Viking Restaurant

hey todd, it's this question and a couple others that drove me to want to study the bible full-time when i first became a believer. so i looked into some biblical studies programs and ended up at covenant. but the whole reformed/presbyterian world was so new and different to me that i ended up getting distracted by other questions there. i came to the point where i believed for a while that my earlier questions were simply dead-ends and unimportant for life. now that the covenant/reformed/presbyterian world has had its way with me, i'm more or less back where i started (except for some of the good friendships i found along the way). i hope your experience in seminary is more satisfying.

I think Christianity is filled with more mysteries than us Westerners brought up in analytical philosophy like to admit. (yes, I’m suggesting we can’t understand the overall plan God has for reality) However, though I’m not one to constantly dote on CS Lewis, the book The Great Divorce has the best description of Hell I’ve come across (not that I’m all that well read). It’s a story and so communicates better than any outright philosophy can, but basically people are in Hell because they want to be.

I know it sounds preposterous, but briefly: [the edge of] Hell in the story is not a place of literal burning and fire but a place where everyone can create their own reality: many in the story actually thought they were in Heaven. You may have riches and material things as big and as much as you can imagine. People in Hell do not want to live in Heaven because there everything in Heaven is real. The things in Hell are real, too, sort of, but all of Hell takes up the space of a blade of grass in Heaven because it has no real substance. When those from Hell travel to Heaven, they are invited to stay and learn to deal in true substance. However, most choose to stay where they can define their own existence rather than deal in true substance: when they first come even the grass will not bend to their feet. Those trying to convince them to stay says they will help them learn to walk and live in substantive reality often fail because, as said before, people want to define their own rules of existence and reality.

Hell is damnation because it hardly exists as actual substance. There is gnashing of teeth because people have this innate desire to matter but are shut out by their own desires to have complete control of their lives.

This does the book no justice, really and maybe I’m taking it too far. It’s one of my favorites, though. And I believe stories relay truth much better than outright philosophy ever can. I’m not saying philosophy shouldn’t exist.

Of course this doesn’t answer most of the question, but understanding Hell as a place of literal fire and understanding Heaven as a place where the sidewalks are literally paved in the metal element we call gold (Au) may not be the most helpful place to begin. However, if God is Holy (do we even have an inkling of that means?) and we are not . . . I think you give humans too much credit. We do not deserve to be with God or even present him our rags.

Jeff, I sympathize with feeling like youre back where you started. I often feel that way. But one thing I hold onto is that I dont think prayer is intellectually dishonest. I think your hardcore atheist would tell you that it is an intellectual crime to pray. But since I find no problem believing that there is a God (thats one of the easier questions in life if you ask me), I have no problem praying to Him, even if I struggle with whether or not I like him. I feel like we can wrestle with those things in prayer. Its all we really can do.

Carl, Ive read the Great Divorce and I am also a big fan. I'll agree that Lewis presents a picture that seems less physically torturous than the fire and brimstone picture, the fact is any kind of existence where everything is wrong and can never, never be made right no matter how much time passes seems inutterably terrible to me. And I would agree that its not for us to say what humans deserve. But I think we can say something about what humans dont deserve. There is somthing innate in us telling us that no human deserves to be tortured. Most people on this globe would agree that torture is an atrocity and that it shouldnt be practiced. Well hell seems to be no less than torture. It does not seem like a fair punishment to any crime. It seems excessive and cruel. Now of course I have a finite understanding of what is fair and what is excessive and cruel, but my only point is that there is no rational explanation for WHY i should think hell is anything other than excessive and cruel. To think otherwise takes a complete leap of judgement on my part, crediting God with goodness for something that does not and cannot seem at all good.

Hell is not excessive. Hell is people who will not enter the city of God, who choose to stay out. At the end of Revelation there is the city of God and outside the city of God: the gates are always open in the city of God, but if you want to live in the city of God, you’ve got to live in His reality, glorifying him, wearing the cloths Jesus gives you freely. Many people choose their own reality over giving glory to God and wearing the cloths Jesus gives freely. Hell is not a place necessarily created by God (though maybe it is), but is in existence necessarily because of humans not accepting the gift of Jesus freely given. This is sad, and it is our problem (I just say this as opposed to saying "but it's not my problem")

Humans do deserve eternal separation from God. I do not think we have an inkling of Holiness or Goodness in the ultimate sense; and why cannot Holiness and Goodness be terrible and mysterious in their own way to us, so far above us and too bright for us to focus on? When people see God they are afraid and want to die, except for his own cleansing power (Isaiah, Jeremiah). Will you accuse God because he does not conform to your idea of “goodness” or “justice”? Can you see his master plan to give himself glory (which is the ultimate Good)?

I do not mean to sound as if I’ve answered your question: my point is that I do not think there will ever be an answer to this question that will look like analytic philosophy and when you say “rational” it sounds like you mean “looks like analytical philosophy”. The reason is that Truth is a person and analytically describing a person will never get to the bottom of who that person is.

