Talk:Hell in Christianity

Requested move 14 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that in this kind of usage, Hell should be treated as a place, and capitalised as such. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Christian views on Hell → Christian views on hell – In sources that talk about hell, even in the Christian context, this place or concept is not generally capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Data from nom – Book stats don't reveal any context in which capitalized Hell is common. Even Hell is and Hell's are more often lowercase hell.  Books specifically on the Christian concept still don't cap it; see this book or this one. Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even if we take the stance that Hell is mythological (or fictional), it is presented as being a place. We regularly capitalize mythological (and fictional) place names. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, an RM? the hell you say! Lower cased in statements like that, upper cased when talking of the place per proper name per Blueboar. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Editors should realize that this RM also carries Heaven along with it, and may possibly decide the casing faith of Heaven and Hell on Wikipedia. If the deciding factor for some editors relies on the "not consistently upper-cased" language in the suggested guideline, let me play the Devil's advocate and point out that some other words that society and some style guides don't upper case are "Sun" and "Moon". But Wikipedia does. We make common sense exceptions to guidelines. The style guide draws the line at 'Sun' and 'Moon' because Wikipedians seem observant enough and have enough common sense (exactly what the language for exceptions calls for) (where?) {at the very top of every guideline page) to realize that the Sun and Moon deserve proper names. Since Wikipedia upper cases places in real life, religions, mythology, or fiction, 'Heaven' and 'Hell', when used as obvious descriptors of a place, arguably fit both the accepted Wikipedia criteria for 'places' and/or qualify for the same common sense exception as 'Sun' and 'Moon'. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per uniform usage. Elizium23 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Move Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are are capitalized in Wikipedia. I looked to the sources used for the article. The Bible, a primary source, is extensively quoted and most other references are aligned to a Christian denomination and cannot be considered independent of the subject. Working backwards through the list, here are the first five sources I thought to be (might be) independent and that I could view to determine how to capitalise "hell" in prose.      (the second-last of these turned to be a source from the LDS Church) From the result (none capped "hell" in prose), it is clear that "hell" is not consistently capitalised in independent reliable sources - it isn't even always capped across ecclesiastically aligned sources. There is not uniform usage per the evidence - anybody who says otherwise can just go to ... (with a lower case). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward Hell in this specific kind of case. This is one of those inevitable occasional cases where we have "conflicting consistencies". I lean toward the view that  Christian Hell and Heaven are places, or at least spiritual states, with proper names, while we have common-noun usage in a construction like "The hell of Germanic paganism shaped views of the Christian one; even the word hell itself derives from Old English and pre-dates the Anglo-Saxons' conversion to Christianity."  I think capitalizing when we are writing of a specific hell,, is most consistent with our treatment of other places, including legendary and fictional ones.  We would end with a WP:CONSISTENT problem if we lower-cased those that are attested in actual religions.  But it should not be capitalized if it is used as a stand-in word, a loose translation or comparison, of a non-Christian afterlife that is not normally named "Hell" (or "Heaven") in English: "The Tiān are the heaven, more or less, of Chinese Buddhism."  However, if academic books and journals are not consistently capitalizing these terms when writing specifically about the Christian places/concepts, i.e., even when not writing in a comparative or metaphoric manner, then WP should not capitalize them.  However, I'm skeptical that the source analysis so far is making this distinction, and I also believe that MOS:DOCTCAPS is clearly distinguishing proper-name particular things in religious scripture from common-name comparative, metaphoric, and pluralizable usage, e.g. "the Virgin Birth of Jesus" vs. "several religions posit virgin births".  So, I'm at least weakly toward capitalization in this case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish We actually have virgin birth of Jesus, not Virgin Birth... (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm surprised Christians haven't raised holy hell about that (pun intended). It seems inconsistent with our treatment of other doctrinal terms of art, e.g. Annunciation, Eucharist, etc. I have to think that virgin birth of Jesus is mis-titled, especially given "Virgin Mary" (not "virgin Mary"); it's not the title of our article, but our use of the phrase at the article is capitalized: "Christians commonly refer to her as the Virgin Mary, in accordance with ...".  Maybe the distinction is that in Christianity it's simply "the Virgin Birth", while our article title is more descriptive, "virgin birth of Jesus".  If so, then it's not a good analogy for this case, and I should not have used it (maybe Last Supper is a better example). But it doesn't actually change my position (tentative as it may be).  PS: This RM should probably also affect Purgatory and History of purgatory, where we are (now) using lower case, despite originally capitalizing to agree with the style that predominates in the Christian context (but lower-case for a metaphoric use like "in employment purgatory during the pandemic").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Hell is a specifical location in Christian mythology. Using lower-case letters for toponyms seems wrong to me. Dimadick (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Move per MOS:CAPS and Cinderella's argument. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned above Hell is a specific place in Christian mythology and thus a proper noun. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per pretty much everyone. This is specifically about the Christian concept of a place called Hell. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quote from the CCC
I believe User:LongIslandThomist914 is right: I support using the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Veverve (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You support, then, a violation of WP:PSTS. We should not be bringing any primary source material into Wikipedia unless it is for very specific facts. Wikipedia should be based primarily on third party sources, analyzing primary ones. Basing a whole section on the Catechism isn't going to fly.
