Talk:Hell

Find sources: "Hell" — news, books, scholar

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology . This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives:

• Talk:Hell/Archive 1

[edit] Comment on buddhism

this was commented on the page rather than here in the discussion, so i've moved it. comment
What Western scholars "think" is not Buddhism. Anybody could have their own opinions, but that doesn't matter to what is said in Buddhism. The modern Buddhists may have their own version of Buddhism and that has nothing to do with the genuine one. The opinions of of so called "Modern Buddhist" should be published under a new Heading (Modern Buddhism, Millenium Bhuddism, Buddhism XP or whatever the version they prefer). Leave "Buddhism" out of the crap.

Jasonisme 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Explicit and Briefer Description of Origin of the Actual Word "Hell"

I've always found this information to be the best cited, the most clear, and the most concise.

"An English translation of the Hebrew word Shoel, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. “Gehenna,” or “Gehenna of fire,” is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28: 3; 2 Chr. 33: 6; Jer. 7: 31; Jer. 19: 2-6). It was afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs. 23: 10), and in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5: 22, 29-30; Matt. 10: 28; Matt. 18: 9; Matt. 23: 15, 33; Mark 9: 43, 45, 47; Luke 12: 5; James 3: 6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God." --MCP 08:09, 27 September 2007 (CST)

[edit] Book of Jude ?

It says the Book of Jude describes it as a fiery place. Is this a typo for book of John? I can't be 100% certain so I will ask here and have more knowledgeable people confirm. Piepants 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Piepants

Answer: Yes, Jude talks about "eternal fire". Verse 7: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses section

Am I the only one who has a serious problem with the Jehovah's Witnesses sub-section of this article? It looks an awful lot like propaganda to me.

I agree the Jehovah's Witnesses section is written less neutrally than the other religions listed. Of course it's harder to be neutral about the people banging on your door. Art LaPella 16:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll do an overwrite and pull back on the advocacy. For example, the article used to describe the state of the dead, and now it describes the state of the dead as understood by advocates of soul sleep. Jonathan Tweet 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the whole JW section to Hell in Christian Beliefs, where it belongs. Jonathan Tweet 14:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

P.C.D.T. writes: the J.W.'s are in denial about aspects of hell in spite of the fact that their own edited version of the Bible speaks of hell quite a number of times. This is not surprising that you may not see adequate material.

[edit] Major problem with the article Entitled Hell

It forgets the bible perspective. i wish to be able to add it. The old Testament particularly has a slant that hasn't been mentioned. I feel it is biased, unfair, unequal to not have the bibles perspective on what Hell is about. The psalms and Ecclesiastes particularly have a pertanent definition of hell. A list of similies can be found. I request to be able to add what the bible says on the matter. Thanx for ur assistence in this matter and please read my post on the website if u feel anything i write represents scripture or is not held by a significant number of christians i.e tens of thousands.

--Rainbow Warrior 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The {{Editprotected}} isn't a request to be able to edit the article yourself, but a request for an admin to add specific information. Please write the specific information you want to be added before adding that template here, as well as where you want that information to be added.Note that the information should be properly cited (see WP:CITE) and spelled. Also take a look at Hell in Christian beliefs - are you sure that information isn't already there?

If you want the article to be unprotected so you can edit it yourself, you can ask for that in Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The physics of hell

This may sound like a bizarre, maybe daft request, but on one of the pages about the biblical flood it talks about the fact that it violates certain physical laws – such as the fact that there is not enough water on Earth to completely flood it. Maybe there should be some references to the fact that the oxygen in hell would be quickly used up if it weren’t supplied with some external sources. In hell charcoal and sulphur are supposed to be burning but if these are combined with an oxidizer like potassium nitrate this would create an explosive! Here is another interesting question: is hell exothermic or endothermic? [1] This is just a suggestion, not a request. Miller 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Many Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect...today dont believe Hell is in the center of the Earth but Hell is a "spiritual" realm. 71.108.180.99 00:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If Hell is considered a physical entity as opposed to a metaphor then will the events in Hell adhere to the laws of physics observable on the planet Earth? A bizarre question to ask I know, but one which needs to be answered if people claim that Hell really exists. Miller 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If Hell is a physical entity, then there would be an afterlife which doesn't require corpses or brains to be preserved. There would also be a superbeing to judge your sins and/or judge whether you have correctly guessed the right religion. Therefore the ordinary laws of physics wouldn't apply, or at least we can't possibly predict the way that they would apply. I think you knew that, but does that answer your question? Art LaPella 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I talk about like that is because religious people today try to relate to science to prove their religious beliefs are true; for instance trying to debunk evolution using a nonsensical interpretation of science (such as entropy and the second law of thermodynamics). The example I gave above was that people who believe in the great flood try to use geology to prove that it occurred; the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum even has it in a “science” textbook! And what about the fire? Does it require oxygen? How do the souls, or whatever, feel pain without their original nervous systems? I would like to add that being made to burn for all eternity simply because you “guessed the wrong religion” does not sound like something a very loving God would do. I don’t think it’s something even Saddam Hussein would do. Miller 11:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, as you can read at User:Art LaPella. However, when I debate creationists I emphasize their own assumptions, not mine - for instance, I use what their own Bible says about dishonesty, especially dishonesty about entropy. Art LaPella 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that although religious people try to support creationism and flood geology using science, I’ve never heard them trying to prove the existence of Heaven and Hell using science and physical evidence.