Maybe it will help to understand that I believe Nietzsche was for the most part right on about the nature of human beings: “no human action is selfless”. He only did not believe in divine intervention.

That's a very Catholic concept of sin you've got going there, Todd. It's a kind of accounting-type view: each act winds up causing a certain amount of "good" or "evil" in quantifiable ways. The way the Roman church seems to see things is that when you're baptized, all of your sins up to that point are erased, and you're left with a blank slate. Additional sins are dealt with through confession and penance, i.e. setting things right through one's own merits (yeah, there's noise about only Christ's sacrifice making our merits possible, but that's a hair I don't care to split). If you've been baptized but die with sins on your head, you go to Purgatory, where you get to work off the rest of your sins before going to heaven.

This makes sense for them because again, any individual act is considered sinful to the extent that it increases evil in the world in a quantifiable way. As such, it requires a quantifiable--and finite--penance to overcome. So eternal punishment for a finite amount of evil seems somehow uncalled-for. To no one's surprise, the concept of hell has seen better days in the Catholic tradition.

The Protestant concept is quite different. The conversation is not nearly as much about "a sin" as about "sin" as an entity. An act is considered sinful not because of its effect--though that's certainly in view--but from the mind which produces it. The problem is not that the act has produced evil, it's that it's done from a depraved mind. There isn't anything one can do to work off or pay for a depraved state of being: it doesn't go away unless it's changed from within through the power of resurrection. The problem, as Carl points out, is not that the accounting doesn't match up, it's that because of who and what we are we stand out of relationship with God. We are not sinful because we do evil things, we do evil things because we are evil.

There's also a distinction in the way Protestants and Catholics view the character of a given act. Catholics have a mortal/venal distinction for sins, and only the former are deserving of death. Protestants believe all sins are mortal, as any act that fails to give God all the glory he is due is sinful to the extent that it so fails. As God is infinitely holy, any transgression against his holiness is infinite in nature and thus deserving of infinite punishment. Though there are certainly some sins which are more grievious and heinous than others, all are equally deserving of death.

You're also making an incorrect assumption that people going to hell is evil. The Bible says that this is a good thing: God is glorified in his justice just as he is glorified in his mercy. Saying you don't like that is one thing, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Ryan, I guess its important to clarify that Ive been writing rather emotively about this topic. Im raging in my mind about what should "seem" and "feel" like justice to the average human being. Of course I am aware of the classic theological arguments made by Catholics and Protestants throughout history concerning the topic of hell (although I am thankful that you pointed them out again so clearly).

I am aware that when I say that humans dont deserve hell, that I am fighting against historically well established doctrines of original sin, total depravity, and divine transcendence. I guess if I am trying to say anything at this point, it is that, despite whatever strength these doctrines may or may not have on paper, the idea of hell should completely offend our moral sensibilities. This is because, whether the sin that sends us to hell is an act or a state of being, it is still finite. It is either a finite act or a finite state of being that ends up sending most humans to a state of infinite damnation....and this is the kind of damnation that is supposedly unimaginable/incalculable in terms of its horrors. I cant help but think of the child who dies almost immediately in its infancy, in an unpardoned "state of sin." You cant deny that this is a possibility in consistent Protestant theology. Shouldnt we spitefully rage against the idea that this baby, who was in a practical state of subconsciousness for its precious few hours of sinful existence, should face eternal punishment without end, without relief, without even the slightest hint of mercy or hope of salvation? Sure we could defend such an idea theologically, and wrap it in just enough divine mystery that we arent allowed to question it, but come on. Thats fucking ludricous if you sit down to really think about it, to really feel it. Why shouldnt it seem ludricous? Because Im human and finite and have an irreparably flawed sense of right and wrong that could never match up with the wisdom of our divine Creator? Well, I guess that very well might be the case. But what a shit position to be in...to have to believe something is good that should naturally, to any human being, seem so utterly wrong. But like I said, Im speaking very emotively. I could probably be easily ripped to shreds when I start talking about what should "seem" or "feel" like justice to the average human being. But nevertheless, thats where I am right now. Hell does not seem just, whether you're talking about a quantifiable or unquantifiable sin that sends us there. It is torture to hurt people without relief. I dont care what they deserve. I wouldnt even mind so much if that relief was the cessation of existence. But to make someone continue to exist and continue to suffer without hope of relief is torturous and cruel in my book. So I guess I need to be gracefully shown otherwise if Im going to change my mind.

But I do appreciate your thoughts. They are very clearly stated, and coming out of the same theological tradition as you do, I of course sympathize and understand why you would have them.

Ryan, I agree with your statement that disliking something doesn't necessarily make it untrue. But what does truth matter anymore when you divorce it from emotion altogether? That leaves Todd and I, and countless others, in the shitty (impossible?) position of having to glory in a truth that our God-given human sensibilities revolt against. That at least puts some question in my mind as to whether we have been reading the bible the right way.

