It seemed that not too long ago - by which I mean only a few generations ago, as opposed to a few decades ago - more people believed in and more religious groups taught about Hell. Today, perhaps only very conservative Christians (Hell), certain very religious Jews (Gehinnom), and most Muslims (Jahannum) believe in such an Abode of Punishment and Misery (with the name of this place given after each religion mentioned above).
When did this change? Why?
WRS/Thû - who believes that, when it comes down to it, theologically, fearing Hell and seeking Heaven has more to do with being near God than worrying about eternal rewards and punishments.
One of the first things an educated, intelligent person will doubt about their religion is this whole notion of eternal punishment for what seems to be fairly minor violations of religious rules. It’s just part of the natural progression toward atheism that most societies go through as their populations become better educated and less vulnerable to brainwashing, religious and otherwise.
From one of those less-educated, brainwashed Christians:
This topic’s been brought up a couple of times in church. The consensus, around here, anyways, seems to be that you can only go to hell for the most serious and horrible of offences–for turning your back on God (and the goodness He embodies) so completely and deliberately that you can never return to a state of grace–for leaving all goodness and truth and justice behind and turning completely to evil. Again, this is only for the most serious of punishments, as God is generally portrayed as a generous and forgiving God.
It’s a complex and interesting topic that warrants a lot of thought.
Hijacking my own thread: what others call the “evolution of society,” the Book of Mormon calls (well, describes - commentators labelled it) the “pride cycle.” In the Book of Mormon, a society begins out faithful to God. As they progress and advance, they begin to forget God, until they reject Him all together. Their success then is reversed by God, and they remember Him awfully fast thereafter. They become righteous again, and the cycle starts again: righteous - proud - humbled - righteous - proud - humbled, etc.
My understanding - and I come from a conservative Christian perspective - is that Hell is for those who reject God’s forgiveness. (Heaven’s a bit more complex.) It is separation from God, since we all supposedly have an innate desire to be close to God. If in God we find happiness, separation from Him will bring sorrow, and sorrow = Hell.
Sproul, who writes about Calvinist Reformation theology, actually gives a good run-down as to how the concept of Hell can be acceptable to the human understanding - that is, that we can truly understand and embrace that we sinning humans justly deserve Hell. Sproul confuses me - he actually makes Five-point Calvinism make sense.
The Christian Bible is very ambiguous about the concept of hell. The NT mostly suggests that the unrepentent will be destroyed, rather than suffer in eternal torment.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
-Romans 6:23
The idea of eternal torment comes more from Dante than the Bible.
This is the part that is interesting to me. If the punishment lasts forever, how can you think of the punisher as generous or forgiving? Some people live a long time, but the life of the whole universe is nothing up against forever–in fact, it is no closer to forever than a minute is.
What I want to know is, how could any person in one lifetime do anything that merited being punished for freaking ever? And what would be the point? Usually, when you punish someone, it’s to prevent a repeat of unwanted behavior. If you punish them forever, they certainly won’t repeat, but that doesn’t mean they’ve learned their lesson. The only other reason for punishing people is flat-out revenge. If God exacts eternal retribution for mortal wrongs, how could he possibly be loving or forgiving?
And don’t even get me started on what sort of God has rules that say the gruesome killing of His child somehow expiates sin. Two wrongs make a right, but only if they’re really big wrongs?
You raise some really good points, Smartass (not living up to your name yet, I see ;)):
a) It’s very difficult to tell at what point a person should go to hell or not, which is probably why the concept is becoming more and more nebulous. What sin could be so extreme that it could never, ever be forgiven? Murder, rape, genocide, child sexual abuse… but who knows? Each of these represents a whole host of moral and religious issues to deal with. Makes me very grateful I’m not God
b) In the Christian canon God didn’t make this rule, per se; rather, Jesus accepted it as his own personal sacrifice. (I think. IMHO. I’m no priest or religious authority, I may get shot down on this one.)
