why hell?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, so I'm one of the heads of my uni's Freethought organization (gosh i wish it were a secular humanist group but oh well), and I can't get a word in edgewise unless I have a perfectly pre-thought-out argument. (At LU, we put the "argue" in "casual academic discussion.") So I'm gonna try running things by you guys to get some feedback.

My personal problem with organized religion seems to boil down to the concept of a dual afterlife. Most religions incorporate this idea in some way or another, whether it be heaven/hell or reincarnation. Either you float around in the clouds (or move up the karmic food chain) or you get sent to burn forever (or wander around as a stinkbug).

I generally use Christianity as an example, simply because it is the religion I am most familiar with. I in no way wish to "pick on" Christianity, it just often helps me to illustrate my point the most clearly.

How is the concept of hell christian? The willingness to believe in hell indicates a desire to believe in its existence. The willingness to believe that certain people deserve to go there indicates a desire to believe that certain people should go there. Christianity professes itself to be a religion of love. How do christian ethics support the desire for someone to burn FOR ALL ETERNITY?

(i'll end it there...there's so much more, but this post should probably end at some point...^.^)

If you´re trying to make Christianity logically coherent, you might as well stop right now and save yourself the aggravation.

From what I gather from Christianity, Hell is a creation of a soul's distance from God. Because God is all good and perfect, closeness to him is ultimately this happy peaceful heaven. The issue ends up being that people are too imperfect to be accepted by God, and if one does not go through the whole Christian religious activity then one does not get saved by the sacrifice of Jesus the savior and ultimately is left distant from God, and thus goes to hell. Hell is where man would go if God did not intervene because of original sin, the defiance of God and spiritual death found in the first book of the old testament. Christian religious activity is necessary as well as according to Christian ideas one only can be saved through the sacrifice of the savior if they have faith in that savior and thus allow themselves to be saved. I would say that the Christian insistence on Hell is not so indicative of evil thoughts so much as the belief in an evil world as the Christian theology concerns itself largely with the idea that we all have evil inside of us, and that we reside in an evil world and must be saved from that. There is some level of logical coherency involved with this, but one would have to study the religion more in depth to get what this is. That is not to deny that there are theological issues within the faith.

Yeah, I have been reading up on Christian theology recently as I have been somewhat curious on what they did believe. Hopefully this helps you understand the faith a little better.

That isn't very polite. Nor is it helpful. Nor is it indeed accurate.

OP: According to the Bible... hell was originally meant as a place of banishment from God's presence, for those angels of God that rebelled against him in the beginning. Since we, as fallen humans, do not, and cannot by our own accord, live up to God's standards of holiness - and indeed often choose willingly to go against them - we inadvertently get lumped in with the rest of the rebels. The sacrifice of Jesus was given to give us an "out", a sort of loophole in God's law if we accepted it. We choose to remain where we are, and end up with the rebels, or choose God's provision, and get a reprieve and pardon.

ack, sorry, confusion.

my question wasn't whether or not christian theology supported the concept of hell...it clearly does. I was asking whether the concept of hell was supported by christian ethics.

To make the question more accessible...how do christians, who's religion is based on a concept of love, support a religion that proposes that a good number of their friends (and/or family) be sent to hell?

(Once again, my thought process applies to any religion with a dual conception of an afterlife...not meaning to pick on christianity...)

hell works better than the previous standard which was the jewish "eternal death". you actually hear the term still used in some christian literature though they actually mean hell instead.


eternal death simply meant what the atheists already believe...you die and you're dead...that's it. no afterlife, no reward, no punishment....just non-existance.



christianity being the flamboyant one that it is, decided to add a new mythical figure to the fray and created the demon satan from jesus' use of the word when he was being tempted by what the jews would refer to as ha-satan....an angel of god who tests men's faith as was done with the story of job. this figure was turned into an angel sent to exile for daring questioning god's plan with jesus at the beginning of time. that figure then turned into the leader of hell...the dead underworld where souls went who didn't believe in god. ironically, this was stolen from the romans who stole it from the greeks...the idea of an underworld where the dead go who are unworthy of being with the upper gods.


so basically christianity made up hell and stole at least some of the idea from the romans.

the only place where we end up is in the ground, burnt, or frozen. Or in the case of some christians: in the belly of a lion, or on the shelf of a headhunters souvenier stand.

