The doctrine of Hell is reprehensible and both Christianity and Islam, the two largest religions in the world, teach this doctrine. The Gospel of Matthew describes Hell as a place of fire and darkness where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. According to the Qur’an, it is a place of “scorching wind and scalding water” and, in agreement with Matthew, “blazing” fire. In both religious traditions Hell is created by God (Yahweh/Allah) to house the souls of the unholy for the purpose of torture and torment.
In Islam the fate of every soul was foreknown by Allah before the creation of the universe, and nothing has or will ever happen outside his divine will, thus all damned souls are so damned within and by the will of Allah. The omniscience of God in Christian orthodoxy denotes a near identical, fatalistic scenario. Despite the feeble and amusing attempts of Christian apologetics, divine omniscience would necessitate God’s foreknowledge of every possible potentiality. Therefore, unless God is viewed as something less than all knowing, everyone that is damned to agony in Hell is done so by and/or within his will. And if humanity is innately unholy we all are innately damned.
For self-identified holy Christians and Muslims the reward of their holiness is not only the joys of Heaven but also escape from the fires of Hell. In this sense holiness is less of a virtue and more of a guarantee. Many times I’ve heard from religious adherents that the substance of religion is service to God, but I would submit that a much more potent motivation is self-preservation. To be unholy is to be destined for Hell. To be holy is to be pleasing to God. To escape Hell one must be pleasing to God, one must be holy. Serving God would only be a pure motivation if it was free from retribution. When an all powerful deity asks his creation to serve him or face the consequences, the creation’s motivation is the fear of those consequences.
Placing the burden of eternal consequences on the actions of other human beings is an act of hatred. We’ve all heard the adage “love the sinner, hate the sin”, but if mankind is innately sinful and unholy then to hate sin is to hate mankind’s natural state. For a Christian or Muslim to claim holiness they juxtapose themselves to the unholy, the unbelievers, and often to each other. Hell was created so religious belief could be rewarded and disbelief could be punished, and human beings became disposable objects in a grand scheme to justify faith. Degrading the value of humanity in the service of religion is an act of hatred.
The doctrine of Hell is reprehensible and both Christianity and Islam teach this doctrine. How can any person of faith, let alone thousands upon thousands of Christians and Muslims, adhere to this doctrine and consider themselves humane? How can a doctrine that so degrades the human condition possibly be justified?
Thanks for the input. I suppose I’m not sure how this directly relates to my arguments. Do you feel this sort of theology justifies the proselytization of the doctrine of Hell in Islam? Do you believe the doctrine of Hell can be justified in any religion?
The English word “Hell” carries with it visions of unending torment. The Old Testament word is “Sheol” which is much more akin to Greek “Hades”–a place of death. A place of non-existence. A place where there is no life. The New Testament word “Gehenna” is actually the trash dump outside Jerusalem where the trash was burned. When Jesus spoke of Gehenna, he was not speaking of a place of immortal existence apart from God. He was speaking of life–on earth–lived apart from God. That life is like the burning trash dump outside Jerusalem. That is, Jesus is talking about Gehenna in this way if we assume that he held a first Century Jewish worldview (which he did, being a first century Jew). All people die and enter “Sheol”–a place of no life. Those who die in Christ end up resurrected at the Last Day. It is an erroneous holdover from Greek philosophy that the soul is immortal and will live forever somewhere. The ancient Hebrew understanding is that a person–or a soul, as it were–is spirit and flesh together. This is why the resurrection is important. Without bodies, there is no life. In addition to this, it is my personal belief that even those who die apart from Christ will be resurrected as well, following such scriptures as Colossians 1 and Revelation 21. The following link is a good place to begin looking at my reasons for these beliefs, if you are so inclined.
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-i-am-universalist-summing-up-and.html
So, yeah, I basically agree. Hell is reprehensible. It knows nothing of my God.
