Jump to content

Talk:End time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PARAKANYAA (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 25 May 2024 (Assessment: banner shell, Religion, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleEnd time is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 17, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
November 18, 2004Featured article reviewKept
November 21, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Cyclical vs non-cyclical

Does anyone feel like the non-cyclical religions seem kind of cyclical and vice versa? I have been giving consideration to the idea that the division is arbitrary. Chantoke talk 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the distinction is largely arbitrary. One could even say it is based upon something of a false dichotomy, for even in most so-called "cyclical" systems, there is an overall linear progression being made, while in most so-called "linear" systems, there is a return to an "original" state, thus yielding a cycle. And what about so-called "spiral" models? I think it would be best to simply remove the distinction. 84.75.168.38 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction makes sense to me. In this case, "cyclical" is referring to a belief in multiple cycles, not merely returning to an original state. And there would be a lot of disagreement that Christianity, for example, predicts a return to anything close to its original state. -- Beland (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and all mankind

I'm sorry if I'm asking something obvius, but can somebody knowledgable confirm that "all mankind" will be resurrected and enter the Garden of Eden in Judaism. "All mankind" means "everybody" in this phrasing so this means in effect that everyone regardless of religion or lack of religion will be saved. All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

from the Seven Laws of Noah wiki page:
"The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח‎ Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]... Accordingly, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come (Hebrew: עולם הבא‎ Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[4][5]" Calawpro (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is now discussed in detail, with citations, at Jewish eschatology#Resurrection of the dead and Universal resurrection#Rabbinic Judaism and Samaritanism. The answer appears to be "no", depending on who you ask, and whether you're talking about ancient or modern Judaism. I've noted this on the affected pages. -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism as the "oldest" eschatology?

Wikipedia's own page on Zoroaster states that:

"[t]he Gathas in contrast to the mythological Avesta place the chronology of Zoroaster much later in history, with the most conservative being dated to around the mid-sixth century BCE and the most liberal estimate being c. 1,000 BCE. Arthur Emanuel Christensen dates Zoroaster to c. 625 BCE, but Ebrahim Pourdavoud Herzfeld and Johannes Hertel date Zoroaster as existing between 550–523 BCE"

By contrast, the consensus is that at least the J and E sources of the Torah/Pentateuch were written in 1000-800 BC.

There's a subtle bias in many sources in which religions claim to be "first" or "oldest" in some aspect of theology. In an encyclopedic and neutral entry, I think consensus dating, particularly by non-adherent scholars, is an important objectifying factor and when in doubt, we'd be better off omitting any reference to which religion "first" developed an eschatology.Calawpro (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says "one of the oldest in recorded history" and goes into detail as to the uncertainty of dates. This seems fine. -- Beland (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Apocalypticism or to Eschatology

