[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Christian mortalism

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

Untitled

[edit]

I noticed the additions made by 211.29.236.172. I don't know who you are or what your name is, 211.29.236.172. But seems that your latest additions show great bias. When I began this entry, I was attempting to remain most objective, simply stating the bare facts about the doctrine of soul sleep, and steering clear of any bias, or leaving the observer to decide for himself or herself. Can I ask why you have imposed your own personal convictions upon this entry, as you have with other entries? Parousia1 01:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I propose that the article be moved (renamed) to "Soul sleep", as this term is more common and more likely to be understood. Arguments, theologians, and denominations could then be clearly labelled as either for or against soul sleep, whereas the term psychopannychism is ambiguous in popular usage, according to the article. --Colin MacLaurin 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of God - Abrahamic Faith

[edit]

There is a red wikilink on the page to The Church of God Abrahamic Faith. I believe that this refers to one of two existing articles (or possibly both): Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith) and Church of the Blessed Hope, who say they are different but both can be known as "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith". Which one of these should the link point to, in other words, which one believes in soul sleep? --Colin MacLaurin 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I can confirm that the "Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)" does believe in 'soul sleep' or "that the soul is not separate from the body and so there is no "spiritual" self to survive bodily death." I'll see what I can do to give them some representation on this and other related articles if time permits. I'd be interested in dealing with the "largely discredited" portion of the first sentence. Could be my bias talking, but perhaps no less so than the article itself. Avecrien 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

While I was making spelling corrections for the word "rabbinical", I found a misspelling in reference #15. The original link was broken and the correction of the spelling also leads to a broken link. If someone knows where the referenced webpage can be found, please direct #15 to it. Thanks. Aclayartist (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Verse references

[edit]

Would it be possible to use a modern translation for the verses? For instance, the following excerpt uses numerous ancient/extinct words and grammar structures. "yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two" Ansell 09:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, classic. If I don't hear any objections in the next few hours I will change the version used. I presume that these verses are from the KJV. I will try and use the NIV or if anyone doesn't want that version then the NKJV. Cls14 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First reference anti-soul sleep

[edit]

Just out of interest I have read through all the pros and cons of the argument. Not wishing to put any bias on the item or sit on either side of the fence here I was just wondering how the first con is supposed to disprove soul sleeping? Just purely out of interest! Cls14 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. None of the Cons do! As soon as a translation uses the word spirit, the intent is that this spirit is supposed to be the "immortal soul". The word spiritus is Latin means the same thing as the Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma. They all mean "breath", or "air" or "wind". The people of the Biblical times knew nothing of an immortal soul. What they did know is that death was accompanied by the cessation of breathing. Thus when the ancient texts say the body gives up its spirit, the people of the times it was written knew it just meant that the "nephesh" or "air breather" had stopped breathing. when you stop breathing, the body dies as the cells are starved of oxygen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Name change / new article proposal

[edit]

A Seventh-day Adventist theology lecturer told me that "soul sleep" or at least a holistic anthropology is actually the consensus scholarly view, although it is a minority amongst Christians in general. Liberal scholar Rudolf Bultmann was mentioned as the leading example. I hope that these comments can be cited and integrated into the article. Colin MacLaurin 06:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

I have been talking to two theology lecturers/experts. If I understand them correctly, they said that the terms "soul sleep", "thetnopsychism" and so on are not used by scholars. They said that "something similar to" soul sleep is actually the majority scholarly view (of Protestants?); specifically a holistic anthropology or holistic view of the innate nature of mankind (i.e. that body, soul and spirit are inseparable). Rudolf Bultmann is the foremost scholar supporting this. He believes that Paul uses Greek terms, but that his worldview is shaped by his Hebrew background. So terms such as soma (body), pneuma (spirit), psuche (soul) and sometimes even sarx (flesh) each refer to the whole person, albeit a particular aspect thereof. Apparently most seminaries around the world would teach this, with some exceptions particularly in the United States. Other leading scholars supporting this view are Jewitt, Kümmel and Ladd. Cullmann is more readable (I will add these to the references on the page).

One must also remember there may be a difference between what the scholars believe the Bible teaches, and between what they actually believe! A liberal scholar may believe that the Bible teaches a particular concept, without believing it themselves. It is logically possible that a Catholic scholar could agree that the Bible teaches the view above, without believing it is true because of tradition etc. (Would a Catholic theology expert please comment if any such Catholic theologians exist). For a conservative Christian (Protestant?) who regards the Bible as the foremost authority, the two will be linked. Hence the article may need to reflect this point, by distinguishing views on what the Bible teaches from views that are ultimately held.

I propose the creation of a new, "parent" page called Christian anthropology, or perhaps Judeo-Christian anthropology would be better, so as not to exclude the Jewish view(s), which is/are a precursor to the Christian views anyway. It would serve as an overview, with links to main articles covering various details. It would cover bipartite (theology) and tripartite views (those articles are currently stubs and could be merged into the new page). Soul and spirit would be key parts of the article (new articles specific to the Judeo-Christian tradition on these topics would be in order, I believe. I looked in some theological dictionaries and found pages of detailed information on the Hebrew and Greek background of the terms, so there is certainly lots of potential content). It would also cover hell in Christian beliefs and related topics. Conditional immortality and annihilation are closely related and would also be covered.

Some expert attention would help to improve these articles (Catholic, Orthodox, liberal Protestant, conservative Protestant etc.) Colin MacLaurin 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Judeo-Christian anthropology created. If you have comments relevant to the new page, please reply there and reserve this page for discussions about soul sleep. Colin MacLaurin 12:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Christian anthropology page is a great idea. "According to Christians, what is a human being?" Good question with lots of different answers. For this page, Bultmann's view that Paul regarded the person as unified (not dualistic, as in Greeklphilosophy) is worth briefly including as part of a more general discussion about how an image of a unified person coheres with the doctrine of soul sleep. Coincidentally, I have recently been wondering whether Paul advocated soul sleep. Didn't he say that to die in the world is to awake in the Lord (that is, you are not conscious of the intervening period before the resurrection)? Jonathan Tweet 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a name change seems to have been missed? The problem remains that "Soul sleep" is inherently a loaded and pejorative term. Anyway I have added a section Origin of the term. renaming the page mortality of the soul would seem to be the most neutral term in English, as opposed to pseudogreek coinages like thnetopsychism (someone should check OED to find the first use) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any references? Any scholarly view?

[edit]

I think that this article lacks of the views that scholars have on this subject with references and comments that would shed light on the linguistic and cultural background of the Biblical psychology. I hope that in the near future I would have the time to add some interesting points. One major topic is the nature of the Biblical soul. Another interesting aspect is the history of psychology in Jewish and Patristic thought as regards the immortality of the soul. As regards, now, the English article soul, the diversity of opinions, strongly influenced by dogmatic views, has caused the article to become chaotic.--Vassilis78 13:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little section about the historical-critical view. Jonathan Tweet 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see some reference on the condemnation by the Fifth Latern Council. I suspect the presentation here is distorted. dbrookman 4 Nov 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrookman (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is soul sleep related to conditional immortality? I suspect that it may be roughly equivalent in modern theology. I have heard that conditionalists such as Edward Fudge, Clark Pinnock etc. also believe in the unconscious state of the dead. It wouldn't surprise me if historically the two notions have been distinct. Please answer. Colin MacLaurin 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe they are one and the same. I have put a link from the Wiki conditional immorality page to the soul sleep page. I also have added an external link www.afterlife.co.nz. --Tarnya-burge (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant OR

[edit]

The section on Contradicting Bible verses contains a line of unsourced and opinionated commentary after each verse. This violates both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Whoever added those unsolicited expressions of his personal opinion is clearly pushing a personal view that soul sleep is the "right" doctrine. I'll wait a short time then remove the POV commentaries. Freederick (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Verses

[edit]

I have reworked the list of verses added, removed, reverted a few days ago, in order to try and bring them in line. Several changes were made, from the version used (almost all of the others were KJV, so i changed the additions) as it surely makes sense not to cherry-pick translations to make a point, to corrections of the references (several referenced verses not actually quoted), to the formating of the verses and the references. There is still a bit of work to do, and try and integrate all the Bible passages better ~ including removing some which are, IMHO, irrelevant. At this moment, however, i haven't time, so i'll try a bit later. Cheers, Lindsay 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the verses that support soul sleep inadequately

[edit]

Some of these verses do not appear to do a good job supporting soul sleep since they can be interpreted differently

2 Corinthians 4:7-5:4: This does not discuss the soul being sleep and discusses the unseen eternal things such as a implied house for us in heaven

Acts 2:34: This just implies David did not ascend into heaven but does not clarify on the alternative

John 20:17: Lack of ascension does not imply soul sleep, there is a verse relating to this where Jesus descends into a prison where other spirits are (I Peter 3:18-20)

There are a lot of verses used to support soul sleep when they do not even discuss an unconscious death. I think this should be reviewed so that only verses support soul sleep in detail are present. Some of the defense for soul sleep that is currently listed are ambiguous and can be interpreted differently (Nautica80 Emerus00@aol.com) Brandon.

This link provides verses that refute soul sleep and may want to be considered in terms of controversial verses.

http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/soulslep.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.194.147 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Text above moved from halfway up page. Cheers, Lindsay 05:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I completely agree, which is why i indicated above there is still a bit of work to do. Many of the questionable verses were added in a mass, and i edited them but didn't delete any yet. I also notice (now!) that Ansell above mentioned the translation issue. And i muddied the waters by making them all KJV! In my defense, though, KJV was present, and is a ubiquitous version. Nevertheless, when i come back after the weekend, if no one else has by then, i shall change the translation and edit the selection. By the way, when you edit the talk page, could you sign your name with four tildes, please? Cheers, Lindsay 05:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to actually editing anything here, so please forgive me if I've erred in the way I'm posting here. However, as I was making a small addition of denominations (including my own, COG7) who are modern supporters of this view, I noticed in the edit history that at some point someone changed the Greek "psuche" to "psyche" - does anyone know why? My understanding is that the former is(was) correct, but I left it as is. Blessings. MusicalMan77 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)MusicalMan77[reply]

