Talk:Problem of Hell

message: I tagged this article because I found the article to be amateurish. Needs better theological treatment. For one thing, Marilyn McCord Adams is a controversial voice in the debate. (An informed acquaintance of mine was less diplomatic, labeling her "a loon.") She is given too much prominence with inadequate balance from  mainstream theologians. <>< tbc 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Call for an Expert 

message: I'm going to move this article to Problem of Hell in accordance with the general MOS proscription against the beginning titles. --Gareth Hughes 22:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can't do that, because it already exists. So:
*Isn't it the house style not to use article titles beginning with the definite article unless it is in some way intrinsic to it? Move to Problem of Hell. --Gareth Hughes 22:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~    
*oppose I think this is one of those times when the "the' is warranted.  I'm convinced... support Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Done this one too. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: If this page gets moved, then The problem of evil should also be moved to Problem of evil. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done this one too. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: On the "child with shotgun" bit:
:That view, however, presupposes that we as the "child" are responsible enough to choose to go to Heaven, we're just not responsible enough to choose to go to Hell;
This argument is weird. Adams is simply saying that we're too flawed to be given a choice with such potentially negative consequences. I don't understand what you mean about being "responsible enough to choose to go to Heaven". Please elaborate.
:and/or that we don't have enough knowledge right now to choose between Heaven and Hell (an issue that cannot be fully addressed by the argument).
This is mentioned in the passage below.
:Alternatively stated, it presupposes that omniscient knowledge is required to make the "right" choice
How does it presuppose any such thing?
:or that mortality is a test of our knowledge as opposed to which side of our nature we choose to develop under the circumstances of mortal life.
Again, it implies no such thing. Regardless of how the choice is made, it is a choice. That's all that matters for Adams' argument. Evercat 22:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Child with shotgun

message: Thanks for explaining in depth why you reverted my changes.
I understand what you mean about making no presupposition about going to Heaven, just that any choice involving eternal destinies could not reasonably be given to ignorant creatures such as ourselves.
However, I disagree with your last point --
:Again, it implies no such thing. Regardless of how the choice is made, it is a choice. That's all that matters for Adams' argument.
The reason I disagree is clear from the definition of "ignorant" and its relation to "knowledge".  My point was that Adams' argument is only valid if it indeed would be unjust to judge us by decisions we make based on our knowledge, but it is entirely possible that the "test" of mortality may not be based upon knowledge at all, it may be based upon what we choose to become as a result of how we respond to tests of mortality.
Also implicit in Adams' argument is that we are somehow unprepared for the test by our ignorance.  However if God is just, then we must be prepared, otherwise God would of necessity be unjust by giving us an unjust test.  So if you believe God exists, and you believe in the justice of God, you cannot also believe with logical consistency that we are completely unprepared.
----
:Adams argues that our ignorance renders us incapable of eschewing incorrect choices and the corresponding consequences of eternal punishment.
No, she doesn't. She makes the argument that Hell is unfair even if everyone knows what is required. In another analogy, she writes:
:Suppose the powers that be threaten a nuclear holocaust if I do not always put my pencil down no more than an inch from the paper on which I am writing ... Although in some sense I can comply, I am also in some sense bound to slip up sooner or later.
It's clear that knowledge is not the problem. The problem is that it is unreasonable to give such flawed creatures as ourselves any way to send ourselves to Hell forever, whether by conscious choice or merely through the way one lives one's life.
Is it possible that what you really object to is the line above that bit, that reads "so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be" and you're suggesting that there's an alternate way in which the "choice" could be made? Adams' argument clearly works however the choice is made, but I see that this bit could be problematic. Evercat 11:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Lewis' statement here should be read in context with the rest of his corpus, and not in the context of whatever assorted debris of ideas are floating around in one's head, as though that formed an appropriate canon of interpretation - The Great Divorce is a helpful place to look to see how his theological view on the matter plays out. He was influenced by Charles Williams, who taught that "the doors of Hell are locked from the inside."
Lewis' mind was that the freedom of the will can increase or diminish based on virtue, or rather, holiness, participation in God. This opinion is not peculiar to Lewis, and has a very high degree of resonance - if not consonance - with the main Tradition of the Church. In his thought, the particular form this teaching takes is as a type of deification by way of increased ontology, as evidenced by some of the events in The Great Divorce, such as people from Hell on "holiday" in Heaven, and being hurt by how real things were, the pain diminishing in proportion to the visitor's increase in virtue (and coincidental with virtue, freedom and ontology). The more these diminished, the less free and less real the individual became, until they reached the point where they simply winked out of existence. 
Neither Hell nor this self-caused annihilation were "punishments" in The Great Divorce, nor are they anywhere else in Lewis: it is brought about solely by the will of the individual and the consequences of that will (isolation, dimunition of being, increasing bondage of the will - but always with the possibility of responding properly to something good and beautiful and true and holy, and thus, to increase in being and virtue, etc.). If anything, it would seem that in this view, God created Hell so as to preserve in being those creatures who could not endure the level of reality in Heaven (the grass hurt the visitors from hell who went to Heaven, as I mentioned, the water that splashed up from a stream felt like rocks to one of the visitors, etc.), so as to pursue them and prolong their ability to exist as far as possible without violating the freedom for which they are made. So it seems unfair (though rhetorically cute) to characterize Lewis' view as though God "distributed" real estate in Hell based on the behavior of men and women in this life, as the commenter above did. God does not distribute anything about Hell in Lewis: it is the "location," if you will, brought about by our will, of our varying degrees of un-freedom and isolation and non-being. 
I can only hope that helps. I agree with you all that the article needs desperately to be cleaned up, but I think it's merited, as it certainly isn't addressed in the entry on "Hell." 
It might be best to have a section for each objection and its genealogy, with authors cited and quoted (with sufficient context, of course). 
The entry on Hell itself is pretty sparse, and at times misleading, and gives the reader no real context for understanding the Tradition (though there are many half-educated voices clamoring to trumpet to others what they think it is, through a small army of verses and word-definitions) and traditions surrounding the teaching on Hell. 
--Abba Poemon the Ubermensch 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis Quote Not Misinterpreted 

