Talk:Limbo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor Edit[edit]

Changed: in other words, their fate cannot be determined

Added: by any but God.

Completed: in other words, their fate cannot be determined by any but God.

Origins of Limbo[edit]

The article needs info on the origins of the term limbo. Alan Liefting 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The links to the Times, etc seem to imply that limbo is to be rejected altogether as a "theological hypothesis" by the Vatican, however they and (seemingly) the Vatican officials they cite make - according to this article - the mistake of assigning limbo as a place from which those resident in it are barred from heaven.

What is to be the Vatican position on limbo as a temporary state in which "their fate cannot be determined by any but God"?

I think - providing this is to be the properly understood meaning of limbo - it is a reasonable theological position and the Vatican need not abandon limbo. 62.249.242.232 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo today[edit]

"Limbo has now officially been denounced by the Catholic church." Is there a source for this? 172.215.141.223 10:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Limbo: Also a dance' section should be removed. Limbo dancing is listed in the Limbo disambiguation page.

Limbo is no longer part of Church 'doctrine'. Would someone please care to incorporate this into the article using this source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc? Thanks. Knight45 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo was never really part of Church doctrine. It was a theory, widely accepted at times not accepted at others, that is now in a period of non-acceptance. It is criticized, but not condemned per se.--T. Anthony 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbaptized babies?[edit]

Is it still the churches posistion that unbaptized babies go to limbo? I'm not sure it is and there is no source. More importantly, as a Roman Catholic I was taught about purgutory, not limbo, and there is a seperate article for purgutory-prehaps this one should be deleted as it doesn't add anything new.

It never was the church's position that unbaptized babies go to Limbo. It was theological speculation by Catholics on a matter that had not been doctrinally defined. Even if it were definitively defined that there is no such place, the article on Limbo would be valid because it describes something that would then be noteworthy historically. Goldfritha 23:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5412166.stm - Vatican to review "Limbo". From an atheist point of view this whole thing is crazy! Richard W.M. Jones 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Limbo was a part of Church doctrine. The old Catechism describes Christ's descent into hell from the creed as his "soul descending into Limbo" which is defined as "the place where the souls of the just who died before Christ were detained, and were waiting for the time of their redemption. The Vatican's revision of this doctrine is a serious issue that needs to be introduced in the article as "...in the Roman Catholic Church, Limbo was..." (not is) if Catholic, especially Roman Catholic doctrine is to be seen as an introducing issue. 74.61.16.143 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Christopher Fossedal[reply]
That's the limbo of the Fathers. --217.189.246.166 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the identification of "Christ's descent into limbo" with the Limbo of the Patriarch's (Fathers) also: "Limbo was a part of Church doctrine. The old Catechism describes ..." is predicated on the common but false notion the everything stated in the current or any other catechism is "church doctrine". No catechism has that much authority, though I often see them quoted as though they do. To find evidence that Limbo was Church doctrine you need a specific dogmatic definition from a Church Council or Pope. While you're looking, bare in mind that in their entirety the Documents issued by Vatican II contain not a one such definition on any subject. They are rare. The current Catechism of the Universal Church is nigh three inches thick, I imagine a statement of all the official doctrines of the church would be closer to pamphlet size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A catechism is Church doctrine, though in general not with the degree of article of faith. A consistent teaching at only catechism level can even without any further magisterial action reach the degree of article of faith, if it's consistently enough taught by virtually the whole episcopal collegium including its head. That does of course not apply to the Limbo of the Infants, which originated in speculation, but apparently did enter ordinary teaching, however with no intention of the publishing authorities of dogmatising it. However, I think even with the new decision of the Theological Commission, the theory of the Limbo of the Infants still is the unchallenged hypothesis concerning the situation of those who, after death, remain in original sin but no other - that is, unbaptized infants if the Lord, blessed be His holy Name, doesn't take their sin away by some other way. So, the question is properly speaking not whether there is a Limbo of the Infants (at least as a theoretical situation, there is), but whether there is someone in it. --77.4.52.38 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article[edit]

Catholicism is not the only religion that believes in limbo. The Unification Church also has a concept of limbo. And while I'm not a theology expert, I daresay other faiths have an identical or similar concept.

  • the idea that a person's status in the afterlife can change based on what earthly people do (or other factors or events).
  • the idea of "returning to life" to conduct unfinished business, popularized in movies and TV
  • reports of people having a near-death experience and encountering a loving being (or white light) and
    1. giving a review of your life
    2. telling you that you've been given a second chance

It should go without saying that I'm not saying Wikipedia should endorse any of these beliefs. All I'm asking is that we study what published sources have said about these beliefs; and then report in our articles what various people believe. Starting of course with the most prominent or popular beliefs.