Hmm, it's gonna take a bit more work than i thought to make it as good as i can; let me outline what i propose doing:
1) I notice that the POV comments have been reinstated on the Controversial Verses; i believe they should come out;
2) We ought to have a slightly more modern version of scripture;
3) I see no reason to wikilink every mention of every book of the Bible, and will undo them;
4) The verse lists are rather, well, listy at the moment; i'd like to make them a bit more prosey (but not, i trust prosaic).
In order to accomplish the latter three goals, i propose rewriting the two sections (supporting & controversial verses), much in the manner of the Biblical section of the Perpetual virginity of Mary, with links to the outside Bible site, so that every verse will not be quoted in full. I expect to be a few days over this, so please be patient. Cheers, Lindsay 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The verses I added do not support soul sleep but the resurrection of a dead soul in heaven. I want to add that Oscar Cullmann and Orthodox theology are very close to soul sleap. Florofsky has said, and his viewpoint is widely accepted by Greek Orthodox theologians, that a "soul without a body is ghost". For Orthodox theology, man is both soul and body, and the separation of soul from the body is an irregular condition, contrary to the platonists who considered the body as the grave of the soul, and the seperation of the soul from the body as a liberation.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The comments are not POV because they reflect the current scholarship. Many of the arguments used for the immaterial and immortal soul are now outdated. In the last century much have changed as regards the understanding of Biblical psychology. I believe that tt is POV and misleading to present arguments that do not exist among current theological dictionaries but just reflect the thoughts of the Sunday School of the 19th century.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll finish rewriting, as i indicated above, and then we'll see if i've done a good job. Cheers, Lindsay 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Actually I disagree, the arguments for an immaterial soul are not outdated. Even the Chabad.org which is a Jewish site, using the Torah (which is where most of the soul sleep verses come from, the OT), defends the concept of an immediate afterlife. The reason why there is very little talk about an afterlife in the OT is because (according to that site) the focus was the present, and the life currently lived. There are ton of mainstream theologians that support an immediate afterlife. However besides that, I do think this article is put together well, it is just that some verses that support and refute soul sleep can be interpreted differently which gives the illusion that there is no support for an immediate afterlife at all within any realms of scripture. Nautica80 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Nautica80Nautica80 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wandering if Chabah is in cooperation with the Jewish universities or the official Rabbinic organizations. I don't know; if you know, please provide info. What I know are the two official publications, the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Judaica. Both say that immortality of the soul was introduced into Judaism by the influence of Platonism. This is the passage of the Jewish Encyclopedia, which was written a century ago:


The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath ("nefesh"; "neshamah"; comp. "anima"), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it. As soon as the spirit or breath of God ("nishmat" or "ruaḥ ḥayyim"), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10). The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).

As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality (see Roscher, "Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "Ambrosia"). It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality (Ps. xvi. 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 16, lxxiii. 24 et seq., cxvi. 6-9); whereas Job (xiv. 13 et seq., xix. 26) betrays only a desire for, not a real faith in, a life after death. Ben Sira (xiv. 12, xvii. 27 et seq., xxi. 10, xxviii. 21) still clings to the belief in Sheol as the destination of man. It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2; see Eschatology; Resurrection).

Hellenistic View. The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos" (comp. "Minotaurus"), and the Egyptian "Rhadamanthys" ("Ra of Ament," "Ruler of Hades"; Naville, "La Litanie du Soleil," 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove. Consult especially E. Rhode, "Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen," 1894, pp. 555 et seq.—Immortality of the Soul.


Regarding the biblical verses at stake, the modern Tanakh (The Jewish Publication Society, 1985) translation says:


Genesis 35:18 But as she breathed her last -- for she was dying -- she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. Thus Rachel died. She was buried on the road to Ephrath -- now Bethlehem.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 And the dust returns to the ground As it was, And the lifebreath returns to God Who bestowed it.


So, it is true that many Biblical arguements in favour of the immortality of the soul are outdated.


--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nautica: Allow me to say a second word. You said: Actually I disagree, the arguments for an immaterial soul are not outdated. As regards the OT, the so-called "Biblical" support to an immaterial soul is COMPLETELY outdated, because in the world history of religion and philosophy Socrates and Plato were probably the first who introduced the idea of the immaterial soul. Before Socrates and Plato, many believed in the immortality of the soul, as Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians, but no one had conceived the idea of an immaterial soul. I doubt if you have ever read a single academic book that says that, before Socrates and Plato, there were others who believed in an immaterial soul. Personally, I have never found any such statement in books of the last 50 years. As far as I have seen, anti-sectarian or non-academic books are the only exception, books which, of course, are of no scientific value at all.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second word: An immaterial Soul is the same as a Spirit body, some cultures call it the "soul" and still see it separate from the body(since apparently you want to argue semantics on the idea of immaterial). There is ton of evidence that early religions before platonic influences thought of an immediate afterlife upon death separate from the body, which of course is not a physical body but an immaterial soul. They may not have coined the term "immaterial soul" but I do not see the difference in the two beliefs and how they define it. You also want to argue about how Jews were influenced by the Hellenistic view and it not being a truth belief within their Torah, which you are basically telling me that before that they thought of death as the end until the resurrection, the irony in that is the concept of the resurrection (World to Come) was influenced as well by Zoroastrianism, which existed before Judaism, which I may add also supports the idea of an immaterial soul, however they do not call it that, they just call it the soul.

If the arguments were as outdated as you claim then I can not imagine why Soul Sleep is such a minority view even if tradition persists. I have no problems with the scripture used to support Soul Sleep, but I can not imagine anyone stating that this is the fact itself. We have to remember words are used to describe what things appear to look like, We all know sleep is not death yet it is constantly equated to death, sometimes through comparisons or using statements such as "they have fallen asleep" but when we sleep every night, we are not dead so we have to understand when words are not truly literal. I can't imagine Jesus using a false idea of an afterlife to make a point as seen in the parable of the rich man/Lazarus Luke 16:19-31. The word nephesh is used to describe many things even attributes of the mind such as desire, lust, greed, so it does not only mean the breath of life. So does that mean the breath of life has attributes or does that just mean one word can mean many different things? Could we say the same for the word soul/spirit? Matthew 10:28 implies that the body and soul can only be killed by one, which is God but it does distinguish the two even if it is vague. It all depends how the context of the word, because one word has multiple means, the word she'ol for example is debated to have roots in the word sha'al which means "to ask, to interrogate, to question.", so then what of all the scripture that is not too detailed on what truly takes place in she'ol? How should we interpret that? Why did Paul want to depart from the body to be with Christ? What is truly the original translation of what Jesus says to the their on the cross about paradise? Why did Stephen ask the lord to receive HIS spirit when he died? Why would there be souls under the altar crying out for vengeance if they were not yet resurrected? Why did Moses appear to Jesus as an Apparition isn't he is suppose to be sleeping? I would hardly call any argument outdated if they can still be interpreted in so many different contexts. It is safe to say religious concepts were influenced in so many ways and it is clear through the bible how concepts evolved as they were engaged in the world around them, but I doubt we can say with 100% certainty that we truly know the context of what it all meant, especially when we ourselves can often speak words with different implied meanings.

Here are some highly debated verses that can go either way: 

 1 Sam. 28:8-15 - Communication with the dead?
 1 Kings 17:21 - "let THIS child's SOUL return to him" It implies ownership of the soul which only belongs to the child
 Matthew 10:28 - Implies body and soul
 Luke 16:19-31 - Rich man parable
 Acts 7:59 - Stephen asking the Lord to receive his spirit (I can't imagine this meaning "breath")
 1 Thess. 5:23 - Identifies 3 parts: Spirit/Soul/Body
 Hebrews 12:23 - "Spirits of just men made perfect" The context seems to be talking about the past dead but I am unsure
 Revelation 6:9 - Conscious souls under the altar who have yet to be resurrected
 Heb. 4:12;  - It scripture makes it a point to acknowledge the soul and spirit instead of singling out a unified "one"
 1 Cor. 14:14 - "my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." Hints are some sort of dualism
 2 Cor 5:8 - Paul prefers to be away from the body but with the Lord
 2 Cor 12:2-4 - Talks about Paradise/Third Heaven unsure if "apart from body" which would imply some sort of separation logic
 Luke 23:42-43 - The comma location determines the meaning of this but it also mentions Paradise


I have no problems with your logic, because soul sleep seems very reasonable, I just can not agree that those concepts are outdated within the text of the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran since they are still highly supported today.

Here are some other links besides the Chabad site:

http://www.probe.org/faith-and-science/general-science/mind-soul-and-neuroethics.html#text1 http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2859123/k.BDB8/CP0711.htm http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_afterlife.htm


http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm "The Torah speaks of several noteworthy people being "gathered to their people." See, for example, Gen. 25:8 (Abraham), 25:17 (Ishmael), 35:29 (Isaac), 49:33 (Jacob), Deut. 32:50 (Moses and Aaron) II Kings 22:20 (King Josiah). This gathering is described as a separate event from the physical death of the body or the burial."


66.229.194.147 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Nautica8066.229.194.147 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nautica or 66.229.194.147: This is not a discussion forum. The only thing we can and must do is to put sources. Can you find a source saying that before Plato and Socrates there were people who believed that soul is immaterial? I will provide a source that says the opposite:

Like many (or indeed all) sixth and fifth century thinkers who expressed views on the nature or constitution of the soul, Heraclitus thought that the soul was bodily, but composed of an unusually fine or rare kind of matter, e.g. air or fire. (A possible exception is the Pythagorean Philolaus, who may have held that the soul is an ‘attunement’ of the body; cf. Barnes 1982, 488-95, and Huffman.) The prevalence of the idea that the soul is bodily explains the absence of problems about the relation between soul and body. Soul and body were not thought to be radically different in kind; their difference seemed just to consist in a difference in degree of properties such as fineness and mobility.—Ancient Theories of Soul, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that that Socrates/Plato were the first to think up a immaterial spirit body? I can provide outside sources but I might as well use wiki to show you it is available right here!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism (Maybe the Persians influenced Plato?) They believed after 4 days the soul left the body

Should I even bring up Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism? I know for sure they existed before Plato and Socrates and believed in reincarnation and an immaterial aspect of the body, maybe they influenced Plato? Which was not one body going into an other, but a continuation consciousness, which is definitely immaterial. Or as the Hindu's call it, the Atma which never dies and is immortal. This definitely existed before Plato and Socrates. Now if you want to say Christianity was influenced by Plato or that his views perhaps influenced Judaism then you have a valid point, but to say that concept did not exist before Plato is inaccurate. There is a difference in who came up with a theory for it and when it was actually believed.


http://books.google.com/books?id=WEs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=origination+of+the+soul&source=web&ots=6OhGWMoRV1&sig=sDfRx8PYt1dv9qy6Xl1RqM3LVb8&hl=en#PPA18,M1

66.229.194.147 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Nautica8066.229.194.147 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can continue this conversation over email if you like. Emerus00@aol.com.

66.229.194.147 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Nautica8066.229.194.147 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think this site should be looked at because quite a few verses have been presented that claim to oppose soul sleep, only a few on this site are not truly acceptable as a soul sleep rebuttal. http://www.letusreason.org/7thAd22.htm http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.html

I don't want to add any verses to the main page without permission. Please let me know if it is ok. Thanks.

66.229.194.147 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Nautica8066.229.194.147 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nautica, I think that the core of our disagreement is that you confuse immaterialism with immortality. It is not the same. Immortality of the soul is a very ancient doctrine, as old as religion itself. Ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and others believed in the immortality of the soul, but it was Socrates and Plato who tried to "explain" immortality (and more precisely reincarnation) with their theory about the eternal, without beginning and without end, World of the Ideas (idealism), a world immaterial, totally different in essence from the material world, which has beginning and end. Ideas, Nautica, do not have bodies, do not have height, width and length, immaterial things are incorporeal. On the contrary Babylonians and Egyptians made material offerings to the tombs of the dead ones for their satisfaction. That is why those people used to put money, weapons and other things in the tombs for the service of the dead. It is because they considered the hereafter very similar to this life.

