Talk:Millenarianism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Millenarianism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Millenialism vs Millenarianism

If millennialism and millenarianism are the same, this article is particularly wrong. The Christian sects listed specifically do not believe in the closing of a millenium, but the coming of a millenium after the second coming of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament book of Revelation, chapter twenty-one, as you touched on briefly. There is no Christian theology or doctrine, even among fringe sects, that speak of a present millenium and a coming millenium. Lastly, the name does not derive from the supposed return in 1000 AD, but from the term found in the book of Revelation.

The more mainstream theologies found in Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox Christianity actually are what is described in the article. Those examples would be postmillenialism, amillenialism, and preterism. But again, these theologies do not believe in a millennium after the apocalypse. Rather, either a doctrine adheres to that idea of a coming millenium where one does not exist now, or a present millenium where one is not coming.

This is where the corrections should be made.

Yamauchi 07:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

The words millenism, millennialism, millennianism, millenniarism and millenniumism are rarer synonyms.

If millennialism is a synonym of millenarianism, the two articles should be merged.

Objections?

<KF> 19:06, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Millennialism is a form of Millenarianism based on a one thousand year cycle. The two terms are NOT synonymous. And both Millennial and Millenarian groups extend far beyond Christianity. Most of this page belongs on the Millennialism page. The classic study of millenarianism is Peter Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of ‘Cargo’ Cults in Melanesia, second, augmented, edition (New York: Schocken Books, 1968).

Boxers

Should the Boxers be included in the list on this page? Picaroon9288 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Make an argument. It is worth considering seriously. Thanks for bringing it up.--Cberlet 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here

In favor of the Boxers being Millenarianists:

They were in favor of a radical change in society (expelling the foreigners and eliminating the Chinese Christians).
They claimed to be backed by a metaphysical force (according to the group, Manchu China was being punished with bad harvests by Yu Ti, but would recieve a good harvest again after the foreigners were gone).
They saw their country as being controlled by demons (the "foreign devils", aka foreigners)

Against that categorization:

As opposed to having a new sort of society, they really only wanted to bring back an old one (1750, maybe, when China was soveriegn, powerful, and free of opium)

I argued for both sides, just to be fair. So, should the Righteous Harmony Society join the list? Picaroon9288 02:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Alas, the criteria for inclusion would be finding a published source that says a particular group was millenarian, millennial, or apocalyptic.--Cberlet 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazies?

The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich and Tausendjähriges Reich ("Thousand-Year Empire") in order to connect the new German Empire they wished to forge to the ones of old (the Holy Roman Empire, known as the First Reich, and the Second German Empire or Second Reich) while alluding to envisioned future prosperity and the nation's alleged destiny. Third_Reich

Seconded. I've only heard this term associated with the Nazis. Seems like the article is missing information on its most important example. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanist/Singularitarian?

Neither of these claim that there will be great changes on any millenial basis.

Hopefully the links can be removed soon as it portrays them in somewhat of a negative light in my opinion.

Etymology of millenarianism

Hi, interesting article, I just wondered if someone could add where the word comes from. Was it someone's name, or something? Sorry if it is there, but if so I missed it, maybe it could be more pronounced? Lay man opinion, thanks.

Marxism?

Outside the USA (where McCarthyism made a strong comeback in recent years), Marxism is a school of thought in philosophy and the social sciences. To label it "millenarian" is a highly biased and prejudiced attitude towards the work of serious marxist academics (a good anglophone example of contemporary marxist academics are human-geographers David Harvey and Neil Smith, widely respected and recognized around the whole world for their research in a variety of issues). In a book called "The Urban Question" published in the early 70s, sociologist Manuel Castells, while criticizing some of Henri Lefebvre´s work, labeled that author "a millenarian utopist" - which has been regarded as a major disrespect among scholars in the area (just an example of how this is a serious issue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.54.209.11 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity?

was not on the list. I figured I should put it on there as it is referred to earlier in the article as millenarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.47.134 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessarily wordy

"Religious, social or political group." Just say "group." 69.224.164.122 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A mess

This article is a classic sordid WP slushpile, and millennialism is almost as bad; I wouldn't comment if it weren't so deep. E.g., the Catholic Catechism verbatim on the "church's ultimate trail" [sic] is immediately followed by reference to al-Qaeda. I can only give a starting list of cleanup tasks. It is clear that all sorts of drek has been dumped in both articles without significant attempts to maintain one or another distinctions between the two terms.