 * Of course, the solution is very easy: find an observer who analyzes the Catechism and describes how it relates to the world. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the catechism to be self-explanatory enough on this point. To quote PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Veverve (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And also: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" Veverve (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:USEPRIMARY : “ primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.” LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, all of the guidance emphasizes that primary sources can be used, sparingly. Do you think a whole section based on one primary source is what they mean? Emphatically, I don't. The encyclopedia is supposed to give the reader some analysis of the Bible or the Catechism or whatever is the religious text source. It's not supposed to be straight copy and paste. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Catechism is a WP:TERTIARY source. Elizium23 (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The format is that of a compendium, but it is primary because it is a compendium written and commissioned by an association (the Catholic Church) to summarise its own history and beliefs. Veverve (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is tertiary, because it draws on primary sources such as Sacred Scripture, Papal encyclicals, conciliar canons, and secondary sources such as the writings of the saints, and Church documents giving exposition of Scripture, and builds this into an encyclopedic, systematic document of the faith. Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it has a historical value but is way too dependent on the Catholic Church to be something else than primary source, i.e. just like Aquina's Catena aurea it has a historical value and is more a kind of summary of Catholicism as well a propaganda or evangelisation material. Veverve (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , how can a "summary" be a WP:PRIMARY source?! Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is not a neutral scholarly summary? Rather, it is a statement by the head of the church on the precepts of the church. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is quite the scholarly summary, compiled by the best minds of the Church, not just the Pope. And I don't know what the Precepts of the Church have to do with the quotes on Hell under discussion? Elizium23 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lower case 'p' precepts, like directives. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 12:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Christian views on Hell → Hell in Christianity – For consistency with articles like Heaven in Christianity and Hell in Catholicism; further examples are at Special:PrefixIndex/Hell in. Also, that title makes it much more searchable and concise - there's no real point of the word "views" right now. Gaioa (T C L) 10:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per rationale. Veverve (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Much clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per proposal. Havelock Jones (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * per nom. More concise, equally precise/natural. More consistent. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Conceptions of hell and celebrations of suffering as a form of sadism
Andrew L. Seidel makes the case in his work that the Christian conception of hell, most notably found in writings about Biblical vengeance and those who suffer in hell, demonstrates a unique form of sadism that is at odds with other conceptions of suffering we find in other traditions. Examples Seidel mentions includes the New Testament, which mentions hell 162 times, as well as Christian writers. More specifically, there appears to be an unusual celebration of the torment of people in hell by Christians, including examples by Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Aquinas, Tertullian, Ezra Stiles, and is easily seen in today’s strange evangelical movement in the modern US. This psychological depiction of suffering, as one to be celebrated, seems notable enough to include in this article. I am unaware, for example, of any Buddhist literature which celebrates suffering like this. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * the author does not appear to be qualified to talk about theology or anthropology of religion. Also, I am not sure if you have noticed, but you have posted this thread twice here. Veverve (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Strange. I deleted the other post.  As for Seidel, the evidence is hardly controversial, and he’s citing reliable sources.  For example, Thomas Aquinas: "In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned." (Summa Theologica, supplement to pt. E, q. 94, art. 1, volume. 5 [New York: Cosimo. 2013). 2960.). But to directly address your objection, Seidel has done nothing but study religion and the intersection with US law, so he is an expert. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thomas Aquina is not a scholarly modern RS; by that I mean it seems Seidel's conclusion is his own and likely not present in previous studies in the field of religious studies. Also, his opinion itself is very bold if not dubious, simply due to the fact that Islam puts as much emphasis on hell and its tortures than Christianity if not more. The Naraka (Buddhism) is also an awful place, mentioned in numerous places of Buddhist litterature. Also, to explain the vision(s) of hell in Christianity of the past 2000 years until today (he goes from Tertullian to modern Evangelicalism!) and accross the whole planet is a massive task (to say the very least!), which I doubt he accomplished (for once, it would take him at least one full 800-pages book simply on this topic).
