Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

Magical vs Mystical discussion

I started a discussion about using "mystical" instead of "magical" on religious pages over in the Wikiproject:Occult.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 01:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that our debate has resulted in the following conclusion:

1. Magic is a specific type of mysticism.
2. Unless a religion specifically considers its beliefs and/or practices to be "magical" the word "mystical" should be used except:
3. In the case that a religion has not specified, but the mystical nature of the belief/practice uses physical objects it should be considered magic.

come on over and contribute if you have something to add. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not the consensus at all. I've specifically argued against magic being a specific type of mysticism (instead saying that while they can overlap, they are distinct), and User:A. Parrot started off with ""Magic" is an awkward word, but "mystical" is not an adequate replacement in most cases. Much of what the Greeks and Romans called "magic" (magia in Latin, γοητεία in Greek) was ritual, often without mystical connotations—for instance, cursing people."

Point 3 is an aniconistic and anti-liturgical gross oversimplification that would render most religions magical except European Reformationism and American Restorationism. Prayer with prayer beads, yogic meditation, and even ceremonies to identify with a Buddha or Loa can be both physical and mystical without being magical. The discussion there explained that magic is concerned with material benefit, which could arguably include Prosperity Gospel and New Thought (both at home in Reeformationist and Restorationist churches), but doesn't necessarily include even Loa-possession (if the altered state of mind is not further interpreted as enabling the power to change the material world). Physical benefit is the key feature, but still not a defining one as (as A. Parrot pointed out) theurgy often had no material goal.

Point 1 is still your original position, unmodified. And yet you claimed at WP:Occult that your "initial perception has been proven wrong." You appear to have only paid attention to what additional points you need to include to maintain your original position, rather than admit it was proven wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. Frankly, you don't seem to have absorbed much of what we said. Granted, my comment was very long and complicated, but it's such a complex issue that you really have to absorb that stuff. My most basic argument is that the use of the word should depend on the circumstances.

Articles on traditions like Thelema that specifically call their rites "magic" or "magick" have to use those terms. In most other cases, "magic" is a disparaging term applied to any ritual by people who saw it as strange or disreputable. The Romans regarded Egyptian, Chaldean, and Persian priests as magicians because their religions were weird (but often fascinating); curse tablets were a native Roman practice, but regarded by most people disreputable; early Christians thought all paganism was bad and therefore called it "magic". One of the scholars who has written on the subject (can't remember where) put it something like this: "What we do is religion; what they do is magic."

Because the word has always had negative connotations, scholars of religion have been moving away from the term for a few decades, but that doesn't apply across the board. We have to use the terms used by the most up-to-date scholars in every relevant field. Anthropologists probably shy away from the word nowadays. Experts on Greco-Roman religion will still refer to magic as the Greeks and Romans used the term, as a vague term for the weird underbelly of their religious world. Egyptologists still use the word out of habit, even though there really was no distinction between magic and religion in ancient Egypt, at least before the Greeks showed up. Experts on western esotericism will still discuss the term, because it was used in the western world to refer to many occult/esoteric practices.

And mysticism is still not the right word in most cases, because so many "magical" practices were rituals for very un-mystical purposes. A. Parrot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Revisionism on Exorcism

A user seems to be eager to edit war over that Exorcism is pseudoscience, however, they have no sources to support such pseudohistorical revisionism. See Talk:Exorcism#Lead change. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Atonement

I have created a draft at Draft:Atonement to supplant the WP:DABCONCEPT disambiguation page currently at Atonement. Any assistance in getting this page in shape to be moved to mainspace would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to volunteer to work as a hobby of course those entries that require 'Expert attention', if I may ...The 'infamous', the one and only, 'Charlie Brown' 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category: articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. The 'infamous', the one and only, 'Charlie Brown' 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieFerry (talk • contribs)

Consecration

Consecration has a banner; note the date (emphasis added):

Six years? ISTM that the banner ought to be either heeded or deleted. (Please don't tell me to be bold and take appropriate action. I do so when I can, but I'm not appropriately expert here.) Please {{ping}} me if you want my involvement. --Thnidu (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas and holiday season

Christmas and holiday season has been proposed to be renamed, for the discusssion, see talk:Christmas and holiday season -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Category discussion about theologians

See following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_20#Category:Theologians. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia:WikiProject Cosmology

There is a new project, listed above, which by its founder was apparently intended to deal with the topic of Physical cosmology, but which may also, potentially, deal with the topic of philosophical and mythological/religious cosmology. If there are any individual editors who would be interested in working on philosophical/religious cosmology specifically, they are free to indicate as much, presumably first on the project talk page to see if the other editors would be interested in finally establishing the scope of the project as cosmology as a whole rather than specifically physical cosmology. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations of divinities

When a divinity from a religion (particularly applying to poly theistic religions) shares its name with one of more other notable topics, then the disambiguation may work in either of two ways, either to: "... (deity)" or to "... (god)" or "... (goddess)". There may be some divinities that are not presented in relation to gender or which may have representations to which gender may be a less than prominent feature of the persona (such as with some divinities in for instance animal form). In other cases I would like to propose that a general move is made towards "... (god)" or "... (goddess)" disambiguation as a general rule but a concerted move in the opposite direction would provide consistency.

I have not done a full survey but from what I have seen I think that there may be a tendency to present male divinities as gods and female divinities as goddesses. If this is so then this would not present NPOV and I suggest that an agreement regarding consistent presentation would resolve such an issue. GregKaye 08:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)