Talk: Religion

DHARMA created religions, or used them to control people.

The various religious themes we encounter throughout the show, might actually be there because Jacob and/or his nemesis are responsible for their creation. Imagine a world without religion! Mankind might have exterminated itself a long time ago. I think Jacob and his nemesis both try to delay something catastrophic in the future, by constantly travelling back in time and 'move' things. This is why there are so many egyptian influences on the island, and why Jacob lives hidden underneath a statue of some egyptic religious icon. The Dharma blackboard at the dharma school reads "words to describe god" in hierogliephs! This could mean that the Dharma initiative is from the future, and wants to create a new utopia in a far past. They need gods and faith for the people to believe in. If the creators of the utopian society have control over the 'gods', they have unlimited power over the people. They use technology to create gods. This is also why there is a smoke monster.--Dennisernst 12:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Western Philosophy

I suggest moving the information in the section called "Western Philosophy" into the section called "Philosophy" in List of recurring themes. --Jambalaya 12:34, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Discordianism

I don't think Discordianism has anything to do with Buddhism. It's a religion celebrating (and encouraging) chaos! --Amberjet11 10:15, 3 November 2006 (PST)

• Hey Amber... I just put the category below Taoism (but not as a subcat of it, it has it's own category altogether), because it has a lot of influence from Taoism in its symbology, practices, etc (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism). It is kind of a hodgepodge modern religion which is tough to categorize. The other idea is to put it next to "New Age Spirituality" under Ideology. PS: It's not related to Buddhism, it's just there by proximity to Taoism. --PandoraX 08:39, 11 November 2006 (PST)

Vote for Page Structure

This article is great! Don't you agree? When I came to this article, it was already highly visual and with a great facts-based content. There might be only one controversial issue to it, before becoming a candidate for an AOTW nomination for instance; structure. Should it be left in bullets, which ever grows given the number of possible new relations to add with the coming events, or should be changed to paragraphs, in spite of the large rework to be done in the case.

Vote Paragraphs or Bullets to decide the most suitable structure for this article:

• Paragraphs All what this article needs is to turn the content into narrative form. This would make it an easier read, and enable a better relating of the points of each section together.-- 07:39, 12 November 2006 (PST)

• Paragraphs if and only if some one can be bothered to put the work in --- Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"©

• Paragraphs I'm going to change my stance on this one. I originally said I think this page might be better suited for bullets, but having looked at a lot of the cast pages again, I'll say I think that there are significant advantages to paragraph format for many pages. The main one is that it makes people have to really think about what they are putting down, how it relates to Lost, and whether it is significant to even list, rather than just mention things in a haphazard and disorganized way (everything except the Biblical names portion, that is, which I think still should be listed). At any rate, if someone else wants to put in the effort into reorganizing this, I wouldn't object. :) --PandoraX 05:33, 16 November 2006 (PST)

Agreed: I will take the task of rewriting it into paragraphs. I am kind of busy these days with my studies, so I'll copy the content on my machine, rewrite it intermittently, then paste it again when I'm done to be reviewed. I'll also watch out for edits made here during this week, to integrate it in my draft-- 02:43, 17 November 2006 (PST)

Disagree - Sorry to come in so late into this discussion, after you've already begun.

Lostpedia is an encyclopedia of information that is supposed to be useful for readers. Tendencies toward converting some articles to prose do not necessarily apply across the wiki. I myself started some of the earlier trend with converting to prose in the Sri Lanka Video articles, and a few others, and article talk comments, after that, and it has since become common practice, which I applaud. However the religions article is not the same as an article about Kate. Kate's article was not well served by a disorganized array of bullets, and was improved by converting to prose. IMHO this article does not fall under the same category, and is not improved by conversion to prose.

"Religion" is not a discrete object within the Lost universe; rather it is a point of analysis. But theory articles is where analysis should occur in Lostpedia. For more analyses outside Lostpedia, see The Society for the Study of Lost. However this is clearly not a theory article. What is it then? Let's apply the common sense notion:

If someone asked what the purpose of this article was, I propose the answer would be something like:

The reader of Lostpedia would hope to see at a glance where specific religious themes have been directly or indirectly referenced by Lost.

That's all. No more, no less. Anything in this article that does not serve this purpose doesn't belong.

Furthermore, I would say, the article is not a comparative literature-styled deconstructive analysis under a particular analytical filter, be it religion, feminist-deconstruction, or psychoanalytic (or dischordian for that matter). (If you are not familiar with this process, essentially the goal of comp lit is to ignore the intentions of the creative authority (or author), and to see what you can come up with using an unrelated analytical tool.

Now if this article is not an analysis/theory, then what is it? In short, common sense dictates that the purpose of this article, and its core usefulness to the typical Lostpedia reader, is that it's a LIST ARTICLE.

In other words, if I wanted to know about Taoism and its relation to Lost, I would see the I-ching of the DHARMA logos. If I wanted to know about Catholicism, I'd be presented with specifics from Charlie and Eko's storylines. If I wanted to know about Atheism, we have Jack's skepticism and the explicit episode title, Man of Science, Man of Faith. If I wanted to know about Shamanism, we have Locke's sweat lodge.

