Talk:Immanentize the eschaton

Religion C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Along with dispensationalist sects, I believe there are other Christian groups which seek to immanentize the eschaton, including groups with postmillennial leanings. I think perhaps that creating a heading for Dispensationalist Christianity suggests that their dispensational views are responsible for their desire to immanentize the eschaton, whereas the movement to immanentize the eschaton may come from other influences. I'm no expert, so I could be off-base. Madnova777 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is important to include the passage with regard to the Christian Libertarian use of the term to criticise the conservative support of certain zionist/millenialist movements within Christian Conservative movement and their member influence on U.S. Politics during the Bush Administration. I am reinserting it. Lets discuss the relevance before we remove it. Anthroproffs (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the mentioning of Roman Cathlicism. See the AFD-debate linked above. Nobody was able to demonstrate the use of this term by Roman Catholicism. If you've found a source, please provide it. --Pjacobi 13:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this usenet post a Catholic (or at least mainstreme theologica) usage is claimed, but no solid source info provided. DES ^(talk) 19:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen that discussion thread. But unsurprisingly it doesn't impress me much. It's not even USENET, but on a Discordian mailing list.

As noted in the AfD I've searched among other areas on vatican.org and in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Nothing there.

Pjacobi 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason "Immanentize" seems to be spelled incorrectly (cf. "imminent")? —Bkell (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, there is actually a different word "immanent". Hmm. —Bkell (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of the word "Eschatus" the nature in time and space of a place. The eschatus can be damaged by noise, cursing/swearing and violence, indeed when combined with alcohol one often leads to another. Hence "Repairing the Eschatus" the use of sound or other methods to cleans a place. (bells, clapping, drums and incence) As in Ritual cleansing, Smudging, Feng Shui ect..The Willonian (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but of another religion, another political model. No relevance for "Immanentize the Eschaton" I presume... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he simply copycated the notion from classical Marxism and rephrased it to inrecognizability (sorry for the clumsy word, I simply translated "oigenkännlighet" from Swedish)... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, one would reference the Illuminism of Robert Anton Wilson, and recommend one read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton as regards, at the very least, the modern importance of this principle, and its prominence to late 20th and early 21st Century thinkers.

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1333/42/1333425663132.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEA3:2500:2876:FFE7:AE47:2DC2 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immanentize the eschaton. 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://archive.is/20130415182151/http://www.profam.org/pub/rs/rs_1709.htm to http://www.profam.org/pub/rs/rs_1709.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states, " Conservative spokesman William F. Buckley popularized Voegelin's phrase as "Don't immanentize the eschaton!" ". I was a Buckley fan during that time, and I can attest that the phrase was, "Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!". Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.135.141 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a textbook case WP:POV fork and should eventually be merged into realized eschatology. That said, realized eschatology should probably be expanded and improved first, as this will quickly overwhelm it, leading to a undue weight problem. As a start, however, we could at least mention the numerous and widely divergent people who advocate realized eschatology, such as the emerging church or Christian perfection proponents. This article only discusses detractors. Daask (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree: Since the late 1990s, there have been dozens of books written by scholars and journalists on this subject, most of them affiliated with the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University. The key authors available for citing are listed here: http://www.mille.org/people.html. Even more scholars now have arrived on the scene. The term is still used, but has been replaced by many authors as "Hastening the Apocalypse" when referring to Christian beliefs dating back many centuries.Chip.berlet (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is this misspelled? shouldn't it be "imminentize"? and what is the source of the misspelling? -lethe ^{talk + contribs} 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]