Apocalypticism is simply belief that there will be an end time. Both Apocalypticism and End times are simply lists of various religions' beliefs or non-beliefs with regard to apocalyptic end times. It would make sense to merge the two to avoid duplicate content for easier navigation and reduced effort to maintain the articles. -- Beland (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose. Apocalypticism has implications of imminence. Not just that there will be an end some day, but that it will happen soon. Editor2020 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor2020: Hmm, does that mean that Apocalypticism#Jainism should be removed? The "end time" there to the degree anyone thinks it will happen at all is apparently not predicted for about 40,000 years. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all "end times" are necessarily apocalyptic. Apocalypse in general actually refers more to the period of time immediately preceding the "end," and this apocalyptic period is usually a rather catastrophic period, full of human suffering. warshy (¥¥) 22:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Warshy and Editor2020: It sounds like you're both saying not every end time is apocalyptic, but every apocalypse appears to be associated with an end time, no? There are nine religions that have duplicate listings on both End times and Apocalypticism. Jainism and the five contemporary religions listed only on Apocalypticism are arguably missing from End times, since those sections are talking about both. Would you say the Baháʼí sections should be removed from one or both because they don't actually believe in a time of suffering or an end of anything? Or is that useful to include to note the non-belief? Then there's actually a third listing at Eschatology which adds Taoism and is missing Jainism and the contemporary religions. I can certainly see merging all three articles and pushing detail out into articles on each religion. Would "Eschatology" be a better all-encompassing title and target for a three-way merge? -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This whole section of categorization and many of the pages included need to be reorganized. Feel like taking it on? Editor2020 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor2020: I'm happy to do that if we have a clear scope for each article. What would you propose? -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reorganizaton of categories is a good idea. As for merging, I don't think so. I would leave the three different pages as independent pages, with the necessary connections. All three are definitely connected, and there may be multiple connections. End Time and Eschatology are more closely connected, but Eschatology and Apocalypticism are not the same thing by any means, in my view. I'd say that Eschatology originates in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Apocalypticism originates in the post-ذHebrew Second Temple period. There are some areas of overlap, but they are two different things and should be kept separate. The links and correlations in between these concepts should appear on all pages, but in my view there is no need to actually "merge" them completely. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Warshy: One could certainly say that eschatological beliefs become more or less apocalyptic in terms of suffering or tragedy or imminence, but you wouldn't say beliefs about an apocalyse are non-eschatological, would you? These articles do also cover many religions and not just Judaism, so though it's interesting there have been different periods of belief there, I don't see how that translates into a general rule for scoping these lists. "Eschatology" literally means "study of the last", i.e. doctrine concerning the end times. If we want to keep the lists on End times and Eschatology separate, what scopes would you propose that would let us clearly decide what content goes on one, the other, or both? -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at any "lists" so far, because I wasn't concerned about them. I actually wasn't even aware there were such "lists." All I wrote was concerning the two separate concepts of Eschatology and Apocalipticism. In that regard, I believe what I wrote is correct. I'd say that beliefs about an apocaplypse are more specifically apocalyptic, besides being eschatological also, in a generic sense. So Apocalypse is a narrower, more determined type of Eschatology, and that is why the two concepts need to remain as separate concepts. Areas where they overlap should be clearly defined (and inter-linked) in each page. That is what I am saying about the idea of merging the two pages in general. Now, regarding these separate lists, I will now look into it further. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out two more things that motivated my decision to oppose the proposed merge:
  1. Apocalypticism (belief in a catastrophic event and/or final revelation at the end of the world), Millenarianism (belief in a future millenarian kingdom during or after the end of the world), and Messianism (belief in the arrival of one or more final saviors at the end of the world) deal mostly with the same topic, the end times, which has been accurately defined in the previous replies by user Beland: "Eschatology" literally means "study of the last", i.e. doctrine concerning the end times. Now, due to their similarities, merging all of these articles into one, single article (either Eschatology or End times) would be the most logical conclusion. Nonetheless, despite concerning the same topic, these are three different patterns of religious and secular belief,[1] which may overlap or not within the same religion, political ideology, or belief system, therefore they are not the same stuff and should be kept separate, in my opinion;
  2. Readers and users interested in articles closely related to Apocalypticism, such as Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, that would come across this article after a hypothetical merge with Apocalypticism would probably find themselves puzzled at the sight of an article that is entirely dedicated to the end of the world according to the various religious traditions and their eschatological beliefs, whereas secular and political scenarios (Nuclear War and World War III, for example) would be missing or almost completely left out. GenoV84 (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GenoV84: I can certainly see the argument for keeping Apocalypticism, Millenarianism, and Messianism separate. Are you in favor of merging End times with Eschatology? The latter already includes a section on "secular and political scenarios", for which the main article is Global catastrophic risk. If you want to keep End times and Eschatology separate, what criteria would you propose for deciding what content goes in one or both of those? -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So since Apocalypticism has been trimmed with a somewhat clearer scope, and lots of folks have opposed that merger, I'm withdrawing that proposal. I'm still interested in how to differentiate End times with Eschatology or if those two should be merged. -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article End times should contain all kinds of apocalyptic scenarios (religious, political, secular, conspiratorial, technological, etc.), while the article Eschatology should be exclusively focused on religious traditions and their elaborated doctrines/mythologies of the future events. GenoV84 (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GenoV84: I agree the religious/non-religious split makes sense. Eschatology needs to have (and does have) a 1-2 paragraph summary of non-religious thoughts on the end of the world in order to explain the term "physical eschatology", and also because the comparison is interesting even to readers learning about predictions across religions. Coverage of all the secular scenarios alone makes for a big article, which is why Global catastrophe scenarios was recently split from Global catastrophic risk. It would not be feasible to combine this content along with the long list of religious summaries in a single End times article. It's possible to keep Eschatology and Global catastrophic risk separate and summarize both in End times in a few paragraphs each. But it seems there's little benefit to having an article that's merely a summary of two articles that already refer to each other; wouldn't it be better to just have a disambiguation page there? -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is definitely a viable solution, I didn't think about that. I agree with your proposal. GenoV84 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll implement that. -- Beland (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Greisiger, Lutz (2015). "Apocalypticism, Millenarianism, and Messianism". In Blidstein, Moshe; Silverstein, Adam J.; Stroumsa, Guy G. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 272–294. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697762.013.14. ISBN 978-0-19-969776-2. LCCN 2014960132. S2CID 170614787.
  2. ^ Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan (2013). "How Antichrist Defeated Death: The Development of Christian Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Early Church". In Krans, Jan; Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J.; Smit, Peter-Ben; Zwiep, Arie W. (eds.). Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Novum Testamentum: Supplements. Vol. 149. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 238–255. doi:10.1163/9789004250369_016. ISBN 978-90-04-25026-0. ISSN 0167-9732. S2CID 191738355.
  3. ^ Crossley, James (September 2021). "The Apocalypse and Political Discourse in an Age of COVID". Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 44 (1). SAGE Publications: 93–111. doi:10.1177/0142064X211025464. ISSN 1745-5294. S2CID 237329082.
  4. ^ Douglas, Christopher (December 2021). Wilsey, John D. (ed.). "Revenge Is a Genre Best Served Old: Apocalypse in Christian Right Literature and Politics". Religions. 13 (1: The Historical Interaction between Nationalism and Christian Theology). Basel: MDPI: 21. doi:10.3390/rel13010021. eISSN 2077-1444. S2CID 245562021.
  5. ^ Perry, Samuel L.; Whitehead, Andrew L.; Grubbs, Joshua B. (Winter 2021). Baker, Joseph O. (ed.). "Save the Economy, Liberty, and Yourself: Christian Nationalism and Americans' Views on Government COVID-19 Restrictions". Sociology of Religion. 82 (4). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association for the Sociology of Religion: 426–446. doi:10.1093/socrel/sraa047. ISSN 1759-8818. S2CID 231699494.

Making this page itno a disambiguation page has created multiple ambiguous links - shown at Disambig fix list for End time. Could those of you with knowledge of the differences between the different articles help to fix some of these links please?— Rod talk 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Sure thing. I've already fixed some of them, it will take a while. GenoV84 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great - there are already several hundred less than the original list.— Rod talk 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of today, these have all been fixed (not by me) except for one, and I'm not sure what Britney Spears is singing about, exactly. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:End_time&oldid=1225662200"