Talk:Idealism (Christian eschatology)

Body of article replaced
Hello! I think I've substantially improved the quality of this article and made an effort to sort of blanket authenticate it. I tend to work in these sweeping ways from memory first, and think it leads to material of good interest.

I rarely attack most of an article - in fact I don't think I ever have before replaced the entire body. The former version made me do it. :^D Now it seems evident that the header needs better integration but I'm not sure where to go with it yet. Xgenei (talk) 20101006

This article as it stands has nothing to do with Christian Idealist Eschatology (which I don't even agree with) as introduced by Patrick Fairbairn.

http://vinyl2.sentex.net/~tcc/PF/Fairbairn.php?page=fairbairn2.html

Fairbairn's basic proposition was that 1) Israel only existed to reveal God and godly principles to the world, and 2) the Christian Church replaces the Old Testemant Israel, and is moving towards godly perfection. Fairbairn's Christian Idealism still recognized the Christian Church, but allegorized pretty much the entire Bible, and did not teach literalist interpretation, as in the other schools of prophetic interpretation that existed or was rising at the time--Historicism, Futurism/Dispensationalism, and Preterism.

Christian Idealism and Preterism are similar, but Idealism teaches a "natural" working out of God's plan through His "glorious" vehicle, the Church, while Preterism still teaches an ongoing conflict between good and evil until the church allegedly drives evil out of the world. Moreover, Fairbairn rejected the notion of a personal hell (like Marcion) while Preterism doesn't. IkeEickman (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article as it is now really doesn't talk about Idealism in Christian Eschatology, it just goes on about Mao (who is not talking about Eschatology when he's talking about Idealism), and is mostly unsourced, poorly sourced or original research (which is unacceptable). "As regards eschatology, Spiritual Christians are commonly highly literal in their interpretation of Biblical events and prophecy" is HIGHLY POV.  I'm reverting it to the old version (although I am going to leave the actually unrelated OED bit out), because as it stands, it fails WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTBLOG and is barely on topic.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm searching Google books for more sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)