(By the way, one of the fears that some people have about religion or God or death is the prospect of eternal damnation. It may come as a surprise to some readers that not all religions teach a permanent, irredeemable damnation. Even Christianity as not uniformly 'fundamentalist' in the Fred Phelps sense.) --Uncle Ed 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement of sections[edit]

I took the liberty of putting the "Limbo today" section earlier, to make a clear partition between Limbo in Catholicism and Limbo beyond Catholicism. Also, the former "Abolition of Limbo" section should be part of "Limbo today" in my judgment. Pepper2000 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

The statement "...many eminent theologians have argued that a merciful and just God would not condemn infants to the torments of hell" is completely unsubstanciated. It should be excised from the article. Some lay folks have made the argument, but the retort is always that man does not merit heaven. St. Thomas Aquinas and many of the fathers have stated as much. Trent is unambigious in stating that regeneration (baptism) is required for salvation (heaven.)

Tell it to the Pope. PiCo

Limbo in limbo[edit]

Just a head's up, limbo's in limbo [1] Nil Einne 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

I swear to God I remember that Limbo was struck from the doctrine in 2006, not 2005. Am I wrong? Lord of Light 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I just checked, it was. So I'll change that. Lord of Light 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

off topic, but you might check first and swear then, or better, don't swear at all as there is obviously no need to do so and you could have changed the text even without assuring the rest by oath that what you did is fine. No offense, just as the article discusses a somewhat biblical matter. --77.4.66.158 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Theological Commission's new document on limbo of children[edit]

(In preparation for discussion on the new document by the ITC)

I changed the reference to the date of the document. It was incorrectly shown as April 20, 1950. I changed to 2007.130.76.64.14 20:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this document have a name, and where may I find it? I would like to read it, thank you - Greg - 9:35PM - 22 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.84.20.21 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Church doctrine[edit]

This article has numerous incorrect claims about Cathoic Church teaching on limbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.23.83 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If limbo is not a part of church doctrine, what is? Does this current event belong in the introduction? Hyacinth 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a traditionnal theological concept, that indeed has been taught, but never has been an article of faith. My catholic encyclopedia (with nihil obstat and imprimatur) defines it as bad answer to a question taken from the wrong side. Introduction seems a good place IMHO to say it is not doctrine, since this point is important and seems not to be obviously accepted. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph news briefs tend to oversimplify the situation.[2] [3] The CNS article better explains what happened. Limbo is a theological speculation; the ITC document explains that there are good reasons for a contrary speculation. Because it's a speculation and not doctrine, it's an issue of "hope" rather than of "faith". The Pope authorized publication and appears to support this as a private theologian, but it is not yet the final word on the subject. Gimmetrow 18:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be a "final word" on this subject, being said that it is not a matter of faith? this is final enough. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been calls with the Church to get a doctrinal statement on this matter. There may yet be a final word. Jonathan Tweet 03:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is stated that Limbo is between Heaven and Hell. While this represents the popular view, it does not represent what the Church has taught. The Council of Carthage (418), approved by Pope St. Zozimus, explicitly condemned this idea: "Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism "unto the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: "Through one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned" [cf. Rom. 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration." Moreover, Pope Pius VI (1717) condemns those who deny limbo, and describes limbo as being A PART OF HELL: "The doctrine which rejects (explodit) as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell (locum illum inferorum) — usually called by the faithful “Children’s Limbo” — in which the soul of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; and this taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one can thereby necessarily postulate a middle state or place involving neither guilt nor penalty between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as Pelagians have invented (fabulabantur) — [this doctrine is] false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.” (Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, The Condemned Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, Denzinger, #1526). So it is a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on limbo to say it is between heaven and hell.--187.133.25.174 (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I learned a lot from this balanced, well-thought-out article by a Catholic priest: http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html --187.133.25.174 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should make you care about the topic. A certain editor, who is also keen to suppress information on original sin and purgatory, recently hacked the lead down to a pair of definitions. I restored the lead.

