Talk:End time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article End 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 17, 2004.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Catholics

Why is the Catholicism section not part of the Christianity bit? Dan Kerins 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Catholicism adds 'tradition' to its belief system, and the Vatican holds that tradition is equal with the inspiration of scripture. As an ex-catholic, I can see separating 'Catholicism' from the rest of the 'christianity' section as valid because there is simply too much tradition, false doctrine, etc. to dispute and discuss. I'd like to refer you to a book titled "A Woman Rides the Beast" (subtitled, "The Catholic Church in the Last Days" by Dave Hunt; ©1994; Harvest House Publishers. I hope you won't be offended by the knowledge contained in this book but, unfortunately, all of the investigation contained in this book is true. My family had worked for the catholic church and, to be opinionated, I didn't find the 'love of Christ' in any of them. Furthermore, when you read this book, then you'll see the details of the Inquisition; which thing neither Christ nor His apostles commanded christians to do, which was torture people. There is no question in my mind, and I agree with the Reformers, that the catholic church is the prophesied 'whore' mentioned in the book of Revelation. It's a hard thing to say to some catholics who have never investigated their church, but here is an ex-catholic saying these things. Catholicism, unfortunately, is the biggest christian cult on the Planet.--MurderWatcher1 21:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Catholicism is a cult, however you can't say that in Wikipedia articles. We have to state what the major players believe. If most people have said throughout history that Catholicism is Christian, then it must be included as such. Any dispute about this would have to go in the relevant article, supported by reliable sources. rossnixon 01:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why I put this ONLY on the discussion page. It's NOT in the actual Wikipedia article!--MurderWatcher1 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I think we should also include a "Baptist" and "Evengalical" section for the cult like aspects of these, while we're bringing personal feelings into wiki, cults who decimate families. These are the johny-come-latelys who seem to have a vastly different view on the 'end times'. In some cases they have invented whole new theory's and terms that have no scripture to back them up. So can we please also list their zany and crazy stances on end times separate from the true and original Christians? I mean how many times in recent history have these cult-like Christian sects (baptist and evangelical) predicted that the end times have been upon us and upon us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.223.204 (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a pulpit

The "Dispensationalist prophecies" segment appears to be little short of a several-page Chick Tract. It consists largely of incredibly POV assertions and laughable "evidence" to support the dispensationalist doctrine, such as the following assertion:

"Just before tribulation, people will describe the world situation as 'peace and safety'. This is exactly the situation we are seeing the beginnings of right now, after the end of the Cold War."

I'm amazed that even the most hardened evangelical would type those words. The world situation right now is PEACE and SAFETY? Are you typing this with a straight face? Is this a prank?

"Another sign that the Second Coming might occur soon is a chronological pattern in the Bible. According to the Bible, the creation of the earth and humanity began about 6,000 years ago, or 4,000BC. God revealed himself to Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews, around 4,000 years ago, or 2,000BC. The birth, life,and death of Jesus Christ occurred 2,000 years later. We are now living 2,000 years after that event. So it makes sense that the next and last big event in Bible, the Second Coming, will occur very soon, or around 2000AD."

Amazing. Not only is this original research, but the person who typed this is quite possibly one of the only people on the planet who believes his particular brand of numerological ramblings. I'm starting to think Wikipedia needs better leadership to keep out the wackos. Xezlec 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Partially fixed it. Let's see if it gets reverted. Xezlec 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I had started editing some of this page. As a Dispensationalist, I do believe in scholarly and factual reporting. I came to this belief because it is reasonable and intelligent. There are a considerable number of well-researched books by Dispensationalists, and I have put some of those in the book section. I hope you will have a chance to read these, and please don't think we all get our beliefs from Chick tracts!--MurderWatcher1 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] older entries

This article is representative of sweeping totalistic claims unsupported by fact or evidence typical of many of Wikipedia articles. There is no survey cited here that reviewed various demonimations' views toward end times. The article lacks even an informed understanding of the diverse governing structures of various denominations. At least one major denomination accepts most of the end-times belief systems suggested in the article.

But the article states: No major denomination apart from the Jehovah's Witnesses accepts these beliefs as a standard of Biblical interpretation.