Having 100% of the article be in paragraph form defeats the purpose of such an overview. The problem with bulleted lists is that they tend to be unorganized if used in the wrong type of article, THAT is why Kate's article was a mess, because editors just kept adding unrelated bullets after each other. Narrating her background and storyline in prose makes sense.

However because critical analysis is not the central purpose in this religions article, narration serves no purpose. The problem with bullets (disorganization) is not an issue here, because it is already organized along the significant variable, which is different religions. In other words, we do not simply use prose for the sake of using prose; it must be appropriate for the article.

Therefore meticulously organizing this article by religion, then having a bullet list at the bottom, is the best way to present this information concisely. Otherwise no one will bother to read a mess of a prose-form article that has no narrative from beginning to end. As a compromise, I would not object to short 1-paragraph pieces of prose beginning some of the larger sections, but the meat of the content should be presented in bullets.

-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 19:59, 10 December 2006 (PST)

• Well, you have a good argument that I actually haven't fully considered before. However, I can't say that I agree with your opinion on the page being now a mess of prose. If this article was meant to be an analytical essay of the presence of faith and religion in the story, then I believe the parts currently existing in narrative form are well written, and strongly serve the purpose. So let's focus then on the fact that whether a critical analysis prose form serves the purpose or not, which as I mentioned you have a good argument on. In a similar manner to an earlier discussion on this page with Pandora, I have to say that in spite of our different opinions, its best to abstain from listing my evidence and continuing a discussion which can very much turn into an exhaustive debate with no outcome, something I hate more than having a badly presented article. Thus, and after the work I've done in it, even in case we agree I am sorry to say that I am currently unable to do further rework to turn it back to bullets, or meet in the middle by using a hybrid form, so I add to your suggestion that I'm absolutely fine with going into the same routine again; by posting your suggestions for a vote, to let the community decide. If all agrees, then maybe if you like, you can revert it to the earlier version before my work, and add some introduction paragraphs to each section, or keep it all in bullets in case all agree. In all cases, I strongly believe that any further decisions on the page should be through voting, and even if the page is 100% reverted, it's totally fine and at least it was a good experience to understand more of the topic :) Regards-- 21:22, 10 December 2006 (PST)

• Just a quick correction that "Votes" on wikis are not truly votes, i.e. majority does not rule. It is via consensus based upon discussion of points. Thus, we never "Take a vote", with all that phrase implies-- we may continue the discussion however.

Also, the work that one editor has invested is not a persuasive argument. On the other hand, don't worry: I would not condone wholesale reverting, esp. since I'd agree the previous version was not ideal either; in the eventuality that we go down the bullet-and-prose route, I'd begin that work myself, based on the current version. I'll take another look and try some middle-of-the-road versions of some test sections with bullets headed by prose. Hopefully it's compatible with your goals, as well as mine (i.e. ready accessibility of specific references of Lost to religion). If some editors really want to go to an analysis, we can create a separate section for that, or a separate article.-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 21:34, 10 December 2006 (PST)

I think you misunderstood my point, I never mentioned that my work on this article makes a persuasive argument. I meant: after my long work on this article in particular, I came to be very loaded and short of time in my final exams week, which you could read about in the section I just removed, hence even if I agree with changing it to bullets, which I currently don't, I wouldn't be able to help. Also regarding votes, I'm sorry Santa but I must strongly disagree. Votes are very true, as well as their majority count. Mostly because they presents a share of the collective opinion of a collaborative authoring community like wikis. If votes are not really true, then what stops you for example, from removing the rename template from the Good Family page, based on your disagreeing vote in oppose to others who agree. Having no template in a vote, doesn't make it any less important, and thus what goes there applies here too. Also, what would stop me or anyone form reverting what you'll do to the article right after you're done, so that you revert back and we continue in an edit war ? Yes, any Sysop can then lock it temporarily until the issue is resolved, but don't you prefer to run an environment where such issues are solved through resolving to the community's opinion ? If this might help, please refer to my discussion (particularly, my question timed: 07:19, 12 November 2006) with Pandora (last line in the section, timed: 07:24, 12 November 2006) on switching to paragraphs, coming to the conclusion that votes would be the best resolution. Hence, I strongly ask you to consider voting first before taking actions in undoing a pre-voted upon decision.-- 22:25, 10 December 2006 (PST)

• Also, in spite my previous declared opinion on the discussion, you can see that we are still debating, which is another example of why in taking rather obsoleting decisions in wikis, votes would make a perfect democratic resolution. Regards-- 22:28, 10 December 2006 (PST)

• More replies to the above:

Tone/Personal attacks: I'm afraid this discussion is unintentionally diverging into something negative, so let's not go further in that direction. As you've said, this is a community, and this is a discussion within that community. Beyond that, there should be no hard feelings or actual interpersonal intrusions. Because there is a disagreement, of course we will be discussing issues directly, but it sounds as if these direct comments are causing frustration.

Voting: Regarding votes, you are simply wrong. This goes beyond me or you, and to the basics of what open wiki communities have always been. If you don't believe me, please review the various help pages (e.g. for AFDs) at Wikipedia, which state, for example, "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Neither is Lostpedia in that sense. Votes for AFDs and the like are very clearly not majority votes:

1. "The weight of an argument is more important than the number of people making the argument, so encouraging mass participation in such debates to avoid the deletion of a particular article will not work."
2. "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting."

This is how the community works. If you are threatening a revert war, that is counter to the spirit of the community, and that is your choice. I'd prefer to constrain our interaction to a civil discussion however-- and it is a discussion, not a vote, even thought it may appear to be a vote at first glance.

Goals of this article: Regarding why I postulate bullets are better, I think the indexing of information (by religion) is already done. Beyond that, the connections of Lost to that religion is the information of importance! Above all else, the body of the article should serve to illustrate these connections. Period.

You proposed that your conversion to prose improved the article. For the reasons outlined below, based on the goal above, I claim that this is not true (for the completed sections). This is not a personal attack, I'm trying to point out a differing way to look at the goal of the article; we differ in our stated goal. In your opening description, you mentioned "suitability for nomination for AOTW" as your goal:

"There might be only one controversial issue to it, before becoming a candidate for an AOTW nomination for instance; structure."

...and based on the assumption that only prose articles merit AOTW, changing this article to prose to meet AOTW makes sense. First, the assumption is wrong. The Automobiles article was an AOTW, and it is very much a bullet-based article. Also I believe this goal (AOTW) for this article is not a justification for conversion to prose.

Instead, I claim that illustrating the connections of Lost to each religion is the goal, in other words, a list of information.

Bullets are more efficient for such short lists. For example that is why our websites or youtube or Automobiles articles are not in prose, and would suffer form it. For even more relevant examples, see Dreams and visions and Parent issues, which are also in bullet form, with wikilinks to expanded prose articles on specific topics.

If the bullet version is poor, this may be fixed by eliminating redundant bullet points, or combining smaller bullets into a longer bulleted prose paragraph. If an editor decides that critical analysis through religious interpretation is a goal, we can create subpages, or separate articles.

Examples: I believe the presentation of information in this article suffers somewhat when presented solely in prose form. In the current version, the reader must wade through unnecessary and uninformative narrative-linkage phrases, that contain no useful information because these are artifacts of the conversion to prose:

1. "Another explicit reference was made, when Eko ..."
2. "Locke also receives a reference to Christ, as revealed through his flashbacks, through.."
3. "Catholicism is further referenced through Eko's..."

Finally, the prose of some sections degenerate into plot summaries that depart from concise descriptions of Lost's reference to that religion. For a good example see Eko's section; the text reads like a selective biographical plot summary of Eko's storyline. These do NOT faciliate the reader learning about Lost's references to religion (through specific elements in Eko's storyline). This is a big difference. Currently, the prose does not serve the purpose of the article.

However some prose summaries at the heads of subsections may be useful, and may even be expanded when necessary (while avoiding plot summaries). For example this section is good as prose:

• "Catholicism is introduced in the storyline by two prominent characters; Charlie and Mr. Eko, in addition to other occasional references."

-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 18:12, 11 December 2006 (PST)

• OK, having seen both formats, and read a lot of the arguments for and against both... I'll say I didn't think bullets were all that bad for this page, at least in some cases. I don't think this needs to be turned into a personal thing either. I know Nomad spent a lot of time with this, and I don't think we need to revert anything necessarily... I just think there are times for both prose and bullets. In some cases prose summaries have disadvantages, outlined above. --PandoraX 19:28, 11 December 2006 (PST)

• Well said. No wholesale revision will be made. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 22:56, 11 December 2006 (PST)

• For Pandora: I agree with you on both points. This should never change into a personal thing, nor to be speculated as one. Secondly, a combination of both prose and bullets serve very well in many cases, including the impressive Economics page, where bullets are only used when needed, and well written prose is mostly used for illustrating the ideas and relations behind each section. So the question is, is this what is suggested, or a simple 1-2 line introduction, then the whole section to be changed to bullets ? I will elaborate more on my question below, in which i've added some questions for you as well.

• For Santa: Yes, you are right about wikis being not designed to be democratic. I may have been mistaken by using this term, but I actually only used it, following Pandora's own term posted to me in the discussion which I referenced, to try to sum up a point I thought I am unable to communicate to you.

Sorry, but due to my exams, I will only be able to comment on some of your replies. I've attempted however to contact you at the IRC, where you were logged, to reply to all your quickly, but you seemed to be unavailable:

Tone/Personal attacks: I agree that this discussion seems to be diverting into negativity, unintentionally. I think one of the main reasons behind this is an unintentional violation of a major wiki concept, Assume good faith. Although I strongly feel that we both have followed good faith assumption so far, a number of negative assumptions were made, partially violating the good faith assumption spirit, including:

1. Assuming earlier that saying: after the work I've done in it .... I am currently unable to do further rework was to make a persuasive argument, which I have clarified to be wrong.

2. Assuming that the question: Also, what would stop me or anyone form reverting....so that you revert back and we continue in an edit war ?..., followed with: Don't you prefer to run an environment where such issues are solved through resolving to the community's opinion..., to be a possible "threat" from my side for a revert war. I think my point there was clear, I was posting a logical question to support my point on why when we get to blocked roads, resorting to the community's opinion may be the best idea. I do not really see how you speculated this question, if you viewed it in its context, to be a threat..

3. Assuming, repeatedly, that your comments maybe be taken as a personal attack. Since my 1st reply, I've never tried to claim that you are attacking me, personally, nor my work, and always addressed the article's structure as I would of anybody else's article if I was in a discussion about it and preferred its structure over another. If otherwise was issued by me, please let me know to clarify it. I understand your well motives, and hope in turn you see that by disagreeing with you on any parts that I have a different opinion on, does not mean that you should think I'm taking this personally.

