Talk:The stories of Christianity

See Christian Mythology/Talk for some earlier talk on this subject.

---

on a question of method here, why did you use the see also link above as opposed to a simple redirect, or

a cut and paste of the text ?

---

Because some people might want to talk about Christian Mythology per se and the old article on that subject, while others might want to talk about the story of David and Goliath, for example, not under the heading of "Christian Mythology." --LMS

---

Even on the (I believe true) story of David and Goliath, I expect there are mythical (untrue) elements. I admit I have to struggle to recall many of these. For example, that David used a slingshot (a wooden forked weapon, typically with an elastic band) and that he tricked Goliath into a ravine so he wouldn't be able to fight back.

I'm not denying that. In fact, I personally believe very many of these stories, particularly the ones with supernatural elements, are completely false and mythological. I just don't want Wikipedia to say officially (as it were) that they're mythological (unless everybody is agreed they're mythological)! --LMS

---

I don't think the apocryphal stories should be singled out as being mythical. If we use the definition that I think is prevailing on the Christian Mythology page, calling the stories mythical is not supposed to be saying anything about their historicity one way or the other. It merely means they are making a moral or theological point. With that definition, all or nearly all the stories on this page would be considered mythical. And no, I have no problem with that provided that's really the working definition.

For hagiographies, just point to List of saints and go to invididual saints from there. That's where their stories ought to be, I think. --Wesley

---

Yes, maybe those stories shouldn't be singled out as being mythical, you're right.

Re the saints, sounds good. Or maybe a page called lives of the saints would be good to have, that could discuss the lives of the saints in general, and that genre of literature. --LMS

---

Why use the word 'mythical' if you want to say they are making a 'moral' or 'theological' point?

Why not just use the word 'moral' ? (or 'theological' ?) -- BenBaker

---

So let me see if I understand your point here, Larry. Because the word "myth" might be offensive to some who interpret it to imply falsehood, we shouldn't use that word for stories many currently-living people believe true, even if they are the same kinds of stories told for the same purpose, or even the very same story? So, then, the story about God instructing a worthy man to build a big boat, after which he sent a flood to wipe out everyone but the man he chose to save, that story is a Sumerian myth, and a Babylonian myth, but a Christian story. Hmm...

--LDC (With tongue only slightly in cheek)

Golly, you picked an embarrassing way of putting it--but yes. Exactly. --LMS

Moreover, I think it is very important that we say somewhere--I don't know where, perhaps even on the old Christian mythology page--that there are some people who do think it is important that we regard the stories of Christianity as nothing more than myth. (Attribution in this case would be nice.) --LMS

---

As the creator of the Christian Mythology page, I disagree strongly with the elimination of the page and with the redirect to "Stories of Christianity," for these reasons:

1) It is NPOV to have articles on Greek Mythology but not Christian Mythology.

I think you meant to say, "It is not NPOV..." I disagree, and I've explained why now I think in two different places. There aren't any Greeks about who believe the myths of ancient Greek religions, as far as I know. There are many Christians who do believe the stories (or, I'd agree with you, they're myths) of Christianity. It is completely biased to label those stories "the myths of Christianity."

(Also, totally irrelevantly: lower case, please!)

2) Christian Mythology exists, and "Christian Mythology" is the best way to describe it. Let me argue this point ...

The primary definition of Myth is "1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." (From the Merriam-Webster dictionary). Using this definition, do stories that belong to the Christian tradition exist?

That's not a very good definition, insofar as it omits the what is very often conveyed and understood by the word, namely, that the myths are fabulous, false.

I cannot believe that anyone, using this definition, can disagree.

Obviously, the Christians who take issue with the use of the phrase do disagree--go figure.

The problem is that some people cannot help but use the 'secondary and derogative definition of myth. On the Christian Mythology page we debated this and resolved the issue by specifically spelling out the definition intended!

Well, I don't think that solves the problem. A lot of people won't care whether you've spelled out the definition.

Moreover, the newly invented term "Stories of Christianity" suffers from two fatal flaws, in my opinion. First, it is too generic.

More generic than "Christian mythology"? I don't think so.

Many stories that are about Christianity

The title isn't "stories about Christianity" but "stories of Christianity."

do not "serve to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." For example, Billy Bud, by Herman Melville, is widely held to be a Christian story -- but is it myth?

Well, I wouldn't put Billy Budd in the "stories of Christianity" category.

Even more clearly, Robert Heinlein's sci-fi story Job is undeniably a story, and it is undeniably about Christianity in that it address biblical plots and themes (in what many would consider offensive ways) -- is it myth? Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose is a detective novel set in a monastary -- a story of Christiantiy? yes. myth? no.

Ditto.

The only way that these diverse words can be considered Stories of Christianity in the sense of Christian Mythology is if one redefines all stories as myths. If every myth is a story and every story a myth, why do we have any articles on mythology of any kind at all?

Please forgive the passion I bring to this topic. Frankly, I thought the version of the Christian Mythology page that was removed actually applied an NPOV approach to the topic, since it addressed the idea that mythology by its primary definition is not derogatory. -- Cayzle

I can accept that you in perfectly good faith (no pun intended) believed that the "Christian Mythology" article was written from the neutral point of view, but I (also in good faith) totally disagreed. Let me save this and explain...

Seconded. --Dmerrill

I can accept that you in perfectly good faith (no pun intended) believed that the "Christian Mythology" article was written from the neutral point of view, but I (also in good faith) totally disagreed. The main reason for this is simply (no more than) that it, without any discussion whatsoever, uncritically applied the words "Christian mythology" to the stories of Christianity, as if no one would have any objection to that. The one-and-a-half line statement that the term was being used "in a neutral sense" just doesn't hack it.

I think that what's really needed here is an article on the concept of religious mythology, which explores what has been written on the topic of regarding modern religions as having mythologies attached to them. There is a need for that discussion, and it would contain all the points you want to make. Simply, without further ado, listing the stories of Christianity, which many Christians regard as holy, under the heading "Christian mythology," is pretty obviously going to get the goats of a lot of Christians. And no one could blame them. --LMS

---

Let me ask the really relevant question, then: what do the PhDs who sit in their offices and study these stories, and write books about them, and compare them, etc. call them? If "Christian mythology" really is a common term of art among those who study the field, then I would agree that we should use it. But if it's not really that common (and frankly, I'm afraid Larry may be right that real academicians avoid the term for precisely the PC-reasons he suggests), then I'd be content to accept a half-hearted approach of having a "Christian mythology" page that simply explains that many people treat these things as myths, and which then points to the "Stories of Christianity" page to detail them. I might also suggest clarifying the title jst a bit to something like "Traditional Christian narrative", or "Christian cultural stories". --LDC

---

I pretty much agree with everything Lee says here, although even in the case where academics refer to the stories of Christianity under the "Christian mythology" heading, I think we should list them under the stories of Christianity. (I dislike the titles "traditional Christian narrative" and "Christian cultural stories," for reasons I will go into if necessary.) --LMS

---

Yeah, they're a bit wordy, but "stories" seems way too ambiguous without something to indicate that what we're talking about here isn't just stories in general, but mythical ones, i.e, part of the oral tradition that forms the foundation of the culture.

---

Yes, mainly just wordy. "Traditional Christian stories" would be good. --LMS