message: I removed First War in Heaven and Areopagitica from See also, as they have nothing to do with this article. — coelacan talk — 07:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I have removed from the article the following section as it seems to refer to content that is no longer present in the article - at the very least it does not seem to make sense in the points it raises.
"For those who believe the traditional doctrine of Hell is unconvincing, and believe that claims 1 and 2 are incompatible, the only course of action is to deny one or both of them.
The first claim can be denied by rejecting the existence of God (atheism), or of a God sufficiently powerful or loving to prevent people from being consigned to Hell.
The second claim can also be denied. Three possible ways to do this (while maintaining a belief in God) are the doctrines of Annihilationism, where Hell is seen only as oblivion without consciousness, Universalism, where everyone is saved, without exception, and the Second chance doctrine (or Escapism), where even after one has been sent to Hell, one can still accept God and be saved. Some also assert in denial of claim 2 that the only "torture" in Hell is that of separation from God — that separation from God is the embodiment of pain itself and hence that it constitutes infinite torture in a symbolic sense (cf. John 3:19-20)."              GoldenMeadows 13:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Denying the assumptions" 

message: We should get some viewpoints on that hell is not an eternal place but a one time act that has consequences for eternity. I know that the Seventh-Day Adventist Church believes that hell is a loving act of God that is done once and for all.
:I've added a section on it.Back2back2back (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As Chesterton correctly remarked, a hell which is not everlasting is by definition not a hell but a purgatory. --93.133.217.215 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  View that hell as not eternal 

message: ::People! This isn't a matter of "Challenging views" or about your opinions on this matter. It is a matter of fact and individual logic has no place here. Lets make this less of explaining the argument and instead put in some historical sources for this argument. Right now it is almsot entirely origional research. While it is indeed compelling it goes against the purpose of documenting a delicate matter such as this. Instead of focusing on putting holes in this argument or backing it up you should be digging up early examples of this being brought up! I haven't learned a thing about it from reading this pile of garbage except for a dozen conflicting views of the authors. 209.22.220.28 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: "Also, why would an all-loving God choose to neglect other faiths when his own son, Jesus, was a Jew?"
Well, you can't exactly have Jesus being Christian, now, can you?
I've removed this sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisandtaund (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... 

