Hell is a place of eternal torture. It lasts forever. If you end up there, it will never, ever stop. For ever and ever, you will cry out for mercy and relief, but you will receive none. It is worse than any pain you could possibly experience here on earth. And it lasts forever.
I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard these words spoken to me. I recall one particular night at youth group during which we all went outside and sat around a huge bonfire. Our youth pastor preached about hell. He dared us to imagine what it would feel like to jump right into the fire and to imagine what it would be like to have that feeling relentlessly forever and ever. It scared the crap out of me.
Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps scaring the crap out of people is the reason the concept of hell was incorporated into religion in the first place. If you can scare the crap out of people with a concept, you can use that concept to cause them to greatly fear leaving the religion.
Does the concept hell really make sense? It is said that hell is a place where the sinful are punished. First, what is the purpose of punishment? Is it to get revenge or to get back at a person? Or is it to teach? Does a good parent discipline simply because they want to get back at their child for what the child has done or to teach the child not to repeat that behavior again? Most people would agree with the latter.
So, what is the purpose of hell? How can it be a teaching experience if there is no possible opportunity to escape? Why would someone punish somoene for a wrongdoing without giving them a genuine opportunity to make things right after they had come to see the error of their way? Why does there have to be a point in which it is "too late"?
Secondly, I am quite convinced that there is no crime actually worthy of hell. Hitler must be one of the worst men to have ever been a part of modern society. And yet, if we're going to talk about what someone "deserves," I don't think his acts are worthy of a literal hell that last for all eternity. While he did do horrible, horrible things, that suffering would barely hold a flame next to the horror of trillions of years in hell followed by trillions more and trillions more and so forth...just never ending.
It seems to me that hell is a place in which people are punished far beyond the severity of their crimes. And it is a place that serves no real purpose...well, besides scaring the crap out of people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hell is not much more than a scare tactic to keep people in their place... which is under the Church's thumb.
ReplyDeleteHell as a scare tactic is so obvious. It seems primative. I can hardly imagine that it is still effective in this modern era.
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points. Many I've come across before, but nbow you mention it, "what's the point of all that punishment" and "why does there have to be a cut-off point" are good questions. And the cut-off point before you've even had a real chance to get going. After all, you've only done threescore years and ten - could be more, could be less - and ahead of you is forever. Wouldn't it have been a bit more sporting to give us a few hundred years to sort it out?
ReplyDeleteHiya Flubber. I read your post on RD's site.
ReplyDeleteGlad to have you into the real world. It's a great place, and science is about following your curiosity into how it works. The learnings in science are wonderful.
Cheers
This is what I call "The argument of fear".
ReplyDeletehttp://anatheistinagoodmood.blogspot.com/2010/01/argument-of-fear.html
What if, as C.S. Lewis (for one) seems to think, a person's punishment continues for eternity because their rebellion against God continues for eternity? In other words, nobody in Hell repents.
ReplyDeleteSome very good points in your post. I thought I'd herad pretty much every argument against religion, but have never heard anyone actually ask what the purpose of hell is, but it is such an obvious problem for theists do deal with - thank you for bringing some attention to this.
ReplyDeleteLaughing boy, there are a couple of problems with this argument. First, I have a hard time believing that people in unimaginable, inescapable torture that they could get out of if they just stopped rebelling would actually choose the unimaginable torture over just not rebelling. There is evidence to support what I am saying. People have caved in to all kinds of actions and ideals when faced with torture, isolation, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe second problem is that C.S. Lewis...while he is an excellent and intelligent writer...makes a pretty big error in most of his arguments. He assumes what is true first, and then, works backward to find logic to support what he has already decided to be true. This is not nearly as good as sorting through logic first and then, using that process to determine what is most likely true. Do you agree?
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Perhaps in Hell people aren't being punished or "tortured" against their will, but in accordance with it. The alternative to their current condition is to accept the authority of God over their own desire for autonomy. Perhaps they think Hell is the better option. I also have support for what I'm saying. Would you rather submit to God's authority or would you rather spend eternity in Hell?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Lewis, if his logic is good logic, then I don't see any problem with it. If fact, I think that's usually the direction in which logic (and science) proceeds. It would be a problem if, when working backwards, he came to the conclusion that his initial assumptions were wrong, but continued to hold them in spite of that. Nobody starts with a blank slate.
