Do you believe in Hell?

[snoop]

This question is directed toward anyone religious that believes in Hell, although I am interested in perspectives from the religious that don't believe in it, and of course anyone that isn't religious can pitch in too. The reason I want to talk about this is because Hell is one of the least convincing concepts in the Abrahamic religions to me. I was raised to be religious (in fact my mom is quite zealous), and I was a Christian until I was about 14 or 15. However, even when I was still a believer, after learning about the dark ages and discovering that Hell was rarely even discussed (at least not in the fire and brimstone way), and it got even more fire and brimstone-y during colonial times, etc., I immediately saw it for what I believe it was: a way to govern, manipulate, and control people. For another 3 or 4 years I still had Christian values, but I thought the reason for Hell's existence was very transparent and wasn't a legitimate part of the belief system (at least not in any sense resembling what it does now). From what I understand, eternal damnation was never a concept that dealt with a lake of fire, being in any kind of agony and pain (at least not physically), or anything resembling how showy as how it's presented in Dante Alighieri's "Inferno". What damnation entailed was being permanently removed from God's light/presence. The punishment came from the inherent darkness and, presumably, utter despair and lack of anything good one could experience as a result of this separation. Understandably, as a tool for governing and manipulating the actions of others, the original concept was missing something in the way of inspiring terror and absolute submission that only burning alive for an eternity in a lake of fire with no hope of escape can achieve. I don't even really mean to imply that the original concept of damnation was necessarily meant to be used to control people's thoughts, values, and actions--I think it was merely a convienent device for it, and that future generations capitalized on. Of course, these ideas are only my opinion, and a lot of my opionions are based on speculation. If anyone has more accurate information regarding the evolution of Hell as a concept over time, I'd appreciate if you shared it and corrected me if I'm wrong about any of the information I present. I'm very much interested in how believers that also believe in Hell, in the sense of an eternity spent in an inferno, reason its existence in light of the circumstances of its evolution as a concept. Not only that, but why on earth God would legitimately see fit to burn his creations alive with no hope for relief or repentance. Sure, it's nice to believe in a narrative where people who commit vicious, depraved, and evil acts are punished for it--I can understand that. I just think the idea of them suffering for eternity, even for the most heinous and evil acts, is just overboard to the point of ridiculousness. What's worse, even good people who simply don't believe in Christ, or whatever religion's specific God, or be otherwise guilty of something totally inocuous or of very little consequence can and will suffer the same fate as somebody who issues the orders that are responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. That's where the comfortable narrative of living a good life leading to a reward, and being evil leads to punishment breaks down. I realize that in cases lake Dante's inferno, Hell has many levels, and not everybody receives the same punishment. However, there is no real agreement on anything in that regard, so it's hard to say whether everyone receives the punishment or not. Even if we assume there are different levels of Hell, the fact that you are guaranteed no chance of atonement or absolution, it's somewhat fair to say that, despite there being different levels of torture to the "wrong doers" in Hell (including otherwise good people who simply do a few minor things wrong), the resulting punishment is still absurdly unfair. Why is it that we can see that, but a perfect being that created us and everything from nothing can't or won't? The argument that we can't comprehend God's motives or actions would be the usual cop out here, but it doesn't excuse how extreme the everlasting punishment is. So, it's a mystery to me that even believers are capable of buying into the idea of Hell in its modern portrayl. Even if you are totally ignorant when it comes to the history of whatever specific text you are talking about, and specifically in how the concept of Hell has changed, how does this idea jive with you? I suppose in some cultures and faiths it is more excusable than in others because of how unspeakable questioning God's word is, and how differently that culture may be in regards to violence and justice. However, given you live in most Western cultures for example, free thought isn't something you are persecuted for (at least not officially). Even when your family and community strongly discourage questioning what the Bible or whatever holy book says, you are capable of looking at things critically (even if quietly). This was the case with me. My family went and still goes to church, I went to church for a good while, and the friends I had and the people I grew up around were almost always believers in one form or another (either various Christian sects, Catholics specifically, or Jewish). Yet, when I simply went to school and sat in a history class, where the facts were not presented with any bias toward there being a God or not, I still wound up coming to the conclusion that Hell was a concept created specifically to govern and control people, almost instantly. Please, share your ideas with me. I encourage any one, no matter their belief, to feel free to discuss here. I will repeat, though, that I am most interested/curious to hear from believers who also believe in Hell, and your reasons for believing. I really hope this doesn't turn into a discussion where people are bashed for believing in what they do or are somehow meant to feel guilty/wrong for it. That's not my intention at all, and it'll be disappointing if that's what it comes to. I know it's easy for atheists to criticize believers, but you can question them without persecuting them or being really disrespectful. I don't mean to pick on atheists with that comment either, but having been on DV as long as I have, I've seen quite a few discussions in ED stifled or devolve into hate spewing between both parties, and more often than not it was because an atheist (calling it how I see it, I'm an agnostic atheist myself). Also, sorry for the really long post, but this is a rather deep topic, and there is a lot of room for discussion--believe it or not I even left stuff out to bring up for later! lol

