Thread: Hell Rational?

Many religions have dual afterlives: if you've been good you go to heaven, if you've been bad you go to hell. I think there are quite a few things against afterlives existing period, but against hell in particular. I'm curious how anyone who believes in hell can believe in it, given the rational problems it creates.

If you believe in a loving God, how can a loving God create something so sadistic as people suffering forever? How could he allow it to go on existing?

It seems that churches are shifting away from hell, although I could be wrong. When I was a kid I was confirmed in the Anglican church and I remember my dean telling me he didn't believe in hell; he believed everyone was forgiven and went to heaven.

I think you can usually see the root reasons for people's beliefs in their practical, everyday uses. And for most people I've seen, the everyday use of believing in hell is a kind of gloating device, a base way of taking pleasure in knowing one's enemies have the lake of fire in store for them, and if hell is cool at all, something like this but which never ends.

What kind of God would determine good or evil based on whether that person worships him/her/it?

Any God that's like that would be sadistic enough to have eternal suffering.

Our whole society has an obsession with punishment, I see it everywhere. At least the Christian church brings the possibility of reform and redemption into the picture, though has often been one of the main criticisms of them, they were seen as soft and ineffective because of it. It strikes me as some sort of compromise with the temporal forces of control.

What kind of God would hand his child a stone when he/she asks for a pretzel?



"Will you take the three of us to heaven soon?"

I believe the children who witnessed the Fatima visions glimpsed the fires of hell. There may be a few more accounts of children or people witnessing hell. Whether one believes their stories is, of course, another story.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

At least the Christian church brings the possibility of reform and redemption into the picture

However, that 'reform' & 'redemption' is solely based on non-worshippers going to hell, worshippers going to heaven. According to the church, I could be the most decent person in the entire world; but because I'm not subjecting myself to enslaved worship, I'm an abomination deserving of eternal hell.
There's no values of decency in that; and I ask what type of character reform is it when you're threatened in such a way? How can that be true reform (or redemption) of character?

The entire premise of good & evil in religious faith is based on enslaved submission; not of decent conduct. Hell is simply consistent with this ideology. It's not surprising some within the religious community are wanting to move away from the concept of hell; but it's more that people are 'choosing' which parts they want, and playing lip-service to the rest.

As far as I'm concerned hell is a controlling device, used to make people bow to a specific god for fear of eternal damnation. I've talked to a lot of alleged Christians who told me that had trouble believing the things Christianity claims, but that they couldn't renounce their beliefs for fear of burning in hell. In fact, in a lot of debates I've had with Christians, one of their common retorts to my atheistic claims is "What if you're wrong?" To me, that question leaves "and you spend eternity paying for your mistake" unspoken at the end.

My response is usually that if you're worshiping a god simply because you fear his retribution, you're not really worshiping that god at all.

To me, belief in god is a lot like belief in Santa Claus. If you're a good little boy or girl, you'll be rewarded with lots of presents under the Christmas tree. But if you misbehave, you burn in hell for all eternity.

As to the question of hell being rational, the answer is of course not. Religions are characterized by faith in something that cannot be proven. Faith is basically the opposite of rational thinking. The gurus tell you to take it on faith that god and heaven and hell are real. They make the claims that simply can't be proven, but if you disagree with their doctrine, they ask you to prove that god does not exist. To that I say this: We (the nonbelievers) are not the ones making fantastical claims and demanding that they be believed, and so the burden of proof does not lie with us.

Originally Posted by Tiamat10

To me, belief in god is a lot like belief in Santa Claus. If you're a good little boy or girl, you'll be rewarded with lots of presents under the Christmas tree. But if you misbehave, you burn in hell for all eternity.

.

A devilish Santa.

There was a movie about Santa Claus coming down the chimney with not toys in his sack but a six-inch blade to carve up some kiddies awaiting their presents. Too bad you didn't think of the idea first.

Originally Posted by caelum

It seems that churches are shifting away from hell, although I could be wrong. When I was a kid I was confirmed in the Anglican church and I remember my dean telling me he didn't believe in hell; he believed everyone was forgiven and went to heaven.

The Anglicans/Episcopalians don't believe in anything but tea and crumpets. Jesus is a big hippie with a beard that drives an ice cream truck.

God - or the first person of the Trinity in Christianity - is spirit and we humans arguably use the societal and familial experience of parentage and hierarchy (police, courts, prisons, the good and bad, the low and high) to understand God. So, we apply human attributes to God. This is not necessarily bad per se. Not to me. Language has it's limitations. This is why every major religion has its tradition of mystics. Those that are mystics try - or do as many of them suggest - experience God in ways that transcend human language.

But you have to kneel down to speak to a child and even the illiterate or those that have only a so much (not very much) formal education. So, it does not matter if most people go to heaven.






