Talk:Heaven/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clearing some Catholic things up

First off, the Bible teaches that all souls who have died after he ascended will go to Hell and wait in somekind of Limbo until he comes again. If someone could find a quote for this, it would be a great addition.

Second, non-baptized infants, as per doctrine, go to Hell, but to a special infant level, look for more info on the Wikipedia article on Hell.

Most Catholics nowadays claim that the fate of unbaptized infants is unknown, but "left to the mercy of God to decide". Traditionalist Catholics still believe in limbo, which is technically not part of hell: it's a spiritually neutral state, with neither the torture of hell nor the bliss of heaven. Dante may have claimed otherwise, but his Divine Comedy is still a fictional work; the Catholic theology is colored by Dante's own studies and interpretations. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 00:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholics claim the fate of the unbaptized infants will be heaven because Christ mentions that we should all be like children to enter His kingdom. Limbo doesn't exist.

---

I'm not an active contributor, but I can't help but wonder why there isn't much information as to specifically East Asian concepts of Heaven (i.e. more talk of the logistics behind the Daoist/Confucian ideals behind how heaven works, and how the creation of Neo-Daoism, Neo-Confucianism and various change in thoughts forged a different understanding about how Heaven worked to supposedly create order on Earth).

---

This is obviously a major topic, and it was disappointing to see the idiotic comments someone else posted originally.

This is certainly not my area of expertise, but it is well worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.

---

From Heaven, third paragraph: "...those who do not meet the criteria go to a place of punishment, hell."

"hell" should properly be capitalized here, no?

+++++++++++++++ The idea of heaven (as viewed in a Christian POV) is far removed from what Christ Jesus taught. He viewed Heaven, not as a place where all righteous mankind (within spiritual context) were to reside, but as the capital city of God's Kingdom. "The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool," God said. (Isaiah 66:1)

Person's who had lived a "good life" were not to go to Heaven, but reside on Earth. "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it." (Psalm 37:29)

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."—Matthew 5:5

"Evildoers themselves will be cut off, but those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth."—Psalm 37:9

"The upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it."—Proverbs 2:21, 22

So, the question arises for most Christianity, "If I lead a 'good life', why do I die, and what happens to me after I die?" The Bible says that sin causes death. It also states that when you die nothing remains of you.

Romans 5:12 tells us: "Through one man [Adam, mankind's forefather] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned [by inheriting imperfection, that is, sinful tendencies]." "You [will] return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19) Simply stated, the Bible teaches that death is the opposite of life. At Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, we read: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going."

"Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish."-Psalm 146:3, 4

"The soul that is sinning-it itself will die," the Bible emphatically states. (Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Acts 3:23; Revelation 16:3)

Here we see that Earth is not a "proving ground" and Heaven the reward.

---

Yes, this page could use some work. Why not take a scientific approach. Who says there is a heaven? Why do they say? Are there witnesses? Are there good eveidences? What do we mean by heaven? When we say heaven, are we atalking about the eternal world? Hawstom 07:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed this POV interpretation that was added without attribution. I am not sure it ieven has place in the article.

• Bible tells us that a few people including Apostles will go to heaven to rule the people in the earth (John 14:1-3; Rev. 5:9,10; 14:1-5), and the others including David will receive the earth to live forever(Matt. 5:5; Acts 2:34; Rev. 21:3-5).

Please advise. Tom 16:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you've made a defensible decision. Mkmcconn

I think so, too. Tom, please explain why you removed and why you are not sure.K.M. 05:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I, Tom (Hawstom), think this article is primarily about what is Heaven like, and not about who is going to end up in heaven. And the quote above probably belongs better on the JW page. Tom 04:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Besides my belief that we should be moving this article away from being a discussion of who is going to heaven, I can see that K.M.'s edits are POV for two reasons. First, they are inserted with an apparent willingness to degrade article consistency and quality (something a veteran Wikipedian should be past) in order to get POV inserted. Second, the POV has been inserted in a POV manner ("the Bible says"). If the bad faith POV insertion had been done in a NPOV manner, it would have been hard to impugn (after all, we all have agendas that sometimes creep in). But when done without careful NPOVization, it is subject to reversion by the first Wikipedian who comes along. Tom (hawstom) 04:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But rather than simply edit or revert the questionable edit, I think this article could benefit from some group soul searching, and this edit may be just the occasion for it. So I propose we open the discussion on two issues: 1) How might K.M. fix his insertions? 2) What is this article about anyway? Tom (hawstom) 04:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I changed my insertion, so please be cool. K.M. 05:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Doesn't the bible clearly state that man doesn't get to heaven by works? "Therefore you are saved by grace, not of works lest any man should boast." The section on how to get to heaven is clearly Roman Catholic, because works are sited as the primary way to get to heaven, by living a "good life".

Heaven in Buddhism

Just a curious question. We apply the same word 天(Ten, jap. heaven) for the Heaven in Christianity and for Buddhism. IIRC 天 are one of six world types where all souls continue to reincarnate. The Pure Land is one of them. Some Boddhisattvas are predicted "coming from a certain Heaven" like Miroku-Boddhisattva from Tosotsu-ten. How call people this concept in English? Heaven or another term? My knowledge on this issue are very narrow and I'm regretful I cannot contribute well. KIZU 12:41, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The only terms that I can think of that might suffice are Heaven, Afterlife, or Eternity or Eternal World. I might more accurately call it the Real World. It sure is good to have you here contributing, and I hope to see some of your input and discussion. Tom (hawstom) 05:09, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Though I don't know closely Buddhist comcepts (it's not my belief and very complicated), according to the buddhist documents (Sutras),

• There are many world, and they exists in some way simultinously. Some are bad, some are good.
• There are six phases of the world, or simply there are six worlds, and Ten(Heaven) is one of them and the best.

Interestingly those Buddhist "Heaven"s are not "Eternal Worlds", because there is nothing eternal according to their belief. Everyone reincarnates unless they reach to the Nirvana, so even in the Heaven people must die someday and go to the other world or reincarnate there in another shape. Even if they enjoyed a life of ten thousand years, they must die and reincarnate. As for Pure Land I read some Buddhist priests said "the purpose of the reborn in to the Pure Land is the return from there to here to spread the wonderfulness of the Pure Land. KIZU 13:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems like it would be nice to have some kind of article that covers a general concept of an existence greater than this one. Your input from Buddhism is very insightful. I see that currently we have the following articles that deal more generally with this area, along with the definitions Wikipeida gives:

• Afterlife, something spiritual that you experience when you die
• Underworld, any place to which newly dead souls go, a term normally used (by unbelievers?) in mythology and religion studies
• Heaven, a place not of this world or of happy rest or bliss
• Hell, the place of the dead or alternatively of torment. Good umbrella article.

Of course there are numberless other terms in other languages that have different shades of meaning for afterlife or underworld, but it would be good to mastermind the organization of all these articles under one or two umbrella articles about a real and amply referenced, but disputed and variously conceptualized, existence that is beyond this one. Tom (hawstom) 14:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I would hope that the general Buddhist contribution to the understanding of afterlife would be able to be distilled into some umbrella article. Tom (hawstom) 14:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Your idea is smart, though I'm afraid I miss your point. It's good for Wikipedia to have a well-designed tree of articles. I saw in fr.wiki a guide at the end of each articles to guide. For example religion - Greek religion - and so on. Having both such a linear guide and a list of particular notions works well as far as they are well designed. Off course we engage a bunch of problematic notions, we cannot avoid disputing. For Buddhist notions I suppose it's better we call for contributions on some notepages of particular Buddhist concept such as Pure Land than we will try to make a scribble; we are laity on those subjects. BTW WikiLove is a good term, I like it. I thank you letting me know this idea, Tom. KIZU 15:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I propose Afterlife to be the organizational hub of this genre of article. The other contenders for a hub article would be underworld and eschatology, but I don't think either of those terms works as well as Afterlife. I am intrigued by your description of the fr.wiki hierarchy guides. Perhaps such could be added to these articles. Tom (hawstom) 14:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Afterlife Reorganization

I am starting the ball rolling on an afterlife articles reorganization. I will create a list of Articles about Afterlife and try to organize them all to reduce redundancy and improve utility. I made a few edits accordingly. Tom (hawstom) 20:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

capitalisation

I capitalised most of it.

Heaven is a place, albeit a fictional one, and therefore should be capitalised. One however, can write of heavens in general with a small h. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calvinism

This may or may not stir up discussion.

I removed the little bit that said that Calvinism was an example of how some religions thought that Predestination was the way they entered heaven. This is true... sort of. The problem is that in the sentence previous it outlines the Arminian position which states that only those who trust in the deity and in his method of salvation can enter heaven. Strangely enough this is the Calvinist position as well!

To put it in more theological terms - both Arminians and Calvinists believe that Jesus was sent by God to die for the sins of the world. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that only those who place their trust in the death and resurrection of Christ will go to heaven. Arminians and Calvinists differ over the place of free-will and determinism in how this placing of trust occurs. One Salient Oversight 01:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, can you say as much in the article? I think having the views properly attributed is desirable. Tom 02:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay - I'll attempt it. One Salient Oversight 03:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bible: where does it say you go to heaven when you die?

