Talk:Mithraism

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 05:03, January 7, 2012 by Kalidosa (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

It's looking a bit random in my view. Can the writers agree to a few central ideas on this one? For example, why was the bull so central to this religion?? I will be glad to provide pointers if you need them. Also talking to someone else on the article's page doesn't work here. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:45, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I had removed some parts which were in the first person. But still, some remain. Mithraism is a rather esoteric subject. So, it takes some familiarity with Mithraic literature + xian theology to fully see the intended meanings. I am agreeable to delete or simplify the parts which do not seem to make sense. I would be glad to get some pointers about how to play up on the bull, or anything else for that matter. The bull is thought to be the cosmic bull which had escaped and which had to be recaptured and sacrificed for the well being of the world. The world was becoming barren and Mithras, the mighty hero, captured the bull, (after numerous adventures) and sacrificed it as per the order of Sol, the sun god. And the Earth was rejuvenated again. This story is a conjecture though. No Mithraic texts have been found and people keep making various guesses about the stories associated with various scenes.JSomethingHonk!!! 16:31, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
When I started this page back in April, a basic idea I had was to write in the style of a cranky and conservative intellectual who is very proud of his knowledge of Latin etc, and who is a teensy bit intolerant of the views of others.
James seems to find this character of some interest, as he has suggested names for this fellow, who didn't get a name back then. I agree he should have a name, and that part of it should be "Rager", as James suggested -- it has an appropriate ring to it, somehow... We've been tossing around ideas for the rest of the name. See also User Talk: JamesSomething.
The element of "talking to someone else" seemed like a natural way to develop this character -- if it doesn't work, can someone suggest a better way?
Another thing which James and I agree on, is that an important theme is the role of Mithraism in relation to Christmas and Christianity. "Rager" rejects any suggestion that Mithraism influenced Christmas or Christianity at all.
Regarding the bull, James, given that we're writing humor, we really don't need to know what it meant historically. We can be creative... The article already explains that Mithras was considered the destroyer of bull-shit, and invoked during wiki wars. Perhaps this explanation can be developed, or another explanation invented? Kalidosa 03:19, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
The early Christians were notorious at burning or destroying the works of their opponents. Perhaps indeed the bull imagery was a loaded insult at 'Catholic bullshit'. I have made a couple of minor edits. I still think you are going off line at the end there. Still, it is interesting to see two writers take on a complex subject and see what humour can be extracted. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:49, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that interpretation of the bull imagery made some sort of sense to you, Romartus. You're right -- Christians suppressed a lot of other religions in the late Roman Empire. And conservatives in the church are still trying to suppress stuff now. At least today it is possible to parody people like that, as I have tried to do with this "Rager Pious". Perhaps I should clarify that in the section about the name "Mithras" (where someone threatens to report someone else to various authorities), both sides of the quarrel were actually written by the same person (me). So it isn't actually two uncyclopedians talking in that section, it is two characters talking. But if it doesn't work, it doesn't work... Perhaps you can suggest a better way of making the a similar statement? Kalidosa 11:25, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
"Rager Pious"!!! Great play there. I too have begun to see justification for writing parts of this article from Rager's perspective. Looks like we do have something there!!!JSomethingHonk!!! 13:14, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't even know we had articles on topics like "Zionist conspiracy", CIA and KGB!!! I have added a few trivia links.JSomethingHonk!!! 13:32, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
I was pleased myself when I thought of "Pious" as his 2nd name – it does seem to go very nicely with the first name "Rager" that you came up with for him. I think this character of ours is coming to life... Kalidosa 06:18, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

