Talk:Last Judgment

Instead...
of saying "At this judgment, the knowledge will be general: the conduct and deserts of each individual will be made plain not only to his own conscience but to the knowledge of the assembled world"

taking the "this is the truth" stance, it should take a more neutral stance and say "It is believed that at this judgement..." and so on.

Proposed merger with End Times

 * Oppose. Most evangelical Christians of whatever Christian denomination or theology believe in a Last Judgment; so do Roman Catholics AFAIK.  The End Times article is about specific prophecies coming out of the Millerite, Jehovah's Witness, and Dispensationalism movements about how the end of the world and Second Coming are supposed to be imminent.  This is a minority position among Christians, even in the USA.  The articles are about two entirely different things.  Smerdis of Tlön 03:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree that End Times beliefs are about something different from Last Judgement. End Times beliefs concern themselves with signs that we live in the last millennium before the Second Coming. They include beliefs about the Rapture, when good Christians would be taken up into Heaven to avoid being subjected to the trials of the Apocalypse.


 * Oppose. While agreeing with the previous opinion that End Times beliefs are about something different from Last Judgement, and that End Times beliefs concern themselves with signs that we live in the last millennium before the Second Coming, I do not agree that they necessarily include beliefs about the Rapture. Not all Christians who believe in the End Times believe in a Rapture--a nineteeth century concept that has little representation in traditional Christian theology. MishaPan 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons already given by others. Goldfritha 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the mythological and urban legand of 'End Times' is distinctly different than the well defined concept of the 'Last Judgment' in the Judea-Christian perspective.
 * Suggestion: I didnt see this when I made my remark. But I suggest a Hat note at the top of the article as a possible solution because the topics are inter-related. --41.177.4.22 (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

POV
I removed this statement:
 * However, this view is no doubtely wrong. The Bible specifically says that the dead are judged (Revelation 20:12) and that whoever is not written in the book of life is cast into Eternal death (Revelation 20:15). Also, the Catholic belief in Puragatory is non-Biblical in any way, and therfore does not represent an accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.

This statement is blatently POV and has no place in this article.The Scurvy Eye 19:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Near-death experiences
I don;t know where the following came from - added by an anon over the last couple of days - but it had no sources and it needs sources to be included, should it be worthy of inclusion at all. Palmiro | Talk 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many near-death experiences (NDEs) include a Last Judgement, where the life of the subject is fully evaluated and scrutinized. The people having had NDEs say that in the Last Judgement they may feel the actions and their consequences not on behalf of themselves, but also on the behalf of the other people who have been subject to their actions. Interestingly enough, the NDEs with Last Judgement involve an universal memory bank, such as Book of Life or Akashic records, where the data of each and every individual's earthly life is stored. The Last Judgement is performed by Christ or other religious figure, but that figure never sentences the subject; the subject evaluates his life and gives the sentence by himself. While often very traumatic, the Last Judgement almost never leads into perdition, but either being allowed to remain in Heaven, to return back on Earth to complete their lives, or to remain in Heaven and later reincarnate back to Earth to fulfill their missions and to settle any wrongdoings. In the light of NDEs, the Esoteric Christian tradition and the Jewish concept of gilgul is correct. The Last Judgement in the NDEs is more akin to a Final Review or End Report over one's life rather than a judicial sentence; those NDEs with experiences of Hell, Perdition or Void never involve the Last Judgement, but the separation from God begins at the moment of death. The Perdition is seen as a result of one's actions and choices rather than as a result of a divine sentence..

Inappropriate content
I recently removed this text from the intro:


 * At this judgment, the knowledge will be general: the conduct and deserts of each individual will be made plain not only to his own conscience but to the knowledge of the assembled world. It is probable that no words will be spoken in the judgment, but that in one instant, through a Divine illumination, each creature will thoroughly understand his own moral condition and that of every fellow creature.  For this reason, the Last Judgment is also called the General Judgment.