Some major denominations do not impose central authority on local churches. Southern Baptists, for example, are the dominant religion in most of the American South. But once a Southern Baptist minister is ordained, the denomination makes no other dictates about his doctrinal teachings. There is hardly a mechahnism for central authority over the theology of local Baptist churches. The denomination is organized as a "convention" of independent local churches. Local churches hire ministers whom they believe teach doctrines appropriate to the beliefs of their congregation. The independent Southern Baptist churches have developed doctrines so diverse, the diversity has created deep divisions in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptist theologians debate diverse views of the end times, including premillenialism, postmillenialism and forms of preterism. Preterism, then, is not "unlike all the other Christian theological systems;" it is a doctrine accepted or suggested in many local churches as amillenialism.

Here is a link to a page detailing a debate among Southern Baptist theological professors regarding diverse views of the end times which this article says are rejected by major denominations such as the Southern Baptists:

http://www.sbts.edu/news/NewsRead.php?term=Fall2002&article=NR032

The Southern Baptist panel discussion asked "do Christians know what they believe? Can Christians make a clear biblical argument in defense of their position? And can they make that argument while acting in a gracious and gentle manner to those whom may disagree?"

In brief:

Three Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professors did just that recently, presenting different positions on what theologians call eschatological doctrine (or end-times theology).

Daniel Akin presented a progressive dispensational (pretribulation, premillenial) position. Chad Brand defended a posttribulation, premillenial position, and Hal Ostrander presented an amillenial position.

Bird 06:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense edits by 69.167.97.221 reverted to most recent sensible collaborative version. --Quadalpha 22:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Last Judgment?

I have removed a label proposing that this article should be merged with Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is a specific event in Christian eschatology proposed in the Book of Revelations, and in some form or another is accepted by most Christians.

The end times are a genre of prophecies for the most part proposed by the specific belief system of "premillenial dispensationalists", and as such involve a specific set of Biblical interpretations that not all Christians accept, but which involve attempts to relate apocalyptic prophecies from Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel to current events. These prophecies include non-Scriptural specifics such as the attempt to identify the Antichrist, the role of the European community and the state of Israel in Biblical prophecy, and other things that do not relate to the Last Judgment. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses don't think that end times or "time of end" ("last days", NW) and "Last Judgement"(Har-Maggedon or Jehovah's day) are the same. This article should NOT be merged with Last Judgement. But they think that end times or "time of end" ("last days") and "end of the world" ("the conclusion of the system of things", NW) are the same. Rantaro

[edit] NPOV

This article reads as if it is written from a selected set of Christian views, rather than the whole range. CheeseDreams 20:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed out what those views were. I've tried to make it clear that this article is chiefly about End Times beliefs and prophecies that circulate among U.S. fundamentalists, and attempts to describe those beliefs. Christian eschatology is about the doctrine of the last things generally in Christianity. Smerdis of Tlön 20:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The end times are, in one version of Christian eschatology, a time of tribulation that will precede the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

