Talk:Classical mythology

You all do know there is no such thing as a "greco-roman" religion, right? They have tons of similarities, since the romans openly stole the gods, but they are not the same religion. The romans defined the greek myths/gods in their own stark, organized, non-romantic (see what i did there?) way. I'm not sure if this should be dumped, or rewritten. opinions? GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 04:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe talk about the characteristics that Greco-Roman religions had in common? Their origins? But yeah, it makes it sound as if there's one Greco-Roman religion that both cultures followed. Good catch! Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I read it more carefully. This article is all over the place, the topic doesn't exist, and the sub sections have really little to do with anything "greco-roman" (perhaps such as the mythologys they share). I'm requesting a vote on deleting it.

The numerous cults of the Greco-Roman world had been untidily glommed together into something resembling a united religious system near the end, although that point could do with some expansion. The history sections are certainly relevant, and the section on Hellenistic Judaism shows the Greco-Roman traditions' influence on Christianity. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

From the context of the religions themselves, that is patently false. From the perspective of christians, it is what they "saw" as single religions. There is no reason we should continue the false advertizing that there is some how this "unified" religion. if you really want a page on this urban legend, then you would need a serious rewrite and refocus on what doesn't exist. I'm bothered that you want to perpetrate such myths. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was not a single unified cult like Christianity, but a large number of these traditions received state support, under the aegis of the emperor as Pontifex Maximus, and fell as a clump when this support was cut off. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you both intentionally edit warring on the page or just edit conflicting when you edit your own versions? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 05:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

From my end, they are edit conflicts. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought they were wars, they were not. I"m trying to focus on the comments of Listener, but get this article out of the idea that there is some great religion. A topic that drives me nuts in Native American religions, so I want to make sure we aren't doing that kind of thing here. But i understand (I think) what he's getting at. and if i don't, after i'm done, just roll it back and i'll shut up. ;-) GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Though Greco-Roman religion was more diverse than the article's original header might have implied, it was certainly more of a unified system than many groups of traditions thrown together under one name. The imperial cult was a common practice across the whole empire, for example, and the antics of Heliogabalus and Julian the Apostate demonstrate a measure of unity also. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The roman empire? Cause that is not distinct religions, that is the roman empire. A necessary unifier. But when you look at the greeks, and how they laid out their religious practices among the gods, and what was expected of the humans, it has little in common with Rome's versions. The gods stay the same; the rituals, the world view, do not. isn't that largely what "religion" is? a world view? And I'm not sure that saying the imperial cult shows they are the same religion, unless you include Egypt, some of China into that mix. My point is we have told "the story" for so long, we feel it's the truth. LIke Joseph Campbell, Eliade saying "all myths are the same, all are grounded in teh same thing", and not looking at the rich details that make them distinct. That a king is seen as a or "the" god, does not mean the religions are the same. that one religion virtually admits to stealing what look like "better" gods does not make the same religion. And I must admit my ignorance that while i know the "sun god", I have no context to connect him with Julian. I'd love more details there.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Take 3: They are not a unified religion, but were more connected than, say, the various indigenous traditions of North America. Heliogabalus, besides being the name of a god, was also the name of a Roman emperor who made drastic changes to the worship in Rome during his reign. Julian (the last pagan emperor) tried to make a unified neo-Platonic take on paganism to replace Christianity. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

See, that's what I don't think I agree with. You say they were more connected based on these external issues like "trying to make a unifed Empire"... but that just shows the power to subsume. Not that the religions are some kind of single religion. But I'm done. I've got anti-messianic jew fighter on one page, and this here, where I simply disagree that these are in any way shape or form one religion, nor should they be treated as one. But it seems to be what you all want, so take it. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 06:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ListenerX here, although I'd suggest that "Hellenistic" might be a better term. Greek and Roman religion had a much deeper connection than simply both being opposed by Christianity. I'd suggest that in the later stages of the Empire, the distinction becomes less and less helpful (and while Christianity plays some role in this, a lot of this has nothing to do with Christianity), although it is certainly more important the further back one goes. Should the theurgy of Late Platonism be classed as "Greek religion" or as "Roman religion"? It doesn't really count as either, although it definitely developed out of a Hellenistic milleu. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete

yes

1. kill it. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 04:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No

1. Article is being put up for deletion on false pretenses. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

   What is the false pretense? There is no such thing as a greek-roman religion. They share precious little in the actual religion. the stuff about hinduism, the stuff about "problems with teh greeks' is fully irrelevant to any article that does or could discuss the similarities of the religions. --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 04:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

   See above. Also, you need to watch out for double negatives. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Keep this article. In the highly syncretic later Roman Empire, the distinction between the two becomes less and less important. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Goat

1. I say we either rewrite it into an article about the shared similarities between Greco-Roman religions and their origins or delete it and write separate articles on Greek mythology and Roman mythology. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

New wrong version?

I've combined some of what you've both produced here. It's not exactly perfect, and I don't really know anything about the subject myself, but is it better than what we have there now? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your version looks good. I think the section about Greek philosophy vs. religion can still be fit in, though, as it deals with the syncretic process. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think an exclusively Greek article may be justified - although probably not a native Roman religion one - and at least the first paragraph of that section would go better there. But I don't know if anyone wants to spend their time making that article stub. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Does it still need the Roma Antica template if it's at least half about Greece as well? Sam ^Tally-ho! 07:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) No, that section was as much about Roman religion as Greek; philosophy of the Greek schools squared off against Hellenistic religion in general. It also described syncretism from both the Greek and Roman periods. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The article is largely about syncretism during Roman times, so the template is appropriate. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Could you make a timeline of the religion? The history in the article isn't great, and doesn't mention the later changes. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 07:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting bar?

Why is there a voting bar at the top of this article, and can we get ride of it?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You must have hit the wrong button down in the editing tools - all fixed. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 20:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like something i would do. :-) thanks. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Norse mythology and navbar

So, the Norse mythology article has the religion navbar while this one has the history navbar. Which one should we change? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's an article about religion. Change it to religion. We already have an article on classical antiquity. Carthage (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)