Talk:Hell/Archive 2

Edit request from Seldomawake, 25 August 2010
Please change the line "Other afterlife destinations included Heaven, Purgatory, Paradise, [Nirvana]], and Limbo."

to: Other afterlife destinations included Heaven, Purgatory, Paradise, Nirvana, and Limbo.

This is to fix the link to the page on Nirvana (by adding the extra "[").

Seldomawake (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Favonian (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"If a person deviates from the path of the Vedas in the absence of an emergency, the servants of Yamarāja put him into the hell called Asi-patravana, where they beat him with whips. When he runs hither and thither, fleeing from the extreme pain, on all sides he runs into palm trees with leaves like sharpened swords. Thus injured all over his body and fainting at every step, he cries out, "Oh, what shall I do now! How shall I be saved!" This is how one suffers who deviates from the accepted religious principles." (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.26.15) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.103.36 (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Bina91, 23 October 2010
I believe that this site is where the information that is missing citation came from: http://www.crystalinks.com/hell.html

Bina91 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: that page is a clone of a previous version of the article, and thus not a reliable source. -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.236.4.172, 13 December 2010
I request the phrase, "Hell is often portrayed as populated with demons, who torment the damned. Many are ruled by a death god, such as Nergal, Hades, Yama or the Christian/Islamic Devil, called Satan or Lucifer.." to be edited. According to Christian scripture, Satan does not rule hell, nor are demons given the order to torture its inhabitants. Satan is on Earth, and goes between Earth and Heaven (Job 1:6). There are numerous quotes in the book of Revelation in which Satan is present on Earth, is bound for 1,000 years in the Abyss, and is finally thrown into hell, with the demons.

98.236.4.172 (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase states that "Hell is often portrayed...", so it doesn't really matter what the scripture says (even that can be debatable), what matters is how hell is protrayed in today's society. Stickee (talk)  12:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, Christian scripture is not the only source: there is also a large body of Christian folklore and other material. I don't think the idea of a Christian devil ruling hell is an unusual or controversial one.  Richard New Forest (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Expansion, Origin of the Idea
A topic I find to be missing in the article is the origin of hell. I remember watching a documentary on the History Channel a while back where they mentioned that the first time anything like hell appeared in history was with some tribe (which I can't remember the name of) who created many religious texts. The only place where I can find information like this in the article is this line: "Modern understandings of Hell often depict it abstractly, as a state of loss rather than as fiery torture literally underground, but this view of Hell can, in fact, be traced back into the ancient and medieval periods as well." Hopefully someone will have the time to find some information on this topic. --AJ00200 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
I feel that an adjustment to the paragraph on the Jehovah's Witnesses view is in order. May I recommend this minor rewrite as the understanding on Hell and Gehenna seems unclear in the original?:

Jehovah's Witnesses, citing Biblical references Genesis chapter 2 verse 7 and Ezekiel chapter 18 verse 4 among others, hold that the person or being and its soul are one and thus cease to exist when that one dies and therefore that the Hebrew references to Sheol and Hades are simply references to the common grave, not a place of conscious torment fiery or otherwise. In their theology, the burning garbage dump outside Jerusalem called Gehenna, differs from Sheol or Hades in that it is used in first century Christian teaching as a symbol of death under judgement which holds no hope of resurrection (Matthew chapter 5 verse 22). Tatarus is held to be the metaphorical state of debasement of the fallen angels between the time of their moral fall (Genesis chapter 6) until their post-millennial destruction along with Satan (Revelation chapter 20).