Also, are you just trying to be ironic spelling the word through as “thru” when speaking about typos, or was this just an ironic mistake? I ask because we all know how much Satan loves irony! Miller 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If the first paragraph means what I think it means, I believe in ethics but I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. I wouldn't use "thru" in a main Wikipedia article, but it's mentioned at places like spelling reform. Art LaPella 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. The temperature of Hell is exactly 666 degrees Kelvin, and never changes. Just joking :) 74.38.35.171 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about (from your user page):

But mostly, I get a kick out of just skimming thru for typos, spelling etc., and many of the articles are fun to read anyway.

I wasn’t trying to say anything about ethics. On Futurama the robot devil describes everthying as "ironic". Miller 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to give such a special answer. But Hell is just simply not ruled by physics because it's not physical. Do you intend to understand that? Worlds are ruled by rules just like a program as its way of functionning. If I say in a program that my characters will burn in hell, I won't need oxygen to create that fire... Sincerely Yours ...FenixEden 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire of Hell

About the 'physics of hell' - they are interesting questions, the kind of questions theologians talked about in the middle ages. Apart from considerations about oxygen, etc, there is the problem of how a physical substance, fire, can cause pain to an incorporeal being, ie., a disembodied soul.After all, it would have no nerve centres, and so no means of experiencing physical pain. Many theologians have attacked the problem, including the giant of theologians, Thomas Aquinas.His solution was to posit that the fire of hell is not the same as earthly fire, and does not need fuel. It is fuelled by the pure will of God. And God, being omnipotent, grants to this fire the power to imprison souls. The pain a soul experiences is a purely intellectual one, arising from frustration at being deprived of God.I thought I'd make an article, 'Hellfire', to discuss this and other problems. And what is even a bigger problem for hell is, why suppose it exist at all? Because it seems to be saying that God, who supposedly desires the happiness of all human beings, cannot secure that happiness for all of them. What becomes then, of his omnipotence? But if he is omnipotent, then he must will some humans to be damned. Again, they talked about this a lot in the middle sages. Anyone like to comment on my idea to make a separate article?--Gazzster 09:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that they knew nothing about oxygen in the middle ages I find it surprising that they talked about considerations involving oxygen! Candy 07:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that they knew nothing about programation in the middle 20th century. I find it surprising that they talked about considerations involving a different world (sry, for better understanding, see my answer just up to the precedent section.) :p FenixEden 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How could you talk IN a sage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.8.244 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

This is such a worthwhile question that I must beg your indulgence to offer an answer which is more than a paragraph. From page one of my book, "Hell Fire: Heaven's Loving Purpose":

Tradition agrees there is at least this difference between burning in Hell and a physical body burning in a physical fire: it burns forever, which a physical body in a physical fire cannot do. Physical fire consumes complex physical molecules, reacting chemically with them to turn them into simpler molecules: for example, protein to potash. Anything in a physical fire that burns at all is thus chemically altered over a period of time. Given enough time, all the molecules subjected to this process will be altered, leaving nothing of the original object being burned. It is impossible for a physical fire to chemically transform a finite supply of physical molecules forever. For a physical fire to consume forever, the supply of physical molecules must be perpetually refreshed. That is not a property of physical bodies as we experience them. But if the body is not physical, will it not take something other than a physical fire to hurt it? In fact, if the body is not physical, will the pain be physical? Therefore, the scenario of a physical body burning in a physical fire is a metaphor at least to this degree.

The Bible often metaphorically describes "fire" as the experience of saints, without ever saying it is a different kind of fire (except that in Hell it is not "quenched", Mark 9:48). For example:

Malachi 3:2 ...for he [Jesus at His first coming[ is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: 3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. (See also Luke 3:16, where the righteous will be baptized with fire; Acts 2:2-3 where the saints WERE baptized with fire; Hebrews 12:29 which says "our God is a consuming fire"; 1 Peter 4:12-13 which describes the "fiery trial" which all Christians experience.

In these verses, we know a literal, physical fire is not meant for these reasons:(1) Malachi says Jesus at His first coming will be “like” fire. Acts says the Holy Ghost Baptism looked “like as of” fire. Luke doesn’t say the Baptism was “like” fire but it describes the same event which Acts specifies was “like as of” fire. (2) Malachi uses two opposite metaphors for the same purifying process: fire, which is dry and hot, and soap, which is wet and, in those days, cold. (The Hebrew words for “fuller’s soap” describe trampling on clothes in a tub, using a lye soap made from plants.) Spiritual reality is far enough from the physical analogy that nearly opposite physical examples may be used for metaphors. The only thing the two have in common is that they both remove impurities. The New Testament uses a similar double metaphor for two levels of the same purifying process: John introduced Baptism of water, and Jesus brought what John called the “baptism of fire.” (3) The object of Malachi’s analogies is Jesus at His first coming. He really did “purify the sons of Levi”; His attacks on the Pharisees and Sadducees became the greater part of the Gospels. But He never employed physical fire; in fact when James and John asked His permission to bring physical fire down from Heaven upon people who wouldn’t welcome them, He rebuked them, Luke 9:54-55. “Who may abide [endure] the day of his coming”? What is this horrible, impossible-to-endure experience of which God warns? The destruction of the Earth by fire? Armor-plated locusts the size of horses with scorpion tails at Jesus’ Second Coming? No! God is talking about the mere preaching of Jesus at his first coming!

Please allow me to share a link to more information: Hell Fire: Heaven’s Loving Purpose. --DaveLeach 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Many theologians have attacked the problem, including the giant of theologians, Thomas Aquinas.His solution was to posit that the fire of hell is not the same as earthly fire, and does not need fuel. It is fuelled by the pure will of God. And God, being omnipotent, grants to this fire the power to imprison souls. The pain a soul experiences is a purely intellectual one, arising from frustration at being deprived of God.