I’d say these things probably run in cycles like everything else. I doubt the eighteenth century deists preached about hell a whole lot, nor the liberals of the early 20th century. And of course, early Catholics like Augustine were the first to question the idea of eternal punishment for minor infractions. (Where do you think the idea of Purgatory comes from?) In fact, I’d say a lot more people probably believe in and preach about Hell today than at any other time in the last 30 years at least. Main-line and liberal churches have been consistently loosing members in that period, while evangelical and fundametalist churches have been gaining. And don’t forget the Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious group in the US today, after the Roman Catholic Church.
Suppose: As our creator, God gave us specific commandments, specific expectations that we were to meet. The end-goal is to be like God: perfect. Like a child, our potential was to become like our parent, God. But God is more than a parent: He created us. He is our Creator, and thereby our Master, Lord, Sovereign, etc., etc. (Reduce this even to a human level - we expect control over and obedience from our creations and those below us. How much more, then, do we owe God our obedience!)
Suppose: We utterly failed to obey God.
Suppose: Not only did we fail, by our our failure and disobedience, we had become so corrupt and defiled that even our good deeds are tainted with evil and selfishness.
Suppose: Not only the above, we actually turned our backs on God, rejecting Him, cursing Him, and daring to do away with Him! :eek: The One who created us, by whose Sovereign Will we exist, Him we treat this way - we don’t even treat our kings, parents, and leaders this way! :eek: So, of course we all, every one, from the first to the last, deserve the wrath and destruction of God.
Therefore, a just God would be perfectly justified in casting us away. If a potter makes a vase, and the vase becomes chipped or cracked, he/she throws it away. Similarly are we the creation of God, and we have become totally destroyed and defiled and corrupt and perverse and wayward and proud and haughty and stubborn and stupid. God, as the Just Judge, would be perfectly justified in casting us all away.
But, according to Christianity, God is not solely just: He is also merciful. Those who avail to the sacrifice of Himself to Himself, to rectify the breach between humanity and God - those He will sanctify, justify, and redeem. The rest He will let alone: their own sins and sinful nature, defiled and so removed from God, will condemn them. The mystery of Christianity is this inexplicable and unfathomable love of God for humanity, that He would allow Himself to suffer for our sake, saving those whom He has called and chosen. Why He would do this, despite our sinfulness, is a mystery. (And those who are saved are not perfect by any means - but what they lack, the grace of Christ will complete. And while they are on earth, the Holy Spirit will live in them, changing them, inspiring them, guiding them, so they will walk a godly walk, serving God and His purposes and His works through their good works, which still have no value before the terrible perfection and justice and wholeness of God.)
(The above is my understanding of Calvinist Reformation theory of God, Hell, salvation, showing that it is possible to believe in a just God that will send humans to Hell.)
And Smatass, I might concievably be convinced to write a defence of the doctrines of atonement (though not substitutionary) and damnation, but not in this thread. It’s too much of a hijack.
(Actually, reviewing the thread a little more closely, I see WRS has largely handled the latter himself. Orthodox (small O) belief is, as he says, that Hell is for those who reject God’s forgiveness, not for committing a certain level of sin. Of course original sin, total depravity, and/or election all make it more complicated, but that’s the gist of it right there.)
I posted that before seeing WRS’s latest. I’ll just add that to be truely orthodox Reformed, you’d have to add that God alone chooses from before creation who will avail themselves of His mercy and be saved and who will burn in perdition eternally. This has the unfortunate effect of mitigating both the justice and the mercy so carefully preserved until this point, but it does maintain God’s absolute power, which is a major concern for orthodox Calvinists. It has other salubrious theological effects which we needn’t go into as well (Seen in the right light, double predestination can actually be quite beautiful and comforting,and I’ve used it pastorally myself.), at the mere expense of painting God as a tyrant, albeit as just and merciful as His tyrany and the actual state of the world will permit.