--QueryMind (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedenborg
Does the Emanuel Swedenborg section belong above the major beliefs of Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism? I'm not even sure it meets WP:Notability standards, as all the cited references come from the Swedenborg Foundation. I'm not going to delete it, but I will move it below the Zoroastrianism section. ---Canstusdis (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You raise the question of Swedenborg’s placement in the list. I think the present ranking is arbitrary, as any ranking of this kind is.  For instance, some people would place the Eastern or Native American religions at a higher ranking than the Abrahamic religions.  So I don’t think you can make a case  pro or con Swedenborg’s list placement on the basis of such ranking.  What guided my ranking was that Swedenborg’s theology is Christian (e.g. one of his major works is The True Christian Religion), his largest impact on Christian theology is often identified as his work on Heaven and Hell and he was a practicing Lutheran his entire life.  So placing him as a sub-head under Christianity would seem not simply pertinent but necessary.  It might be noted that this practice is followed in the entry on heaven. ---Future777 (talk) 7:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.104.7 (talk)


 * You know, I was reading this article, and I also thought that the Swedenborg section seemed like it didn't belong.  It's very out of place in the context of the rest of this article.   Maybe it needs to be in its own article.   At any rate, it does not fit here.   --70.168.100.113 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It has to go somewhere else. He is just one guy and we do not have big sections devoted to the opinions of other individual thinkers. It is not like he started a major world religion or anything although his views did possibly influence the Mormons to some extent. His views are notable but we already have an article about them: Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg). Giving them detailed coverage here is WP:UNDUE. I would also be happier if the section wasn't so dependent on one source for its referencing.


 * I say we cut and paste the whole thing to Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg) (or, maybe, Emanuel Swedenborg if it is felt that the section derives from his works as a whole, not just the one book). I would also suggest exactly the same for the big section in Heaven. Once consolidated in one place the spurious paragraph numbering can be removed along with any duplication.


 * I see no reason to mention his views here unless we decide to have a wider list of individual philosophers and theologians who have held significantly notable and influential original views about the subject, in which case he could be included on that list with a sentence or two outlining his views. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem to violate WP:UNDUE. I agree that the section should be moved to Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg) along with the completely out of place section in Heaven. Thanks for the clarity of thought. ---Canstusdis (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * >>You know, I was reading this article, and I also thought that the Swedenborg section seemed like it didn't belong. It's very out of place in the context of the rest of this article. Maybe it needs to be in its own article. At any rate, it does not fit here. --70.168.100.113 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This comment is somewhat difficult to interpret since the editor doesn’t say why he didn’t like the piece. In any case, I find it somewhat surprising that there could be question about the relevance of Swedenborg’s work in this section.  His books, particularly his widely-read book on Heaven and Hell, have been long been part of the basic literature on the subject of the afterlife.


 * >>Yeah. It has to go somewhere else. He is just one guy and we do not have big sections devoted to the opinions of other individual thinkers.


 * It looks to me like the size of the Swedenborg section in this article is not much different than some other sections, such as the one on Hinduism. To gain some perspective, you might want to take a look at the Immanuel Kant Wikipedia article.


 * >>It is not like he started a major world religion or anything although his views did possibly influence the Mormons to some extent.


 * I am not sure just where the threshold for “major” lies. While it is certainly true that the religious organizations based on Swedenborg’s work are not large in number, Swedenborg has certainly had a major influence on the culture, as illustrated by the comments of a variety of famous people, such as Helen Keller, Henry James Sr., William Blake, John Flaxman, Emerson, Daniel Burnham, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc. (all listed in Wikipedia).  As far as Swedenborg’s influence on the Mormons, you might want to take a look at Craig Miller’s extensive review of that subject http://craigwmiller.tripod.com/interest.htm,


 * >> His views are notable but we already have an article about them: Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg). Giving them detailed coverage here is WP:UNDUE.


 * On the contrary, I would suggest that it would be inappropriate to leave out coverage of one of the major works on hell (or heaven, for that matter).


 * The “Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg)” article appears to have been put up primarily to provide an opportunity to compare Swedenborg and Mormon thought, which is not the focus of the subject matter discussed here.


 * >>I would also be happier if the section wasn't so dependent on one source for its referencing.


 * I’m not clear as to where “one source” is cited. The section cites six of Swedenborg’s books, not 1.


 * >>I say we cut and paste the whole thing to Heaven and Hell ( Swedenborg) (or, maybe, Emanuel Swedenborg if it is felt that the section derives from his works as a whole, not just the one book). I would also suggest exactly the same for the big section in Heaven.


 * Again, what “one book?” And I think such change would be a mistake and just confuse things. What the reader is in effect looking for here is Swedenborg’s teachings on hell (or heaven), not an entry on some other subject which the reader then has to dig through to find the pertinent cross-link.


 * >>Once consolidated in one place the spurious paragraph numbering can be removed along with any duplication.


 * I assume you’re speaking of the paragraph numbering found in Swedenborg’s work. Since that numbering is central to searching and otherwise accessing his work, to remove it would be a mistake, adding confusion, not clarity.


 * >>I see no reason to mention his views here unless we decide to have a wider list of individual philosophers and theologians who have held significantly notable and influential original views about the subject, in which case he could be included on that list with a sentence or two outlining his views. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is full of articles on various aspects of a given subject. So if someone wants to add an entry on a new angle to the article here, fine.   But I don’t see that that provides justification for removing the existing article.


 * >>Yes, it does seem to violate WP:UNDUE. I agree that the section should be moved to Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg) along with the completely out of place section in Heaven. Thanks for the clarity of thought. ---Canstusdis (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest just the opposite; I think the article serves the purpose for which it was written, of providing a brief, comparative review of various religions’ teachings on hell. Future777 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a quote from WP:UNDUE:


 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."


 * Unless you can prove that Swedenborg and his followers represent more than a tiny minority, it shouldn't even be mentioned. Of course you're free to expand an already existing article like Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg) for example or you could start a brand new article.  Again from WP:UNDUE:


 * "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."
 * ---Canstusdis (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You cite a WP:UNDUE excerpt again but you do not answer any of the critiques of my last post. Please do so, or revert.Future777 (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Canstusdis, you didn't move the section, you removed it. I restored it again, as it seems this was a mistake from your side. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you moved it to it's own article. I understand now. My bad. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering my request for a third party opinion. I think everyone will agree that your addition here is a good compromise. ( I'm not sure how to correct the above text. It's almost unreadable.  Must be some sort of wiki bot bug. ) ---Canstusdis (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, my fault. Fixed. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a fair assessment has been made here and thus will shortly be posting a new, very brief, statement. Future777 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to violate WP:UNDUE? Haven't we already reached a compromise?  Please, stop giving your minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views as per WP:UNDUE. ---Canstusdis (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear why the continuing lecture on WP:UNDUE here since we do have the compromise. Just to be completely clear - I made a couple of corrections (e.g. Swedenborg's name has one "m" (Emanuel)), but have basically left the (very brief) compromise result now up. And, just for the record, I would have liked to add a short third sentence but did not in the interests of peace!Future777 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Future777 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's UNDUE now. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You wrote >> Revision as of 13:56, 24 August 2011 (view source) Canstusdis(talk | contribs) m (→Christianity: what differentiates "Second Coming Christian revelation" from "ordinary Christian revelation" and why is that distinction important enough to add here? It makes the whole sentence seem wordy

To begin with, for perspective on this matter, see Wikipedia Second Coming of Christ page.

The distinction you are questioning here is fundamental to understanding what Swedenborg is all about. He states that the long-expected Second Coming of Jesus Christ already occurred, in 1757, following the Last Judgment, all of which most Christians believe has yet to happen. The Second Coming, Swedenborg says, was not in person like the first, the “ordinary” revelation if I understand your use of that term correctly. It was based on the the revelation to Swedenborg of the internal spiritual sense in the books of the Word and extensive additional teachings of spiritual truth.

I hope this clarifies things.Future777 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. Can you can find a verifiable source stating as such? If so, please add it as a reference.  Otherwise it seems wordy and completely unnecessary.  Thanks.  ---Canstusdis (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made the corrections that I think you were asking for, correcting the reference and wordyness. I would :point out, incidentally, that, in the interests of completeness, I would have liked to add the following statement:
 * People are in spiritual free will and go to Heaven or Hell because they choose to.<<.
 * However, in the interests of brevity I did not.Future777 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
In the "Christianity" section of the article, the statement given below can be interpreted as biased against Protestantism. In addition to Hell, it touches on several theological arguments, such as the roles of faith and works, soteriology, and the like. Perhaps it would be best to place this statement on another page that deals with the faith-works dynamic on a deeper level.

