From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Afterlife:
  • Expand the lead section to a full 3 or 4 paragraphs
  • Pinpoint areas to work on
  • Separate fraudulent experiments and research on this subject from that which is considered legitimate, i.e., that which is accepted as valid by the scientific community. The two categories (exposed fraud and legitimate science) should be listed in different sections under different titles. Lumping fraudulent research together with valid research may give the impression that all legitimate scientists reject the existence of life after death or, even worse, consider the very question absurd. If there is a consensus among scientists that the question of life after death is absurd, then research demonstrating the validity of this assertion should be offered. However, it seems obvious to this writer that no such consensus exists or can exist. (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Priority 2


POV on Afterlife

The recently added external links are all 'proving' that life after death exists. Does anyone have any good balancing links? --Delirium 21:07 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No. But there is a reason why there aren't. Historians don't tackle this issue, which exists only within the cult. Historians describe the cult, its rituals, its literature etc and its effects on human behavior. Justification is not part of real history, it its part of apologetics, within theology. For comparisons, read Talk:Historicity of Jesus Christ.Wetman 22:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The pink elephant that is being avoided here, perhaps out of diplomacy, is the immense body of tradition and testimony on the afterlife from all times, places, faiths, and cultures. In some article there ought to be a discussion, based of course on the scientific methods of good scholarship, on what the preponderance of evidence indicates regarding afterlife, eternity, or heaven. If necessary, the focus could be on more recent testimony, with comparison to ancient and recent traditions to round out a likely picture of an actual experience and realm that has been experienced and described repeatedly for millenia. On television tonight, I heard the outrageous statement from Bill Moyer that "we have no firsthand accounts of what death is like." Wikipedia should address that ostrich mindset, not as a matter of faith, but of science. Hawstom 07:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To describe the way cultures have shown themselves that an afterlife exists, that's the actual substance of the entry here. Leave the "proofs" for another day. Or enter them at Apologetics.Wetman 22:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe that humanities believe in the afterlife is solely fed by hope, by believing that there is life beyond death, one can deal with it a whole lot better. For example: losing a loved one is a painful experience which is made less painful through the belief that one day you may see them again in the 'afterlife', the saying 'he/she is in a better place is often used when someone dies. Not only does a belief in an 'afterlife' make the death of a loved one easierr to cope with, it also helps us deal with our own death. The idea of there being a heaven and hell might also exist to make the afterlife seem more real, by associating it with a set of rules and regulations it also gives people a skeleton in which people can base how they live they life, without relegions which distinguish right from wrong, crime and immoral would occur alot more often as more people would believe that their acts will not affect them in the 'afterlife'. Written By Daniel McCoy

ChaTo Reorganization

I don't know that your reorgianization is an improvement. In particular, you have split up the reward/punishment section from the reincarnation section, while leaving some important transitional language only in one section. You may be headed toward some brilliant reworking, but please don't forget to finsh what you have started. Tom (hawstom) 18:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think there are two views of afterlife: either it is a DIFFERENT life as in heaven or hell, as in the western tradition, or it is another NORMAL life, as in the reincarnation. Those two views should be separated. Maybe the paragraph ordering is not right, but I think presenting both views separated is a good starting point for this article. I have not had too much time to research in this subject, but this is a colaborative project, so anyone can edit the page and add more information: go ahead and do it if you want. My recommendation is just to keep these two sub-topics separated. ChaTo 27 Apr 2004.
I like your recent work :-). I hope to see more of it. And I hope to work with you to harmonize/organize this issue among various articles. Tom (hawstom) 02:58, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
"Compare and contrast" is always the right approach. That authentic NPOV. Wetman 22:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


I am not sure how/where the JW point of view on afterlife (namely that there is none) can fit in this article. I have reversion aversion, so I am going to leave for now. But it needs to be fixed by the editor who added it to the Rewards/Punishments section. Tom - Talk 21:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Afterlife article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Afterlife}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Consider Revising

This sentence is silly:

These people usually see proponents of an afterlife as hiding their fear of death, attributable to evolution (i.e. humans have a fear of death because if they didn't, the species would cease to proliferate)

Do non-believers mostly consider the fear of death, which causes people to hold the belief in the afterlife, as a product of evolution? Most who reject the afterlife concept do not think of its role in evolution. Rintrah 13:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

the entire Criticism section is not very well written. for example:
"Based on the fact that in society most people accept that we did not exist prior to our birth, and that people have no concept of time during sleep, some atheists argue that the concept of an afterlife is illogical and unlikely."
what does this mean?? how does one's concept of time in sleep have anything to do with the afterlife? needs to be better explained. I tried to clean up the Criticism section a bit but some of it is badly worded and may need to be rewritten. --kotra 03:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider revising the opening sentence:

Creationists and the religious generally believe that there is such a thing as life after death.
Wouldn't you characterize "Creationists" as a subset of "the religious" and therefore a redundancy? Cbdeandc 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, This statement definitely needs revision & it sounds very silly. Creationism is not a position to argue for/against the afterlife. (See Creationism) The sentence can be roughly revised as: "Followers of the major world religions and many others with an attachment to other spiritual philosophies believe that there is a life after death." (SirGalahad 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Page Identity

Should this page be redirected to eschatology, or vice-versa? Or should we develop these entries separately? RK

I think they're distinct topics. 'Afterlife' should address what happens to an individual when they die, if anything. 'Eschatology' should describe what a religion thinks will happen at or near the end of time, or the end of the current age. I think it means study of last things. Sure there may be some overlap, but there needn't be that much. --Wesley
Absolutely right, Wesley. And "Afterlife" is perfectly non-specific as to where: Hesperides Underworld Tartarus Hades Sheol Paradise Heaven Hell... "Proofs" of an afterlife are tiresome for rationalists to read and just ignite Odium theologicum, but the minutiae of what is believed are illuminating for every culture. Wetman 22:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Wetman, it is indeed tiresome to read proofs. And even in a believer it can ignite Odium theologicum. Citing proof texts to support a particular POV is fruitless. But making available facts is most fruitful. Of course I am interested in what a Buddhist or a Catholic believes about life and afterlife, but I am equally and simultaneously interested in getting some NPOV facts to help me ascertain whether it is just so much speculation, or whether it is a synthesis of real experiences. We do need evidences and factual proofs--not as lined up by partisans to shore up their theology, but as aids in sifting the ludicrous from the impressive. Tom (hawstom) 18:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I had a hard time myself feeling intuitive about Eschatology being used as a superset for Afterlife. But it is so described here, and apparently eschatologists do include afterlife within the purview of their studies. I do think we should not try to indicate that the connection is any more that a tenuous one. My core question is whether Afterlife is the right article under which to organize all such articles. I really can't think of a better one, with only Underworld and Eternity coming close. Which do you think works best as a hub for the subject? Tom (hawstom) 17:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Underworld article. The Underworld article has a mile-long list of beliefs on afterlife. If this article can refer to Underworld, then this article can trim the specific religions and become more strictly an explanation of modern generic concepts of afterlife, its beliefs and skepticisms. Or possibly this article can become very short and mostly just refer to other articles. Tom (hawstom) 18:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

This article reads like my pothead friend rambling about god. 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

             MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SCIENCE PROJECT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 


(moved to bottom by Mikkerpikker 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

I felt that the criticism section was a mess and rewrote it from scratch. If you disagree, let's discuss it here and hopefully reach a compromise.

The "Philosophical arguments" section strikes me as also needing significant attention, but as I'm not well-enough versed in philosophy I'm not going to touch it. Egomaniac 19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Slight issue with the criticism section: "Despite there being some objective evidence to support these beliefs, skeptics assert that science cannot prove the existence of an afterlife. The fact that these beliefs are nevertheless widely held may be explained by wishful thinking."