I notice that the article refers to the Bible in the section regarding the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Can anyone include some references to the relevant sections of the bible to substantiate the other Christian beliefs? i.e. that one will go to heaven even if that are not one of the 144,000? --Rebroad 23:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. You do have to apply a context to biblical passages - it's not a legal document that outlines each and every contingency and gives pertinent definitions. That's part of the reason that Jesus taught His disciples - so that they could spread the important parts of His message and explain what was meant by various things He & they had said. If you're looking for specific verses, I've got a couple that are generally taken to describe heaven and what happens when you die.

• "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. . . . Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:2-4,6)
• Paul (who would have a pretty good idea of what Jesus was talking about) has the best-known (if not directly explicit) explanation of God's promise: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (I Cor.2:9)

Now, clearly I'm no theologian, but I can find verses for a few things if I check the index on my Bible... Like I said, though, the Bible's not written to be a legal document. It takes interpretation. Priests and the Pope interpret for Catholics and their interpretations are all standardized, so you can check Catholic dogma if you're looking for detailed, legalese on heaven. Protestant views are, of course, more diverse and each group has slightly different versions of interpretations, but I think most would accept the few verses I give here as being a good starting point for understanding Heaven. --ABQCat 05:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. My favorite would be "The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man" in which Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom and the rich man goes to hell (good because its from the mouth of Jesus). Tom Haws 18:51, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Heaven in Islam?

Wow, not even a word is mentioned.--Zereshk 03:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heaven in Islam needs more thorough treatment than what is provided here.

The current description of Islamic views of heaven is misleading...it is very different than the Christian/Jewish view: The Islamic texts describes life for its immortal inhabitants, one that is happy — without hurt, sorrow, fear or shame — where every wish is fulfilled. Traditions relate that inhabitants will be of the same age (33 years), and of the same stature. Their life is one of bliss including: wearing costly robes, bracelets, perfumes; partaking in exquisite banquets, served in priceless vessels by immortal youths; reclining on couches inlaid with gold or precious stones. Other foods mentioned include meats, scented wine and clear drinks bringing neither drunkenness nor rousing quarrelling. Inhabitants will rejoice in the company of their parents, wives, and children (provided they were admitted to paradise) — conversing and recalling the past. Texts also relate "pure consorts" (houris), created in perfection, with whom carnal joys are shared — "a hundred times greater than earthly pleasure". Female inhabitants admitted to paradise will rank 70,000 times greater than houris through the merit of their good deeds.[2]

Christianity rejects the idea of physical pleasure, food, and sex in heaven and focuses on the spiritual. This should be clarified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.69.251 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing never never land

I removed the "See also" link to never never land. "Never Never Land" is a euphemism for death, not Heaven. It would be more appropriate to include a link to death. The very words "never" indicate the opposite of what Heaven (traditionally) signifies. -- Jwinters | Talk 18:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put the never never land link back in. So piss off, Jwinters, you honky devil!

Sorry, that kind of language simply doesn't fly around here, and so far, Jwinters' argument is more sound... Removing again... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Heaven: Eternal salvation of the soul. For the living to understand HEAVEN, we would have to understand the presence of the Eternal time, how God may enter space-time and still remain Eternal. Once we enter God's (Omni-present) Kingdom, then we'll know Heaven.

Catholic teachings on heaven

This article needs some reworkings as IMHO, it is not really clear on the Catholic (or protestant for that matter) teachings and beliefs on entry into heaven. As described in the limbo article and this link http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo.htm current Catholic teachings appear to suggest that unbaptised babies can in fact enter heaven and non Christians can in fact enter heaven altho they do of course still teach that baptisim is extremely important and it is only through God as they view 'it' that one can enter heaven. The teachings are somewhat contradictary probably because they revolve around the idea that their view of God are the correct ones but they also realised in the modern era many people are simply unwilling to accept that a person who is otherwise an extremely good person will not enter heaven. So instead currently the teachings appear to revolve around the idea that they suggest it's possible but say only accepting their view of God is the surefire way.

Philosophy

Just a philosophical question about Heaven. What do you do in it? Can people explain what people would do in such a paradise? Especially in the Abrahamic religions as some eastern religions have cyclical periods of heaven/earth/hell, etc. 70.111.224.85 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out the article! It seems every single faith has a completely different answer to that question, sometimes several... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say completely different... for a start this article is seriously lacking on describing the different views on what heaven is like - its more just descriptions of the different views of how to get there. But all the faiths represented here that teach heaven is real agree on one thing: that whatever people will do there will be intensely pleasurable and completely fulfilling...whether you look at descriptions of heaven being paved with "streets of gold" and "no more dying, crying, or pain" (Revelation of John), a kind of Nirvana where people live in the presence of Truth and Love embodied (CS Lewis), or a whole "70 beautiful virgins" for a certain category of devout followers of Islam. --NZUlysses 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to tell what in indulgance is

Under the Heaven in Catholicism, there is no need to tell what a plenary indulgance is. This is a page on Heaven, not on gaining plenary indulgances.

You have to write simply and explain terms on Wikipedia. A user can follow a link for detailed explanations. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The definetion that you placed was using POV. I will try to make it NPOV.

There needs to be another source

Under the "Heaven In Roman Catholicism" section there needs to be another source on the Catholic teaching of heaven and purgatory since not all Catholics use the Cathechim of the Catholic Church. It would be better to have a papal bull, or a quote from the Baltimore Catechism or the St. Pius X (not the socioty but the pope)Catechism or the Trent Catechism.

For Roman Catholicism, the CCC is authoritative. Dominick ^(TALK) 22:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No it is not. many Traditional Catholics do not use that catechism. If you take a quote from the CCC you are breaking POV rules. All Catholics must beieve the other catechisms because they were written before Vatican II, when most of the disputes came about. I, personally do think that the CCC is a valid catechism and was written by valid popes after a valid council, but not all "Catholics" think the way I do.

Thats not true. Some traditionalists do not use it but some do, all find most of it authoritative. NPoV in this case is a broad Catholic view, it doesn't have to be technical. We have to explain what we are talking about in gross terms. Thinking that we exclude traditionalist Catholics by using the CCC when most all Catholics follow it, is an incorrect assumption. The few traditionalist Catholics that have separated from the Catholic Church have no different view on the gross points in this topic as most do, and do not differ on this topic where the CCC speaks on it. If you have aspecific difference from the CCC to some other point please state it. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Communion

Most Catholics use Communion as a more specific term than the Host. Why are you insisting on Host? Dominick ^(TALK) 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, as Orthodox I prefer the term 'Presence' but don't know if that's used much in the RCC... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Take Communion" is the term I used, take "the Host" was his. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Host" apply only to the bread? Or is the wine also included? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholics never take the Fruit of the Vine without taking the Host and many Masses only provide Hosts. Communion is not specific enough because you could go to a protestant "service" and take communion. And to recieve a Plenary Indulgance one dosen't necessarily need to attend Mass. A priest could take it to the ill person's house during a sick call. StThomasMore 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats not the Catholic position. The Eucharist is the blood body Soul and Divinity of Christ. A protestent Service has Host and Communion. You misused the term to be specific to Catholics. Obviously a Catholic would take Communion from a Catholic Mass. Both terms have the same specificity problem. A plenary indulgence that we were discussing in the specific one old Enchidron, the Prayer before the Crucifix required Communion. You have your term confused or you can offer me a source. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

One more problem with this persons understanding of Catholic practice, we can take Communion with the Consecrated Wine, as it too is everything that is a Communion host. Some should not have Host particles, so a drop is acceptable. Like I said Communion refers to the practice of Unity with Christ through eating his Body, Host properly is incomplete, that was my problem. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Something to think about

In studying these things, and as with all things, it is so important to remember something: There are no absolutes, everything is an assumption, and everything is ultimately based on faith.

No matter how much one researches, one will never find a full answer. I look at all these different explanations about Heaven and its good because there is a good awareness of the essential points of the Bible, as well as other ideas about this topic from completely different cultures. But all in all, we can prove nothing to anyone or ourselves no matter how many facts we have. Facts are supported by other facts and with each step back, the facts become more shady. In the end, we can in no way fully consider all possible variables needed to find the TRUTH. Therefore all things are rooted in faith. Those who put their faith on anything else besides God's true word--which is Christ who is the Truth--are not right with God.

It is bad if we hold on to anything or any idea as if it has some lasting, eternal value. We can not grasp God, for He grasps us. God is the only one who can do anything! He has complete power and Authority over ALL of His creation. Man is NOTHING and God is EVERYTHING.

We must realize that we know nothing and are nothing. We must become nothing to ourselves to be something by God. We must cry out to God continually with desperation for His presence in our lives. We must declare His greatness as God Almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible. The lives we live must become a continual sacrafise of praise to God who, through Christ, loves and saves us all.

Please sign your name; anonymous comments may be taken as vandalism, whether or not you acted in good faith (no pun intended). --Ingeborg S. Nordén 15:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Biblicism

In the discussion of Protestant beliefs the article seems to be biased towards the "Biblicist" position. I've done a fair amount of reading of what Protestants believe about how to obtain salvation but never encountered a "Biblicist" position. Sounds like a biased addition by someone who doesn't like calvinism or arminianism to me. e.g. both calvinists and arminianists would accept the statement that salvation is "By the grace of God alone, through faith in Christ alone". And certainly the reference to Paul and Polycarp is inappropriate...although these men would not have seen a contradiction between our will to choose to do good, and God's divine power to predestine us for heaven, the article deceitfully implies that St. Paul and Polycarp were adherents of a movement called "Biblicism"...kind of ridiculous considering the Bible was still being written and a century or two away from being compiled when Paul lived.