"The nature of this judgment is inconsistent with many Protestant churches teaching the saving comes from accepting Jesus Christ as their savior, while the Greek Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that the judgment hinges on both faith and works." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.35.209 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

153.42.35.209 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

criticism
Looking at 'heaven', there is a section covering the criticism of the belief. In this section, there is nothing covering any critique of 'hell' as a concept or belief, which could mislead readers into thinking its existence is in no way contested. That suggests a certain lack of balance. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 01:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The picture under the section about Islam and hell should be taken off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.133.151 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gehenna - language
How can "Gehenna" be an Arabic word when Gehenna is translated into "jahannam" (جهنم) in Arabic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.43.178 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy Book Refrences
Should we add refrences from Holy Books such as The Bible, The Quran and others? Allymaybiskuts (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy with the Introduction?
Any evidence to support this claim (in bold): "Many are ruled by a death god such as Nergal, Hades, Enma or the Christian and Islamic Devil (Satan or Lucifer)."? --WateryEarth (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That part about muhammad
A muslim actually drew muhammad? I thought they didn't do that. seems suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.71.52 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See Depictions of Muhammad. Editor2020 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC) hell-> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hell&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.49.129 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

HELL
Is a word in german language and say clear/light (am Tag ist es hell und am Abend ist es dunkel).--82.113.5.88 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

prophet picture
The picture is fake because the law concerning with hijab(-a veil which covers the hair and neck) came years after Mihraj (Ascent).No picture of muhammed is availlable.nobudy was allowed to draw the picture of prophet muhhammed in islam because it is possible,after many years he may become devine,which is absolutly against what he taught. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.77.205 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hell, Michigan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.131.245 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit - Christianity
The Gehenna section under Christianity is inconsistent with the WP article Gehenna on the same subject. Consistent with the WP article, OT scripture, and modern scholarship on the subject... Gehenna is referenced as the place where people performed child sacrifice to Moloch. 99.70.91.82 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Roman Catholic Church, many other Christian churches, such as the Baptists and Episcopalians, and some Greek Orthodox churches,[33] Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not been found worthy after the general resurrection and last judgment,[34][35][36] where they will be eternally punished for sin and permanently separated from God. The nature of this judgment is inconsistent with many Protestant churches teaching the saving comes from accepting Jesus Christ as their savior, while the Greek Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that the judgment hinges on both faith and works."

This section seems to be somewhat contradictory as to what is considered Protestant or otherwise (Baptist being a Protestant denomination.) Furthermore there is no widely accepted idea of judgement being inconsistent with Protestant teachings. It appears the original author was under the impression that judgement can only be a judgement of faith and works (non-protestant views, generally) and not a judgement on the status of their salvation (generally protestant views.) Could we please strike this section or improve the logical flow? 204.197.227.133 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Errors in Judaism Section
The sentence that states that 'early judaism had no concept of hell' is completely untrue. Judaism (and by that I mean orthodox Judaism - the non orthodox 'judaisms' are reformist to the degree that they cannot be considered to be judaism as far as orthodox jews are concerned, which is a discussion for another day) makes no differentiation between early judaism and later judaism - the judaism that we have today is the same that existed from its inception. While rabbinic laws may increase over the ages (which is provided for in the Torah), the fundametal concepts of judaism do not. Thus kashrut, the importance of the land of israel ('zionism'), of the Torah, and the concept of Gehinnom etc. have all been around since the time that the jews allege to have received the Torah at Mount Sinai. Judaism as a religion did not simply evolve over time as a culture (like Greek culture may have), but as a religion was given in full at Mount Sinai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.187.135 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Citing Daniel 12:2 is dubious. Cited scripture does not define an afterlife. Barnes says:

Shall awake - This is language appropriate to those who are asleep, and to the dead considered as being asleep. It might, indeed, be applied to an arousing from a state of lethargy and inaction, but its most obvious, and its full meaning, would be to apply it to the resurrection of the dead, considered as an awaking to life of those who were slumbering in their graves.

...

To everlasting life - So that they would live forever. This stands in contrast with their" sleeping in the dust of the earth," or their being dead, and it implies that that state would not occur in regard to them again. Once they slept in the dust of the earth; now they would live for ever, or would die no more. Whether in this world or in another is not here said, and there is nothing in the passage which would enable one to determine this. The single idea is that of living forever, or never dying again. This is language which must have been derived from the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and of the future state, and which must imply the belief of that doctrine in whatever sense it may be used here. It is such as in subsequent times was employed by the sacred writers to denote the future state, and the rewards of the righteous. The most common term employed in the New Testament, perhaps, to describe true religion, is life, and the usual phrase to denote the condition of the righteous after the resurrection is eternal or everlasting life. Compare Mat 25:46. This language, then, would most naturally be referred to that state, and covers all the subsequent revelations respecting the condition of the blessed.

Additionally, the infiltration of Hellenistic views into Daniel is contested, and no reference questioning the authenticity of the citation is given.

Please remove 2 sentences: "It occurs for example in Book of Daniel. Daniel 12:2 proclaims "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.""Samuraipizzacat29 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Orthodox Jews may well believe that their religion hasn't evolved over time, but that doesn't make it a factual statement. thx1138 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "It occurs for example in Book of Daniel", (the concept of an afterlife) is controversial synthesis, considering that much of Judaism believes that, "many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake", is a prophecy to be fulfilled long after most have died. If this synthesis is to remain, it must be sourced.  Primary religious texts, (such as Daniel in the Tanakh), are not adequate sources for synthesis.


 * Considering the controversial nature of the synthesis, alternate viewpoints must also be acknowledged.


 * However, considering that this entire section has been marked for lack of citations since 2009 and that no one has done anything about it, and the charge of plagiarism documented below, more drastic measures are probably called for. 74.38.2.177 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the nonsense in this subsection was plagiarized any way, from Forbidden Theology: Origin of Scriptural God, by Miles Augustus Navarr, (2012). Even if this source had been in the public domain, the subsection is presented entirely from one Point of View.

I suggest it be rewritten from scratch, using authoritative sources; enough of them to present both a balanced viewpoint and dissenting viewpoints. However, this leaves me to wonder how much of the rest of the article has been plagiarized. Downstrike (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Christian-centric bias
This article is biased toward viewing an entire array of afterlife concepts from a Christian-centric point of view. It describes various other religion's/culture's ideas as "hells" (variously capitalized or not), when they are quite different ideas that never used that term. It is reasonable to discuss influences on the Christian concept. But it is misleading to simply describe other religions in Christian lingo, as if it were the primary lens or standard. "Hell" is a species of mythic "underworld" or "afterlife," not the other way around. I would rewrite this article as either a specific piece on the Christian Hell, or an inclusive piece on "underworlds." Jtcarpet (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has an anti-Christian bias if anything. In the see also section one of the pages linked to is appeal to fear (using fear rather than reason to try to win an argument). 86.45.137.157 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have noticed the capitalization of hell as well. It is called cultural bias and it affect anthropology as well. This is something that is hard to avoid. If you want to rename all instances in the article to underworld, I'm fine with that. I'm not sure what 86.45.137.157 is complaining about. If it isn't an appeal to fear, then what is it? Vmelkon (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request
In the See Also section it links to Appeal to fear. In other words the article is implying that Hell is just something made up to scare people into behaving. In doing this the article is taking a position on the subject (an anti-religious one as usual) and is therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. If a locked article won't follow Wikipedia's rules there's no hope for articles that aren't locked. 86.45.33.13 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite us a source that talks about hell's location, time of day there, weather and culture? If you can't, then we cannot assume it exists108.66.197.69 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The long sentence following [32], is not really a sentence. A careful reading will reveal this. Thanks, MCI 71.114.5.158 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is pretty clear to me that hell is an appear to fear. The same can be said about torture (if you do this crime, we will torture you). There are other cases as well, such as the death penalty (if you do this crime, we will kill you using X method). Crime is sometimes an appeal to fear (Some mafia guy tells you to pay him a weekly amount or else he kills you and no one will find your body). I have had a lot of christians give me the same excuse (god loves you but he is going to send you to hell(not exactly worded like that)). Vmelkon (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

the word "traditions"
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell :

"In many mythological, folklore and religious traditions, hell is a place of eternaltorment in an afterlife, often after resurrection."