message: I kindda find this article leaning to the Atheist side.  I don't mind Atheists, and most religeous people don't mind them eather, but many still seem to attack every aspect of religeon they can find.  This article has a skeptical tone to it.
:That means it's a neutral article. The article isn't supposed to assume you are a member of a religious group. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, AllGlory, you haven't the slightest grasp what neutrality actually means. Str1977 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I think this article should be renamed The problem of Hell in Christianity. Reason? It's only talking about Christian hell. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your right but leaving the title as it is at present allows the common Christian doctrine to be compared with other religions that also have a kind of punishment but perhaps lacking what people may see as major stumbling blocks with the former, i.e issues relating to lack of justice and its unending nature. Though different religions are not featured here at the moment wiki, I hope, is here for the long term so maybe its better to leave alone. If at any time the article length/structure becomes too convoluted  then , like you suggest, an article dealing only the Christian doctrine could be spun off. GoldenMeadows 16:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality - religion 

message: I cleaned up this article as best I could, removing the more blatant and amateurish OR.  We should structure the article along the lines I've indicated in the first paragraph:
:There are several major issues to the problem of hell. The first is whether the existence of hell is compatible with justice. The second is whether it is compatible with God's infinite mercy, especially as articulated in Christianity. A third issue, particular to Christianity, is whether hell is actually populated, or if God will ultimately "restore all things" (apokatastasis) at the end of the world. Criticisms of the doctrine of hell can focus on the intensity or eternity of its torments, and arguments surrounding all these issues can invoke appeals to the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God.
We should include the opinions of Origen and Hans Ur von Balthasar concerning the population of hell.  Previously the article was written strictly from an atheistic perspective, when the problem of hell has a rich history even within the monotheistic traditions, especially Christianity, where you have the "universal salvific will" and the controversies on grace. Djcastel 16:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup and rewrite

message: I worked a bit on this already, but we need to keep in mind that "God" is a general term, it shouldn't be assumed to only refer to the Christian concept of god. I already had to clean up a sentence that essentially discussed how it may be unfair for "God" to punish Muslims for not believing in him. That was a really ethnocentric and presumptuous view (not to mention it was definitely not neutral), since of course Muslims do believe in God.VatoFirme (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, apparently my edit was immediately reverted. Can I please get an explanation on that? Are we going to say that "God" equals Christianity and that Muslims do not believe in God???VatoFirme (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that revert, I accidentally used the rollback for the wrong article.--RyRy5 talk 18:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem!VatoFirme (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More neutrality issues

message: This paragraph under the justice section seems like a very large cop-out instead of a real explanation.
"Some theological schools, most notably the Scotists and Calvinists, have taken the position that divine justice is entirely a matter of God's positive law, not deducible by natural reason. Thus, whatever God does is just by definition, and if this contradicts our human intuitions of justice, then our intuitions are mistaken. "
It seems like a massive appeal to authority "God does it therefore it's OK. We must trust that God (who we can't prove exists) in his infinite wisdom will make just decision and we must not question them."
Anybosy else see a probelm with this as opposed to the other counter-arguments made by theists?Father Time89 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This complaint seems to suffer from the misconception that this article is an argument. (A problem that is built into the article). If Scotists an Calvinists say that, we report it. And of course it is no more an appeal to authority then "In England, cars drive on the left because the law says so." Again: we are here to report, not to hash out the argument. Str1977 (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal to Authority?

message: Someone has put a "dubious" flag on the phrase "is reconciling all things to himself."  The context is:
:Mainstream biblical theology typically includes the following three points, which are supported by numerous Bible passages in standard English translations (sample references are given for each point):
 