 * It would require lots of approvals of Seidel's opinion (and not simply general assessments of his book) from reliable sources in the field of theology and religious studies to add said opinion. Working a lot of time on a topic does not mean all you produce on this topic is academically accepted.
 * what do you say? Veverve (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seidel didn’t say any of that, I said it. In terms of Buddhism, I gave it as an example of a non-Abrahamic monotheistic religion, which Islam clearly is a part.  You’re focusing on things that really are irrelevant.  Buddhists don’t have a notion of an eternal place of suffering, so you are misrepresenting the concept of a Buddhist hell plane. Seidel’s point is that Christians emphasize the existence of hell and derive pleasure from imagining their opponents going there.  To support this idea, Seidel provides citations.  Again, this is hardly a controversial or novel idea.  The point is that it isn’t discussed in the article.  Tertullian: "What sight shall wake my wonder, what my laughter, my joy and exultation? as I see all kings…groaning in the depths of darkness! And the magistrates who persecuted the name of Jesus, liquefying in fiercer flames than they kindled in their rage against the Christians!"  This is the kind of rhetoric that needs to be added and explained in the article. There is a history of Christian delight and happiness in the suffering of those who oppose them.  It seems like the idea of "forgiveness", empathy, and compassion is nowhere to be found in these passages.  It also, as Seidel argues, goes a long way to explain the overt violence we see in the US today from evangelicals who want to see their political enemies destroyed.  In other words, this impetus towards violence and threats of violence from the Christian Right in the US today has its roots in these beliefs. In the context of Seidel’s overarching argument, this impetus towards religious violence was mitigated by the founders support for a separation of church and state, which is now threatened by the American Christian Right, who wants to send their enemies to a fiery, burning hell. Lastly, Bart Ehrman and others argue that these conceptions of hell did not exist in the original teachings of early Christianity and were added later. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seidel’s point is that Christians emphasize the existence of hell and derive pleasure from imagining their opponents going there. And what do religious studies academics think of his claim that since the 2nd century Christianity has had an uninterrupted impetus of afterlife sadistic fantasms toward their ennemies everywhere it went? This is the crux here.
 * Lastly, Bart Ehrman and others argue that these conceptions of hell did not exist in the original teachings of early Christianity and were added later. It may be true, but it is not relevant to the topic of this thread which is Seidel's opinion.
