Talk:eternal sleep

eternal sleep
Same as previous, but also merely a copy of it- even to the point of using the same quote, which doesn't include the entry title. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sleep is either actual sleep, or a trivial metaphor. The magical cause or mechanism can vary from one story to another. "A magical state of suspended animation" is being too specific. Equinox ◑ 10:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete if the creator tries to define a magical sleep. But isn’t it rather a common euphemism of death? — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A euphemism for death, of uncertain scope of usage beyond Christianity. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * sleep could easily be defined as ‘death,’ and saying ‘eternal death’ strikes me as redundant. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Which makes it evident that sleep is not being used for "death" directly here. Rather, it is being used euphemistically. Also, how is "eternal death" redundant? "Eternal death" could refer to eternal oblivion, whilst "death" might not necessarily imply that. Tharthan (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "death" that's redundant, but "eternal". Outside of religion, death is normally understood to be an eternal condition. Otherwise, the old Saturday Night Live Weekend Update running gag about Generalissimo Francisco Franco being still dead wouldn't be as funny. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Using phrases like "outside of religion..." and "inside of religion..." is unnecessary in this discussion. Plenty of people are religious and plenty of people are not. Contrary to popular belief, not all that are religious (and not all that are Christian or Catholic) deny science. Sure, some of them might be called "not orthodox" or something like that, but it doesn't change the fact that they still associate with that religion. Also, don't forget about this. In any case, "eternal death" is not redundant, given that it is most certainly NOT unanimously held that death is eternal. Plus, irrespective of that, some people "temporarily die" (i.e. their heart stops and they collapse, dead) and are "revived", or at least some might phrase it that way. In any case, it isn't really fair to say that "eternal death" is redundant, because death is not automatically synonymous with "oblivion-boundness". Tharthan (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have created a separate definition for "death", and kept the RfD going for the non-death definition. Pur ple back pack 89  


 * Keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tharthan (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 16:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)