Talk:Soteriology

Untitled

Old discussion page for this page (including discussion for the move) can be found here Talk:Christian Soteriology Randroide (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Epicureanism and Shinto beliefs

Neither seem to be at all soteriological, nor does what is written about them indicate to be so. Why are they mentioned? 184.78.207.117 (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Low quality article

The article on salvation has a larger sections than this article. And of course there is inconsistency between the two. It will take serious work (and I do not have the time this year) o fix these. So help from knowledgeable editors will be appreciated. A rewrite, as well as a merge, is in order. History2007 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

On a specific point, the section on Islamic soteriology is missing description of humankind's salvation. It only describes individual's salvation. This is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.245.50 (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole pagan section needs to be removed or reworked

First off, using "pagan" as a blanket term is somewhat pointless and misleading, especially since by the definition of the word "pagan," Buddhism and Hinduism (which have their own sections) would also be considered "pagan religions." Secondly, the section actually only mentions two groups or religions (Ancient Greek and Egyptian) and uses these to make generalization for all relgiions not mentioned in other sections? Really? Besides the fact that Ancient Greek and Egyptian cultures had interaction and affected each other, the statements have absolutely nothing to do with say the sacrificial ideology found in the Germanic tribes and other early Indo-European branches. The section is a disgrace. My suggestion, remove the section entirely/rename it to ancient religions or religions in antiquity. The make two sub sections explicitly dealing with "Ancient Greek/Hellenistic religions" and "Ancient Egyptian" religions and move the current information there instead of the unencylopedic lets use two examples to make blanket false statements about every other non Abrahamic religion.207.237.208.153 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually a second look at the section, it has the sentence "Pagan savior figures can be seen in harvest deities who are sacrificed to become food, sustenance so that the religious community may have continuing life." That's NOT soteriology, and is stated in none of the sources. Secondly, source 12 isn't a real source or an accepted one for an encyclopedia. Finally, the whole Christian section in the Pagan section should be move to Christianity.207.237.208.153 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Judaism

The article states that the major Jewish denominations do not emphasize the afterlife, but that misses the very major topic of the Messiah. This article needs a LOT of work and is too important to be left as is. A renaming or integration with the Salvation project might be advisable. 66.87.71.77 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there appears to be a serious grammar/syntax error in the block quote at the bottom of the buddhism section. It kind of messes up the meaning of whatever the author was saying. I would fix it myself, but I don't know if the original quote was similarly mangled. Maybe someone could find the original quote and spruce that up. Thanks! Grrbrown (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Judaism (2)

Jews aren't interested in the salvation of their souls? Please.

Theology or Religious Studies

This article says "In the academic study of Religious Studies, soteriology is understood to be..." I wonder whether it might be more accurate to say Theology, rather than Religious Studies, here. Theology is a more closely-defined field than Religious Studies, and I think using the word "Theology" would be accurate here. Vorbee (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

not impressed

I am not impressed with the quality of this entry and wonder in how far it meets Wikipedia's own criteria. In particular I object to the 'slander' the of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary which claims that its "soteriology", definition is erroneous, because it gives the neuter nominative of the corresponding adjective, σωτήριον, as the base. I cannot judge whether this is correct or not, but as the statement appears here it does not provide any further evidence to the contrary. Also, I do not think that disputes of opinion ought to be voiced in an entry such as this, but taken up with the owner of the opinion (in this case Merriam-Webster) to provide further explanation why they consider the neuter nominative as accurate. Hskoppek (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I spent some time talking to my brother an ex-priest with 3 years of ancient Greek (that is the extent of my references for what follows). He pulled out his Thatcher and Strong Biblical Concordances and relying on all of the education that he got from the Church, we came to the conclusion that you and Miriam-Webster are correct on all points. I am leaving out a lot of the details, parts of speech, and Greek declensions that were part of our discussion. He is a college professor and I am a student of words and an Internet editor.

Should I boldly go and delete reference #1 as unnecessary for the article and leave this note as an explanation of a sort or do you suggest some other action?

bobdog54 (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)