Mostly, the first part--link to the objective evidence that explains the preceding conditions laid out by the skeptics, otherwise that line needs to be struck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I agree. Many do not know of any objective evidence to support belief in an afterlife, so further clarification is needed. If no examples of objective evidence are given, "Despite there being some objective evidence to support these beliefs" should probably be deleted. (I myself believe in an afterlife, but I don't believe science can currently prove its existence.) -kotra 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that this article ignores a whole raft of work and empirical studies carried out by credible scientists which is as of yet to be discredited. I'm thinking of things like the Scholes reports, or the studies carried out involving Mrs Piper. Any arguments against me inserting a paragraph or two on this? At the moment I think this article reads like an atypical skeptical material-death POV common with the current academic mindset. Treblent 17:48, 13 June 2006 (BST)

Slight Christian POV

At this time there are two quotes from the New Testament (Mark and Corinthians) and none from other scripture (except an Old Testament (Ecclesiastes) quote which is needed for the somewhat random Jehovah's Witness bit). In the interest of equality, would it be possible to replace one of the New Testament quotes or add another additional quote from other scripture? Possibly from the Qur'an, the Vedas, or others? I'm not interested in making this a Wikiquote page, but it would be nice if there was something relevant to add from a non-Christian source. kotra 06:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Logical arguments

The newly created logical arguments section seems to almost exclusively put forth discussion on the existence or nonexistence of the soul. While I agree that the soul is essential for afterlife, arguments for the existence or nonexistence of it belong in the article Soul only, not here. In the interest of brevity, I shortened the section to a couple sentences ([1] [2] [3]), providing a wikilink to Soul in case one might want to learn further about arguments for or against the soul. Is there a reason why these arguments should be explained in both the Soul article and the Afterlife article? -kotra 09:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of much of this section, and put the relevant parts in other sections. It still reads like someone's blog, not an encyclopedia article. I think this article needs to be reworked, so that it systematically describes the concept of the afterlife as manifested in history, instead of arguing for and against it. I think a historical approach, would be best, tracing the intellectual traditions of Western and Eastern thought. Djcastel 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Related studies

The whole section Related studies is going, for three reasons related to the three small paragraphs (sentences) in it:

  • In philosophy, the study of views of the afterlife is a concern of Eschatology, which deals with the soul, the resurrection of the dead, the messianic era, and the end of the world. No, eschatology is studied as a separate field in no philosophy dept. of which I am aware, though it is often a topic in the Philosophy of religion as well as philosophical theology. This is simply inaccurate. Eschatology is the purview of theology depts., where it is accorded greater or lesser status depending on the type of theology taught there, which gets us far from the topic at hand. It could be changed to "In theology..." but the issue of religion is discussed elsewhere in the article, quite NPOV I might add, well done. Besides, strictly speaking the field of eschatology deals with what happens at the end of history (Christian second coming of Christ, Buddhism's Maitreya the Buddha of the Future, etc), while afterlife deals with what comes after death for individual sentient subjects. Yet another reason these statements are just wrong.
  • The question of whether there is life after death is closely related to the mind-body problem, and like that problem is one of the classic problems of so-called rational psychology and hence of one (now largely outdated) notion of the scope of metaphysics. The first part of this is right, but the mind-body issue comes up elsewhere in the article. The second half of the sentence, besides being a grammatical monster, points us toward a non-existant link, and the issue of an afterlife isn't really something psychologists today deal with much (as my wife the therapist reminds me). Also, the statement about metaphysics is garbled; what is outdated, metaphysics qua metaphysics (really? My dept. hadn't heard that), or considering the afterlife within the field of metaphysics? Again, simply untrue (even avowadly non-theistic philosophers often use considerations of an afterlife as a thought experiment, or as the object of why they aren't theistic in the first place, see Anthony Flew for a great and well-respected example). So this whole part here is a mess.
  • The later works of Emanuel Swedenborg present one of the most comprehensive and systematic descriptions of the spiritual world, including heaven and hell. This is 100% accurate - and 100% irrelevant to the article. Yes, Swedenborg does offer these theories, as do virtually all other theologically-incined philosophers and religious leaders. So why mention only Swedenborg? No, I'm afraid that however much we like him, we can't just hold up Swedenborg's thoughts on this (which, I notice, were not detailed here) to the exclusion of others.

So all in all, the Related studies section fails the test of accuracy and relevance, so I am going to be bold and edit it out. Takes nothing away from an otherwise nice article. Yes, there are other studies, but this is not the way to list them. And listing them, I should think, would either play into the percieved Christian POV others see here (the mind-body problem is a particularly Western problem - thanks a lot, Descartes - and as such has an indelible stamp of Western religiosity on it, so I dont' see the POV, but whatever), or take the article too far from its main topic. Morgaledth 02:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When deleting big chunks, please write an edit summary, referring to the talk page, otherwise your edit looked like a simple vandalism. `'mikka (t) 05:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

From Reincarnation

Does anyone else agree that most of the below information is better suited to this page? GourangaUK 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In brief, there are several common concepts of a future life. In each of them either the person, or some essential component that defines that person (variously called the soul or spirit) persists in continuing existence:

  • People live on this earth, and then live in some kind of afterlife for the rest of eternity - variously called heaven (paradise) or hell, or the Kingdom of the Dead, or some higher plane, or similar. They do not return to earth as such.
  • People die, but will return to the earth or are revived in some final Judgement, or at some final battle (eg the Norse Ragnarok). They may go to heaven or hell at that time, or live again and repopulate the earth. This is often called an apocalyptic vision of the future.
  • People die, and are returned to this or another existence continually, their form upon return being of a 'higher' or 'lower' kind depending upon the virtue (moral quality) of their present life. This is often called Transmigration.
  • People die, go through inner planes and return, rebirth, (usually or often) as new human beings. Strictly, it is this which is known as reincarnation (also called "rebirth"). In many versions, eventually there is the potential to escape the cycle, e.g. by joining God, enlightenment, some kind of self-realization, a spiritual rebirth, entering a spiritual realm, etc. (There is some confusion, in general society, between reincarnation and transmigration; see below for comparison)
I agree.Jonathan Tweet 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Afterlife Beliefs

I can't find a page anywhere that recounts the history of views about the afterlife as they have changed over time. This page seems like the right place. Other pages (Heaven, Christian Eschatology, etc.) are too narrow in scope for a treatment of afterlife beliefs over millennia and across continents. If there's a better place for a history-of-afterlife treatment, please let me know. Jonathan Tweet 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone started the section as a blank stub. I'm filling it in. I think the entries should be sparse because the details can be found on corresponding pages. I'm getting all (or almost all) my information from other Wikipedia pages.Jonathan Tweet 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this. Hopefully I follow procedure. Why? Well, just possibly because we are "not" of this world in entirety. What do I mean? I ask, is it possible that we ARE ENTITIES but when (or as we are) on Earth we assume these bodies for model; purposes? Because of the recent reference to Dimensions other than the the three we experience, I have contemplated that we could be existing in other Dimensions. How in the "heck" does that make sense you ask? It is no less an explanation of (Why?) than supporting the thinking that there is a God and that is the answer to everything. (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC) LD Gosson

Consequences of the Afterlife

If science were to prove that the Afterlife existed. What would be the consequence to humanity? Would violence skyrocket? Would suicide and abortion rates increase? How would it help or possibly discredit religion and the existence of God?

Input from Paladin_Hammer on the questions propsed: Nothing would really change with the common person. Think of the publics response to scientific theories/proof in the past 100 years. No theory, or piece of evidence, has ever been given close attention until its use has been proven usefull/harmfull. Think of atoms. For hundreds of years scientist said they existed, yet it wasn't until the hiroshima bomb was dropped or the public knew about it that any ever gave the atom serious thought. So unless scientist found "heaven" or could really "speak to the dead", or had an available use for this research, no one would care.

Thus the theory of Omega-Point, a physical point in our dimension where the "soul" goes when the body dies. I'm not very sure of this theory because it is so new. As for the above comment from another user, I agree completely. Humans do not learn until they get burned. That is why the extinction of Mankind is so likely: people don't care until they see the effects. They are too concerned with their own pleasures to care for humanity, let alone society.MikeG54 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


"Some conceptions of the afterlife are not overtly religious. Certain scientific fields developed in the 20th and 21st centuries, that were previously either unknown or purely theoretical, support interesting speculation and questions regarding the afterlife.