What do you mean works better? When people are willing to believe that people they are about are going to burn forever and ever and ever...i would consider that serious downtrend...It creates a separationist Us v Them attitude that is often used to justify horrendous behavior...so as not to delve into steriotypes, I'll give a personal example...when I was 9, a bunch of kids beat me up because I was Jewish and therefore "going to hell." When a concept gives kids a justification (however irrational) for cruelty...how is that better?

Your personal issues aside, it works much better as a marketing ploy in getting people to convert by fear. Fear, obligation and guilt being the best ways to control people. After all, this is all about power, control, and money to the ones who decide how to market their religion. I hope this answers your question concerning the matter.

ok, another tack...

If you do believe in heaven/hell/reincarnation, why.

How do Christian ethics HAVE TO support hell? Hell is recognized as one of those things that non-believers choose by not believing in Christ, it is the natural condition of sin in their minds. It is not that God sends these people to hell, it is that they were going to hell and the Christians were saved and purified by his grace, therefore Jesus is the savior not the destroyer. Christians support a religion that they view as correct, and for all of those who would suffer hell, the Christian response is to try to save them. They don't believe that by not believing in Christianity that they can stop their fellow man from going to hell. This is not a matter of wanting the world to suffer as you try to argue, this is a matter of seeing the world as inherently evil and that God is needed to save us from this evil. The desire is not to see others suffer, otherwise there would be no mission trips or anything of that nature, the tendency is to see humans as flawed and filled with evil that they must be saved from.

The thought process is not really that effective, it doesn't fit well with Christianity, and most of the other religions with heaven and hell are somewhat theologically related to Christianity. In fact, whenever you mention the stark heaven-hell divide you speak of a Judeo-Christian religion in all likelihood unless you can mention a non-related, popular religion with that same tendency.

A fair summary of Christian doctrine. Of course the logical corollary would appear to be that, not only have all "sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," but all are deserving of judgement; carried through consistently, of Hell (otherwise why the Crucifixion, or why even, insulting though it may be to compare them, all the offerings for sin in Old Testament times?). There is also a concept of God's radical holiness, and of a gulf between God and humanity created by sin. From this stance, that anyone is saved at all is perceived as merciful and gracious, however unpalatable the doctrine. I do not think the argument can be left there though. While the prophet Ezekiel declares that God has no pleasure that the wicked should perish and be lost (chapter 18; sorry if I am paraphrasing a little; incidentally the chapter has a lengthy discussion of the nature of divine justice and mercy in the event of repentance) many questions remain. That "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," (reference eludes me) sounds monstrously arbitrary is difficult to deny, likewise that justice appears to be violated if people of equivalent degrees of evil are given differential treatment.

Studying the book of Isaiah where mercy and judgement appear alongside each other (I have referred to this in other posts and apologise if I am labouring the point) some glimpses of a means of reconciling God's mercy and justice may be seen; this does not always answer all questions and with Hell, I wonder if a resolution can be achieved. There is a passionate concern for what might be described as social justice in Isaiah (and elsewhere in the prophets, or for that matter in the Torah of the first five books, though some things seem ambivalent) alongside a concern for religious fidelity, both part of the Covenant. In the light of the oppression and injustice in Judah and Israel (they had separated centuries earlier, and the northern kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians in Isaiah's lifetime) failure to intervene, even if using other oppressors such as the Assyrians and Babylonians (though serious issues about human responsibility and free will are raised here; chapter 10 discusses the dual nature of the cause of Assyrian aggession) would not be mercy on God's part but callous apathy. And yet the same compassion that burns with indignation for the victims of evil also leads to mercy upon those who repent.

However, with a concept of eternal punishment, answers may not come quite so glibly. In the Old Testament, passages referring to a concept of Hell in those terms are in point of fact rare (I think Daniel 12, with resurrection to everlasting glory and everlasting shame may be one). Sheol in Hebrew, unlike later Gehenna (in any case connected with the valley of Gehinom) is not a place of active punishment, but rather a abode for the dead generally characterised by a dreary half-life
(compare the difference between Greek Hades, or specificallly the Plain of Asphodel, and the torments of Tartaros). Concepts of resurrection to eternal life became an increasingly emphasised point given the suffering of God's people in their earthly life. An exact correlation between actions and consequences for oneself, in line with the Deuteronomic concept of the covenant, was certainly not always readily apparent (hence Job).