The first sentance the article explains this is not a cover-all-Christian viewpoint. That said, might help if it explained a bit cleary which version we are talking about (US?Baptist?Fundamentalist?). It doesn't need the NPOV tag though.--ZayZayEM 12:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just because the article makes clear what its purpose is, doesn't mean that the article is NPOV. "End times" is clearly an end-of-the-world concept, but I see nothing here about non-Christian ends of the world, like the Norse Ragnarok. Are there similar concepts in Chinese, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Maori, or other cultures? One would not know from this article. The phrase "end times" may be, in English, most associated with Christianity (maybe even just U.S. fundamentalism), but can anyone say this authoritatively enough to justify the complete absence of any other scenarios? I think that's the issue here. Certainly the current article is robust enough to deserve to be a separate article, but perhaps it should be titled "End times in Christian fundamentalism" and be referenced in a more general overall article. — Jeff Q 20:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because, while Ragnarok deals with an "End Times" scenario, it is not THE "End Times". In terms of cultural sensitivity, the correct term (Ragnarok) should be used rather than lumping into some anglo-cover-all-term — especially when the more appropriate terminology is eschatology. Perhaps a tag at the front of the article, explaining the term is more appropriately used for anglo-christi-judeo version of evvents, but many more cultural versions can be found in eschatology (where they belong).--ZayZayEM 01:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps what you're looking for is our article on the end of the world, which is perhaps the broadest term in English, and quite properly covers Ragnarök, the Hindu ends of the eras, the Mayan epoch that's due sometime in the next ten years, the sun going nova, and all the various other scenarios including the big crush, or the heat-death of the universe. That article already exists, though it could stand improvement. All of these beliefs should quite properly be added to that page. "End times" as far as I know always refers to the Christian belief that current events mean that the Rapture and Second Coming are imminent. Smerdis of Tlön 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If this article is about Fundamentalist views then it should clearly state so in the title. It should be End times (Fundamentalist U.S. Christian views).CheeseDreams 19:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Right, its been moved. DO NOT move it back until it contains views
  • Fundamentalist Christians not in the U.S.
  • Christians who are not Fundamentalist
Many of the above consider "End Times" to refer to something specific.
CheeseDreams 20:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Should this be more appropriately End Times (currently a REDIRECT). Both words should capitalised, no?--ZayZayEM 02:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The canonical way is to use lower case. More appears to link to End times than to End Times in any case. It isn't really a proper noun. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved without discussion

Why? -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have undone the move. Everything linked to End times or End Times in any case, so the move really achieved nothing. It was not done right even if there's an argument for moving the page; the new page title contained punctuation and was virtually unsearchable. These beliefs, though most prominent in the USA, did not originate there and are not exclusively American, so the new page title was misleading. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Efforts to bring about end times

Should this be mentioned here or elsewhere? c.f here --ZayZayEM 01:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a bit about that in the article itself: "The implications of the prophecies that turmoil in the Middle East is inescapable, that nuclear war is predestined by Scripture, and that it will supernaturally lead to a divine utopia, give rise to some misgivings among unbelievers in the prophecies." I'm not sure how much farther we can go with this without straying into seriously POV territory. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement: "The fact that in the early 1970s, there were seven nations in the European Economic Community was held to be significant; this aligned the Community with a seven headed dragon in Revelations." is incorrect. The original EEC had six members (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany). This was increased to nine by the additions of Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland in 1973. There never exixted a seven member EEC, and so, cannot be associated with the 'seven headed dragon'. EFTA has seven members, but that doesn't exist anymore.

In the new Fox series Point Plesent, the main character who is the devil's daughter has the sign in her eye. It is all three sixes combined into one symbol.

NOTE: I removed the 2 leading spaces in the above line, but make NO judgement whether it is vandalism in the first place. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watt quote

Added James Watt's quote "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." to the end of the prophecies section. 666 is the mark of the beast.

[edit] not Watt quote

NOTE: Internet rumors. James Watt asserts that he never made this statement and the source is questionable. It was published in "Grist", picked up by Bill Moyers, and made a national splash. Moyers has since noted that there is no clear record that Watt ever said this in public. Please do your own research. You can start here. http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/021005.html

By the way, I am pro-Moyers, anti-Watt.

The source may be a questionable person, but it is not unknown. So "and no source can identify a contemporaneous historical document establishing the quote" should be removed. It originated on page 229 of a book called "Setting the Captives Free", by Austin Miles, and was published in 1990. I'm going to go ahead and change it. Note: This reference also appears in the article on Watt himself.
Yikes! A secondary encyclopedia entry is no place to air a dispute over a quote. If we mention the quote at all, it should be cited over to the Wiki page on Watt, where folks who specialize in Watt-mania can hash it out, but it should not divert readers from the main point, which is aleady made in the text. At the very least we need to discuss the quote here on the discussion page before we agree on the wording that is NPOV and also fair to Watt (and I am also anti-Watt). Could folks here please sign their posts and use the indent format?--Cberlet 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neon genesis? End Times or just End-of-the-World

Yes, Neon Genesis Evangelion has a lot of pseudo-Chrsitian motifs, but it takes it's philosophy stuff from just about every source conceivable as well.