All graves of every class testify to the faith in a life after death similar to life on earth.—George Andrew Reisner, The Egyptian Conception of Immortality.


This has nothing to do with the platonic idealism. However, Platonic idealism influenced the formation of the Jewish and the Christian doctrine on the soul, as it is evidenced by the Rabbinic and Patristic literature.


And, with all respect, allow me to give you a piece of advise: do not pay much attention to internet sites that are not published by academics who are specialized in the field of philosoply, ancient languages and history of religion. There are many amateurs and religious fanatics who write things according to their ignorance and day-dreams.


--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source for these verses? Wikipedia does not permit original research in articles (i.e. it is not okay for one of us to compile a list of verses we think supports or opposes our points). Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are sources that use these texts.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton reference

[edit]

I noticed that Isaac Newton is cited as a supporter of this belief/doctrine, but there is no reference. Can one be added by the original drafter? Russell 79.74.244.200 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from the article, it's not particularly clear what Newton believed. The section is headed "Famous historical psychopannychites and thnetopsychists have included:" then simply lists Newton's name - without, unlike the other examples listed, any quotes or references to demonstrate his belief - so not only is it unreferenced, but it is unclear whether Newton was a psychopannychite or a thnetopsychist (and there is sufficient difference, in the context of this article which explains both terms separately, that it ought really to be distinguished). A proper reference could clear up both things simultaneously. PetrochemicalPete (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation of angels

[edit]

I remeber reading a weird story in which the author claimed to have been a reincarnated angel or archangel. He then described his youth as a form of soul sleep, a prelude to a later re-awakening in adulthood in which he possessed a semi-consciousness of his earlier life. ADM (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

In the first paragraph of the section on Etymology, it is explained that Psychopannychie means roughly wakeful soul, but then, it says that the German translation was Seelenschlaf, which means soulsleep. Isn't that really a translation of the theoretical opposite of soul wakefulness?

It seems like the general idea of this section is to explain how Calvin first popularized the semantics of sleep and wakefulness of the soul in his refutation of the bosom of Abraham type doctrines, and that in so doing, he coined an enduring name for the belief he was writing against. But I think right now it's a little muddled. --108.110.77.245 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is true, soul sleep would be psycho-hypnos in this kind of manufactured 16thC Greek, not psycho-pannychis (soul-vigil). So there's a line missing in the etymology paragraph which should explain that within his tract Psychopannychie Calvin describes Luther's view as "soul sleep" (Latin "somnus animae") or "the soul sleeps" (Latin: anima dormit) or something similar. I'll do a little digging and see if I can find a ref to fix it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:AuthorityTam ORIGINAL Soul sleep is a term, often pejorative, for the belief in mortality of the soul: that the soul dies and the dead sleep unconsciously between the death of the body and the resurrection on Judgment Day. Those who hold this belief do not usually use the term.

YOUR CHANGES Soul sleep is an often pejorative term for psychopannychism, the belief that the human soul is uncomprehending during the time between bodily death and Judgment Day resurrection. So-called "soul-sleepers" may not use the term. The term soul sleep has also been applied to thnetopsychism, although this latter belief is that the soul is literally dead rather than "asleep" or merely uncomprehending.
Sorry, but Undone.
Please read the article section on the word thnetopsychism carefully, including footnoted sources, before making changes. These are not "two beliefs" but simply two terms for the same belief psychopannychism being 18th-19th Century academic term for SoulSleep/ChristianMortalism, thnetopsychism being an academic term for the same thing introduced in the 1960s. Unless you can provide an academic source which compares and distinguishes psychopannychism and thnetopsychism and can verify that these are not two terms for the same thing. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that psychopannychism and thnetopsychism "are not "two beliefs" but simply two terms for the same belief" is literally jaw-droppingly wrong. Please consider:

  • Milton and the manuscript of De doctrina Christiana by Gordon Campbell, Thomas N. Corns, John K. Hale, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 0199296499, 9780199296491, page 117, "The belief that the soul dies with the body but is resurrected at the last judgement is known as thnetopsychism; the belief that the sould sleeps from the moment of death until the last judgement is known as psychopannychism"
  • Milton Studies, Volume 45 by Albert C. Labriola, Univ of Pittsburgh Press, 2005, ISBN 0822942674, 9780822942672, page 17, "Milton tends to espouse the variation of Mortalism known as Thnetopsychism, which holds that the body and soul die, though certain passages in De Doctrina Christiana seem to support the alternative type, Psychopannychism, which states that sould and body merely sleep until the Last Day."

The correct and verifiable information has been restored. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a forum with which an activist should advocate his preferred ideas, but an encyclopedic discussion of the subject. The article is certainly not the place for an editor to post the following: "PSYCHOPANNYCHIA - OR A REFUTATION OF THE ERROR ENTERTAINED BY SOME UNSKILLFUL PERSONS, WHO IGNORANTLY IMAGINE THAT IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN DEATH AND THE JUDGMENT THE SOUL SLEEPS." [emphasis retained].
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorityTam, it would help if you could take it down a notch please. As for the title it is in CAPS simply because that is how it appeared in the source, not for shouting or any implied agreement with Calvin. But quite happy to de-CAP it. As regards the etymology, I have now separated out the four varying terms so everyone can develop/reference them to their heart's content...:) But I've left your own <<The term soul sleep has also been applied to thnetopsychism, although this latter belief is that the soul is literally dead rather than "asleep" or merely uncomprehending.[1][2]>> untouched in the header.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cc Adi 8.38: ‘Chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana   If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee.   Cc Adi 8.40: Vrindavana-dasa-pade koti namaskara aiche grantha kari’ tenho tarila samsara   I offer millions of obeisances unto the lotus feet of Vrindavana dasa Thakura. No one else could write such a wonderful book for the deliverance of all fallen souls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.142.196 (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article title

[edit]

I propose this article be renamed "Christian mortalism". The leading paragraph states this is the preferred term, at least in modern academic literature.

I previously suggested a move from psychopannychism (sp?) to the present title, as that title was cumbersome and unfamiliar, and reliable sources question the accuracy of that traditional naming. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - I further propose that if the article is renamed to the academic term that content related to Calvin's tract Psychopannychia and subsequent English translation as "soul sleep" be moved to a separate paragraph entitled "Soul sleep" in quotation marks. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. I've been bold. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation section; Saint Paul

[edit]

Saint Paul merely says dead Christians will come out of the grave and rise into the air to meet the returning Jesus, coming down through the clouds. He doesn't say they all go to Heaven. The final judgment is meant to involve everyone, after which the unsaved go to punishment or anihilation, depending on your interpretation, and the saved share eternal life with Jesus in his Kingdom, which, the early Christians (and modern theologians who base themslves on the original views, like N T Wright) generally thought of as being on this Earth, or maybe a kind of merging together of Heaven and Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlando098 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags still necessary?

[edit]

The article was tagged for lack of references. I have now placed over 60 references in the article, as well as restructuring it. I don't think there's a single outstanding reference now, and would suggest that tag be removed. The article was also tagged for bias in the criticism section. I'm not sure if that section actually exists anymore, but we can work on that.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giant delete reversed

[edit]

St Anselm, I'm sorry this is too substantial a delete of referenced material to do without discussion this. For the time being restored. However the bullet lists could be paragraphed. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed all of my edits? Come off it! Did you read my edit summaries? There has been a massive misunderstanding as to what soul sleep actually is. It is not conditional immortality. It is not immortality of the soul. So I went to the source that was helpfully provided, and I found out who really was in favour of soul sleep - e.g. Ephrem the Syrian. StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's much more pruning to do - the "Modern scholarship" section is terrible. If the quotes are worth having, they should be in the article, not footnotes. But I'm very dubious that footnotes 55 to 66 add up to the claim that "the majority of standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources today describe the Biblical view of the state of the dead in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view". StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cited eleven of the standard scholarly Jewish and Christian reference sources. You're free to demonstrate that there's a majority of standard scholarly reference sources out there which disagrees with them. Note, scholarly standard reference sources (not evangelical or Catholic commentaries). I've cited eleven. What do you have?--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding evangelical or Catholic commentaries smacks of bias. What about Catholic scholars? But the point is, the footnotes do not demonstrate a majority at all. There is enough material there to present important currents in contemporary theology, but all the material in the footnotes is summarised in a rather dubious claim. Who's to say that these scholars are "very close" to the mortalist claim? Many of them would reject mortalism, I'm sure. Anyway, I'd suggest that the style employed here (several lengthy quotations backing up a single sentence) goes against WP:NOTES. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the people I deleted off the various lists because I wasn't sure of the source. I could have tagged every single entry, but I simply didn't think we needed a list of everyone in history who believed in soul sleep. We certainly don't have that in any other theological article as far as I know. Anyway, here is a random example: William Kenrick. The source (Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates, p. 141) says he was a "mortalist" and explains that as being "a believer that the soul expires at death". Now, this is not soul sleep. Soul sleep believes that the soul continues, but has unconscious existence. Kenrick seems to have believed in annihilationism. So, if that is the definition of mortalism, I wonder about the article's lead, and the Burns reference. Is he really equating mortalism with soul sleep? I don't have the reference, so I can't check it. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the introduction to the article, "The term soul sleep has also been applied to thnetopsychism", that is, "soul death", such as Kenrick believed in. Don't delete referenced material. If you're unsure of the source then discuss it here. We certainly don't have a list here of everyone in history who believed in soul sleep (that would be far lengthier), what we have here are those who are prominent, those referred to typically by standard reference sources. You'll note that I included Ephrem the Syrian.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you put in the statement about thnetopsychism? The reference is quoted as saying, "The belief that the soul dies with the body but is resurrected at the last judgment is known as thnetopsychism; the belief that the soul sleeps from the moment of death until the last judgment is known as psychopannychism." There is nothing there that equates thnetopsychism with soul sleep! The reference looks good - it distinguishes between annihilationism, thnetopsychism and soul sleep. That means, I think, we should have three separate articles. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not put in the statement about thnetopsychism. I haven't touched that section of the article. But the fact is that thnetopsychism is commonly associated with "soul sleep".--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to verify a source, just ask. I have access to all of them, and can provide direct quotations.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You've got some very good ones - is that your own library? The main one I'm after is Christian mortalism from Tyndale to Milton‎. I'd like a statement that equates mortalism with soul sleep - that is, with psychopannychism rather than just thnetopsychism. StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are my own sources. The terms are not always used consistently in the literature. Here's an example.