Contrary to what some may fondly imagine about the difference between the Old and New Testament, much memorable description of the infernal world is actually New Testament (wailing and gnashing of teeth, lakes of fire, wailing and gnashing of teeth, the worm not dying and the flame not being quenched - possibly last Isaianic, but not so explicitly in a description of Hell). One possible solution is one actually put forward in Anne Bronte's (less famous than sisters Charlotte and Emily) "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" where the heroine argues to her sternly evangelical aunt (nevertheless presented in a fairly positive; light her advice to Helen about Arthur Huntington was after all right) that, while she is not fluent in Greek, she is aware that the Greek word in the New Testament frequently translated "eternal" literally conveys the sense of "for ages" (incidentally, though not given in the book it is ει̉ς αι̉ώνας των αι̉ώνων, "into ages of ages" eternity may be a possible reading of the relevant word; it's the source of English eon, also meaning age) and makes an interesting argument from the reference in the parable of the unmerciful steward to, "until the last penny (or asterion, or whatever) is paid."

With regard to the opening post, I do not know that all Christians are exactly willing to believe this doctrine of Hell.

I hope this dialogue may continue.

Hell is just a fear tactic to get people to want to obey and follow god (or the church),
it also gives people a feeling that those who have evil'ed them and others
will be punished and that they will somehow get or be revenged,
that there will be justice.

Actually you are not entirely accurate. The Greek concept of Hades (the place) was a generic destination of the dead; Tartaros does contain the concept of active punishment; Hades is not altogether dissimilar to Hebrew Sheol. A range of opinions

Certainly Ha Satan "The Adversary, the Enemy, the Accuser" appears in Job, effectively as a combined prosecutor in the Heavenly Court and agent provocateur on earth. The concept of fallen angels, while perhaps dubious as an exegesis or Midrash of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, which after all refer to human rulers, the King of Babylon and the Prince of Tyre respectively, albeit in language lending itself to the concept, appears in the pseudepigraphical (pseudepigrapha or "false writings are those not making it into any canon, not even as Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical works) books of Enoch contain the account. The enigmatic reference in Genesis 6 to "the sons of God beholding the daughters of men, etc." which appears to have provided some of the inspiration to the books of Enoch (as the Pseudepigrapha have not been declared canonical or binding on believers by any Jewish or Christian council I am not sure that any Church could consistently base the doctrine on them, and the canonical references in Genesis, Isaiah and Ezekiel have issues of interpretation, but it does rather deflate claims that the concept was invented at this late stage, though certainly the idea was developed in the Christian literature). Note the Pharisees refer to Be'elzebub/Beelzeboul as prince of demons and the alleged source of Jesus' power to cast out demons; the "Would Satan outcast Satan?" reply would not make much sense if it was a reference to something completely unfamiliar to His listeners. Some scholars may wish to allege Persian influence (Ahriman/Angra Mainyu) as with (arguably) the doctrine of resurrection, a point at issue between the Pharisees and the Saducees (the latter denied it).

Hades (the god now, not the place) does not really resemble the Christian concept of Satan; he just rules over the dead, his only real crime was abducting Persephone; believe me, by Zeus', Poseidon's and Apollo's, or even Hermes' or Pan's standards this was really not that evil by the measure of male Olympians - though I am rather partial to Hephaistos (of females Aphrodite is hardly better, Hera while like Hades and unlike her husband Zeus faithful, was vindictive; while the jealousy was understandable, her victims were actually effectively rape victims of Zeus' and deserving of compassion rather than rage; virginal Athene and Artemis similarly vindictive). Sorry about the diversion into Greek myth; basically I do not think Hades is an effective analog of Satan; closer is the feminine figure Ate, a spirit associated with moral blindness and infatuation in gods and mortals.

I'm not trying to argue that people want the world to suffer...in fact I think the opposite. My curiousity on the subject is an attempt to reconcile two notions that in my mind are conflicting. I recognize that many people are able to reconcile them...which is why I posed the question...I like to know various reasons people have behind their belief systems (of any type). So thanks for your explanation^.^

And yes, when I say Heaven/Hell, that is in reference to abrahamic religions. When I say dual, I am referring to positive/negative alternatives within the afterlife concept. I know, my definations aren't terribly clear...this is a thought-process in progress.

Because love without justice is just sap.