I also want to apologize to Smartass for mispelling his name and somehow making it vaguely more vulgar and oddly disturbing in an allusive sort of way. :eek:
I’ll second Alan Smithee on the idea of Purgatory. In no way do I intend to speak for all Christians, but in Catholocism we believe in Purgatory as a limbo to suffer our Earthly sins. Though it’s believed to be suffering in that we can’t be with God, Jesus and other loved ones. Not a lake of fire.
I’m a lay Catholic, and certainly don’t have a PhD like my pastors, so take this as you will. If a Catholic dies while in sin (anything that hasn’t been forgiven through confession or an Act of Contrition), he’s stuck in purgatory for a given amount of time. You’re not in Hell, but you are denied the Father, and therefore you’re being punished as the ultimate goal is to be united with the Lord. Think of it as a prison sentence that has to be served. But if you believe in the forgiveness of the Father, you will eventually “serve your time” and be accepted. The main thing is that Heaven isn’t a given.
On the other hand, if you die and are an ardent atheist, or gave a heart-felt denial of Christ, well, off the flaming pit you go. (Yes, the SDMB exists even in Hell)
I’ll try to make an analogy, though I’m sure someone else could word it better. If someone is caught and convicted of breaking a major law and heads to prison, he has two options. One, express remorse and work to better himself in the hope of being released back to society. Or two, revel in the wrong and hurt he’s done with no regard of gaining a mote of forgiveness.
Again, this is from a Catholic, not the catch-all Christian. Also, it’s not to impugn any atheists or agnostics. Just what I’ve learned in my own faith.
Conservative Protestant theologian checking in here:
The doctrine of hell has fallen out of favor for two primary reasons:
The ethical problem. The traditional idea of hell–by which is meant “eternal conscious torment”–seems extremely cruel to most people (Christians, non-Christians, atheists). “God loves you, but if you don’t believe in Him, He will torture you forever by fire” is neither a logically cohesive nor emotionally attractive message. Generally, liberal Christians have responded to this problem by denying the existence of hell, conservatives by not talking about it much or covering it with euphemisms.
Also, as the smart one pointed out, the idea of eternal conscious torment goes against the biblical law of retribution “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”–meaning the punishment must fit the crime. Eternal punishment for sins committed in time seems out of proportion with this and therefore unjust.
The exegetical problem. Hell is also starting to fall out of favor because of exegetical problems in the traditional doctrine; that is, the Bible does not explicitly teach eternal conscious torment. The most common biblical images for the punishment of the lost/unrighteous are destruction, perishing, and consumption by fire. These speak more of annihilation than eternal conscious torment. Also, the Bible does not teach the innate immortality of the human soul; that is an interpolation from Greek philosophy which lies at the heart of the traditional view. Rather, it teaches eternal life as a gift from God for those who believe (e.g., John 3:16). The opposite of that is not eternal life of a bad quality (traditional hell) but extinction (perishing or death). This is the view of hell known as “annihilationism” or “conditional immortality.”
(In other words, what rfgdxm said. It is quite clear in the Bible if you do not approach it with the presupposition of the innate immortality of the soul.)
As one theologian (I can’t remember if it was Clark Pinnock or Edward Fudge) said, for thoughtful Christians, the choice is between universalism or conditional immortality; the traditional doctrine is not going to survive. Personally, I see conditional immortality as more biblically correct and ethically acceptable.
Suggested reading: Edward William Fudge, “The Fire that Consumes”; William Crockett, ed., “Four Views on Hell”
Edit: I did not mean to imply that holders of the traditional view are not thoughtful. They are, and many anguish over it. Conditional immortality and universalism are (to some extent) attempts to resolve that tension.
Is this the modern Catholic doctrine? There are many in this world who have never heard the word of Christ on Earth. They have never had the opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior. I thought the Catholic Church had abandoned this notion of off to the flaming pit goes those who never had the opportunity to know Christ.