Is consciousness a sole result of the specific configuration of matter of a living brain, or do some forms of consciousness or experience remain present in the matter and energy that used to be a living brain? If the latter is true, even in part, then it is not certain that the subjective experience of a being's consciousness ends at the time of death, which could be interpreted as a form of afterlife."

Many theories actuallt closely tie into this idea. I'm new so I can't exactly link it yet, but the "Conscious Matter" thoery supports this idea. Also, modern cognitive science isn't limiting itself to Newtonian Mechanics in its search for the questions regarding consciousness as Beland suggests, one theory suggests that the brain itself doesn't give rise to consciousness, rather that the EEG's of the brain do! (link )Orch-Or rely's on small self-assembling protiens called "microtubules". Here is one that exactly states that conscoiusness is rooted in elementary particles! (link )

Thus, to claim that there is not a scientific idea of a sort of 'afterlife' is false. While some of these theories may not be the afterlife in the classical sense (i.e. soul karma, heaven/hell, ghosts), they non-the-less leave us pondering. So it'sm only fair that we state that their are scientific ideas of an afterlife experince.

"These claims do however, lead interesting theories regarding consciousness, and possibly, an afterlife." I added this because when looking into the many theories that have been purposed regarding the possibilty of an "afterlife", it seems that the scientific community is really divided on it. Some appear to maintain that "it cannot possibly be real", while others seem more interested in the "what if-" ideas. I'm going to edit this in the future. Please don't edit until I've figured out the "linking" system here on wikipedia.


The introduction says that this page is about current beliefs, but there's a fair bit of historical information here, too. I think we should change the introduction to reflect the presence of the historical information. Jonathan Tweet 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jan 2007 changes

I've replaced the original section on "Afterlife in modern science", that The Transhumanist replaced with a section on cryonics. He also introduced some weird formatting and a lot of speculation to the "Is there life after death?" section (which looks like it was adapted from the "Philosophical arguments" section), but I don't have time or interest to investigate/fix anything more. Will leave to you, just wanted to point out. (not watchinglisting, leave questions at my talk, thanks). --Quiddity 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Can I congratulate you on using BC. May I point out that the modern 4 yearly leap year calendar was introduced on 26th Februay 1BC, (whilst jesus was probably born 4BC). BC is a very convenient term for "before calendar" and indicates that dates are open to dispute simply because the calendar was changeable. AS for B.C.E. I'm not sure why anyone would prefer "before christian era" with "before christ". But most of all - please keep BC, I regularly read articles with BCE/CE and for example I have occaisionally confused dates such as "48CE" with "4BCE". Mike 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

BCE actually stands for "before the Common Era. --Minderbinder 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion, Science, and the Afterlife

Recommend that whole section is removed. After all, shouldn't it be two sections, "Religion and the Afterlife" which is discussed throughout the article, and "Science and the Afterlife" and some scientific bits. But given the current state of the section, it doesn't read well at all and is probably better deleted or significantly reworded. Shot info 04:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay I had written some months ago on death. A bit lengthy for the discussion page, I cut it down a little and highlighted the most important parts, but it it the result of a year of work:


After talking to many people and watching how they react to death - as I am reasonably good at understanding people after I have known the person only after a short time, it all comes from being on the outside looking in - I can see that most people are frightened of "coming to an end." People look at the long run, what they might be in fifty years, even five years, but they must also look at short-term circumstances, like car accidents, plane crashes, or other tragic events that can easily end life, as they are common on Earth.

In the past month or so, I have seen a great amount of pain, suffering, and loss of life, all which has affected me in a harmful but helpful way. My cousin has been diagnosed with one of the most painful forms of cancer; a close family friend has been murdered with her son; four former-teachers at my school have died within a 9-month period (2 of which I knew); and as I have found out as of today, there is an issue in my brain with a weak vein that I was probably born with, and, if it were to break open this instant, there would be no possible hope of me living through it (though that threat is remote right now and I am in a medical program for it as of this afternoon).

All of this has caused me to change everything I believe, because, mixed with my level of understanding of people, my ideas were only comforts and were leading me down the wrong path. Though it hasn't looked like it, I have been changing, in my mind. I was uprooted from one spot and thrown to another which I do not like yet I can do something with. This is the first time I have written any of those thoughts, because I can't keep them within me any longer without others hearing them.

When talking about death, God, or a Supreme Being, is always referenced to. A Creator, one who perhaps loves, one who perhaps hates, one who perhaps created Man, one who perhaps created the universe fit for Man to grow. God can not be a "God-of-the-Gaps" however, meaning, you can explain that which you do not understand by claiming "God willed it" but that may not be true, and that is not true faith in God. It is like leaving a piece of bread on the ground overnight without watching it. The next morning, it is gone, and you do not know what took it. You could say an animal ate it, but the truth could be that your neighbor came and picked it up. You can not explain that which you can not see. If you are going to believe in a God, have a reason other than explaining something, even though it is more difficult to do, it will outline what you truly believe. It is also difficult to not believe in a God when you are someone who is well aware of the universe we live in. All good things eventually end, and yes, our universe will die someday (according to modern belief) and hopefully, if the Creator loves and understands his creation, he made a sanctuary for all who will ever live, because it is not possible to live forever, as even billions of years from now when the universe may die, that is not forever, and hopefully there is something beyond death, so that all is not wasted and we are not a mistake of nature.


There are several approaches you can take towards death, all intertwining religion and science:

1) An Afterlife/Heaven

2) Spiritual Release

3) Reincarnation

4) Spiritual Divinity

5) Ceasing to Exist

6) Bridging

I will begin in the order as listed.

The Afterlife, or Heaven, is the prime belief of all ancient European peoples and religions. It is the belief that, after you die, you enter a heaven, or God's abode. Your spirit leaves the body and brings you to a place beyond space and time. Afterall, what exists outside of the universe? It had to have started somewhere. Perhaps someone created the universe and Man who lives in it. If that Being created everything, then perhaps It loves Its Creation and wants to allow it time experiencing life but then, after life, experiencing the Creator. It is a difficult belief, because it can not be seen, and all we know about it is from what we have been told by other humans. In this Afterlife, you live on forever with God, or the Creator, somewhere completely detached yet so close to the world. However, in order to achieve this Heaven, certain religions stress morality and strong ethics, doing good to receive good. The idea of Hell, or Purgatory, comes from this, as well as what is known as a sin, a wrong which will cripple your ability to enter Heaven.

The Spiritual Release idea is rather new, but comes from very ancient roots. It is the belief that, once you have died, your soul leaves your body. You have no physical shape, perhaps not even a memory, but whatever life-giving force lives within you, leaves and enters nature and the universe forever. This is a rough idea, as perhaps the soul takes consciousness with it, meaning that you would be in control of what the soul does. Also, the soul may leave consciousness behind, and we would become like plants, existent but unaware of everything. This was the idea of the Native Americans, and even the earliest cavemen - leaving the body, entering an intangible state but still existing. The soul can take physical form, it is believed, but that is only if the memory of the body is taken by the soul also. Picture yourself in a dark room: you can not see your body, but you know it is there, and, if it were completely dark outside, you could travel anywhere without seeing yourself, but still having an idea of what you look like. A complicated idea but reasonable.

The Asian and Indian religions mostly involve a reincarnation. A reincarnation is that, when you die, you are born again. What you do in one life, however, effects your happiness and health in the next life, the idea of karma. If you are moral, kind, and benevolent in one life, in your next, you will be rewarded by being born into a rich and successful family. If you are evil and a sinner, you will be born into the life of a dog or a homeless family. It is difficult to back this belief however, because, like all of the others, it has very little backing. We do not remember a past life, we do not know what we were before we were born. The unfortunate part about reincarnation is, if we are reincarnated, we would never know, and we would face the same fate as non-existence, the fading of the memory.

Spiritual Divinity is a belief that I created on my own, after combining science with all of the religions. It is the belief that the life you live is only a preparation for something that is beyond death. It is a time of learning, such as school is. When you die, you become God. To make that easier to understand: we learn what to love, what to hate, what to do, and what not to do in this life. Once we die, we have completed the learning stage and we are released as a god, or creator, of our own universe, where we make the rules judging by what we learned while in human form. This would mean that there are infinite universes, and we are the result of someone's imagination, someone who lived once, died, and became the Divine, creating his or her own personal universe according to what he or she values most. This involves the idea of Intelligent Design, how we were created by a strict code of laws made by a Supreme Being, but of course, this is my own personal belief created by me, and I have not yet found another like it.

Non-existence is definitely the most frightening possibility of fate for Man. It is the belief that, once you die, you enter nothingness: your mind shuts off, you don't think, you will never think again, there is no passage of time, your are empty of life forever. Think of sleep - you do not know time, space, thought, or consciousness while sleeping, your body basically shuts down. Now imagine sleeping forever without dreams, without ever awakening, and the whole time you are unaware of it because your memory and thoughts are gone. This happens to be so frightening because often it is difficult to believe that any after-life or continuation can exist, as they all seem so "fairy tale" or ideal. Even the most religious people fear this, as it is a great possibility if the religious teachings were incorrect or only a false comfort. The only good part (hardly even, at that) about non-existence is that you do not know of it. Think of before you were born: you did not exist but you did not know that. History continued while you did not exist and one day, you entered the world. The worst part about non-existence is coping with it, or dealing with thoughts of it, before it reaches you (that is, if it is our fate).

The idea of Bridging is also a result of modern thinking and mixing science with religion. It is that, when you die, you pass on into the next world, or dimension. It also assumes that the world we live in now is the first step, meaning, we are the first dimension, and when we die, it will be the first time we have entered another world. It is very similar to reincarnation, if not identical. The only difference is that you are born the same person, with the same personality and features and memory, just in a new place. It is a bit difficult to understand and also assumes that the idea of Quantum Mechanics are true, that is, that there is a force all around us that is invisible but guides how all matter works in the universe. This is necessary because it would mean that our mind and our genetic copy were transfered at the speed of light into another zone of time, perhaps one in a different universe, which is otherwise unreachable.


No matter what happens to us after we die, we must enjoy the life we have been given. We might be a result of a God's design, or we might be what happens when certain chemicals are mixed together. It is not possible for us to determine that which we can not see, just as you do not know where the piece of bread has gone while you were not looking, you can only guess. That is why you can never say that someone's ideas are wrong, that someone is doing something wrong, that something is perfect, because we do not know the answers. Everything we know is an educated guess. Perhaps a God did speak to certain humans but none of those humans lived to tell us in detail. You must have a belief, but you must also understand that it might be wrong, meaning, you must understand others' ideas also, not just your own.

Death truly is an adventure. You embark on this adventure without a map, without any idea of where you are going, and you journey alone. There are helpers along the way, but they can only help you, not carry you. The weariness of not knowing where you are going is what causes the fear of death. Not having a map to even reference to leads to great confusion and a feeling of being lost. There are many routes which you may take on the journey towards death, life is only the interlude between birth and something that may never be understood. Though people take different roads, following different people, they are all heading in the same direction, towards the unknown, a darkness that we can see from the distance, but can not see anything beyond it until we enter it. That darkness may be treacherous, it may be everything you hoped it would not be. It may be wonderful, it may be much better than the life you were afraid to lose. Whatever it is, it is there, and even if you found a way to immortality, it would be very difficult to avoid all of the arrows of Death. You will approach, whether in a week, or whether in a thousand years, it is there, fear it, embrace it, love it, hate it - just do not allow it to ruin the happiness and success in your life prior to death.

MikeG54 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Afterlife in modern science

I'm deleting the Cryonics and Science fiction subsections. Cryonics is not an afterlife belief, and the Science fiction subsection contains much off-topic meandering unreferenced philosophical speculations. Cryobiologist 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

At the death article this section is summarized in a small section on religion and mythology. However, the section is very small, with little on the afterlife or mythology. If anyone here would be so kind as to expand the lead section out a little to something suitable to be used in the death article I would be most grateful. Richard001 09:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


I've removed the following from the end of the section on an early section mentioning Sheol and the Book of Enoch:

"[the Book of Enoch is apocryphal] and should be accorded little, if any weight."

I'm not sure it's the place of an encyclopedia to tell readers what to believe and what not to when the subject of the article is a matter of faith. It's sufficient to tell the reader that this particular book is considered apocryphal in Jewish and most Christian traditions, so that's what I've left the section saying. - Shrivenzale 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Good catch. Jonathan Tweet 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey wait

 Does anyone know exactly what islam has to say on the subject? this needs to be added

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Abrahamic religions are covered.--Loodog 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But Christianity and Judaism have sections all their own. I definitely see that and a lot of other content and organizational problems in this article. Academic Challenger 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Afterlife in modern science Sept 23,2007 version

Upon reading this section, this is really the wimpiest short section I have ever read on the subject. It seems to pretty much say that all scientists believe in witchcraft, little green men from outer space, superstition in all forms, that death and entropy do not exist, that medicine has no intrinsic worth because life has no value, because the physical world clearly shows that it has no end. The sentence 'These experiments are widely considered to have had little if any scientific merit,..' , seem to almost imply that at least one third of all physicists clearly understand that the existance of ghosts is empirically verifiable. I think that we should start whilstling when we walk through graveyards, because any scientist who has ever once lived is now clearly turning in his grave. 17:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're misinterpretting the intent of the section. It says, in a nutshell, science can't touch the afterlife. No scientific experment has been able to show evidence of an afterlife. Thus, there is no scientific reason to believe in it.--Loodog 20:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reread the section and have decided that it is not as severe as my initial view of it, even if my previous discussion statement might have been somewhat of an exaggeration to begin with. It seems borderline to me as to wheather a sentence in it might best be reworded to include the words and link, or at least a differently worded link, to scientific skepticism or not. 06:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just another weird thought

There are many opinions on existence of afterlife. But what if it exists, but not all humans/species will get it? Is there a philosophical view, which holds position stating that afterlife exists only for some people, who randomly will "wake up" after death? PS. I personally do not believe in afterlife. --Abdullais4u 09:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe or not believe depend on each persons point of view. One of literature that give as more perspective about life after death, we can check all stone paintings in Borobudur Temple, Indonesia. People who life around this temple have belief life after death. We can call it Javanese Culture. This Culture teach us many things about life from born until die. One of Javanese Myth that interested me. Life is so simple. We can symbolize our life like drink a cup of coffee. It must prepare it in hot. It means our life must do something meaningful. It's so difficult drink a coffee in hot, that's give us mean. We must give effort for our life. Active, Creative and Innovative, and we can enjoy our life in the end. After we drink the hot coffee, we taste it, so delicious. It give us mean. After hard effort we enjoy the result. Then after the coffee finished, we just leave it. It means when we die, just our body buried or cremation. We will not bring anything. Be positively. So the conclusion, when we life, do something meaningful for our life, donor, hard work, pray to the God. Then when we die with that activity previously, We will have savings for life that our ticket to heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.susanto (talkcontribs) 02:27, 2 September 2007


Judaism was written from a non-reincarnation POV, I have added both points of view, but am frustrated. The entire page needs to be restructured as the Abrahamic / Reincarnation model doesn't work with Judaism in both catagories.



I did a major reorganization of this article and a few additions, which I think really improves it. All comments are welcome. Academic Challenger 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Afterlife and Prebirth

Wow, I just came across this very interesting quote from

"If in everyday life, you are asked about continued existence after death by one of those people who would like to know everything but refuse to learn anything, the most appropriate and approximately correct answer is: 'After your death you will be what you were before your birth.' For this answer implies that it is preposterous to demand that a species of existence which had a beginning should not have an end; in addition, however, it contains a hint that there may be two kinds of existence and, correspondingly, two kinds of nothingness." -Arthur Schopenhauer

this quote presents a view which isn't really represented anywhere in the article. could it be incorporated?. 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My friend, Prebirth is belong to past and history, we can understand that we may had some lives before this, But afterlife is belong to future and no one can gurantee what will happen in the future! There is a narrow difference imho! God can change the game anytime!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis story

Cut from article:

C. S. Lewis writes The Great Divorce. In this work of Truth, people who are already in hell are given a "field trip" to heaven. They get to look around and decide whether they would like to leave Hell and stay in Heaven. Every one of the subjects finds reason to reject heaven. Lewis is not suggesting that this will actually happen ("It is appointed to man once to die, and then comes judgment," Hebrews 9:27). He is showing that the excuses people used to reject Christ when they were alive on earth would be retained even if they got a second chance, because their character hasn't changed, and God's ways are still abhorrent to them.

Work of Truth? It's a very interesting novel, which I've read at least half a dozen times. I don't think it represents a religious view, least of all that of C.S. Lewis: "... encouraging factual curiosity of the afterlife is the last thing I want to do" [4] --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to "Types of views on the afterlife"

User:Jma0322 repeatedly changes the sentence "Also scientific research into life after death is based on observation". But there actually exists scientific research into life after death and I have given a good example: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands. Could he or she please explain what is wrong with this sentence instead of changing it without giving any motivation? Waninge (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Scientific research must begin with an observation. Since the afterlife is a spiritual, supernatural, or religious belief, it is not scientific; science deals with the natural world. You can't do scientific research on something that is not observed or observable. Also, science does not work by forming conclusions and beliefs then seeking evidence to justify them. Rather, evidence leads to conclusions.
So there is no scientific research on the afterlife because such a phenomenon has not been observed.
Out of body experiences, near death experiences, etc, are phenomena that have been observed, and attempts to seek explanations for those are scientific, but there is no scientific basis in claiming an afterlife - something that is unobserved - as the explanation.
Call it research, but it is not scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jma0322 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The experiencer of a NDE can observe what happens around him (for example during surgery) while his body is brain dead. This means that consciousness can exist and function without a physical body. Therefore the experiencer of a NDE is actually in some kind of life after death (which implies an afterlife) when he experiences the NDE. So, the existence of near death experiences implies the existence of an afterlife.
This is a huge leap of logic and is a complete non-sequitur based on faulty premises. If the brain is completely dead, then the person would cease to experience anything at all. In NDE, the brain is still very much alive, just dying or deprived of oxygen. It is still capable of entering hallucination and dreaming. Furthermore, no evidence has been conclusive that people know specific details of things that have occurred during such experiences. Also, such instances are based on hearsay. Again, not scientific. Research, maybe, but definitely does not meet criteria of science. Science does not grab at the least plausible hypothesis to explain a phenomenon, based on a pre-established belief, and then grasps at anything that might evidence this belief. -- (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The work of Pim van Lommel is a good example of scientific research into near death experiences and since near death experiences imply the existence of an afterlife it is also scientific research into the existence of the afterlife. It is not research into how the afterlife looks and feels but it is research into the existence of it.
The methodology is terribly flawed and the discussion has a glaring fallacious use of an appeal to ignorance. -- (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So, my conclusion is that scientific research into the existence of the afterlife does exist and I prefer to keep the word "scientific" in the article.
Your conclusion is based on an ignorance of what it means for something to be scientific. This research does not meet criteria of science. -- (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Something else entirely: its good practice to sign your posts on talk pages as it makes discussions easier to follow. Waninge (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You're very clearly grasping for something to justify your belief. This is dogmatic and completely in contrast to what it means for something to be scientific. Pseudoscience is not science. The term "scientific" has no place in the section mentioned. -- (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming that User: is the same person as User:Jma0322. If you login before making posts then your login name appears behind the posts instead of your IP address.
I am aware of what it means for something to be scientific. There is no need to lecture me on that. And I still think that scientific research into life after death does exist. I want to give 2 more examples: VERITAS Research Program and its follow up The SOPHIA Project. These are scientific studies, performed by an university, to test the hypothesis that the consciousness (or personality or identity) of a person survives physical death. If that isn't scientific research than I don't know what is. A simple Google search finds more similar studies.
By the way, I do not have a dogmatic belief in the afterlife. That is a biased statement you made. I just want to prove that scientific studies into life after death do exist, not that life after death is scientifically proven (I know it isn't). Waninge (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Types of views

I've deleted this whole section for now, as it sems to be thoroughly biased.

  • The claims of psychical research &c to be scientific should be presented in a less credulous way.
  • The claims of religion on the subject should be presented in a less patronizing & simplistic way.

Many people in Indic religions claim to remember previous lives. How does that fit in here? Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


removed per notability and better writing. -Zahd (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"" Scientists who have worked in this area include Raymond Moody, Susan Blackmore, Charles Tart, William James, J. B. Rhine, Ian Stevenson, Michael Persinger and Pim van Lommel1 among many others. The work of people like Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe are popular examples as well."" -
Note that I have reinserted this list of scientists, though I have moved the material so that all related references are in the same location. I do not understand your reference to notability, nor the reason for your writing labeling them as "academics" (in quotation marks). The list of individuals here are some of the major figures in the field. Raymond Moody coined the term "near-death experiences" in 1975; Charles Tart has been influential in out-of-body and altered states of consciousness research; Ian Stevenson was a well-respected psychiatrist who published widely on past-life memories; Susan Blackmore is a psychologist and well-known skeptic who has written on both OBEs and NDEs; William James was a luminary in psychology and the study of mystical experiences; Michael Persinger is a neurologist who studies the effects of electro-magnetic fields on the brain in creating anomalous experiences. All of these people are certainly notable. If you think that anything in the section I've merged can be written more clearly, please feel free to do so, but there is no justification for removing these names. Thanks. Wikigonish (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Corrections

Corrected broken link. KARMA (directed to a blank page) to Karma (Directs to the article of that name) Charles Worland (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Afterlife in modern science NPOV

The section on afterlife in modern science is a blatant violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. The section is sheer apologetics, only referencing those scientists who have been supportive of the afterlife (or of research into the afterlife), rather than those who have been critical of it (which are obviously much more numerous). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The scientists mentioned in this section include those who are both supportive and skeptical. For example, Susan Blackmore has been adamantly skeptical in her attacks on research on near-death experiences. Michael Persinger, likewise, has been skeptical in his attacks on NDEs, mystical experiences, and other phenomena that he believes he can reproduce in a laboratory setting. Wikigonish (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The research of the skeptics is barely mentioned, even if their names are mentioned. The section really needs to include a more thorough discussion of the scientific skepticism, per WP:WEIGHT. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you on that. More absolutely needs to be added. But removing names doesn't help. Hopefully others will continue to add details here. I will as I have time. Wikigonish (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Afterlife in modern quack science

I think the section is faulty for the basic reason that its called "modern science" when in reality it deals with quack theories, and for the reason that the modern quack science section is elevated in importance by being placed in front of the religion sections —(again) as if it were actual science, and as if such "science" should precede religious perspective. -Zahd (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment reflects an ignorance of the field. In any event, an encyclopedia is no place for such bias.Wikigonish (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking at some of the references in the "Afterlife in modern science" section, some of which clearly do not meet the bar for WP:RS. The Monkeywah and Gary Murning references seem particularly dodgy, for example. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this, before I remove them?Vitaminman (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the and Gary Murning blog references, as they do not even come close to meeting the bar for WP:NPOV. Vitaminman (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Existence after death

It is proposed that these two merge as they seem to cover identical topics.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the other is a disambiguation. Peter jackson (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Can somebody please provide sources for what is written in the Zoroastrianism section. Zoroaster never taught that the dead will be swallowed by terror? This is original research, and Wikipedia does not allow it.
I am tagging it, and if no sources are provided, the information shall be deleted. Warrior4321talk 04:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Disproportionate treatment of religions

While I am an atheist I find it interesting that the section regarding Abrahamic religion is so large and detailed compared to that of other religions still practiced today.--AlucardNoir 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlucardNoir (talkcontribs)

It does not matter whether you are an atheist or not. The purpose of Wikipedians is to improve Wikipedia in general, not only what faith you believe in or nationality you are from etc. Warrior4321Contact Me 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right - it doesn't matter whether he is an atheist or not. His point remains valid either way. Instead of getting sidetracked by his (lack of) religious belief, it's probably more constructive to address his point, which is that there seems to be undue weighting given to the the Abrahamic religions. Personally, I'd like to read more about Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hindu views on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Luther and Soul Sleep

Luther did not teach classic psychopannychism - the belief that the soul sleeps unconsciously between the death of the body and its resurrection on Judgment Day. He is clear that the soul is living and conscious. It is also clear that he did not reject the particular judgment - that each soul is judged at death. Luther and Lutheranism represent the most conservative aspect of the Protestant Reformation and thus Luther's teaching are often closer to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox teachings on a variety of issues, including the afterlife. Luther did teach that souls are "at rest" but that is not the same as soul sleep.

