If we, as humans, can see that as abusive, how is forever separation or burning in firey pits forever not abusive? If humans can see this, and God is to us like we are to ants, then I imagine God could see this, too.
I wanted to chime in on this.
What you're asking is something philosophers and theologians have been struggling with for centuries. Hell is kind of a vague idea, and it's mostly defined by what it's not. That's where the "circles of hell" probably came from, because Dante wanted to wrap his brain around good non-Christians being stuck in the same afterlife as the wicked. The concept of purgatory is probably the same deal. The fundamental problem is that hell is the default afterlife for all of humanity, which doesn't seem fair. We want hell to be really nasty for Hitler, but not so bad for Ghandi.
Assuming that's where they both went, of course. I remember reading an editorial criticizing the notion that Ghandi "must" be in hell, simply because he wasn't a Christian. On paper, that's how it's supposed to work, but when you stop and think about it, it doesn't make sense. For me, the issue is academic. Ghandi's been dead for a long time, and his ultimate fate was between him and God. I have to trust that whatever became of him was right and just, even if I can't understand it.
And that's the thing. People go around trying to decide who's going to hell and who isn't, like it's something we need to be certain about. Yes, you can make an educated guess based on the person's beliefs and scriptural context, but beliefs change and canons can be misinterpreted. It used to be that if the pope excommunicated someone, that was supposed to be an automatic trip to hell. That made it pretty simple, but it didn't make it true. I always remember a line from this sermon that went something like "There's a lot more people in heaven than you expect to see." God's grace is bigger than anyone's ability to predict who's going where.
So I kind of wish Christians would just leave hell out of the discussion. It's more of an internal concept, something we use to define the alternative to a relationship with Christ. Using it as a boogeyman to win an argument is self-defeating. The other person walks away thinking God is a capricious bully who sends everyone to hell, willy-nilly. The whole point of Christianity is that God is a cool guy who provided a way (read: Jesus) for everyone to go to heaven. So the keyword should be "Jesus" and not "hell". Hell is something we're not really in a position to comprehend until we're dead, but Jesus makes a whole lot of sense in the here and now. No one should be struggling to figure out what "Love thy neighbor" means.
I love when you chime in on things! I quite enjoy reading your points.
I agree about hell being vague (and I know I was using Christianity, but I should note that I find this true for all religions I've studied). I also agree about people going around trying to decide who belongs -- which I think is both sad, when they're doing it out of fear to make sure it's not them (and, as you pointed out, that's NOT what God's supposed to be about anyway!), and frustrating when they're doing it out of a sense of vengeance. (Though I understand it - ha, I've done it myself!)
I think it's that fear reaction that bothers me. Like you, I believe the important thing is the loving side of god. It's much easier to stop and say, "Will this hurt or help someone? Is this love or anything else?" than, "Will I go to hell? How big is this infraction?" Etc. And, really, that's supposed to be the important thing, anyway!
Sadly, I think I see the reverse a lot more -- and people making laws that affect me negatively are generally done "for my own good" to keep me from going to hell. It's a little frustrating...
I wanted to chime in on this.
What you're asking is something philosophers and theologians have been struggling with for centuries. Hell is kind of a vague idea, and it's mostly defined by what it's not. That's where the "circles of hell" probably came from, because Dante wanted to wrap his brain around good non-Christians being stuck in the same afterlife as the wicked. The concept of purgatory is probably the same deal. The fundamental problem is that hell is the default afterlife for all of humanity, which doesn't seem fair. We want hell to be really nasty for Hitler, but not so bad for Ghandi.
Assuming that's where they both went, of course. I remember reading an editorial criticizing the notion that Ghandi "must" be in hell, simply because he wasn't a Christian. On paper, that's how it's supposed to work, but when you stop and think about it, it doesn't make sense. For me, the issue is academic. Ghandi's been dead for a long time, and his ultimate fate was between him and God. I have to trust that whatever became of him was right and just, even if I can't understand it.
And that's the thing. People go around trying to decide who's going to hell and who isn't, like it's something we need to be certain about. Yes, you can make an educated guess based on the person's beliefs and scriptural context, but beliefs change and canons can be misinterpreted. It used to be that if the pope excommunicated someone, that was supposed to be an automatic trip to hell. That made it pretty simple, but it didn't make it true. I always remember a line from this sermon that went something like "There's a lot more people in heaven than you expect to see." God's grace is bigger than anyone's ability to predict who's going where.
So I kind of wish Christians would just leave hell out of the discussion. It's more of an internal concept, something we use to define the alternative to a relationship with Christ. Using it as a boogeyman to win an argument is self-defeating. The other person walks away thinking God is a capricious bully who sends everyone to hell, willy-nilly. The whole point of Christianity is that God is a cool guy who provided a way (read: Jesus) for everyone to go to heaven. So the keyword should be "Jesus" and not "hell". Hell is something we're not really in a position to comprehend until we're dead, but Jesus makes a whole lot of sense in the here and now. No one should be struggling to figure out what "Love thy neighbor" means.
Reply
I agree about hell being vague (and I know I was using Christianity, but I should note that I find this true for all religions I've studied). I also agree about people going around trying to decide who belongs -- which I think is both sad, when they're doing it out of fear to make sure it's not them (and, as you pointed out, that's NOT what God's supposed to be about anyway!), and frustrating when they're doing it out of a sense of vengeance. (Though I understand it - ha, I've done it myself!)
I think it's that fear reaction that bothers me. Like you, I believe the important thing is the loving side of god. It's much easier to stop and say, "Will this hurt or help someone? Is this love or anything else?" than, "Will I go to hell? How big is this infraction?" Etc. And, really, that's supposed to be the important thing, anyway!
Sadly, I think I see the reverse a lot more -- and people making laws that affect me negatively are generally done "for my own good" to keep me from going to hell. It's a little frustrating...
J
Reply
Leave a comment