That's a "solution"? C d h (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible reference

I can't find the Bible reference for this statement: "The Bible describes the devil as the most beautiful angel (in his early days)." I'm not trying to debate how true the Bible is - but if the Bible doesn't say that, then the sentence is objectively false and I should remove it. Maybe the intended reference is Isaiah 14:12. But one of several reasons that doesn't work is that if you read Lucifer, equating him with the devil should be treated as a Point Of View at best. Does anyone else know what Bible reference says that? Art LaPella 17:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

216.253.176.210 has deleted the sentence. Art LaPella 13:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That belief is because many consider Ezekiel 28:12 as referring to Lucifer. 84.48.121.173 22:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is Ezekiel 28:17 cross reference that to Isaiah 14:12 which shows the Devil been "cut down to the earth". You can also cross reference that with Revelation 12:9 All of God creatures were created perfect and beautiful, sin make a creature ugly. November 8 2005

I also noticed a reference to the Bible under "General history and description." The author stated in paragraph three "According to the Book of Revelation, after the Day of the Lord soul and body will be united again, and so those who were condemned to Hell will remain there physically, tormented by eternal fire that will never consume them nor be extinguished." This is a very specific statment. Could you please cite chapter and verse to defend this specific interpretation. If not please remove this statment of doctrinal opinion from the artical. I came to this artical and wiki to find well cited research on the subject of hell, not someones opion wihout citation. 66.143.35.148 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that sentence, but if nobody else comments I would delete some but not all of it. Revelation says souls will come back to life, and that people will come back to life, but I couldn't find it specifically saying souls and bodies will unite. As for eternal fire (Revelation 20:15), if I wanted to make a case for torment I would avoid mentioning the second death (Revelation 20:14) and instead emphasize the eternal torment of the devil, beast and false prophet in the same fire (Revelation 20:10) and all who bear the mark of the beast (Revelation 14:9-11). Art LaPella 05:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially since death and even Hades/Hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire... --Oscillate 14:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Christian beliefs

Western Christian beliefs do not normally include the idea of Satan administering torment in hell. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical etc concur with the teaching that Satan and his legions will be tormented in hell.

That's strange indeed, as The Bible never mentions Satan as being in Hell. 84.48.121.173 22:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is often considerable room for interpretation and reinterpretation of what Biblical texts mean, but to say flatly "the Bible never mentions Satan as being in Hell" seems odd, in view of this well-know saying of Jesus in Matt 25:41:

"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels".

This is in the parable of the sheep and the goats at the Last Judgement (Matt 25:31-46). Jesus says to the "sheep" (the righteous, who have done good to others): "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom perpared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt 25:34), but to the "goats" (who have not) he says "Depart ... (see above) ...", and in the end (Matt 25:46) the sheep "go away ... into eternal life", but the "goats" "into eternal punishment".

One could always argue somehow that Matt 25:41 doesn't really refer to hell, but that is certainly how it has traditionally been taken. Indeed this parable is one of the key texts indicating that Jesus believed in hell or something like it, and this verse in particular suggests exactly the doctrine which the above user says "the Bible never mentions".218.103.253.28 04:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Satan and his legions of demons are tormented in Hell themselves but they're tormented by the fact that they are sperated from God and Heaven because of their "own" mistake. -Anker99 2:03, August 17 2006

[edit] Serious Problems with this Article

This article (as it stands on 25 September 2005) makes some ill-suported assertions about the origin of the Christian conception of Hell. Most scholars maintain that the Christian conception of hell (Gehenna) as a place of everlasting punishment was already a familiar idea among Jews before the New Testament was written, and so it is not true that the conception originated as an adaptation of the Greek conception of Tartarus in "Hellenized Christianity," as the article states. I suggest that this statement be deleted. It seems to me that the article in its present form is treating a controversial subject in a careless manner. -- Michael Marlowe, 25 Sep 2005

[edit] Martin Luther translation

Did ML ever translate the Bible into English? The article gives that impression, although I would assume it's not the case. Can someone clarify? - Nat Krause 12:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he translated it into German only. I am adding some clarifying words to the article. Art LaPella 19:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where did half the article go?

Someone just took out a major chunk of the article, a section or two at a time, without explanation. Did it go somewhere else or is it just gone? Art LaPella 00:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Checking contributions of 68.160.158.188, he also removed sections of two other articles. I am treating this as vandal and reverting changes. 206.226.218.6 seems to be another vandal, adding word poop in several articles. -- Lerdsuwa 12:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of "Hades"

i was reading an interesting article and noticed the article stated that "Hades" was the name of the underworld in greek Mythology, now i was under the influence that Hades was a deity himself and the brother of Zeus who ruled the under world.

"Hades" means both the god and his underworld. See Hades. Art LaPella 23:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Hades is the name of the underworld. Pluton is the name of the god. I have this under very prominent mythological authoritiy. You are wrong. I am write. NOW! [John Everest]

• The word is Pluto. Perhaps you should check your spelling before flaming. Cheers --PhilipO 03:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• You're all correct. According to Hades, he can also be called Pluto or Pluton. (John was kidding.) Art LaPella 04:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

you also spelt right (correct) as write (to write a note)you idiot! p.s. i am refering to the greek gods. cheers lads phil

Hades is the Greek god of the Underworld. The place itself is also called Hades. The Greeks euphemistically called him Pluto, meaning 'rich one'. The Romans adopted Pluto (can be spelt 'Pluton', according to the Cassell Dictionary of Classical Mythology, though I've never encountered it spelt that way) as the name for their equivalent god. They also called him Dis, which is derived from the Roman word for 'rich', 'dives'. sarah_prz

Pluton is the French for Pluto, don't worry I guess it could have been a mistranslation. FenixEden 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Level 54 of Hell

That would be an important argument against materialism if it were true. Is there a source for this paragraph? Art LaPella 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the the structure of the article and certain key areas such as this one, I think the original source for much of this article came from this site or else that site just copied the wiki article for their own. Either way, I see no other online source for the lines about the 54th and 78th layers of hell and recommend that they be removed or editted to state that "alleged psychic Ellie Crystal claims..." Seanbrasher 11:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The original Gei Ben-Hinnom

The original Gei Ben-Hinnom was a site for the worship of Molech. I put in

originally used as a location in which human sacrifices were offered to an idol called "Molech" (or Moloch).

2 Kings 23.10 (on King Josiah's reform):

And he defiled the Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire lmlk.

Jeremiah 32.35:

And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire lmlk; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Sabba Hillel 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "List of Notable People now in Hell"

I tried to make a new subtopic on the article page that listed and wikilinked notable people now in Hell, because based on what they did, and who they didn't accept as their own Personal Savior, how could they have POSSIBLY gone to Heaven??? I knew someone was going to revert it, so I made an INVISIBLE addition. Here's what it looked like without the vanishing tag. ( <!-- -->) (to a certain extent; some of the people weren't in the original list).

[edit] "List of Notable People now in Hell", continued

Even when invisible, why did an admin still have to revert it? It was INVISIBLE, I tell you. --Shultz III 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Invisible or not, it's not encyclopedic because it is based on a belief system, not verifiable fact. By this I do not mean that these people did not verifiably commit acts that would land them in Hell assuming that Hell exists. The issue is whether or not Hell actually exists. That is disputed and is not empirically verifiable either way, so a list of people who are "now in Hell" isn't encyclopedic. That, at least, would be my reasoning were I the one to revert it. Making the list invisible does not make it unworthy of being reverted if the material does not belong in a Wikipedia article. (I'm confused as to why you would add something to an article that someone reading that article wouldn't be able to see, anyway.) Hbackman 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Acutally you wouldn't know even if Hell does exist. Some person might claim one on that list is bad enough to go to Hell, someone else might think they weren't. Only they themselves, and God, would know :) 74.38.35.171 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you God? I must have missed that ceremony. Danny Lilithborne 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, but I hope to be an arch-angel that works closely with him when I get up there. Anyway Danny (and others), do you know of any notable people that hasn't crossed my mind yet (in this context) that very likely went to Hell? There's plenty more to add to that list. --Shultz III 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But again, why is this list worth keeping/being added to on Wikipedia? Hbackman 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after learning more in the days since, I guess even invisible entries doesn't keep admins from being compelled to revert it. Maybe I could transfer it onto a user subpage of mine. --Shultz III 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate/acceptable way to handle this. :) Hbackman 04:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Shultz I think it's a good idea to move this list onto your user page. On an article's talk page such as this one, It's best to stick to the topic of improving the article. Rhobite 05:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, it's been done. Now how do I arrange the list into columns? A single-column list might lengthen a page considerably. Also, feel free to add any deceased notables that have very likely gone to hell, that haven't been added already. Thanks. --Shultz III 09:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on your talk page. Hbackman 21:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] too Christianity-centered

It is an important concept which varies greatly among different cultures. A better idea is to give a brief account on what hell is and to write articles for different hells. --wshun 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the Jehovah's Witnesses section read like a sermon? It should really be taken out or seriously edited. Sonofralph 20:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have been happy to see that in Pagan, Wiccan, all those new religions do not believe in Hell as it is believed in Christinaity, I'm gonna add a section for it and write what I know about it. As I am French and usually go on FR.wiki, I just not gonna come back to look. I entrust those who reads this to help me (as I will do very little)... FenixEden 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merci Fenix, mais vous ne avez donné pas de la référence. Avez vous références? Lostcaesar 16:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gehennom

Gehennom redirects to this page, but this word is not used anywhere in the text. I assume this is an alternative word for Hell, but who is it used by? Is it a specific version of hell, or a generic term? Please can someone knowledgable on these matters add the relevant info. Thanks --HappyDog 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found Gehenna, and changed the redirect to point there instead. --HappyDog 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Refrences

Should we bring up cultural refrences to hell, or has that been covered elsewhere/already discussed?

[edit] Everlasting Punishment in hell in Islam

In contrast to what the article stated about Hell punishment being temporary, there are many explicit verses in Qur'aan that state that punishment in hell is everlasting for the un-believers. Some of Sinner believers who died before they repented from their sins in life will receive a temporary punishmen in hell.

[edit] Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

<two anonymous posts deleted> --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A link

Should I add http://www.av1611.org/hell.html to the external links? Or is all the evidence on it nonsense? 0L1 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not nonsense. But it is a sermon, and not a 'reliable source', so I don't think it meets the external link policy. My guess is that if you add it, it will probably be deleted. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW the story is told more clearly at Hell in Christian beliefs so the link doesn't add anything. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locations in Hell.

Perhaps "Locations in Hell" Should be added into this article.

For example, The Lake of Fire, The city of Pandæmonium(Pandemonium),ect... Anker99 07:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Or more precisely, "Related locations". "In Hell" is debatable - Revelation 20:14. Art LaPella 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hell isn't fair

I don't beleive in hell. But I go through hell, down here on the lust of earth below.