This seems way too POV to me. It makes some bold statements about the judgement and presents them as facts (and obviously, many would disagree with this interpretation). It also goes on to assert unattributed predictions about what judgement feels like; this is unacceptable, especially in the intro. I do think this content should be readded but only if it is attributed to someone, and I am not an authority to say to whom. (|-- UlT  i  MuS  ( U • T • C 09:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Other religions
Why does this article only discuss the Christian concept of a Day of Judgment? --Renice 20:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that other religions rarely refer to a "Last Judgment" specifically. Other mythologies are listed at Eschatology. --Eyrian 22:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the facts of other religions??? Have you ever read other religious books to say that? Please dont' generalise depending on your own knowledge.
 * Last Judgment is more of a Christian concept, which is different than the 'End of the World' but there is a segment on the judgment in Islam, and it would be interesting to talk about the Judism concept of Abraham's bosom, because they don't necessarily feel there is an end, but more that they kingdom of israel will become the world power and that there would be peace, but in christianity, the belief is that this world is transformed and heaven and the old earth pass away, and the new jerusalem is a city where all believers will dwell in the presence of god and there will be no more sun, and god's glory will illuminate the city. but these concepts are different than the last judgment and don't belong in this article. Wyatt 15:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a response to the below comment. Why should Zoroastrianism be considered for this article ? In most literature I have read there isn't really a final judgement referenced (there's a time when all sins are erased and some people experience that as pain but I don't read that as judgement) and there's nothing in this article even referencing that. An end of time / eschatology doesn't a Judgement day make. Monosyllable (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This article obviously has a christian bias. This belief should not be treated as a christian creation. The earliest know beliefs of this sort should also be covered(i.e. Zoroastrianism).

Sheep and the goats - start of "sources" section.
I understand why we wouldn't want to include the "sheep and goats" passage from Matthew 25 in its entirety, because it is quite long, but the previous summarisation seemed to conveniently ignore any reference to helping the poor/sick/imprisoned etc, which was of courses Jesus' entire point with the passage- That the last judgment will be based on how we treated the lowest of the low, did we help them or ignore them?

The way it had been quoted took the passage out of context in order to reflect only iconographic features rather than doctrine and iconographic features.

Therefore i expanded the quotation slightly. It might be a bit long now but at least it is a better reflection of the only time in the Bible that the Last Judgment is described, rather than a reflection of popular Christian thought with all the inconvient bits removed!

