Talk:Hell in Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

This page needs a lot of cleanup, and it needs for people to keep their opinions off of it.--Grant the Wise 15:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This article directly contradicts the entry on [Purgatory] [1]

..with the latter clearly stating that "authorities of the Eastern Orthodox church identified purgatory as one of four principal points of difference between their teaching and Roman Catholic teaching" and that "Orthodox [Christians] today are likely to mention purgatory as marking the difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism". This article, in the other hand, claims that the Christian Orthodox communion accepts purgatory along with the Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Never ceases to amaze me how the simplest of facts can escape the minds of ignorant editors. Porfyrios 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Porfyrios. I'm not sure that the Eastern churches not in communion with Rome don't have an analagous concept. After all, Eastern christians do pray for the dead. But I'll look into it and see if we need to rewrite the passage. Keep up the good work!--Gazzster 11:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. We'll have a look at what the entry on purgatory says about the Eastern tradition:

'In the 15th century, authorities of the Eastern Orthodox church identified purgatory as one of four principal points of difference between their teaching and Roman Catholic teaching.[36] Today, Orthodox are likely to mention purgatory as marking the difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism [37].

Orthodoxy does posit a middle state between heaven and hell, but this place is hades, the abode of the dead, for the saved and damned alike [38]. Here, the saved are mostly at peace while the damned suffer. The suffering is pictured as associated with darkness, isolation, and constraint, not with fire (as is traditional for purgatory).

Orthodox believe that some sins can be forgiven after death,[39] and that prayers are needed for the dead undergoing temporary punishment in hades.[40] Concerning those souls, "God, being moved by our fervent and continued prayers, especially by masses, which are the sacrifice of His Son, may shorten the time of their disagreeable condition."[41] The exact nature of this "temporary punishment" is generally not elaborated upon, and many Orthodox are uncomfortable with the notion of suffering other than the punishment of enduring separation from God, i.e. the "waiting" itself.[42] Nonetheless, after death, the soul of those not immediately accepted into Heaven "is conscious and, consequently, feels, understands, and in general exercises all the energies of the soul. The word "sleep", by which death is characterized, does not refer to the soul, but to the body.[43] Likewise, those elected into heaven, the saints, can actively intercede for the faithful.[44]

Other Orthodox believe in the "toll gate" theory by which the dead go to successive "toll gates" where they meet up with demons who test them to determine whether they've been guilty of various sins and/or tempt them to sin. If they have not repented and been absolved of those sins, or if they give in to sin after death, they will be taken to Hell.[45]

Some Eastern Orthodox sources, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, consider Purgatory to be among "inter-correlated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church" that are not acceptable within Orthodox doctrine,[46] and consider describing the dead as "waiting" to be more apt for those not borne directly to heaven.[47]'

OK. So yes, you are right. Purgatory is identified as point of difference between East and West. But, as the text goes on to explain, both traditions share, in general, a belief in an intermediate state of the soul between death and a fixed eternity. Some Orthodox share the belief that after death some souls suffer temporarily suffer in hell. Others believe the dead are 'waiting' for fixation in heaven. So both the Eastern and Western apostolic churches agree in general on a state between death and a fixed eternity. But they do not agree on its nature. The Western, Latin tradition certainly tends to be more dogmatic while the East tends to regard such things as mysteries beyond the reach of mortals.

Our article here should certainly not have used the word purgatory to describe Orthodix thought. I'll whip it out. Thanks, Porfyrios. This article needs a LOT of work. Cheers.--Gazzster 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So is the "contradict" tag still needed? Jonathan Tweet 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I just made a change that may warrant some explaining. I deleted the following form the paragraph on Purgatory: "Belief in the existence of purgatory has never been a doctrine of faith which all Catholics are required to believe, as it is a doctrine not found in Apostolic Tradition.". I have instead placed it at the end of the paragraph about Limbo (substituting 'Limbo' for 'purgatory'). Purgatory is discussed extensively in the Catechism while Limbo is not mentioned at all since the latter is not part of the deposit of faith. It looked to me like someone confused the two, so I made what I believe to be a very defensible edit. If anyone takes umbrage at this let's discuss it here first rather than starting an edit war where this sentence bounces back and forth between paragraphs. PeterMottola (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep our opinions off it?

This page needs a lot of cleanup, and it needs for people to keep their opinions off of it.--Grant the Wise So what do you suppose the reason for the discussion page is? Let us help you.--Gazzster 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

An anonymous, new editor deleted most of this section:

The unchangeable traditional Catholic teaching on hell is found in the Baltimore Catechism, at question 185, as follows: "Those are punished in hell who die in mortal sin; they are deprived of the vision of God and suffer dreadful torments, especially that of fire, for all eternity...The souls in hell are beyond all help...The souls in hell do not have supernatural faith. They believe, however, the truths revealed by Almighty God, not with divine faith, but because they cannot escape the evidence of God's authority...The punishment of hell is eternal." Hell is described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as, "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from Him for ever by [one's] own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'Hell'."(1033) Pope John Paul II is known to have said, "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy". However, the Catholic version of Hell as a place was confirmed at Fátima in 1917 during the church-approved apparition of Our Lady of Fatima to three young shepherd children. Lucia Santos, the eldest of three children, reported in 1941 that Mary revealed Hell to them as follows, "Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent."

I detect a hostile bent, but I don't want actual quotes to get deleted and forgotten. Jonathan Tweet 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited this section to keep the information but to make it less anti-Catholic. Jonathan Tweet 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that the purported visions of those children at Fatima are not an authorative source of Catholic doctrine. Firstly, the author of this article ought not to present this event as if it actually happened. The Catholic Church itself does not require anyone to believe the visions of Fatima. The farthest it goes is to permit belief in them. The Catholic Church only requires the faithful to give credence to what it teaches as revealed by Jesus Christ through the Scriptures or the traditions of the Apostles.The doctrine of everlasting punishment is certainly contained therein. But the image of hell as portrayed by the visions of Fatima are not contained in Scripture or tradition. Rather, they are reminiscent of medieval artwork. Whether there is or is not actual fire in hell is, in Catholic circles, a legitimate subject of debate. I notice the author has changed the reference to Fatima to make it more objective, but I thought I'd get my 2 cents in because I hink Johnathan acted wisely and well..--Gazzster 05:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit at the end of this section about private revelation, an important concept in understanding Fatima and other such revelations that the Church does not require belief in. Also, I clarified the teaching about Limbo. 68.229.130.236 (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

JWs

I dumped a the Jehovah's Witnesses section from "Hell" onto this page. It didn't belong on the general Hell page. It needs more work to get rid of the pro-JW POV. Jonathan Tweet 14:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

'kay, I tried to take away the pro-JW POV. I may have stripped away a bit much, but I find it to be decent. --Grant the Wise 03:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind a NPOV tag until we get this article a little more stable? Feel free to put the right tag or to remove it. I just feel that we need a lot of editing on this to reach the NPOV standard Hopquick 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I think this article has a Catholic bias. I'm Catholic myself, but I don't like bias of any kind. Besides, I think the article misrepresents Catholic theology.--Gazzster 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction seems to be about fundamentalist doctrine, which seems more appropriate to the main body of the text. Anyone object to me substituting this?:

The term hell, in a Christian context, refers to a place or state of punishment for individuals who have violated God's law and are unrepentant. Most Christian communities view hell as eternal and final. The nature of hell and its punishment is a subject of debate between various denominations.--Gazzster 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the introduction. That was on my to-do list. The article still does need a general description of hell at the front. Currently the reader has to slog through a bunch of historical material before getting to any description of the article's topic: hell in Christian beliefs. The reader should be able to learn something substantial about hell in Christian beliefs without scrolling down. Jonathan Tweet 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to help. I'm enjoying it. How's the intro now? Too big, perhaps?--Gazzster 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the intro's too big. I moved the purgatory information to the end. But it's still long. You've got a lot of information about differing beliefs. Could you summarize the main beliefs? Take a crack at describing hell as it is commonly understood? The article will cover the variations, but the lead section would do well to have a summary. Jonathan Tweet 05:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call on shifting and expanding the purgatory bit.--Gazzster 11:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

at the end of section: Words in the Bible translated as "hell"

ARTICLE START "...They will be tormented day and night for aeons of aeons." (Revelation 20:10) Many people mistakenly assume "Ages of Ages" to mean forever, but Aeon is definitely a fixed length. END

This is really opinionated, plus there is no cite for the version of the Bible used. The NIV and even the King James version translates as "for ever and ever" instead of "for aeons of aeons." That alone debunks that opinion.

Either cite the version, or get rid of it.

It is stated in the article that in the Book of Revelations, Hell is refered to as the Abyss and the Earth; I think that point is debatable, since 'Haties' is used in Revelation a number of times (and happens to be cast into the Lake of Fire). Actually, there are those who believe that those references do not refer to Hell, and whether or not they are, it can't be varified in the way portrayed in the article.

I agree about the last part. We should definitely go through this article and amend the statements like "in the Bible, Hell is described..." Every one of them is POV, since many Christians contest that Bible ever describes the place of eternal punishment of immortal souls. We should qualify by saying "most contemporary Christians believe that Hell is described in the Bible," because it is rather obviously true. See my section below for specific proposals. melikamp 19:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction II

a) I feel the following statement is extraordinary 'A three-tenths of the Christian population believe hell is a place with a physical location.'How can that be possibly quantified? The citation referred me to the site of a Christian fundamentalist organisation, who in turn referred me simply to 'the Barna Group', without providing any further reference! And there is no statistical information from any supposed survey provided. However, I did find the Barna Group website, and found this statement:

'Through its five divisions, The Barna Group provides primary research (The Barna Research Group); communications tools (BarnaFilms); printed resources (BarnaBooks); leadership development for young people (The Josiah Corps); and church facilitation and enhancement (Transformation Church Network). The ultimate aim of the firm is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States. It accomplishes these outcomes by providing vision, information, evaluation and resources through a network of intimate partnerships. Among its strategic partners are Church Communication Network, EMI Christian Music Group, Filmdisc, HollywoodJesus.com, Kingdom Inc., and Tyndale House Publishers.'

www.barna.org

So it appears that the source for the extraordinary 'three-tenths' statement is biased, or at the least, questionable. And it seems that the research of the Barna Group is confined to the United States, not to the rest of the world. We do not know what the Barna Group actually said or how they came about their conclusion. And we can hardly publish in an encyclopedia as fact something which has been 'researched' by a single Christian organisation. So one cannot state that three tenths of the Christian population believes hell is a physical location without some sort of statistical references interpreted by a more objective and wide-ranging authority or authorities. And in any case, such a statement is not proper to an introduction. The purpose of the introduction is to give a general summary of the topic matter. The reference to the number who believe in a physical hell is a narrowing of the subject matter which is better suited to the main body.

b) Again, so is the reference to fundamentalist and liberal thought. It is misleading at best to state 'Liberal Christians consider Hell a metaphor for the separative state of mind from God.' Define 'Liberal Christian'. Can you categorically state that all liberal Christians believe this? Where is the reference?

c) What happened to the reference to the belief in hell as real, but a state, rather than a place, of separation from God. Why was it removed?

d) Also, I object to the definition of hell as a place for the punishment of those 'unfaithful to Jesus'. It smacks of a specific interpretation, ie., a fundamentalist interpretation. Some Christians would argue that souls who have never known Jesus, and so would have no opportunity to be unfaithful to him, are punished in hell nevertheless. And many Christians believe that all good persons who strive to live according to their lights are rewarded by heaven. Others would say that the criterion for eternal punishment is disobedience to the law of God. My original edit said that hell was a punishment for the violation of God's law, because it seemed doctrinally all-encompassing. Johnathan Tweet and myself spent a good deal of time and thought editing the introduction so that it would not be too specific. And as it stood it seemed too friendly to a fundamentalist viewpoint. It seems as if the latest edit was mde by someone with a religious agenda. Does anyone agree with me? Please comment or I will revert the edits in two days.--Gazzster 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New Intro

Right. I've written the new intro. I tried to make it as objective as I could. I realise that it's not referenced: that's something that I will do within the next couple of days. In any case, some of the matter is dealt with and referenced later on in the article. I've ommitted the original reference to 'violation of God's law' in favour of a phrase which I believe is not specific to any particular denominational interpretation. What do we think of it, folks? Comments invited. But remember, do be aware that your opinions may be coloured by your belief system. We do need to make this IMPORTANT article neutral, neutral, neutral.And could I ask that we NOT edit the introduction without first discussing it on this page? Oh, and I realised that there was no section on hell in popular culture. Would anyone like to have a go at that? As I say, this is an important article. Let's not fudge it.Cheers.--Gazzster 23:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

rationale?