After writing my comment above, I then recalled Plato had used the dialogue approach to push forward his views in The Republic. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:44, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to tell Rager Pious that you mentioned Plato's Republic in our discussion of his work... I've just done so, and he said: "Thank you for mentioning this, Kalidosa, it is actually quite encouraging." Kalidosa 05:34, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Just a reflection that the last place I expected to discuss Mithraism was with two strangers on a comedic writing website. That's the way it goes I suppose. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
You have background in this topic, Romartus?
When you offered to "provide pointers", I wasn't sure whether you were referring to the topic itself, or to how to write for Uncyc... If you'd like to say more about aspects of Mithraism the article could cover, or make more extensive edits yourself, please do...
I liked the point James put it about the birth of Mithras being attended by goatherds rather than shepherds. It is the sort of hair-splitting that a Rager Pious really would delight in.
To put this another way... I think an important source of humor for this article is, or can be, a "voice" which combines extreme bias with an attempt to sound scholarly and reasonable. I've done a new introduction which includes the point about the goatherds, and which develops the pseudo-reasonable side of the "author" more than the last intro did. Kalidosa 03:22, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
I too had assumed that the tips being offered were about the uncyclopedia style rather than anything else. Mithraism is such a "psychic" topic, most people have no idea about the M of Mithraism. Looks like we have 2/3 people who do have a bit of a whiff of a clue about Mithraism (at an abstract level).JSomethingHonk!!! 03:03, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
I am curious, James. When you say "2/3 people", do you mean "two thirds of a person", "two to three people", "two out of three" people, or what? Kalidosa 06:06, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
When I started out on this article, I hardly expected anyone other than you to take an interest, or know anything in this article. At that time, I was under the impression that you were the RP character. By 2/3 people, I mean the 2/3 other guys who have shown interest.JSomethingHonk!!! 06:26, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's good that my character voice was as convincing as that. Here's a snippet of wiki history. Last year, someone a bit like RP actually did a sort of parody of stuff about Mithraism he thought a more liberal wiki editor like Kalidosa might be inclined to write. Unfortuately he put the parody up on a non-comic wiki, and it got reverted as vandalism rather quickly. So a religious conservative imitates the voice of a liberal, and vice versa... It can start to get a little complicated sometimes... Kalidosa 08:22, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

(od)I admit you had me completely foxed there :-) I was completely sure that you were some sort of an extreme conservative type, and I had a hard time convincing myself otherwise.JSomethingHonk!!! 10:59, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

 : ) You were completely right, actually. I am an extreme conservative -- more so than RP. Christians remind me of Maoists, sometimes. I am like RomArtus Imperator – I am still quite pissed off about the cultural revolution that happened under Constantius and Theodosius... Kalidosa 19:56, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

edit break

I've rearranged the sections into what I hope is a less random order. The information about what happened to Mithrasmas under Constantius, Julian, and Theodosius has not been lost, I simply moved it into a section about the decline of Mithraism, which now comes after the section about the origin theories. Kalidosa 05:02, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the article needs some more "prick" in it, like the articles on Madchester and Birmingham? I had added the fuckfest & suckfest thing as an effort in that direction. There is a phenomenal amount of misinformation about this topic all over the net. We could easily add some more prickly stuff.JSomethingHonk!!! 02:35, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Misinformation? Your page propagandizes forgets all the Mithras history in the "first" century and before, and tries to push all the history of the religion and the holidays into the third century and later. Misinfo? Calling the black kettle black, or the yellow kettle green, or whatever. Geese. Aleister 2:51 4-1-'12
James, the style of the Madchester article may be absolutely right for that article, but whether it is right for this one is another question. I come back to the point about consistent style, mentioned on the page Uncyclopedia:How_To_Be_Funny_And_Not_Just_Stupid. As it says there, different articles can be done in different styles, but within one article, it is usually best to have just one style. So if we are going to change the style of this article, we would probably need to do that right through the article, not just here and there. But why should we? Is it necessary to have words like "fuck" on every Uncyclopedia page? Kalidosa 04:29, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
OK. I am not too "genned" with anything. Sticking to one style makes sense. Talking of style, I suspect we need to somehow make the Rager Pious notice more prominent. New readers would not "get" this article unless they read the notice...Maybe we should make it bigger, put it on the top, give it a red background or something...JSomethingHonk!!! 06:30, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right - something more is needed to help new readers get the point... I've added another template, adapted from the Category page for False Religions. A little unsubtle, perhaps, but it may help people to understand that we're not trying to treat Mithraism in an unbiased way, because a cult like that doesn't deserve it! Kalidosa 07:47, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Y. That was quite an idea. The article is having a completely new look and feel now.JSomethingHonk!!! 08:56, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Aleister, if you think the article looks like it was done by a propagandist who wanted to minimize the historical importance of Mithraism... GREAT! ... That is what it is supposed to look like, actually... But please read the whole thing, not just the introduction, and tell us what you think then... Or if at least read the sections about the rise and fall of Mithraism, and about the origin of the name "Mithras"... Ask youself, please -- does it even attempt to prove Mithraism really was a 3rd century fad? Kalidosa 03:44, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
@Aleister. I wasn't really criticizing the misinfo on the net. Was only saying that we have too meagre an amount of it in here when we should have been the leaders!!!!JSomethingHonk!!! 06:36, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