Primary sources:

"It is certain that to this day Abraham is serving God, just as Abel, Noah are serving God. And this we should carefully note; for it is divine truth that Abraham is living, serving God, and ruling with Him. But what sort of life that may be, whether he is asleep or awake, is another question. How the soul is resting we are not to know, but it is certain that it is living."(Quoted in E.M. Plass, What Luther Says, Vol. 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950. p. 385 and Harold A. Schewe: What Happens to the Soul after Death?)

"But the soul does not sleep in the same manner (like a person on earth.) It is awake. It experiences visions and the discourses of the angels and of God. Therefore the sleep in the future life is deeper than it is in this life. Nevertheless, the soul lives before God." (J Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works, Vol. 4. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964. p. 313. Cf. Harold A. Schewe: What Happens to the Soul after Death? )

Jm3106jr (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek Afterlife Statements Innacurate

Greek idea of Hades should not be represented in Christian dogmatic terms. Hades(Aides), the God and the place of the Underworld held spirits both good and bad. His alternate name, PLOUTON IS GREEK not Roman. The Greeks used that alternate name because they feared to use his real name; much like in Judaism, where God's name is never pronounced but alternate names like Adonnis or Adonai are used. Hades is also the location of the Isles of The Blessed. Some other ideas as represented in Homer's Odyssey should be addressed, such as: The spirits of persons who did not have a proper burial or funeral and were not properly mourned are in a sort of limbo and roam around on earth. Zeus allows some spirits that lived an honorable life to return to earth every other year.(I may be incorrect about the details of this last statement but it certainly is expressed in the Odyssey when Odysseus goes to Hades). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bahai section

And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty. The movement of My Pen is stilled when it attempteth to befittingly describe the loftiness and glory of so exalted a station. The honor with which the Hand of Mercy will invest the soul is such as no tongue can adequately reveal, nor any other earthly agency describe. Blessed is the soul which, at the hour of its separation from the body, is sanctified from the vain imaginings of the peoples of the world. Such a soul liveth and moveth in accordance with the Will of its Creator, and entereth the all-highest Paradise. The Maids of Heaven, inmates of the loftiest mansions, will circle around it, and the Prophets of God and His chosen ones will seek its companionship. With them that soul will freely converse, and will recount unto them that which it hath been made to endure in the path of God, the Lord of all worlds. If any man be told that which hath been ordained for such a soul in the worlds of God, the Lord of the throne on high and of earth below, his whole being will instantly blaze out in his great longing to attain that most exalted, that sanctified and resplendent station.... The nature of the soul after death can never be described, nor is it meet and permissible to reveal its whole character to the eyes of men. The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High. The light which these souls radiate is responsible for the progress of the world and the advancement of its peoples. They are like unto leaven which leaveneth the world of being, and constitute the animating force through which the arts and wonders of the world are made manifest. Through them the clouds rain their bounty upon men, and the earth bringeth forth its fruits. All things must needs have a cause, a motive power, an animating principle. These souls and symbols of detachment have provided, and will continue to provide, the supreme moving impulse in the world of being. The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation. Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof. Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth. Wert thou to ponder in thine heart the behavior of the Prophets of God thou wouldst assuredly and readily testify that there must needs be other worlds besides this world. The majority of the truly wise and learned have, throughout the ages, as it hath been recorded by the Pen of Glory in the Tablet of Wisdom, borne witness to the truth of that which the holy Writ of God hath revealed. Even the materialists have testified in their writings to the wisdom of these divinely-appointed Messengers, and have regarded the references made by the Prophets to Paradise, to hell fire, to future reward and punishment, to have been actuated by a desire to educate and uplift the souls of men. Consider, therefore, how the generality of mankind, whatever their beliefs or theories, have recognized the excellence, and admitted the superiority, of these Prophets of God. These Gems of Detachment are acclaimed by some as the embodiments of wisdom, while others believe them to be the mouthpiece of God Himself. How could such Souls have consented to surrender themselves unto their enemies if they believed all the worlds of God to have been reduced to this earthly life? Would they have willingly suffered such afflictions and torments as no man hath ever experienced or witnessed? 234

Please - look - does any other religion of belief system give an extended verbatim quote in the article? Or as extensive - before you try any issue with the removal - try reading WP:UNDUE, WP:ABOUT, and WP:NOT - then after a close read of those - try thinking - how do I make this section WP:ENCYCLOPEDIAC fitting into what other beliefs have done above. If none of that makes any sense - try typing Help on your talk page and go through all the above bit by bit. Lets face it - no other belief system does it - and for Bahai section to have it - as well as the archaic language - is simply not on. cheers SatuSuro 01:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, the addition didn't meet many of Wikipedia's policies, particularly undue weight, but also verifiability by basing everything on primary religious sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Grail Message: POV and relevance?

Under the Reincarnation section, there is a rather lengthy description of the beliefs of one Abd-ru-shin (Oskar Ernst Bernhardt). The claim that he "offers new knowledge" about reincarnation is definitely not neutral POV, and I'm unsure that the belief is widespread enough to warrant inclusion. Also, the link is incorrect. Anyone have more insight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GheeBern (talkcontribs) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed. This isn't a major viewpoint, and I'm guessing not even notable minor viewpoint. Someone who wants to re-add it can please also provide some more context as to what group holds these views. -- (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs a summary

All I want to know is which religions do or do not believe in life after death. I know that many Christian groups believe that after a person dies, his existence and conscious experience continues. Typically this means going to "heaven" or "hell" or some kind of waiting room (see "purgatory").

But I've heard that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in this. Or at least that's the impression a couple of JW's gave me when they visited my house this spring. (But maybe one can be 'rebooted' in some way if you're part of the "144,000"?

And how about Judaism? Are there any Jewish groups that have a position on this?

I'd like all the answers to these questions to be in the article, in a place where I can easily find it. Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered adding any information yourself? I may have some time in the future to do research on the subject, but simply asking for other people to do the work for you seems problematic at best. Ghazi alizm (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Sheol is a place where the unrigteous heal? I thought that was Gehenna...-Angel David (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern Science?

Request for External Link

I would like to submit the following site for consideration as an external link pertaining to the subject matter of afterlife:

For questions or comments, please write to the author through the contact page of the above web site. Thank you, (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way would that site contribute to the encyclopaedia article? It just seems to be made up.
"Decomposition can take months, or even years. Until then, it can become the focus of attention for the subtle body of the departed, or others. Cremation is cleaner and prevents these distractions during the early stages of death."
No doubt at least one person believes this stuff. But do many people, or is there any evidence that this website is accurate?
bobrayner (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening definition of afterlife wrong

The opening definition of afterlife is wrong when it states that it is the belief that consciousness or mind continues after the death of the body. This is a strongly Cartesian take on what it means to survive after death. Afterlife beliefs merely maintain that a part of, or essence of, an individual which carries with it and confers identity survives the death of the body of this world. There are many afterlife beliefs, including Hindu reincarnation beliefs and Christian afterlife beliefs that necessitate a continued existence of the individual in the afterlife embodied. In fact, most religious doctrines either explicitly or implicitly state that the individual continues in some embodied state after his death in this life. This of course does not deny that there is a psychological continuity of the individual--but to say that it is only the mind or consciousness of an individual that survives death is simply false according to numerous religious traditions and beliefs.

Also, there is no mention of work done in either the psychology of religion or the cognitive science of religion that talks about humans' predisposition for belief in the afterlife. I think that should be included in "views of the afterlife" because if this research is correct, then belief in the afterlife is not entirely an act of faith.

Kmitch.hodge (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new section - Afterlife parable

In Rabbi Haim's parable of heaven and hell - we have the opportunity to be kind and help nourish each other, but the problem, as the Rabbi astutely points out, lies in how we treat each other.

Any other link to the parable will do, or reproduce it on wikipedia? If the above section is not appropriate for this article, does anyone have any suggestions as an appropriate place on wikipedia for the parable, or a link to it? many thanks. Geoffjw1978 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe it is appropriate here, and I'm sure a number of other editors would feel the same way. The parable relates one man's vision of the afterlife, and actually, it's not even that. It's a parable to illustrate or instruct proper behavior here on earth. On more technical points, it is not an acceptable reference, because it's not a reliable source. Was this rabbi a real person? Or was he someone the author made up? There are no details or other references to verify. Then theres the problem of Notability. If he is/was a real person, then the best place for this parable would be on the article page about him. Thank you for the suggestion. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, I agree it is a rather isolated parable where the rest of the article is grounded in the notable religions. The parable goes back a long way, so I'm not sure if the, possibly fictional, "Rabbi Haim" is just interpreting an older story. Can you think of anywhere in Wikipedia where the parable could be referenced, referred to, or even its full text included? Or does that fall in another wikimedia area? Do Bible parables appear summarised or with commentary anywhere in wiki-sphere? All help appreciated. Geoffjw1978 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you can confirm the identity of Rabbi Haim, there might already be an article about him, such as Haim Sabato, and you could append a short section about the parable or add it to the "External links" section. Alternately, you might add it as an External link to the article Jewish folklore and/or Parable. Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Great links, thanks for the expert directions, and I will need all the luck I can get too.  ;-) Geoffjw1978 (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Two types of views?

Does anybody have a problem with the section Two views of the afterlife at the top of the body of text? It's the first section of the body, and states: The first [view of the afterlife] is based on observations and conjecture made by humans or instruments (for example a radio or a voice recorder... It's not referenced. At best, it belongs in the section Parapsychology. Are there any comments or objections? Boneyard90 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Objection! This section is a much needed signpost at the start of a journey - faith this way, proof that way. Dumping the only mention of milliennia-old practices like astral projection into a random subcategory of "The Afterlife in Modern Studies" completely hides a major deficiency in the article. K2709 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Then it needs to be re-worded at the very least. Radios and voice recorders do not make "observations and conjecture". And the two "types of views" need to be referenced by a reliable source. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanded to three types of views science, faith and philosophy. (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation Theory & its 21 Principles

Transmigration of the soul? Yes. The ancient Egyptians believed in it. Mystic Hebrews taught it (a major principle of Kaballa). Pythagoras and the Greek mysteries - all the ancient mysteries taught what we now call reincarnation. Mystic Christians - Freemasons, Rosicrucians, and others - believe in it. Benjamin Franklin believed in the transmigration of the soul. Sufis - the mystic Muslims - believe in it. We now have scientific proof of it through Reincarnation Theory & its 21 Principles. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This must be some new meaning of "scientific proof" of which I was previously unaware. The first result on Google is this post on the David Icke forums: [5] bobrayner (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The masses famously have little understanding of science or math which doesn't stop them attempting to assign the title to its opposite, of which this is a model instance. This is only a scientific subject in a ethnographic, psychological, sociological sense and those are soft/social sciences. This could of course change in a society near or past the Omega point, the technological singularity, and this may come to have a place in the article, but probably not yet. Noting there were a couple of threads out of place at the top which I moved to their approximately correct positions. (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Reform Judaism

Two and a half month ago I tagged the section claiming that Reform Judaism doesn't believe in an afterlife. Since then, no source has been added so I removed the paragraph. It did contain one source, but that source was much too vague and too old to support the claim. Needless to say, I'll be happy to see the paragraph reintroduced if someone finds a credible source saying that Reform Judaism rejects the idea of an afterlife.Jeppiz (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede redaction

The main thing that stimulated my redaction of the last ¶ was text at the end which referred to understanding of the physical which does figure in UFO religions but not in those treated here all of which predate modernity and any such knowledge. That led to a cleanup of the whole ¶ which seemed to have a underlying Christian/Abrahamic slant and it also didn't match the quality of the first ¶, evened that out. Lycurgus (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also removed the flagged "Types" § for obvious reasons, poorly integrated/composed, OR, inaccurate, redundant with lede, etc. similar to the situation above. Lycurgus (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience and IP

On 15 July IP added section Neuroscience on top of everything else with a tag for expansion and changed the structure of the article by setting the four first sections under "Types of afterlife belief". Today the same IP expanded the neuroscience section turning thus the article into something completely different, with neuroscience being the top criterion of everything that follows. This is a very serious case of WP:UNDUE to say the least. I suggest that section Neuroscience be moved further down, after Philosophy and be kept to a size and content that does not violate UNDUE. Hoverfish Talk 13:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the structure of the article as it had been up to the 15 July and moved the new section down below psychology. It still needs to be trimmed down to an acceptable length. Hoverfish Talk 13:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As I had expected, the neuroscience section triggered an adverse reaction on this religiously charged article. After reading WP:UNDUE, I wish to emphasize on the following excerpt from the document: “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” Nonetheless, I suggest that most of the discussed section be separated into a new article called The scientific aspect of afterlife. If this suggestion will have met no opposition in a period of 36 hours, I will execute it myself. (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no question of viewpoint prevalence here. If you see any statements that do not comply with Neutral Point Of View rules, they have to be corrected. And IF there have been any notable scientific papers on the Afterlife, they have to find their rightful place in the article. Afterlife, however, never was a scientific issue. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe (the physical one, not imaginary or metaphysical ones). Science is not meant to test metaphysical ideas and religious beliefs. You might as well question why we don't have a economist's or a car mechanic's viewpoint. As for Afterlife having relation to religion, what else should it have a relation to? It comes from religion. It has never been connected with any science except of pseudoscience. The title of your suggested new article sounds like an essay to me. Hoverfish Talk 14:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have gone through the article top to bottom and failed to find any religious charge in it, or any bias due to editors views. The article provides information on what various religions believe on the issue, which is what it is meant for. Hoverfish Talk 14:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I like to think that you'll pardon me if I put it bluntly. The definition of “Universe” is “everything that exists anywhere”; thus, science is “systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about everything that exists anywhere.” While the scientific method has nothing do to with the unfalsifiable (e.g., the concept of God), it's perfectly equipped to address that which is falsifiable (e.g., the concept of afterlife), however controversial it may be. So you don't think that this article should ask whether the concept of afterlife is valid empirically? Personally, not only do I consider it an important part of this article, I consider it the most important part; hence, the position I placed it in. My basic argument is that opinions should be based on facts, not facts on opinions. Why I find this article religiously charged is partly because of how religiously charged the subject itself is, but more importantly, because it's far more concerned with what people believe about afterlife than what's objectively true about afterlife. (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the section on Science does not belong in the article about the Afterlife. Science does not posit theories on philosophy or religion. To justify mention of it here that it does not believe in this metaphysical viewpoint found in some philosophy and most religion, then you would have to insert a similar statement on science's position in all other metaphysical terms. For instance, soul, reincarnation, the resurrection, the incarnation, the ascension, salvation, theurgy, occult beliefs and practices, Thelma, etc. But this makes absolutely no sense to say on every article that science has no position on and has no interest in having one that science "disagrees" with it. To begin with science has no position on such things because they don't fall within the scope of the interest and concerns of science itself. The only thing you could say is that "some scientists" hold such and such a view on a religious or metaphysical point aside from their scientific views. The problem with this, however, is you would have to include both scientists that believe in each thing and not. What would be the point? For instance numerous physicists have and do believe in God and even a soul. It has nothing to do with physics. They have no trouble working in physics (which is in another area of inquiry entirely, namely the physical) and going on holding their religious faith. Numerous Indian physicists, chemists, mathematicians, computer engineers, and astronomers work in the United States that are Hindu. They believe in Maya and that the atma (soul) merges with Paramatma (Supreme Oversoul) at the time of moksha, liberation from Maya. Should we add this in here? I think the point is clear. It ought to be removed because it is off-topic and unrelated, not because it is unbalanced or POV. It simply does not pertain to the subject. The opinions of some scientists tells us nothing about what the word "soul" means in the English language. It is off-topic and out of place. Therefore I suggest that it be removed as a section. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
So... we are to ignore the numerous failed attempts by scientists to prove that a soul exists? That doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. Rklawton (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't such attempts be mentioned primarily in the articles about the sciences that did them. If I read nothing about research on the afterlife under Neuroscience why should neuroscience be quoted here as having said this and that? Do you find this in order? Or is it in fact pseudoscience that tries to pass as science here evading the scrutiny it would get in the main article? The only mention of "soul" under Neuroscience is "Plato also speculated that the brain was the seat of the rational part of the soul". There must be something amiss somewhere. Hoverfish Talk 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that failed attempts to prove the existence of a soul were pseudoscience? Rklawton (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I am saying, can you find any of these alleged failed attempts in the articles of the sciences in the name of which they were conducted? Hoverfish Talk 23:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Usually one finds the results of experiments testing a theory in material related to that theory. In this case, the theory being tested is "afterlife" and so it's logical to place any test results here. Looking at it another way, I'm sure thousands of theories have been tested regarding electrical conductivity. However, I wouldn't expect to see very many of them in an article about electrical conductivity. I would expect to see information about those tests in articles about the material being tested. So, information about the conductivity of nickle may not be in the article on conductivity, but it most certainly is in the article about nickle. Likewise, at the very least, information gained from tests on the subject of an afterlife belong in the article about the afterlife. While I *might* see why someone desperately pushing a religious point of view might object to including scientific results in this article, they really shouldn't. At least from a Christian point of view, *faith* is central to Christian belief. Indeed, John 20:24-30 well applauds believing *without* seeing. Thus, posting information about tests that fail to prove an afterlife simply make the believer all the more blessed. In fact, if we could post scientific proof that the afterlife did exist, it would be a lot like a spoiler. Of course, we'd publish that anyway since Wikipedia isn't censored. Rklawton (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an essay? Okay, I'll make it Consciousness after death (science) instead. Any more objections? No? Good. I'll do as I suggested then. Adieu! (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