"Other traditions, which ... "

I think that the word "traditions" you used, should be replaced with "books". Most traditions are ceremonies and rituals, actions and parades, not something from which beliefs come from. Books or stories handed down through generations are where the ideas of hell comes from. I haven't heard of any tradition where hell is made into a practice to be done each year. Although the Chinese have a "tradition" of throwing firecrackers to get rid of devils. But the idea of devils comes from books.

obliterait@aol.com

John Norris Maguire III — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:25FF:2CF0:0:0:0:35 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I came to vandalise this page...
And redirect it to Other People

...but it was protected Deku-shrub (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2015
In reference to the William Bouguereau painting, the comment says Dante and Virgil are seen watching two people kissing. This is quite obviously not what is happening in the painting where one figure can be seen striking the back and violently biting the throat of the other figure.

(File:William Bouguereau - Dante and Virgile - Google Art Project 2.jpg)

If the action of the painting cannot be accurately described it should not be described.

Don.m.thompson (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have changed it just to say that they are watching the condemned. That may not be an optimal description but it is an improvement as at least it removes the incorrect part. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Hell. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150216040008/http://www.biblicalperspectives.com:80/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm to http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070206152658/http://www.ubfellowship.org:80/archive/readers/601_zoroastrianism.htm to http://www.ubfellowship.org/archive/readers/601_zoroastrianism.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070829155418/http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/hell.htm to http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/hell.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016
At #Islam there is a picture of Prophet Muhammad which is abolished in Islam(drawing Muhammad(s.a.w.)'s face) So please remove this photo. Thanks!

Gogercinnurullah (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. Wikipedia is not censored. GABgab 02:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2016
Please verify the quote from the book of Daniel 12:12. 73.21.145.17 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no quote from Daniel 12:12. The is a quote from Daniel 12:2. tahc chat 16:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Seems to be answered already  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Great Intro!
I was quite wow'ed by the intro. Kudos to the team who put it together Sethie (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017
There is no section explaining what sikh religion says about hell. So, pls add the following to the article:
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sikh Religion
As per Sikh thought, Hell and Heaven are not places for living hereafter, they are part of spiritual topography of man and do not exist otherwise. They refer to good and evil stages of life respectively and can be lived now and here during our earthly existence. For example, Guru Arjan explains that people who are entangled in emotional attachment and doubt are living in hell on this Earth i.e. their life is hellish.

Jaskaran.singh7793 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring of Headers
Given the number of different sub-sections, I felt that the page needed an overhaul in terms of what is considered a section (i.e. two == signs), a sub section (three ===) and a sub-sub section (====). I began making these changes, input and contributions welcome. Sethie (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Still didn't feel like enough, so I took off one more "=", I think it turned out nicely, input welcome. Sethie (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Fictional
Should it not be made clear in this article that 'hell' is a fictional place? Kids read this FFS. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

-

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018
Please add to the "other" section Pastafarian Hell, (from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) without quotes: "The Pastafarian Hell is similar to the Pastafarian Heaven, except that the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases." GamingWessel (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC) ❌
 * Thanks for your edit request. Please understand that Anything that you want to add to Wikipedia must be WP:VERIFIABLE from WP:RS. So kindly provide a reliable source for your edit request.-- D Big X ray  10:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect deduction.

 * Some have theorized that English word hell is derived from Old Norse hel.[1] However, this is very unlikely as hel appears in Old English before the Viking invasions. Furthermore, the word has cognates in all the other Germanic languages and has a Proto-Germanic origin.[3] Among other sources, the Poetic Edda, compiled from earlier traditional sources in the 13th century, and the Prose Edda, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson, provide information regarding the beliefs of the Norse pagans, including a being named Hel, who is described as ruling over an underworld location of the same name.