edit How about a new twist in the "Mithras and the bull" section ?

How about adding a new twist to the "Mithras and the bull" section ? I am thinking something like "According to Mithraic beliefs, every 114 years, god takes a shit towards Earth and the whole earth gets defiled. The place where god takes a shit gives birth to a powerful nefarious nation and only those who bath in the blood of the cosmic bull are pure, and able to withstand the new demonic onslaught...."JSomethingHonk!!! 11:13, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea! Perhaps it could be "the bad god Arimanus (also called Saturn, Satan or Shaitan)", who defiles the Earth? Kalidosa 16:47, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Yup. That's a more "convincing" storyline. Article seems to have a decent level of meat in it now.JSomethingHonk!!! 10:12, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

edit UnScript

I have had a another look. I have a few suggestions. Where the article starts turning into a discussion between two people, that section could be turned into an UnScript style format. Alternatively the article could be split in to two. One about Mithriasm and another as a discussion. The other could be a sub-page. I am just concerned that an outside reader may not understand what is going on here. For an example of a UnScript which I helped Ptok with - look at this one Battle of Grunwald. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:41, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Ye. Sounds like a great idea. Kalidosa too had mentioned that we might need to introduce a second voice or something to help the reader.JSomethingHonk!!! 10:03, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Romartus. I've had a look at Battle of Grunwald, it certainly presents the dialogue very clearly. I've just gone through this Mithraism page, and replaced the crossing out, so that now the bits by trolls (as the dominant voice calls them) are introduced by the word "troll", are in italics, and are marked off as separate paragraphs. I hope this will help readers to see what is happening. Kalidosa 19:37, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
James, I have just added a couple more sentences in the second voice, the "troll" voice. I think this voice is important, but we don't need to give it equal time, because it can challenge the 1st voice without getting equal time. Kalidosa 07:57, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
OK. I will resist the temptation to add to it :-) I have added a pic though. Do you think it is too perverted? I have a feeling that after the addition of the second voice, the heresy image may have become superfluous.JSomethingHonk!!! 08:50, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Perverted or not, the pic fits in really well... I'll pull out the heresy image, so we can see how the page looks without it. Kalidosa 09:38, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Can either of you come up with a better description of the counter arguer instead of Troll? Just jars a bit. Perhaps a writer who really hatred Mithraism at the time. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:30, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Why should it be a writer who "hated" Mithraism? In any case, is it necessarily a bad thing if the Troll title does "jar a bit"? As Horace says "Let fiction meant to please be living near to truth". I mean, the truth about how labels like "troll" get used in the non-comic world.... Kalidosa 19:08, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Ok Trollius or something like that. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:36, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
I've thought of a different way of labelling the comments, which may come across as less "personal" than repeated use of "troll" or even "Trollius". Please have a look, and see if you think this is better. Kalidosa 05:03, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects