Why Jac has no (logical) problem with Hell

[Jac3510]

So I promised Thump I'd start a discussion on this, so here we are. Let me start with a few preliminary issues to frame the discussion. First, Hell is a controversial topic for everyone in all camps. Let me start out by saying that whatever the popular view of Hell is, there is no consensus of any kind on the subject that I am aware of. The thread has been titled to reflect this. This is what I understand the biblical and philosophical concept of Hell to be, and thus why I don't have a problem with it. As such, everything I say about Hell is my own take based on my own understanding of the subject matter. It would be, however, rather redundant to continually say, "In my view . . ." Let it be understood that I am offering my view and mine alone. Others are responsible for theirs. Feel free to point out that many in disagree with my understanding of the subject.

Second, let me make a few direct statements up front about what Hell is not:

1. Hell is not a place where we are punished for sin.
2. Hell is not a place people go because they deserve be there.
3. Regardless of the view of Hell one takes, no argument will or can make us "feel good" about it (it is, after all, Hell).
4. Hell is not some metaphorical concept (that would certainly be an easy way out). It is real.

Finally, I am using the word "Hell" in its popular sense. Technically, "Hell" is the English equivalent to the Greek Hades or the Hebrew Sheol, neither of which are, biblically speaking, where people will spend eternity. Hell is shorthand for the Lake of Fire or Gehenna. Space and time don't permit a detailed discussion of each. Suffice it to say here that Hades and Sheol are the temporary abode of the dead until the final judgment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

This discussion presumes a perfectly good moral God. If such a God does not exist, or if Hell is incompatible with such a God's existence, the entire notion can be dropped. As this thread is about Hell and not the existence of God, I will ask any discussions regarding this first assumption be held for another thread. In other words, we are arguing: "If a perfectly moral God exists, then Hell is . . ."

Most people start with justice and argue that a perfectly good God must punish sin, and since God is infinite, then sins against Him are infinite, and therefore require an infinite punishment since any punishment must match its crime. They then argue that Jesus, who as God is infinite, took this infinite punishment on Himself so that we don't have to, and therefore, anyone who believes in Him can be saved from God's wrath. I think that is true insofar as it goes, but I don't think it helps our case, since if Jesus did take on the infinite punishment for us, then there would be no punishment left for those of us who don't believe! (For more on this, see this paper by Zane Hodges.) So the basis of Hell cannot be punishment for sin. It must be something else.

That something else is found not in the legal effect of sin, which is death, but its practical effect, which is corruption. The reason is that all that is good is found in God. Just as darkness is really just a lack of light, evil is actually a lack of goodness. To sin is to act in a way that lacks love; to love is good, and all goodness is rooted in God, so love is rooted God, from which it follows that to act in a way that lacks love is to act in a way that is contrary to God's nature. Sin, then, can contain no goodness in it as it is fundamentally rooted in selfishness and is opposed to the source of all goodness. Thus, every sinful act makes one a little bit less like God. Each act becomes a permanent part of who we are, of our history, and that act is devoid of God's goodness. Over our lives, our sin means there is less and less goodness, and more and more evil. Acting according to God's will, then, leads to love, joy, peace, and harmony. Acting selfishly leads to bitterness, anger, slander, and violence.

The Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection at the end of time. The Greek concept of substance-dualism, that we are really just ghosts living in a machine called our body--is thoroughly unbiblical in my view. Human beings are fundamentally physical, and our existence will always be in a body. At the Cross, Jesus took care of our sin, but more importantly, He became the first human being to be resurrected into His eternal body. All God's saints will be raised following Jesus with glorified bodies as well. Those who rejected Him, however, will be raised as well, only they will not be raised with bodies like Jesus. How could they? Jesus' body is completely good, completely oriented towards God. As we all can attest, our bodies are oriented towards our selves. Those who are raised with Christ will be given a body that matches their inward disposition - they are for Christ and for God, and their bodies will reflect that. Yet those who are raised without knowing Him will have bodies that match their own dispositions - they are for themselves, which is fundamentally evil in that there will be no goodness in them.

Now, it is here we see the practical effect of sin is not only temporal, but also eternal. Granted that sin brings destruction in our present lives (alcoholics and liars can attest to that), the corruption will continue in their final bodies. Imagine what it would mean to have no goodness of any kind: no love, no joy, no peace. Imagine an existence completely and totally consumed by the self. In this life, though we may be fallen, we are still in some sense the very image of God. We have the moral law of God written on our hearts. Though we are selfish, there is a very real part of us that longs to do what is right. We do genuinely seek the good, but since all goodness is rooted in God, to seek the good is to seek God. God is active every moment in our lives today, but in that eternal state, such activity will cease. In that resurrection, no one will seek the good at all, for what little reason we have to seek good in our present bodies, even that will be removed. We will be turned over completely and totally to ourselves.

C. S. Lewis once said that God is the kind of God to whom in the end we will say, "Thy will be done" or in the end He will say to us, "Thy will be done." Those  in Hell are those who have lived their lives for themselves, who have asked God to leave them alone. Finally, He will. And in that state, they will be severed from absolutely all connections with goodness.

Such an existence is a terrifying thought: an eternity of anger, hostility, hatred, lust, envy, strife, bitterness, terror, and all things evil. They will be completely bent toward themselves. Can you imagine meeting a person who cared only for themselves in the absolute degree? Imagine all that is good and negate it. There will be torment, but it will be self-inflicted. The fires of Hell are not literal. They are symbolic terms for the unimaginable anguish those there will feel, but that anguish will be just as real as if the fires were real. It has been said by some atheists, even on this very board, that they would give God an ear full and walk off to burn forever. Such a statement is more right than anyone could possibly guess. Every aspect of goodness in our lives comes only because we are in some distant way still connected with God. But in that state, all such ties will be severed. There will only be the absolute negation of good.

I'll close with one more thought.

Hell is not simply a future experience. There is a very real sense in which people today can experience a taste of Hell. Those who have suffered from depression, anger problems, or any other such emotional struggles know well that emotional pain can be far more severe than physical pain. Such torment is literally a taste of Hell, because at their core, they are rooted in a lack of something good, be it happiness, contentment, peace, or whatever. Those good things are only found in God. In the same way, Heaven can be tasted today. Unconditional love, happiness, joy, contentment, peace, acceptance . . . all of these are good things that are rooted in God. Those who know Him can know those things perfectly and permanently in their resurrection.

God did not make any of us for Hell. It is the natural consequence of rejecting Him, because to reject Him is to reject the essence of goodness. God will not force Himself on us, and so those who walk away from good are left only with themselves--an eternity of absolutely non-goodness. Hell is about the only term that would suffice to describe such a state.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If god is omnipotent we cannot change his plans.  Calvin was right: omnipotence demands predestination.

[Jac3510]

If god is omnipotent we cannot change his plans.  Calvin was right: omnipotence demands predestination.

We can deal with Calvinism and predestination later. I firmly reject his system of thought. Rather than talk about his, let's talk about what you asked me about: my thoughts on Hell. You wanted to know how God could sentence billions of His children to Hell. You have my answer. I'm looking forward to your comments.

[PoopShoot]

God created a place.  God had the option not to.  God granted an eternal soul.  God had the option to make the soul only eternal in the case of salvation.  The "natural consequences" of one's actions are dictated and engineered by god.  Hell is a place of torture by nature.  God chose that nature.  Therefore god CREATED a torture chamber that is BY NATURE a torture chamber and god made men in a way wherein they will end up there.  God further added to that by making sin heritable by one's offspring.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So I promised Thump I'd start a discussion on this, so here we are. Let me start with a few preliminary issues to frame the discussion. First, Hell is a controversial topic for everyone in all camps. Let me start out by saying that whatever the popular view of Hell is, there is no consensus of any kind on the subject that I am aware of. The thread has been titled to reflect this. This is what I understand the biblical and philosophical concept of Hell to be, and thus why I don't have a problem with it. As such, everything I say about Hell is my own take based on my own understanding of the subject matter. It would be, however, rather redundant to continually say, "In my view . . ." Let it be understood that I am offering my view and mine alone. Others are responsible for theirs. Feel free to point out that many in disagree with my understanding of the subject.

Second, let me make a few direct statements up front about what Hell is not:

1. Hell is not a place where we are punished for sin.

[All Biblical citations are from the NKJV as published by the Gideon's Association.  Unless otherwise noted, all emphases are added by me.  Additionally, in order to keep post-length to reasonable standards, I shall only respond to certain statements, and will edit out those portions with which I agree, or those which are unimportant. -- Thump]

Thessalonians 1:8, 9:  

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know god, and on those who don't obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9  They shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power

2. Hell is not a place people go because they deserve be there.

The corollary to this is that undeserving people are roasting.

My major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

Fair enough.  Evidence?

This discussion presumes a perfectly good moral God. If such a God does not exist, or if Hell is incompatible with such a God's existence, the entire notion can be dropped.

This is a fatuous presumption, as I've shown in another thread.

As this thread is about Hell and not the existence of God, I will ask any discussions regarding this first assumption be held for another thread. In other words, we are arguing: "If a perfectly moral God exists, then Hell is . . ."

Well, the existence of hell raises questions about god's morality anyway.  It will be discussed, it is germane, and while I will agree for the purpose of this discussion that god exists (in order to avoid clunky qualifiers littering each post), I will not stipulate that this god is perfectly moral.  

Most people start with justice and argue that a perfectly good God must punish sin, and since God is infinite, then sins against Him are infinite, and therefore require an infinite punishment since any punishment must match its crime. They then argue that Jesus, who as God is infinite, took this infinite punishment on Himself so that we don't have to, and therefore, anyone who believes in Him can be saved from God's wrath. I think that is true insofar as it goes, but I don't think it helps our case, since if Jesus did take on the infinite punishment for us, then there would be no punishment left for those of us who don't believe! (For more on this, see this paper by Zane Hodges.) So the basis of Hell cannot be punishment for sin. It must be something else.

Where is the morality of transferral of guilt?  And how, exactly, is that done?  Is it just a matter of your god saying, "okay, it's cool, he's dead, you're safe for now, I'll forgive your sins because you crucified him"?  That seems awfully whimsical.

And yes, hell cannot be punitive in nature, I agree.  Punishment is a meaningless concept without redemption, and there can be no redemption when the punishment is eternal.

That something else is found not in the legal effect of sin, which is death, but its practical effect, which is corruption. The reason is that all that is good is found in God. Just as darkness is really just a lack of light, evil is actually a lack of goodness.

There are sins of omission, and sins of commission.  How does this square with what you're saying here?

To sin is to act in a way that lacks love; to love is good, and all goodness is rooted in God, so love is rooted God, from which it follows that to act in a way that lacks love is to act in a way that is contrary to God's nature.

You are assuming your god's goodness. Please demonstrate this, with evidence, rather than logic.  Logic cannot force reality to do anything.  And how is giving someone leukemia "loving"?

Acting according to God's will, then, leads to love, joy, peace, and harmony. Acting selfishly leads to bitterness, anger, slander, and violence.

In Ireland, Palestine, Iraq, and other places, millions have been or currently are acting in what they interpret as "god's will".  Yet people are still blown to pieces regularly in the name of god.  

The Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection at the end of time. The Greek concept of substance-dualism, that we are really just ghosts living in a machine called our body--is thoroughly unbiblical in my view. Human beings are fundamentally physical, and our existence will always be in a body. At the Cross, Jesus took care of our sin, but more importantly, He became the first human being to be resurrected into His eternal body.

Okay .... I'm unsure what an eternal body is.  Does it have need of nutriment, and excretion?  Is it DNA-based?  If a man and a woman, in their eternal bodies, have sex, can they have children?  Are those children then immortal, or mortal?

All God's saints will be raised following Jesus with glorified bodies as well. Those who rejected Him, however, will be raised as well, only they will not be raised with bodies like Jesus. How could they? Jesus' body is completely good, completely oriented towards God. As we all can attest, our bodies are oriented towards our selves. Those who are raised with Christ will be given a body that matches their inward disposition - they are for Christ and for God, and their bodies will reflect that. Yet those who are raised without knowing Him will have bodies that match their own dispositions - they are for themselves, which is fundamentally evil in that there will be no goodness in them.

This is word salad.  What do you mean when you say "They will be given a body that matches their inward disposition"?

C. S. Lewis once said that God is the kind of God to whom in the end we will say, "Thy will be done" or in the end He will say to us, "Thy will be done." Those  in Hell are those who have lived their lives for themselves, who have asked God to leave them alone. Finally, He will. And in that state, they will be severed from absolutely all connections with goodness.

Wait, I thought god didn't want anyone to go to hell.  Couldn't he have done anything to change that outcome?

Such an existence is a terrifying thought: an eternity of anger, hostility, hatred, lust, envy, strife, bitterness, terror, and all things evil.

Given its non-existence, it's about as scary as the Boogeyman -- and about as cogent.

The fires of Hell are not literal.

Not according to Thessalonians 1:8, quoted above.

I'll close with one more thought.

Hell is not simply a future experience. There is a very real sense in which people today can experience a taste of Hell. Those who have suffered from depression, anger problems, or any other such emotional struggles know well that emotional pain can be far more severe than physical pain. Such torment is literally a taste of Hell, because at their core, they are rooted in a lack of something good, be it happiness, contentment, peace, or whatever.

Or perhaps that nifty little chemical imbalance in their brain that your god was kind enough to give them.

Those good things are only found in God. In the same way, Heaven can be tasted today. Unconditional love, happiness, joy, contentment, peace, acceptance . . . all of these are good things that are rooted in God. Those who know Him can know those things perfectly and permanently in their resurrection.

I don't need and god(s) to be good.

God did not make any of us for Hell. It is the natural consequence of rejecting Him, because to reject Him is to reject the essence of goodness. God will not force Himself on us, and so those who walk away from good are left only with themselves--an eternity of absolutely non-goodness. Hell is about the only term that would suffice to describe such a state.

Given that this so-called "essence of goodness" espouses genocide, infanticide, and the murder of innocents in order to get at the guilty, I'm pretty sure that no matter how bad hell is, it cannot be half as bad as eternity with such a sick monster.

So yeah, I'm thoroughly unconvinced.  How can you actually believe all this stuff?

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

First, I hope you are never offended by the awkwardness of discussing such things with atheists.  The idea of Hell is absurd regardless of how you try to define it or justify God allowing us to go there.  

That aside, treating this as a coherent, fictional, mythology, I gotta say it seems to me that you are just guessing that Hell is such a bad place.  I know what burning feels like.  But you say that Hell isn't literal burning.  That's a relief.  Burning hurts.  So Hell is the absence of God right?  How do you know what that feels like?  God's been with you your whole life.  But you say God is goodness and Hell is the absence of good for all eternity.  I know from experience that everything that is good is not enjoyable and everything that is is enjoyable is not good.   If there is drinking sexing and cussing down below, sign me up.  

Seriously, your conception of Hell isn't frightening at all.  I would have to imagine myself and everybody I know to be completely different  to even be a little afraid of it.  I hope I can convey this clearly.  I like Thump.  I don't know him very well, but I'd have a beer with the chap.  As a matter of fact, I like most of the atheists that I have encountered.  I know a few Muslims, a couple Hindus and a whole bunch of "not religious but spiritual" types.  They mostly seem like good folks as well.  Your definition of Hell requires me to imagine a place full of all these nice people that are all of a sudden acting much differently in Hell than they did on earth. Without the goodness that God puts in our hearts we'll do all sorts of evil things:

 Whitney wouldn't be a nice lady anymore, she'd be a raging selfish jerk who hands out perma bans for posting links even if you have a thousand posts. Pinkocommie would duct tape my eyes open and make me watch "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" until it wasn't funny anymore. Tank would be raping me up the bum while Sophus feeds me anchovies just for the evilness of it.  I really hate anchovies. PoopShoot would.....You know what, I'm not going to even mention what I think a PoopShoot with no goodness in his heart would do to me.  The whole idea of imagining people acting this way is quite difficult.  The burning bit is a lot easier to grasp and be afraid of.

The kicker is that Hell isn't even punishment.  I can just avoid this maybe bad place by accepting Jesus as my Lord or whatever the technical term is.  God knows all and sees all and He's not even keeping track of the good stuff I do?  I don't get extra credit for helping little old ladies across the street and giving 4% of my income to charity?

Actually I lied.  The kicker is that I'm told there is no sex in Heaven.  Please tell me this isn't so Chris.

[i_am_i]

That was a good post by humblesmurph, I like it very much. All those nice people going to hell and suddenly acting out of character just because they're there. What an interesting thought, really.

So, Jac, now you've told us your view of hell and you've been right out front with the disclaimer that it's only your view.

Here's where I get lost. Are we supposed to tell you what our views of hell are, or what? I mean, your view is your view. I don't share your view. Now what?

[pinkocommie]

That was a good post by humblesmurph, I like it very much. All those nice people going to hell and suddenly acting out of character just because they're there. What an interesting thought, really.

So, Jac, now you've told us your view of hell and you've been right out front with the disclaimer that it's only your view.

Here's where I get lost. Are we supposed to tell you what our views of hell are, or what? I mean, your view is your view. I don't share your view. Now what?

Haha, I was thinking the same thing!  

[Thumpalumpacus]

Look me up if you're ever in SoCal, 'Smurph, we've got many good local breweries and some pretty gals too.

[PoopShoot]

PoopShoot would.....You know what, I'm not going to even mention what I think a PoopShoot with no goodness in his heart would do to me.

I might need a quick fap after that post.

[Sophus]

This is like that fake Einstein argument.

The problem is you know that God is not required for good. Otherwise all atheists, with absolutely no exceptions, really would be horrible immoral demons.

God did not make any of us for Hell.

Really? Then why put the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden to start with? Will that tree be in heaven? If not, why? Why not just start from the very beginning with no tree? Saves a lot of people from hell.

An all-powerful God who does not wish for anyone to go to hell is not required to make some arbitrary rule that by not believing in his son that you'll go to hell.

C. S. Lewis once said that God is the kind of God to whom in the end we will say, "Thy will be done" or in the end He will say to us, "Thy will be done." Those in Hell are those who have lived their lives for themselves, who have asked God to leave them alone. Finally, He will. And in that state, they will be severed from absolutely all connections with goodness.

The answer above answers this too. The arbitrary rule is entirely his.

If everything God makes is goodness, why is there less than great stuff in the world? How do I know he won't screw it up again once in heaven?

Why is my life not a living hell right now? After all, I am already godless.

The fires of Hell are not literal.

You know this? When was your last vacation to Hades?

Such an existence is a terrifying thought: an eternity of anger, hostility, hatred, lust, envy, strife, bitterness, terror, and all things evil. They will be completely bent toward themselves.

How? Will I be under some sort of mind control? I can be completely content when alone so I am wondering how this happen. Also how you know this will happen.

Can you imagine meeting a person who cared only for themselves in the absolute degree?

Sounds like God, actually. He's rather arrogant, thinking everything is about him, you know.

[Jac3510]

God created a place.  God had the option not to.  God granted an eternal soul.  God had the option to make the soul only eternal in the case of salvation.  The "natural consequences" of one's actions are dictated and engineered by god.  Hell is a place of torture by nature.  God chose that nature.  Therefore god CREATED a torture chamber that is BY NATURE a torture chamber and god made men in a way wherein they will end up there.  God further added to that by making sin heritable by one's offspring.

You offer two objections:

1. God could have not created Hell / God created Hell's torturous nature: But this is answered by the fact that evil is by its nature torturous. Hell is a byproduct of creating sentient beings capable of good, for by definition, any being capable of good must also be capable of evil. Any being, then, that manifests pure evil would have a certain set of experiences, which we call Hell.

2. God could have not created souls to be eternal: A lot of people make this argument, but I don't know that it is true. This goes off in a very, very different direction. I'm inclined to think that everlasting hell is actually morally superior to annihilation. The fundamental issue here is whether or not sanctity-of-life advocates are correct or quality-of-life advocates are. The former reject practices like abortion and euthanasia because human life is fundamentally valuable. The latter may or may not embrace such practices based on the quality of life a person would have (and so, in theory what QoL adv. may reject aborting healthy children but favor allowing the abortion of those with Down's Syndrome). If SoL is morally superior to QoL, then annihilation would go against God's nature, because the only grounds God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life. Suffice it to say, this issue needs to be decided on its own terms, not based on the conclusion we want to draw with reference to Hell. It seems to me, however, that those who uphold SoL are definitely upholding a morally superior position than QoL, because the former sees life as inherently valuable and worthy of respect, whereas the latter sees life as relatively valuable and worthy of respect only in certain situations.

--------------------------------------------------------

Thump, I am not going to line-by-line the responses. As you note, the length gets out of hand and it becomes difficult to answer others who are interested in discussion. I quote where essential, but otherwise, I'll boil your objections down and answer accordingly. If you feel I've missed anything, let me know, and I'll handle it specifically. You raise eight general issues

1. You argue the Bible teaches that the flames of Hell are literal:

Fire is consistently used throughout scripture metaphorically to refer to judgment. This has been called 'transposition,' meaning that things that we know and understand are used to communicate concepts we cannot grasp. For instance, a picture of a house is nothing more than two dimensional shapes, but it represents (often accurately) a three dimensional house. Heavenly language is almost certainly transposed. The street of gold, the gate of pearl, the precious stones -- those terms were used to try to express the splendor and richness of such a place. This is evident in the text itself. Rev. 21:21 says that the main street was pure gold "like transparent glass." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but pure gold is not transparent. John is using the highest of exalted language here he can muster. The same is true of Hell. The most terrifying thing most people could imagine would be being burned alive forever, and so that is the image used to try to convey the concept. Further, this is evident from Jesus' description of Hell when He used the word 'gehenna,' which is the Greek transliteration of the phrase literally meaning "Valley of Hinnom." This valley was Jerusalem's dump. There were always fires burning the garbage that was thrown out. This usage comes from Isa. 66:24.

2. The assumption of a moral God is unjustified even for this thread (though you are willing to discuss the issue on the assumption of God's existence generally):

If God is not assumed to be good, then we may as well just say that God is a cosmic sadist. The problem with God and Hell is that we can't figure out how to reconcile a good God with Hell. If God isn't good, we may as well say, "Because God gets His jollies off by watching people squeal." Obviously, our problem is reconciling a good God with Hell, which is therefore the basis of the assumption.

3. Our guilt cannot be transferred to Jesus on the Cross:

It depends on the analogy used. We talk about debt being transferred regularly, and some people do view sin as a debt. Concerning guilt, Jesus, being a man, served as the representative of all humanity. It isn't so much that He took your guilt (although that was the practical impact) as it was He took humanity's guilt. That concept also plays into justification and resurrection, but those are other issues. In any case, this isn't a direct part of my argument, so you can accept it or reject it as valid however you like. I only brought it up to mention the issue of punishment for finite sins as the common answer so that my own would have a frame of reference. Nothing more.

4. Sins of omission vs. commission

Sins of omission are just as sinful as those of commission in that both have the same root: selfishness. As such, both have the same corrupting nature in both this life and the next.

5. People do evil things in God's name all the time, which calls into question the effects of acting according to God's will leading to goodness

Humans have free will and can say whatever they want. Some can even sincerely believe that they are acting in God's name. It is possible to be wrong; it is also possible to be sincerely wrong. Those actions which do not result in overall goodness should be immediately questioned as to whether or not they are from God or not. Immoral behavior is never from God.

6. What is an eternal body?

A body that never dies. This is just a question about the miraculous being possible. If God created the universe, He would have no problem sustaining life. In fact, this is the very reason that sin brings about death, because when we sin and are separated from God, we are no longer rooted in life. Theologically speaking, we are all dead men walking. Just like a flower dies the moment it is picked and the decay takes several days to set in, so too the human body dies the moment it is severed from God. It simply takes time for the decay to set in.

7. God's ability to keep people from going to Hell

See my response to PS above. Hell is a byproduct of creation. Giving men the ability to do good necessarily entails giving them the ability to do evil. The ability to do evil necessarily entails the possibility of an eternity without God, and since God is fundamentally good, that necessarily means an eternity without the slightest goodness, which is what we would call Hell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HS,

First, I'm never offended by the awkwardness of the conversations. I know that Hell is a moral problem for most atheists, and so I'm offering an explanation. You deserve at least that much. As to whether or not it is absurd, that depends on the logical necessities or lackthereof. If God is fundamentally good, it seems to me that it is the denial of Hell that is fundamentally absurd. And if God is not good, then it doesn't matter anyway, because He may well throw us all into the torture chamber for the fun of it.

Beyond that, you raise two issues.

1. Hell as I describe it doesn't seem so "hellish"

Whether or not I am conveying the picture adequately (there is a reason the biblical writers used fire to explain the anguish), it seems to me that Hell is actually far worse than any of us have ever considered. Imagine for a moment the worst emotional pain you've ever suffered. In my own life, I remember an event so painful that I blacked out from the intensity and found myself curled up on the floor a few minutes later. Now, even in that moment, there was still traceable good. There was hope of restoration and for justice. There was the knowledge that one way or another everything would be okay and we would get through it (five years later, thankfully, that nightmare ended). Try to imagine such a moment, though, with absolutely no goodness of any kind. Think about the angriest you have ever been. Mix that with absolute terror, absolute depression, absolute hopelessness. One by one think of every good thing and negate it absolutely. Kindness becomes pure cruelty. Love becomes pure hatred. Joy becomes pure depression. Peace becomes pure hostility. It's good to have an outlet for such negativity, so imagine there being no outlet and that such feeds on itself, on you. But further, a calm evening is soothing and good. Imagine pure chaos, the everlasting and defining roar of a silence and sense of abandonment so loud it is all you can hear. Where there is no goodness at all there is no order. It is pure chaos.

And the worst part (in my view)? Because such people are turned completely toward themselves, they are incapable of thinking of the good of others. Concepts like justice have only their shadow of a meaning. Such people will be convinced for all of eternity that God is being unfair and unjust. The irony, of course, is that justice and fairness are good, and since they are good, they are rooted in God, so to receive justice, mercy, and love they would merely need to turn to Him, but of course, they cannot and will not, because such turning is itself good.

Simply try to imagine a world that has no goodness. It's difficult, because your whole life you've experienced some level of goodness, even in the worst of times. Just spend some time with it. Think of every good thing and negate it and see what is left.

2. It seems there should be some meritorious system to account for what we've done on earth.

Theologians are divided on the matter. Some think there are "levels" of Hell. I'm not inclined to think there are because that implies that the worse someone is, the worse they deserve, but that gets back into the punishment for sin issue, which I think is a non-issue. Of course, you could view it as a permanent reaping of corruption--the more you sin in this life the more corruption you reap in the next. Again, I'm not inclined to think so, but some argue it is possible.

Christians certainly have a meritorious system for heaven. Not all will be the same. The Bible clearly teaches that we will be rewarded for the good we have done as believers and the evil we have done can cause us to lose those rewards. It doesn't make any sense, though, to apply that same thinking to Hell (at least, I don't think so). I'd be open to the concept if it were put in proper terms, but for now, I see no reason, philosophical or biblical, to think it to be the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i_am_i,

I presented my view specifically because the charge is often leveled that Hell is incompatible with a good God's existence, and therefore, if Hell is real, God either does not exist or is not good. Now, obviously, if you don't believe in God or Hell, there is nothing to say one way or the other. But for those who think that Hell presents a logical problem for Christianity, I think the view I've put forward here demonstrates why it is not. In sum, again, the suffering in Hell is not punitive; it is consequential.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all,

The logical starting point here is that goodness is rooted in God. We could very easily make this into a moral argument for God's existence as follows:

1. If morality is objective, God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore, God exists

We would defend (1), as we did extensively, by pointing out that if there is no God then all moral statements are simply matters of preference, no matter how widespread that preference may be. All moral statements are built on some value, and if there is no God, then no value is inherently more valuable than another. The only way for morality to be objective is if it is rooted in the essence of a moral God. In other words, if God is Himself good--that is, if goodness is His essential nature--then any creation of His that contained a moral element would necessarily reflect His moral nature. In other words, if God is moral, then He would will moral commands out of that moral nature.

The question, then, is this: is morality objective? More fundamentally, do the words "right" and "wrong" have any inherent meaning? If so, we must affirm that God exists and is inherently good. If, however, He is inherently good, then the argument about Hell I put forward becomes a necessary deduction from the existence of God. The moment we affirm the existence of a good God, we necessarily affirm that where God is not, there is no goodness. If, then, a person can be fundamentally separated from God, then it follows that such a person would be in a state in which there is fundamentally no goodness, and this, we call Hell.

There is, then, a great deal at stake in deciding whether or not good and evil are objectively real. I hold they are, and because I do, I must conclude that a good God exists and that so does Hell as I have described it. Further, whether anyone admits it or not, I would presume moral objectivity in your very argument against Hell. In saying that it is unfair or unjust, you are appealing to an objective moral standard. If there is no such standard, then even God Himself is not good (since the word is meaningless--we all can have differing opinions on what 'good' is). As such, He could throw anyone He wants into a flaming Hell and who is to say He is doing anything 'wrong'? In this view, might does make right!

So the logical conclusion to me is abundantly clear:

1. The words 'good' and 'evil' have objective meaning, and therefore God and Hell both exists;
2. The words 'good' and 'evil' have no objective meaning, in which case Hell, should it exist, serves as no argument against God's existence no matter how heinous it may seem to us.

EDIT:

Sophus, you posted while I was typing this response. I'll get to your comments tomorrow.

[Sophus]

1. If morality is objective, God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore, God exists

I disagree with the first two. Well, actually all three.  

1. Why should we assume such a thing? Why couldn't it mean we all evolved an objective sense of morality?
2. Morality is very very subjective, and depends upon numerous things, both within factors of "nature and nurture".

[PoopShoot]

But this is answered by the fact that evil is by its nature torturous.

I've never tortured anyone.

[Martin TK]

Sorry but it all reads like a bunch of theologist BS to me.  A LOT of words to say little of nothing that has not been PREACHED from nearly every pulpit in the Christian world, and it's all wrong.

Your entire world view is rightfully yours, but wrongfully viewed.  You are making assumptions for which there is NO evidences at all, NONE.  Your only evidence is found in the bible or from writers who have studied the bible, or from philosophers who have "thought" about hell using the bible.  So by your definition, hell is a consequence of the rejection of god, not from the consequence of sin.  Wow, so a man who has "found" Jesus, been saved, and yet has done horrible things in his life is destined for heaven'; yet a man like myself who has done many good things because I like the way they make me feel, have helped many, many young people get an education, given of my time, talents, and money to charities, and lived a pretty darn boring and normal life, I AM destined for hell because I do not believe in god.  I know you have an answer to this, but is it going to be based on evidences or your view?

Nah, it all smells to "high Heaven" pun intended.