:A. God has proclaimed the good news that he loves the world and is reconciling all things to himself through Christ (, )
The section as a whole may well represent original research, and the overall argument should be sourced.  But the particular phrase comes almost verbatim from the second verse reference given ()):
:And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Whatever the other problems may be with this section, it is doing a pretty good job of quoting scripture.  It seems odd to single out this particular phrase for questioning.  (Now, what it means in the context of everything else the Bible says is another matter - but that's the core issue being discussed.) EastTN (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the "dubious" flag in the section "Universal Reconciliation and the Problem of Hell" 

message: There should be a reference to something like purgatory, temporary hell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.159.198 (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purgatory 

message: The heading states "The problem of hell is an argument against the existence of God" but is there proof this is the true problem with hell?  
The [What the Hell is Hell?] site argues that Hell as generally presented by most Christian denominations is not supported in the Bible.  
I should mention that Buddism has a Hell Naraka (Buddhism) as well as Heaven but states that existence in these realms is not eternal and are merely part of the circle of life.
So is there any proof for this claim or is this OR nonsense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any proof that this is what the Problem of Hell really is? 

message: In the second chapter of David Eagleman's book, "Sum", he describes a God who fires the Devil, closes down Hell, and lets everyone into Heaven. Maybe this article should mention it. It's a fictional contribution to the debate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesdelatour (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sum" 

message: Aren't there examples in various cultures of good people pleading with God to spare the people in hell? The very qualities of empathy which make virtuous people good enough for admission to heaven pretty much guarantee they won't be happy there knowing God is torturing others in Hell. In effect, the existence of Hell makes Heaven utterly unbearable for a truly virtuous person. Is this my completely original idea, or have others touched on it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesdelatour (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Holy Father has somewhat touched on it when he writes in his "Eschatology" about the Buddhist idea of the Boddhissatva who refuses to enter Heaven as long as Hell is still populated; and about Christ as the real Boddhissatva who empties Hell (and it is a Catholic nearly-dogma that, on the objective side, everyone is saved from the punishment of Hell) but does even more and allows them their freedom who at any costs want to remain in Hell. Besides the word torture is, here, inappropriate, since we are speaking not of any arbitrariness (except in forgiving or relaxing), but of punishment (for an infinite offense). --91.34.223.138 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem of the Virtuous 

message: WeirdVideos, Hi, sorry temporarily reverted As it stands this is OR/POV. Citations/refs needed, not including Bible verses. Please provide. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hell might empty

message: Does this article really need the utterly humongous "PART OF A SERIES ON ATHEISM" template at the top of the page? This is a philosophical problem that has been debated for centuries by theologists within the Abrahamic religions. It's not as if it were an external criticism that originated solely from atheists. Furthermore, the article doesn't even address Atheistic views- so what is the template doing there? It seems like a case of undue weight, or non-neutrality... Lithoderm 02:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of hell is one of the foremost arguments in atheism. The place of the template, however, has to be more discrete. So, I placed it at the bottom of the page. --Robert Daoust (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Atheism series" template 

message: It is obvious that the vision on hell has mythological origin for instance  Greek mithology.82.137.12.31 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is obvious" = "original research".  You need a reliable source that says that, not just your personal opinion. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From where have you infered "It is obvious" = "original research"? Please check again the text of OR before making fallacious inferences based on impressions. Assuming that is case, statement like water is a liquid would be OR, which clearly isn't the case.--82.137.11.3 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: uch of the imagery of hell has certainly been coloured by Greek and Roman mythology. The Gentile Christians of the first  fww centuries of Christianity could probably readily identify the concept of everlasting punishment with the punishment by the gods in Tartarus. But the origin of the concept is Christian, with tenuous roots in Judaism. Many other religions have simultaneously come up with concepts of punishment after death.Gazzster (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythological origin 

message: That question is an important one in the discussion about free will and hell. It surely figures in the literature, but I cannot find it. Can someone help? --Robert Daoust (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't God refrain from creating a free being who risks to choose eternal torment? 