'However, there is a very important distinction to be made concerning the mortalists who believed in soul sleeping, and Burns puts it as follows: The psychopannychists believed that the immortal substance called soul literally slept until the resurrection of the body; the thnetopsychists, denying that the soul was an immortal substance, believed that the soul slept after the death only in a figurative sense. Both groups of soul sleepers believed in the personal immortality of the individual after the resurrection of the body, and so they should not be confused with the annihilationists.', Brandon, 'The coherence of Hobbes's Leviathan: civil and religious authority combined', pp. 65-66 (2007)

Brandon also writes 'Thus only the psychopannychists and the thnetopsychists actually believed in the immortality of the soul, and only the latter though that this immortality came soley through the grace of God. For the thnetopsychists the sleep of the soul is truly its non-existence between the death of the body and the resurrection.', ibid., p. 66; a distinction is made therefore between psychopannychism and thnetopscyhism, but both are still referred to by Brandon as a "sleep of the soul". Burns specifically identifies them as "both groups of soul sleepers". I'll try to help out more when I'm back later today.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds good, and it means I could live with thnetopsychism being part of this article - that is, a subset of the soul sleep belief. The real problem is whether soul sleep can be equated with conditional Christian mortalism. Not according to the above quote: the mortalists who believed in soul sleeping. That sounds like an overlap of two distinct groups of people. Are there mortalists who don't believe in soul sleep? The "soul sleep" terminology, though originally pejorative, is clear at least. "Christian mortalism" seems vaguer. StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>You reversed all of my edits? Come off it! Did you read my edit summaries?
St. Anselm. You deleted half the article. In any other article that would be picked up by a bot as vandalism. I hope when I look at the article in a second you won't have come back and deleted Luther etc again. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
St Anselm, Okay, so it appears that you did exactly what I just said I hoped I wouldn't find; You came back and deleted half the article again. I think doing that once is bad enough, but to do it again when it's been noticed, reverted and appealed on the talk page is unacceptable. In particular it seems bizarre to me to object on the grounds of too many refs. Be nice if other Wikipedia articles suffered from too many refs...
Also - on a point of wikietiquette there's no reason for "Come off it!" explanation marks etc. When vandalism/deletion on this scale is reversed. Do we have an undertaking from you that if the article text (eg Luther and refs) etc are restored again you won't delete again? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, I'd done several edits. I'd started with conditional immortality - that really has no place in the article. And then I realised that lots of the footnotes were based on that identification. And so I went from there. It was really only my edit labelled "Massive prune" that could be described as bold. StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the footnotes refer to either psychopannychism or thnetopsychism. I know, because I put them in. I can provide direct quotations if you like. I deliberately omitted "sacramental immortality" and other forms of conditionalism which did not involve either psychopannychism or thnetopsychism. I would like to see them restored.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Luther section was clearly a POV problem. Two quotes from Luther's Latin works have occasionally been misread in English translation to contradict or qualify specific statements, and Luther's overall teaching. Then we have a quote, that presumably has been misread by certain people, with a footnote that claims it has been cited incorrectly by Schewe. Without having read Fritschel (put up your hand if you have), I think questions of translation are going to be in WP:OR territory. I'd be OK with the Luther quote from Ecclesiastes being included, but if there's that sort of dispute about what Luther said, let alone meant, we probably should leave it out. StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
St. Anselm, with respect and with the best will in the world I cannot really see the point of discussing details while you are simply repeatedly deleting such a large part of the article. In this specific case you could simply note "English language ref needed" if German and Latin are not sufficient. But first --- please restore your deletions. Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hate to ask this, but I will. Which references deserve to go back in? StAnselm (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the scale of the deletion could you please just restore everything. Including material with Latin and German references. Then others (not necessarily me - but those specific Latin/German refs were mine) can look at individual ref issues on a case by case basis. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And do you see what the problem was? Do you see that "they confirm that for Luther the sleep of the dead was unconscious" is not a neutral statement, but only Fritschel's opinion? Do you see that "This has been incorrectly annotated by Schewe" is your opinion and thus has no place here? StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the issue here, that there are insufficient references to demonstrate Luther believed in soul sleep? It's well recognized that he did at one point, though he later changed his mind.
  • "‘The belief that the soul goes to sleep at the death of the body to await eventual resurrection was held by both Martin Luther and William Tyndale", Watts, "The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution", p. 119 (1985)
  • "Luther's more characteristic view, however, was to conceive of death as sleep — as a kind of "soul sleep" (Letter to Hans Luther, in LW 49:270). The Reformer tried to take into account those New Testament texts suggesting that the dead have an active life with God (Luke 16:22ff.; Rev. 4-5); consequently, he claimed that in the sleep of death the soul experiences visions and the discourses of God. It sleeps in the bosom of Christ, as a mother brings an infant into a crib. The time flies in this sleep, just as an evening passes in an instant as we sleep soundly (Lectures on Genesis, in LW 4:313)."", Ellingsen, "Reclaiming Our Roots: Martin Luther to Martin Luther King", p. 64 (1999).
  • "A second idea, which we find in Luther and in modern Catholic theology, is the doctrine of the soul's sleep or resurrection at death. Luther conceived the state of the dead as a deep, dreamless sleep, removed from time and space, without consciousness and without feeling.", Polkinghorne & Welker, "The end of the world and the ends of God: science and theology on eschatology", p. 348 (2000).
  • "In church history, adherents of soul-sleep have included orthodox believers such as Martin Luther (at one stage in his life) and many Anabaptists, and heretical groups such as Jehovah Witnesses.", Hindson, et al, "The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence", p. 166 (2008).
  • "Tyndale, Wycliffe and Luther all wrote to support the idea of soul sleep, although Luther changed his mind slightly later.", Gbenu, "Back to Hell", p. 118 (2003).--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
St. Anselm, I'm very sorry but as above I do not have time to discuss what is approximately 3% of what you deleted (the Latin/German references to Luther) at this minute. Please (a) restore the large part of the article which you have twice deleted, then (b) please open a new subject heading here on the talk page regarding your specific concern with the Latin/German references provided, and I'll do my best to get to it next weekend. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Delete still missing

[edit]

St. Anselm, well whether it is a "massive prune" (your words) or "vandalism" (what it would be if someone did that to referenced material on any other article) the state of the article after your repeated Giant Delete is this. I don't see anything in the above that provides any justification for repeated deletion of referenced data on this scale --- and, paying more attention, I'm not convinced that the repeated deletions aren't selective - i.e. deleting those who hold the view of the article title such as Luther, while retaining Calvin. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looked like at a brief glance... Anyway. Please restore from where you deleted half the article again i.e. please restore your deletes - deleted text and deleted refs, and then "discuss", "edit", here. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I now note that you even deleted William Tyndale and John Milton. Please restore text and references you have deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tyndale is still there. Milton deserves a paragraph, since there has been scholarly discussion about his view, but the cited quote ("in death, first, the whole man, and secondly, each component part, suffers privation of life") didn't seem to prove anything. We will need secondary sources at this point. So I think part of the issue here is the place of references. My position is that if they are irrelevant, they should be deleted. So the fact that I deleted a lot of references doesn't make it anything like vandalism. As for selectivity, I'd only done about half the pruning that I thought the article needed. I wasn't happy with the Calvin material, either. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant Wycliffe. I think this illustrates that your repeated deletions are so large that other users are no longer in a position to discuss individual refs. Please restore all the deleted content and then please procede on a case by case basis with those interested in discussing specific refs. Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to discuss every single case here, but the examples raised are very good ones for discussing the issue at hand. Take Wycliffe - I don't have a copy of the reference (Morey) but the reference was supporting him being a mortalist, and while he may have believed in soul sleep, mortalism is not the same thing. This, coupled with the fact that we don't need to list every single adherent, made me think that it was better to remove him. Hence my above question of which references are worth including. And you seem to be saying, "all of them". StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's look at Morey:
  • ‘During the pre-Reformation period, there seems to be some indication that both Wycliffe and Tyndale taught the doctrine of soul sleep as the answer to the Catholic teachings of purgatory and masses for the dead.’, Morey, ‘Death and the Afterlife’, p. 200 (1984)
I see "soul sleep" there. How many more references do you want for Wycliffe? I can provide a few. And yes, mortalism encompasses both psychopannychism and thnetopsychism; it's the neutral academic term. And yes, I want them all in. If I find them used as examples of psychopannychism and thnetopsychism in the relevant scholarly literature, then they're WP:NOTE and deserve due WP:WEIGHT.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I really want for Wycliffe is a primary source, as we have for Tyndale. Morey says "some indication" - I wouldn't want the article to say anything stronger than that. Anyway, I'm putting the Morey quote in. StAnselm (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the comments made in the edit boxes when St. Anselm deleted the now-missing paragraphs on soul-sleepers, the comment made was that there were "too many refs" OWTTE. I can't speak for all those missing refs, but I recognise several of the author names - and they appear to largely be familiar as notable academic historians of English religion during the 16th-18th Centuries, which is what I'd have thought is exactly what an article like this needs? What other references would anyone expect to see other than academic historians of English religion during the 16th-18th Centuries on an article on a belief mainly current in English religion during the 16th-18th Centuries?
The more I look at it, the more it just looks like vandalism. Sorry. But anyway. I can't waste more time on this. Please St. Anselm put all the academic references back.In ictu oculi (talk)

Please restore the article, then discuss/challenge specific refs

[edit]

This is getting to the point where common sense should intervene. A repeated deletion of referenced material on this scale after a request for talk has been made is not good Wikipedia practice. And there is no purpose in discussing 2% here or 3% there of what has been deleted before a deletion of this scale is undone. Whether deletion of referenced material on this scale is vandalism or "massive prune", it needs to be undone before getting dragged into details. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anselm, I have to leave the keyboard, but I've just noticed just now one ref, i.e. 1%?, of the dozens of refs deleted restored with the tag line "started to restore references". This isn't how restoring a double deletion of this scale works. It may take you weeks or months to chase up all the text and academic references in the article you deleted and the rest of Wikipedia users shouldn't have to wait for you to go studying sources which you are unfamiliar with. Therefore please restore first your giant deletions, and then go do your reading. This is what everyone else does. Thank you in advance.In ictu oculi (talk)

It seems St.Anselm is not going to repair the deletions, so have restored (I think) about 80% of what was deleted. Some of it is interwoven with other comment so difficult to restore. In particular

(a) Correct information and source texts of Luther restored. ---- I note that even after Ellingsen (who is not an academic)'s misquote he then goes on to say "Luther's more characteristic view, however, was to conceive of death as sleep — as a kind of "soul sleep" (Letter to Hans Luther, in LW 49:270)"... how did that fall out of the reference?

(b) Referenced name Section undeleted: Seventeenth to eighteenth centuries Soul sleep was a significant minority view from the eighth to the seventeenth centuries,[77] and soul death became increasingly common from the Reformation onwards.[78] Those holding this view include: 1600s: Sussex Baptists[79] d. 1612: Edward Wightman[80] 1627: Samuel Gardner[81] 1628: Samuel Przypkowski[82] 1636: George Wither[83] 1637: Joachim Stegmann[84] 1624: Richard Overton[85] 1654: John Biddle (Unitarian)[86] 1655: Matthew Caffyn[87] 1658: Samuel Richardson[88] 1608-1674: John Milton[89][90] 1588-1670: Thomas Hobbes[91] 1605-1682: Thomas Browne[92] 1622-1705: Henry Layton[93] 1702: William Coward[94] 1632-1704: John Locke[95] 1643-1727: Isaac Newton[96] 1676-1748: Pietro Giannone[97] 1751: William Kenrick[98] 1755: Edmund Law[99] 1759: Samuel Bourn[100] 1723-1791: Richard Price[101] 1718-1797: Peter Peckard[102] 1733-1804: Joseph Priestley[103] 1765: Francis Blackburne[104]

(c) have tried to restore other bits, but because am more familiar with 16th-19thC have concentrated on that. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have all the information on file, so I can restore anything which is missing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thnetopsychism/psychopannychism

[edit]

Are these really different? or just some 19th Century writers using different words and then inferring backwards from the etymology they themselves? Can any original/historical source identify a discussion (say between two 17th Century mortalists) where one can be identified as a thnetopsychist and one a psychopannychist? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the terms really are different. This is a rather fundamental point. Despite how the terms may have originated, they now have accepted definitions we cannot ignore. Whereas thnetopsychism holds that the soul literally dies when the body dies, psychopannychism holds that the soul merely sleeps in unconsciousness when the body dies. Thus, psychopannychists can be said to believe in the immortality of the soul (or "conditional immortality" of the soul); by contrast, thnetopsychists cannot be said to believe in the immortality (or "conditional immortality") of the soul. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to look up "conditional immortality". It means that the conscious immortal life of the individual is perpetuated only on a specific condition. This is held by both thnetopsychism and psychopannychism. Of course thnetopychists do not believe in the immortality of the soul; by definition they believe in the conditional immortality of the soul.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'd disagree that conditional immortality follows "by definition" from thnetopychism.
The theological term Conditional immortality typically holds that, depending on its conditions, every soul is granted one of two eventualities:
* 1. Annihilation; or 2. Immortality.
But thnetopychism's insistence on mortality doesn't necessarily address immortality at all. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses (who do not use the term but have thnetopsychic beliefs) teach that the vast majority of the faithful do not receive immortality. Of course, my earlier post did not include any of that detail and needlessly mischaracterized the matter. I have now done a strikethrough to remove what rightly seems to be a mistake.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thnetopsychism insists that the soul is not naturally immortal. The corollary is that it can only be immortal under a specific condition. Conditional immortality says the same, that the soul is not naturally immortal, and can only be immortal under a specific condition. There's no need to complicate this. I did not say that thnetopsychism addresses immortality. On the contrary, like conditional immortality it addresses mortality, specifically the mortality of the soul. As I said, it means the conscious immortal life of the individual is perpetuated only on a specific condition. Your claim that thnetopsychists cannot be said to believe in the conditional immortality of the soul is curious given that the overwhelming number of Christian thnetopychists believed exactly that, conditional immortality.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the beliefs are related, but I do not agree with the assertion "thnetopsychists...by definition they believe in the conditional immortality of the soul".
The definition of thnetopsychism involves mortality.
The definition of thnetopsychism doesn't mention immortality at all, much less the specific theological concept known as conditional immortality.
It's beyond obvious that thnetopsychists (many? most?) can and do believe in the doctrine of "conditional immortality"; it should be obvious that their belief does not necessarily (or by definition) follow from their thnetopsychism (their belief that departeds' souls are dead until the "last day").
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the link you provided I can't find any statements that the JWs say that the vast majority of the faithful do not receive immortality.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't provided any link, but will do so in a separate thread at Talk:Soul sleep#JW who receive immortality. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Tam, they now have accepted definitions - that's the problem, have they? See Gordon Campbell Milton and the manuscript of De doctrina Christiana 2007 p 118 "Maurice Kelley thought that Milton was a thnetopsychist (Yale, VI, 91–8), and Christopher Hill described him as a psychopannychist (Hill, 1977, 317–23). Both may be right, in that the latter term embraced both views (Williams, 1962,.." This is not Milton believed (X) Locke believed (Y), this is Maurice Kelley called Milton's belief (X) Christopher Hill called Milton's belief (Y). i.e. synonyms not antonyms. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the terms do have well-established definitions. The terms psychopannychism and thnetopsychism are certainly NOT synonyms.
  • "The view that Souls sleep in Hades, or the Middle State. This is known as "Psychopannychism" (from "soul-all-night")... "Thnetopsychism", i.e., the soul not only "sleeps", but is dead throughout the interval between death and the last Judgment." – "Speculative Views on the Middle State", The Church, and the Future Life by David Van-Horne, 2007, page 191
Just because they are not synonyms doesn't mean they are antonyms. The umbrella topic "Soul sleep" can discuss both psychopannychism and thnetopsychism as subsets under one umbrella because both subsets believe the soul to be inanimate (metaphorically "sleeping") during the interval between bodily death and "last day" Judgment. The two subset's differ in their specific understanding of the "sleep" metaphor. The Bible's "sleep" metaphor is interpreted completely differently by the two contrasting subsets.
  • 1. Psychopannychism considers "sleep" a metaphor for temporary uncomprehension ("unconscious");
  • 2. Thnetopsychism considers "sleep" a metaphor for temporary nonexistence ("dead").
The subsets are concerned with the detail of the metaphor guaranteeing either (1.) wakeful resuscitation or (2.) wakeful resurrection. One mistake is in minimizing the theological implications of whether the soul can literally die; both psychopannychists and thnetopsychists believe their own understanding to be the one most consistent with the entirety of Christian belief. Many psychopannychists would be horrified at the notion that souls typically die. Many thnetopsychists consider resurrection from death (not mere resuscitation from unconsciousness) to be a central point of faith in God and Christ.
Another misunderstanding occurs when a writer mistakenly labels the entire concept of "Soul sleep" with the name of one of its subsets. So, a person who thinks all of "Soul sleep" is called "psychopannychism" would mistakenly consider thnetopsychism to be a subset of psychopannychism. As noted, that would be a mistaken conclusion from a mistaken premise. Sadly, certain theological writings did not sufficiently disambiguate the two subsets (for example, it is easy to infer the mistaken premise from Robert Verrell Foster's 19th century reference "Systematic Theology", which says,
  • "The Doctrine of the Soul-Sleepers (Psychopannychism). According to this the soul, in the interim between death and the resurrection, is neither in heaven nor hell; it is in a state of totally unconscious sleep, or semi-conscious, or in a state of actual soul-death (Thnetopsychism).").
The only supposition that allows thnetopsychism to be a subset of psychopannychism is if "death" is imagined to be a subset of "unconsciousness"! For the vast majority of purposes, that unnecessary and misguided supposition leads to vastly more issues than it resolves for both psychopannychists and thnetopsychists.
Both "dead" and "unconscious" may be antonyms of "animated", but the terms "dead" and "unconscious" are certainly not synonyms.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone claiming that thnetopsychism is a subset of psychopannychism. I don't see the problem with the scholarly reference sources which are already used in the article. What is your objection to them?--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first post in this thread asks, "Are [thnetopsychism/psychopannychism] really different?", implying that they are not different. I believe the overwhelming verifiable evidence is that thnetopsychism and psychopannychism are different, and have tried to explain why in response to that question. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Authority Tam, Rev. David Van-Horne was a Calvinist minister born in 1837 and his book was written in 1904 not 2007 (watch out for wrong publication data when using Google Books). The only source he cites is Calvin's Psychopannychia for the (inverted) post-Calvin term of "psychopannychism", and no source at all for "thnetopsychism" other than "psychopannychism ... resembles the view called thnetopsychism", which it would do, since in other words it is a synonym. One term is the term misread from Calvin's boolet, the other term is a later term which Rev. David Van-Horne relates to OT quotes. This is exactly the sort of 19th Century source which begs the question - is there any difference? If a difference is verifiable it should be possible to verify it. Again can you please give a specific concrete example of a difference from a modern academic source: Specific examples of one 17th Century writer who taught A, and another who taught B? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is simple and uncomplicated.
The larger topic of Soul sleep includes at least two subsets: psychopannychism and thnetopsychism.
The only way "thnetopsychism" could be synonymous with "psychopannychism" is if "dead" is synonymous with "unconscious".
It isn't. The fact that the two ideas are understood to be distinct is easily verifiable...
  • John Milton: life, work, and thought by Gordon Campbell, Thomas N. Corns, Oxford University Press, 2008, page 275, "One type of response to this gap ["between the death of the body and the last judgement"] was the set of doctrines known collectively as mortalism. The three variants were psychopannychism (in which the soul is deemed to sleep through the temporal gap), thnetopsychism (in which the soul dies with the body but is resurrected at the last judgement), and annihilationism (in which the soul permanently ceases to exist)."
Thus, thnetopsychism and psychopannychism really are different. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Authority Tam, "dead" is synonymous with "unconscious" isn't it? Yes Gordon Campbell 2008 p275 says they are different, which is a source/ref for saying some writers say the words are different, but there is no source in Campbell, no historical example, and no relation to any writing of Milton. I ask again: where is there any documented distinction in history between e.g. "Milton thought A, Locke thought B?" We have historians of belief saying the two terms are confused, so where is a real example? OIn ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that De Doctrina Christiana (Milton) and Paradise Lost speak of the dead rising from "sleep".In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, "dead" is not synonymous with "unconscious".
The scholarly conclusions of Campbell & Corns are quoted and verifiable, regardless of Milton.
Several works by others wre quoted by others before me. This imagined synonymity is becoming increasingly tedious...
Please, which verifiable work explicitly states that psychopannychism and thnetopsychism are synonymous?
For contrast, see below at #Refs distinguishing subsets.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs distinguishing subsets

[edit]

Even more verifiable works which distinguish between psychopannychism and thnetopsychism:

  • Socinianism and Arminianism by Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls, Brill, 2005, page 263-264, "Since Newton's manuscripts only occasionally discuss the intermediate state between death and resurrection, it is difficult to ascertain whether he adhered to mortalism of the psychopannychist (soul sleep) or thnetopsychist (soul death, with eternal life given at the resurrection) variety."
  • "Matter of glorious trial" by N. K. Sugimura, Yale University Press, 2009, page 143, "The emergent distinction is that while the psychopannychists believe the metaphor of soul-sleep is literally true, the thnetopsychists claim on the contrary that a metaphor, or figure of speech, is devoid of further meaning. ...The phrase "the soul sleeps" is straightforwardly understood to mean "the soul dies.""
  • Sir Thomas Browne: the world proposed by Reid Barbour & Claire Preston, Oxford University Press US, 2008, page 157, "In fact, during the Reformation both psychosomnolence—the belief that the soul sleeps until the resurrection—and thnetopsychism—the belief that the body and soul both die and then both rise again—were quite common"
  • The coherence of Hobbes's Leviathan by Eric Brandon, page 66, "Thus only the psychopannychists and the thnetopsychists actually believed in the immortality of the soul, and the latter thought that this immortality came solely through the grace of God. For the thnetopsychists the sleep of the soul is truly its non-existence between the death of the body and the resurrection."
  • Christian mortalism from Tyndale to Milton by Norman T. Burns, Harvard University Press, 1972, page 18, "The psychopannychists believed that the immortal substance called soul literally slept until the resurrection of the body; the thnetopsychists, denying that the soul was an immortal substance, believed that the soul slept after the death only in a figurative sense. Both groups of soul sleepers believed in the personal immortality of the individual after the resurrection of the body, and so they should not be confused with the [strict] annihilationists."