I've removed all reference to Biblicism, mainly the article didn't have a NPOV towards it, and because it stated that only Biblicists taught 'grace alone, faith alone'. This isn't true...but it seems a pity to take away all reference to the Biblicist point of view altogether, especially since I personally believe it, though I've never described myself as "Biblicist". Any Biblicists out there who are keen on putting in a paragraph about the Biblicist position from a NPOV, please do!

Historical Fallacies

"Jewish converts to this concept of heaven and hell included the group known as the Pharisees. The larger, dogmatically conservative Sadducees maintained their belief in Sheol. While it was the Sadducees that represented the Jewish religious majority it was the Pharisees who best weathered Roman occupation, and their belief in Zoroaster's heaven and hell was passed on to both Christianity and Islam (in which heaven is referred to as Jannah)."

Most of this information is correct, except for the fact that the Tzaddikim or Sadducees were the minority, composed mostly of the Hellenizing Aristocrats and the Roman elected Levitical Priesthood. The common people were almost all Pharisees and hated the Sadducees with a passion because they were looked at as traitors and oppressors of the poor.

"No soul" (Anatta) assertion contradictory

Technically, most Buddhist sects may teach that "there is actually no soul to be reborn": I may not be an expert on the topic, but I learned about Buddhism in some college courses on Eastern religion. Still, putting the "no soul" remark in the middle of a paragraph about what happens to the soul sounds confusing and contradictory. A footnote seems like the best place to mention the "Anatta" teaching, in my opinion. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm... It's not actually contradictory, the difference between rebirth and reincarnation is that in rebirth, no soul gets reborn. Just a new thought arises somewhere else. But I guess in western theology, a soul is required to travel to heaven. That maybe why it's contradictory. I added the footnotes. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 15:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that! A lot of Westerners (and even a few novice Buddhists, I'll bet) think of "rebirth" and "reincarnation" as the same thing; that assumption made the original version look as if you had contradicted yourself.

P.S. I cleaned up some minor wording/punctuation problems (but nothing which changes any meanings!) in the references to Samsara.

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean ups. Good work. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 16:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mythical mix-ups (Mag Mell isn't Norse, but...)

1. Mag Mell is a paradise described in Celtic legends, not Norse; the list-box near the end of the article should be corrected accordingly.
2. Asgard should be added to the Norse list; the Poetic Edda mentions other divine residences (besides Valhalla) in that world, and occasionally alludes to people living with gods other than Odin after death.

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish "Hell"

In the part about the Jewish Heaven it is said that there is a Jewish Hell. Jews do not believe in Hell or Damnation but rather that when a sin is committed the sinner is spiritually further away from God when on Earth. The Jewish Heaven is the Garden of Eden (according to my Rabbi) because one may enjoy life there without having to work or suffer in anyway.68.91.193.37 15:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Jadee

Syriac script tag?

Is this tag actually appropriate to this page? If so, it needs to go into the appropriate section. If not, I think it should be deleted. Tevildo 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And which name does it actually refer to? I see no ancient Syrian names, except for two saints who as far as I see don't have their name in Syriac script even in their own articles... Classical geographer (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about article

Is there an equal arguement and a agreed consensus which goes both for the subject of Heavean and against the existence of such a place. I am sure untold millons of people spanning countless generations beleive in the existence of Heaven and a God who occupies it. But since Heaven is an invisble and a timeless realm of eternity. How is one able to argue the existence of a place for which cannot be proven nor disproven if it exists. I will look forward to hearing answers on this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as improving the article, as you correctly said, no one can prove or disprove anything -- so the article should report on all views, not endorse any... and as far as I know, the article is already neutral in this regard, so what would need to be changed in your view? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Atheist view

Reply to section deleted by Codex Sinaiticus who stated, (rv - this is uncited and Original Research to posit that George Orwell was writing on behalf of the atheist conception)

I'm not sure how you can claim that is O.R. to state that atheists don't believe in heaven, or that Orwell was mocking heaven's existence with the ficticious Sugarcandy Mountain. This isn't exactly rocket science. But none-the-less I will make an effort to provide enough bracketed numbers to placate the would-be censors. Big Brother 1984 06:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The OR still seems to be stating that George Orwell was writing on behalf of the atheist conception of heaven. None of the websites you gave claim Orwell himself was an atheist, and I have never seen this claim. Indeed, the one site you gave that speaks about his motive in writing this, actually asserts that his intention with SugarCandy Mountain and raven Moses, was to parody JOSEF STALIN's attempts to bend the Orthodox Church to his own agenda. So it cannot be established that Orwell was an actual atheist himself, without any source that says this; it seems like your original research. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Orwell never explicitly described his religious beliefs. The general consensus on Orwell's personal view is that he was an agnostic/atheist who held a high degree of dislike for organized religion (particularly Catholicism) as can be seen in his quote, "One cannot really be a Catholic and grown up". I don't want to delve into too much "OR" here in order to demonstrate my point, but yes... When Orwell described the return of Moses in the latter part of the novel, Orwell was implying that Stalin tolerated religion because he realized that it made the laborers happy.[1] A common subject in Orwell's fictional works is the various means that rulers use to control the masses, of which "Sugarcandy Mountain" is just one example. Are you trying to say that Orwell thought the concept of heaven was a "mechanism of control" only when it was in the hands of Stalin? I realize that this isn't a debate forum, so I will attempt to find sources where other writers express this view. Big Brother 1984 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If that is as you say the "general consensus" on Orwell's beliefs, you should have no problem finding a source that Orwell was an atheist. Please do not add the Orwell stuff in again without a source stating what you claim is the "general consensus", that he was an atheist. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article I don't explicitly claim that Orwell was an atheist (although some people take that view[2][3][4]). I was merely giving a literary example of an author describing heaven as a mechanism of control. This isn't an article on George Orwell, so I didn't want to digress into a discussion of this particular person's personal beliefs. In Animal farm, Orwell was describing heaven as a mechanism of control, and sources for this view have already been provided. There are already more sources cited in my two-paragraph blurb than in the rest of the entire article. This beginning to get unreasonable, and is starting to seem like an attempt to eliminate a section of text that conflicts with one persons' POV. Don't start a revert war over such a trivial point. Big Brother 1984 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

You added the line "This is usually analyzed as being a critique of Stalinist tactics, but it bears strong similarities to the atheist claims of heaven being used by religion in general as a form of control." Do I need to point out once again that this article is not a discussion of Orwell's religious beliefs. All that is being said in the article is that Orwell provided a literary example of heaven as a means of control. I could modify your addition to include the fact that Orwell held similar view of the Catholic Church. But, it would be silly for me to try to further explain Orwell's view in this article. Orwell's personal views here are irrelevant (and would be more properly discussed in the article on George Orwell).

This debate is similar to one person stating, for instance, that Huxley warned of the dangerous of a drug-dependent society in "Brave New World", and then somebody else coming along and deleting this line because Huxley was not a prohibitionist. Huxley does not need to be a prohibitionist in order to warn about the dangers of drugs any more than Orwell needs to be an atheist in order to question the motives of people who make promises of heavenly rewards and punishments.

Furthermore, you failed to offer any sources that state that Orwell was only deriding the "promise of heaven" by Stalin alone. There is no reason to think that Orwell's only complaint about heaven (and religion) was that Stalin used it for political ends. I tried to help resolve this discussion by including a quote from Emma Goldman, who was an important influence on Orwell. (She was immortalized in Nineteen Eighty-Four in the male character Emmanuel Goldstein). Goldman's quote clearly indicates that this complaint is not only aimed at Stalinism (She wrote that quote in 1914, before Stalin even came to power). By doing so the article now says that Emma made this statement, and Orwell provided a literary example of this view.

You are accusing me of making un-cited statements while at the same time adding un-cited statements yourself that nobody who studies Orwell would agree with. Can you understand why I might think that these complaints have less to do with a desire for accuracy than an attempt to express a particular POV? This article is not a discussion of Orwell and his beliefs, and I see no reason that it should become so. This section is already plagued with an excessive number of citations, and this desire you seem to have for a digressions into the personal beliefs of Orwell would only help to further obfuscate the subject of the article. Big Brother 1984 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the statement you removed was to try to help better connect your synthesis involving Orwell, with atheism in some way, shape or form. As I mentioned above, my source for stating Orwell is usually seen as talking about Stalinism was one of the cites that you yourself provided, so I didn't think you were going to call it "uncited", but I can easily cite it to the same cite you gave. And with your most recent cite above, I have now seen two secondary sources stating that Sugarcandy mountain was specifically a critique of Stalinism, compared to zero stating that Orwell is outlining the atheist view of Heaven on behalf of atheism, which still appears to be your own novel synthesis. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I take that back. One site you gave [5] does make that explicit connection. But the sentence I added helps to make the connection, and I don't see why you deleted it. At least two of your other sources say the same thing, that Orwell was critiquing Stalinism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we have hammered out an agreement on this section, but there is one more issue I'd like to raise. I just noticed that all of the sections in this article are listed alphabetically. If we keep to this convention, a belief which starts with an "A" should go on top. However, I personally see the "In Atheism" section as more of a "Criticism of the Theory" section, which generally goes near the bottom of an article. I'm content to leave the section where it is, but I just wanted to raise the point. Big Brother 1984 15:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Atheist view II

Once again, the purpose of the section is not to create a list of people who have proclaimed themselves to be atheist. The purpose it to quote people who espouse a particular point of view. A person does not need to be full-blown atheist in order to share the atheistic view of heaven. You reasoning behind deleting this information is highly irrational. What you are doing here is similar to saying that the page on communism can only include quotes from people who have registered with the communist party. I could easily find quotes from socialist/democrats/liberals/etc who might agree with Marx on a particular point. By your logic, these should be deleted. And that is completely illogical.