On a wholly personal level I can respect your beliefs and understand your reasoning from a theological standpoint. But of course you are coming from the minority position, especially when it comes to universalism, and most fundamental, moderate, and even liberal Christians would disagree with you. At one point I was a Christian universalist and a major influence that led me to that belief was my repulsion towards the doctrine of Hell. My general anger and my arguments here are primarily directed at the vast majority of Christians and Muslims who take a literalist approach to scripture (often misinterpreting the text or missing the cultural context) and utilize it as a weapon against unbelief.
Good to hear from you, Greg.
Greg,
I’m interested to know how you react to biblical scholars who include the “modern” concept of hell as a part of their doctrine. Are they mistaken in their interpretation? Are they missing the cultural context altogether? Surely there is a reason why Christian universalists like yourself are in the minority among believers. I know you can interpret a way out of each and every Christian doctrine you find unpleasant, but doesn’t the very plasticity of Christian interpretation of scripture suggest its human origins?
That being said, the fact that this post is directed at the prevailing sentiments concerning hell among most believers today can’t be restated enough. We should not be alarmed at anyone’s benign dream of Christianity, but rather at the malicious and dangerous faith it is as practiced and taught by the faithful majority.
Sam,
You’re right. Hell is a repugnant idea that, when used to war against unbelief, is a disgrace to my faith. And, from a Christian standpoint, I would say that scare tactics don’t work. And, in any case, any Christian whose goal is to sell people eternal fire insurance needs to rethink things.
Zach,
I would say that such scholars are bound by belief systems which define Hell as eternal conscious torment, and therefore read the Bible that way. I would say, at least, they are mistaken about cultural and religious context and, more than that, they tend to impose their own beliefs onto scripture.
It is not merely that the doctrine of Hell is unpleasant, and I therefore dismiss it. My reasons for dismissing it go well beyond the fact that it is unpleasant, as indicated by the wealth of scholarly . But you’re right, the fact that there is pervasive interpretive pluralism in Christianity is a cause of concern, especially to those who hold to modernist paradigms of scripture. This quote from N.T. Wright, taken from his book “Scripture and the Authority of God”, helps explain my view:
“Story authority, as Jesus knew only too well, is the authority that really works. Throw a rule book at people’s head, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world; you invite them to share a world-view or better still a ‘God-view’. That, actually, is what the parables are all about. They offer, as all genuine Christian story-telling does, a world-view which, as someone comes into it and finds how compelling it is, quietly shatters the world-view that they were in already. Stories determine how people see themselves and how they see the world. Stories determine how they experience God, and the world, and themselves, and others. Great revolutionary movements have told stories about the past and present and future. They have invited people to see themselves in that light, and people’s lives have been changed. If that happens at a merely human level, how much more when it is God himself, the creator, breathing through his word.”
Essentially, he argues that scripture functions much like a Shakespeare play. Suppose that we find the fist four acts of an uncompleted Shakespeare play. How might we complete it? We would, perhaps, get some Shakespeare scholars, some Renaissance historians, and some trained Shakespearean actors together and ask them to write and perform the fifth act. The fifth act couldn’t merely be a product of their imagination, nor could it merely be a replication of the fourth act or even a conglomeration of all of the first four acts. It would have to be something new but, at the same time, it would need to derive plot, characterization, cast, etc from the first four acts.
When the Kingdom is fully realized—when the story is resolved (something else for the fifth act to do)—then there will be no more war, violence, hate, racism, poverty, lust, oppression, predation, etc. And, therefore, anything in this present age that helps bring the Kingdom of mercy, peace, and justice is good, whether Christian or not. The cries of the prophets resonate in my soul. God is on about restoring the whole earth—an earth that groans for redemption. Those who fight for social justice, who combat sex-trafficking, who hold the government responsible for passing a moral budget, who protest war—those who are controlled by Kingdom values and fight for Kingdom things—have my utmost respect again, whether Christian or not.