 * Please try to understand my surprise and reluctance, when a very new theological theory on the whole History of Christendom (the author is not saying 'only such and such authors', but talks about the whole Christendom as something organic) comes from a politically engaged essay on current US politics written by someone who is not qualified in this field neither throught their academic studies nor their academic acknowledgement. Veverve (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * About the whole History of Christendom; you’re pretending this is an isolated example. Please see Pittenger 2020.  Spanish Christian theologian Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda justified the extermination of the indigenous populations of the New World by conquistadores as God’s will, using biblical analogies and demonization.  Same is true for Christian missionary Gerónimo de Mendieta, although he wanted to focus more on conversion rather than killing.  Conquistador Francisco de Aguilar sums up their attitude thusly, saying he doubted there was "another kingdom in the world where the devil was honoured with such reverence".  I suspect the history of Christendom is the same, wherever one finds it. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have asked you for academic endorsement in the field of religious studies of Seidel's theory, i.e. that the Christian conception of hell, most notably found in writings about Biblical vengeance and those who suffer in hell, demonstrates a unique form of sadism that is at odds with other conceptions of suffering we find in other traditions. I have no asked you to go on other loosely related topics. Veverve (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * While I am wholly unqualified to discuss this matter beyond the sourcing, I agree that any inclusion of this material would need some prefacing with the identity of the author as well as an eye to avoiding WP:UNDUE problems. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "writings about Biblical vengeance and those who suffer in hell, demonstrates a unique form of sadism" Why is this surprising? I still remember the Dimotiko (primary school) teacher who lectured in great detail that children will go to hell for things like dressing in costume for carnival, not fasting, or having fun in general. Like several other sadist teachers I have met, she was a member of a local Christian women's organization and had typical conservative Orthodox beliefs concerning morality. I have also read Greek theological texts (written by priests) which justify every mass murder, rape, and torture in the Bible as a "righteous act" against non-believers. Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is partly what I am getting at. In the US, pastor Greg Locke has infamously popularized these ideas in his sermons. A lot of his rhetoric involves portraying opponents of Trump as "demons" and fighting them to force them back to hell.  You can tell that Locke enjoys this, and if you listen to the voices of his congregation, they are swept up into a delirious rapture of pleasure while listening to him. Locke’s imagery is also used by QAnon and other evangelicals, but often in terms of snake-like imagery ("Reptilians") which is reminiscent of Satan in the Garden.  If you listen to extremists like Alex Jones, in virtually every segment of his show, he will engage in a short, enraged and manic soliloquy to the camera, which often feels improvised but fueled by alcohol, where he calls all of Trump’s opponents demons and hell-spawn (just like Locke), and also threatens to send them back to hell by fighting them with the armor of god. Jones often screams at the top of his lungs about how much he loves and enjoys this fight against the demons.  He clearly derives great pleasure from it.  This is the way right-wing Christians are now fighting Trump’s new civil war in America.  It feels very much like the calm before the storm in Rwanda. One could argue that that this extremist, Christian rhetoric is being used to fuel stochastic, domestic terrorism in the US. And before someone replies with "this is a small, tiny minority of vocal extremists", I would invite you to look at the support Locke has on social media and the poll numbers for similar issues.  Christians in the US have been radicalized into fomenting violence against their enemies, and they are armed and ready to attack anyone they disagree with. At the root of this, is the rhetoric about hell and demons, and the nature of obedience to god.  In the US, these Christians now believe that obedience to Trump is equivalent to god, and have said as such. Fear and threats of violence is how this kind of obedience is usually enforced. In their minds, they are acting on behalf of god, so attacking people who oppose their god-chosen leader (Trump) makes sense in their minds. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Christian rhetoric is being used to fuel stochastic, domestic terrorism in the US" There is nothing new concerning Christian terrorism. We quote an expert on the motivations of Christian terrorists: "religious activists from Algeria to Idaho, who have come to hate secular governments with an almost transcendent passion and dream of revolutionary changes that will establish a godly social order in the rubble of what the citizens of most secular societies regard as modern, egalitarian democracies". These people want to abolish democracy and establish theocratic regimes. Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there something objectionable to adding a fuller explanation of the Christian Universalist viewpoint?
I added information on 7/24/23 from an author (mentioned in the same section, by the way) which I feel was entirely relevant and appropriate, the author’s work adding to an understanding of the Christian Universalist point of view on the subject and explaining in a clear, concise way the theological underpinnings of that viewpoint. It was removed, and I am really not sure why- could someone please enlighten me? Tomabird (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * So you are the IP that added the information?
 * It is a broad WP article whose topic is not Christian Universalism. Thus such a long description devoted to a single author's opinion and arguments on Christian Universalism, with an unknown notability of those arguments and possible mistakes in the summarizing of the author's position since those are only supported by this very author's works and not a tertiary source, is uncalled for. Veverve (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

== Should the line "In Christian theology, Hell is the place or state into which, by God's definitive judgment, unrepentant sinners pass in the general judgment, or, as some Christians believe, immediately after death (particular judgment).[1][2]" be changed? ==

My issue is with the phrase "as some Christians believe". The phrase implies that this is a minority belief. As far as I'm aware, the majority of Christians believe in particular judgement. The Catholic Church officially professes it, and Catholics make up roughly half of Christians worldwide. If it is meaning to refer to denominations and not Christians, should it not instead say "as some Christian denominations teach"? Winter the Mute (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)