Edited-out the 8 sub-points under Adventist, which seem tendentious and a proof-texting exercise against other beliefs rather than neutral “statement of belief.”

Also, JW, SDA, LDS, CS, UU views seem to make up an inordinate bulk of the article, whereas they would usually merit a footnote or a passing reference in most scholarly summaries, being relatively modern and sectarian innovations. I think separate articles on their distinctive sectarian theologies would be appropriate, but not under an article about “Hell in Christian beliefs” since most of them would not concede to its basic tenets [e.g. the ecumenical councils, “Apostles’ creed” etc]. It would be akin to putting detailed accounts of the beliefs of the Druze and Bahai in an article about Islamic theology.

Any thoughts?Mcguffin 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on the bias. I find it odd that there is only the briefest treatment of the Roman Catholic view, considering that this denomination, more than any other, has shaped the concept of hell in Western culture. And a good part of that is a reference to some supposed appearance of the Virgin Mary.

And I am concerned about the treatment of the Protestant section. For a start, 'Protestant' is not a doctrinally specific term. It is a historical term. Rather than treat with Protestant, the article should sub-divide into Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. Further, a great deal of what is stated in the Protestant section can also apply to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox. So there is left an impression that certain beliefs about hell are exclusively Protestant.

The Orthodox paragraph is too short.

I would suggest though, that to limit what is considered 'Christian' is contentious. I'd say that, as editors, we have to accept any group which professes to follow the teachings of Jesus, however they interpret them, as Christian. Certainly, if we make adherence to the ecumenical councils a criterion, we exclude most mainstream Protestant bodies. I think however, that we could ommit treatments of Christian denominations that do not have a concept of hell as outlined in the introduction. But your idea about separate articles is a bloody good idea (can I say that on the Net?) Let's throw the idea open.--Gazzster 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the material on sects that don't believe in hell. The wiki policy is abundance, when in doubt, adding material, not subtracting it. There is no other page where these beliefs belong. Furthermore, these beleivers do not consider the doctrine of hell irrelevant. It's not as though the disposition of the souls of the wicked is of no concern to these sects. Jonathan Tweet 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this one, to be honest. There is already an article called annihilationism. The danger is that these sections might be expanded to detract from the overall aim of the article, which is to give an exposition of the Christian concept of hell as a place or state of punishment after death. Perhaps it could make references to those other churches and sects, directing them to the main article about them.--Gazzster 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this, we categorize this information by doctrine, not by sect. All the annihilationist sects get treated under Annihilationism. We'd need Annihilationism, Universalism, Temporary-punishmentism, I don't know what else. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The nature of Hell

I would like to see the following paragraph rewritten:

The nature of Hell is described in the New Testament on several occasions. For example, in [verse list]; in the Book of Revelation Hell is also mentioned as the "abyss" and "the Earth". Jesus himself describes Hell as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth"; this quotation has overwhelmingly frequent appearance in the New Testament.

My problem with it is that it is a POV. As this very article says, not all Christians believe in hell. The arguments against its existence usually start with asserting that these passages do not describe Hell (i.e. the place of eternal torment, as the article asserts). It very likely to be true, though, that a majority of Christians consider this interpretation to be correct. My proposal:

The New Testament is the primary source of ideas concerning Hell. Most contemporary Christians assert that the nature of Hell is described, for example, in [verse list]; in the Book of Revelation, the "abyss" and "the Earth" are interpreted as references to Hell. Also, Jesus himself describes a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth"; this quotation has overwhelmingly frequent appearance in the New Testament.

Update: I went ahead and made the changes. melikamp 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have problems with the phrase 'Jesus himself describes Hell as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth"; this quotation has overwhelmingly frequent appearance in the New Testament.' Jesus did use this phrase, but I would challenge anyone to demonstrate that its occurrence is 'overwhelmingly frequent'. People, it is SO important to make this article factually correct and NPOV--Gazzster 05:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hell" I already removed; and you were right: 7 times is not 'overwhelmingly frequent' no matter how you slice it. melikamp 06:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

Ok, these constant references to "the pit of the dammed" or "where the wicked who doubt the true nature of God" etc. etc. really need to go. If they are not direct quotations from the bible used purely to illustrate that sources description of the concept of hell, then in my opinion they are merely fire and brimstone rhetoric from editors who are firm believers in the concept, and that makes the article heavily POV. Wikipedia strives to neither agree not disagree with the beliefs of religions, merely to provide unbiased information on them. All the "lecture from the pulpit" language in the article gives off a terribly strong bias. SGGH ^speak! 00:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is frequently edited by people who, if they do not have a religious agenda, do not how to translate religious language into encyclopedic language.--Gazzster 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spot on. I'll leave a hidden comment to try to curb this issue as a first step. SGGH ^speak! 00:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute about "gehenna" being the term for hell most often used by christians

This is a response to user 69.215.132.2 who reverted my recent edits, claiming that they were unsourced and untrue. I assume good faith, but he/she obviously didn't read the material carefully, because it was clearly sourced from articles in New Bible Dictionary, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, as well as The Nature of Hell (by ACUTE).

By contrast, simply quoting Bible verses (as 69.215.132.2 did) does not count as verification because Bible verses are interpreted in different ways. Wikipedia's policy on sourcing states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Bible does not conform to this criterion because it is not a third-party source. Quoting a list of Bible verses to support an assertion, without third-party support, counts as Original Research.

Also, it is inaccurate to say (as 69.215.132.2 did) that "Some versions of the New Testament also use the Greek word hades". The fact is that the NT was originally written in Greek, and therefore all versions of the NT use the word hades. It is only with the English versions that the word may or may not be transliterated. thanks Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note: the NBD article on hell explicitly says that the Greek word gehenna is rendered "Hell". The Nature of Hell (pages 42-47) discusses the terminology. Gehenna is used 12 times, always with reference to the place of punishment. Hades is used 11 times, but only twice as a reference to hell. Tartarus is used only once. I would appreciate it if you didn't revert my work before first checking the facts. Thanks Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Voice of reason, with all due respect I think you are being quite unreasonable. You seem to have a real problem with the sentence: "The most common term used for "hell" is gehenna, found almost exclusively in the synoptic gospels." I have backed that up with 3 different sources. It is a plain and simple fact that gehenna is the most common NT word for hell. In the NIV, out of 14 occurrences of the word "hell", 12 are gehenna, 1 is hades and 1 is tartarus. Of the 12 occurences of gehenna, 11 are in the synoptic gospels. So the sentence is patently accurate.

You assert that "Your cite refers to a term used by evangelicals, not establishing that it is used by "most christians", therefore your source does not prove your sentence." The term gehenna is in theoriginal Greek New Testament -- this is not an evangelical version, this is the version that everyone uses, and which every translation derives from! Can you please use this talk page to raise objections rather than reverting my work repeatedly? Tonicthebrown (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence in the article states: "The most common term used for 'hell' is 'gehenna', [and is] found almost exclusively in the synoptic gospel". Now, if you want to say "The most common term used for 'hell' in greek is 'gehenna', found almost exclusively in the synoptic gospel", or that "The most common term used for 'hell' in english bible translations accepted by evangelical christians is 'gehenna', I won't dispute your source; but you HAVEN'T provided a source for asserting that "The most common term used [by most who claim to be christians] for 'hell' is 'gehenna'". Furthermore, I'm thinking that even you know that the most commonly used term by christians who are talking about hell, is "hell", so why are you pretending that you don't know that? Do you want to make the correction to the article, or should I? Voice of reason993 (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I posted the above comment, Tonicthebrown changed the disputed sentence to read, "The most common Greek term used for "hell" is gehenna, found almost exclusively in the synoptic gospels." That removes the problem. Thank you. Voice of reason993 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that the context (i.e. "Hell in the New Testament", not "Hell according to Christians who are talking about hell") made it very clear we were dealing with Greek terms rather than English, since the NT is written in Greek. I'm glad you are happy with the clarification. Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lake of Fire

Hell in the New Testament talks about how Revelation describes hell as a "Lake of Fire", however, Revelation 20:14 says hell will be CAST INTO the Lake of Fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I have looked this up, and in fact the Greek original says that hades will be cast into the lake of fire, not gehenna. So I think it is probably still fair to say that the lake of fire = hell, as has traditionally been believed. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on what version of the Greek manuscript you use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 09:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure -- is there a difference? Tonicthebrown (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the 27th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece there are no textual variants that use any Greek word other than hades in Rev. 20:14a. The transliteration is kai ho thanatos kai ho hades eblethesan eis ten limnen tou puros, which translates as "And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire". Orpheus42 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hades Is Biased

Seeing as how the KJV doesn't contain the word Hades; and people can't agree on which translation is accurate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only#Advocacy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only#Criticism) I think in order to be unbiased this article needs to be re-written in such a way that respects the dispute. The KJV makes it clear that hell is different from the lake of fire, saying that hell will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). I think it's safe to assume that when it says it will be cast into the lake of fire it means it will be destroyed, because it also says death will be cast into the lake of fire, and 1 Corinthians 15:26 says "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Lumarine (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have jumped into the middle of a running debate. Didn't realize it. Revert if you like.--Brotherlawrence (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have checked this out, and both Greek manuscript versions use the word Hades in Revelation 20 -- i.e. the TR (which the KJV is based on) as well as the NA text (which other versions such as NIV are based on). So the translation "hell" is inaccurate here; hell (gehenna) is not cast into the lake of fire. Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If the KJV has this glaring inaccuracy, why is it considered to be the most accurate Bible? Why is it the only Bible that has a movement behind it?