If no hell exists, if nothing exists after death, the only thing personally stopping me from becoming John Dillinger are earthly punishments and sufferings - fearing those earthly things. Other then that I'll become John Dillinger and Jesse James. In my mind anything short of that is cowardice. Appeal to man made ethics and or evolutionary roots to empathy and altruism are merely faux and reveal a weakness in the person(s), reveal the person(s) as prey for the stronger predators.

I also don't understand this culture you speak of where the religious assume they are "saved" and their enemies go to hell. I mean... I understand Evangelical Protestants both right and left wing talk of being "saved" and knowing they are going to heaven. This concept is pretty foreign in the Catholic culture I came up in. The reason Catholics go (though few do any more) to confession is because they fear they will go to hell - not others. Catholics also pray for the dead in hopes them being spared the death of hell. That's because Catholics believe in purgatory.

In that sense of hell then hell should be understood in the context of the community of Christians on earth, the sacraments of the Church, God, saints, angels, and the greatest saint of all... the Virgin Mary. And all that along with man being created by God and therefore inclined toward virtue even though inheriting original sin from the first parents (Adam and Eve being fictional characters in a fictional story telling some truth about original sin - or an actual biography of two people if you believe the story literally). This means it takes some effort on the part of a person to get into hell. It's not like "Oops! I made a little mistake."

Your fellow Anglican C.S. Lewis said that the more intelligent the man then the greater responsibility he bears in his sin. Makes sense to me.

Heaven, hell, God, life are all mysteries. If God is not real then hell is all myth I guess. If a just God exists that sets the rules then I guess no amount of human effort to talk hell out of existence matters. I can't talk U.S. prisons out of existence.

And I'm not sure why we put rapists in prison - what we call rape being common among lower animals - if hell doesn't exist. What makes our view of "right" some objective moral truth above the male canine that forcibly mounts a female canine?

Don't want to get life in prison? Don't do things that earn you life in prison. Don't want to be damned to hell after your death? Well... then maybe you shouldn't build a life of serial raping and murdering children or don't worship Satan.

I still pray to the Virgin Mary and a couple badass female saints. So, I don't have to worry more than I need to about Satan. Pretty much that simple. I call in the juice.

The concept of hell as most people see it, when related to Christianity, came for medaeival writers and images rather than the Bible. The Bible mentions Gehenna, which is the place outside Jerusalem where the rubbish was burned, and Hades (or Tartarus), which is a holding place for the dead who wait for judgement. The two come together in Revelation when hell is thrown into the Lake of Fire. It's clear that the Bible speaks of judgement because those whose names are not written in the Book of Life are also thrown into the Lake of Fire. Whether there's conscious existence beyond that point is another topic for debate.

Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

There seems to be a generally accepted view of hell as a place where a God who doesn't like people much just can't wait to toss them. I would take issue with that.

If you're going to talk about the Judeo-Christian view of hell (which seems to be mainly what people are discussing here) it is a place of separation from God. The attributes of God are in sync with what most people want heaven to be like. Peace, freedom, love, fairness, restoration, creativity, light, health, etc. Now don't get all sour at me for discussing Christianity, I didn't say you believed it or that you have to.

Religions in general usually offer a way to get to these good attributes and avoid their opposites.

Again, speaking of Christianity specifically, God is also accepted to be a holy being. The word holy means that sin (lawbreaking, missing the mark) cannot be around him. Not because he lacks love for people who are sinful but because he is who and what he is, anything or any one who is sinful simply is unable to approach without being destroyed. That is why there had to be some kind of reconciliation between God and people, that was the whole reason for Christ. That was all done from God's end, we couldn't do this ourselves.

So, then, about hell.

People can decide whether they want to be 'with God' or 'not with God'. 'Not with God' is separation from God...and all Godly characteristics. So hell would be where people turn away from God, much like walking from the lighted side of a sphere to an unlit side. Without God there would be no Peace, freedom, love, fairness, restoration, creativity, light, health, etc. Instead it might be reasonably assumed to be a place where you would not want to be, a stifling lack of all that is good. If you want God to just leave you alone, that's exactly what hell is.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Our whole society has an obsession with punishment...

I hinted at something along these lines.

Plus, a young Carmelite friar about my age had told me when I was trying to get into the order to become a friar (denied because I was/am a drug addict) that we first learn about God from our experiences with our parents. Meaning our parents - many if not most of ours - not only provide love but sternness and punishment.

Makes sense to me [shrug].

Originally Posted by Foxee

There seems to be a generally accepted view of hell as a place where a God who doesn't like people much just can't wait to toss them. I would take issue with that.

If you're going to talk about the Judeo-Christian view of hell (which seems to be mainly what people are discussing here) it is a place of separation from God. The attributes of God are in sync with what most people want heaven to be like. Peace, freedom, love, fairness, restoration, creativity, light, health, etc. Now don't get all sour at me for discussing Christianity, I didn't say you believed it or that you have to.

