# My Christianity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 24, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076 "2013-12-24T13:53:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/281 "2014-01-04T03:27:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Ah, the “God will brainwash you into worshiping him” view of the afterlife. A repulsive idea; even creepier is the fact that so many Christians seem to think that’s an argument in their god’s favor, instead of a condemnation of him. Eh, brainwashing isn’t creepy. We all do that to ourselves all the time for many different reasons. It’s fairly common place. Creepy is the fact that an EZ Bake oven will apparently be used to do so. How long will a 39 watt bulb take to cook a soul, I wonder? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/282 "2014-01-04T03:32:34Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Eh, brainwashing isn’t creepy. We all do that to ourselves all the time for many different reasons. No, we _don’t_ do anything like that. We can’t; if we could, there’d be no such thing as dissidents in authoritarian countries; there’d all be remade into loyal slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/283 "2014-01-04T03:37:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, we _don’t_ do anything like that. We can’t; if we could, there’d be no such thing as dissidents in authoritarian countries; there’d all be remade into loyal slaves. No, we - as in individuals - do that to ourselves all the time. How many people believe in their heart of hearts that the climate change debate is some sort of giant conspiracy? That the moon landing was staged? That Elvis is still alive? That JFk was killed by the Illuminati? That 9-11 deserves some kind of truthing? That Obama was born in a clam shell at the bottom of the pacific ocean? (Okay, that last one I never paid much attention to-Where was he supposed to be born?) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/284 "2014-01-04T03:51:47Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > No, we - as in individuals - do that to ourselves all the time. How many people believe in their heart of hearts that the climate change debate is some sort of giant conspiracy? That the moon landing was staged? That Elvis is still alive? That JFk was killed by the Illuminati? That 9-11 deserves some kind of truthing? That Obama was born in a clam shell at the bottom of the pacific ocean? (Okay, that last one I never paid much attention to-Where was he supposed to be born?) None of that is the same as being forcibly reshaped by someone else into a slave. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/285 "2014-01-04T04:41:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > None of that is the same as being forcibly reshaped by someone else into a slave. Well, to be fair - they are all good examples of delusions and irrational thinking - ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/286 "2014-01-04T05:54:06Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > You are right that the idea of “hell fire” in all conceptions is a fairly old tradition, not only among the Jews but among the other religious institutions of the time. I should have been more clear: “Hell fire” and eternal suffering as a part of Christianity wasn’t connected to the catholic orthodoxy until that time frame. 500 to 700? Even if one pushed back the 500 date to include writers who addressed the issue, such as Augustine of Hippo who died in 426 and John Chrysostom who died in 407, one is still left with the words of Ignatius of Antioch, (died early in the second century), who wrote in Chapter 16 of his letter to the Ephesians that those who corrupted others would be punished in everlasting fire, Justin Martyr, (_c_. 151), who wrote of punishment in everlasting fire in chapter 12 of his _First Apologia_, Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote of everlasting fire in the first chapter of his letter to Autolycus, (_c_, 181), and several others. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/287 "2014-01-04T06:03:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Tricky… Take Dante’s Hell: in the ice-pits of center-most hell, there are people, frozen up to the neck, who are still so mad at each other, thry’re gnawing each others’ scalps off in unceasing hatred. They are “unwilling” to give up their hatred and move forward. > > But is it a matter of will? In their situation, are they able to give up their hatred? Is it part of the punishment, part of the nature of hell? Or is it conceivable that they could work out a gradual reduction of hostility. (“Say, this is getting us nowhere. How about we stop biting each other a while and see if we can remember some of the good things we used to enjoy in life?”) > > If that’s even possible, then there can still be learning, progress, and betterment in hell. > > If it isn’t possible, then it’s not valid to speak of their being “unwilling.” They aren’t unwilling; their very ability to exercise or express their “will” has been curtailed. > > * * * > > That