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

This needs to be linked[edit] It relates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This page is needed to make a distinction between apocalypticism as a generic worldview in both religious and secular settings and "The Apocalypse" based on Christian prophecy and related ideas in Judaism and Islam.--Cberlet 16:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You guys intentionally letting people edit this page? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 2005-09-20 19:11:05 UTC.

As it happens, yes. That's sort of how this works... nae'blis (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was an entry under Apocalyptic fiction called "The Rapture is at Hand" which led to a dead domain. Removed. JosefAssad 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAssad (talkcontribs)

Removed 'Resident Evil' from catergory of apocalyptic games. Whilst the environments featured in the games are heavily dis-arrayed, the world itself is functioning as usual and these crises are only limited in scale. Perhaps the person who added the entry was (like some unfortunatly do) mistakingly thinking of the Resident Evil films - which have an entirely different plot than the games. - 7:12 2008-02-06 (Unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laundry list of "See also" links[edit]

Some of the multitudinous "see also" links should be incorporated into the article and removed from this list (per WP:GTL), and others should simply be removed per WP:TRIVIA etc., or moved to a separate list article. It is really out of control. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely agree with the above sentiment. I mean, a song list? Really? If these "see also" lists were anywhere near complete, we could fill volumes with the list items. I personally could add about a page length to what's already there. I'm all for everything save for a brief list of pages relating directly to the topic being removed and placed in a separate list article. --Steam Giant (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated deletion of academically supported material[edit]

The section on Christian apocalypticism has been repeatedly removed by editors with universally inadequate justification (and usually anonymously). It is, in fact, the only material in the article which is supported by academic sources. Folks, the reality is that it is not possible to have an encyclopedia article about apocalypticism without covering the most famous apocalypticists of all. Please be advised, that the facts about Christian apocalypticism are just not flattering to Christianity, period. Mention of them does not consist in any non-'objective' account, nor an attack. If you feel the need not to see them, I would recommend finding a way to reformulate, rather than delete. I would suggest that since no attempt has been made to do that so far, hat the reasons for the deletion are purely POV. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To what do you refer? Do you mean the bit about Jesus loosing his apocalyptic faith upon the cross, and the apostles having to repackage the message? I see one citation to support this. These questions have been the subject of a vast literature of debate, and this should be represented in the article (which is somewhat piecemeal anyway). "Please be advised, that the facts about Christian apocalypticism are just not flattering to Christianity, period." is a POV comment if I've ever seen one! NPOV certainly demands that this interpretation be represented, but alongside other interpretations. No, I'm not going to rewrite this article, as that would require a lot of reading. But I'd ask that the various interpretations be represented, and not just one which you have dogmatically stated, in the above comment, is "fact".--Iacobus (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally concurr on covering all perspectives. However, it just isn't POV to say that someone who was an apocalypticist who died a non-apocalyptic death (as Jesus did) was completely wrong in their apocalyptic belief. That is just a fact. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm not going to get into a knock-down argument on the issue, but from my reading the level and nature of Jesus' apocalyptic beliefs is more nuanced than your representation. Albert Schweitzer took your position in 1906, yet there has been much water under the bridge in research on the historical Jesus since then (three "Quests" and counting). I think it can be safely stated as "fact" that the Jesus of the gospels (Synoptics, at least) makes apocalyptic sayings. Whether the Jesus "behind" the gospels was a prophet of the impending apocalypse, a wandering sage, an anti-Roman subversive, or (shudder) the very Son of God, depends on your criteria for assessing the historicity of the gospels. As I said above, there is a mountain of scholarly research behind this. One does not necessarily have to read all of this (all praise be to New Testament introductions, surveys, summaries, and the like!), but the article needs to reflect the currents of opinion and research. Citing one book to support your contention is hardly adequate - reading the article on Bart Ehrman, it seems that he has a pretty consistent axe to grind (a shame the only critics the article cites are evangelicals). All power to him, but the field of New Testament research is far greater than any one scholar. Rest easy, I am not about to edit/delete/censor anything in this article (I have just started expanding the Book of Joel article, which is how I stumbled onto Apocalypticism), but I certainly think that the article could be expanded to reflect the more varied opinion on New Testament apocalypticism.--Iacobus (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Essentially the material in question should be represented as one perspective in an incredible complex and not-straightforward text that has been the center of the most ambiguous human topic of all history. It is evident that it was written by a writer with a strong POV in an attempt to meet wikipedia's standard, and should be kept in the article but with the addendum many such discussions on wikipedia have, that of uncertainty or innate ambiguity. Aan'Allein (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jesus' apocalypticism section[edit]