4. Assuming that direct discussion is causing frustration, and relating that to the reasons behind the suggestion to resort to voting. I assure you that direct discussion are never frustrating to me, and never will be :) If you simply check my history of direct discussion, you'll often find me on the elaborative side :)) The reason why I am asking to resort to votes / polls in this discussion is explained below.

Thus, I too seek to keep this discussion civil, by asking you to please not make further assumptions of what I say here, which I know is unintentional. If you feel that any of what I write may be ill-intentioned, please ask me first for clarification, before assuming it is, and I'll be more than glad to explain, cause it might be just a wrong choice of wording in a haste, that anyone is subjected to.

Now putting that aside, let's work on what's important, the main topics:

Voting: Yes, as a new wikipedian, I admit to not being aware of the Polling discourages consensus concept in wikis, so I think the concept of a wikipedia newcomer is what applies to me :) However, I have only adopted voting as an ultimate resolution here, after the discussion I had with Pandora which I keep referring to. So now this all seems a little contradicting and misleading, as I again become bugged with the question: if voting is not the agreed upon standard, and discussing is more encouraged, why is most of article-related decisions in Lostpedia (Merge-Delete-Rename...etc) seems to be done with majority-based votes? Also a question to Pandora, can you please clarify what you meant in your advise about democratic way of wikis, in the light of this current discussion ? I actually think a clarification from both you and Pandora as Sysops, and being involved in this topic as well, is highly required. This will also help educate me on what methods to resort to in solving disputes over Lostpedia.

Goals of this article: You're making here another wrong assumption about the goals I had for reworking the article. That is, assuming that by: "There might be only one controversial issue to it, before becoming a candidate for an AOTW nomination for instance; structure.", I meant that as my goal, which is incorrect.

AOTW was always to me a mean of encouragement and not a goal, and that was why I used it in my description, as an encouragement for others to care for the vote topic. Again, that was at the time I believed that voting was the right way to go to solve page structure issues.

My actual goal here, has always been to create/modify articles, so that they can provide an optimized summary of info about any topic in Lost, to the largest database of readers, in the most enjoyable ways possible. I may be miserably failing at this goal right now as a new comer at many articles :)) but it is indeed my goal, which I aim one day soon to start achieving :) Please refer to other non-AOTW articles that I've worked on, that may be of such quality though I didn't aim to nominate, including Countdown Timer. However, given that I think an ATOW gets better chances at being read more, it makes it a cool encouragement that I'm not feeling bad about adding to my bag of motives.

Another speculation you made here, is that I base my argument on the assumption that only prose articles merit AOTW, while bullets don't. Sorry, but this assumption is also wrong. If you check the single con I've added for bullets in my description, "which ever grows given the number of possible new relations to add with the coming events", you'll find my explicit real objection on bullets, which makes the problem of bullets not being organized, or a back door for erroneous additions, only a part of the large problem I always felt.

My highest objection to large usage of bullets is that, in Lost articles as this, with potentially large amount of information, a bullet structure will make it in the near future a very huge and very long one. My consequent object specifically to bulleted long articles, that they are very hard to read for me personally, and I always felt that many others share this opinion. You can particularly find this opinion of mine posted in my earlier vote of Economics for an ATOW (I am only using an AOTW example, cause it's just the one I had for this). Also, based on your vote Locke's Dream on the possible overgrowth of Dreams and Visions page, if all Dreams pages were added back to it, I may claim that you have already displayed a similar opinion.

Examples: Replying to your point, the current condition of the article isn't necessarily because of its sole prose form, but may very well be due to unnecessary elaboration from my side, that can be modified. This modification, isn't only done by the bullets solution, but can be also done through other means, as in briefing. Example, Sayid's page, which though in prose, it was indeed out of shape for an ATOW as a standard of quality, until Nick helped me with briefing it and other presentation ideas. So the key is not prose or bullets, but how well the content is presented. Accordingly, all the prose artifacts you mentioned, which I agree with you to exist, can also be solved simply through briefing and rework of prose content. Please also note that at the time we started this discussion, my writing on this page was halted, and I was already intending to pass it around for review after finishing it, which I expected to project many briefing reworks. So judging on its prose quality now may also raise unnecessary judgments.

Regarding the examples, I am afraid that most of them are not good representatives of the topic at hand, since they are either lists of items that cannot be related togather, such as:Websites or Automobiles, or a list of main articles, with little information in each section to summarize the article linked, as in Dreams and Visions. In both cases, it is clear that a bullet list would be most suitable. However, the current content size of the Religions page fails to fall under either category, and is much more suited for comparison with whole articles with large content, such as Electromagnetism or Economics (again using AOTW only for illustration).

In the case of Electromagnetism, the page was originally in prose, which expanded while remaining so and getting more narrative as it did. When it was first nominated for ATOW, it proved to be indeed a bit of a mess. Then it was reworked heavily, to become now one of our best articles, not cause it's prose, but cause it's a very well written prose.