Hel, and Hel's hall predate the viking invasions in England, as does Wotan, and all the gods and the very language used because the Vikings have a shared ancestry. The Germanic peoples faith was uniform, and predates the Christian interpretation of 'hell' in writing by centuries, and by oral tradition of indigenous European's by millennia. To claim something is 'very unlikely' simply because the word is pre-existing in a Germanic settlement like England prior to the Scandzan invasions is to forget history. There is a reason that hell was a European invention, it's because it was a pre-existing belief in the old faiths. Vergilianae (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Infernus" as translation of Gehenna in the Vulgate?
I have checked all the references to Gehenna in the Vulgate, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, but not even a single time is Gehenna translated as infernus but rather it is always transliterated, as Gehennom gehennæ or gehennam. Infernus and different forms of the word are only used to translate Sheol or Hades. For example: OT: [Joshua 15:8] ascenditque per convallem filii Ennom ex latere Iebusei ad meridiem haec est Hierusalem et inde se erigens ad verticem montis qui est contra Gehennom ad occidentem in summitate vallis Rafaim contra aquilonem

NT: [Matthew 5:22] ego autem dico vobis quia omnis qui irascitur fratri suo reus erit iudicio qui autem dixerit fratri suo racha reus erit concilio qui autem dixerit fatue reus erit gehennæ ignis

Ash wki (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2019
As the Bahá'í Faith is an Abrahamic religion, the entire § Bahá'í Faith section should be moved from its present location (under § Other religions) to § Abrahamic religions instead. I should suggest it should follow the section on Islam, to preserve chronological order. 104.246.223.76 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2019
Under § Judaism, there exists the following link to a non-existent section header:

Olam Habah

It should be amended to instead link as follows:

Olam Habah

Thank you. 104.246.223.76 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 12:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Church of England and secular authority
This article could include the case of Williams v Bishop of Salisbury (1863) 15 ER 943, in which the British state officially determined that eternal damnation is not part of the doctrine of the Church of England. The case had originally been heard by the ecclesiastical Arches Court of Canterbury, but ended up being decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, an essentially secular body. Moreover, the proceedings were brought under an Act of Parliament, the Church Discipline Act (3-4 Vict. c.86), which imposed criminal liability for professing heretical doctrines.

107.77.202.228 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC) George S. Brown 22031

Fire in Hell
Is there actual fire in hell? Is burning actually a punishment in hell? How can we know if the fire description is truly literal or metaphorical? The Book of Revelation sure sounds literal. 2601:98A:480:C080:CC90:AEE7:5EA:DD8F (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Section on Judaism says Gehenna is not entirely physical.
Seems to be discussing Gehenna's use as a metaphor rarger than actual theology. Gives impression that it is not considered a physical place. Citation needed or better wording (or both). 2600:1016:B1D0:91F3:50D5:A8F8:DF2A:A789 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Our text is quite good on explaining that Judaism isn't very 'big' on the idea of hell. And I reckon the article is giving the right idea that it's not necessarily considered a "place" at all. It's quite a different concept to the Christian one, not least in a) how vague and b) how not very important it is to the religion. Your point about the need for better referencing is, however, spot-on. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022
Alsmebob9 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC) to add thet hell is a cuss word
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

What does it look like
I never do you wanna go there 50.96.166.123 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Claim in Judaism Section Ought to be Removed
In the section on Judaism we have this claim:

"In Judaism around the time of Jesus, almost all practitioners believed that their descent from Abraham automatically stopped them from going to hell."

This does not cite a scholarly or obviously reputable source and seems like a sectarian attempt to attack Judaism in that era. This has no business being in a Wikipedia article.

The source of the claim is also clearly a Christian apologist work. 205.185.107.25 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

“Hell's gatekeepers”
Mentioned in the Islamic section. Not so theological source for a very theological topic. Should be removed. 2001:9E8:2D99:EC00:B17B:EBA:FD57:E99 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Capitalizing hell?
Should hell/Hell be capitalized or not? The article has it uncapitalized, so why shouldn't it be? Coulomb1 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Real video of hell
Hello. Please pasting this is video to page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaedel (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌, these are fake videos which aren't discussed in the text. --Belbury (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)