Because it was the only Bible translation backed by a monarch and had the resources of three kingdoms behind its popularisation? Who believes the Authorized King James Version is particularly accurate? It often departs from the ancient text translated. Because the translators were influenced by other translations, such us the early version of the Douay-Rheims Bible for example, rather than offering a fresh interpetation of the original texts. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

LDS Section is full of speculative doctrine

LDS doctrine is very well organized and easily cited, however, the LDS section contains very few actual citations to LDS scripture and also contains a lot of speculative doctrine not held by the mainstream LDS canon.

Needs to be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.62.12 (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The LDS section is also inordinately long. - 71.195.224.88 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

I know that I personally am interested in finding a timeline of the beliefs of when ideas regarding hell and its teachings were implemented in Christian belief systems. This is coming up in various ways through both school and now in popular media (ie: God Delusion, Religulous). I feel that since the notion of hell has not always existed, it would be useful to include when the concept existed, or in what capacity.Gba111 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Gehenna

This page says 'In later Jewish belief, the place of eternal punishment was Gehenna, a place of unquenchable fire', but the article on Hell says 'Gehenna is not Hell, but rather a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on his or her life's deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one's own shortcomings and negative actions during one's life.' and 'The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehenna forever'. The article on Gehenna says 'Gehenna (also gehenom or gehinom) (Hebrew:גהינום) is the Jewish equivalant to the Christian Purgatory.'.

The other two sources indicate that Gehhena isn't a place of eternal punishment. Which idea is correct? Is it more akin to Purgatory, or Hell?--Jcvamp (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Benedict XVI

Reading the article in Times Online I doubt whether Benedict XVI really said anything about a "place" or "fire". This is more likely an interpretation of the journalist. The direct quote sais that "hell really exists and is eternal". See also the interpretation further down in the Times article. The wording of the Times article's title should only be included here if a direct quote can be given.  Andreas  ^(T) 17:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox teaching

The Eastern Orthodox part is very clear and correctly documented, but the information is nevertheless confusing for non-Easterners. For instance, it says that Heaven and Hell are the same and that both are manifestations of divine presence. Fair enough, but how can Hell be a manifestation of divine presence, what will all the devils, torturing and hellfire ? This is something which sounds very strange, and that would be totally unacceptable for Western disciples of Saint Augustine. ADM (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some debate about the effect prayers for the dead can have upon those in Hell, and there are a few private revelations that would demonstrate that coming "out of Hell" is a possibility. For all we know, movement can occur, especially between the two judgments. I would say this section of the article is far too vague and doesn't incorporate enough information to allow for the intricacies that exist in the Eastern understanding of the Afterlife. Explain also the role the soul has in receiving the love of God, namely that a tainted soul will feel "pain" and a pure one shall not, etc. hgais31 11:31 EST —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

Capitilization

Isn't "Hell" supposed to be capitalized? In the article, it says "hell" more often than "Hell", it seems. "Hell" is a proper noun last time I checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.80.10 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell vs. God's Mercy

If Hell exists, then God's Mercy can't exist.

No. Hell exists only because God's Mercy exists. When an indivdual soul falls into the Void, the pain gets progressively worse in its eternal fall. Hell will not stop the pain, but Hell will stop the pain from getting worse. Since each soul has Free Will, each lost soul can choose to stop at Hell or continue its fall into the Void.[2]

If Hell exists, then its name would be found in the past.

No. If you restrict yourself to a linear time sequence, Hell's real name and purpose will only be found in the future. Until you learn your own name and purpose, you will not learn the true name and purpose of Hell. [3]

If Hell exists, then more should have been written about it.

No. Hell exists and too much has been written about it. Hell is insignificant is comparison to the Eternal Adventure. Since the Lord God is the Alpha and Omega of every eternal sequence, you should trust God to correctly deal with the eternal sequence of Hell. [4] --FrankHatch (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is meant for discussions on improving the article Hell in Christian beliefs, not for statements of personal belief or general talk. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of the Concept

The current positions of Judaism and the various Christian denominations are compared and contrasted as if they were fixed and distinct views - whereas it is clear that the various theological positions have evolved over time and have converged and diverged from one another. There is basically no hell in the Pentateuch and early Judaism and it is quite possible that the appearance of Sheol in later Jewish scriptures is related to colonization by the Greeks. New Testament concepts clearly incorporate Greek ideas (Tartarus, Hades etc) whilst later interpretations in northern Europe also incorporate Nordic pagan concepts of Hel - from which the present word is derived. A historical / evolutionary perspective would help this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hell is/is not eternal

I added the {{cn}} and {{fv}} tags to the lede. Christian beliefs differ, and in a world where universalism is accepted by virtually all of liberal theology, saying definitively that 'Hell in [all] Christian belief.. is eternal' is grossly overstated. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A journalist's view

I have removed to here the following text that a reverting editor insists on having in the article:

A speech in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI has been understood as teaching that hell is a specific place ("Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.", Owen, "The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns", The Times)

A more accurate account is:

A journalist interpreted a March 2007 talk by Pope Benedict XVI as teaching that hell is a place ("Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said" - Owen, "The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns", The Times.</ref> However, the term "place" does not appear in the Pope's words that the journalist quoted ("Hell 'really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more', he said."), nor is it found in relation to hell in the full text of the Pope's homily ("Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI, Sunday, 25 March 2007". Retrieved 2011-01-14. Jesus came to tell us that he wants us all in Paradise and that hell, about which little is said in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)).

The text that was being insisted on is seriously misleading and cannot be admitted to the article in that form. "Has been understood" gives the impression of the existence of a general understanding that the Pope said hell is "a specific place". The only basis for that idea is a statement by a single journalist who was not stressing the idea of "place" (much less of "a specific place"), but the idea of reality and suffering. When the journalist comes to putting what the Pope says in quotes, he says nothing of "place", specific or not. That the journalist's account lacks full accuracy is also shown by a comparison with the actual words of the Pope. Esoglou (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your fear is completely unfounded. The citation identifies it clearly as the interpretation of a journalist, not as a general interpretation by a group of people. This is particularly generous given that the pope's words were widely interpreted in this way, not only by the media but also by a number of Catholics. If you prefer, I can mention that and support it with WP:RS. Would you prefer I do that? Furthermore, your personal interpretation of and commentary on a primary source (the pope's speech), constitutes WP:OR. If you can find a WP:RS which says "However, the term "place" does not appear in the Pope's words that the journalist quoted ("Hell 'really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more', he said."), nor is it found in relation to hell in the full text of the Pope's homily", do let us know.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware that anybody else interpreted what the Pope said on that Sunday as teaching that hell is a specific place, still less that it was widely interpreted in that way. Please enlighten me. Esoglou (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're really unaware that the pope was widely interpreted as saying that hell is a place? Wow. You certainly shouldn't be editing this section. Not only do you have a conflict of interest as a Catholic (whereas I am an objective observer), you don't actually know as much as I do about it.

• Pope: Hell Is a Real Place Where Sinners Burn in Everlasting Fire'
• Pope Benedict XVI, who was as a youngster a member of the Hitler Youth and later was Prefect of the Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine and Faith (which until 1908 was known as Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, or the Holy Inquisition), recently warned the world that Hell was a real, eternal, and hot place, so you better behave
• The Pope has told a gathering in Rome that Hell is real and a place where sinners do really burn in everlasting fire
• The Holy Father, speaking in the Parish of St. Felicity and Martyred Sons in Rome, reminded parishioners that Hell was a real place and was eternal
• HELL is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said
• Please note he also said that it is "more than a physical place," meaning it is a physical place and more

These references are great, I should put them in the article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Three copies of the same one article by the same one journalist plus a copy of blogs commenting on it plus a source about a Wednesday audience talk of the Pope, not about the Sunday homily the journalist made his remarks about. Instead of a wide interpretation of the homily, the interpretation of just one man, and even he did not say anything about hell as "a specific place", as the article claimed he did. If you are sincerely interested in the actual facts - I am not accusing you of insincerity or ill will - you will use your computer's search function on the text of what the Pope actually said and find whether he did speak of hell as "a specific place" or even as a "place". Esoglou (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No sorry, that's not accurate. Fox News wrote its own headline; its own interpretation. The Australian wrote its own headline; its own interpretation. CiNews wrote its own article; its own interpretation (and even better, it shows that the pope was understood to have called hell a real place twice!. The American Catholic Truth Society gave is own interpretation. Two blogs gave their interpretation. And there's plenty more where that came from! As you can see, the pope's words were widely interpreted in this way, not only by the media but also by a number of Catholics. Remember, facts are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Don't give me primary sources which you've interpreted, give me WP:RS reporting on the source. Off you go!--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Look again at the Fox News item. Does it not consist exactly of a reproduction of the Times article, complete even with the logo of The Times? Look again at the article on The Australian, which is identical with the article on The Times. Does it not attribute the article to "Richard Owen, Rome", exactly as does The Times? CiNews took up the story but added a correction by a Dr Purcell. Not exactly a widespread interpretation. You are sincere aren't you? Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not widespread? Reported in Fox News! In The Times! In The Australian! Two different continents, three different countries! Not widespread? Look at the blogs! How many more do you want? The point has already been made. Not widespread? LOL!--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Not widespread! FoxNews isn't widespread? The Times isn't widespread? The Australian isn't widespread? The three of them together don't count as widespread? LOL! Not widespread! LOL!--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the Pope was not "widely interpreted" in that way. One man interpreted him in that way. Esoglou (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I call you Mr Widespread from now on? LOL! Sorry, we've seen a handful of blogs (and there are plenty more), some Catholics, and also several newspapers. You just didn't know about it. And remember, what the Italian says is utterly irrelevant. Remember, facts are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability.

What is verifiable is that one man interpreted the Pope's words that way. Esoglou (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL Nonsense. What is verifiable is that Fox News, The Times, The Australian, The American Catholic Truth Society, EWTNS, the Canada National Post, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Catholics United for the Faith, the editor of the Ignatius Press blog, and a number of blogs all interpreted it that way.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic editors have aped Eastern Orthodox section on Hell using non theological sources to source their POV of concept and project it on the EO

Esoglou is edit warring on this article and has hijacked again on yet another Wikipedia article a Eastern Orthodox theological teaching and has again not quoted the Eastern Orthodox or it's chosen and specified theologians and what they say is the actual teachings of the church on the matter but rather put up personal musing in people biographys misquoted sources out of context and created a FRANKENSTEIN compatible with Roman Catholic interpretation of what the Eastern Orthodox teach about Hell. PLEASE NOTICE HOW NO EASTERN ORTHODOX CRITICISM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING IS IN THE ARTICLE AND IT HAS BEEN WHITE WASHED AWAY. Notice how there is not articles really being quoted about the specific topic rather they are people BIOS and random church pamphlets. NOT ACTUAL CHURCH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DOGMA OF THE CHURCH WHOM ARE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT THE CHURCHS' TEACHINGS. Here is the modern Greek Orthodox theologian George Metallinos. Please notice that what he is saying is not even in the article but what is, is patch work of obsure and un-known sources to the subject of theology. As far as I know Sophony never taught theology and was a monk. As for the pamphet of a

The experience of paradise or hell is beyond words or the senses. It is an uncreated reality, and not a created one. The Latins invented the myth that paradise and hell are both created realities. It is a myth that the damned will not be able to look upon God; just as the "absence of God" is equally a myth. The Latins had also perceived the fires of hell as something created. Orthodox Tradition has remained faithful to the Scriptural claim that the damned shall see God (like the rich man of the parable), but will perceive Him only as "an all-consuming fire". The Latin scholastics accepted hell as punishment and the deprivation of a tangible vision of the divine essence. Biblically and patristically however, "hell" is understood as man's failure to cooperate (synergy) with Divine Grace, in order to reach the illuminating vision of God (which is paradise) and unselfish love (following 1Cor.13:8): "love….. does not demand any reciprocation"). Consequently, there is no such thing as "God's absence," only His presence. That is why His Second Coming is dire ("O, what an hour it will be then", we chant in the Praises of Matins). It is an irrefutable reality, toward which Orthodoxy is permanently oriented ("I anticipate the resurrection of the dead…") [5]

More non Orthodox editing Orthodox theology articles and pushing their POV and not actually knowing the theology they are misrepresenting or in the case of Esoglou actually pushing a POV of ecumenism so that people NEVER truly understand what the differences are and remain misinformed and confused. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite apart from that, we have a Catholic editor (Esoglou), trying to add POV editorializing and suppressing information from the article. As an outsider I an objective observer of this dispute between warring sectarians, so I'm in an excellent position to make neutral edits.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I like your latest edit, it's good to have an Orthodox member here actually editing Orthodox content. I cannot trust Esoglou to edit Orthodox content because he so consistently gets it wrong and wants to introduce Catholic POV. He really shouldn't be editing Orthodox content at all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate the positive input. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Who is Iōannēs Polemēs? Why is this person now through out various Eastern Orthodox sections in various Eastern Orthodox articles? Why is this person whom I have never heard of as an Orthodox Christian now being given the same weight in representation as say Vladimir Lossky? Or George Metallinos? Or John Romanides? Or Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos? Why is it that predominate Orthodox theologians are being contradicted and allowed to be contradicted by minor sources that are not actually chosen by the Church to represent the theology of the church in the this article? As the Greek Theologian do not contend that Eastern Orthodoxy has ever taught that hell is separation from God. That is clearly not dogma nor the theological teachings of the issue at the Theological seminaries in Greece or Russia. Passing comments from Hilarian are also out of context as the same article calls the Latin teachings of hell WRONG. Why not include what Hliarian REALLY SAYS?

"One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its 'pedagogy of fear' and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). ‘...Christ, naturally, must be in the centre, but a different Christ more in keeping with the revelation that we have of Him: Christ immensely powerful with the power of unassuming love’. If God is love, He must be full of love even at the moment of the Last Judgment, even when He pronounces His sentence and condemns one to death." [6]

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I also have never heard of Iōannēs Polemēs. Is he known by another name? Is he cited properly? Is the source verifiable?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I can not. Editor Phatius has insisted on including him in various Orthodox articles here on Wikipedia and I have already pointed out I have never heard of this theologian. I would also like to point out that this gang of editors are complete hypocrites. As the editor Richard now going by the name Pseudo Richard posted on my talkpage an overview (a very flawed but commonly known article) that points out how well received and "common" to Orthodox theology are the works of Nellas.[7] yet Richard and Esoglou working together deleted all of Nellas' positions from the Roman Catholic- Eastern Orthodox theological positions article. Ha go figure. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Has Phatius provided any information on him at all?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a link to a partial of his book on google books. Also I have pointed out that what this person says contradict what other well known and accepted Orthodox theologians are saying. Of course this was ignored and the Fringe opinion remains in the article. [8] This editing causes the Orthodox stance on the issue to look vague or incoherent because the Roman Catholic POV editors don't care to respectfully depict the EO they only want it white washed so that it appears compatible with their beliefs as they are aping. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I had promised myself that I would stay away from articles in which both LM and Esoglou were involved, but I'll take a moment to respond here. A few points:

1. Taiwan boi, sorry but I'm not sure what you mean when you ask whether the source itself is "verifiable". If you're asking whether the source exists, then, yes, it does. See here: [9]
2. LM, you seem to be implying that I'm a Catholic POV-pusher. In reality, I have no religious POV to push. (See my final comments below.) I found a source (Polemes) from what looked like a reputable academic publisher, so I included it in relevant-looking Wikipedia articles. That's all.
3. As far as I can tell, the Polemes book is a scholarly work published by an academic publisher (namely Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften aka The Austrian Academy of Sciences Press). Thus, it appears to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
4. LM, you called Polemes a theologian. Polemes may or may not be a theologian. I don't know. But as far as I can tell, his book is as an academic study of Theophanes of Nicea, not a theological tract. I don't know whether this makes the book better or worse from your perspective, but I thought I should mention it.
5. Is including Polemes undue weight? Again, the Polemes book is not, as far as I can tell, a theological work. It doesn't claim to say what hell really is, or even what the EO currently teaches on the subject. It simply claims to give a historical analysis of what Theophanes (and, to a lesser extent, Palamas) taught. Thus, its "weight" should be measured primarily relative to opinions in the mainstream academic community about what Theophanes and Palamas historically taught. The Polemes book would be undue weight only if the mainstream academic community (not Orthodox theologians) rejected Polemes's claims.
6. A better question is whether Polemes is relevant to this article. Looking back now, I admit that it may have been inappropriate to include him in a discussion of EO teachings on hell. Polemes is talking about two specific historical figures—Palamas and Theophanes—and their views about hell. Thus, he may not be relevant to a discussion of "official" EO teachings on hell. If that is your reason for wanting to remove him, then I have no objection. (Note that this is a relevance issue, not an undue weight issue.)
7. It seems a bit odd to speak of "undue weight" when the EO section contains of an endless list of quotes from various authors. When a section gets that long, one or two sentences about even fringe views hardly seems like undue weight. For precisely that reason, Wikipedia tries to avoid articles/sections that consist of long lists of quotes. I would encourage LM and Taiwan boi to try to condense the EO section a bit. As it currently stands, it only confuses the reader.

One last point. For the record, I'm not religious. I try to be professional when editing Wikipedia. Thus, I try to avoid discussing my feelings, even when forcefully criticizing editors on other issues, but here I'll just come out and say it: I find it highly offensive to be labeled as a Catholic POV-pusher. My interest is in academic research. That includes academic research into religion (hence the Polemes book), but I have no interest in sectarian turf-battles. You can accept the source or reject it, but please don't attribute religious motives to me. Thank you. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Phatius, by verifiable I mean WP:VERIFY. I agree that the source is WP:RS and an academic study. I can't access it to read, so I can't tell how well accepted the source is in the given field, nor have I seen any reference in Google Scholar which indicates that the view taken is mainstream. I agree that "its "weight" should be measured primarily relative to opinions in the mainstream academic community about what Theophanes and Palamas historically taught". I would like to see this done with sources before they're introduced into the article. I'm not familiar with EO doctrine and history, which is why I typically don't edit articles on EO subjects. I'm simply concerned about WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. Perhaps I misunderstand WP:VERIFY, but your concern doesn't seem to be a verifiability concern (in the Wikipedia sense) per se. That is, you don't seem to be concerned about whether my claim can be traced to a published source. Rather, you seem to be concerned about whether I'm interpreting the source correctly and giving it due weight. I realize that this concern can't be completely alleviated, since the source isn't available for free viewing and we don't how many other scholars agree with it. I now have the book in front of me. But that doesn't really help me assess its proper weight, and it doesn't help you check whether I'm interpreting it correctly.

Anyway, as I said, I don't care much at this point whether Polemes stays or goes. But if you or LM have any more questions about the book, I'll try to answer them as best I can. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Knock it off, this response is overblown. I have been very clear that the editors where Roman Catholic POV pushers (they know who they are). I have given you a Barnstar. I agree with you for the most part until for whatever you might decide to behave differently than you currently are. I tried to separate up the edit in a specific section on the talkpage here and admit I should have been more clear as... WITH Phatius' edit Roman Catholic POV pushers are blah blah blah. For the record I don't however like the things you keep implying about it being so terrible for you to edit (and yet you do) on these articles. I didn't ask you for input on this article. As for a response to your sourcing well thanks again I feel that my position is valid and you appear to confirm that.

And also you are implying I did not try and address this before now. You know I did. However you are now finally addressing it, implying that maybe until someone "upsets" you that you will remain non-responsive. As for the book, what is it? Is it a dissertation or a theology book, is the comment in proper context? What else does it say? Or is this just a google search? For a book you have not read and do not have in your personal possession. If you, yourself do not have the book, why would you take such offense at all? To the passage in question well then maybe my bigger point of undue weight is validated in "if it is a commonly held lesson then there should be plenty of sources saying the same thing rather than just one". And some of those sources should be people commonly known as authorities in that specific field. So what your implying about my pointing this out is bothersome (as you are saying that the actual academic degrees my sources possessed are now up to debate). I also wonder about what you mean by "mainstream academic community". Could you define that please. As WP:RS states that the sources be reliable within the scope of the subject not just grad students' PHD papers. I have been careful to not include journal articles from say Sobornost just so that there can be no one side-ness to what is posted as sources. Since you are implying that Source criticism and Source evaluation say that people with no accreditation (from your position of credibility) can not speak for themselves. I would not go to Zimbabwe as a "mainstream academic" and tell them what they believe nor would I imply that such behavior was valid for any outside authority, to any subject. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"I have been very clear that the editors where Roman Catholic POV pushers (they know who they are)."

Okay, thank you for clarifying that you were not referring to me.

"I don't however like the things you keep implying about it being so terrible for you to edit (and yet you do) on these articles"

I stayed away from these articles for quite a while by Wikiholics' standards (a week or so, if I remember correctly). ;)

"You are implying I did not try and address this before now."

Where did I imply that you didn't try to address this before? If I said something that could be construed as implying that, then I apologize. But I honestly don't see how you could infer that from my comment.

"As for the book, what is it?"

I ordered the book a while ago out of personal interest, and it finally arrived today. Looking through it, it appears to be what I thought it was--a monograph analyzing Theophanes's writings from a secular standpoint. (Again, I have no idea whether Polemes is a theologian in addition to a secular scholar.)

"If you, yourself do not have the book, why would you take such offense at all?"

My offense was not in response to your rejection of Polemes as a source. Rather, my offense was in response to what I perceived as a claim that I'm a Catholic POV-pusher.

"I also wonder about what you mean by 'mainstream academic community'."

Okay, I'll try to clarify what my point was. I do not deny that "your" sources, or at least some of them, are also academic. My point is simply that the Polemes book is not a properly theological work. Rather, it is a historical study of what Theophanes and Palamas believed. Thus, you can provide countless theological sources that say, "Fire of hell = God's light", but that won't show that Polemes is a fringe source, because Polemes isn't making any claim about what the fire of hell really is. Polemes is not denying that the fire of hell is God's light. Rather, Polemes is denying that Palamas equated the fire of hell with God's light.

Thus, the only way to show that Polemes is a fringe source is to provide sources that interpret Palamas differently than Polemes does. Such sources can be by EO theologians, but they don't have to be. They just have to be by academic scholars who have studied Palamas, whether those scholars are theologians or not. If we're talking about what the EO church teaches, then the mainstream position is determined by statements from EO theologians. (After all, who knows what the EO church teaches better than EO theologians?) But if we're talking about what a particular historical figure (e.g. Theophanes or Palamas) taught, then the mainstream position is determined by what academic scholars, whether EO or not, think that historical figure taught.

I know that you provided some sources that you thought contradicted Polemes. I'm not sure whether at least one of them actually does contradict Polemes, and I explained why when I responded to you about that source. But, again, I don't claim to be an expert on Orthodox theology.

You may have noticed that I'm not particularly vociferous in defending Polemes himself, just in defending my original reasons for including him. If my position wasn't clear enough already, I'll make it again: By all means, remove Polemes if you really think he should go. I won't raise a fuss about the actual removal of Polemes. (As I pointed out in my earlier comment, I'm no longer sure that Polemes is even relevant to the article.)

P.S.: I just noticed a passage in the Polemes book that you, LM, would probably be quite pleased with: "The view that the light of God's glory is identical with the fire of hell is quite common among the Greek Fathers and can be traced back to Gregory of Nazianzos" (p. 99). Just thought I'd mention the passage so that you can add it if you'd like (although, again, I think the EO section should be condensed, not expanded). --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No article about Orthodox theology in contrast to Latin theology SHOULD EVER use the The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church as a source

Why again after repeatedly showing that using the document as a source is not allowed in Ecumenical meetings are POV pushing Roman Catholic editors like Esoglou and gang still including it to silence Orthodox theologians whom do not agree that the Roman Catholic teaching of Hell is the same with the Eastern Orthodox teaching of the matter. It has been repeatedly pointed out to Esoglou that the source is not to be used and ESOGLOU does not respect nor listen. Again it was pointed out, Esoglou....

Non-Orthodox Ted Campbell writes that, for "Orthodox Teachings on Religious Authority", "the Confession of Dositheus (1672) and the Russian Catechism of Philaret ... cannot always be utilized, because at some points they illustrate a tendency of Orthodox teachers in their periods to utilize characteristically Western terminology (such as "transubstantiation" or " purgatory"), which have not been subsequently held as binding on Orthodox expressions of the faith". [10] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Break it up guys

It's clear there's a sectarian conflict going on here. Catholic editors such as Richard and Esoglou, please don't edit Orthodox content. Stay with your own team. LoveMonkey, don't edit Catholic content. If you are all actually genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia, you'll agree there's nothing to lose from confining yourself to your personal area of knowledge and experience and ending your sectarian warfare against the group you consider heretical. Honestly people, if you can't put your religions aside when you come here, then you need to think seriously about your involvement. As an outside observer (and therefore with an objective perspective you don't have), it's clear you're edit warring across several articles on theological grounds.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi... you have got to be kidding. You appear to be guilty of buying LoveMonkey's inflammatory rhetoric. Here's some advice for you: don't drink his Kool-Aid.

First of all, I disagree vehemently with the principle underlying your comment viz. that, in the absence of clearly disruptive editing, some editors should be allowed to edit an article while others should be barred from it. This clearly violates the founding principles of Wikipedia.

Moreover, you have clearly not been paying much attention and thus have bought into LoveMonkey's allegations without checking them. I can't remember if I have ever edited this article. If I have, it hasn't been recently. Moreover, I challenge you to find an edit of mine in any so-called "Orthodox content" article which justifies the injunction to not edit so-called "Orthodox content". In truth, it would be a lot easier to find edits of LoveMonkey's that would justify banning him from Orthodox articles on the grounds of POV-pushing than it would be to find edits of mine that would justify banning me from editing Orthodox articles on any grounds. Go ahead, try it. So please go check your facts before lumping in me together with Esoglou in the loose-talk style of the LoveMonkey cabal.

It's bad enough to have to put up with his histrionics, polemics and inflammatory rhetoric. I expected better from you. And finally, where in the world did you get the idea that I or Esoglou consider the Orthodox "heretical"? That would be LoveMonkey's ax to grind. It is he that specializes in presenting sources that cast the Catholics as heretical. Esoglou has focused primarily on showing that the Orthodox and the Catholic views are more compatible than incompatible. Me? I'm just "guilty by association". I don't generally get involved in these squabbles except that recently I issued a wikiquette alert on LoveMonkey for calling Esoglou a liar and mentally incompetent. Since then, I seem to have earned the label of being an Esoglou crony. Once again, don't drink the Kool Aid. You have more brains than that. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the charge that Esoglou and I deleted text describing the works of Nellas from Catholic - Orthodox theological differences is a canard. The problem was that the article was over 313kb long, ridiculously long by anybody's yardstick. See WP:SIZE. Gee... now the article is "only" 208kb long. This qualifies it to move out of the "ridiculously long" category into the "maybe not as ridiculous as before but way too frikking long" category. Funny how LM bitches, whines and moans when his stuff is deleted but is willing to delete Esoglou's text without compunction. That article needs to have a machete taken to it. I have refrained from doing so because, guess what?, I don't dare tread where I have insufficient knowledge. Oh but... if it pleases LoveMonkey to throw around unfounded accusations, you are happy to eat it up and drink his Kool-Aid cuz you're his buddy right? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, please note for a start that far from simply buying into all LM's accusations, I haven't repeated any of them and I haven't charged you with anything. You just need to know that form an objective outsider's perspective it's clear that there's an ongoing edit war across a number of articles which is theologically motivated. I would like that to stop. More specifically: 1. I have never suggested that anyone be barred from editing this article. Please read what I wrote. I have suggested only that you and Esoglou edit the sections on Catholicism, and that LM edits only the section on Eastern Orthodoxy. None of you should find anything objectionable in that, you can all cheer for your own team. 2. Yes you have edited this article, and you have specifically edited content to do with the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy; no, it wasn't recent, but it's clearly something which LM is leveraging in his accusations. 3. I am not a blind ally of LM, and I have objected to his behaviour on more than one occasion. Please remember that I am not taking sides here. I don't care how much you all believe you're on the correct theological side and the other side is wrong, that doesn't interest me. What interests me is reducing the number of edit wars in articles. 4. I not only agreed with you about the ridiculous length of the Catholic - Orthodox theological differences]] article, I cut out huge chunks of it myself, and distributed them among other articles; no argument there. This article needs the same treatment. 5. Your comment that "Esoglou has focused primarily on showing that the Orthodox and the Catholic views are more compatible than incompatible" is interesting. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed Esoglou deliberately editing EO related content to make it look like the EO holds beliefs which are the same as, equivalent to, or very similar to, Catholicism. This is not the same as edits focused on showing that the EO and Catholic views are more compatible than incompatible, it involves deliberately targeting material which LM has edited and attempting to contradict or subvert it with statements saying the opposite, sometimes involving WP:OR and typically involving invalid referencing or misrepresented sources. It's blatantly theologically motivated edit warring. 6. If none of you believes that the other side is heretical that's great; you can sit down, hold hands, and agree not to edit content which describes the beliefs of the opposing team. I'd like to see you all agree on this. LM has already told me he is prepared to agree with it, which goes a long way to mitigating my concerns for his conduct, and shows he is editing in good faith. I'm sure you'll agree that the best way to prevent him having any excuse whatever for repeatedly accusing you and Esoglou of misrepresenting EO beliefs is simply to confine yourself to editing Catholic related material; the power is in your hands to end this conflict. Remember, this is nothing personal and I am not accusing you of any bad faith edits. It's just that this nonsense has to stop.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that sections on different religions should use authentic sources published by the religions in question. The Catechism of the Catholic Church first published by John Paul II should be the first source for the Roman Catholic Church. Of course there is also a historical aspect to this concept. The concept of hell had undergone much evolution.Gazzster (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi: "Please read what I wrote."

Richard: I did read what you wrote the first time.

Taiwan boi: "I have suggested only that you and Esoglou edit the sections on Catholicism, and that LM edits only the section on Eastern Orthodoxy. None of you should find anything objectionable in that, you can all cheer for your own team."

Richard: Yes, that is precisely what I am finding strongly objectionable.

Richard: I understand that you are trying to quell a conflict that has been raging for over a year. However, your approach (besides being misdirected at me) attempts to establish a principle which is at odds with the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" as long as they respect the five pillars of Wikipedia and follow the policies of Wikipedia.Why do you insist that I have a team? Wikipedia is not about segregating itself into ghettos of articles and article sections where editors are somehow restricted based on "what team they are on"? What team do you think I am on? What is your team?

Richard: Do you need me to mention that I am the one who created History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, Palamism, Hesychast controversy and History of the Russian Orthodox Church. I don't claim to be an expert on these topics and most of the text I got was borrowed from other sources such as other Wikipedia articles. I don't maintain or own these articles. They needed to be created. I created them and now hope that other people will improve on the foundation that I laid. I have, however, put a lot of work into organizing them and, for the most part, people have not objected to a non-Orthodox bias in those articles. LM is angry with me partly over a specific issue (whether Meyendorff is respected within the Orthodox Church) and because he thinks I am biased in favor of Esoglou. If you are not familiar with the details of his issues with me, then please don't take sides in those conflicts until you are. Lumping me in with Esoglou is to take sides by accepting LM's charge that there is a mini-cabal consisting of Esoglou and myself. There is no cabal here except in LM's feverish imagination. Don't drink his Kool Aid.

Taiwan boi: "form an objective outsider's perspective it's clear that there's an ongoing edit war across a number of articles which is theologically motivated."

Richard: Yes... and what makes you think that I am involved in this "ongoing edit war"? You have drunk the Kool Aid. The edit histories are long and tedious to go through and the Talk Pages are even worse. Nonetheless, if you had any acquaintance with the edit war, you would realize that I am not part of it.

Richard: Re Esoglou's agenda - I'm staying neutral as to whether his agenda is valid or not. I have seen him argue in ways that look a lot like OR to me but I'm staying neutral because I don't feel I know enough to weigh in with an opinion. The point here though is that I am not part of this agenda and you cannot find an edit that supports Esoglou's agenda except for the one large deletion which is aimed at shrinking an article that was easily three times the length of a typical long article. I mean, come one, 313kb?

Richard: RE point #6 - According to LM, the Orthodox Church considers the Catholic Church heretical. The Catholic Church does not consider the Orthodox Church heretical. This is the framework which pits LM and Esoglou agaisnt each other. Esoglou is attempting to show that the two beliefs are in fact compatible. Unfortunately, he often does this using primary sources and would be on much firmer ground if he were to argue from secondary sources.

Tawan boi - "this nonsense has to stop"

Richard - I agree wholeheartedly. Just please stop assuming that I have anything to do with furthering this nonsense. That is the Kool Aid that LoveMonkey is peddling. Don't drink it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard I appreciate your concern, but the problem is that nothing you are doing is helping. Opposing voluntary measures to end the conflict does help us find a solution. Thanks for identifying the fact that "Esoglou is attempting to show that the two beliefs are in fact compatible"; he should not be doing any such thing, he should be simply entering what WP:RS say, not editing with an agenda.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've explained elsewhere why asking people to "stick to the sections on their faith" is a bad idea. If the solution is confined to Esoglou and LoveMonkey and they both agree, then I guess I can't object. However, any attempt to apply the solution to me will result in strenuous objection from me. As for "Esoglou should not be doing any such thing"... well, I kind of agree. If he's right and can find secondary sources that make that assertion, it would be OK even if such an assertion is a Catholic source contradicting an Orthodox source. Esoglou's main problem in pushing this kind of an agenda is that he often backs up his arguments with primary sources thus leaving himself open to the charge of performing original research and synthesis. Doing this once in a while is excusable if you recognize that you are doing it when someone else calls you on it. Making a habit of it is really not good. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained all along, I am not suggesting that this be generalized. I am not saying that people should all "stick to the sections on their faith". I am making a suggestion which would end the edit warring between LoveMonkey and Esoglou if they voluntarily agree to it. LoveMonkey has agreed to it, Esoglou has not. It is not difficult to see where the problem is. I ask you again, what solution can you see for this repeated edit warring?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's still a bad idea in my book because it suggests that neither editor should edit in "the sections related to another editor's faith" even if there is a valid edit to be made. However, my primary objection was to my being included in the phrase "Catholic editors such as Richard and Esoglou". If Esoglou and LoveMonkey agree to it, I guess I don't really have a say in it. I, on the other hand, agree to nothing of the kind for reasons that I have presented above. You have yet to demonstrate that there is any cause to suggest that I need to be included in this "solution".