And, in any case, my reason for believing that scripture is inspired (not innerrant and not infalible, just inspired) is because I have
1. Found that the biblical story fits my experience (totally subjective, and I’m okay with that)
2. Experienced the supernatural, especially as connected to the biblical narrative
3. Had my life transformed by, what I can best see as, the Holy Spirit.
4. Participated in a community of believers to whom this is all real as well.
Now, I grant that my reasons are entirely subjective (how can they not be? isn’t that faith?), but that they are also rational in that the Christian story best explains, in my imagination, my experience. I’m certainly not going to demand, however, that you or anyone else accede to my beliefs because, if you don’t, the big bad bully called God is going to come beat you up. (On this subject I highly recommend reading David Dark, author of a book called “The Sacredness of Questioning Everything.”) I do think, though, that the narrative is true not just for me. Jesus will return to establish on the earth a perfect kingdom in which justice, peace, and mercy will reign. I do believe the Holy Spirit is active now in the lives of people. My reasons for belief are highly personal, but the implications of my beliefs are universal. And really, I’m okay with people just being honest. I would rather people be honest atheists than lying Christians. Or Muslims. Or Jews. Or whatever.
And yeah, scripture has very human origins. That’s why there are mistakes in the Bible. Go figure.
*wealth of scholarly reasons, philosophical, theological, and psychological for universalism.
Greg, have you taken courses at reformed theological seminary? I like your stuff, it sounds familiar.
Jordan,
Thanks! No, I have not taken any classes at any seminaries. I am about to graduate with my B.A. from Abilene Christian University, though.
There are so many problems with your ideas of Jewish and Greek understandings that I don’t even know where to begin.
I can’t satisfy you here. I really can’t. Even if I could this doctrine is so repugnant to the human nature that I doubt it would do much good.
I see how Hell could be used as a tool, and yes, I’m sure it can be used that way. But I have friends, good and honest people that I love, on a path to Hell. I know it’s not because I’m better than them; I think I deserve Hell more than any of them. When I think about that, I don’t want there to be a Hell.
But I didn’t come up with the idea. Furthermore, I’m not God. All I can do is trust Him. Yes, I know that sounds like BS.
But when I look at the cross, I see God taking His own wrath upon Himself. I see Him becoming feeble flesh, facing an unjust trial, betrayal, flogging, a long, slow death and the wrath of God against sin. And Christ took that wrath for sinners that couldn’t give him any kind of gain.
Whatever the reason God allowed sin into the world, it wasn’t because He didn’t care.
And anyway, what kind of God would I want to worship that didn’t deliver justice? The alternative is far more chilling to me.
The point, in the end, has nothing to do with whether or not we like the idea of Hell. If God is real, and He has allowed Hell, it doesn’t matter whether I like it or not, whether I find it “reprehensible” or not. If it’s true then I have no choice but to believe it.
I have only one question: what makes God just? If God is God, and he created reality itself, then he is solely responsible for everything within reality. Starvation, rape, war, disease, and of course sin, is your God’s creation. Humanity can not be held responsible for sin, and therefore deserving of Hell, if everything we do, have done, will do, or might do, is bound within the will of an all-powerful deity. There can be no justice if there is no free will, and there can be no free will if God is truly omniscient. If I purposefully created a creature that did everything exactly as I knew it would before it existed and then I punished that creature with unfathomable torment for those actions, that would not make me just, it would make me a sadistic psychopath.
what makes God GOD?…i found this video helpful…
@eva626
First of all, while videos are helpful in some cases, they are useless, and indeed even lazy, when trying to express personal thoughts. If you have something to contribute, then please do. Don’t hide behind YouTube videos. I’m interested in what YOU have to say, that is, if you can speak for yourself.
Your first video assumes a religion as true, and represents one interpreter’s theology. Your second is frankly preposterous. Instead of wasting your time watching an indoctrinated, amateur pseudo intellectual debate himself, try watching real debates on the question of whether or not the complexity of life points to a creator, carried on by respectable representatives of both camps.
well…what I had to say is basically shown in the video…your question above reminded me of the video and so I’d have someone else explain because he knows what he’s talking about and I agree with him. You dont have to hate on the dude explaining what he is logical in the video….and I watch what doesnt confuse me LOL. I used to watch such debates but found out there wasn’t much use of wasting my time on that since at the end I STILL had questions from the ‘other’ side, presuming you already know what my understanding of creation/religion is already.
btw thanks for your reply Zach!!!
and I apologize if I offended you in any way…PEACE!
