Mythology VS Religion

[AtlanteanTroll]

To quote Rolan, "Sheriff of Moddingham: Yes. All discussion of real world religion is prohibited on this forum. That includes the historical, factual, literary, evangelical, ecumenical, laudatory, derogatory, gaming-related, society-related, or whatever other description might be applied to it.

The line on this forum between appropriate/inappropriate is fictional/real world."

So where is the line between mythology and religion met? Can we not talk of Ragnarok because it involves Thor and he was once worshiped as a god?

[Rawhide]

To quote Rolan, "Sheriff of Moddingham: Yes. All discussion of real world religion is prohibited on this forum. That includes the historical, factual, literary, evangelical, ecumenical, laudatory, derogatory, gaming-related, society-related, or whatever other description might be applied to it.

The line on this forum between appropriate/inappropriate is fictional/real world."

So where is the line between mythology and religion met? Can we not talk of Ragnarok because it involves Thor and he was once worshiped as a god?

Yes, that is pretty much exactly what it means. You can't discuss real world religion, including the Norse. You can discuss the fictional interpretations of them. I will close this thread now and leave it for Roland to give a longer, more explanatory, and red texted official answer.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: The prohibition is on real world religion. The line is real world/not real world. It isn't a modern/ancient, mainstream/fringe, or whatever other distinction one might imagine. I don't think "mythology/religion" is a useful or viable distinction. Mythology of real world religions is out of bounds whether it's ancient mythology or modern mythology. Mythology of fictional deities are fine.

So if you want to talk about obviously fictionalized Thor, as represented in the AD&D 2e Deities and Demigods or in the recent movie, for example, that's fine. But as soon as that discussion gets into real world Thor, that's a problem. Often a single post can be made that is clearly discussing the fictional, but it quickly turns real world, because the real world analog exists and speaking just from within the fiction is limiting. It's natural, but it's also prohibited.

As always, I advise erring on the side of caution.

[The Giant]

Roland is absolutely right, but I just wanted to add that this is why it's OK to discuss Thor's actions in OOTS, but it's not OK to try to extrapolate traits of Durkon's religion based on how people worshipped Thor in the real world. Those details are not part of the work of fiction that's being shown here, they're part of someone's actual religious beliefs.

So to elaborate on the specific question about Ragnarok: You can talk about how Ragnarok happens (or exists as a concept) within Wagner's Götterdämmerung, or in Marvel's The Mighty Thor comics, or the Thor movie, or Neil Gaiman's American Gods, or any edition's version of Deities and Demigods. You can even compare and contrast these different sources. What you can't do is compare them to the actual Poetic Edda and discuss the religious beliefs that may or may not have surrounded it.

Yes, the authors of any work that includes fictionalized versions of real world deities are effectively crossing that line when they choose to write such a story—but let that crossing be on them, not on you. As long as you discuss works that no real human takes their actual religious beliefs from, you should be fine.