I just don't think this peculiar branch of eschatology is the place to mention it. In particular NGE does not deal with the return of Jesus, an anti-Christ or end-times plagues--ZayZayEM 04:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Love NGE. Have the whole series on VHS. It is clearly apocalyptic, and perhaps millenarian, but fits End-of-the-World better than the End Times due to the specific Christian references to the End Times. I know...the series features Angels and Evangelion is a pun...but still--Cberlet 04:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1000 AD

hey, noob here

I don't know if it was mentioned, I couldn't see it there but I was only scanning through the article, that many Christians alive at the end of the first millenium A.D. were highly expecting Jesus to return around 1000 A.D. (because of all the emphasis on "1000 years" in the bible), and it was a blow to their faith when he did not return. This is referenced from Geoffery Blainey's "A very short history of the world."

It might be mentioned elsewhere on this site... but it's the kind of knowledge I think you need to know when dealing with a subject like this, since many people reading it are probably half-paranoid delusional internet nuts, and not historians or researchers.

I'd edit it myself but I'm not very interested in this subject and I can't write... good.


CHOW! 09:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rastafari

One way of improving this article has been to add bits about the Rastafarian religion, which firmly believes these are the end times. This article has had too much of a Christian POV for me, and I have tried to remedy this by adding the Rasta material. I am surprised that it got to be article of the week without even a mention of the Rastas, as if only Christian groups believed in the end times. --SqueakBox 19:10, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witness Edits

I'm reinserting the changes you removed, with possible qualms about one. I'm getting sick and tired of you running around removing any edits anywhere that don't cast Jehovah's Witnesses in the light you want, especially given your clear lack of knowledge of their beliefs (or at least public feigning of lack of knowledge). I'm not gonna keep doing hours of research to please you either when you don't (at least publicly) know what they believe, so you're gonna have to research stuff on your own.

Regarding the change involving 1914, it is indeed just a claim made by them. For one, it is impossible to calculate any date from the Bible itself, because the Bible has no dates. They claim to obtain 1914 based on the date of Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians. Unfortunately for them, that happened in 587 BC, not 607 BC as they claim. Without 607, it is impossible to arrive at 1914 in the way in which they do. You have to then resort to rewriting history to place biblical events wherever it's convenient for you, which is what they do. Beyond that, for Wikipedia to state that such a date can in fact be (meaningfully) calculated from the Bible is equivalent to an endorsement of the correctness of those calculations. Stating that they claim to calculate 1914 from the Bible is sufficient, and all that Wikipedia should say, especially since not a single other Bible-believing group (that I know of) agrees with them. There are enough numbers in the Bible that you could probably 'calculate' anyone's birthdate from it; that does not, however, mean that you can truly calculate anyone you want's birthdate from the Bible, it means that you can screw around with a lot of numbers until you end up with a convenient one eventually somehow, especially if you're allowed to use provably-incorrect numbers and any interpretation of anything that you want to. The same goes with most other doctrines. This also raises the issue of when something stops being a claim and becomes a fact. If I claim to be able to calculate the winning lottery numbers from the pattern of the paint on my wall, is that considered any more than a claim? Especially if I'm wrong, and even change my story after the drawing? All you could say is that I claimed to calculate them, not that I did in fact calculate them. In their publications, they are free to state that 1914 is definitely a biblical number (or whatever else they want to claim about anything else), but Wikipedia isn't one of their publications.

Regarding the 537 one, I inserted the words "they believe" because, as far as I remember off the top of my head, the Bible doesn't say anything that would require the Jews to have returned in 537 instead of 538. They were released during Cyrus' first year according to the Bible, which was early 538-early 537, so it was mostly 538 anyway. That doesn't say when they returned, but, barring another verse clarifying the issue, they could have returned as early as 538. If there's a verse that says they returned during his second year, which was 537-536, that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't return in 536 either, unless a statement of the month of their return eliminates that possibility. But this is the one that I mentioned above that I had qualms about. If you can show that the Bible does in fact demand that they returned in 537 and only 537, then feel free to revert this change.

Regarding the UN change, you're just plain wrong. Research it.

As I said, I'm getting tired of someone who either doesn't know or pretends to not know their beliefs very well reverting any correct changes I make that are less than flattering to Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm fixing to just start reinstating any changes that I know for a fact to be correct and letting anyone who doesn't believe them do the research themselves since I don't have infinite time to do research to convince everyone in explicit detail of every little two-word change I make anywhere that involves Jehovah's Witnesses.66.158.232.37 05:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about "According to Mormonism"?