And BTW... Just for the record... About.com lists Gibbon as an Agnostic/Atheist. [6] But as I said, this is largely irrelevant since it is clear from the quote that Gibbon is talking about Roman religions. Gibbon did not believe in Roman mythology, and therefore takes an atheistic position towards their gods and their beliefs.

Since you seem to be so interested in maintaining the accuracy in integrity of this particular article, I will strive to aid you in this endeavor by applying the same standard to the rest of the article that you wish to apply to this one particular section. I'm sure you will agree that it is the only fair thing to do. And hopefully together we can make this the greatest article Wikipedia has ever seen. There are quite a few unsourced statments in the article that appear to be O.R. Big Brother 1984 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you have read WP:SYNT, but that is exactly what you are doing in that section, unless you can quote a source that has made the same point that you seem to be pushing; you are drawing a novel conclusion, exactly like the example on the policy page... This isn't the appropriate place to do your own research, or write an essay on how the "atheist view of Heaven" was specifically formulated by Gibbon and Orwell, unless there is some other published source in the world that makes this point about Gibbon and Orwell. Also the comments in your last paragraph make it clear that the sprinkling of gratuitous fact tags throughout the article is motivated by bad faith because of your efforts to expand the atheism section being reverted, so these tags should probably mostly be removed as begging the question. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am quoting other people directly in this article is to minimize the possibility of being criticized of OR. Now it seems that you are attempting to use my use of quotations as a justification for reverts. Perhaps you should read Help:Reverting. You cannot continuously delete my edits just because you don't like them. Reverts should generally only be used to combat vandalism, not to delete things you don’t personally agree with. Such behavior can lead to unnecessary revert wars.

Your last deletion was, once again, completely unwarranted. The line in question clearly states that Gibbon was applying his criticism to a religion (paganism) that wasn't his own. The line said, The 18th century historian Edward Gibbon applied this view in reference to the pagan religions of antiquity when he wrote, "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful".[7] I'm not sure how you can view this as "Synthesis" since it explicitly describes which religion was the target of the criticism. I am not joining the two quotes in the article in order to reach a logical conclusion. The Emma Goldman quote was about religion in general, and the second was about “pagan” religions. The reason they are both listed is because they are both examples of people criticizing religion as a tool of the state. Just because the two quotes are related does not mean that I am trying to blend these two together to reach a conclusion that could be considered O.R. I'm am not saying If A and B, therefore C. There is no "therefore C" anywhere in the paragraph, so I really have to wonder how you can even try to level such a complaint. The paragraph says here is "Criticism A", and here are two examples of this view, with the context of the statements clearly described.

And as for the "gratuitous sprinkling" of tags, I think you can see that all of the lines I tagged are deserving of review. I'm just surprised that you never noticed these problems before, since you seem to keep such a close watch on the content of this article. But please observe that I didn't just run through the article willy-nilly and delete everything I didn't like. I am a firm believer in citing sources, and I am a little dismayed by the fact that the small section I created has more than twice as many references than the rest of the entire article. Big Brother 1984 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it you still have not read WP:SYNT yet. If you had, you would know that the deletion is justified, because as far as we know, you are the first person in the world to string together quotes from George Orwell, Edward Gibbon (neither of whom were known to be atheists) and others in order to push a particular point of view or conclusion, as well as to develop a "theology" if you like for atheism. If some published source has ever done this, please cite it. Otherwise it is precisely what Wikipedia refers to as "novel synthesis". Again, read WP:SYNT carefully. I am not deleting it because I "do not like it", if I could do that I would delte the entire thing. The ridiculously weak argument implying it is somehow wrong to seek eternal reward could be easily refuted by Biblical texts, that state that Satan uses this same argument. But you have cited an actual atheist who makes the argument, so it can stay, and actually it makes atheists look ridiculous to anyone who has read the Bible to have it included. Your general hostility toward this article subject and your sarcastic tone above are also noted, and it is my opinion that you are no neutral editor, but only here to preach your own particular viewpoints and to deliberately sow tares in existing belief-systems, but Wikipedia is not at all supposed to be for pushing your own POV and fighting wars against people who believe differently from you. Here at wikipedia, your best policy is to just stick to sourcing what can be sourced neutrally, and save all the attacks on faith and religion for some other website.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:SYNT yourself. It is a policy against taking two unrelated statements and blending them together to reach an original conclusion that can be construed as OR. The paragraph in question does no such thing. I am merely listing a few examples of people who have accused states of using religion towards political ends. This is not OR. The purpose and intended targets of their statements are clear. They are all separate instances, and do not rely on one another to draw a conclusion. I think you need to learn what a logical argument is before you can accuse me of falsely fabricating one.

Again, I ask you to specifically state the logical conclusion you think that I am trying to "synthesize". In order to synthesize and argument (as per WP:SYNT), one statement would have to rely on another, and then a logical conclusion would have to rest upon the joining of the two prior statements. No such thing is occurring here. It isn't even close. As I said, there is no "therefore C". I am not saying, "Goldman said 'A', Gibbon said 'B', and therefore 'C'". The point of the paragraph is that some have accused people in power of using the promise of a post-mortem reward in order to suit their own ends. I am then saying that Goldman said this about "religion", and that Gibbon said something similar in reference to "pagan" religions. I have heard these quotes cited by prominent atheists, therefore it is not “OR” . (i.e. The Gibbon quote was cited by atheist Steven Weinberg in a BBC interview[8])

"The ridiculously weak argument implying it is somehow wrong to seek eternal reward could be easily refuted by Biblical texts..."

I don't even know what to say to that. I would love to have a philosophical discussion with you here, but I won’t. This is not the place. Your personal views here are irrelevant. The section in question is on the Atheist view of heaven, not the theist view of the atheist view on heaven. I am not pushing the atheist view here any more than the other religions here can be said to be pushing their view. This article is full of various POVs, and that is how it should be. You are obviously not an atheist, so I'm not sure why you have taken it upon yourself to act as the final editor of this section. You have already reverted my edits 9 times, in addition to making several other edits of your own. This behavior is not appropriate, and might easily be viewed as an "attack" by the person you are harassing with reverts. You really should take a good look at Help:Reverting (specifically, the section on When to revert). - 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Big Brother 1984

Reverting Original synthesis again. Your purpose on this article seems to be to provoke confrontation and contention, and so far you have been quite successful at that. I will be more than happy to revert your contentious and confrontational edits as long as necessary until we can get some arbitration on the matter. You seem to think the purpose of Wikipedia is to push your own POV on others by any means necessary. Half of the authors quoted in your novel synthesis on atheism were not atheists, or never claimed to be atheists or speaking on behalf of atheism, so you are clearly putting words in their mouths. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The purpose of my section is to give brief summary of the modern rationalist view towards the ancient belief of the afterlife. Such a view has every right to be present as the mythological beliefs of ancient Jews, Arabs, or Polynesians. By your practice of continual reversion, you are making it clear that you don't think that this view should be present in the article. Perhaps you can explain to me how censorship of an opposing viewpoint can be considered to be in line with maintaining an NPOV. All articles which describe a potentially debatable subject should include all reasonable viewpoints in order to maintain a NPOV.

Even though you have made it clear that you do not like this section because you view it as an "attack" on your theist sensibilities, you still seem to be maintaining that you rationale behind the deletion is due to a violation of WP:SYNT. I have asked you to explain how you have come to rather odd conclusion, and instead your response was to revert the entire article. The accusation of WP:SYNT is completely unwarranted. WP:SYNT is not a prohibition against collecting similar viewpoints in an article, as you would seem to be claiming. It is a prohibition against stringing together various unrelated facts to develop an original conclusion that could be construed as OR. The premise that religion can be used as a method of population control is certainly not an original position. And citing a couple examples of people who held this belief towards one religion or another is not a violation of WP:SYNT. If it were, a great many Wikipedia articles would be in need of revision.

The only clear violation of policy here is that of Help:Reverting, since you have now reverted my edits 10 times for rather frivolous reasons. I am not a big fan of summoning the powers of admins to resolve disputes, but if you continue reverting sections without explaining your reasons there may be little recourse left available to us. But for now I will assume good faith and attempt to explain very clearly why this section is not violation of WP:SYNT.

Take a look at the example given in the WP:SYNT article. The logical argument might be summarized as follows...

1) Smith accuses Jones of plagiarism.
2) Jones says that he didn't take other people idea's, only their references.
3) The Chicago Manual of Style does not describe "references stealing" as plagiarism.
4) Therefore jones is not guilty of plagiarism.

The article describes this as OR since the Wikipedia author who wrote this was stringing together a logical argument on his own in order to reach an original conclusion. The article then goes on the say that if some other published writer had made such an argument it could be included in the article since it would no longer be OR.

So you see, there are two things necessary for a section to be in violation of WP:SYNT:

A) A logical argument.
B) The argument must be un-sourced OR.

Concerning "A"... take a look at the example argument cited above. It is a logical argument because if you were to remove any part of it would lose its logical coherence. I challenge you to demonstrate how my article falls into this category. If you would give it a try, you would see that your "logical argument" looks something like this...