These and other works plainly show that psychopannychism and thnetopsychism are not precisely synonymous, but instead have a significant difference with significant theology repercussions. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well certainly again there are sources for the words psychopannychism and thnetopsychism being different, what is lacking is any examples. Doesn't it strike you as odd that none of these sources is able to clearly say "Milton was A, Locke was B" etc.? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, for some works do attach unequivocal labels of psychopannychist and thnetopsychist to historical theologians.
  • A companion to Milton by Thomas N. Corns, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, page 142, "Milton was also a thnetopsychist"
  • The life of John Milton by A. N. Wilson, Oxford University Press, 1983, page 195, "Milton was a thnetopsychist: he thought the soul died with the body, and that both together would be reconstituted on Judgement Day."
  • 'Brainomania': Brain, Mind and Soul in the Long Eighteenth Century by G. Rousseau, Wiley, 2007, "Priestly was a thnetopsychist rather than psychopannychist"
  • The Classical Tradition by Anthony Grafton, Glenn W. Most, Salvatore Settis, Harvard University Press, 2010, page 481, "John Locke, influenced possibly by the German Socinian Ernst Soner, believed in psychopannychism. Thomas Hobbes professed thnetopsychism"
Anyway, In ictu oculi's new objection is beside the point of this thread. The overwhelming verifiable evidence is that psychopannychism and thnetopsychism are not synonymous concepts. An editor seeking to generate another round of seemingly pointless contention on an imagined supposition may wish to start a new thread.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JW who receive immortality

[edit]

An editor in another thread asked for references showing that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only a minority of the faithful receive immortality.

  • The Watchtower, October 1, 2006: "Spirit-anointed Christians chosen to rule as kings in heavenly glory receive the same kind of resurrection that Jesus did. (Romans 6:5) The apostle John shows that this privilege is granted to 144,000 individuals. (Revelation 14:1) They too receive immortality. ...God’s provisions through Jesus Christ for restoring mankind to the perfect condition that existed originally [will] give eternal life on earth to obedient mankind"online
  • The Watchtower, November 15, 2003: After Adam sinned, Jehovah purposed to set up a heavenly Kingdom in which some of Adam's descendants...were to be resurrected to immortal life in heaven. Their final number is 144,000, and the first ones among them were Jesus' faithful first-century disciples.online
  • The Watchtower, March 15, 2006: "According to the Scriptures, the vast majority of the dead will be brought back to life on earth. (Psalm 37:29; Matthew 6:10)"online

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those statements say that the vast majority of the faithful will not receive immortality. On the contrary, see here ("those who died faithful to God are included in the 'other sheep' and will receive the "resurrection of the righteous" ("just" KJV) mentioned in Acts 24:15", "They will be given the opportunity to join Jesus' 'other sheep' and live forever on a paradise earth", --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to the size and significance of Jehovah's Witnesses as a discrete movement in the 20th Century, I'd be concerned if taking their unique views as a reference point were to mean wagging the dog in the whole article where more mainstream mortalists in the German-English tradition such as Luther, Tyndale, Milton, and Locke should be more relevant. Beyond that I can't see anything in the above to prove that the "minority of the faithful receive immortality". I'm hardly an expert on Watchtower beliefs but just reading the above quotes they seem to say the exact opposite - that both groups of "faithful" receive immortality - 144,000 in heaven, the rest on earth. The meaning of "They too" would be what it says "they too". In ictu oculi (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of JW beliefs is correct. I have a number of friends who are JWs or ex-JWs, and I have read their works extensively. They believe that both groups of the faithful receive immortality; one group in heaven, the other group on earth. They certainly do not believe that the majority of the faithful do not receive immortality.--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, JWs do not teach that those resurrected to eternal life on earth receive immortality.
  • "The Mystery Solved!", Awake!, ©Watch Tower, July 8, 1988, page 8, "Nowhere in the Bible do we read of an “immortal soul.” The two words are never linked. The words “immortal” and “immortality” occur only six times, all in the writings of the apostle Paul. When applying to humans, immortality is described as a prize to be given only to the 144,000, who are redeemed from the earth to reign with Christ Jesus in heaven."[italics added]
  • "Letters", The Watchtower, January 15, 1950, page 32, "The Watchtower maintains its position that immortality will not be bestowed upon faithful men and women on earth in the new world, but only everlasting life for their loyalty and unbreakable devotion will be given them as a reward. They will always be fleshly mortals. Only the faithful church [of 144,000] taken from among men will be immortal with their Head and Savior Jesus Christ, who is in heaven."[italics added]
This thread was concerned only with what JWs believe, which is why it was separated from the other thread. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry, I'm still not seeing that statement "the majority of the faithful do not receive immortality". I understand that they make an idiosyncratic differentiation between immortality ("living forever without a body"), and eternal life ("living forever with a body"), but the end result is the same; people living forever. Their idiosyncratic distinction isn't relevant here. They believe in conditional immortality for the faithful; in standard English "immortality" does not mean "living forever without a body". We're using standard English in this article, not JW-speak.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, JWs do not believe immortality hinges on whether a being's body is spirit or flesh; see #JW issue NOT ethereal v corporeal. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address what I wrote. I don't care if they think that immortality hinges on whether a being's body is spirit or flesh. In standard English "immortality" does not mean "living forever without a body". We're using standard English in this article, not JW-speak.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, Taiwan boi refused to concede that JWs believe only a fraction of the faithful receive immortality (see 2010-12-17). Much of this thread and the next explains why living a really long time is different from immortality. It is not necessary for editors to become familiar with JW theology, but it is necessary that editors not misrepresent others' beliefs in articles.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- Mystery solved - which wasn't clear in the article page/refs as is: Jehovah's Witnesses distinguish between "immortality" (without a physical body) and "eternal life" while still mortal. Presumably the distinction being that God can still terminate those on earth (why/when?), but not those 144,000 in heaven? .... Can someone word that [briefly] into their paragraph.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to do that myself, which see In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, JWs teach that only 144,001 gain immortality and that other angels are not immortal.
  • "You Can Live Forever", The Watchtower, October 1, 2006, page 6, "Despite their spirit nature, not even angels were created immortal. This is shown by the fact that those spirit creatures who joined Satan’s rebellion will be executed. (Matthew 25:41) Jesus’ corulers, on the other hand, receive the gift of immortality, which is proof of Jehovah’s unshakable confidence in their faithfulness."online
  • "Life", Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, ©1988 Watch Tower, page 248, "Angels are spirit creatures, but they are not immortal, for those who become wicked demons will be destroyed.—Mt 25:41; Lu 4:33, 34; Re 20:10, 14"
  • "Body", Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1, ©1988 Watch Tower, page 348, "They [the 144,000] will, therefore, receive [spirit] bodies that are incorruptible, having immortality, as distinguished from angels in general and from mankind, who are mortal.—1Co 15:53; 1Ti 1:17; 6:16; Mr 1:23, 24; Heb 2:14.
JWs consider that mortal creatures in heaven and on earth must require regular "provisions" from God for continued healthy life. Immortal beings don't need that, they suppose.
  • "Incorruption", Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1, ©1988 Watch Tower, page 1198, "It therefore appears that God grants them the power to be self-sustaining, not dependent upon outside sources of energy as are his other creatures, fleshly and spirit. This is a stirring evidence of God’s confidence in them."
I haven't yet looked at what has been written on the matter in this article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well certainly very interesting, though not surprising given the 1918 "resurrection", presumably it's one of those doctrines that distinguishes the Bible Student movement from JWs. Prior to 1914 they wouldn't have had any need to distinguish "immortality" (=living forever without a body), and "eternal life" (= living forever with a body). This interpretation is so unique it really doesn't need to be more than mentioned here and then linked to the relevant article on specific JW beliefs. For the purposes of this article it should be sufficient to note then that it isn't totally correct to say that JWs believe in mortalism - since the 144,000 belong in the heaven-going camp. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, JWs do not believe immortality hinges on whether a being's body is spirit or flesh; see #JW issue NOT ethereal v corporeal. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JW issue NOT ethereal v corporeal

[edit]

Certain editors have imagined that Jehovah's Witnesses believe immortality hinges on whether a being's body is spirit or flesh; JWs don't actually believe that. JWs believe the Bible to teach that immortality is a gift given specifically by God to specific individuals totalling 144,001 (the "1" is Jesus), each of whom then has an unending energy source within himself. Aside from immortals, JWs believe the Bible to imply that all other intelligent creatures can and will die unless they receive regular 'energy boosts' from God. Thus, JWs believe a person who lives 800 or 900 years is still mortal; JWs believe a person is not immortal just because his death isn't imminent. JWs believe mere separation from God eventually results in death, whether or not any particular sin was committed by the angel or human.
So, the editors' oversimplifications about immortality might be enough to satisfy themselves, but Wikipedia will not insist on propagating untrue ideas about JWs beliefs on immortality. Editors should be more interested in a quality encyclopedic article.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means update the relevant article on JWs Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation if it needs it. I don't think anyone intends to be "propagating untrue ideas about JWs beliefs on immortality", this is a talk page, we're talking. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is propagating false ideas about the JWs. Being encyclopedic means we don't make this article conform to fringe definitions. The JW definition of "immortal" will not be used here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity has long entertained many and significant theological differences about exactly what immortality entails, and many (most?) of those differences precede Jehovah's Witnesses. Editors should simply know that it would be inaccurate to characterize JWs as believing that those who live forever on earth are immortal. See Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another ref deleted, why?

[edit]

St Anselm - re your deletion of Ellingsen ref which you yourself provided. Your comment to the deletion is "→Ninth to sixteenth centuries: It is not for us to say that Ellingsen or Schewe are misquoting! Better to remove the quotes altogether) (undo)". It may not be for you (with or without exclamation mark "!") to say that Mark Ellingsen is misquoting if you have cannot read the source given in the article from In primum librum Mose enarrationes. However for anyone who can read the ref it is for them to say that Ellingsen is misquoting Luther. If you want to challenge/delete this please first go to your local library, consult an English translation of Luthers Werke and then compare it with the quotation from the author of When Did Jesus Become Republican?. In the meantime your ref from Ellingsen is a perfect example of exactly what professor Fritschel was talking about in 1867. Please restore your ref. deletion.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally since making the above comment I found an English translation of In primum librum Mose enarrationes (Henry Eyster Jacobs' English translation from 1898) and it follows the Latin accurately. If an 1898 version is accurate one assumes that the 1957 Fortress/Logos version is accurate too. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible suggested merge from Christian conditionalism

[edit]

Before making a formal merger proposal.... Currently there is almost no content on Christian conditionalism which is not duplicated on Christian mortalism. There is also no documented distinction of how/when/if Christian conditionalism and Christian mortalism are distinct (i.e. a group holds one but not the other). The Christian Hope p116 Brian Hebblethwaite - 2010 (The Reverend Canon Brian Leslie Hebblethwaite, philosophical theologian, was born in Bristol, England, on 3 January 1939) says "Conditionalism is the view that human beings, although created mortal, acquire the capacity to receive immortal life,". Soul sleep/Mortalism also believes that - at the resurrection. In what way does any group distinguish the endowment of immortality at any other point than that envisaged by Luther and Tyndale? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be a good idea so long as redirects are kept. Allenroyboy (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of terms regarding the intermediate state

[edit]

We have a lot of definitions kicking around here, and I thought it might be good to draw up a table comparing them. I've used "saved"/"unsaved" terminology, which isn't ideal, but I trust things are clear. This table isn't necessarily for inclusion in the article, but to see if we agree on the fine distinctions between all the words. So - is it accurate?