• If Hell were fair, that'd kind of defeat the point, wouldn't it? Danny Lilithborne 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...Hell isn't fair for the blameless unless of course your Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden ect...

The people who "do" deserve to go to Hell because of their acts of terrorism and mass murder. But hey the only reason I do believe in Hell is because I believe thats where all the evil of the universe flow but thats just opinion Anker99 04:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dose anyone really believe that someone diserves to go to hell forever. I mean I know poeple should be punished for the crimes thay've commited while they were alive, but dose anyone really diserve to go to hell FOREVER.Can you really grasp the word? Thats day after day of endless suffering. Don't you think after awhile they would've paid there debt to society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.255.243 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

I've noticed a lot vandalism on this page lately. Personally I think the page should be semi-protected, especially considering its nature. akuyume^T_C 03:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hell in entertainment and other popular culture

There is alot of popular culture, i think we should trim this down abit, but this is only a suggestion, put here first for discussion and to check on certain parts you want to keep Drew1369 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is way too long. I think hell may be to universal a topic for us to hope to list every notable cultural reference to it. Maybe stick to things, like Hieronymus Bosch's paintings, which have been influential in shaping cultural perceptions of Hell? —Electrolite 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I'll take a look at it alittle more indepth when I have more freetime available unless anyone else is up to the task... I'll post everything I remove under this topic for additional review Drew1369 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Anglocentric

This article seems to miss out on some key concepts.

• The Ancient Egyptians and the afterlife
• Odysseus in myth and legend (I recall he visits hell to talk to his father)
• Orthodox Christianity as opposed to Western Christianity (differing concepts of hell)

Hell as a concept seems to have been around for thousands of years yet this article seems to avoid any reference to the development of it as a concept as it is mutated through time.

Much of the article is also rather vague. Terms like "most Christians" and "most religions" are terrible term to use. It is unverifyable and vague. There needs to be much more specificity in this article.

And 5 references! I will be tagging this later for citations. Candy 09:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELL

The place where Mienghs moved in 2005 escaped in 2006 only to return later that same year —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.128.204.45 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] This page has moved???

I find it under Mpumalanga, South Africa ?????

Where does it belong?!Fconaway 07:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not a kingdom

hell is not a kingdom for the devil but a prison he is tring to escape ferthemore allot of people seem to confuse demons and devils

demons - do not follow the devil they are like security gards and were placed there by god, volentaraly because they personal heven is to torture the decedent souls of the universe.

devils - work for the devil and are tortured themselfes

i myself am a scaler on the subjuct and have been studing it my hole life. i am more than willing to answer any quetins on it including physics of it and other such items. (alacar)

p.s. sorry about my spelling i am dislecsic. (alacar)

What you say is possible but is quite out of the subject. You should try to put it into other demonology pages. FenixEden 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucifer/Satan

In the first paragraph of the article it says that Lucifer and Satan are sometimes "mistakenly" tied together. This is the opinion of one person and should not be a part of the article. It is unfair that the person who wrote this does not respect the belief of others. Where is his/her proof that tying Lucifer and Satan togehter is a "mistake?"

Smartieby 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)smartieby

Well that's partly true. "Lucifer" was not actually meant to be a name for anyone. It was just a slip up in the translation. I think there is already some content on this in the Lucifer article here. --24.172.192.95 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gre'thor

I'm a big Star Trek fan, of Klingons in particular, but it seems rather silly to have their Underworld mentioned in the "Part of a series on Hell / Underworld' sidebar. While the reality of any Hell is debateable, we do know for sure that Gre'thor is fictional. I suggest it be removed. Otherwise, there are surely no meaningful restrictions on what other clearly fictional afterlifes could be put in there. The Halls of Mandos perhaps, or South Park's version with Saddam as Satan's lover...

I went ahead and removed it from the sidebar and added it to the list of popular culture hells. Keep cool. :-) Steve Dufour 16:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead section

According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the topic. I cut this material from the lead because it's too Christian-focused. This article is about hell (or various hells), not about any one take on hell.

According to many religions, the afterlife accords evildoers to suffer eternally. In some monotheistic doctrines, Hell is often populated by demons who torment the damned. The fallen angel Lucifer in Christian cultures, (sometimes identified as the same individual as Satan) is portrayed in popular culture as the ruler of Hell. Christian theologians portray Hell as the final resting place for the Devil and the fallen angels (demons), prepared as their punishment by God. Hell is also defined as complete and final separation of God's love and mercy from sinners who have rejected his moral standards of goodness and have chosen to live a rebellious life of sin. Purgatory, as believed by Catholicism, is a place of penance for the sinner who has ultimately achieved salvation but has not paid penance for the sins committed in life. Hell on the contrary is commonly believed to be for eternity with no chance of redemption or salvation for those who suffer there. Some branches of the Christian faith teach it is a domain of boundless dimension, scope, and torment. Many monotheistic religions regard Hell as the absolute ultimate worst-case-scenario, per se. For some Gnostics, including the Cathars, hell was none other than this present life on earth. Furthermore, hell is sometimes thought by others to be a permanent state of unconsciousness for all eternity, i.e. permanent death. All ideas of Hell as a physical place existing in some kind of realm are regarded as antiquated myths by most modern scholars.^{[citation needed]} Every account of Hell is usually interpreted as a purely symbolic way of describing states of mind causing pain and suffering, and the actions which supposedly result in one's soul being sent to Hell (i.e. the so called "sins") are precisely those actions that in everyday life cause those states of mind.

In polytheistic religions, the politics of Hell can be as complicated as human politics. Many Hellenistic Neopagans believe in Tartarus, which may also be considered a version of Hell.

