From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mythology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request Edit - Christianity[edit]

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. (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? (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Errors in Judaism Section[edit]

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 (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. [1]

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)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} 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. (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[edit]

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). (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

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. (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The long sentence following [32], is not really a sentence. A careful reading will reveal this. Thanks, MCI (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)