The second case, Economics, was mostly bullets first, and very little prose. As per my earlier vote, I personally found it a waste of potential, where its content was obviously great, but rather mis-represented with over-use of unrelated bullets, that really distract you while reading. Now it consists of mainly prose, that is also very well written, in addition to bullets that are used in making short references to events that would require a whole paragraph instead.

The case you mention, Dreams and Visions, may of course be applicable only if we consider as you hinted having a main religions article, linking to a group of articles each to contain a religion or ideology for example. But the question is, do we really want to have a Christianity in Lost or Islam in Lost article around, that may open the door for even more speculation and breaking away from the main theme, which I believe to be the general concept of Faith, and go into details about any insignificant religion references that may appear ? If yes, then fine by me, only I suggest to keep the linked articles / sub-articles as prose, just like how we did with Locke's dream for example, fair ?

So to sum up the suggestions we made so far, to use now in our discussion, which I ask Pandora to also join:

• Keeping the page in prose form, but rewriting it well.

• Rewriting this page into mainly prose, and breaking unnecessary prose parts into bullets when needed, as in Economics.

• Rewriting this page into mainly bullets, with few lines of prose description to open each section with.

• Rewriting this page into bullet structure as it was before, but only better.

• Breaking the page into bullet summaries , and link it to new articles / sub-articles that would include only major sections.

So I look forward to discuss more your pick from these options, or others you add. I think if Pandora can also continue to join us with her comments, that would be really great. Regards.

P.S., to both Santa and Pandora : I will appreciate it if you can address also my questions on voting in Lostpedia posted above, either here or at my talk-page. Thanks-- 02:27, 12 December 2006 (PST)

• Sorry, this above discussion, and the AAGF section below, is simply too much content for me to follow, and this seems to be happening every few hours. I'm trying to summarize and restart the discussion below, in manner that facilitates other editors joining in.

Also, FYI, signing into IRC chat while I'm AFK and saying "are you there", then signing off, is similarly ineffective as doing the same thing in IM. Just like IM, if you use IRC, you should stay logged in, and idle. When I get back, I'll see your message (I did), and write you back. If you are no longer there, then I have no control over that.-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 00:34, 14 December 2006 (PST)

Rewrite into Paragraphs

Sorry, I admit being late on this task, and I'm making up by starting right away, so spare with me the changes till I'm done-- 12:20, 24 November 2006 (PST)

Rewrite Discussion Redux

• Sorry, I feel the need to reboot this discussion from scratch. I admit I don't have the energy to consider the above text point-by-point with a fine tooth comb.

For other editors who are joining in, here is the short version of two possible alternatives:

1. Convert completely to prose: There was a drive for converting this article completely to prose. The reasons are not clear to me, other than the general notion that "prose is good" for articles. Clarification of these reasons should be concisely added below.
2. Base article on bullet lists: I argue that retaining bullet form for this particular article is a better solution that facilitates the purpose of this article: to quickly look up Lost's references to religion. This makes it almost like a "List" article, like Automobiles featured in Lost, rather than an analysis or theory article.

• Therefore the narrative form does not serve the purpose of this article. This point is further supported by the article's long and intricate subsection structure, which does not follow any particular order (as a narrative would).
• The bad part about bullet-based articles is that they can become disorganized.

• In this case, this is not a problem. The article is already carefully organized by religion types and subtypes. Therefore any remaining lists of bullets will be nicely indexed and organized for the reader by subheads, like the Automobiles article above.

• Each subsection may contain brief opening descriptions in prose form. Thus the primary content of the article will be bullet based, but interspersed in some cases with prose.
• A rewrite along these lines means improving existing bullet lists to be more clear, for example by: removing redundant bullets, combining related bullets, or expanding existing bullets (as well as adding prose introductions).

-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 00:34, 14 December 2006 (PST)

Say, I was just wondering, the article is a tad long (not that long articles are terrible, it just seems a bit unwieldy). Is there any chance that the Mythology and/or Other Idealogies sections could be placed in their own article? Just an idea! CastorTroy 16:30, 14 December 2006 (PST)

I agree with CastorTroy, it's getting long, and still has room to grow. Would it be worthwhile to set this up as a Religion and Ideologies Portal, with brief summaries that linked to more in-depth articles? -BearDog 16:52, 14 December 2006 (PST)

• Good idea. As stated (somewhere) above, I think the current article should serve as a list, which if properly indexed would not be unwieldy even if it is long. Anything more such as what you suggest, (e.g., extended analysis or other discussion) belongs in a separate article. Therefore: bullets lists for this article, with wiki links some sections to extended articles or subarticles. In that way it will be similar to Dreams and visions. Whether or not it is explicitly a portal is another issue.-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  22:15, 14 December 2006 (PST)
• I agree as well. By reconsidering other options against that suggested here, I find now that keeping this article as a list, linking to other in-depth articles, is the best compromise. -- 20:26, 16 December 2006 (PST)

Atheism, Agnostism

I thought that these two refered to a person who does not believe in God or does not know what they beleive. (A buddist is an atheist) <----random fact. Why are references to God under this heading? Should it not be monotheism? --Princess Dharma (banned) 08:38, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I would say, atheism and agnosticism belong under the heading of ideologies--Tricksterson 08:28, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