1) Goldman viewed religion as an opiate of the masses.
2) Gibbon Stated that roman leaders used religion towards their own ends.
3) Orwell saw the promise of heaven as an imaginary carrot dangled in front of workers to motivate them to obedience and contentment.
4) The Flying Spaghetti Monster religion has an extremely silly description of heaven in order to make a point.
5) Therefore.... ????

I hope you can see that this is not a logical argument. It is a collection of similar viewpoints. I have attempted to include a variety of different viewpoints in the interest of NPOV, but this is by no means an attempt to state that they all believe the exact same thing and all possess the same monolithic view on religion. Atheist and freethinkers are notorious for avoiding such a grouping. As atheists are often heard to lament, trying to organize any sort of formal atheistic organization or theology is a bit like trying to “herd cats”.

Concerning "B"... Where is the OR? Are you suggesting that I am the first person to state that religion is the "opiate of the masses"? If you wish to attribute this novel idea to me personally, I would be very much honored. But I'm afraid that it would be wrong of me to claim all the glory for myself, since to do so would clearly be an act of plagiarism (pun intended).

One last note... In the comments of your latest and greatest revert you said "Trimming for undue and disproportionate weight - atheism is an extreme minority view and does not deserve half the cites in the article". First of all, the entire article is roughly 6,540 words long. The atheism section is 611 words long. If you break out your calculator, you will see that this is less than 10% of the article. And if your complaint is about the number of citations, do I really need to remind you that reason you gave for your first revision was a lack of citations? And in any case, if your problem is truly with the citations, you could easily remove those instead of the entire article. But I should let you know that I would resist such a change since it would leave the section vulnerable to later deletion from somebody who asserted that the section was un-sourced.

And for the record, did you really just say that you deleted the section because it was too well sourced? Just when you think you’ve seen everything… - Big Brother 1984 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I will continue to revert your edits many more times until this is mediated. It is a clear case of WP:SYNT, because nobody before you as far as we know has ever tried to synthesize Gibbon with Orwell and the others into an "atheist point of view, or even state that Gibbon had anything to do with atheism. You are taking disparate comments from many authors completely out of context and forging them together into a novel synthesis to make an argument against an afterlife, and unless you show where this approach has ever been published in a reputable source, it is original reesearch. Secondly, it is disproportionate and undue weight to give so much attention to atheism in an article about Heaven, so I'm trimming the section. The purpose of the article is to describe all the different religious views of Heaven, not to fill it with criticism of the article subject. There have been many cases like this where people try to turn articles upside down with attacks on the subject, leading to filling half of them with criticisms and arguments and rebuttals and counter arguments until a subarticle is made for all the criticisms. We may have to do that here and make a subarticle dedicated to criticism of all the other religions, because it doesn't belong on this page. Atheism may be a viewpoint, but it is not that significant in terms of numbers worldwide. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am dismayed that you have now openly declared your intention for a revert war. IF that is your intention, there is little else to discuss. I have already described my position thoroughly in the comments above, and it apparent that you have chosen to ignore it. Even though I'm fairly sure that you are no longer reading any of this, I'll recap my points once more just to be clear:

1) You are accusing me of "synthesizing" various opinions on heaven to prove that it doesn't exist. I am doing no such thing. I am giving examples of people who felt that the promise of unearthly reward/punishment was used as a tool to control the actions of the living. (i.e. "The opiate of the masses") Such a position does not exclude the existence of heaven. It only states that people on Earth have used this belief to serve their own ends. And this is exactly was the authors of these quotes have tried to express, each in their own way.

2) You also have seemed to indicate that you believe my purpose in the article is to state that everybody mentioned declared themselves to be atheists -- You are saying that I am combining these quotes to "prove" that all these people absolutely denied the existence of the afterlife. Again, I am doing no such thing (Even though the case could certainly be made, that is irrelevant to this discussion) If this really was the purpose of my article, how does it help such an argument to state that Orwell wasn't a self-declared atheist, or that Gibbon was talking specifically about "pagan" religions?

3) The stated purpose of the section in question is to give examples of people who have said that the common belief in an afterlife is a tool that is used as an "opiate of the masses" by those in power. This view is not limited to atheists (as should be obvious), and it is certainly not an original conclusion. This is the common thread to all of these quotes, and this is clearly stated in the article. The other arguments that you are accusing me of "synthesizing" exist only in your own head. The article itself states no such conclusions. Furthermore, inclusion of these quotes is not OR since I can provide examples of popular self-described atheist referring specifically to these quotes in their arguments. For example, here are two examples of atheists citing the Gibbon quote –

• Atheism Tapes: Steven Weinberg – Time index 22:00
• BBC: History of Disbelief Time index 56:55

Hmm… actually, it appears that the inspiration for Gibbon’s quote came from Seneca (a “pagan” philosopher). Would it help to resolve the issue if I quoted the Seneca version of this quote instead? It really doesn’t matter to me. The two quotes are nearly identical.

4) As I showed in my previous response, I have read WP:SYNT and have given you a very clear explanation of why it doesn't apply. Holding your breath and simply declaring by fiat that it violates this rule is not going to convince anyone, especially when I have already given a clear explanation of why it doesn't.

5) Even if we were to assume that you have a valid complain about that one paragraph, why did you delete the other two paragraphs? Additionally, as per Help:Reverting, simply because you are unsatisfied with a section, that does not give you the right to continuously delete it. If you have a complaint, discuss it. The reason for this policy is to prevent revert wars, and to prevent ill-will between editors. Which brings me to #6...

6) It is apparent that you have not read Help:Reverting, or you have simply chosen to ignore it. Please read the following...

---When to revert---

---Do's---

See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

---Dont's---

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

And on that note, I will now proceed to undo your 11th reversion. As we are quickly approaching the WP:3RR, please do not revert again until we can resolve this dispute. I understand that you don't like the atheist viewpoint on this subject, but that doesn't give you the right to delete it.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

- Big Brother 1984 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

• There are better sources than "pie in the sky" than Orwell; some of them may even use Orwell as an example.
• WP is an encyclopedia, not a collection of opinion pieces. We do not argue for (or against) the atheist view, which is what BB 1984 is doing.
• About.com's opinion of Gibbon is not a reliable source; they are a WP mirror, and collect all our old mistakes.

Regards Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

1) Concerning Orwell... I'm not sure what the issue is. I provided a citation[9] to a source that explained Orwell's use of "Sugarcandy Mountain" as...."Orwell showed how Moses's tales of a heaven called "Sugarcandy Mountain" were useful to Jones as a way of keeping the animals in order - religion gave them hopes of a better life after they died and their belief made them more willing to accept their current harsh lives.". I suppose I could have directly plagiarized this quote, but my brief one-line comment is saying the essentially the same thing.

I've run an Orwell-themed website for nearly 10 years. If I were so inclined, I could give a more in-depth description of what message Orwell was trying to convey by cartooning heaven in such ridiculous manner. But I don't think that such a digression belongs in this article. (Plus, the lengthiest discussion about Sugarcandy Mountain I have been able to find on the Internet exists on my own website. And obviously, I can't quote myself without being guilty of OR).

The reason I mentioned "Sugarcandy Mountain" from Animal Farm in the article is because it is the best fictional example I know of which clearly describes the promise of heaven being purposefully used by those in power as an "opiate of the masses". I suppose that the article doesn't absolutely need to have this reference in it, but then again, I don't see any reason why it should be specifically removed either. Plus I think it ties in well with the real-life criticism of Goldman, and the overly-fictitious satire of the Pastafarians.

2) Many articles have a "criticism of the theory" section. I agree that the wiki should not be used as a soapbox to voice any one person's POV. By in an article such as this which describes a "Theory" about which is great disagreement, the only way to maintain a NPOV is to describe each competing viewpoint in its own separate section. This article was already sub-divided into multiple such divisions before I even arrived. But the one thing that all the sections had in common is that they all supported the validity of a belief in heaven.

In the "Atheist" section I added, I suppose that I could have quoted people who argue against the existence of heaven in order to balance the POV of the article. But atheist arguments are rarely concerned with "disproving" the existence of heaven (since there is really no good way to "prove a negative"). When atheists do discuss heaven, they generally talk about the effect of such a belief on society as a whole. I included three of common arguments in the article, which are:

1) The "opiate of the masses" view.
2) They think that there are better reasons to be nice to your fellow man than believing that an invisible man will reward you for it.
3) The belief that you are immortal makes it easier for you to martyr yourself in order to please your deity.

In the article, I never state that any of these claims are true or that their opinion is better than any other view... I am merely saying this person said this and this person said that, which as far as I know is the best way to describe a POV in a neutral manner.

3) Gibbon. I only cited the about.com article here in the talk page to show that some people might call him an agnostic. I didn’t add this to the article itself because Gibbon's status as an atheist wasn't being discussed. It is well-known that nobody who lived in the early 18th century described themselves as an atheist. The Blasphemy Act essentially made it against the law to declare one's self as an atheist, and such an overt act could be punishable by life imprisonment or death. People were still being sent to prison well after Gibbon lived, so even if he was an atheists he would have never said so. (The last person sent to prison was in 1921, and believe it or not, the law is still on the books... although it is no longer enforced).