was the bit I was thinking of. They get off the bus, walk toward the shining palace…and get sidetracked by mazy woods and twisty paths. They are trying to move in the right direction, but obstacles external to their own will have been interposed. > > Again, it seems to me to be bad theology to say “They aren’t willing” to strive in the right direction. They’re clearly willing; they’re being prevented by some other force of will. But I think what Lewis is saying that some folks HAVE gotten through. The people they run into, as their guides, aren’t exactly saints in their Earthly life, but are obviously guides in this new plane of existence. Now, one could argue (and I could see their point) that these people found out what they were doing wrong prior to death and thus ended up in mountain land, rather than grey land. And grey land people never make it to mountain land due to the obstacles in their way. Though it seems evident to me that the protagonist is a grey land person who moves towards the mountain land, indicating that anyone may move from one plane to another, but there is something that is keeping them from that leap - there is something holding them back. Now some of that may be something they need to give up or believe differently because in mountain land you have to change your view somewhat (ie, the guy who decided to go back because in mountain land, you’d have to forgive some guy he hated on Earth). Is that an obstacle put in their path? Or is it unwilling-ness? Perhaps that just in the eye of beholder. I admit, after reading your posts on the matter, I can see it the other way as well (and I didn’t really do so before). However, I do think that Lewis writes it as unwillingness due to the differences between mountain and grey lands (I’ll go further into this below). > [@](#): > > To me, it read, “Look at these bad people, who are depraved from seeking the path to righteousness,” while God was planting impenetrable rows of trees right across that path. If God is gonna stack the deck…why bother with the pretense of shuffling, dealing, and playing out the hand? Do we have free will…or don’t we? Though every one of those people had a spirit guide. These guides saying, hey, you can’t bring your Earthly crap in here. You have to let it go, but it’ll be ok. Is it an obstacle, or a necessarily cleansing required to enter into the mountain land. It isn’t like the grey land is hellfire and damnation. People can create whatever they want from their minds - that is the reason they keep moving away and away from each other. Social unrest happens due to some of the crap we all have, but if you can create something away from those folks, maybe we would choose to be more and more isolated. Mountain land seems to be far more of a community - therefore you have to give up some of our own crap in order to live in the community, and I think that’s Lewis’s point of the spirit guides indicating some things will have to be given up to come further. Lewis, being an Anglican, did believe in free will, which is why I think he did consider it to be a free will choice rather than unfair obstacles. One thing I’m amused is how Evangelicals seem to be crazy about Lewis, but in the Great Divorce he appears somewhat to be a soft universalist. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/288 "2014-01-04T06:36:16Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > But I think what Lewis is saying that some folks HAVE gotten through. The people they run into, as their guides, aren’t exactly saints in their Earthly life, but are obviously guides in this new plane of existence. Now, one could argue (and I could see their point) that these people found out what they were doing wrong prior to death and thus ended up in mountain land, rather than grey land. And grey land people never make it to mountain land due to the obstacles in their way. . . . I readily confess I’m operating on the basis of my own moral views, and am thus likely to be projecting unfairly. But here’s the deal the way I see it: if it is possible to make moral progress in the afterlife – if one can move from a worse part of hell to a less nasty part, or to move from hell to purgatory, or to move from either of those places to heaven – then some people would make that moral pilgrimage and arrive in the better place. The afterlife would thus be a place of opportunity for self-betterment via moral and spiritual growth, just as this life is. If, however, one’s place after final judgement is fixed and unchanged, and moral growth is prevented by obstacles – then no such growth is possible. If that’s the case, then the “bus trip” affair would be a fraud, just a part of the punishment, a tantalizing view of heaven that is yanked away again, just as an evil jailer might lead a prisoner past an open door…that only leads back into the prison again. But…if growth is possible, and people can make moral progress after death, this is in violation of nearly all interpretations of scripture by Christian sects. It doesn’t seem like an interpretation Lewis could have made, as it