I agree with Lima that we can reduce coverage of the recent declaration that limbo might be unnecessary after all. It gets a ton of play in the lead, and it doesn't rate that much space there. I disagree that we should delete all reference to this new and exciting development from the lead. Jonathan Tweet 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this sentence to its original form; The term reflects[citation needed] the belief of some that the patriarchs of the Old Testament were kept here (a place, not a state) until Jesus descended to limbo after his crucifixion and saved them, as if his death itself were insufficient and the Harrowing of Hell, as pictured, were a necessary factual additional action, and not rather a way of describing the effect of Christ's death. Try reading this sentence aloud and its issues are evident. I believe that the editor was trying to indicate that most modern Catholics don't believe in the harrowing of hell in the same literal sense that the medievals understood. So now the sentence says: "The term reflects[citation needed] the medieval belief that the patriarchs of the Old Testament were kept here until Jesus descended to limbo after his crucifixion and saved them (see Harrowing of hell)." Jonathan Tweet 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lima, could you please explain what facts you want supported in these lines? "The term reflects[citation needed] the medieval belief that the patriarchs of the Old Testament were kept here until Jesus descended to limbo after his crucifixion and saved them (see Harrowing of hell).[citation needed] The existence of this limbo is dogmatically defined by the Church.[citation needed]" Are you challenging the verb "reflects"? Would you prefer some other verb, such as "relates to"? What's in question here? As for the second tag, you want a citation that Jesus went to limbo when he went to "hell"? As for that last line, here I might just be plain wrong. Limbo is in the Roman Catechism, which explains doctrine but isn't itself doctrinal. On that topic, I'd be curious to know whether there is any debate within the RCC regarding Limbo of the Fathers. For baby limbo, there are to alternative places that the unbaptized babies could go (hell or heaven). For the fathers of the OT, there sort of needs to be a third place (that is, spiritual condition). Jonathan Tweet 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical?[edit]

Does hypothetical actually have a meaning when talking about theology? The use of the work in this article seemed strange to me. Shouldn't it be replaced with 'non-canonical' or something of the sort? Ashmoo (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a particular theology (here, Roman Catholic theology) some elements are accepted as facts, such as the Incarnation (Christianity), others are looked on as hypotheses, proposals that may explain something, but about which, within that particular theology, there is not certainty. Lima (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article referred to limbo as a hypothetical state. I've changed that. Limbo is a hypothesis about a person's state, yes, but the hypothesis does not claim that the person in limbo is in a hypothetical state or say anything about the person being in some way hypothetical. DeniseMToronto (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limbus Fatuorum[edit]

Limbus fatuorum is a limbo for the mentally ill or disabled who are not responsible for their sins. It can be translated as "fools' paradise" or literally as "lunatic fringe". I thought I'd add some mention of this to the article, but the article is so tightly constructed that there seems to be no room for it. References can be found by googling "Limbus fatuorum". Rwflammang (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or Paradise?[edit]

Paradise is a term (and actually a more formal term) for Heaven, not a part of Limbo. Will there be weeping or gnashing of teeth if I remove the phrase "or Paradise" from the part about the Limbo of the Fathers? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that some user put this in because of "This day you will be with me in paradise" said to the Good Thief before the resurrection of Jesus. I think it likely that some writers have interpreted that phrase as supporting the idea of "paradise" as distinct from heaven in the full sense. But until a reliable source is cited to support the insertion, I think it should be removed as no more than an illegitimate synthesis. The same holds for the equation of the Limbo of the Fathers with the "bosom of Abraham". I will remove both, so as to motivate any editor who wants them back in to find a reliable source that supports the identification of the concepts. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dante distinguishes the Paradise itself from the earthly paradise where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall, and which, according to what is his, of course, fiction, has been placed on the top of Purgatory. I don't know if that helps... As to my own view, the word "Paradise" may only for about 37 hours in history be used to refer to the Realm of the Dead, namely when it enjoyed the presence of the Word Incarnate. Abraham's bosom means indeed the Limbo, but is somewhat inaccurate after Abraham himself has left it, which common belief holds to have taken place immediately following Christ's Resurrection. --84.154.112.33 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Problematic romancatholicism.org cite[edit]

"however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[5]"

This is true as far as it goes; but the context is specifically the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and while I'm sure some of the ~1.2 billion Catholics in the world do believe this, the site linked to is NOT (despite its misleading name of romancatholicism.org) in fact a (Roman) Catholic website but a sedevacantist one. I quote from http://www.romancatholicism.org/sedevacantism-reconsidered.htm:

"Therefore Ratzinger is no pope but an antipope. The faithful are to “withdraw obedience” from him and to “avoid” him as a “heresiarch”. ... He was never pope. Ab initio! ... John Paul II was also a heretic before his election, signing the documents of Vatican II. He too was an antipope and all of his acts, including his sacrilegious Canon Law, are null and void."

This is NOT a Catholic website, despite the misleading name! If we want to present this as a Catholic opinion, we should find a Catholic site.