I also put a quick note about how the judgment is entirely based on help given or refused to "the least of these". I think this is important to draw attention to, because it is the noteworthy part of the passage. 203.173.128.98 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Judgment" or "Judgement"
Has anyone else noticed that the title of this article is apparently misspelled? Is there a reason why this refers to Judgment and Judgement? What's the difference? -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just a variation in spelling, isn't it? The Oxford spelling is judgement, and the American is judgment. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the alternate spelling (in the leading paragraph only), with a reference from the Vatican as source. It's helpful in researching the topic, too, since the alternate spelling brings up more search options on Google. Thanks, EagleScout18 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not a question of sourcing; if the article spells it "judgment" then so does the article; WP articles are not the place to note differences in spelling between the US and UK. It would be appropriate on the judgement or judgment article, but not here. I'm pretty sure google accounts for spelling variations, and Last Judgement should redirect here, so I really see no need for this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong - this is how to do it. In any case if left there will be an endless stream of people "correcting" it in a haphazard fashion. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is a policy saying this is how to do it? Thanks John. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR and no doubt somewhere in the MoS also. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the MoS says we should include both "Last Judgement" and "Last Judgment". It clearly says to maintain one spelling in the article, and it also mentions, "If a variable spelling appears in an article name, redirect pages are made to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that they can always be found in searches and linked to from either spelling." Based on that, my contention, that we should have Last Judgement redirect here, and that be the end of it, seems to be correct. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The passage imediately below the one you quoted, as I think you must be aware, says:"Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia." This is normal practice and mandated by policy. End of story. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You're conflating "terms" with "spellings"; the two are not the same case. Obviously, the different terms used, as at this article (Last Judgment, Final Judgment, Judgment Day, or Day of the Lord) are appropriately listed and bolded. That is what is referred to by the quote you provided me. I beg you, John, explain to me how the definition of "term": "Any word or group of words expressing a notion or conception, or denoting an object of thought; an expression (for something). Generally with qualifying adj. or phrase (as an abstract term, a term of reproach)." includes variations of the spelling of the same word. A term is a different word, not a single word spelled differently. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Judgment, Judgment (law), Fillet (cut) and hundreds of other articles where the same issue occurs. "Usage" covers spelling in the quote above also. If the current MoS text is not sufficiently clear on this then it should be amended to make it so, which I will raise there in day or two when I have more time.  Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll concede to the examples you've shown. I do think the MoS should be amended though, because I honestly did not read it in the same way you did. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit, I interpret "Sensitivity to terms" in the manner that Johnbod does, and thus support the current version. EagleScout18 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam
The section about Islam is full of wrong and unbacked facts... it should be labled with dispute for inaccuracy. Even the sources it depends on are not reliable ones! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.216 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And it has now apparently been removed. __meco (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because...in America we have the right to free speech, even if the left wing feels this material wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.142.141 (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This page should not be speedy deleted because... it doesn't fit the criteria for a speedy deletion 122.58.255.164 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --98.150.206.30 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC) This page is a good quick reference for any who might be curious about what many religious people are talking about. It shows varying viewpoints as well, which comes in handy to those of us who seek the way of tolerance and open mindedness. As all religious documents are meant to be interpreted by the individual, mystics understand things differently, I can read this document, and understand things much differently than most, to the point you'd probably call me crazy, but that's Truth, to the unenlightened. Anyway, this page expanded my spiritual understanding and knowledge, it would be a shame to delete it, what about all "the seekers of the way" who come after me? You know, people are waking up to truth at a phenominal rate, leave this page so their inner voices can guide them to it. Thanks, Sean 98.150.206.30 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The body at the time of resurrection
At the last judgment the soul is reunited with the body, so it is important that people are buried and not cremated. Witches are burned so that they cannot reunite with their bodies, right? But, the cult of relics must make this all very difficult for saints. When the trumpets blare St. Francis will be disappointed to find his arm in Rome and St. Catherine of Sienna will find her head in Sienna and the rest of her in Rome? How does this work? In the confessions St. Augustin has a nice discussion of how old we are and under what conditions we keep wounds, etc. but I recall no discussion of this problem, perhaps because the cult of relics wasn't really going yet. I came to this article for this information and was disappointed not to find it. Can anyone help? Tibetologist (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian Bias ?