Except they don't fit the definition of ideologies. There are no ideas being put forth in your plain vanilla atheism--there just aren't any gods. Aside: not all Buddhists are atheists--the religion is diverse enough that it provides a little leeway on this point, exploited by a number of sects; even among those that don't believe in a god or gods per se, there are many Buddhists who bear all manner of superstitious reverence for supernatural entities. Robert K S 13:02, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

The other reason it doesn't fit with ideology is that there isn't enough content right now to even justify the current section. Its also problematical to define a single ideology of atheism. As an example, Ayn Rand and Bakunan are both called out as atheists, but their ideologies could not be more different. If the show proposed or displayed a uniform ideology of atheism, it would deserve better metion. But so far that has not happened. Dharmatel4 13:21, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

As usually conceived (at least by atheists), atheism is not an ideology; it is the absence of an ideology (theism). -Silence 22:11, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

Atheism is a worldview, which many ideologies fall under. Agnosticism is neither a worldview or ideology. Agnosticism literally means "No Knowledge" (a = no, gnostic = knowledge). Basically, Agnostic thought contends that there is a lack of knowledge when it comes to answering questions about life after death, God, souls, and any other metaphysical question.--Cormacalian 20:56, 10 May 2008 (PDT)

Agreed. Agnosticism is a philosophical concept, not a religious one; therefore, it should not be in this article. If and when the show makes reference to Agnosticism, then it should be placed under the Philosophy page. To clarify, one may be an atheist and an agnostic (i.e., I do not believe God exists, but I also believe there is no way to prove this), and one may also be a theist and an agnostic (i.e., I believe God exists, but I also believe there is no way to prove this). In this sense, Agnosticism can be seen to contrast to fundamentalism (i.e., IMHO, those who believe regardless, and in spite of, any proof or logic). As an Agnostic myself, I believe that those who blindly declare that there is no God (i.e., Atheists) are just as ignorant as those who blindly declare that there is one (i.e. Theists).  Kevrock   talk  contribs   14:18, 24 November 2008 (PST)

Incorrect combining of Native 'faiths' and shamanism

I and many other Native people would take offense at the incorrect mashing together of vague connections Native "faiths" and "shamanism." NOT the same thing at all--lumping it all together is a New Age thing, rather. This pretty much became a common mistake propogated in the 70’s by all the fake commercialized "Indian" groups.

While some might disagree, most Native people I know agree that the word "shaman" doesn't even belong with Native spirituality; it is a foreign, generic word that does not accurately describe a traditional "medicine man"--the terms are not interchangable as they might be in other cultures where "medicine men" are shamanic. Anyone disagreeing with me here, I would encourage you to type in something like "why there are no Native American shamans" in a web search; you'll see that I am not alone in what I'm saying. (Just be aware that you may come across self-professed but fake "Native American shamans" such as the mainstream-popular Jamie Sams--know that they are New Age and are disapproved of by most tribes as they are trying to sell "sacred" things in very weird ways. Just check out wikipedia's article on "Plastic Shamans".

Btw, while I thought some of the cited references were really lame, I didn't delete anything; just separated them. Hazel 02:26, 18 March 2007 (PDT)

Recommended page move

I recommend moving this page to Religion. "Religion and ideologies" is both overly broad (this page is only about supernaturalistic ideologies, not about ideologies in general) and redundant (all religions are ideological). Alternatively, we could move it to Religion and mythology or Religion and spirituality for a more descriptive and relevant "doubled" title. -Silence 22:11, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

Islam

Salat

Being a Muslim myself, I cant fail to notice how Sayid has prayed (Salat) on the island as well as the sail boat without knowing the exact direction towards the Great Mosque of Makkah in Saudi Arabia which is a must for doing Salat since the Kaaba is the focal point of prayer for Muslims. Unless of course it depends if Sayid knows exactly where in the Pacific the island is (which I doubt).--Suprah 11:23, 7 December 2007 (PST)

• I am not a Muslim, so I am curious, is it essential to know the exact direction of Makkah? I understand that it is certainly desirable to be facing directly toward Makkah, but if a devout Muslim is not sure of the exact compass heading, should he forgo prayer altogether or should he pray in the general direction of where he believes (and no doubt hopes) Makkah to be (in Sayid's case, since they know they're somewhere in the South Pacific: roughly west-northwest)?--Bonefishj0e 18:57, 12 January 2008 (PST)
  • Theoretically the direction of prayer should be the Great Mosque of Makkah. Its upto one's own perception if it has to be an exact direction with respect to their own known location, or a general idea as to where it could be if that cant be possible. It is essential that Prayer needs to be done as per requirements, esp. when it comes to congregation prayers, but such 'special circumstances' will probably apply since it appears Sayid is perhaps the sole Muslim on the Island and it is up to him if he can judge a direction towards Makkah.Suprah 10:45, 19 January 2008 (PST)
  • I am a Muslim. In normal circumstances, you don't have to be a genius or a scientist to know where Mecca is. But in special circumstances, i.e. a situation like Sayid's, then I don't think that it is enough reason to forgo prayer. As Bonefishj0e said; he should pray in the general direction of where he believes and hopes Mecca is. After all, we believe that Allah knows all about our intentions, and intentions are important (even more than the actual actions). And yeah, I believe I would face north-northwest if I was in his situation. So that's not a big issue. What is a big issue, though, is that he immediately got up from prayer when they called him, and that is very disrespectful. We can assume that he did it in case of a possible imminent danger--imminent danger is an exception where you can stop the prayer before completing it. Although that's still not the way to do it, I think I can let it pass. I don't really expect them to be 100% accurate in portraying other beliefs. At least they're trying to do it right. --Blacxthorne 02:37, 28 February 2008 (PST)
• I'm sure that he assumes the island is in the Pacific somewhere, since that's where he was when the plane went down. On top of that, he sees where the sun rises and sets. I'd say he can be pretty accurate.Omnichad 14:19, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Qadr