From now on, if you have complaints, consult Wikipedia:Summary style. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@Rklawton, the topic of whether "afterlife" can be taken as a theory compatible with theories of science and the topic of how scientific testing is done to prove what, goes too far into philosophy of science and epistemology for me to engage in a debate here. If afterlife claims to come into the area where science has a say, go ahead and whack it with any type of science that can take the responsibility. If not, IMO, you are merely exposing scientific method to ridicule. To say that after physical death mental activity in the brain stops is true, and I think it should be stated here, though not at the top. But to go ahead and say that this means that there can be no afterlife is like taking science for a ride in the domain of fairy-tales, and IMO, this article is about a fairy-tale. I would rather keep articles about ghosts, angels, demons, leprechauns, valkyries, and what not, free of scientific disclaimers. Hoverfish Talk 16:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ancestor Worship

This needs a section added to cover those who hold that the ancestors never go anywhere but remain in a 'different' form of existance. FurryAminal (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Contrary to the views of most biblical scholars, the article assumes that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. Shouldn't the statement be qualified? (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Section headings for small religions

These are respectively the 6th and 7th largest religions in the US (link) - we have already previously spoken about that and i linked you to WP:ADHERENCESTATS They have similar figures in other western countries so i would not classify them as small. Secondly your edit made an error by placing UU's with Christians when they are distinct religions. As a compromise i have given them secion 2 level headings. Pass a Method talk 13:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about different religions, it is about Afterlife. Religions are included in the article, not for the sake of having a complete list of religions, but when they have a notable point of view on Afterlife. Small religions should be mentioned where they are most relevant in the article, instead of giving each one a new section heading. (If we gave the same treatment to all religions with over a few hundred thousand members, we could have hundreds and thousands of section headings, defeating the purpose of having an encyclopedia article at all.) Thus, Wicca should be mentioned when it is talking about reincarnation, because that is where Wicca is relevant and has a notable point of view. Likewise, Unitarian Universalism should be mentioned where it's talking about universal salvation.
Re: "6th and 7th largest religions in the US": They're actually listed as 9th and 10th on the website you linked, (perhaps you omitted athiest/agnostic/secular?) and the number for Wicca is counting other pagan religions besides Wicca. Altogether these account for about 0.4% of US citizens. More importantly, this article is not just about the US or western countries.
Re: WP:ADHERENCESTATS, that's Wikipedia-space redirect to a User-space opinion essay. I don't see what "Christian POV" has to do with anything here.
~Adjwilley (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Standard Model rules out life after death

According to the Standard Model life after death is impossible. We should intergrate that fact into the article. Sean Carroll: "Just knowing that the Standard Model Of Particle Physics is the right theory of thet matter that makes up the everyday world is immediateley enough, to rule out a whole host of possible phenomena..." The fact that the Standard Model is true just rules out the existence of an afterlife. That fact should be more apparent in this article. -- (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a POV assertion. Any notion or possible manifestation of an Afterlife is an un-testable idea, therefore not subject to the scientific method. The existence of an Afterlife is a scientifically un-quantifiable state, not subject to any metric test: therefore one can not say it exists or does not exist if one can not measure it. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it unhelpful to work on the basis that an afterlife must be untestable and wholly separate from the material world, because quite a lot of people who believe in an afterlife claim to have found real-world evidence of it. For instance, there have been countless people who claim to communicate with the dead; of course it's a delusion and/or a scam, but in principle all we need is for one of them to be genuine and, bingo, solid evidence that an afterlife exists. By the way, why capitalise the A in afterlife? bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Testimony is not "solid evidence". This is why we have the Scientific Method. This is why paranormal phenomena repeatedly fail scientific tests, or are not subject to them. An afterlife is not objectively measurable, thus it can not be scientifically confirmed. And no reason in capitalizing the "A". I suppose just because I was writing on the article title. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That is not a POV assertion. Sean Carroll is a scientist who thinks completely rational and neutral based on proven theorys. -- (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a POV assertion. POV stands for "Point of View". Acalycine talk 11:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I know what pov stands for. Just listen to his arguments and you'll see that his conclusion is grounded in facts. -- (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Life after death is, of course, scientifically testable. So far, no test has demonstrated it, but that doesn't mean it isn't testable. Does life after death have to be testable? No to that, also. Of course, we can't test the insides of a black hole, either, so it's nothing to be upset about. Rklawton (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

To the AnonIP: Theories and hypotheses are never "proven" in science. They are supported by evidence, or the evidence fails to support them. The afterlife is not supported by evidence, however, there is no way to send any un-biased metric "into" an afterlife, therefore there is no way to test it. If an afterlife exists, there is no way to send a human "there", with objective measuring equipment, therefore there is no way, there is no hypothesis, no methodology that can support the existence of an afterlife. Therefore, it is not testable. This person, Sean Carroll, has used observable facts to conclude there is no afterlife, but all he has found is an absence of evidence, and made inferential conclusions. The simple absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It seems to be another expansion on philosophical ideas of the existence (or non-existence) of an afterlife. I probably would have no objection to the addition of his conclusions, referenced, but it can not be presented as an absolute, or factual, truth. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a confirmation bias. Go out and learn some physics, about the real world, and broaden your mind. -- (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I recommend you to read this article. -- (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Just like this Sean Caroll, you seem to make inferences based on minimal evidence, and assume they are confirmed. You really know nothing about me. I am trying to keep the article neutral. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
You can live with your wishful thinking but I gonna work Sean Carrolls insight into the article soon. I don't care about hurting your dreams or wishful thingkings. The only thing I care about is the truth. -- (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
What, is this serious? I've already said: "I probably would have no objection to the addition of his conclusions, referenced". Add away. Just remember, it can't be put forth as fact, and you can't cite Youtube. - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Limbo section inconsistent with Limbo entry

As per the "Limbo" section

"On Friday, April 20, 2007 Pope Benedict XVI, abolished the whole idea saying he "showed doubt about the concept of limbo". He cited his concerns about it when he was a cardinal."

As per the "Limbo" main article

"Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[34] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.[33] It ought also to be mentioned here that the traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism."

I am removing the sentence from the "Limbo" section in order to resolve the discrepancy as it is not at all cited while the Limbo entry section is much stronger. Cassius235 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).

Creative Commons License