Why do you say Lewis is "an excellent and intelligent writer" when you think he makes "a pretty big error in most of his arguments"? Sounds pretty incongruous to me. Do you mean he's an excellent and intelligent writer of fiction, but otherwise a hack?
Hey Flubber! Found you from Dawkins' site.
ReplyDeleteI know how you feel about hell. Growing up I as well was told all of the time about hell and how nonbelievers (including every other non Christian religion) would go there when they die. For eternity, with weeping and gnashing of teeth never ending. I was forced to attend church for 9 years and basically scared (with ultimate punishment of hell) into believing in a religion. I did not like that. It's been about 8 years since I've been to church voluntarily.
I think there could be something to what you asked:
"Is it to get revenge or to get back at a person?"
Because, many times when I (or when anyone really) disagree with someone about a certain aspect of Christianity such as the creation story, their feathers get a little ruffled and they're quick to tell me where I'll end up when I die. As if it were some sort of internal revenge, "Then I'll be in heaven and you'll be in hell for not believing in what I believe, hahaha."
"It seems to me that hell is a place in which people are punished far beyond the severity of their crimes."
Right on! Disagreeing with the creation story because it didn't make sense to me is a crime worthy of being eternally tormented? Awesome...
I read your story at RD's Convert's Corner and followed the link. I don't know you, but I'm happy you are happy. Keep up the good work! =)L
ReplyDeleteLife is good.
Daniel, México.
And about this hell issue, it's all mythology. Even when I was somewhat of a theist, the idea of hell never made sense. An all loving god, who gave us free will to do whatever we want, punishes us if we decide to do what he doesn't wants us to do, and he never set the rules clearly and he never reveals himself to us, and we are supposed to choose to do whatever he wants us to do, but we really don't know what he wants us to do? And god is all loving, and all forgiving, and all those things, but he is also vane and vindictive and will burn the crap out of us if we don't worship him? It's so illogical and infantile.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely correct, Anonymous. The idea of hell is so ridiculous and is obviously designed to control people.
ReplyDeleteHowever, some people (maybe most people) cannot conceive of their own non-existance after death.
Even a ridiculous version of hell implies that the consciousness exists beyond death. If consciousness exists then good and bad still exists. Therefore, heaven and hell.
Laughing boy,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I believe a person can be intelligent and still make mistakes.
Second, the problem with the method of logic C.S. Lewis uses is pretty simple. The point of logic is to discover truth. If you decide what is true BEFORE using logic, you can come up with just about anything. The best way to come to the truth is to look at objective evidence and use logic to draw a conclusion...C.S. Lewis (as well as many Christian writers) follow these steps in the exact opposite order. People can come up with all kinds of reasoning to support anything...which is why it's best to start out with no conclusions and allow the logic to lead you to conclusions.
Lastly, if I had to obey a God that I disagreed with or be tortured for all eternity...I'd probably go with the former, even though it is wrong. That doesn't make me weak or immoral...when faced whith unimaginably horrifying torture and isolation that will never, ever end...I think people could be talked into doing just about anything in the face of that. And again, people have been talked into all kinds of things that are quite horrible and against their belief systems, etc.
freenopen,
ReplyDeleteI heard a Christian guy in an online forum say once that he and God would be pointing and laughing at us as we are drug off by demons into hell...like, us disagreeing with him with enough to make him loathe us so deeply, he found the thought of us suffering for all eternity not only acceptable...but, hilarious as well.
Hell is indeed a scare tactic. Sadly, it is still very effective among people who simply refuse to think for themselves.
ReplyDeleteFlubber, I think the word you're looking for is rationalization. Christians choose their premise first, i.e., the Bible is right, and then pick and choose supporting "evidence" that rationalizes it, while ignoring or twisting evidence that disproves it.
ReplyDeleteAnd, unfortunately, because Christians do this, they assume everyone else does as well. So, when they hear about a scientific discovery that contradicts their beliefs, they disregard it assuming the scientists came to their conclusions the same way the Christians did.
ReplyDelete