It is for this reason that you will often find atheists quoting people who never publicly called themselves atheists... you really don't find many people who did so before modern times. And it is for this reason that Gibbon's status as an atheist isn't even being suggested.... he never said that he was. (And he actually professes his belief in Christianity quite often) But, whether or not Gibbon did or did not believe in the Jewish god Jehovah is irrelevant. Gibbon is not even discussing Christianity in this quote. Roman religions had some idea of an afterlife as well. One can deride Roman mythological beliefs while at the same time accepting Jewish/Christian mythology as true. Modern atheists see little difference between Roman mythology and Jewish mythology. Gibbon did not believe in the gods of Roman mythology. He is clearly an "unbeliever" in these gods. And it clearly these gods and their religions that Gibbon is talking about in the passage. And that point is explicitly mentioned.

But the reason I included his quote in the article is because modern atheists quote him (as I showed in a previous comment). The reason they quote him is because they don't constrain Gibbon's criticism merely to Roman mythology as Gibbon did, but rather to all religions. The target of the argument may be changed, but the argument itself remains unchanged when atheists invoke it.

Now that I've gone through the trouble of defending my use of the quote, I'll go ahead and remove it. ^>^ The pagan philosopher Seneca said pretty much the same thing in the 1st century CE. In fact, It seems that Gibbon may have actually plagiarized Seneca... who in turn may have plagiarized Lucretius...

The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. - Edward Gibbon (1776)

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher. - Lucretius (94 BC - 49 BC)

Seneca did not believe in the pagan religions of the time, and could therefore properly be called an atheist. That should alleviate any possibility of complaint. But before I make the change I first want to find a better source for these quotes to make sure that Seneca and/or Lucretius actually wrote these words. - Big Brother 1984 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's attack against heaven?

I'm personally critical of the concept of heaven & hell, but there has to be some degree of dignity in how this is written. Who is responsible for this attack? Unlike the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, none of us brilliant wiki-philosophers are signing the article, so who is responsible for these interpretations of the sources? Synthesizing sources together like this to form a solid case against religion is working at the secondary level of analysis, which is inappropriate for wikipedia. The way to write a criticism about the doctrine of heaven, is to use atheist philosophers who have been explicitly writing about the doctrine of heaven, and describe their line of criticism, and only cite Orwell, if they too have done so. Otherwise, this is SYNT, SYNT, SYNT and maybe even worse than SYNT. --Merzul 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting how some people here are choosing to define SYNT. I already gave a detailed explanation of why this section doesn't violate WP:SYNT above, but I'll quickly go through it once more.

The prohibition is not, as some seem to claim, against gathering quotes from various authors who have a similar opinion on a subject. If you believe this to be the case, what would you suggest as an alternative?... That all articles express the views of a single author? I think we can all see that this is certainly not was is intended by WP:SYNT. The prohibition here is against constructing original logical arguments based on separate facts – SYNT is prohibited because it is OR. But I fail to see how the topics I discussed can be construed as OR. It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody might never of heard of these criticisms before, but that fact does not make them OR. I've already stated the three main criticisms discussed in the article in my previous comment, but I'll reiterate them here again so you don't have to scroll...

1) Some atheists view the promise of heavenly rewards as an "opiate of the masses".
2) Some atheists think that there are better reasons to be nice to your fellow man than believing that an invisible man will reward you for it.
3) Some atheists fear that people who believe they are immortal have no reservations about martyring themselves (i.e. suicide bombers) in order to please their deity.

The primary question here is whether or not any of these are OR. I don't think there is any possible way these could be construed as such. This is what the quotes themselves say. These main points are merely a summary of the viewpoints expressed in their respective paragraphs. The quotes don’t build on one another to form any sort of logical argument. The quotes are all independent expressions of opinion on a similar theme. There are no conclusions in the article being drawn except for what the authors state themselves. No OR, no violation of WP:SYNT. It really is just that simple. - Big Brother 1984 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You yourself stated above that you think it all "ties in well" (search for the phrase 'ties in well' on this page)... So, it "ties in well", but it is not "synthesized"? Seems like you want it both ways... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What ties them in are statements like "X expressed this view", "Y applied this view", "Z gave a literary example of this view", "W provides a similarly fictitious reward" -- these are all judgments that a certain quotation (be it Orwell or the Chicago Manual of Style) is expressing a certain view. SYNT is not saying that you can only use one source per article, but it is more about working at the appropriate level of analysis. For example you can write: "In an essay on Orwell's Political Messages, Rhodri Williams explains the symbolism behind the character Moses and compares the notion of heaven to his imaginary mountain ..." Excuse the bad writing, but the idea is that your should work with secondary sources and attribute your literary analysis to somebody, preferably a notable literary critic. We should not write things like this directly as if Wikipedia is drawing the conclusions and making the case. --Merzul 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: the second source on Orwell states "... This represents the cynical use of religion by the state to anaesthetise the minds of the masses." But this is quite different from the criticism that religion is itself the opiate of the masses. It doesn't seem like the source would agree that Orwell "gave a literary example of this view". Even if you don't agree with me, do you at least see why we should be working with secondary sources? --Merzul 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about suggesting in an article that there is only one particular way to interpret a piece of fiction (especially in an article not specifically discussing the piece of fiction in question). Although in the case or Orwell's Animal Farm, the fictional elements of the book are such a thinly veiled critique of real life that there is generally only one way to interpret what Orwell was trying to say. I've been particularly interested in Orwell and his works for many years now, and I have never seen any other interpretations of "Sugarcandy Mountain" put forth. But I have run into difficulties in finding sources to backup this claim. Many of the people who have written about Orwell throughout the years did so because they liked his anti-communism stance -- They are typically "conservatives", while Orwell himself was a Socialist. Being mostly conservative, they generally ignore Orwell's comments about religion entirely. This is evident, for instance, if you take a look at the two film adaptions of Animal Farm -- In both films the role of Moses is almost entirely written out of the script, and Sugarcandy Mountain is never even mentioned once.

(Please pardon the OR here. But as an arm-chair "expert" on Orwell, I can't help but stress the obvious nature of the interpretation that is put forth in the article.)

However, I concede the point. I'm just wondering how I could re-word the section to remove the "certainty" about this interpretation of Sugarcandy Mountain as an means to "anaesthetise the minds of the masses", even though this is the only interpretation that is really possible. But I'll give it a shot... let me know if you think this is sufficient. - Big Brother 1984 10:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad we are starting to understand each other. Your rewrite is clearly a step in the right direction, but I wonder if it will satisfy those editors who were initially offended at this section. Unfortunately, I don't have the competence/experience to resolve this conflict, so I just encourage you to consider one general issue when working with criticism of religion. Think of this recent wave of attack on religion in 2006, isn't most of what they say rather obvious and quite well known? I think the real novelty is that they have the guts to speak up. This is why I recommend being careful and work with the other editors to avoid direct claims and interpretations, and instead try to follow what notable critics have said. So, even if it is very obvious what Orwell was talking about, we should be very careful and delicate in pointing this out on Wikipedia, since as you said, much of the critical literature has not focused on this aspect. Very often avoiding synthesis doesn't mean you have to delete or censor material, but simply that you try to work with other editors to find the appropriate language and the right level of attribution. Anyway, I hope this helps, and I wish both sides a good and peaceful debate! --Merzul 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in sorting this matter out. These matters are more easily resolved when somebody explains their objections clearly rather than simply reverting every edit you make. I am still working on finding a iron-clad source for the Seneca/Lucretius quote (I think I'm going to need to make a trip to the local library to find it. It bugs me when I see hundreds of websites repeating a quote but none state in exactly which of the author's works the quote appears). Once I do so I'll replace the Gibbon quote and remove the OR tag (As long as there are no further objections in the meantime) - Big Brother 1984 15:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a good source for the Seneca quote I was going to include. Even though I've found a published source to cite, I think that the quote may possibly be bogus. (See talk on Wikiquote). So, I'm going to leave the quote out for now. Since the Gibbon quote is gone and since the section on Orwell has been reworded, I am going to remove the OR tag. -- Big Brother 1984 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Plasma Metaphysics?

This section appears to be spam for the published works of one author, Jay Alfred. I did a metacrawler search for the phrase "Plasma Metaphysics", and the only results that were returned was plasmametaphysics.com (a site run by Alfred), or sites which redirected directly back to this site. If you take a look at the contributions by this user Plasmametaphysics, you'll see that all he has done is promote the work of Jay Alfred. And furthermore, this whole concept of "Plasma Metaphysics" is pure pseudo-scientific nonsense. I suggest we axe this section and everything else this user has ever done. -- Big Brother 1984 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that at this time Plasma Metaphysics is not very well-known - I will therefore stop making further contributions if it is not welcomed – although it means depriving readers of a powerful theory that recasts traditional metaphysical and religious knowledge in the context of modern physics. Plasma Metaphysics is an exciting new field which is based on sound theoretical physics, astronomical and metaphysical evidence.-- Plasmametaphysics 4 February 2007

”Powerful theory”? I offer this from Alfred’s Website:

There is growing evidence that human beings possess a series of very high frequency liquid-crystal electromagnetic bodies, which are ordinarily invisible and survive the death of our physical bodies.