I guess, even if the bacteria was incorporating the arsenic into its DNA, it still wouldn’t necessarily be arsenic based, just arsenic-tolerant. Good catch, I still have a chance of being right though! Lol
I think your understanding of hell is a bit shallow. Several different Greek words were used in the new testament to describe hell yet all were translated to one English word “hell”. It’s clear that you have neglected to take each reference of hell in the new testament and find its Greek word then put it in its proper context. For example One of the Greek words translated to hell was a reference to a garbage dump outside of town where the trash was burned. I have read many biblical scholars who interpret hell as simply being a separation from God or eternal death. Hell, in the new testament, used as a scare tactic is a misinterpretation, just as heaven being used as a reward to follow jesus is also a misinterpretation. Heaven nor hell is intended to be the driving force behind ones behavior because that is nothing but selfishness. The determining factor of one deciding to follow Jesus is based on ones selfless love and dedication to Jesus. Paul said he would endure hell to save more people. He never said I want to save more people so I don’t have to go to hell. It takes a lot more than one or two verses to wrap your mind Around the concept of hell and determine it reprehensible. Not to be rude but your logic about the foreknowledge of God has been thoroughly debunked for about 25 years by Christian and non-Christian philosophers. UT needs to update those philosophy textbooks…yikes!
My understanding of Hell is that it does not exist, in any form.
What I have been speaking of is a version of Hell believed by a very large majority of the Christian and Muslim community. If you had seen my response to Greg above, you would have seen that I clearly understand that the scriptural verses I mentioned are very often misinterpreted and misunderstood by people faith, but that does not stop millions from believing in the version of Hell I have described.
How exactly can a purely theological concept be “debunked”? What is considered correct in theology is based on interpretation since it deals in essentially unknowable and unprovable theories. Theology is not an empirical matter, therefore it has no absolutes.
“Theology is not an empirical matter, therefore it has no absolutes.”
This is a logical fallacy. It follows this false syllogism:
If something is not empirical, it has no absolutes. Theology is not empirical. Therefore, theology has no absolutes.
1. Why are only empirical things absolute, whatever you mean by absolute?
2. Surely math is absolute, though it is not empirically proved (instead it is proved by reason) in much the same way that philosophy and theology are “proven”.
3. Scientific knowledge is inherently inductive, and cannot, therefore, be absolute. There is always the possibility that the experiment will not yield the same result.
4. Why is empirical knowledge privileged over other kinds of knowledge? To use Aristotelian terminology, why should material and efficient causes be privileged over final and formal causes? (See Marilynne Robinson’s book “Absence of Mind” on this subject)
As a side note, the cornerstone of Christian faith–the resurrection of Jesus–is empirically verifiable. Or, at least, the evidence for it meets the modern standards of historical proof. I give you The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright: http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
Our planet is round. That is an absolute. All organic life on Earth is carbon-based. That is an absolute. The universe is expanding. That is an absolute.
I wasn’t claiming all products of the scientific method are inherently absolute, after all there is a branch of science called theoretical physics, so the lack of absolutes in theology is not restricted to theology. The existence of God can not be empirically proven. Whether Hell is a place of torment or a place of separation from divine presence can not be empirically proven. Theological matters are, by nature, neither provable nor disprovable.
If the Christian interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus indeed met the “modern standards of historical proof” and was empirically verifiable I’m certain I would have heard it from at least one source in the field of history. To date I have not, and in fact everything that I have read or heard on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus points to its utter lack of undivided acceptance as an empirically verifiable event in history.