As for what alternative solution I would propose, I would counsel you or any other editor to follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure. Start with user RFCs on both LoveMonkey and Esoglou (separate ones) and then, if that doesn't solve the problem, move it to ARBCOM with an WP:RFARB. Me personally, I don't have that much energy to waste on this sort of thing. It's easier for me to ignore the squabble between Esoglou and LoveMonkey than to go through the effort of an RFC and then an RFARB. However, if you have the energy for it, go for it. I would look for ARBCOM to impose a short-term topic ban (say 3 months). If that doesn't do the trick, a longer topic ban might be appropriate.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is Richard continuing to insult my position and my concerns?

This is just more of Richard's attitude that he can do whatever he wants and say whatever uncivil comment and no one can do anything to him.[11] Why is Richard saying offensive things and accusing me of things that I have not done? Why is Richard allowed to make the above statements and mis-characterizations (like my complaint of WP:TAGTEAM how dare I) his comments which are personal attacks on my contributions and not one administrator has correct his hostile and uncivil tone? Why does Richard and Esoglou think that Wikipedia is the place that Esoglou can use to show that the two beliefs (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) are in fact compatible? Why is Richard making unfounded comments about what my opinion is when all I have done is LITERALLY post Eastern Orthodox theologians WHOM ARE INVOLVED IN ECUMENISM roles in the Eastern church and whom point out where the two churches are not compatible and Richard and Esoglou either ignore the sources or then take them and characterizes them in the way Richard just did above. I have not posted my opinion. I have posted Eastern Orthodox theologians and their opinions.

Richard confirms that he will not call to task Esoglou and Esoglou's misuse of Wikipedia.

This is something that Esoglou does by way of WP:SYN and WP:ORs (i.e. tries to show that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologies are compatible and in essence the same) and Esoglou attempt this by sourcing HE CREATES and or does not use Official sources (from either church) to make such a claim. Instead Esoglou reads what he wants and googles statements to see if he can then patch them or connect them together and get his opinion or validation of his agenda this way. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I don't see Esoglou engaging in OR and SYNTH. It's that, most of the time, the topics being discussed are way over my head and I don't know enough to be sure that it is OR and SYNTH. I figure you guys can more easily identify the problems with the sourcing and call Esoglou on his OR and SYNTH more cogently and accurately than I could. As annoying as Esoglou's interaction style can be, my experience is that he often raises points that are worth considering. Were it not for this, his trollish behavior would be unbearable.

Me personally, I don't think OR and SYNTH are as egregious violations of Wikipedia policy as incivility. This is, of course, a judgment that cannot be supported by anything other than my personal opinion. Anybody want to create a hierarchy which ranks violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CIVIL? Which of these are misdemeanors, which are felonies and which are "hanging offenses"? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My view is that any behaviour which actively disrupts the editing work of other editors and reduces article quality is far more serious. I care a lot less less about how uncivil another editor is to me, as long as they don't edit war and repeatedly insert bad information into an article. Their lack of civility does not downgrade the article quality, and does not get in my way. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of unanswered tag

A citation tag has been removed without any attempt to provide a citation for the statement that "some Eastern Orthodox expression personal opinions appear to run counter to official church statements in teaching hell is separation from God". This itself is an expression of a personal opinion with no source given for the statement that the views in question do run counter to official church statements, or even what are the official church statements that they are thought to contradict. Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is already sourced with multiple sources. Why is it that none of the sources that Esoglou uses are actual church organization theological statements BY CHURCH THEOLOGIANS CHOSEN TO MAKE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL STATEMENTS FOR THE EO? But rather statements from individuals in fliers as some of Esoglou's choices are books not even on the subject of theology at all but rather biographies and books on iconography. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then quote here any one of those unidentified multiple sources that, according to you, state that the teachings of Sophrony, Evdokimov, the bulletin of the Orthodox nuns, and that same Father Stylianopoulos, who has been declared a reliable source, appear to run counter to official church statements. Unless you do, the statement about the contradiction is only yours and, if left unsourced, can be deleted immediately, since you have been given ample time to defend it or modify it. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh please Esoglou by all means REMOVE the entire sentence from the article. Please don't let me get in your way. However please STAY OUT of the Eastern Orthodox section of the article as you are completely ignorant of the theology and are distorting the theological tenets of the Orthodox church. I however will make an exception for this. So please make quick and remove the sentence. By all means.[12] LoveMonkey (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So Esoglou rather than delete the sentence goes and rewords the sentence to put the fringe opinion on even keel with the official statement made about Hell from the OCA website. After I revert out this distortion Esoglou restores the citation tags he has added. This is the same tactic that Esoglou has done on several articles Esoglou is currently doing the same thing on the Talk:Immersion_baptism#Citation_tags_and_WP:FRINGE article. On that article Esoglou is edit warring with another editor who is not me. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The well-sourced statements by Orthodox theologians that hell is separation from God is not questioned. What is unsourced and questioned is the claim that those statements "run counter" to some unspecified official church statements. What official church statements? It is time to produce evidence for this claim or to let the claim be removed. Esoglou (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's sourced. Esoglou thinks that no one but him can summarize. Esoglou is ignoring what is being said. Esoglou is ignoring that it says other people whom are Orthodox say things that appear to be against what the Official statements of the Church in the US is. This statement follows the official statement from the OCA website and other sources stating that teaching.

If I have already sourced from the OCA website what the theological teaching for the subject is, anything that is not another official statement but ones from biographies and books on the history of icons are not really validate THEOLOGICAL sources to be used to begin with. Nor is it proper to treat what individuals say as on par with Official Church statements. But Esoglou has insisted on doing this. [13] Esoglou put them in this article and has treated them and worded them as equal to church official statements

Esoglou thinks that summaries are not allowed. Esoglou wants every obscure opinion that might make the Orthodox teaching on the subject look identical to the Roman Catholic teaching even if it's just one individuals opinion to have equal time and space to what the Orthodox Church of America says the church AS A WHOLE teaches on the matter. As a matter of principle there is no need to have that much data about the matter in an article that appears to be a set of summaries to begin with. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it that you have at last responded to my request for a concrete source – any one – that supports your claim that, in teaching hell is separation from God, some Eastern Orthodox express personal opinions that appear to run counter to official church statements. You have referred to the OCA website, presumably to this declaration: "It is the Church's spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God's splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light."

There is no contradiction between that OCA statement and belief that the presence of the splendid glory and love of God is a scourge for the damned precisely because they separate themselves from that splendid glory and love by rejecting it and so being "outside of it", as Metropolitan Hilarion wrote in his catechism; "they hide away from God as they kept hiding during their lives; and separation from God is everlasting punishment", as the Russian Orthodox website says. There is no contradiction between what the OCA website says and what these at least equally authoritative church sites say. If you claim that some of them run counter to the others, and so cannot all be right, you have the problem of explaining which of them are and which are not official church statements. Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE ESOGLOU QUIT ABUSING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES FOR YOUR OWN AGENDA. What you just posted is incoherent. All this article needs is a general statement from an Official source. As your WP:SYN and your WP:OR have now made it appear that there is contradictions in what the Orthodox teach because your POV pushing is more important then simply stating what the Orthodox church actually says. Wikipedia is here for Esoglou to push his opinion on Orthodox theology even though he is not Orthodox. ESOGLOU IS HERE ON WIKIPEDIA USING IT AS A PLATFORM FOR HIS WP:SYN AND WP:OR so as to try and have Wikipedia express HIS ECUMENIST THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS. ESOGLOU HAS BITTERLY FOUGHT AND EDIT WARRED TO SILENCE ANY ORTHODOX SOURCES THAT EXPRESS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. Esoglou has WP:SYN with google patching together tidbits, and quote fragments to try and re-image ORTHODOX THEOLOGY SO THAT IT IS AND APPEARS TO BE THE SAME AS ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. He has taken a mosaic of Christ and re-arranged it into the portrait of dog. I have provided Orthodox theologians whom clearly say that Hell is being with God in God's presents and there on the subject of hell is no where, where God is not. It is not a burden on me to provide anything but Official sources. Which I have done. It is YOU ESOGLOU whom have added these other Orthodox sources to the article and put them and treated them as on par with Official Orthodox statements, and I have already told you that I would support you removing your sentence. I am not responsible to source or explain a personal opinion which might contradict Official Church statement nor to play your POV pushing game of trying use Orthodox sources against one another. As the teaching if espoused by Eastern Orthodox is not a real or valid dogma but a metaphor (at best) and a Metaphor that is a hold over from the Western Captivity (meaning it will be purged in the future from teachings about Hell from Orthodox sources). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What the Orthodox says about the metaphor of "separation from God and ontology, essentialism.

First of all, hell is not a place. If you’re separated from your body and exist only as a spirit, you don’t take up any room. In the Hebrew Scriptures all the dead, righteous and unrighteous, abide in Sheol (the Greek Scriptures translated it "Hades"). It is a non-physical realm where the souls of all the departed await the Last Judgment.

But they don’t all experience it the same way. In Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31), the Rich Man is not sequestered in a bleak alternative dimension; he’s able to see Lazarus, and speak to Abraham. But he’s sure isn’t having a good time.

How can this be? Because the real answer to the "where" question is "in the presence of God." Nothing exists outside God, making the concept of "separation from God" only a handy metaphor. "Whither shall I flee from thy presence? … If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there" (Psalm 139:7-8). In this life, we perceive that presence pulsing through all material Creation. In the next life that materiality will be dissolved, and we’ll be irradiated by the living energy that sustains the universe.

Those who love God and prepare themselves to assimilate his light will begin to be transformed even in this life; they become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). But those who resist and ignore God "harden their hearts" (Hebrews 3:15). If they "love darkness rather than light" (John 3:19), they will find the inescapable brilliance to be searing misery and paradoxical blindness.

And that’s only a foretaste. What we experience as spirits can be termed "Hades" and "Paradise." After the unimaginable resurrection and restoration of our bodies, true "Heaven" and "Hell" will commence.