Lol. Perhaps Mr. Alfred should contact the guy who developed the Time Cube. I'm sure they'll get along. Both of these "powerful theories" have something in common - they lack a fair degree of falsifiability. I realize that the theory of Heaven also fails this test. But the reason Wikipedia has an article about it is because that a great many people on this planet believe they are immortal and will travel to some sort of special immortal resort after they're dead. In order for "plasma metaphysics" to qualify for insertion in Wikipedia articles, Mr. Alfred must first convince a sizable number of people that his "theory" is worthwhile. (Or, like in the case of the Time Cube or the FSM, he must have many people laughing at it). In order to maintain NPOV, it really doesn't matter if he's right or wrong ... if enough people are interested in it will get a mention on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to advertise every single nonsensical conjecture that any non-notable person might dream up. - Big Brother 1984 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If Brother had actually read what was on the website, he would have realized that his quote refers to bodies that are popularly called ‘bioplasma bodies’ and that plasma metaphysics is based on plasma physics. Are invisible plasma bodies a new idea? Even Barbara Brennan, a noted contemporary metaphysicist and former NASA engineer, has characterised the subtle bodies in metaphysical literature as bioplasma bodies. Plasma bodies are electromagnetic bodies with specific frequencies – what metaphysicists term a ‘vibratory signature’ and are composed of dark matter. They are ordinarily invisible because of limitations in our current sensory systems and measuring instruments in detecting dark matter. NASA officially announced the discovery of dark matter in August 2006, based on extremely persuasive indirect astronomical evidence. Ironically the term ‘bioplasma’ is mentioned in the Wikipedia page on the etheric body - the very page that plasma metaphysics was edited-out by Big Brother! There is however no Wikipedia page for it. Plasma metaphysics would have made an ideal Wikipedia page to explain this concept but Brother displaying his usual pseudo-expertise has called it ‘spam’. Brother obviously did not adequately research the subject before he reached his laughable conclusions. Contemporary metaphysical literature clearly points out the electromagnetic nature of both ‘bioplasma’ and ‘subtle’ bodies. Plasma was discovered to have liquid crystal properties in 1994 by Gregor Morfill and this was verified by other experimenters. Is the idea of an afterlife astounding to Brother? Then read the Wikipedia. Plasma metaphysics does not even make the claim that individual soul-bodies are immortal. (But of course, Brother, appears to be unaware of this.) Is the idea of subtle bodies new? Again read the Wikipedia. Plasma metaphysics includes a detailed contemporary study and discussion of the work of C.W. Leadbeater, Annie Besant, Helena Blavatsky, Paramahansa Yogananda – all referenced in Wikipedia pages, in the context of modern physics. The building blocks of plasma metaphysics are based on ideas widely suppported by a great many people and there is already significant Wikipedia content on them. All these various ideas flow naturally out of the single conceptual framework of plasma metaphysics. So how did our dear Brother come to his conclusions? – He read a few web pages and started jumping to conclusions - like an irresponsible movie critic who makes sweeping generalizations about a movie after catching a movie trailer. Can we trust Big Brother’s ability to edit? Amusingly he then goes on to expound the scientific method. Our misguided Brother should stop his Popperish-jiberrish and do some real work. He can start with theories about dark matter, move on to learn something about supersymmetry theory; and then familiarize himself with plasma physics. It is only with this foundation knowledge that plasma metaphysics can be approached. All these topics are covered in the introductory section of the first book for the lay informed reader. Intensive reseach over five years generated three books covering plasma metaphysics. Recent experiments are cited on every other page. More than a 100 books and numerous recent scientific papers have been cited in the books. The books have been double-checked, triple-checked and overhauled more than thirty times. It is unbelievable that Brother has come to the conclusion that ‘Both of these "powerful theories" have something in common - they lack a fair degree of falsifiability’ without even so much as reading one book on the subject of plasma metaphysics! He carelessly bunches two very different theories into one based on superficial characteristics - clearly displaying his ignorance of the subject-matter. Plasma metaphysics is derived from the widely established Lambda-CDM model and M-theory – any falsification of these theories is a falsification of plasma metaphysics. (Brother, you might want to read that again before sermonising on the scientific method.) In order to convince the Wikipedia community that our Brother is not a loose cannon firing at imaginary targets and wasting everybody’s time, Big Brother should perhaps be less big headed and ‘listen’ to what other editors say. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for every nonsensical attack he makes on contributors, while contributing hardly anything himself.--Plasmametaphysics 08:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is complete nonsense. Just because scientists are still trying to figure out what dark matter and dark energy are doesn't mean that you can just make stuff up. You are using a lot of real physics terms here, but you seem to be confused about what these terms actually mean. Just because you throw a lot of scientific jargon onto a theory, that doesn't make the theory scientific. Star Trek is based on real science, but that doesn't make it scientific, does it? In order to be scientific, there must be some sort of testable hypothesis. So, I must ask, what is it? Where’s the beef?

It seems that you are trying to say that people are immortal because they have "souls" made out of some sort of "dark matter vibrations". This is complete nonsense. Dark matter does not interact with normal matter, that is why it is "dark". Therefore, you're going to have a hard time explaining how these "vibrations" get stuck in the human brain and control its actions. (But that would be a big leap, because first you have to figure out what dark matter is, THEN show that it can "vibrate", THEN show that it can take on some sort of structured form which could be construed as a "soul", and THEN.... on, and on, and on...) If his theory had any merit, he would be in line for a Nobel Prize. But the theory doesn't even seem to be coherent or make any testable predictions. It's just some new-age nonsense dressed up to look like meaningful science.

In any case, none of this is particularly relevant to why this nonsense has been removed from the articles. The reason it has been removed is because it is not notable. Just because some crackpot pseudo-scientists managed to publish his time-cube-esque theory in a non-peer-reviewed book does not make the theory notable. Nobody seems to care about Jay Alfred's "theory" except for Jay Alfred... and you (and that's even given you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're not him). -- Big Brother 1984 07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again Big Brother (‘Brother’) has gone off the tangent like a loose cannon. Despite the fact that my previous message clearly states: ‘Plasma metaphysics does not even make the claim that individual soul-bodies are immortal.’ Brother says ‘It seems that you are trying to say that people are immortal...’. How do you argue rationally with a person who does not even appear to have the ability to read what was written? This confirms my previous observation that Brother does not care to ‘listen’ to others or maybe he is simply downright careless. Brother's statement that ‘Dark matter does not interact with normal matter...’ is complete nonsense. Even a physics undergraduate knows that dark matter interacts with ordinary matter through the long-range gravitational force. If dark matter did not interact with ordinary matter then why are massive stars at the edge of the galaxy Andromeda moving as fast as the stars nearer the galactic nucleus – as verified by Vera Rubin and W K Ford in 1970? And why are the stars in sixty other galaxies showing the same behavior. In fact, it was precisely because of this INTERACTION, relating to the galaxy rotation curve, that dark matter was taken seriously by physicists. (These examples have been cited in the book – which systematically takes the reader through the theory.) Dark matter also interacts through the weak nuclear force in interactions involving WIMPs (I’m not referring to Brother here – these are dark matter particles). In other words, two out of the four physical forces known in nature are relevant in the interactions between dark and ordinary matter. In this context, Brother’s ludicrous comment that ‘Dark matter does not interact with normal matter, that is why it is "dark"’ is not only outright nonsensical it is hilarious! The reason why dark matter is called ‘dark’ is because it does not radiate electromagnetic radiation within the known electromagnetic spectrum – the word ‘dark’ refers to dark matter’s ‘non-luminosity’. If Brother wants to know who’s confused about scientific terms he should take a good hard look at himself in the mirror. Even the first line of the Wikepedia page on dark matter which was linked to my previous message for Brother’s easy reference states: ‘In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter, not directly observed and of unknown composition, that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.’ Apparently, Brother had not even read the reference given to him. Where did Brother get the phrase ‘vibrations get stuck in the human brain’. This is the stupidest attempted interpretation of plasma metaphysics that I have encountered. The term ‘dark matter vibrations’ has never been used anywhere in the books. All these terms are nonsensical terms concocted by a muddled-Brother based on preconceived and outdated ideas. It is clear that the only person who is ‘making things up’ is Brother. All this shows that Brother has only a superficial understanding of what little he has read while not being the least perturbed about insulting others who have done years of intensive research on the subject. Nobody really cares about Brother’s pseudo-expert ‘criticisms’ except the biggest confused crackpot of all - Big Brother. His ‘criticisms’ are nothing but the incessant whinings of a lazy goof-ball who does not want to do any real work to understand the subject better.--Plasmametaphysics 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it true anything is possible in heaven?

If it was, I'm a Puffy fan. I believe animated Puffy AmiYumi are real in heaven. If I got to heaven and hang out with these girls and other Puffy fans. Ami and Yumi will love us very much and me too and we'll love them back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.155.132.228 (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

• I guess we won't know til we get there. I personally hope anime characters aren't real. That would be creepy. JuJube 00:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe. I'm a Puffy fan and christian. If I see them. I won't freak out but I'll be surprised. and I'll be shy to meet but the girls will calm me down and become a good friend of them. This question is for Puffy fans and christians from now on.

Buddhist gods?

I am a bit puzzled by the statement that there are Buddhist gods, a Buddhist pantheon. I have never come across these before in any reading about Buddhism. I'm pretty sure that these gods 'Sakka' and 'Brahma' are recognised by only some branches of Buddhism (if that) and not by the whole.

Agemegos 07:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. There is not one form of Buddhism, it has many forms and branches. Being a very adaptive philosophy, Buddhists often identify other gods or semi-gods to their own views. For example, in Japan the native Shinto religion coexists easily next to Buddhism and people consider themselves to both a Shintoist and a Buddhist. --Soetermans 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Entyomology of the word Heaven

This article seems not to disscuss the origin of the term Heaven, and which religion's first mentioned it. There is also an over-emphasis upon Christianity (which probably reflects the authors own knowledge), which seems a shame because Heaven (or an equivalent) is in just about every religion. Also there is little discourse about what kind of existence one might have in heaven (ie about the nature of a spiritual existence).