Why does this page start of with the christian version and then half way down the page briefly mention the islamic version, as if the islamic version of events is some side show to the main story ? surely all 3 should be discussed in the main paragraph ? its odd their are references to the gospel but not the quran. Muslims tend to refer to the last judgement as the Day of Judgement..perhaps create a separate page for the Islam version --Ambelland (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom. See WP:DUE for an explanation of "due weight," which is different from equal weight.  Also, it really doesn't discuss the Christian "version," but the Christian versionS.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Doh, we have a clear link to Islamic view of the Last Judgment; no other religion has its own page. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What about a Jewish one? Where's ours? :( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 02:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some material could stand to be incorporated from Jewish eschatology (and Frashokereti for that matter). However, the Jewish eschatology article is pretty lacking in judgement.  I can't recall the phrase "Last Judgement" in the canonical Jewish Bible, but I'm a bit weaker on the Prophets, and I'm sure there's some mention of it in the noncanonical works (at least pseudepigrapha, I'm only just aware of basic Rabbinical stuff).  Frashokereti could stand to have some expansion (since the judgement is supposed to be pretty specific in Zoroastrian beliefs, like walking over a razor thin bridge with one's sins weighing one down). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have just the Torah you know; we also have the rest of the Tanakh, which includes the Talmud, which counts as canonical (something about future rabbim being the authorities at their time and summat). There is bound to be something there (I study Jewish history, but not so much the holy texts directly; ya I know :p). Judaism has been evolving for a very long since the Torah was written (though apparently rabbim from a newer age can't contradict the ones from a previous age or something). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense meant, but please WP:Assume clue. I never said that the Jewish Bible was only the Torah.  In fact I acknowledged the Tanakh (I mentioned the "Prophets" or Nevi'im, the "na" in "Tanakh," which consists of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, but not the Talmud).  Every source I've seen describes the Talmud (I mentioned Rabbinical commentary) commentary on the canon, but part of Jewish Doctrine but not the Jewish Bible.  I also mentioned pseudepigrapha, which does show that I understand later unofficial texts were written; as my reference to Rabbinical commentary (which would include more than the Talmud) would show that I understood there is later official texts.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, all right, relax. I apologise if I offended you, but truth be told,I misunderstood what it was you were referring to. I also meant the tone to be light-hearted (difficult to convey when dealing with text, but I thought the asides would help). As well, Assume Clue is a terrible policy to follow on Wikipedia and in life, because it can often be the case (as it was with you talking to me before) that the person does not know what it is you are talking about (and in my case is usually what happens; especially in the realm of jokes). I have practically no knowledge of the Tanakh itself (I study the archaeological remains of the Israelites and Judahites; not the holy works themselves) and its composition except the most basic stuff (which I got wrong anyway), and I ignore much of the Talmud as part of my religious life (though I've not studied it, so maybe if I do, I'll incorporate some into it). So when you said Prophets, I thought you were talking about something one of the Prophets of Judaism said in the Torah at some point, and I didn't quite get the thing about rabbinical commentary. Given that most people I run into don't know much of anything about Judaism or Jews, so I dispense what I do know (or think I know, you don't actually know much of anything in archaeology; just a lot of assumptions some of which are better than others). It is often best not to assume the person does know what you are talking about (if it is a very specialised subject) because it can lead to misunderstandings and confrontations like this. So apologies for the misunderstanding. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really offended, and gathered that you meant it in good faith. I hope I did not come across as combative. I suppose I brought it on myself by considering my religious studies in comparison to professionals instead of those of my fellow Southern protestant bacon-munchers. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh, odd. I just got a notification that thanked me for making my first comment on this almost a decade ago. My apologies to as I never acknowledged his polite reply meant to de-escalate things. Also that last bit is genuinely funny. Also, good lord did I overshare.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 28 Kislev 5781 20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hat Note to end time
There needs to be a hat note to end time. This Judgement thing is really part and parcel of End Time. And the articles should have some sort of mutual reciprocating bridge to link these themes. And yes there is an obvious Christian bias which violates the worldview. Judaism is also missing, and many other faiths that have a notion of final judgment.--41.177.4.22 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of terms
Since this article is a general discussion involving multiple versions of the concept of "last judgment", the term and its variants should not be capitalized as they might if we were discussing the doctrine of a single religion or sect. The title should be "Last judgment" and it should be referred to as "last judgment" or "final judgment" etc. in the article body. Joja lozzo  03:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what RS do. Are we starting this again? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect intro
"In Christian theology, it is the final and eternal judgment by God of every nation." This is incorrect. Nations are not judged collectively. Individuals within all nations are judged individually, according to Christian belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Last Judgment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411115342/http://hermeneutic.org/2009/04/united-methodists-and-last-days.html to http://hermeneutic.org/2009/04/united-methodists-and-last-days.html
 * Added tag to http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/eschatology.txt

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

LDS
Nothing for Latter-day Saints?Editor2020 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem in Reference 1
Reference contains the following: "The Apostles Malachi peter phophet labour". Editor2020 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism
The Zoroastrianism part of this article is really poorly written--is it meant to be extended or changed ? Additionally to my eyes there really isn't any judgement. After death the deceased's soul (Urvan I believe in this case, though they join the Fravasi if they go to the House of Song) crosses the Bridge of Cinvat and there is judgement there but at the end of time everyone has the same result even if it hurts them. A similar criticism applies to the Jainism section. I don't think an Abrahamic bias here is wrong; honestly I think other eschatologies might be better referenced at the top or in "See Also" but labelling eschatologies without what can be called Last Judgements with an Abrahamic name is likely to confuse more than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monosyllable (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)