Actually Jeff, it leaves you and Todd in the position of needing to work on your emotions (we all do). Reasoning out the justice of hell (like reasoning out anything) needs a starting point, either we start with how we feel and think (and this needs to start with how we were brought up, our experiences and our genetic code. All are both God-given and sinful in some respects)or we start with faith. Like Carl said, Truth is a person and analytical reason isn't going to make you love, know and trust that person better. A lot of Biblical issues take faith, hell is one of them because it messes with our sensibilities. Thankfully, we are not asked to love and trust a system of thought but a person. That person declares himself has being love and just and proves it by dying. Part of love is living with mystery. We don't understand God's actions but that doesn't mean he isn't right and that doesn't mean we shouldn't glory in who He is.

I also wonder if our sensibilties that revolt so strongly against the concept of hell are simply because of our Western way of thinking. I'm not willing to say that all humans, everywhere, have "God-given" sensibilities that revolt against it. I'm sure there are time in our own lives (at least I know that it is true of mine) where hell seems very just. Let's not make our emotions less complicated than they are, our hearts can both revolt against the idea of eternal torment and desire to be the one to hand out sentences.

Nevertheless, I do believe that we should struggle, think and take these things to God in prayer but at the end of the day we should be able to rest in our finite beings and trust in love. Where else do we have to go?

Its a little too easy to say truth is a person when this person is somebody none of us have ever seen, talked to, heard from, or bumped into. You might as well say truth is Bugs Bunny.

But lest I border on the blasphemous on my blog, let me just say that I of course sympathize with that notion...and I even want it to be true. I hope everyday to believe that it is true....so Im not knocking it as ridiculous. Its just an easy notion to fall back on, and beware lest it become an escape from what the world is really telling us....that truth is space.....countless, endless miles of dark, unforgiving space. Not saying I really believe that. But thats what we are up against.....what our senses tell us and what a few first century Jews tell us. Take your pick.

It's just as easy to say that truth is space as to say that truth is a person. Seeing truth as Person is not escape. It's hope.

True that.

Amelia, have you really ever wanted to be the one to hand out a sentence of ETERNAL torment? I tell people to go to hell sometimes, but holy shit, I don't really mean it. Ultimately I just want them to be sorry and to become better people. Loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you is hard, but isn't that what Christ wants? How can you love people and yet desire that they permanently remain in a state of suffering?
If my starting point is faith in a person whose essence is love itself, that makes me LESS able to accept hell, not more, especially if I believe that person actually has the power to change people. It's the whole taking things to God in prayer at the end of the day part that makes this a problem for me in the first place. It's hard to pray when you're not sure who you're talking to.

Jeff, do you honestly only want people to just become better people? Ultimately that's not always what I want. Yes, I should pray for my enemies and love them but like a lot of things in life, it's sometimes a struggle. I wasn't saying that the desire to hand out punishment is right, it's just true that I do at my weaker moments I want my enemies to suffer. Yes, this is not my place and not me loving my enemies. I am just being honest with my faults.

Loving Christ, The Holy Spirit and the Father is ultimately what lets us accept hell because we desire him to be glorified and we trust that he knows what is best.

It's hard to pray when you don't know who you are talking to? Any communication between two parties holds mystery. There would be no reason to communicate if we completely knew the other person. Distinction is an important part of love and relationship. Communication is the avenue where understanding, love and trust come about and prayer is how we communicate with God.

Here is some of the Catholic teaching from the Catechism (preceded by ref. #)
"1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
" The key is not to die in a state of mortal sin. We all sin, but as Catholics, when we make humble use of the sacrament of reconciliation, we are forgiven. We then live in a state of grace. It is an enormous feeling of peace and comfort to know you are forgiven upon receiving this sacrament. Being human, we tend to sin again, however.
"1057 Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."
..."1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want 'any to perish, but all to come to repentance'"
Here is a searchable reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
For those who think there could not be a hell from a merciful God, I think to consider the separation from God as a personal decision to sin takes oneself away from that same mercy. This is made clear in the scriptures.
If one still doesn't believe in hell based on inner feelings of justice, reading the chilling accounts of some near-death experiences that converted atheists and agnostics alike to belief in God should make us all pause and consider the options and risks involved. That we believe in our held states of mind will one day terminate and we will be confronted with the absolute certainty of our own death. It is certain that you will die. You don't know when. All the botox treatments, the exercising, the healthy eating regimens, the trips to the doctor cannot but prolong slightly the inevitable, and what you believe to be unjust now will not serve you either at that moment when no money, no friends, no family, nothing can stop the passing of your time on earth. We try to not think of this, and to dwell on it constantly is thought morbid by many, but it is the most real thing we face...all of us. The truth is that God does not have to prove Himself to us (although He does if we but look and listen)...it works the other way around. I hope with all my heart to see you someday in one of God's many mansions.