The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a lot of additional scripture, prophesies from Joseph Smith, etc, that pertain to the end times. Would be nice to have a section here with a summary of this information, I think. Wadsworth 16:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there sources for the specific Latter-Day Saints material? I've seen some Mormon texts that seem to show a great deal of dispensationalist influence, and am not sure how much currency they have. Our article Prophecies of Joseph Smith is also unhelpful in this regard. Smerdis of Tlön 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The easiest way to locate the "offical" doctrine of the LDS Church is in their scriptures. Specifically, the Joesph Smith translation of Matthew chapter 24 (found here [[1]]), etc. Here is an older article I just found: [[2]]. There are more references. A peek into the Topical Guide, under "Last Days", gives this list: [3]. At the top of the list is Old Testament references, followed by New Testament, followed by (and this is where it get's into specific LDS doctrine) Book of Mormon references (starting with "1 Ne. 14:17"), followed by Doctrine and Covenants (abbreviated D&C) which are mostly revelations from Joseph Smith, many of them referring to the last days. See for example D&C 45 ([[4]]). At the very end of the list are a few references from the Pearl of Great Price (a small book of scripture containing some misc. tidbits from Joseph Smith). Here's another list, under End of the World: [[5]]. Hope this helps. If I had some time, I'd try my hand at writing it myself... Wadsworth 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The more I read this stuff, the more I suspect that someone with a better understanding of LDS basic beliefs ought to write this. I find myself having unanswered questions just looking at the LDS articles here. Do Mormons believe in a physical second coming of Jesus Christ? or do they believe that those prophecies have been fulfilled, either in Jesus' appearance in the New World, the (re)founding of the LDS church, or some other way? How do received ideas about the Second Coming, the Last Judgment, and a "new heaven and a new earth" jive with Mormon doctrines about the eventual deification of certain of their followers and the former mortal personhood of God the Father? We seem not to have a basic article on Mormon eschatology or Latter Day Saints eschatology, or for that matter on Latter Day Saints beliefs about Jesus.
I get the idea that Mormon belief in the End Times is the result of shared cultural and political influences with End Times believers. I suspect also that the more Mormons are committed to their church's own distinctive teachings, the more likely they are to realize that there is a deep inconsistency between LDS and dispensationalist doctrinal assumptions. I'd like to know how prevalent end times prophecy beliefs are among Mormons, but I suspect any attempt to find out would lead down the path of original research. Smerdis of Tlön 05:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The Jade Knight pointed me to the site http://ldslastdays.com/ which was most helpful. I have written a couple paragraphs in the article based chiefly on the information provided at that site. This may yet benefit from broader perspectives. Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to add in some distinct cultural beliefs and correct doctrinal issues. There are obviosuly a great deal of similarities, but did not include all of them. More work needs to be done. For example, Mormons are counselled to have a year supply of food. Culturally, the second coming has much to do with this. More needs to be done. -Visorstuff 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful entry! Thank you so much. I'll keep an eye on it, and when I come across more material that fits, I'll see if I can't add it in. Again, many thanks. Wadsworth 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Happy to conede I might be wrong in a few cases, but for the most part these drag the article down rather than enhancing it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seventh-day Adventists?

I am surprised that this article makes no mentions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is rather well known for its belief in an End time judgment (investigative judgment) and has promoted a imminent Second Coming. The church is also a direct result of the Millerite movement. The Adventist church is also three times the size of the Jehovah's Witnesses which have a whole subsection devoted to their views on the End Times. MyNameIsNotBob 09:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "End Times" - origin of the English phrase?

To the non-North American ear the phrase "End Times" sounds strange. Indeed it's often referenced in speech marks. Anyone know where and when the English phrase originates? More familiar in many parts of the English-speaking world would be Doomsday, possibly Armageddon, or just The End of the World. There is also eschatology. "End Times" seems relatively recent, and relatively North American. For example do Muslims refer to the "End Times", as the article suggests. Or is just North American Christians / some Western Christians.