This section is clearly not NPOV. Jesus and the gospels may well be interpreted as apocalyptic, but is this is a highly disputed subject. The non-apocalyptic viewpoint is inadequately represented and appears to be disingenuous. The section has weasel words, inadequate citations, and has a degree of focus that is out of proportion to the other religions mentioned in the article. The treatment of this section needs to be more in-line with the treatment given to the other sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukymuk (talkcontribs) 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Where did the author come across the reference to Jesus asking the 'cross' "why has thou forsaken me", most people, most Christians interpret this statement as asking God why he has forsaken him (Jesus) and not the cross itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It reads "on the Cross," so the text, when read correctly describes Jesus asking god, not the cross. Greg Bard (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation 5, Y2K[edit]

The Y2K section says the following: Apocalypticism was especially evident with the approach of the millennial year 2000, in which some predicted a massive computer crash which would throw global commerce and financial systems into chaos. These predictions did not come true, although a few remarkable isolated events did occur due to the glitches in computer coding on which these predictions focused.[5]" When following the link to the references section, it merely says: "5. Citation Needed" I dont know why it does this, rather than just saying "Citation needed" in the first place. i have trouble believing it could occur not on purpose due to how drastically it departs from normal wiki structure. (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text has since been deleted from the article. -- Beland (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Apocalypticism" is a "religious belief"[edit]

There is a danger here of confusing or even equivocating the two terms "Apocalypticism" with "Apocalyptic." ...A smudging of the two terms. "Apocalypticism" appears to be a strictly religious or theological term, while "Apocalyptic" can refer to secular doomsday fiction/outlooks and so forth. "Isms" commonly have meanings quite different from their origin words. Due to their similarity, this curiosity (of isms) should be specified, highlighted, and lawyer-proofed.

Quoting lead section: "Apocalypticism is often conjoined with esoteric knowledge that will likely be revealed in a major confrontation between good and evil forces, destined to change the course of history. Apocalypses can be viewed as good, evil, ambiguous or neutral, depending on the particular religion or belief system promoting them. They can appear as a personal or group tendency, an outlook or a perceptual frame of reference, or merely as expressions in a speaker's rhetorical style."


apocalypticism: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (it's religious)
apocalypticism: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition (it's religious)
apocalypticism: ("noun Theology")

Please see more arguments at: Talk, apocalyptic fiction.
-- (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Doug BashfordReply[reply]

Climate Change[edit]

Should the Climate Change hysteria be included in this article? Or linked to at least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's covered under Global catastrophic risk; this article is only about religious beliefs, whereas climate change concerns are prompted by scientific data. -- Beland (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-apocalyptic sections[edit]

The sections on Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Norse mythology (except for the last subsection) don't appear to be about apocalyptic beliefs - specifically, that the end of the world is imminent. That's why I've tagged that content for merging into Eschatology and Ragnarök. But if anyone knows of notable instances of "sky is falling" talk in those religions, feel free to add it or ping me with a pointer. Or let me know if I'm missing something! -- Beland (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical theory[edit]

"as certainly uninformed by critical theory, which was a prime source of inspiration for Land's original ideas that led to accelerationism"

Can anybody provide the source for that claim? Nick Land was inspired by Marxism, Deleuze and Guattari, he is a post-Marxist of sorts. The theme of liberation from oppression and the oppressor-oppressed dynamics is absent from Nick's works. The only sense in which Nick could be "inspired" by critical theory is as his philosophy being an inhumanist negation of it, siding with the oppressive and destructive capitalism to realise a technological end of history. (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]