Religions in general usually offer a way to get to these good attributes and avoid their opposites.

Again, speaking of Christianity specifically, God is also accepted to be a holy being. The word holy means that sin (lawbreaking, missing the mark) cannot be around him. Not because he lacks love for people who are sinful but because he is who and what he is, anything or any one who is sinful simply is unable to approach without being destroyed. That is why there had to be some kind of reconciliation between God and people, that was the whole reason for Christ. That was all done from God's end, we couldn't do this ourselves.

So, then, about hell.

People can decide whether they want to be 'with God' or 'not with God'. 'Not with God' is separation from God...and all Godly characteristics. So hell would be where people turn away from God, much like walking from the lighted side of a sphere to an unlit side. Without God there would be no Peace, freedom, love, fairness, restoration, creativity, light, health, etc. Instead it might be reasonably assumed to be a place where you would not want to be, a stifling lack of all that is good. If you want God to just leave you alone, that's exactly what hell is.

Pretty nice explanation actually.

Religions is a myth and so is Aliens.
God is a concept and anyhting else is what you make of it.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Our whole society has an obsession with punishment, I see it everywhere.

But I think some societies are better than others. Looking at many third-world countries that still practice barbaric punishments, hand-chopping offs and public executions, they have higher rates of violent crime than countries with more civilized punishments. For reasons like this I don't believe in having the death penalty, because it's like the government sinking to criminals's level.

Originally Posted by Tiamat10

As far as I'm concerned hell is a controlling device

Yeah. This fits with what I was saying about practical, everyday uses of the belief. It's a threat hanging over their heads.

Originally Posted by Writ

If no hell exists, if nothing exists after death, the only thing personally stopping me from becoming John Dillinger are earthly punishments and sufferings

You're probably aware Writ, but this isn't an argument for Hell's existence. And frankly I think you're exaggerating; I doubt you'd transform into a nutcase if you were suddenly convinced there wasn't a Hell. Writ's too cool a cat.

Originally Posted by Baron

Whether there's conscious existence beyond that point is another topic for debate.

That's an interesting take on Hell. Hell as an end of souls.

Originally Posted by Foxee

People can decide whether they want to be 'with God' or 'not with God'. 'Not with God' is separation from God...and all Godly characteristics. So hell would be where people turn away from God, much like walking from the lighted side of a sphere to an unlit side. Without God there would be no Peace, freedom, love, fairness, restoration, creativity, light, health, etc. Instead it might be reasonably assumed to be a place where you would not want to be, a stifling lack of all that is good. If you want God to just leave you alone, that's exactly what hell is.

This idea of Hell sounds more rational than eternal torture, but to me there are still severe logical objections. If Christ forgives everyone, wouldn't there be no Hell (as my dean believes)? What about people with bad psychological problems who literally can't control their sins? What about people born into a different religion, like Buddhism, indoctrinated from birth to believe it is the way and all other religions are false?

Originally Posted by Nacian

Religions is a myth and so is Aliens.
God is a concept and anyhting else is what you make of it.

We're all perfectly within our rights to have our beliefs, but simply declaring them doesn't add much to the debate.

This idea of Hell sounds more rational than eternal torture,

I didn't say that it wasn't eternal torture. You have to give some thought as to what your life would be like if every good thing, every ray of brightness, every trace of ease, and even the pretense of justice were gone. It would be a place of weeping, agony, despair wouldn't it?

but to me there are still severe logical objections. If Christ forgives everyone, wouldn't there be no Hell (as my dean believes)?

According to Christianity, the only way we are able to be reconciled to God, able to approach him without being destroyed, is to accept the atonement of Christ on our behalf. He took that destruction upon himself and that is the basis upon which God then forgives sin. This is counter to what most religions believe (and, really, what a lot of Christians also believe) which is that living a good life will get you into a wonderful afterlife.

What about people with bad psychological problems who literally can't control their sins?

You're talking about 'sins' here where I am talking about 'sin' as in the 'sinful nature'. People cannot live a perfectly sinless life, the human nature is stained with sin. There are different theories as to what causes psychosis, I don't think that God will require more of a person than what they are capable of. That is, I think he judges the heart to the fullest capacity of that individual.

What about people born into a different religion, like Buddhism, indoctrinated from birth to believe it is the way and all other religions are false?

This is where you'll find different answers peppered throughout the Christian world. From what I've read and considered, I have to repeat myself a little here. God is good, just, and loving. He doesn't desire that anyone would perish. If someone has never even heard of the concept of Christ and hasn't had the chance to accept or deny it, God has also given a conscience. So a person who has rejected the reconciliation that God has offered would be judged more harshly than someone who has never heard of it.

It doesn't do any good to say that God will judge righteously and then expect that he won't consider someone's abilities. That wouldn't be logical.