Maybe some of this material belongs elsewhere, such as Hell in Christian beliefs. Jonathan Tweet 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

[edit] Fear mongering

Isnt hell just made up as a way to keep religion valid? Like, you better believe in Jesus or your going to hell.You know, the whole original sin bit and all those other silly bits found in religion.

[edit] Norse Section on Hell

Why does Norse Mythology make reference to the Kabbalah and Gehenna? Jewish mysticism has nothing to do with Norse theology.

Everything comes from Egypt man, and egypt comes from shamans... lol Just think about it... I wonder what kind of hell did the Egyptians thought existed? FenixEden 15:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] words translated as hell

Nice section. This section applies only to Christian Hell, not to the concept of a hell in general. It should be trimmed way back and subsumed under the "Christianity" section. And we should be sure that all this information is at Hell in Christian beliefs. Jonathan Tweet 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] opening paragraph is confusing

I've read and reread the opening paragraph and I still don't understand this sentence; "In Islam, hell has different parts. The devil, or shaytan is created from fire, but still they go the hell of fire since the fire of the hell is 70 times hotter than the fire of this world." I think somebody should take the time to make it grammatically correct and actually make sense.

[edit] Numeric Miracle

Someone posted the following in the Islamic section: "There is an equal number of mentions of both hell and paradise in the Qur'an, and that is considered a numeric miracle of the Qur'an as there are lots of other examples of these numeric miracles in the Qur'an." Not only is this poor grammar, but it is inherently biased (I don't think an encyclopedia should endorse the idea of miracles in the various Scriptures.) It is also not relevant, because we aren't talking about miracles. We are talking about Hell. So, I'm gonna remove it.

[edit] Problem with a featured image

The featured Image:Hortus Deliciarum - Hell.jpg at the article cannot be edited. I' d like to add it as the Category:Hell but is is not possible. Any solution? -- pvasiliadis  07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic view of Hell

I removed the word "almost" from the phrase "almost similar." What makes something "almost" similar?

I also reworded the paragraph to add the reference to Dante. As it stood, the paragraph suggested that Hell in Christianity is ruled by the Devil. That's Dante's hell.--Hrankowski 06:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular fiction "A Christmas Carol"

Would a spirit of a persion tied up in chains be consider a form of hell? I know at one time in the 18th and 19th cent the belief that ghosts walk around in chains because of their trangressions was quite common in Western culture and literature. Any input?

Bill- Jun 14, 2007

hell is gay

[edit] want citation

Somebody earlier had this sentence:

"Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical etc concur with the teaching that Satan and his legions will be tormented in hell."

Is there a citation for that? I've been a Methodist for 52 years and not once I have heard "Satan and his legions" discussed in any Methodist sermon, book, or liturgy. My impression is that Methodists don't believe in demons -- but I don't have a citation for that, either. Can't wikipedia provide more detail? 24.30.124.40 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 'Bold textItalic text

[edit] Re: Los Angeles

Hahahaha, so true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.101.25 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Hell

As this page is about hell, I think it should cover things like various definitions. No_Exit, anyone? "l'enfer, c'est les autres" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.203.74 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deism

A citation is asked for on the deist view of Hell. However, this is problematic since deists are a loosely organized group with no single authority we can cite. Deists can hold differing views on Hell while still fitting the definition of deists. 27 November 2007 (PST) IGlowInTheDark

[edit] Who is in Hell?

We should have a list of what gets you into Hell. Or who is in Hell? Ex: Bankers, models, and beautiful girls, etc etc.--Margrave1206 (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can show with reliable sources what gets someone into hell, or is in hell, then we can discuss these lists, but until then they don't belong. Jons63 (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Try "skeptics" - ALL SKEPTICS! - Since The Bible, Re.:Book of Revelations say that all unbelievers will end up in The Lake of Fire. 65.173.104.52 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hell money?

Is there any citation for the hell money thing in the chinese section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casing

Hell is started with an upper case H, but heaven a lower case H. Why? I'd just use the lower case unless the context dictates otherwise (mostly in quotes). Both spellings are used, but dictionaries agree with lower case (because both are possible) and it's generally wise to just use normal casing unless otherwise necessary. Who is like God? (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean. Both hell and heaven are lowercase in their respective articles. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Heaven is consistently being spelled heaven, but Hell is being used a lot for hell, such as in: Some other traditions, however, portray Hell as cold and gloomy. Who is like God? (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for helpful external link concerning the subject of hell

Part of the problem of even discussing the Christian concept of hell, is that there are many different Hebrew and Greek words that are used for it in the bible. I have recently published a book entitled, "Out of the Dust: Understanding Heaven, Hell, and the Resurrection of the Dead", that presents a definitive study of biblical hell. It examines all of the different Greek and Hebrew words that are used for it in the bible (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, etc), along with the context of those words, and their relationships with eachother, in a concise and non-denominational approach. http://www.cupofwrath.com/OD1-hell.htm 76.119.240.83 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)76.119.240.83 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protect

It is definetly time to semi-protect this page. Too many anonymous users have been vandalising this article. Jock Boy 00:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Hell Real?

Yes it is a city in michigan Hell was first settled in 1838 by George Reeves and his family. George had a wife and 7 daughters – no reason to call it Hell yet… George built a mill and a general store on the banks of a river that is now known as Hell Creek...

The mill would grind the local farmers grain into flour; George also ran a whiskey still, so a lot of times the first 7-10 bushels of grain became moonshine.

In turn, horses would come home without riders, wagons without drivers….someone would say to the wife, where is your husband?

She’d shrug her shoulders, throw up her arms and exclaim, Ahh, he’s gone to Hell!”