This is a very complicated issue, but in Islam, believing in Qadr does not mean believing that we have no choice. There is partial will (will of man) and absolute will (will of Allah). We believe that Allah knows everything in the past and the future, and has "programmed" everything into a course, an order. People have their free will and when they do something they do it because they choose to, and their choices fit into that course of events. We can basically say that the concept of fate includes people's free will, because Allah already knows what people will choose in their lives (and just knowing them beforehand does not mean forcing people to make those choices). Thus, concepts of fate and free will coexist in Islam, there's no "fate vs. free will". So Sayid's actions that suggest that he believes in fate and in free will are not contradictive. --Blacxthorne 04:18, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Kate's Wedding

In the article Kate's wedding is noted as distinctly Protestant. How can we be sure that it wasn't Catholic? The minister's vestments are consistent with those of a Catholic priest (alb and stole), and there are stained glass windows and a sanctuary lamp behind the altar, which are also consistent with Catholicism. Catholic weddings are usually within the a Mass, but not always, so the fact that the ceremony ended immediately after "I now pronounce you husband and wife," does not preclude a Catholic wedding. Of course, there is no way to say for sure that it was Catholic, but I don't think we can be sure it was Protestant either. Any thoughts?--Bonefishj0e 20:03, 12 January 2008 (PST)

King James Bible

Since the King James Bible is the only one to be featured on LOST, shouldn't all Biblical quotations be from the King James version? --LightSpectra 19:39, 7 March 2008 (PST)

• I would say no. Eko, as a Catholic "priest" would not use the KJV, as the Catholic Bible has books lacking from the KJV. So just because the only Bible we've physically seen in the show is King James, it doesn't mean that it's the only one our characters are using. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 11:21, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Yemi was seen with a King James Bible despite being Catholic. The writers are clearly intending for us to use the KJ. -- LightSpectra 17:07, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I disagree. I doubt that the writers are aware of a difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. They probably just ordered a Bible from the prop room, and that's what the prop guy brought. In most circumstances a Catholic priest would not use a KJ Bible. Although it's conceivable that a lack of Bibles in Yemi's village required him to use what was available, we can be certain that Charlie, Desmond, Hurley, and probably Kate did not hear the KJV in their Catholic upbringings.--Bonefishj0e 18:45, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
• Sorry, but I think not. I'm not very familiar with the Bibles but I don't think the fact that there is only one Bible featured on the show means that there's only one in LOST universe. I'm pretty sure that all the characters are aware that there are other versions. It could be just the same prop used multiple times. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:11, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Island Spirituality

Locke claims that the "Island" healed him, many other characters talk about the Island in a spiritual way, there is plenty of evidence that shows that many characters see the island in a spiritual way - should this start to become an aspect of this article? --Cormacalian 20:59, 10 May 2008 (PDT)

Ba'hai

The Ba'hai Faith is also an abrahamic religion. Yapp 03:21, 1 August 2008 (PDT)

And yet again I'm deleting the section on the Baha'i faith. As a Baha'i I find it offensive that you're spouting nonsense and claiming it is Baha'i.

1. There is no such thing in the Baha'i Faith as "The Book of Law". The Kitab-i-Aqdas, although it it a books of laws, is not referred to as such, but rather as "The Most Holy Book".

2. It's "BAHA'I", not "BA'HAI". BAHA'I means "Followers of Baha (splendor)", I've no idea what BA'HAI means.

Also, the Kitab-i-Aqdas wasn't fully translated and released in english until 1994. That flashback happens waay before that.

Season 6

Moved the following here till we organize it. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 07:06, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

("LA X, Part 1") LA X reveals what Hurley has inside the guitar case = the ankh – the symbol or eternal life. LA X LOST writers introduce Soren Aabye Kierkegaard - Danish :philosopher and theologian from the late 1800's... known for writing about CHOICES you make in your life. He is considered a "Christian existentialist." He wrote that faith stemmed from CHOICE not logic. Kierkegaard's philosophy was that humans experienced life in 3 stages (aesthetic, ethical, and religious) - but not everyone experiences every stage. The book next to Montand’s corpse was "Fear and Trembling" (original title: Frygt og Bæven) published in 1843 under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio (John the Silent. This book retells the story of Abraham from the Bible and the Torah.

("LA X, Part 2") What Kate Does The scale with black and white rocks is probably symbolic of the Buddhist Dharma-Raja judges the dead using such a scale.

("LA X, Part 2")What Kate Does The ladders hanging to reach Jacob’s Cave. Jacob’s Ladders have symbolism. The Hebrew (Torah), Christian (Bible), and Muslim (Quran/Koran) write that Jacob had a DREAM about a ladder. The Judeo-Christian version of Jacob’s dream and the ladder is that the ladder went to “heaven” and that Jacob saw angels ascending and descending on the ladder to heaven. Jacob “heard” God telling him that the land he was standing on was his… “The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants; and your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you." Hebrew scholars treat Jacob’s “dream” as an allegory. The ladder tends to represent the rise and fall of the human journey. The Muslim interpretation also leans toward the ladder as a journey of life… as written by Muhammad.

