Talk:Hell

Template:AIDnom

Archives:

• Talk:Hell/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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).

Notable People now in Hell

Moved to People In Hell Now, Notable Uncyclopedia.

"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)

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)

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)

Cultural Refrences

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

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.

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

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

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)

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 - 20:14 Revelation 20:14. Art LaPella 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

This page has moved???

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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. 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

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.

Norse Section on Hell

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