contradicts the conventional wisdom of hell as a place of inescapable punishment. So… Which is Lewis telling us? There is a way out of hell, if one seeks diligently for moral growth and the spiritual good? Or hell is a final destination, and you can’t get out, no matter how you might want to try? > [@](#): > > Though it seems evident to me that the protagonist is a grey land person who moves towards the mountain land, indicating that anyone may move from one plane to another, but there is something that is keeping them from that leap - there is something holding them back. Now some of that may be something they need to give up or believe differently because in mountain land you have to change your view somewhat (ie, the guy who decided to go back because in mountain land, you’d have to forgive some guy he hated on Earth). The impression I got from the story was that there were obstacles that could simply never be gotten past. They might be external or internal, but, in either case, the guy never does decide to forgive some guy he hated. But if no one finds that forgiveness, ever, then I can no longer believe that the flaw is internal. Surely some of us, sinners though we may be, would find that forgiveness and move on. I just can’t believe that nobody would make that leap. So, if nobody actually ever does – it forces me to believe they’re being blocked from moral growth by some external obstacle, and not by their own intransigence. How many people do you know? Surely you must have known of people who were terribly stubborn, or hate-filled, or cruel, or sinful – but who outgrew it. We all know people who have made strides of moral growth. We know it’s possible in this world. So – is it possible in Lewis’ hell? If so, great! It’s an afterlife that will slowly, slowly empty out, as a tiny trickle of people – maybe only one in a decade! – grow up, find forgiveness, and move upward. If not – then they aren’t “people” any more by any definition I can see, and their punishment is imposed upon them from outside. The notion that they are pent in hell by their own refusal to leave violates too many properties of the human spirit. > [@](#): > > Is that an obstacle put in their path? Or is it unwilling-ness? Perhaps that just in the eye of beholder. I admit, after reading your posts on the matter, I can see it the other way as well (and I didn’t really do so before). However, I do think that Lewis writes it as unwillingness due to the differences between mountain and grey lands (I’ll go further into this below). All I can say is that I would have written it differently! (I’m fond of Niven and Pournelle’s “Inferno” because of the implication that a small trickle of people are making their way out!) > [@](#): > > Though every one of those people had a spirit guide. These guides saying, hey, you can’t bring your Earthly crap in here. You have to let it go, but it’ll be ok. Is it an obstacle, or a necessarily cleansing required to enter into the mountain land. I could only judge this by results. Again, is anyone making that journey successfully? Then, yay! Is no one making it? Then I think this contradicts the idea of free will. > [@](#): > > It isn’t like the grey land is hellfire and damnation. People can create whatever they want from their minds - that is the reason they keep moving away and away from each other. . . . I can respect this. I like Sartre’s “No Exit” vision of hell. I accept the traditional notion that hell is merely “separation from God.” I like the approach taken in (of all places!) DC Comics, where hell is pretty much what you expected it to be. If you thought it was gonna be tar-pits and red devils…it is! If you thought it was gonna be dung-pits and black devils…it is! If you thought it was gonna be a cold wasteland…it is! > [@](#): > > Lewis, being an Anglican, did believe in free will, which is why I think he did consider it to be a free will choice rather than unfair obstacles. Was he willing to extend free will into the afterlife? Do people have free will even in hell? > [@](#): > > One thing I’m amused is how Evangelicals seem to be crazy about Lewis, but in the Great Divorce he appears somewhat to be a soft universalist. This may be the element I read wrong. I was reading it as if he were a more hard-core orthodox “hell is a place of eternal punishment,” but that he was playing a “blame the victim” game, saying, “You’re only here because you want to be.” If someone says, “Uh, no, I really don’t,” then he played the bus-trip game on them, they end up back in the grey place, and he crowed, “See? You’re back. You must not really have wanted to leave!” I was judging the story as a harsh, nasty, cruel joke against free will. If, instead, you think he meant it to say that hell is hard to leave, but that a small, steady trickle of people who were ready to forgive, actually thereby earned forgiveness – as you say, a soft Universalism – then I would be very glad, because that’s a moral view I can respect. If Lewis meant it that way, bravo to him, and oops on my part for misreading the book! ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/289 "2014-01-04T07:04:25Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But…if growth is possible, and people can make moral progress after death, this is in violation of nearly all interpretations of scripture by Christian sects. It doesn’t seem like an interpretation Lewis could have made, as it contradicts the conventional wisdom of hell as a place of inescapable punishment. Oh, not at all. After all, Scripture (in one of the letters of the NT, I believe) speaks of Jesus preaching to the dead after death. And the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is the obvious moral progress after death example (though they don’t let those folks in Hell advance, but Lewis wasn’t a Catholic, no matter how much his friend Tolkein wanted him to be ;)). Lewis is, of course, speaking this as a parable. I think his point is that Hell isn’t a place of fire and physical torture, but people who don’t want to accept God’s love, even though its readily available to them. So they are left outside, but can jump on whenever they wish. They can choose to be separated from the love of God if they wish, but the end of Revelation does indicate that in the New Heaven and New Earth, the city has no gates. > [@](#): > > The impression I got from the story was that there were obstacles that could simply never be gotten past. They might be external or internal, but, in either case, the guy never does decide to forgive some guy he hated. But if no one finds that forgiveness, ever, then I can no longer believe that the flaw is internal. Surely some of us, sinners though we may be, would find that forgiveness and move on. I just can’t believe that nobody would make that leap. > > So, if nobody actually ever does – it forces me to believe they’re being blocked from moral growth by some external obstacle, and not by their own intransigence. > > How many people do you know? Surely you must have known of people who were terribly stubborn, or hate-filled, or cruel, or sinful – but who outgrew it. We all know people who have made strides of moral growth. We know it’s possible in this world. > > So – is it possible in Lewis’ hell? If so, great! It’s an afterlife that will slowly, slowly empty out, as a tiny trickle of people – maybe only one in a decade! – grow up, find forgiveness, and move upward. Isn’t that what is happening to the protagonist? That is why he becomes more “solid”. And his spirit guide, George McDonald, indicates that it is possible to jump from Hell to Heaven. Wikipedia states it thus: > **[The Great Divorce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Divorce)** > > The Great Divorce is a novel by the British author C. S. Lewis, published in 1945, based on a theological dream vision of his in which he reflects on the Christian conceptions of Heaven and Hell. > The working title was Who Goes Home? but the final name was changed at the publisher's insistence. The title refers to William Blake's poem The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. The Great Divorce was first printed as a serial in an Anglican newspaper called The Guardian in 1944 and 1945 and soon thereafter... > [@](#): > > \*MacDonald explains that it is possible for a soul to choose to remain in heaven despite having been in the grey town; for such souls, the goodness of heaven will work backwards into their lives, turning even their worst sorrows into joy, and changing their experience on earth to an extension of heaven. Conversely, the evil of hell works so that if a soul remains in, or returns to, the grey town, even its happiness on earth will lose its meaning, and its experience on earth would have been hell. Few of the ghosts realize that the grey town is, in fact, hell. Indeed it is not that much different from the life they led on earth: joyless, friendless and uncomfortable. It just goes on forever, and gets worse and worse, with some characters whispering their fear of the “night” that is eventually to come. > > According to MacDonald, while it is possible to leave hell and enter heaven, doing so implies turning away (repentance); or as depicted by Lewis, embracing ultimate and unceasing joy itself.\* I found the description of Heaven working back into the lives of of people (and conversely Hell doing the same) to be immensely powerful, though I had to go reread that passage a few times to fully get what was being said. > [@](#): > > If, instead, you think he meant it to say that hell is hard to leave, but that a small, steady trickle of people who were ready to forgive, actually thereby earned forgiveness – as you say, a soft Universalism – then I would be very glad, because that’s a moral view I can respect. If Lewis meant it that way, bravo to him, and oops on my part for misreading the book! I think Lewis was far more “liberal” than many Evangelicals would like him to be. I can see where you could come to your point of view, especially since Lewis couched a lot of his more interesting views in parabolic stories (ah, like someone else pretty famous - tricksy). The proof is in the spirit guide Lewis chooses for himself. While George MacDonald isn’t all that well known today, he was a Scottish preacher who was highly influential in fantasy literature (he was a mentor to Lewis Carroll, and influenced Tolkein as well as Lewis). George MacDonald was also known for his belief in universal reconciliation. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/290 "2014-01-04T11:38:10Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > It’s also why “Hades” which is a different sort of underworld than “Hell” was also translated to “Hell” from the Greek-sourced books of the Bible. It’s the entire afterlife in Greek mythos, from the fields of Elysium, which is eternal bliss and happiness, to Tantalus, which is closer to the hell fire interpretation of damnation. I think you mean Tartaros. Tartaros is a special inside Hades, a place for torture, reserved for those that committed offensive acts (usually hubris) against the Gods. Tantalus was one of the residents there, a Lydian King that had served his own son to the Gods to test if they were all knowing. Hades takes its name from the ruler of the underworld, Hades. Likewise, Hell (the germanic underworld) takes its name from the Godess that ruled there, Hel. Elysium was not inside Hades, just as Walhalla is not inside Hell. > [@](#): > > There have been suggestions that “hades” should be translated to English as “afterlife” and not “hell”.[ Those suggestions would be wrong then. "Underworld"is still the best translation. Maybe “realm of the dead”. The idea was of it being a dreary shadowy place where the dead just sit and walk about without any memories. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/291 "2014-01-04T12:54:21Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 500 to 700? Even if one pushed back the 500 date to include writers who addressed the issue, such as Augustine of Hippo who died in 426 and John Chrysostom who died in 407, one is still left with the words of Ignatius of Antioch, (died early in the second century), who wrote in Chapter 16 of his letter to the Ephesians that those who corrupted others would be punished in everlasting fire, Justin Martyr, (_c_. 151), who wrote of punishment in everlasting fire in chapter 12 of his _First Apologia_, Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote of everlasting fire in the first chapter of his letter to Autolycus, (_c_, 181), and several others. While the idea of a Hell was in various forms between 0 and 500, the actual merging it to the doctrine of the early Church at the time was kicked off as an effort by Augustine, who was a conversion from paganism and was tickled by the ideas of hellfire. Between 400 and 500 it grew into the Church and between 450 and 700 it was persecuting those that had Christian beliefs but didn’t follow the doctrines of the Church, who considered themselves \*the \*authority. By 700, the basic concept of Hell - along with a lot of the other Church doctrines - was fixed more or less as we know it today (granted, the ideology of Hell expanded significantly over the years). > [@Latro](#): > > I think you mean Tartaros. Tartaros is a special inside Hades, a place for torture, reserved for those that committed offensive acts (usually hubris) against the Gods. > Tantalus was one of the residents there, a Lydian King that had served his own son to the Gods to test if they were all knowing. My bad. > [@Latro](#): > > Hades takes its name from the ruler of the underworld, Hades. Likewise, Hell (the germanic underworld) takes its name from the Godess that ruled there, Hel. > Elysium was not inside Hades, just as Walhalla is not inside Hell. True, but wrong time frame. Originally, Elysium was either not part of Hades’ domain at all, or loosely connected to him at best. Over time, the tradition became that Elysium not only became the domain of Hades - as it was the afterlife and he was god of that - it was a portion of his estate and connected to him in the underworld. By the time of the life of Jesus, Elysium was all Hades all the time. Tartarus, by comparison, was under his rule, but it never connected to his domain because it’s purpose was to trap the gods and titans that Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades’ overthrew to become dominant and not deal in some form with human souls. It was largely supposed to be inaccessible to us mere mortals, even in immortal spirit form. > [@Latro](#): > > Those suggestions would be wrong then. > "Underworld"is still the best translation. Maybe “realm of the dead”. > The idea was of it being a dreary shadowy place where the dead just sit and walk about without any memories. “Underworld” or “Realm of the Dead” is still a better translation than “Hell”. And both of these translations more closely matches what we would consider in modern times as the afterlife. When you die you go to the afterlife, whether that’s burning like a tire dump for all eternity or sitting on a cloud with a harp. It encompasses the whole Realm of the Dead. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/292 "2014-01-04T14:15:46Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > True, but wrong time frame. Originally, Elysium was either not part of Hades’ domain at all, or loosely connected to him at best. > Over time, the tradition became that Elysium not only became the domain of Hades - as it was the afterlife and he was god of that - it was a portion of his estate and connected to him in the underworld. By the time of the life of Jesus, Elysium was all Hades all the time. Tartarus, by comparison, was under his rule, but it never connected to his domain because it’s purpose was to trap the gods and titans that Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades’ overthrew to become dominant and not deal in some form with human souls. It was largely supposed to be inaccessible to us mere mortals, even in immortal spirit form. I would like a cite for that, if you don’t mind. Even in the Aeneis by Vergilius, written somewhere between 30- 20 B.C., Tartarus is very much part of the underworld, while the Elysian fields are clearly above ground. It is only insinuated that it is reasonably close by, because the river Lethe, at the exit of Hades, also flows past Elysium. Neither can I find any mention of Pluto being also in charge of it. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/293 "2014-01-04T14:27:19Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > I would like a cite for that, if you don’t mind. > > Even in the Aeneis by Vergilius, written somewhere between 30- 20 B.C., Tartarus is very much part of the underworld, while the Elysian fields are clearly above ground. > It is only insinuated that it is reasonably close by, because the river Lethe, at the exit of Hades, also flows past Elysium. > > Neither can I find any mention of Pluto being also in charge of it. I haven’t studied Greek mythology in a few years, but I think it came from Greek Mythology by Rick Buxton. I’d have to go get my copy and read through it for an appropriate reference and his sources. ETA It appears that it’s also referenced by [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_underworld) as being beneath the earth’s roots using _Richard_ Buxton’s book “The Complete World of Greek Mythology”. - Page 213. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/294 "2014-01-04T14:38:42Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > while the Elysian fields are clearly above ground. Question, since I haven’t read Virgil for some time: Wasn’t the Fields he spoke of underground, but lit by a sun of it’s own? I seem to recall his mention of it in this way to segregate it from the above-ground (or human) world. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/295 "2014-01-04T15:03:46Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Question, since I haven’t read Virgil for some time: Wasn’t the Fields he spoke of underground, but lit by a sun of it’s own? I seem to recall his mention of it in this way to segregate it from the above-ground (or human) world. Aeneas doesn’t visit Elysium. He goes to the underworld, crossing the Styx, sees different parts of the underworld, which here seems to have more compartiments besides tartarus. It is in a valley that leads up to the outside world where he meets his father. The river Lethe is close by. Interrestingly there are ‘shadows’ of dead people drinking from the Lethe in order to forget and be reborn into life on earth (!). Whole tribes of them. Some are even destined to become Aeneas’ own offspring. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/296 "2014-01-04T15:17:40Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > I haven’t studied Greek mythology in a few years, but I think it came from Greek Mythology by Rick Buxton. I’d have to go get my copy and read through it for an appropriate reference and his sources. > > ETA It appears that it’s also referenced by [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_underworld) as being beneath the earth’s roots using _Richard_ Buxton’s book “The Complete World of Greek Mythology”. - Page 213. So what’s the point here? Farin are you saying you believe in Greek mythology, or that Jesus did, or that you only believe the Greek myths that Jesus did, or something else? ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/297 "2014-01-04T15:28:57Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Aeneas doesn’t visit Elysium. > He goes to the underworld, crossing the Styx, sees different parts of the underworld, which here seems to have more compartiments besides tartarus. > > It is in a valley that leads up to the outside world where he meets his father. > The river Lethe is close by. > Interrestingly there are ‘shadows’ of dead people drinking from the Lethe in order to forget and be reborn into life on earth (!). Whole tribes of them. Some are even destined to become Aeneas’ own offspring. In Aeneid, it says “Night speeds by, And we, Aeneas, lose it in lamenting. Here comes the place where cleaves our way in twain. Thy road, the right, toward Pluto’s dwelling goes, And leads us to Elysium. But the left Speeds sinful souls to doom, and is their path To Tartarus th’ accurst.” You can go to Hades’ digs (ostensibly in or near Elysium) or you can go to Tartarus. Tartarus, I’ve always assumed belonged to Hades in the Greek dividing of things (Zeus - Overworld/Sky; Poseidon - Oceans; Hades - Underworld), but it certainly appears apart in this. Either it is it’s own domain under no Greek father god, or it belongs to Hades. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/298 "2014-01-04T16:04:41Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > While the idea of a Hell was in various forms between 0 and 500, the actual merging it to the doctrine of the early Church at the time was kicked off as an effort by Augustine, who was a conversion from paganism and was tickled by the ideas of hellfire. Between 400 and 500 it grew into the Church and between 450 and 700 it was persecuting those that had Christian beliefs but didn’t follow the doctrines of the Church, who considered themselves \*the \*authority. By 700, the basic concept of Hell - along with a lot of the other Church doctrines - was fixed more or less as we know it today (granted, the ideology of Hell expanded significantly over the years). You are going to have to explain the difference between what I identified and what you are claiming. I am aware of Augustine’s roll in promoting the concept of Original Sin that became the “standard,” but I see no difference between his ideas of hell and the ideas expressed by Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch or others. Recall that the point I am addressing is your claim that the ideas of burning hell and eternal punishment only arose between 500 and 700, (beginning eighty years after Augustine), when I have already quoted three much earlier authors who spoke of hell’s fires and eternal punishment in the second century. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/299 "2014-01-04T17:07:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are going to have to explain the difference between what I identified and what you are claiming. I am aware of Augustine’s roll in promoting the concept of Original Sin that became the “standard,” but I see no difference between his ideas of hell and the ideas expressed by Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch or others. > > Recall that the point I am addressing is your claim that the ideas of burning hell and eternal punishment only arose between 500 and 700, (beginning eighty years after Augustine), when I have already quoted three much earlier authors who spoke of hell’s fires and eternal punishment in the second century. I clarified my point to be the catholic adoption of hell as an orthodox statement, and further clarified the timeline. But, looks to the acts of pilates that was a half-finished Greek work that was completed in the 6th century (renamed to the Gospel of Nicodermus) that goes from a fairly tame version of Christ bringing souls from the waiting room to heaven to an orthodox view of hell with fire that he saves from fire (note that the souls he’s saving are considered righteous, which means even if you are GOOD, you burn for at least a while). The predominate view of hell by converts at the time wasn’t fiery damnation, but something closr to a place where souls gather and await for the day of judgement. If you were a divine soul during judgement, you would ascend to heaven. If not, you’d be punished similar to the Fields of Punishment in Hades that was befitting your crime. The original writers you attest to took a literal slant on Jesus’s words. The “waiting room” apsect was downplayed and dropped because Jesus was supposed to return within a generation, so, you know, you _were going to burn_ in short order. Things like the Book of Enoch considered Hell as an actual throne for Satan from which he’d march his armies on the earth. While it was a realm of fire, you, as a bad soul, were going to be conscripted. It downplays the punishment aspect of the damnation, but there was punishment involved. If you look to something like Eastern Orthodoxy which pulls from similar traditions as our western orthodoxy, but not only considers the final conditions unknowable but also considers both positive and negative versions of an afterlife as being joined to God. God will not only welcome the righteous but will punish the sinners as they join with God. ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076/300 "2014-01-04T18:29:34Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > So… Which is Lewis telling us? There is a way out of hell, if one seeks diligently for moral growth and the spiritual good? Yes. Toward the end of the book, there is a soul who chooses to stay. He has some kind of lizard on his shoulder, and he gives an angel permission to burn it. As I recall, the lizard (representing the various temptations which have been enslaving him) transforms into a horse, which he rides off into the sunset. (The idea is that the angel has healed his disordered passions; and now that the man is in control, he can be truly happy.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-christianity/677076.md?page=16)