In 1841 when the State of Michigan came by, and asked George what he wanted to name his town, he replied, “Call it Hell for all I care, everyone else does.” So the official date of becoming Hell was October 13, 1841... He probably wasn't a whole lot bigger than most men of his time and place, in height or in girth, rolling into the third decade of the nineteenth century in Sullivan County New York. George Reeves, if not imposing, was certainly a man who required a bit more elbow room than most. Maybe his expectations from life, and from himself, were just a little larger than those of the folks who surrounded him. For even then, in the mid-1830s, he found the insistent swell of population to be an infringement of what he felt to be his sanctuary from civilization, there in the Catskill Mountains. So, after convincing his brothers James and John that the territory of Michigan might offer them some adventure and an opportunity to stake a claim in a land that had just been newly wrestled from the control of the Potawatomi, they gathered a few belongings and were swept into the tide of migration that followed the Erie Canal west in 1837.

At that time, Professor William Kirkland, formerly of Utica, New York, had just completed the platting of the Village of Pinckney, near the chain of lakes formed by the Huron River. Glaciers had sliced through this places eons ago, digging valleys and bunching up hills, giving the country a quirky and eccentric shape. Crisp rivers flowed thhrough the low places, and the tops of the hills were lush in pine, oak, maple, poplar, and sassafras. Finding the area to his liking, George Reeves partnered with a man named Minot, and opened a store in one of the buildings owned by Kirkland. There he stayed for the next four years.

In 1841, opportunity knocked on the Reeves door as he bought the interest of two men, Solomon and Bignall, in the large sawmill they operated a few miles to the west of Pinckney at what is now Hell Creek. Adding to the value of the small empire was the acquisition of one thousand acres of adjacent land, on which he built a flour mill to grind the wheat from his farm and from the other farmers of the county. The mill was powered by a dam, which Reeves had erected on the creek. An early entrepreneur, he also opened a general store to serve the growing community. Near the store were seven homes, occupied by folks who were in the employ of Reeves, and a district school that had a capacity of seventy students.

The yield from this rich river-fed soil was high, and the Reeves mill was soon producing over one hundred barrels of flour a day ... more than enough to create increasing prosperity for the local residents. Reeves, who had had a small whiskey still hidden on his property, decided to build a distillery next to the mill, thereby solving the problem of surplus wheat, and also slaking the thirsts of the local farmers, who bought Reeves' whiskey in abundance. The life of a pioneer was not an easy one, and the whiskey was a welcome addition at barn raisings, harvests, and other social gatherings.

It became a tradition to bring the first bushel of wheat threshed in any given year to the distillery to be converted into whiskey. And convert Reeves did. By this time Reeves had built a tavern in the town, and so had a convenient outlet for his liquor. He employed two teams of sales and delivery men, who traveled extensively in the early 1860s selling and delivering whiskey in barrel lots to roadhouses, stores, and anyone else who had acquired a taste for the local product.

After the Civil War, the government raised the tax on whiskey ... raised it so high that Reeves could no longer distill and sell it at a profit. But he was never one to stand on formalities, nor to deny the public what he must have felt was their inalienable right to imbibe their drink of choice. The distillery continued to turn out the amber liquid, and sold it locally for as little as ten cents a gallon. Reeves expanded his role as a mover and shaker in the community, building a ballroom above the tavern and a sulky racetrack around the millpond. Things must have been festive, to say the least, when the whiskey flowed, the horses ran, the people danced, and the lush green trees of southern Livingston County swayed in the warm summer breezes.

The federal government increased its reach in the post-war years, extending even to out-of-the-way locales such as this. Tax collectors traveled throughout the new state, and when local folks learned that collectors were heading toward Hell, messengers were dispatched immediately to warn of their approach. The townspeople of Hell knew what to do: the whiskey was poured into sixty-three gallon hogshead barrels, hauled to the pond, and sunk to the bottom, with long ropes attached. The ends of the ropes were left on the bottom of the pond, hidden several feet deep where the feds were sure not to snoop. You can picture George Reeves, arms folded across his chest as he received the revenuers, perhaps explaining that yes, he had once produced whiskey in the distillery, but no, he didn't any longer, due to the new taxes which were squeezing the lifeblood out of the American citizen. Local folks probably shared an exasperating silence with the feds when asked about whiskey production. Finally, the agents would realize that they weren't about to collect any funds from this little burg, and would make their departure, stealthily tracked by silent citizens until the agents were far enough away that Reeves and the townsfolk were convinced they were again in the clear. Swimmers would then retrieve the ropes, everyone would grab a bit of line and pull like, well, like hell, and once again the little town would be at peace.

But even a scene as idyllic as this must eventually come to an end. Perhaps the local taste for whiskey ran out as the years went by; perhaps temperance found its way into the community; perhaps the exertion of pulling two-hundred-pound barrels of whiskey from the bottom of the lake ceased to be offset by the pleasure of their contents' consumption. Whatever the reason, the Reeves distillery closed its doors, and shortly thereafter the flour mill burned down. Somehow, the twinkle-in-the-eye spirit of this little town grew a little fogged. Likely it was partly due to the advancing age of the town's most industrious citizen, who succumbed to the wear and tear of the nineteenth-century life in 1877 and passed on to whatever spirit world was ready to receive him. Reeves' wife and seven daughters lived there for many years after his death, and the town remained a small but viable community of farmers and tradespeople. It wasn't until 1924 that the descendants of George Reeves sold the thousand-acre farm to a group of investors from Detroit. The big-city folk rasied the level of the dam to form a lake where the millpond had been, and named it Hi-Land Lake. The area slowly became a summer resort destination, with soft shady beaches around the lake and plentiful bluegill in the water.

