most notably in the infobox). Are these terms also usually used with "God" instead of "Deity"?
(Before the previous page move, the infobox had an entirely different title) Quadrantal (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- From what I've seen they do use deity for those alternate terms, though it's life–death–rebirth deity and not just death–rebirth deity. Dying-and-rising god (also without hyphens as dying and rising god) is a much more common name for the motif though. PikaSamus (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)