Samuel,
You listed three things you thought were absolutes. I regretfully inform you that only two of the three so called absolutes you listed are actually factual. This leads me to believe you might just be making up some of the stuff you’re saying in these posts. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you forgot that there are arsenic-based bacteria on this planet.
The research on the possibility of arsenic-based bacteria in Mono Lake is, as of yet, inconclusive. There is still no consistent proof that any organic life forms on Earth are not carbon-based.
@zachary,
Do you believe your parents that raised you, fed you, loved, and cared for you are dangerous people? I personally think they are very kind and loving. Why do you even care if something is dangerous. If everything is a product of humanity or nature then all thoughts and beliefs are natural, so why try to change someone’s natural beliefs when natural belief is the only possibility?
Thank you for letting me know hell does not exist, i will now commit my life to naturalism. I was referencing the logical pathways philosophers once used to create a scenario where Gods foreknowledge and will painted a contradictory picture of him, ie Antony Flew. I Wasn’t referencing the theological concepts of hell.
Samuel,
What is your purpose in life?
If you want an explanation of my thoughts on purpose I would refer you to one of my previous posts, Metaphysics 101.
I’m understanding your first sentence to be derisive and not in any way forthright. I understand that you believe in a particular conception of Hell that you have interpreted from scripture and your personal sentiments. When I said, “My understanding of Hell is that it does not exist, in any form”, it was in response to your incorrect interpretation of what my personal understanding of Hell is. Everything I wrote in this post was in response to a particular and widespread conception of Hell as a place of eternal punishment and torment that many Christians and Muslims adhere to.
Ok… that was a quick reply. I was about to say nevermind, I’m getting a pretty good idea from your previous posts.
So I gather that the purpose of this blog is to pass on knowledge to the next generation to increase their survivability?
I do hope that this blog facilitates the growth and spread of knowledge either through my own thoughts or through discussion. We must utilize and pass on knowledge if our species is to survive. But it would be foolish if I thought knowledge was only utilized in the singular pursuit of survival, because the most ignorant, uninformed, and uneducated among us continue to survive.
In that case you may want to rethink the blog. Many recent studies have shown a strong correlation between religious beliefs and longevity. If religion was a result of evolution then the purpose of religion is to increase survivability. According to scientific studies you are actually spreading information that, if accepted, literally decreases life expectancy in humanity. So…I think I can logically say this blog is doing more harm than good. Evolution only wants you to spread info that increases survivability. your purpose, as described in metaphysics 101 is not in line with the greater good concept you discussed. It would seem religion is best for the greater good of humanity in terms of survivability whether your a believer or not. From this point on I will have to assume any new post which proclaims your disbelief in god or one that boasts your naturalistic worldview must have a diabolical purpose.
Religions are like sugar pills in that they share a placebo effect and they can bring certain comforts and reliefs. Of course, much like placebos, their comforting properties are only in the mind of the believer (or patient), not because of some inherent value. Religions are most certainly not necessary for health, and I believe they can be replaced as the primary source of value in life.
Humans fear most what they do not understand. So, if you choose to view me or my thoughts as diabolical, that would not be wholly unexpected.
Placebo or not, many people may die early until you’ve substituted religion with your value system. Until you can quantify the potential death toll you may want to attatch a disclaimer to each post “accepting these opinions as truth can be hazardous to your health much like smoking cigarettes”. Don’t be mad, it’s sound logic.
Trust me brother, I don’t have an ounce of fear in me regarding you or this blog. I just thought you’d be receptive to logic and I’m impressed to find out you were involved first hand in all those scientific studies. Or were you not involved and the sugar pill statement was nothing more than a presupposition. Isn’t that a philosophical no-no. We can’t have that on the American philosophe blog. …I’m messing with you.
Honestly I must say that I am baffled. Not by your logic of course, but the seeming lack thereof. If you are honestly contending these points, I seriously question your ability to reason. If you are simply jesting, then who am I to stop you from attempting humor at the expense of rational, significant discussion?