Scope of articles is extra muddy. If this scope is anybody believing in coming major transformation, then Karl Marx was millenarian. But we have him as "millennial"?! If scope of "millennial" is that 1000 literal years are required, most postmills and all amills are millenarian and not millennial. The actual case is that millennial refers to the three (now four) Christian systems of interpretation of Revelation 20 (and any Jewish hints thereof), and millenarian is a later term to refer to anything similar Christian or non. Therefore (1) scope here should be defined as anybody called with a name resembling millenarian in a reliable source, (2) lead should summarize the main strands of millenarians as collected by the RS's, with Judeo-Christian (millennial) being obviously the first, and (3) scope of "millennial" should be defined simply as classic Judeo-Christian millenarian.
(4) All allegations of millenarianism should be footnoted, as some consider "millenarian" to be a disparaging classification; and (5) they should also be grouped by strand. (6) Until then it's wise to delete the entire list with link from talk (as well as much of the rest of the unsourced speculation; most other millenarian strands do not have a theology).
(7) All sorts of schlock from "millennial" should be moved here: Zoroaster, Hegel, Utopia, etc. (8) There is the interesting set of Third-Age theories, including of course the sensitive topic of Nazism, but viewing things categorically, the Third-Age (often Holy-Spirit) framework and the Millennial-Reign (Messianic) framework are clearly distinguishable and should be separate articles; I suspect a shabby merge occurred.
(9) Not a soul has bothered to do anything like real comparative research on this topic, as the sorry state of links, references, and bibliography attest. There are plenty of book-length reliable sources to add.
(10) That clears the way for this article to have equal-length subsections on the various strands: the classic Judeo-Christian strand, the Christian-inspired Utopian-Third-Age strand (and its Greek inspiration in its "third time's the charm" approach to history), and the other groups among which I do not have experience enough to suggest categories. Per WP:SUMMARY this article needs at least a couple paragraphs on a summary of classic millennialism, rather than to depend on a link to that hodgepodge article to carry sufficient weight here.
Apparently SJ Gould led someone to believe the two words have different etymologies. Well if "1000" and "1000 years" are different etymologies, then fine. But this "difference" does not inform the way the two topics should be separated. (11) We should state the etymologies in the articles, but (12) we should also make clear that the scopes are distinguished as above rather than (as it now appears!) based on "millennial" thereby meaning literal 1000-year theories.
(13) A summary of both articles should appear in the millennium article rather than that article tossing the entire problem here.

After that we can see if it is ready to be rated as B-Class. JJB 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

n or nn

Whatever form of the word is used, whatever it means, whether in a Christian, Muslim, or Marxist context, it should be spelled with two Ns. It is derived from the Latin word annus meaning year, not from a word with only one n. Maproom (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived old discussions

Since the old discussions were stale (nothing new in 7 months), I've archived them all. Any new concerns can be discussed with new threads. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I had just added a comment. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to a post from 2006. Feel free to start a new section on your concerns. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Millennialism

The article section headed 'Millennialism' includes the following sentence: "Although Christian Millennialism is the most well-known example of a millenarian belief system". This is written entirely from a Western Christian perspective; I would seriously doubt that the assertion "most well known" can be substantiated by empirical evidence. I doubt that a majority of Christians are aware of the idea of Millennialism, except by the hyperbole of fear inducing claims set out by the predominantly western press and media at the time of the Christian inspired Millenial catastrophe scares of pre-2000. It must therefore follow that those with little or no knowledge of Christianity - a majority of the world's population, are likely to have even less knowledge or understanding of the idea of Christian Millennialism. The sentence is arrogantly colonialist and irrational.Moonraker55 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Theology

The first paragraph in the Theology section starts "According to Collins, ...". Who, or what, does "Collins" refer to? The Collins Dictionary website doesn't provide any help on this so one might assume that is not the target of the reference. 108.243.32.187 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Movements Section needs serious work

There's no support given for including any of the various movements under the label Millenarianism. For example, many Christian sects explicitly oppose it, like the Catholic Church as stated in this very article. Similarly, while some groups which ascribe to Marxism are arguably millenarian, there's really no basis to categorize it as such in general and attempts to classify it as such, none of which are even cited, are largely based on selective reading and presenting quotes out of context. Simply believing a different economic order is desirable and that it is possible to replace the current one with it as all economic orders fade in time, doesn't make it millenarian. Claims by Marxists and even Marx himself of socialism's "inevitability" are only in relation to their belief that their movement will be successful, something every political and social movement claims. Were Mitt Romney and Obama millenarian because they claimed that they would win the 2008 election?

Each example of millenarianism needs to be at least cited and presented as that it has been argued as such by x scholarly source.

Also, the section on transhumanism is complete garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.242.217 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I got rid of the transhumanism bit because it doesn't fit the definition. 109.239.93.114 (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)PointlessSpike

Persons over 1000 years old

What is the name for someone who lives past 1000? Going by analogy with centenarian, that term would seem to be "millenarian", but the word millennarian is already in use to refer to this belief system. Yes, I'm aware there are no documented instances of such a longevity, although various ancient documents make such claims, and it might be useful to have terms like these so as to classify longevity traditions according to how extreme they are. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If the shoe fits...