Saved
Before Judgement Day		 Unsaved
Before Judgement Day		 Saved
After Judgement Day		 Unsaved
After Judgement Day
Annihilationism Conscious existence,
Unconscious existence or
Non-existence		 Unconscious existence or
Non-existence		 Conscious existence Non-existence
Conditional immortality Conscious existence or
Unconscious existence		 Unconscious existence or
Non-existence		 Conscious existence Non-existence
Christian mortalism Unconscious existence or
Non-existence		 Unconscious existence or
Non-existence		 Conscious existence Conscious existence or
Non-existence
Soul sleep Unconscious existence Unconscious existence or
Non-existence		 Conscious existence Conscious existence or
Non-existence
Psychopannychism Unconscious existence Unconscious existence Conscious existence Conscious existence or
Non-existence
Thnetopsychism Non-existence Non-existence Conscious existence Conscious existence or
Non-existence

StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC) St. Anselm Thank you for coming to talk.[reply]

The table is an interesting exercise in mapping out possible theoretical combinations as you see it, and as such might be useful. But from the point of view of a historical article you'd have to allocate real historical figures/movements to each box to show historical reality. And some of those positions are inherently contradictory.

1. However as it is all I see from comparing 16th-20th C sources from various standpoints is different people using different terms. All the below could be used of Milton, Newton, Locke, Hobbes:

who uses it
Annihilationism word putting the emphasis that most forms of mortalism don't include a universal resurrection
Conditional immortality word used by Seventh Day Adventists (Froom)
Christian mortalism word used by scholars of Milton (Burns)
Soul sleep word used by Calvin himself in the subtitle: "le sommeil de l'âme"
Psychopannychism word used by writers who misread the Graeco-Latin pretitle of Calvin's booklet
Thnetopsychism word used by writers who realised that pan-nychis means Calvin's own view

Annihilationism however clearly does have a separate axis in that (per article) there are sourced historical identification of Anglicans and Lutherans who have taught that souls are conscious in the intermediate state, but agree with Luther of a Last Day annihilation. But the other 5 terms.... even Milton scholars cannot allocate Milton to one or another.

2. Also I do not think "Unconscious existence or Non-existence" can be distinguished. "Existence" is in Luther's work a function of language - he speaks of Abraham "living to God" which to Luther was an adoption of metaphysical Johannine language, but it doesn't mean that Luther has a line between "Unconscious existence or Non-existence" as if "existence with no mind and no body" is materially different from "non-existence." Here for example Irmgard Wilhelm-Schaffer Gottes Beamter und Spielmann des Teufels Der Tod in Spätmittelalter (1999) states "Aufgrund biblischer Aussagen räumt Luther die Existenz einiger weniger Ausnahmen vom Seelenschlaf ein. Es handelt sich dabei um Personen wie Moses und Elias, die Jesus erschienen waren; grundsätzlich kommt der Schlaf als Zwischenzustand ..." "Unconscious existence or Non-existence" is semantics and can be discussed in a paragraph on semantics, who uses what word. But unless we can source "Luther taught Unconscious existence but Nicholas Amsdorf taught Non-existence" (sic), then semantics isn't historical concrete reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existence v nonexistence

[edit]

Incidentally, American English generally dispenses with the hyphen ("-") between non and the term being dichotomized.
Just as "unconscious" and "dead" are not synonyms, so too, "existence" and "nonexistence" are not synonyms. It seems quite simple to distinguish between "existence" and "nonexistence", since one exists and the other does not.
That is why (perhaps the only reason why) the term "soul sleep" was mildly useful: as an umbrella term for both psychopannychism and thnetopsychism. I had used Christian mortalism as nearly synonymous with soul sleep, but if that is incorrect than my move should be reverted.
Oh, and it should perhaps be clarified that thnetopsychists generally hold that a thing which exists only in thought or memory doesn't literally "exist" but can be brought into literal existence divinely (compare Proverbs 10:7 and Romans 4:17)--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Authority Tam. No, I personally don't see that your move needs to be reverted, on the contrary I support it, it takes the article from what was even in Calvin's day a loaded term to the current academic term. Re above, perhaps, but Bible verses are not sources. No, I agree "unconscious" and "dead" are not synonyms, but again the actual article text needs to be anchored in real historical primary sources, and not semantics among 18th/19th/20thC commentators all describing the same thing with different words. ...Or indeed semantics derived from sources such as John of Damascus (denouncing the views of Arab Christians as believers in "soul-death), or Eustratios of Constantinople denouncing "hypnopsychism", etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More giant ref deletion

[edit]

St. Anselm, I see you are back, with more wholesale deletions of footnote references from the article, despite repeatedly having been asked not to go deleting footnote references. These aren't generally refs/sources I've put in by the way, but I was the previous edit so I won't undo - yet. I see your reason given for this (not here where discussion has been, but on the history view) "Modern scholarship: pruning the quote farm - there was some awful copy-and-pasting here, probably in violation of copyright" .... Question: How would footnotes be in breach of copyright? For example (picked at random, I don't have time to look in detail at what you've done), why have you deleted this:

The idea of a distinction between the soul, the immaterial principle of life and intelligence, and the body is of great antiquity, though only gradually expressed with any precision. Hebrew thought made little of this distinction, and there is practically no specific teaching on the subject in the Bible beyond an underlying assumption of some form of afterlife (see immortality)., Cross & Livingstone, (eds.), ‘The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’, p. 153

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give is a good example of one that needs to be deleted, or at least pruned - the "(see immortality)" is a clear copy-and-paste from an encyclopedia, and has no place in Wikipedia. But the biggest problem is the claim the article currently makes: "A scholarly consensus has been reached that the canonical teaching of the Old Testament is unconsciousness subsequent to death, until resurrection.[140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147]" None of the footnotes make this claim: the only one that makes any claim to consensus is Donnelley, who says "Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that the ancient Jews had little explicit notion of a personal afterlife until very late in the Old Testament period." (BTW, this quote has very poor referencing - is it a book? a journal article?) Anyway, I made sure that I kept that in, and put it in the article. If you think that the sum total of footnotes 140 to 147 add up to consensus - then I believe you are engaging in synthesis of published material that advances a position. Likewise, footnotes 149 to 158 do not support the statement "The majority of standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources today describe the Biblical view of the state of the dead in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view." Not even close. There may be a lot of footnotes there, but they do not constitute a majority of Jewish and Christian sources. And none of the quotations even mention the mortalist view. Anyway, I'm tagging the section. StAnselm (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for deleting refs At a brief look it seems [140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147] were representative of a broad range of academic/mainstream sources and not 8x sources from 1 denomination, so particularly when one of them says "largely agrees" deletion of refs because they support the first(Donnelly?) seems capricious. I do not know of a Wikipedia rule that says after a comment describing a "majority" OWTTE view only 1 ref can be added.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, "How would footnotes be in breach of copyright?" the answer is given at Wikipedia:Copy-paste: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and clearly marked as a quote. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited even if correctly cited." Thus, there is a violation if (a) the attribution is poor (which is the case with several footnotes in this article, (b) the quotations are too long (and again, with several footnotes in this article, I believe that to be the case, or (c) the quotations are unnecessary (you don't need several footnotes all saying the same thing - and you can't establish consensus by multiplying footnotes anyway). StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for deleting refs - to any reader " " marks after an author-title-publicationdate-pageno qualify as "clearly marked as a quote" (case in point, no?). How else would a quote be marked. As for "the quotations are too long", based on my impression of the general standard of unreferenced POV and out of context refbending in Christianity related articles in Wikipedia. Hurrah. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Modern scholarship paragraph

[edit]

For clarity (for myself if no one else) just inserting the paragraph that all the below is about:

Unbalanced scales.svg The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2011)

As early as 1917 Harvey Scott could write "That there is no definite affirmation, in the Old Testament of the doctrine of a future life, or personal immortality, is the general consensus of Biblical scholarship.".[140] The modern scholarly consensus is that the canonical teaching of the Old Testament made no reference to an "immortal soul" independent of the body.[141][142][143][144] This view is represented consistently in a wide range of scholarly reference works.[145][146][147][148][149][150] Philip Johnston argues that a few Psalms, such as Psalm 16, Psalm 49 and Psalm 73, "affirm a continued communion with God after death," but "give no elaboration of how, when or where this communion will take place."[151] A review of nine standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources[152] shows that the majority of them describe the Biblical view of the state of the dead in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view.[not in citation given][improper synthesis?][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162] <Insertion of article text ends here. No comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, First of all it needs to be acknowledged that you have a theological interest in suppressing certain properly sourced material on this subject. Let's be honest about why you're editing here. 1. I see no Wikipedia ruling which says that copy/pastes from standard reference sources have no place here. Quite the opposite in fact. Nor do I see any "extensive quotation" here, only one quotation per source. 2. If you see an inadequately referenced citation, the correct response is to verify it and improve it, not delete half a page of citations. 3. What is wrong with the Donnelley referencing? It's in the same format as the rest, and is easily found (it's a monograph published by Brill). 4. Relevant consensus statements cited include:
  • "Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that the ancient Jews had little explicit notion of a personal afterlife until very late in the Old Testament period. Immortality of the soul was a typically Greek philosophical notion quite foreign to the thought of ancient Semitic peoples. Only the latest stratum of the Old Testament asserts even the resurrection of the body, a view more congenial to Semites.', Donelley, 'Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli's doctrine of man and grace", p. 99 (1976)
  • "Modern scholarship has underscored the fact that Hebrew and Greek concepts of soul were not synonymous. While the Hebrew thought world distinguished soul from body (as material basis of life), there was no question of two separate, independent entities. A person did not have a body but was an animated body, a unit of life manifesting itself in fleshly form—a psychophysical organism (Buttrick, 1962). Although Greek concepts of the soul varied widely according to the particular era and philosophical school, Greek thought often presented a view of the soul as a separate entity from body. Until recent decades Christian theology of the soul has been more reflective of Greek (compartmentalized) than Hebrew (unitive) ideas.’, Moon, ‘Soul’, in Benner & Hill (eds.), ‘Baker encyclopedia of psychology & counseling, p. 1148 (2nd ed. 1999)"