In the decades that followed, not much changed in the town of Hell. The stock market crashed, and Hell survived. Henry Ford scouted the location as one that would serve in his plan for a number of water-driven small manufacturing plants, but the plan collapsed under administrative weight before it could come to fruition. The Second World War was fought and won, paid with the lives and valor of many young men from Livingston County. Hell remained essentially unscathed by time. The Korean conflict began and ended, and the war in Viet Nam took its toll on the community as it had on every community in the nation. Hell survived. The turmoil of the '70s, the selfish me-decade of the '80s, the technology-rich '90s ... all have flowed through Hell Creek and have left little trace of their passing.

Tucked away as it is amidst the hills, creeks, and rivers, Hell maintains a strange combination of notoriety and attraction. People come to visit, to see Hell, to say they've been to Hell and back, and to laugh as the irony of the phrase rings into the air. People from everywhere, all manner of people, travel the scenic roads into Hell, to marvel at the beauty of the land, to hike the trails, to swim and fish the waters, to open up the throttle just a little on the curves and to smile. It's the kind of smile George Reeves might have smiled, standing on the porch of the tavern, arms folded across his chest, as the horses tore around the pond, the people danced and laughed, his daughters grew beautiful, and the righteous homemade whiskey flowed, bringing a blush to the cheeks and a feeling that here, in Hell, life was just about as good as a man could expect life to be.

There are a couple of different theories about how this little place came to own such a notorious name. The truth is, there was probably no one standing around taking notes during the early part of the 1830s; they were more likely busy getting the crops out of the fields, the animals out of the garden, and the dinner on the table. So you're invited to read both theories and choose one that suits you best.

Anyway, Theory One goes like this: A pair of German travelers slid out of a curtained stagecoach one sunny summer afternoon, and one said to the other, "So schoene hell." 'Hell,' in the German language, means bright and beautiful. Those who overheard the visitors' comments had a bit of a laugh and shared the story with the other locals.

Sometime later, George Reeves, who, more than anyone else, was responsible for the origin of Hell, was asked just what he thought the town should be named. George reportedly replied, "I don't care, you can name it Hell if you want to." As the story goes, the name stuck and stuck fast. After some attempts to soften the effect of the name by suggesting they change it to Reevesville or Reeve's Mills, he gave up on the whole thing and simply lived with it.

Theory Two. The area in which Hell exists is pretty low and swampy. And because it was a part of the Dexter Trail, which traced along the higher ground between Lansing and Dexter, Michigan, a formerly busy farm market and early railhead, traveling through the Hell area would have been wetter, darker, more convoluted, and certainly denser with mosquitoes than other legs of the journey. Further, river traders of old would have had to portage between the Huron and the Grand River systems somewhere around the present location of Hell. You can picture them pulling their canoes, heavy with provisions and beaver pelts, through the underbrush, muttering and swatting bugs as they fought to get to the banks of the next river.

Maybe we're lucky it's called Hell and not something worse; the river traders likely had more colorful words to say about that part of their trip. Feel free to select whichever theory brings you comfort or intellectual satisfaction. And if the impulse strikes, you're entirely welcome to make up a better explanation and send it to us. History is re-written every day, and there's no reason we should leave that sort of thing to the academics, politicians, and media mucketymucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.14.7 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of religions

We have a dispute about the ordering of the religions presented here. This was alphabetic. Another editor favours a classification scheme which seems to be of his devising. I oppose this on the following grounds:

• alphabetical order is the most convenient for locating a particular religion in the long list we have here.

• the classification scheme is open to dispute and this is a distraction from the main purpose of the article. If we going to classify anything here, it should be the types of hell envisaged by these various religions - hot, cold, transient or whatever. We must, however, continue to avoid original research.

Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is not that long. The change that was made, to a thematic list, subdivides the total list, and introduces a system of division that is rational, not random (which is the net effect of using an alphabetical list. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• An alphabetic list is not random - it is a standard sorting order which is normally used in encyclopedic works because it is convenient for lookup. The supposedly rational order seems quite idiosyncratic. What is the relevance of whether a religion is polytheistic or refers to a particular prophet? My impression is that this has been done solely to relegate the Baha'i entry. Attempting to sort the list in a way that suggests order of importance is to invite a holy war. Alphabetic order is more NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in terms of any sort of logical order alphabetic lists are random. For instance, in the case of this list, the alphabetic list puts Bahai first. Bahai is a fine religion, but very tiny in terms of numbers, which appears to create a problem with undue weight WP:DUE Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I should explain that this change followed from discussion about the weight given to the Bahais here [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Alphabetic order is not random - it is encyclopedic, as one can see by consulting numerous encyclopedias such as The Encyclopedia of Hell. The new order offered here, on the other hand, seems to be a mix of randomness, synthesis and OR. The reasoning offered seems to be bigotry - a singling out of the Bahai religion for derogatory treatment while obscure religions, such as that of the Mayans, are more favoured. Since the rationale for this editing is an overt bias, I shall put a NPOV tag on this section. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, you are comparing the standard encyclopedia ordering system with an article, and I do not agree that an alphabetic list within an article is the best ordering system. On the other hand I think putting Baha'i under the category of new religion is a mistake, because the term "new religion" has a specific meaning now. I was considering moving Baha'i up to "Abrahamic religions", but that would but Baha'i directly under Islam, but Muslims consider Baha'is Islamic heretics, and that could ruffle feathers too. Hmmm....we might end with your preferred system after all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)