If a religious, social, or political group or movement fits the definition (believing in a coming major transformation of society, after which all things will be changed), and someone posts it to the list of examples, leave it alone. If you see a group/movement you have a fondness for on that list & it rubs you the wrong way, then maybe do some introspection instead of vandalizing a post someone else put time & effort into. It's not the place of any of us here to censor people for holding opinions we don't like.

Neutral. Point. Of. View.

That* is a core part of the mission here. If you want a wiki that's blatantly biased, there are... other places you can go.

Now, as none of us can individually be entirely neutral, what it takes to achieve that then is a diversity of perspectives. So let's build bridges & respect other people's contribution's, mkay?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 01:10, December 8, 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, but upon reliable sources. As your addition has not a single source for the assertion that "social justice" is "millenarianism" (let alone sufficient sourcing to suggest that there is a general consensus that this is true), I have removed it, and it will stay removed until and unless it can be sourced. Verifiability, not truth is the bedrock of Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Millennialism vs Millenarianism

Though the two are very similar, millenarianism usually refers to a much more cataclysmic apocalypse rather than the peaceful utopia of millennialism. Thoughts on having a section about this distinction? Rigidbodyratking (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigidbodyratking (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added a small note about this. Rigidbodyratking (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Rigidbodyratking but I can find no evidence that your statement is backed by the cites in the Terminology section...and I have read them all. Gould is the leading authority on this complicated issue, and he disagrees with your POV.Chip.berlet (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Chip.berlet, this is cited in Wikipedia's very own Millenialism page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism This definition is also used in the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements Volume II. Though I think that this distinction is pedantic, it may be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigidbodyratking (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My edits reflect what the cited books actually say

^[1] Millenarianism exists in many cultures and religions. Millenarianist movements can be secular (not espousing a particular religion) or religious in nature.^[2]

In contemporary usage the term apocalypticism refers to a belief in an approaching confrontation, cataclysmic event, or transformation of epochal proportion, about which a select few have forewarning so they can make appropriate preparations. The expectation is that during this transformation, hidden truths will be revealed, good must confront evil, and the course of history will be altered in a significant way. Apocalyptic movements can be passive, defensive, or aggressive in their relationship to the outside world. Those who believe in a coming apocalypse might be optimistic about the outcome of the apocalyptic moment, anticipating a chance for positive transformational change; or they might be pessimistic, anticipating a doomsday; or they might anticipate a period of violence or chaos with an uncertain outcome (Boyer 1992; Brasher 2000, 2001; Bromley 1997; Cohn 1970, 1993; Fuller 1995; Landes 2011, O’Leary 1994; Quinby 1994; Strozier, 1994, 1997; Strozier, et al. 2010; Wessinger 1997).

The word “apocalypse” comes from the ancient Greek word “apokalypsis,” which means unveiling, and can refer to exposing that which is hidden. Another way to translate the same word is “revelation.” Since prophets claim to reveal hidden truths, they are apocalyptic by nature. The concepts of apocalypse, revelation, and prophecy are thus inextricably tangled together (Baumgarten 2000; Boyer 1992; Cohn 1970; Worsley 1957).

In scholarly and popular writing the terms apocalypticism, millenarianism, and millennialism sometimes are interchangeably, but in this survey there is an explanatory value in teasing out key differences. These differences have been cataloged in short popular books such as the one by Gould (1997), written just prior to the millennial year 2000; to the most sophisticated benchmark study at the time of this writing, the 500–page tome by Landes (2011)]

The word “millennium” specifically refers to a period of one thousand years. Some interpret this to mean the point at which a span of one thousand years ends and the next begins, but others have a more expansive interpretation. The millennium can be seen as beginning at any calendar date, often based on obtuse and complex numerological divinations.

So the turn of the calendar to the year 2000 did not necessarily have theological significance (although it caused a flurry of activity). Given the creativity of those looking to find justification for their apocalyptic beliefs, any date in any calendar system can be seen as significant (Gould, 1997; Landes 2011). Cohn (1970) has demonstrated that Christian apocalyptic expectation throughout Western history surges at seemingly random dates.

Gould (1997) explained why the adjective millennial is spelled with two n’s, “but the alternative millenarian only has one.” He pointed out that the “etymologies are slightly different. Millennium is from the Latin mille, ‘one thousand,’ and annus, ‘year’—hence the two n’s. Millenarian is from the Latin millenarius, ‘containing a thousand (of anything).’ Hence no annus, and no two n’s” in the word millenarian (p. 112, note). Chip.berlet (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Baumgartner, Frederic J. 1999. Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization, New York: Palgrave, pp 1-6
^ Gould, Stephen Jay. 1997. Questioning the millennium: a rationalist's guide to a precisely arbitrary countdown. New York: Harmony Books, p. 112 (note)

[1] Baumgartner, Frederic J. 1999. Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization, New York: Palgrave, pp 1-6

[2] Gould, Stephen Jay. 1997. Questioning the millennium: a rationalist's guide to a precisely arbitrary countdown. New York: Harmony Books, p. 112 (note)

[1]

[2]