Entyomology: Heaven comes from the Middle English Heven, which its self is derived from the Old English term Heofon (meaning sky). This term probably derives from the Old Norse word 'Himinn'. Such phrases have Indo-European roots, suggesting perhaps a Vedic or Sumarian origin. Also I would imagine that Buddhists take their opinion's about Heaven directly from the Vedas, and so it ought to be made clear that Hindu's and Buddhists have the same root; from which Egyption, Sumarian, greek and Norse belief's derived. Only in Judaic/Christian myth does Heaven signify God's spritual domain, all other faiths show heaven to be a place within the material world. Does this suggest that the Nordic term for Heaven has been wrongly associated/confused/transilliterated with the Hebrew term Shamayim?

Other descriptions: Heaven

O.E. Heofon "home of God," earlier "sky," possibly from P.Gmc. *Khemina- (cf. Low Ger. Heben, O.N. Himinn, Goth. Himins, O.Fris. Himul, Du. Hemel, Ger. Himmel "Heaven, sky"), from PIE base *kem-/*kam- "to cover" (cf. chemise). Plural use in sense of "sky" is probably from Ptolemaic theory of space composed of many spheres, but it was also formerly used in the same sense as the singular in Biblical language, as a translation of Heb. pl. Shamayim. Heavenly "beautiful, divine" is from 1460, often (though not originally) with reference to the celestial "music of the spheres;" weakened sense of "excellent, enjoyable" is first recorded 1874.

International names for Heaven:
Arabic: السَّماء
Chinese (Simplified): 天堂
Chinese (Traditional): 天堂
Czech: nebe
Danish: himlen; himmerige
Dutch: hemel
Estonian: taevas
Finnish: taivas
French: paradis
German: der Himmel
Greek: παράδεισος
Hungarian: mennyország
Icelandic: himnaríki
Indonesian: surga
Italian: paradiso
Japanese: 天国
Korean: 천국
Latvian: debesis
Lithuanian: dangus
Norwegian: himmelen, himmerike
Polish: niebo
Portuguese (Brazil): paraíso
Portuguese (Portugal): céu
Romanian: rai
Russian: рай
Slovak: nebo
Slovenian: nebesa
Spanish: cielo, paraíso
Swedish: himmel, himlen, himmelrike
Turkish: cennet
'86.4.59.203 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda.

Thanks, good info... The Anglo-Saxons also had a concept of a leisurely, carefree Heaven or Paradise called Neorxnawang. I could add words for many more languages on my files. Til Eulenspiegel 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Heaven: Scientific versus Spiritual

Keep the sections separate. The scientific definition of heaven as the space above and the religious in each other section thereafter, describing each's point of view from that religion. List Etymology in the scientific section and the spiritual place at the start of the Spiritual Section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unknown Interval (talk • contribs) 03:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

"The scientific definition of heaven"? Where are you getting the idea that there is any such thing as a "scientific definition of heaven"? I doubt such a thing can be cited to a reliable source. It is pure fiction to assert that scientists are all "agreed" on such things as matters of religion; religion is a very private thing that all humans are free to make up their own minds about (this is a basic human right), and I am sure you will find scientists who come from the entire spectrum of backgrounds, thus no one has ever forced them all to "agree" on this question, though some might pretend otherwise for propaganda-pushing purposes. Til Eulenspiegel 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct spelling

Is heaven written with a capital, or just in lowercase letters? So is it Heaven or heaven? I wouldn't know, English isn't my mother tongue. Some articles are written with a capitalletter, others without. --Soetermans 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects?

Why does this happen?

Heaven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Where is your god now)

I search "where is your god now" referring to the 4chan meme, and I get Heaven? Somebody justify this, or remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karonaway (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized?

Should the word "heaven" be capitalized? This article is not consistent in that regard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is the 'Argument in Rebuttal to Atheism' doing here?

It doesn't describe any widespread belief, just a book by Robert Short. Surely he doesn't merit being presented on a parity with Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism? I can see someone felt uncomfortable giving the atheists the last word, but this is an encylopedia rather than a letters page and the article is merely meant to describe what major sects believe about heaven. Equally, there isn't a rebuttal to the Catholic conception of Heaven. I shall therefore remove that last bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.158.123 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth some more patient person's editing the 'Atheism' section to sound less like an argument and more like a description of what atheists tend to say about Heaven. It might be worth stressing that, as atheism is not an organised religion, Dawkins et al represent only particular atheist viewpoints rather than the beliefs of atheists as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.158.123 (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

actually, why does the atheist viewpoint need its own section or even representation? it's implicit in atheism that it rejects heaven (and a plenitude of other concepts associated with religion and faith). there's an article on Atheism for the very purpose of describing what atheism is. does the atheism article include rebuttals of it by the faithful? nope. the atheism section has no place here. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose deleting the whole atheism section. It is implicit that an atheist doesn't believe in an afterlife. Besides that there are misquotes that believing in heaven is an opiate for the masses when Marx said that of religion as a whole. And the rebuttal only addresses the Universalist perspective, and is thus insufficient to counter anything (there are a lot of worldviews to consider here). Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"stairway to heaven"?

why is this photo in the article? it has nothing to do with this article, other than being a jpg named that way. i'm going to remove it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism?

Should Mormonism be considered Christian? I'm Lutheran, so my view may be biased, but Christians believe that everyone is equal and that all go to heaven who believe in the salvation of Jesus Christ, regardless of their works, but the 144,000 of Mormonism seem to disprove this. --141.157.17.204 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean Jehovah's Witnesses?--C.Logan (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Mormonism also believes in the saved 144,000. On this page, it says that under their highest heaven. I probably should have mentioned Jehovah's Witness, but I didn't know about the Jehovah's Witness belief until after I posted this comment. 141.157.17.204 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is Your God Now?

"Where is Your God Now" redirects here, but is not mentioned on the page. The redirect should be removed, or the page should be modified to explain the origins of "Where is Your God Now?" and the reason it is a popular joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.123.76 (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

capitalisation

I capitalised most of it.

Heaven is a place, albeit a fictional one, and therefore should be capitalised. One however, can write of heavens in general with a small h. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calvinism

This may or may not stir up discussion.

I removed the little bit that said that Calvinism was an example of how some religions thought that Predestination was the way they entered heaven. This is true... sort of. The problem is that in the sentence previous it outlines the Arminian position which states that only those who trust in the deity and in his method of salvation can enter heaven. Strangely enough this is the Calvinist position as well!

To put it in more theological terms - both Arminians and Calvinists believe that Jesus was sent by God to die for the sins of the world. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that only those who place their trust in the death and resurrection of Christ will go to heaven. Arminians and Calvinists differ over the place of free-will and determinism in how this placing of trust occurs. One Salient Oversight 01:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, can you say as much in the article? I think having the views properly attributed is desirable. Tom 02:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay - I'll attempt it. One Salient Oversight 03:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Catholic teachings on heaven

This article needs some reworkings as IMHO, it is not really clear on the Catholic (or protestant for that matter) teachings and beliefs on entry into heaven. As described in the limbo article and this link http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo.htm current Catholic teachings appear to suggest that unbaptised babies can in fact enter heaven and non Christians can in fact enter heaven altho they do of course still teach that baptisim is extremely important and it is only through God as they view 'it' that one can enter heaven. The teachings are somewhat contradictary probably because they revolve around the idea that their view of God are the correct ones but they also realised in the modern era many people are simply unwilling to accept that a person who is otherwise an extremely good person will not enter heaven. So instead currently the teachings appear to revolve around the idea that they suggest it's possible but say only accepting their view of God is the surefire way.

Biblicism

In the discussion of Protestant beliefs the article seems to be biased towards the "Biblicist" position. I've done a fair amount of reading of what Protestants believe about how to obtain salvation but never encountered a "Biblicist" position. Sounds like a biased addition by someone who doesn't like calvinism or arminianism to me. e.g. both calvinists and arminianists would accept the statement that salvation is "By the grace of God alone, through faith in Christ alone". And certainly the reference to Paul and Polycarp is inappropriate...although these men would not have seen a contradiction between our will to choose to do good, and God's divine power to predestine us for heaven, the article deceitfully implies that St. Paul and Polycarp were adherents of a movement called "Biblicism"...kind of ridiculous considering the Bible was still being written and a century or two away from being compiled when Paul lived.

I've removed all reference to Biblicism, mainly the article didn't have a NPOV towards it, and because it stated that only Biblicists taught 'grace alone, faith alone'. This isn't true...but it seems a pity to take away all reference to the Biblicist point of view altogether, especially since I personally believe it, though I've never described myself as "Biblicist". Any Biblicists out there who are keen on putting in a paragraph about the Biblicist position from a NPOV, please do!

Historical Fallacies

"Jewish converts to this concept of heaven and hell included the group known as the Pharisees. The larger, dogmatically conservative Sadducees maintained their belief in Sheol. While it was the Sadducees that represented the Jewish religious majority it was the Pharisees who best weathered Roman occupation, and their belief in Zoroaster's heaven and hell was passed on to both Christianity and Islam (in which heaven is referred to as Jannah)."

Most of this information is correct, except for the fact that the Tzaddikim or Sadducees were the minority, composed mostly of the Hellenizing Aristocrats and the Roman elected Levitical Priesthood. The common people were almost all Pharisees and hated the Sadducees with a passion because they were looked at as traitors and oppressors of the poor.