("What Kate Does") The Lighthouse Torah, Bible, and Quran/Koran contain stories about a David who started his life as a SHEPHERD... who tended the fields of sheep. DAVID SHEPHARD is Jack's son's name. DAVID was also the person who WROTE MOST OF THE PSALMS praising God. One of the Psalms that DAVID wrote was The 23rd Psalm. That was a name given to one of the Season 2 episodes of LOST... and Mr. Eko recites the 23rd psalm in the dialogue.

("What Kate Does") The Lighthouse DAVID and the story of Goliath. The Hebrew (Torah), Christian (Bible), and Muslim (Quran/Koran) write that the story of David and Goliath. Two armies were at war – the Israelites and the Philistines. Goliath (a Philistine) was a tall man (oft described as a giant) and David as a youth (an Israelite) volunteered to go fight Goliath. The armor designed for grown men didn’t fit David, so he went down to the river bed and selected 5 stones and used a sling shot to hit Goliath in the head with the stones. As the story goes, David killed Goliath with a single shot. The Philistines retreated and David was a big hero. (1 Samuel 17: 1-58).

• David was a SHEPHERD who tended the fields of sheep. DAVID was the person who WROTE MOST OF THE PSALMS praising God. One of the Psalms that DAVID wrote was The 23rd Psalm as previously noted that is an episode title from Season 2.

("What Kate Does") The Substitute 'Jacob’s Ladders have name symbolism. The Hebrew (Torah), Christian (Bible), and Muslim (Quran/Koran) write that Jacob had a DREAM about a ladder. The Judeo-Christian version of Jacob’s dream and the ladder is that the ladder went to “heaven” and that Jacob saw angels ascending and descending on the ladder to heaven. Jacob “heard” God telling him that the land he was standing on was his… “The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants; and your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you." Hebrew scholars treat Jacob’s “dream” as an allegory. The ladder tends to represent the rise and fall of the human journey. The Muslim interpretation also leans toward the ladder as a journey of life… as written by Muhammad.

Abrahamic intro

I deleted the following unfocused, irrelevant intro. Integrate parts you think are relevant if you like. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 07:13, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

The main Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam – although there are others such as those of the Baha'i Faith. Half of the world’s population believe in one of these three faiths – Wiki quotes the figure 3.8 billion people. They are also known as the “Eastern religions” as opposed to the “Dharmic” religions of India or the “Taoic” religions of the Asian countries. There are MANY common and shared themes between Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Probably the most significant one is that all three religions believe that there is only one supreme being known as the God. The “holy trinity” that many of the catholic Christian faiths believe is still only one single God who is revealed in three aspects – God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit = but only one God. This is known as Monotheism. This is in stark contrast to the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks/Romans who were polytheists. Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all believe in “prophecy, divine revelation, e.g. the “truth” shall be revealed, and all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, believe that people must make choices between good and evil. All three speak to consequences for human actions (or in-actions) and consequences for disobeying a divine law. Finally, all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, believe that there will be a final judgment day.

Abraham appears in the Hebrew (Torah), the Christian (Bible), and the Muslim (Quran/Koran) as the founder of Monotheism. Symbolically, Abraham is the founding patriarch of all three monotheistic faiths. The Hebrews or Jewish people know Abraham as Abram. It is written in the historical scrolls that God changed Abram's name from Abram – meaning exalted, to Abraham meaning ‘father of many.’ Abraham appears in the historical texts as the tenth generation descendant from Noah (from the flood story) and the twentieth generation descendant from Adam and Eve. Abraham’s story is told in Genesis in the Bible.

Abraham had at least two wives. One was Hagar, who bore a son Ishmael. One was Sarah, who bore a son Isaac. Isaac married Rebekah. They had twin sons: Jacob and Esau. Jacob and Esau were the first twins and there are references to them as fighting in the womb. (Genesis 25:21-26). Jacob married Leah and had several children. Benjamin was Jacob's youngest and sometimes referred to as his favorite son.

Both Jacob and Esau were famous in history as starting a tribe of nations. Jacob's name was changed to ISRAEL (Genesis 32:28), and historically and symbolically, Jacob is the father of the Hebrew 12 Tribes... which carries the "line of David which is the genealogical line of Jesus Christ (The Good Shepherd).

Images

Consider including these images

Dharmacakra seen flashing by in Psychology Test Orientation Video

A buddha appears in the painting Desmond sees in Charles Widmore's office. --("Flashes Before Your Eyes")

Ben's torn shirt mimics a buddhist monk's robe --("The Whole Truth")

Rename

We've had this title for years, but it's not accurate. This article covers just religion - and then a tiny paragraph duplicating content from our philosophers page.

We have other pages about ideology. We have Science vs. faith, we have Fate versus free will, we have Leadership, we have Economics. But we don't mention all that on this page. Nor should we. Ideology is too broad a topic. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 14:36, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the page don't mentions ideologies.

--   FedericoF    talk    contribuctions    twitter 14:47, February 16, 2011 (UTC)