(And this is entirely aside from the rather problematic scholarship on that site in general; e.g. citing Origen (whose suggestion that even demons would some day be saved and restored to Heaven was condemned by an ecumenical council) in support of the idea that most people will go to hell.) 128.194.250.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

True is that the limbo is properly speaking a part of hell; those in Limbo are not saved nor properly in an intermediate state between salvation and damnation which is impossible, but damned (damned = forbidden to partake of Seeing God Face to Face), see S. th. App II 2 where St. Thomas judges even probable the opinion that purgatory is a part of hell, though purgatory of course is not part of the hell of the damned. The notion of "intermediate" comes from the fact that they are not punished, and probably even succored by God's infinite Goodness with all natural joy possible (though, and that's the point, no supernatural joy). The opinion that "all the unbaptized are damned" is first of all simplifying, since literally it would exclude St. Abraham, St. Isaac, St. Jacob, all the prophets and St. Dismas, all of whom were canonized by Our Lord himself and all of whom were not baptized, unless St. Dismas unlikelily was baptized by Christ's disciples and this baptims was a proper Christian baptism and not only one of repentance (the latter is an open question). The opinion that Our Lord did not die for the unbelievers contradicts Holy Scripture, and though of course redemption by Our Lord and the potentially redeemed person's allowing this same redemption to take effect are different things, it is highly unlikely that Our Lord died for all the whole masses of unbelievers and gives them the necessary graces and then not even one of them would not resist them. Baptism of blood and at least strict Baptism of desire is Church doctrine; St. Thomas Aquinas, not only Dante, has taken for granted that Emperor Trajan is saved; to deny even the possibility of God to do so is an attack on His Omnipotence as well as Goodness. St. Thomas Aquinas even teaches that every adult unbaptized and, before Baptism, uncircumscised person decides for the direction towards good and towards evil, being the very first decision to do after gaining the use of reason, and that those who decide for good gain sanctifying grace.--93.133.213.147 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with you -- I was quoting the site, that's not MY opinion!
I don't think the use of the term 'damned' to apply to those in limbo is the normal use of the word though; Aquinas distinguishes between 'the hell of the lost' (which is our article's 'hell of the damned') and limbo. (Or, rather, limbos; the limbo of the Fathers (now empty/nonexistent after the Harrowing of Hell) is clearly distinguished from the limbo of unbaptized children.) 165.91.166.128 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Artemis Fowl" Bullet[edit]

The "Artemis Fowl" bullet point under "Literature" is nearly incomprehensible. I'd fix it myself, but I haven't read the books and can't understand what the paragraph is driving at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.106.162 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be gone from the article now but I have read the books and in Artemis Fowl And The Lost Colony Limbo is the place where demons live having been sent there after they lost a war on Earth. 86.45.9.91 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas.[edit]

The following citation from Thomas' Summa needs to be included:

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

As the above text makes clear, Saint Thomas consider it possible for an infant to be saved without sacramental Baptism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.252.105 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations from the Middle Ages.[edit]

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a 12th-century theologian and a Doctor of the Church, wrote to a couple who had suffered a miscarriage:

"Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God."

Jean Gerson, a prominent theologian, stated at the Council of Constance:

"women great with child, and their husbands, to use their prayers for their infant that is not yet born, that (if it be to die before it come to the grace of baptism with water) the Lord Jesus would vouchsafe to sanctify it beforehand with the baptism of his holy Spirit. Nay, who would not devoutly hope, that he will not despise the prayer of his humble servants that trust in him? This consideration is useful to raise devotion in the parents, and to ease their trouble of mind, if the child die without baptism; forasmuch as all hope is not taken away. But yet there is, I confess, no certainty exists without a revelation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.252.105 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic controversy[edit]

I was merely trying to express an issue that exists. Objectively the issue should be described. I tried not to add my own biases, and continued editing in that regard. Any edits to the section should merely help me stay objective- not to remove a section that explains an objectively valid issue. I stand open to style corrections.

This is similar to the controversy described on the page, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.47.131 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the above from my own Talk page, so that it can be discussed, as it were, publicly.
The problem with what you have written is the lack of citations of reliable sources in its support. Wikipedia accepts only what is already published in reliable sources, not original research by its users. Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. To help you, I have reworded your personal opening claim that there is a teaching or interpretation by the Church on the matter. The preceding text in the article cites no official teaching of the Church on the existence or non-existence of a limbo of infants, but only views of theologians, ending with a study by a commission of theologians that declares the question open. The most we can say is that some people say there is a Church teaching on the matter - if, of course, you are right in claiming that there are people who say that. Now it is up to you to present reliable sources that show that there are in fact people who say that. It is not enough for you yourself to say it. That would be unsourced original research. Esoglou (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Citation[edit]

Hello guys, should the citation used for the paragraph about limbo in islam be changed as it cites a Primary source and doesn’t actually provide the information in the primary source? It should be changed to a secondary source where the information is taken from. Does anyone have suggestions on what secondary source is appropriate here ? Thinktank9238327 (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

The so-called "Popular references" section has been deleted as containing nothing but original research despite templates pointing this out dating from 2017. It should not be reinstated without discussion here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 16:19–16:26[edit]

This passage is open to interpretation, and should come with a citation where it is placed under 'Christianity' in the article. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Limbo&oldid=1208181767"