Suppose I created children, and I wanted them to follow rules and be as much like me as possible. In order to achieve this, I made sure that they never saw me and I never did anything for them. When they were a few years old, I had a friend stop by one day and tell them that I existed and give them a few pointers as to how I wanted them to behave, and that if they didn’t behave, I would kill them when they reached adulthood. I also had the friend announce them that I was just and merciful and that I loved them.
Whatcha think? Pretty God-like, huh?
How, exactly, can I do that? He’s never told me to do anything. There are various organized groups running around, pushing various books, claiming that they know what God wants me to do. Why would He tell them and not me?
I was always really bothered by the story of “doubting Thomas”. Here was a guy who basically said, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” So, supposedly, Jesus showed him. Question: Did Thomas go to Heaven? I’ve always felt that if I didn’t get the same opportunity to see for myself that Thomas had, then it just plain isn’t a fair test. And I’ve also thought that if there was something specific that God wanted from us, there’d be no need to be mysterious about it. Why give us these wonderfully powerful brains and then insist that, if we want to go to Heaven, we should not use them (you know, faith)?
Why would God feel a need to be, um, tricky?
How does a good deed become tainted? And if faith and forgiveness are the key, what the hell do good deeds have to do with anything?
For an all-powerful, all-knowing Being, this God dude sure does seem insecure. Why would He care whether we believe in Him? For that matter, why would He care if we covet our neighbor’s wife? Why would He want us continually talking about how wonderful He is? What makes anyone think that we are important enough to “treat” God any way at all?
A minute ago, we were children. If a child misbehaves, do we throw it away?
And a pretty crappy parent, if you ask me. What are His good qualities, again?
So, it doesn’t matter what we do, as long as we abase ourselves before God? I can kill thousands of people and then tell God I’m sorry and it’s okay? On the other hand, I can study medicine, devote my life to saving others, but not believe in God, and I deserve Hell?
I don’t get it. If God is supposed to be the epitome of “good”, how the fuck can people believe Him to be such a fickle tyrant?
For me, the mystery is why suffering is considered good. Because we have sinned, we must atone by suffering, or someone must suffer in our stead. Apparently, suffering is some kind of currency for God, and you can buy favor with it. Why does God like pain? How can a God who asks people to suffer for no apparent reason be considered good? And what sort of twisted notion of God imagines Him sending His son, watching Him be crucified, and then saying, “You’ve killed My son; your sins are forgiven.” What if they’d raped Him first? Would sex be more sanctioned then?
Wouldn’t it make more sense if God wanted us to atone for sin by doing good things for other people? By making “right” the wrongs we have committed against others?
FWIW, I was raised Catholic. I’m not unfamiliar with the beliefs; I just can’t believe that anyone but children would buy into them. Maybe I’m not as good at cognitive dissonance as others, but I don’t get this notion that God wants us (and His own son) to suffer, and He loves us. God is merciful, and if you don’t believe it then you will burn in Hell for all of eternity. God wants me to follow His Way, so He doesn’t bother to tell me a goddamn thing about it.
I mean, come on. The universe is far too magnificent to have been created by a God such as this. Just watch a few hours of the Discovery channel–or go outside and watch some live nature–and it must be clear that, if there is an Answer, it isn’t this crap.
It’s always been (as far as I know) thought that anyone not exposed to the Church was exempt from any sort of punishment for not accepting Christ. This was the fault of Catholics for not spreading the Good Word. Hence the multitude of Missions set up around the world for the last few centuries.
The guilt of not doing what you could to “save” the savages was a big factor in forcing converts. The Church has done some horrific things in the past to increase numbers. Keep in mind, though, most were done in an honest attempt to spread Christianity. And, yes, I’ll admit some of it was just plain old sadism.
Point is, the Church teaches that those not informed of Christ are exempted from Catholic doctrine. There is no way to hold people to a punishment when they have no idea of the reward.