Have you no sense of humor? Of course I’m trying to bring a little humor into this. I don’t think you’re killing anyone just think it’s a little uptight in here. Although I’m not seriously taking the stance of your blog being hazardous to your health, I would still appreciate you pointing out anything I’ve said that’s not logically possible or lacks reason.
You asserted that religion promotes health, so your entire line of thinking about this blog being hazardous, serious or not, is based on that initial assumption. My blog would only be potentially dangerous if you’re correct in correlating my skepticism and irreligion with adversity to health, and only you have made that arguably dubious claim here.
According to you, utilizing scientific studies to support a position is off limits to me in these discussions unless I was personally involved in said scientific research. Obviously you have used scientific studies that you were not personally involved in to support your positions (see your previous comments on religion and health and the possibility of arsenic-based life on Earth). Quite the double-standard.
I do believe that the doctrine of Hell, the focus of my post and formally the issue of discussion, is a very serious matter. I do not find the fact that millions of human beings believe in a divinely created, eternal torture chamber to be in any way amusing. Certainly some subjects are serious and some are not, we’ve simply veered so far into the realm of minutia that I feel any sense of purpose or comprehension has been lost.
Samuel, forgive me for posting something off topic but felt it should be said. im going to start over by clearing the air with you and others that read this blog. I would like to let everyone know that my comments thus far have contained a heavy dosage of sarcasm and is the likely reason that anyone suspects me to be crazy. From this point forward I will do my best to eliminate sarcasm from my replies so I can better communicate with everyone. Regarding my stance on philosophy, logic, and reason; I consider myself to be an adherent of reformed epistemology which was popularized by Alvin Plantinga, arguably the preeminent philosopher in the field of epistemology. I had the opportunity to study underneath this man and he has highly influenced me. Clearly I’m no positivist because I am also a man of faith, but thats a self-refuting position anyway. I do not deny the law of non contradiction and believe I can make a logical argument for my beliefs and the existence of God without violating its laws. I also acknowledge that I make presuppositions and believe, to a certain extent, that they are essential because naturalists and theists alike use them to make up their noetic structure. I consider myself to be a rational and logical person although I cannot deny the non theoretical foundations of theoretical thought present in the minds of every human being. I hope that clears the air, this is my philosophical background and the stance from which I will make future comments. So…im really looking forward for my first chance to get serious with y’all. Now that you know where I’ll be coming from we will actually be able to communicate and i hopefully will no longer seem mentally handicapped for injecting my poor attempts at humor into the discussion.
Samuel, this is serious reply # 2. The purpose of the previous line of questioning from me, other than humor, wasnt because i thought my logic or methodology was sound. I am well aware that it sucked and there was a reason for that. I’m trying to understand your methodology and logic. A response to that ridiculous idea is an easy way for me to ascertain your methodology. I’m trying to better understand you and how your belief forming mechanisms work. Help me out…am I communicating better?
Writing can be a very tricky medium, and I do appreciate your desire to clarify. My attitude towards these discussions might certainly have affected my perception of what you’ve said so far, as I normally assume that opinions, evidences, and arguments presented are done so in a forthright manner. Submitting such things for the sole purpose of testing methodological or logical boundaries is not my personal style, but I could certainly learn to be better prepared to take on this method in the future.
Samuel,
Rightfully so. I feel much better now that we are on the same page. I only wish I could go back and change previous discourses I’ve had with you and your brother, I clearly see the abrasive, confrontational, and confusing nature of my approach in previous discussions. We’re like best friends now…lol. (slight sarcasm)
This is what I gleaned from your reasons for believing that Christianity is true:
1) I really, really like it.
2) I also, for that reason, I really, really want it to be true.
3) There are others who feel just like I do.
This does nothing to convince me that your version of Christianity has anything like superiority to other versions, or Islam, or Mormonism, or Jainism, etc.
I must add that I find NT Wright’s story analogy odd for many reasons, one being that much of the Pentatuch is dedicated to making vast and intricate lists of rules with severe penalties due one who fails to follow them.
That last comment was directed at Greg. Sorry for my sloppiness.