How can the same Light affect people in different ways? Hearers of scripture in earlier generations would have seen this phenomenon every day. Before the age of electricity, light always meant fire. And fire requires respect. From earliest childhood they would learn that fire gives us warmth and light, but if mishandled, it deals agonizing pain, darkness and death. "Our God is a consuming fire" (Deut. 4:24, Hebrews 12:29). [14] LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It can affect people in different ways, according as they are united with God or separated from God. It is you, not I, who claim to see a contradiction between the declaration by Orthodox on the question, with some of them, according to you, "running counter" to others. The declarations on separation by an Orthodox catechism and an Orthodox Church website (which are official church statements at least as much as the OCA website) certainly do not "run counter" to what the OCA website says. Two people can be separated from each other by the deepest hostility even in each other's presence, and, as you admit, heaven and hell are not matters of place and spatial distance, but of attitude to God, union with him or separation from him. Your long discourse above is, at best, just original research. You have not indicated any of the official church documents that you claim are contradicted by statements such as Metropolitan Hilarion's. The burden of proof lies on the editor who inserts or reinserts a statement in Wikipedia. Where is the proof of your claim that these declarations run counter to "official church documents"? Esoglou (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed out sources repeatedly that you again must ignore to make your statement that are Orthodox and are endorsed as Orthodox by Orthodox theologians that say that there is a contradiction and that teaching hell as separation from God 'is not Orthodox.[15] [16] As in Orthodoxy separation from God is not Hell, separation from God is DEATH. That is why in Orthodox theology (Nellas -Deification in Christ for example) that this existence ends in DEATH. Your screwing up and distorting Orthodox theology for your own agenda and not listening when people point out what you are doing. [But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness,... It is not, however, that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of darkness." St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5. 27:2.] ["Death is principally the separation from God, from which followed necessarily the death of the body. Life is principally He who said, 'I am the Life'"And why did death come upon the whole of humanity? Why did those who did not sin with Adam die as did Adam? Philokalia, vol. 2, p. 27 (Greek edition), St. Maximus the Confessor.] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the wages of sin are death, spiritual death or separation from God is hell. But we should leave that aside. If, as you say, you have pointed out sources repeatedly, it should be very simple for you to cite just one of them that contradicts what Orthodox bishops and theologians like Metropolitan Hilarion say about the damned choosing to be separated from God's love and be outside it. You still talk vaguely about the existence of such sources and have not cited even one. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. The official statements are there. ESOGLOU continues to war against those statements and wants people to change what they say to what Esoglou interprets them to say. Outside is a different concept than separated. BUT ESOGLOU NOW wants to use one interchangeably with other and then use the modification to attack other Orthodox sources. Esoglou can not just let what is said stay the way it is. Rather Esoglou would like to screw up the section and have the different theologians appear to an reader to say that outside of God really means separated from God when the Official source is all that the article needs to begin with (which of course the official source say no such thing as Hell is separation from God). Its a simple statement. Hell is separation from God. How can something burn you if you are separated from it, well obviously it can't. As I already posted the sentence is sourced as the previous parts of the paragraph contain the Official statements of the Orthodox church. ANYTHING after it if not from a church appointed theologian is that person's opinion. You just keep ignoring. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The official statements are there, you say. Cite one. Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

From the Orthodox Church of America's website.

Thus it is the Church's spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God's splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light. ... those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God ... But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (St. Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises). [17]

NO MENTION OF SEPARATION FROM GOD. NO MENTION HELL IS A PLACE SEPARATE FROM HEAVEN. NO MENTION THAT PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE GOD BUT BE AWAY OR SEPARATED FROM HIM IN A PLACE CALLED HELL. NONE. NODDA! ESOGLOU can not explain how his contradiction that he has spent some much of other editors time and attention trying to force onto wikipedia is not just that a contradiction. As Esoglou can not explain how it is that people are separate from a God that is burning them by being in their presences. How can a fire burn you if you are separated from it? It can't. You have to be in contact with the fire in order for it to burn you. YOU CAN NOT BE SEPARATED FROM A LOVE THAT BURNS YOU. Here is the next section of the passage.

Thus it is the Church's spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God's splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.

By the why that Esoglou is using his Roman Catholic opinion and trying to force it on the Eastern Orthodox one. He is saying that Heaven is with God and hell is without God. The Eastern Orthodox clearly do not teach that. Both Heaven and Hell are with God not separated from him. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So the best you can do is to cite again this same website, which denies that hell is a material fire or physical torment, but does not deny that hell is separation from God.

The synthesis by which you attempt to justify your citing this website again does not hold water. (Even if it did, it would still be a synthesis.) The theologians whom you accuse of "running counter" to official church documents do not say that hell is a place separate from God, since there is no place separate from God: they say that the damned are self-separated from God, something that human beings can do, something that human beings actually do, by sinning. In this, the theologians are in full accord with what is stated in the cited OCA website. And the OCA website does not in any way run counter to what they say, and cannot be cited as if it did. So what is the official church document that you claim the theologians contradict? The claim is still unreferenced. Esoglou (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely you're being facetious? The source says explicitly that "is the presence of God's splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light". It's completely clear to me that this is speaking of God's presence, not absence. Your objection is like saying that the Roman Catholic Catechism doesn't deny that hell is in the depths of the earth, or out on the moon. You can't make an argument from the silence of a source, you have to make an argument from what the source actually says, and what this source actually says is abundantly clear.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, in saying that you can't have an argument from silence, you have hit the nail on the head. It isn't enough to say that the OCA website does not explicitly state what these Orthodox theologians say. These Orthodox theologians hold that God is present everywhere and to everyone, that God's love is not withdrawn from anyone, but they also say that human beings can and do withdraw themselves from God and his love. There is no absence of God but, they say, people do absent themselves from God. That is what those sources say, and no "official church statement" has been cited to support having in the article the claim that what these Orthodox theologians say runs counter to "official church statements". What statements? Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

These above statements are opinion and interpretation..

Esgolou wrote, "It isn't enough to say that the OCA website does not explicitly state what these Orthodox theologians say."

LM Response, What the website says is what people are taught is the teaching of the church in general not opinion but the actual teachings of the church and it is the Official teaching as it is what people use when they need to clarify what the church's position as a whole is. This is not up to Esoglou.

Esoglou wrote, "There is no absence of God but, they say, people do absent themselves from God."

LM Response, Esoglou's sources that teach that Hell is separation from God run counter to what the OCA website says. Why? Because the sources (other then the OCA) are opinions of individuals (theologoumenon) for one the sources they come from are not acknowledged as sources to validate church theology. For two the policy for undue weight -WP:UNDUE states "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

LM Response,A theological source already in the article is stating

"Regarding specific conditions of after-life existence and eschatology, Orthodox thinkers are generally reticent; yet two basic shared teachings can be singled out. First, they widely hold that immediately following a human being's physical death, his or her surviving spiritual dimension experiences a foretaste of either heaven or hell. (Those theological symbols, heaven and hell, are not crudely understood as spatial destinations but rather refer to the experience of God's presence according to two different modes.) Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars page 195 By Aristotle Papanikolaou, Elizabeth H. Prodromou [18]"

This should be enough but coupled with all of this I will however show another source that states that the teaching of separation from God, absence from God is hell is not an Orthodox teaching and is rejected by Orthodoxy. This a review of one of Kallistos Ware's books.

""Without a single citation from the Fathers, His Grace baldly asserts that Hell is 'the place where God is not' (ibid. [emphasis in the text]). He then notes, parenthetically, that 'God is everywhere!' If God is everywhere, as the doctrine of Divine omnipresence entails, then how can there be any place from which He is absent? And yet, Bishop Kallistos reasons, if Christ descended into Hell, He must have descended into the depths of the absence of God. There are problems, here, not only with regard to an Orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell, but also in terms of His Grace's misuse of terminology; that is, as we shall see, his failure to distinguish between Hell as a place of torment for unrepentant sinners and Hades as the place where death prevailed over man before the Resurrection. These words are used interchangeably, we admit, and the distinction to which we have referred is a subtle one; however, it is one essential to any response to the innovative and theologically troublesome idea that Christ, descending into Hades, supposedly went to a place from which God was absent" (Hieromonk Patapios's review of the book in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI, Nos. 3&4, pp. 30-51). [19]

Again as I noted above "separation from God is but a handy metaphor". As the issue is that the church article dispenses with the theologoumenon and simply states what the teaching is. People can only choose in their temporal material existence to be an atheist or "without God". Once their personal life is over and then the temporal material existence ends there is no choosing to reject God. There is only living in the presents of God. Living with God. One can not be separated from something that is burning them. A fire that is absent can not burn you. And this is all the unfortunate by product of people seeking ecunemism on both sides trying to cloud the underlying differences in order to make them appear to have no conflict. As the Orthodox theologians I posted below show that there is a difference and address that difference. This is rhetorical and a by product of the Western Captivity of Orthodox theology.LoveMonkey (talk) 14

58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is but a handy metaphor, one employed by, for instance, Metropolitan Hilarion's catechism, with which the anonymous statement hosted on the OCA website cannot compare as an "official church statement". Even Bishop Kallistos (whose authority as a bishop is not inferior to that of the hieromonk who criticized him, and who in any case isn't among the writers whom you accuse in the article of running counter to official church statements and so is off-topic here) is only using a metaphor for exclusion of God by the human heart. You have found nothing in the OCA website that contradicts this handy metaphor. Nor have you found any other "official church statement" that runs counter to this metaphor used by so many Orthodox writers, who are not in this matter a tiny minority, since not even one Orthodox writer says that the damned do not separate themselves from God, do not withdraw from communion with God. Esoglou (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The metaphor is not used by Hilarion, as he does not say "hell is separation from God" nor does he say "absences from God". The statement is not anonymous from the Orthodox Church of America's website that's your mistake not the OCA's [20]. As that is the second time you've attack Thomas Hopko the first being your attack on the article on the whole issue (he's one of those people you say I haven't provided you whose theology you re saying doesn't say what it says) that he endorses by way of it's representation by Peter Chopelas [21] As for Ware he has since change his language in later revisions of his book in question. As Ware and other Orthodox theologians "converts to the church" are quite regularly criticized for their misrepresentations, this can be expressed in degrees and your work on articles here that make reference to Barlaam should clarify that phenomenon within the Orthodox church i.e. "The Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341 condemned the Platonic mysticism of Barlaam the Calabrian who had come from the West as a convert to Orthodoxy".[22]

As for your attack on Peter Chopelas and Thomas Hopkos by way of this comment...

"since not even one Orthodox writer says that the damned do not separate themselves from God, do not withdraw from communion with God."

That is disinformation. As the article endorsed by Hopko and written by Peter Chopelas that you Esoglou are at least aware of.... Starts with that very statement.

"The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God." [23] The only thing I might add is even God is outside nothing, God can not be God by Orthodox theology unless Gods uncreatedness transcends all, even nothingness (the kenosis in Palamas).LoveMonkey (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even one of the theologians whom you accuse of running counter to official church statements says that hell is a place where sinners are separated from God's presence. The separation they speak of is not one of place or space. Stylianopoulos expressly says it is a spiritual separation. You don't think, surely, that it was in a physical, spatial sense that Metropolitan Hilarion said that sinners are "outside of" God's love; or that Father Sveshnikov said they "run from" and "hide away from" God. So not even your latest quotation (from a theologian, not an "official church statement") says that, in the sense of which all these Orthodox theologians are speaking, "the damned do not separate themselves from God, do not withdraw from communion with God". No Orthodox writer denies that they do spiritually run from, hide away from, withdraw from communion with, separate themselves from God and his love and choose to stay outside of it; but to imagine these actions as physical ones is simply ridiculous.