I will add more and rephrase this section.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan boi, I find your accusations of bad faith disturbing. I did not "delete" half a page of references - I reduced the number of footnotes in the section from 19 to 10, but I expanded the section from three sentences to a couple of paragraphs. You will note that I kept the Donnelley quote - indeed, I promoted it to the main body of the article - and let it say what it said. It doesn't say that "a scholarly consensus has been reached that the canonical teaching of the Old Testament is unconsciousness subsequent to death, until resurrection". It says that "Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that the ancient Jews had little explicit notion of a personal afterlife until very late in the Old Testament period." Those two statements are not the same at all. Finally, I'm very sorry you can't see what's wrong with the format of the Donnelley reference. Please consider using the "cite" template to include all the necessary bibliographic information. StAnselm (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. You have a long way to go before you establish good faith with regard to this article. Your edits have been systematically and consistently aimed at opposing inclusion of standard scholarship which disagrees with your church's POV, and your removal of slabs of citations in this case is another example of such conduct. That's how you started your recent involvement with this article, by removing material which just so happens to contradict your theological view. 2. I see you're now changing your comment about the Donnelley referencing, but you still haven't addressed the fact that it is cited the same way as the other references, and is cited sufficiently for verifiability. If you want to reformat the citations with a template, go right ahead. 3. The Donnelley quote does support what was written, but since you believe that "Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that" doesn't say that there's a scholarly consensus, then I suppose you won't see that. By the way, since I'm still editing the article you could at least wait until I've finished before throwing around more citation tags.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Next question, out of the following works which do you claim are not standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources: Harper's Bible Dictionary (1st ed. 1985), New Bible Dictionary (3rd. ed. 1996), Encyclopedia of Judaism (2000), New Dictionary of Theology (2000), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’ (rev. ed. 2002), The Encyclopedia of Christianity’(2003), The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’ (3rd rev. ed. 2005), The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (rev. ed. 2009). Once you've done that you can demonstrate why you believe the majority of them don't support the position attributed to them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't know what you mean by me changing my comment about the Donnelley referencing. 2. I would have thought it was customary to remove tags after one has fixed the problem, so I don't think you can object to me adding them back in while you're still editing the article. 3. The main issue is what there is a consensus about - you are paraphrasing the quote to a large degree, and are saying something quite different to what Donelley is saying. 4. The works you mention are indeed standard scholarly sources - the question is whether they "describe the Biblical view of the state of the dead in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view." And really, to say that they do is only your opinion, and thus original research. StAnselm (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. First you claimed the Donnelley reference was insufficient for verifiability, then you claimed it wasn't in the right format. 2. My edits were twice blocked by you fooling around with citation tags while I was in the middle of editing the article; you were adding querolous tags. 3. Go ahead and show me that I'm saying something very different to what Donnelley is saying. 4. After the article has described mortalism in detail, can you seriously claim that the sources quoted do not describe Biblical teaching on the state of the dead in terms close or identical to mortalism? I realise that it hurts that your church's position on the subject has been dismissed as an archaic relic of theological fantasy, but you can't suppress the scholarly consensus.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Donelley reference was always insufficient to verify what was being said, though the article has changed now. The statement it was supposed to verify said "A scholarly consensus has been reached that the canonical teaching of the Old Testament is unconsciousness subsequent to death, until resurrection." It actually says "Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that the ancient Jews had little explicit notion of a personal afterlife until very late in the Old Testament period." It seems that Donelley is suggesting that 20th century biblical scholarship does sees an explicit notion of a personal afterlife occurring late in the Old Testament period - though the quote doesn't say whether or not this is after the close of the canon. But Donelley does not say the teaching of the OT is unconsciousness subsequent to death, until resurrection. One could equally interpret Donelley's reading of the consensus as excluding belief in a resurrection as well. It's certainly a relevant quote, but let's not make it say more than it does. Some of the OT scholars will focus on the ambiguity regarding resurrection (e.g. Gillman in footnote 148), and not necessarily have the "intermediate state" in mind at all. StAnselm (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I can seriously claim the sources quoted do not describe Biblical teaching on the state of the dead in terms close or identical to mortalism. For you to assert this is original synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toooo complicated.. but whatever not a valid reason for deleting refs - just to come back to the main point. As far as I can St.Anselm see the reasons given above don't stand up for the example I picked at random: Cross & Livingstone, (eds.), ‘The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’, p. 153. This and the above response, plus the scale of deletions, plus the fact that this is the second wholesale deletion of refs on this article, suggest to me that all the refs should be restored, and a case by case argument made for individual deletions/amendations. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'But, in fairness to StAnselm, that Modern scholarship paragraph seems to be focussed on the OT only. Presumably "modern scholarship" has no such consensus re the NT? The paragraph should have a line noting that, if so. I guess it's so?13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted this at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Christian mortalism, and the opinion there was that "A review of nine standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources shows that the majority of them describe the Biblical view of the state of the dead in terms identical or very close to the mortalist view" was original research. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug's opinion is useless until he has actually read what I wrote, which he clearly hasn't (he refers to them as "websites", when none of them is a website). I have asked him to clarify. I am going to edit the text to make it even more explicit as well. I'm afraid sectarian suppression of this information is not going to happen.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were St. Anselm's earlier Dec 3 2010 ref. deletions restored?

[edit]

Can someone with time check please In ictu oculi (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this: I'm finding it difficult to compare the Dec3rd 2010 deletions with the current article. But from what I can see I myself did restore most of the 17th-19th Century historical refs which were removed. However, there is material in the refs themselves that probably should be in the main text. I was surprised to see that the Archbishop of Dublin was mentioned (misspelled) in a ref, but not referenced "Whately (1829)" in the main text. Just a suggestion. The main thing is that I believe that most of the 17th-19th Century historical refs have been restored.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

Time for it to go I believe.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing the OR issue. The section is a whole lot better. There are still major problems with this article - in particular, the article focuses on who believes in mortalism rather than on why they believe in it. It's talking more about people than ideas. That's why I'm glad we expanded the "modern scholarship" section. I'm still not altogether with the equating mortalism with belief disbelief in an immortal soul - I realise you have citations supporting that definition, but it's not universal - and it's not the definition in this article's lead. So to cite sources supporting mortalism when all they are doing is critiquing the idea of an immortal soul is somewhat slippery. It is quite possible to believe that some souls experience conscious bliss between death and resurrection, while other souls die. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry to drop into conversation) St.Anselm regarding this point: "conscious bliss between death and resurrection" is conscious bliss between death and resurrection, i.e. Calvin's view, not Luther's view. There may well be a hybrid form of Calvin's belief which believes exactly as you say, combining annihilationism for some souls and "conscious bliss between death and resurrection" for others, but in order to mention such a hybrid belief a notable individual or movement needs to be identified, sourced and referenced.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what I am saying is that the tag needs to remain. I don't believe you've dealt with the dictionary references in a neutral way. StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. What is not neutral about the dictionary references? 2. I'm happy to provide more details on why mortalists believe as they do, as long as you don't respond by simply deleting them all. 3. I certainly have not equated mortalism with the belief in an immortal soul. Please read what I wrote. Nor have I equated mortalism with the disbelief in an immortal soul. I have simply noted that disbelief in a naturally immortal soul is a mortalist belief; "The mortalist disbelief in the existence of a naturally immortal soul". This is a simple fact. The definition in the lede, "Christian mortalism is the belief of a minority of Christians that the human soul is uncomprehending during the time between bodily death and Judgment Day resurrection", is not only unsupported by any citations but is not accurate. Christian mortalism (not "Christian unconsciousism"), is the belief that humans are not naturally immortal; they are conditionally immortal. That's why it's also called "Christian Materialism", and why it has been suggested that this article be merged into "conditional immortality". There is absolutely nothing "slippery" about the use of the citations. I noted that disbelief in a naturally immortal soul is a mortalist belief, and I noted a wide range of scholarly sources which acknoweldge that this is Biblical teaching.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "belief in an immortal soul" was a typo. What I mean by the neutrality issue - and it is neutrality rather than original research - is that it looks like those dictionary articles are supporting mortalism, whereas it's just one aspect of mortalism that lots of non-mortalists would hold to as well. In other words, the section is unbalanced. But the lead was fine when the article was about soul sleep - there's a distinction between mortalism and soul sleep that has now been blurred. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary articles are being represented as supporting one belief held by mortalists, not as agreeing that mortalism is true. If you believe that non-mortalists also agree that there is no such thing as an immortal soul, then please show me the evidence (by the way, soul sleep is a mortalist belief).--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, how about that POV tag?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give this one more day, then remove the tag.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still dispute the neutrality of the section. The statement "The mortalist disbelief in the existence of a naturally immortal soul is also affirmed as biblical teaching by various modern theologians" is backed up by none references, which looks impressive, but it's not at all obvious that all (or any) of those writers have mortalism in mind. This is simply not a balanced discussion of how modern scholarship pertains to mortalism. Please don't remove the tag without making the section neutral and balanced. StAnselm (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not reading what the paragraph says. The sources quoted are discussing the existence of a naturally immortal soul. It is not claimed that they are discussing mortalism. It is claimed that they are discussing the existence of a naturally immortal soul. Do you agree that this is what is claimed? Do you agree that this is what the sources are discussing?--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the problem again?

In the absence of any further objections after two weeks, I have removed the tag.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Rabbi - Issac Nineveh?

[edit]

"among medieval era rabbis such as Isaac of Nineveh (d.700)" - I understand the idea that Isaac believed in soul sleep, but calling him a rabbi? On what authority?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_of_Nineveh

Isaac of Nineveh (died c. 700) also remembered as Isaac the Syrian and Isaac Syrus was a Seventh century bishop and theologian best remembered for his written work. He is also regarded as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

He was christian theologian, bishop and a saint. I doubt he was a rabbi following Jewish laws.--Otherguylb (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has probably been confused with Isaac ben Meir, who was a medieval rabbi.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality of the soul : Why does it redirect here?

[edit]

Hi editors, would anyone kind tell me why Immortality of the soul redirects to this article? I believe such an article existed before but it was redirected. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latter-Day Saint beliefs

[edit]

I added a section describing the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I am not an experienced editor, so it is very rough. I am open to feedback, especially on the appropriate way to cite the relevant scriptures. Terrel Shumway (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Christian mortalism

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christian mortalism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bauckham":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian mortalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope: Soul sleep and mortality of the soul

[edit]

This article seems to discuss what seems to me to be two distinct issues:

  1. the belief that the human soul is not naturally immortal
  2. the belief that the soul is uncomprehending immediately after death.

While I understand that these views are related. I think they should be split into different articles. What do others think? Daask (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Can someone who’s knowledgeable about Wikipedia add the links “Conditional Immortality” and “Soul in the Bible” to this article?? It’s time that this article gets a little more improved!! SassyForAReason (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough, added Soul in the Bible to the see also section, created a wikilink to Conditional Immortality in the body of the article. If anyone has an issue with that they can feel free to revert me. Greyjoy talk 15:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added more information for Christian Mortalism

[edit]

I’ve added more arguments for Christian Mortalism and added info to the introduction paragraph. I copied and pasted them from three different Wikipedia articles, “Conditional Immortality,” “Last Judgment,” and “Christian Anthology.” I’ve also used the term “soul sleep” throughout the article since I think that Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists use it. Any improvement would help. Thanks. 😊❤️🙏2601:407:C400:733:DDFF:1FA5:686C:B37A (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soul sleep not accurate

[edit]

I object to the term "soul sleep" to refer to the beliefs described here. That does not accurately reflect these beliefs. Most who do not accept the inherent immortality of the human soul do not believe the soul "sleeps"! They believe the soul or person ceases to exist at death! 66.38.21.220 (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_mortalism&oldid=1230329738"