Hakluyt bean 13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article merger?

Christian views are the most dominant. For these, the hierarchy seems to be: Eschatology, then more specifically End times which describes eschatology for the Abrahamic religions specifically it appears, and then Christian eschatology. However the articles do not exhibit this hierarchy clearly, and there is much overlap. Ironically, this article contains numerous non-Abrahamic religions. What would you think of a merger with "End times" into "Eschatology"? Else, can someone justify that the very colloquial-sounding phrase "end times" does refer specifically to the Abrahamic religions? The article itself admits that many other religions hold to comparable beliefs. Colin MacLaurin 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In the March 17, 2004 version when it was displayed on the main page as a featured article, it corresponded with the tribulation, a sub-topic of Christian eschatology. This is clearly very different from its current state! Could someone find out when it lost its featured status? Colin MacLaurin 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End Times - something of a Minority Report?

It's good to see wikipedia treat a subject on its own merits, not that of its critics, however the impression I get from the article is that although "End times beliefs in Christianity vary widely" both the phrase and philosophy are rather mainstream. That's not the case is it? For example I find this on the BBC: "Much of the writing and teaching about the end times is apocalyptic, frightening and threatening, and it's important to remember that many mainstream churches do not believe that these teachings should be taken literally". Maybe this is a UK perspective, but then the article might reflect that (?)

Hakluyt bean 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Tag

The subject of the article is good, but the style needs a lot of work. In particular, it violates NPOV, and not just in the section describing (in perhaps un-necessary detail) Rapture theology. The tone of the article is inconsistent as a result: the beliefs of different religions are all given partiality. That is not NPOV. It is merely a lot of POVs next to each other. Michaelbusch 05:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What this article needs, chiefly, is refocusing. It began its life (and was once a featured article) when it was focused on the belief among certain Christians, mostly North American Protestant dispensationalists, that the Second Coming was imminent: the various signs in current events or trends could be mustered in support of this belief, and the future scenarios projected by this belief system. Since then, it's become a scattershot collection of me-toos and discusses the eschatologies of dozens of denominations. I suspect that a lot of the latter should be sent to different articles, so that the original subject could be presented more consistently and in greater detail than it is now. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I tried to add something...

I recently added a section to this article on Pastafarianism, the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yet it was deleted. Could someone explain why? 68.221.31.37 21:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Do you seriously believe that this should be included at all! 'Gimme a break!' Serious 'stuff' here, please!--MurderWatcher1 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revert of article

This article was once a featured article but most recent additions seem to be entirely unreferenced. Most of the article now does not cite any sources.

I propose some drastic action: how about we revert the article to where it was when it was a featured article with anything that is in the article now that is adequately referenced merged in?

I suggest a one month time out before doing this to allow more discussion and references to be added.

Thanks and regards Bksimonb 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. On second thoughts the "featured article" version isn't exactly brimming with references. It still seems to be largely OR. This might be more work than I first thought... Bksimonb 06:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispensationalism

I came across this page as a Wikipedia link and I decided initially to add some edits to it. I feel that the Dispensational school of thought is not properly represented. I added at least one cite ref to John F. Walvoord and some other works. This whole page, however, needs a lot of work. You might find my Wikipedia handle name a little strange but when you click on my page and see my book list, then you'll begin to understand where I'm coming from. I hope that I can improve on this article with time.--MurderWatcher1 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Other Faith Traditions Section

Can anyone provide dates for the faiths, specifically the Hindu and other beliefs mentioned in this sub-section? I can't find any using the Wikipedia links. I feel that the Other Faiths Traditions section should list all of these religions chronologically. This way, all readers of this page could see a progression in 'faith-thought'.--MurderWatcher1 19:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Times section

The Current Times section sounds as if a preacher wrote it - would anyone be willing to neutralize the Christian content, add in some references to other faiths (such as Islam, as that might give people an understanding of their interpretation of, say, the Iraq war), and incorporate it better into the article?

Somehow I just can't read this as neutral.

"In the past 10 years, news programs have been filled with news of crooked politicians, greedy companies (Enron), murders, and ungodly behavior. With new media like the internet, self pleasure websites like pornography have dramatically increased"


Bob19191 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)