message: So, I can do whatever I want, and still expect to go to Heaven if desired? 190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hell" is something that one choses for themselves. 

message: The claim in the article that Judaism does not believe in the immortality of the soul is contradicted by all major rabbinic writings throughout the centuries; including Maimonides, Nachmanidies, not to mention Talmudic writings and of course Jewish mystical writings.  Isaiah, Daniel, Samuel, etc. all make reference to reward/punishment after death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.16 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also puzzled by the silly lying in the edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.204.140 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The effort was put up with very little sourcing by 72.179.164.80 .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.204.140 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Jewish eschatology is much more accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.204.140 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism/immortality of soul 

message: Seems incongruous and against WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV that the article makes appear still a large majority in the lead a view many if not most Protestant theologians now reject. Added ref Richard Bauckham "Universalism: a historical survey" (@ theologicalstudies.org.uk), Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47-54. "Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form. this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality')." "Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment.3 Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians." In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Bauckham to lead

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Problem of Hell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061127014824/http://www.theandros.com:80/restoration.html to http://www.theandros.com/restoration.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Let me start off with a quick note - this isn't supposed to be kickstarting a theological debate, this talk post is about a linguistic issue.
Call me pedantic, but I've got a bit of an issue with the phrasing of the first sentence in the second paragraph. The sentence starts off with "The minority Christian doctrine that...", which is a bit unclear. Did the author mean that Christians are a minority, or that this doctrine is only held by a minority of Christians?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.158.123 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing in introductory paragraph 

message: It would be difficult to say what prejudice might apply to this whole article: I suggest that in its present form it reflects much commendable scholarship and gives fair treatment to may points of view. Where individual statements are not supported, the "citation needed" tag is quite sufficient. Thanks to all who have contributed to this article over the years, for producing a very helpful article, Jzsj (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove neutrality tag 

message: This was under the issues section- 
There are several major issues to the problem of Hell. The first is whether the existence of Hell is compatible with justice. The second is whether it is compatible with God's mercy, especially as articulated in Christianity. A third issue, particular to Christianity, is whether Hell is actually populated, or if God will ultimately restore all immortal souls (universal reconciliation) in the World to Come. 
and this sentence, which I removed: Lastly, if Hell ceases once the wicked are destroyed or consumed.http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/hell.htm 
I took it out because it didn't feel like one of the main "problems of hell" more like an intriguing sub issue, also the source looked less then scholarly...
It is an intriguing issue, topic if anyone can find a place for it, please do! Sethie (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved this sentence out

message: N.T. Wright is cited as one who holds to annihilationism in the relevant section. While Wright does deny the innate immortality of the soul, he expressly rejects annihilationism. He attempts to forge a middle ground between annihilationism and the traditional view on hell, in his chapter on hell in Surprised By Hope. Henry Hedgehog (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  N.T. Wright 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Problem of Hell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020901031115/http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm to http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508152506/http://www.stmaron.org/The_Maronite_Voice_for_December_2011.pdf to https://www.stmaron.org/The_Maronite_Voice_for_December_2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228102627/http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/Wages-of-Sin/wages-of-sin-1.php to http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/Wages-of-Sin/wages-of-sin-1.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "In terms of the Bible itself, issues of salvation and access to heaven or to hell are mentioned frequently. Examples include John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." which tends to show the wicked perish and the saints have everlasting life or John 3:36 (NIV), "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them", and 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 (NIV), "Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, they will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.""
None of the biblical passages cited above make direct reference to "hell" or any conceptual variation thereof. The author appears to presume that "shall not perish" and "everlasting destruction" are explicit references to an eternal hell. Conclusions which are speculative at best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpjoey (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course "and shut out from" is widely regarded as an egregious mistranslation of the single word ἀπό. GreenWeasel11 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical references to hell are speculative at best. 

message: This article consistently writes "Hell" instead of "hell" even though the article on that subject does not. Is there a reason for this state of affairs, or should one or the other article be updated to ensure consistency? GreenWeasel11 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "hell"