Your ignoring whats being said. "Separation from God" Esoglou.

• Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) speaks of "the hell of separation from God"
• The circumstances that rise before us, the problems we encounter, the relationships we form, the choices we make, all ultimately concern our eternal union with or separation from God"
• Hell is nothing else but separation of man from God, his autonomy excluding him from the place where God is present"
• Hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment"
• "Hell is none other than the state of separation from God, a condition into which humanity was plunged for having preferred the creature to the Creator. It is the human creature, therefore, and not God, who engenders hell. Created free for the sake of love, man possesses the incredible power to reject this love, to say 'no' to God. By refusing communion with God, he becomes a predator, condemning himself to a spiritual death (hell) more dreadful than the physical death that derives from it"

Now again where in the OCA article by Thomas Hopko and for that matter even the bible does it say hell is separation from God? LoveMonkey (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't be endlessly separate from someone you are in the presents of. LoveMonkey (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So where is even one of the supposed "official church statements" that say hell is not the state of spiritual separation from God? We are still waiting for you to cite even one. And you can be spiritually separated even from one whose hand you are clasping. Esoglou (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Heres the third time I will post this source. Again article edited and endorsed by Thomas Hopko.

"While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God."

Who is Thomas Hopko, Esoglou? And please stop with putting words into peoples mouths that includes Hopko as you are saying that the teaching of hell as separation from God and Hell as a place are compatible by your opinion not the actual statements. Right now the best you have is a fallacy called and argument from silence. As nothing you have pointed out has any validity if we follow the rules and post what the OCA website teaches. If we follow policy NONE of the fringe sources should be included at all. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So now you claim that the theologians you dislike were talking about spatial separation from God, with God in one physical space (what an idea!) and the damned in another physical place! Talk about putting words into people's mouths, and thoughts into their heads! How can you imagine that that ridiculous idea was what Stylianopoulos meant, when he wrote: ""Hell is a spiritual state of separation from God"? And do you imagine that, when theologians speak of someone being "in the presence of God", they mean that the person in question has come to some physical place where God is present, having left a physical place where God was not present, or that, while the person has not moved, God has come into the physical place where the person is, while previously God was not in that physical place? Even if you do perhaps entertain these ideas, it is up to you, as the editor who wants the Wikipedia article to declare that the teaching of Stylianopoulos and the others runs counter to "official church statements", to present verifiable proof of your claim that they were talking of physical, not spiritual, separation from God. And I can't imagine where you could possibly find proof that the separation they were talking about was physical. Esoglou (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with the sarcasm. Noting your last edit summary "ridiculous unsourced attribution of meaning". You can not find an Official Orthodox theological source that states that the Orthodox believe that "Hell is not being with God" all you can find with google searches are some passing remarks in fliers and biographies and books on the history of icons in your attempt to straight jacket Roman Catholic POV onto the Orthodox. The Thomas Hopko source explicitly says.........

"The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God." [24]

Why confuse it Esoglou? Why not just let it stand? Let what is say be reflected in the article why is a Roman Catholic telling Orthodox christians what they believe? Could it be hubris? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am letting Hopko stand, but not the claim that there is a contradiction. Please indicate what the cited sources say that contradicts what Hopko says. They do not say that "those whom God condemns ... spend eternity in torment separated from His presence ... as a physical place". There is no contradiction between Hopko and, for instance, Stylianopoulos. Point out where you think there is a contradiction. One could conclude that it is the realization of the presence of God (everywhere and to everyone, but of course not in the sense of physical location) and of the universality of his love that makes the experience of being spiritually (not physically) separated from it so painful and burning. Merely to be "in the presence" of God (who isn't?) is not painful: it is the experience of spiritual separation awakened by realization of being in the presence of God that brings pain, and it is the experience of union with it (of not being separated from it) that brings bliss. "Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or punishment, depends on man's response to God's love." In any case, you have not shown that there is any contradiction between Hopko and Stylianopoulos, and unless you do, your unsourced claim that there is a contradiction between Stylianopoulos and "official church statements" may be removed from the Wikipedia article. Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is there an issue with pointing out that there is inconsistency?

I posted into the article what the OCA website says about the teaching of hell. I then on the talkpage include another article endorsed and edited by the Head of Theology at the theological school for the OCA Thomas Hopko that stated that Hell is not a place God sends people that is separate from his presences. I then point out that other Orthodox by way of Esoglou's googles searches appear to say something that as opinion (theologoumenon) runs counter or appears to contradict what the OCA website says, because Esgolou will not confirm what Orthodox theology he has studied nor if he has ever read a single Orthodox theological study from start to finish or if Esoglou has read any of the Orthodox books he is sourcing from, by way of google it is unclear what grounds or theological perspective from within the Orthodox church he is basing his objections upon. All Esoglou has done is state that in his opinion, and Wikipedia is not about individual editors opinions. And that Esoglou from his Roman Catholic opinion denies that some people's theologoumenon (theological opinion) can run counter to Official church statements and that all opinions (even those expressed by Orthodox whom are not theologians) should be treated as the same as Official Church statements. [25] Esoglou wants to change that clarification from..

Some Eastern Orthodox express personal opinions that appear to run counter to official church statements, in teaching hell is separation from God.

To

Some Eastern Orthodox teach that hell is separation from God.

The problem here is some Orthodox teach, as those sources are not from theologians teachings theology for the church as a whole but are just individuals expressing there own opinion..Now if Esoglou can find another wording and instead of calling my objections to his behavior Ridiculous and just keep arguing. I would try and meet him halfway and not object to having the sentence changed to that suggestion. As that is what article talkpages are for. I however don't see how he might make a better and more concise the expression now. However that does not mean that if he does I would object. While maintaining this different from what is already in the article. I would suggest that Esoglou should stop edit warring and post his suggestions about what kind of compromise could be reached HERE ON THE TALKPAGE 1ST. So that some sort of a compromise could be reach rather than just continuing to argue. Maybe Esoglou can ask Cody for a better statements. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What is in dispute is not whether the cited sources are "teaching theology for the church as a whole". It is whether what they say "runs counter to" some unspecified "official church statements". That matter is discussed immediately above. The claim seems to be quite unfounded and incapable of being rephrased in a verifiable way so as to seem factual. Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What Eastern Orthodox theologians say is wrong with the Western teaching of Hell

Eastern Orthodox theologian George Metallinos states

Consequently, the fire of hell has nothing in common with the Latin "purgatory", nor is it created, nor is it punishment, or an intermediate stage. A viewpoint such as this is virtually a transferal of one's accountability to God. But the accountability is entirely our own, whether we choose to accept or reject the salvation, the healing, that is offered by God. "Spiritual death" is the viewing of the uncreated light, of divine glory, as a pyre, as fire. Saint John Chrysostom in his 9th homily on First Corinthians, notes: "Hell is never-ending…...sinners shall be brought into a never-ending suffering. As for the `being burnt altogether,' it means this: that he does not withstand the strength of the fire." And he continues : "And he (Paul) says, it means this: that he shall not be burnt, like his works, into nothingness, but he shall continue to exist, but within that fire. He therefore considers this as his `salvation.' For it is customary for us to say `saved in the fire,' when referring to materials that are not totally burnt away."

Scholastic perceptions and interpretations which, through Dante's work (Inferno) have permeated our world, have consequences that amount to idolatrous concepts. An example is the separation of paradise and hell as two different places. This has happened because they did not distinguish between the created and the uncreated. Equally erroneous is the denial of hell's eternity, with the idea of the "restoration" of all, or the concepts surrounding the idea of Bon Dieu. God is indeed "benevolent" (Mt.8:17), since He offers salvation to everyone: ("He desires that all be saved….." 1Tm2:4). However, the words of our Lord as heard during the funeral service are formidable: "I cannot do anything on my own; as I hear, thus I judge, and my judgment is fair"(Jn.5:30). Equally manufactured is the concept of theodicy, which applies in this case. Everything [all responsibility] is ultimately attributed to God alone, without taking into consideration man's cooperation (synergy) as a factor of redemption. Salvation is possible only within the framework of cooperation between man and divine grace. According to the blessed Chrysostom, "the utmost, almost everything, is God's; He did however leave something little to us." That "little something" is our acceptance of God's invitation. The robber on the cross was saved, "by using the key request of `remember me'…"! Also idolatrous is the perception of a God becoming outraged against a sinner, whereas we mentioned earlier that God "never shows enmity". This is a juridical perception of God, which also leads to the prospect of "penances" in confessions as forms of punishment, and not [epitimia] as medications, as means of healing. [26]

What Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev says.

Why Hell? many people ask. Why does God condemn people to eternal damnation? How can the image of God the Judge be reconciled with the New Testament message of God as love? St Isaac the Syrian answers these questions in the following way: there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it.

It is therefore not God Who mercilessly prepares torments for a person, but rather the person himself who chooses evil and then suffers from its consequences. There are people who deliberately refuse to follow the way of love, who do evil and harm to their neighbours: these are the ones who will be unable to reconcile themselves with the Supreme Love when they encounter it face to face. Someone who is outside of love during his earthly life will not find a way to be inside it when he departs from the body. He will find himself in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ (Ps.23:4), ‘the darkness’ and ‘the land of forgetfulness’ (Ps.88:12), of which the psalms speak. Jesus called this place, or rather this condition of the soul after death, ‘the outer darkness’ (Matt.22:13) and ‘the Hell of fire’ (Matt.5:22).

One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its ‘pedagogy of fear’ and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). ‘...Christ, naturally, must be in the center, but a different Christ more in keeping with the revelation that we have of Him: Christ immensely powerful with the power of unassuming love’. If God is love, He must be full of love even at the moment of the Last Judgment, even when He pronounces His sentence and condemns one to death. [27] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"How Full is Hell?" section

I see a section with that title, and I don't understand what it's doing there. I hesitate to just assume it's surely vandalism, but it certainly looks like it. The text following the words has nothing to do with how full or empty hell may be, and even if it did, that wouldn't be a very encyclopedic title for a section. Looks like either a joke or something you would see n a semi-inforal pamphlet answering FAQs about Hell or Christianity. The only scenario I can envision in which that would be an appropriate thing to see on a Wiki page is if there was a book or work of that name, and the paragraph was about that work.

Also, the part about "Protestant views on Hell" seems to suggest that whatever Luther or Calvin thought about it has much to do with what the average Protestant sect thinks about it today. As far as I can tell, it doesn't. It almost seems to imply that these are representative views for Protestantism in general. While Luther and Calvin may have been the Original Protestants, there is a whole gamut of different sects now, many of which have little relation to either of them in terms of Doctrine.

Idumea47b (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Inconclusive biblical references supporting a view

What troubles me is the following section: "In ancient Jewish belief, the dead were consigned to Sheol, a place to which all were sent indiscriminately (cf. Genesis 37:35; Numbers 16:30-33; Psalm 86:13; Ecclesiastes 9:10)"

Neither the Genesis, Numbers, Psalms or Ecclesiastes references suggesting anything about the indiscriminacy of ending up in Sheol. If anything, Psalms 86:13 is actually an argument to the opposite.Samuel-chapkovski (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)