[wormholejoys]

I think the idea is absurd and nasty to say the least. Certainly hell is something that human beings would be capable of contriving in their own imaginations whether or not it existed for real (same with heaven). Heaven and hell represent the highest level of both wishful thinking and dreadful thinking a human brain is capable of IMHO. But I cannot prove that neither exist. I'm agnostic; grew up evangelical Christian.

[aSpirit]

The concept of hell appears in virtually every culture. Ancient Egyptians had drawings of lakes of fire where wicked souls were thrown for punishment. Buddhists and Hindus believe that souls are taken by Yamadutas and suffer according to their deeds or karma accumulated in their lifetimes. Greeks believe that the gods can send souls to Tartarus so that they can pay for their crimes. I believe in hell because I believe souls were created to obey and serve the higher powers. There are prisons on Earth to isolate criminals and those who walk out of line according to the rules of our modern society. Today you can pollute the air and that's alright, but you cannot rip money because that is a crime. It may not be fair, but that's just the way things are.

[moSh]

I believe in hell because I believe souls were created to obey and serve the higher powers. This is one of the things I don't understand about heaven and hell. They're grand-scale consequences based on a person's merit, judged by a higher power and not by the individual. This reduces morality to a set of rules, rather than a conscious decision about the good of others. If someone carries out a 'good' action because he was told to, are they really exhibiting virtue or just obedience? In practice you can see the damage this can do--the biggest atrocities committed by humans have been those under religious pretences, whereby the agents of those atrocities were merely doing as they were told, yet truly believed that they were being morally good, instead of thinking about right and wrong for themselves. Surely, if morality does exist inherently at all, it should come from our own goodness and not from a fear of being punished. Essentially, what heaven and hell therefore come down to are reward or punishment for the extent to which an individual can follow orders.

[aSpirit]

Essentially, what heaven and hell therefore come down to are reward or punishment for the extent to which an individual can follow orders. I agree, except for the part of biggest atrocities, which is debatable of course. One could use that same argument and say that science has caused more damage to humans and the world than anything else. People no longer see nature as sacred, so we pollute the air (how many diseases do we get from that?), the soil, the water (we are not the only species that need it), decimate indigenous peoples (natural selection?), create and use nuclear bombs, go into wars because of money and natural resources and so forth. Therefore, I don't think it's right to blame religion for atrocities if greedy leaders have twisted its meaning for their own purposes, we can blame human nature for that. Regarding morality, yes, that makes sense and I think both things are required, goodness and obedience. According to many religious beliefs, being the good guy may not help you much in this life, and we can see that those who cheat, deceive and take advantage of others are always more successful in the world, but the faithful is supposed to endure sufferings and rely on the reward that he will get in the afterlife. It's not like someone is going to pretend to be nice, deceive God, be saved and takeover the place. Another thought is 'do we even know what is truly good?'. Opinions and morals tend to change throughout time. If there is a good all-knowing God who wanted us to join him and gave us instructions on how to achieve that, how can we as inferior beings suppose to know better than him what is right and wrong? I'm not saying that we are stupid and cannot decide for ourselves, but the rules are not always so clear, and that is the part that I call unfair, while thinking of 'those miserable souls who end up in hell'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convert anyone and I wouldn't want to get to the core of my beliefs, since this is very personal. Religion is not something that should be shoved down people's throat and I'm really not expecting this post to be a guide on how to avoid hell. Just sharing some thoughts on the subject.

[moSh]

I agree, except for the part of biggest atrocities, which is debatable of course. One could use that same argument and say that science has caused more damage to humans and the world than anything else. People no longer see nature as sacred, so we pollute the air (how many diseases do we get from that?), the soil, the water (we are not the only species that need it), decimate indigenous peoples (natural selection?), create and use nuclear bombs, go into wars because of money and natural resources and so forth. Therefore, I don't think it's right to blame religion for atrocities if greedy leaders have twisted its meaning for their own purposes, we can blame human nature for that. Good point well made. You're totally right, I retract that part of my statement Another thought is 'do we even know what is truly good?'. Opinions and morals tend to change throughout time. If there is a good all-knowing God who wanted us to join him and gave us instructions on how to achieve that, how can we as inferior beings suppose to know better than him what is right and wrong? I'm not saying that we are stupid and cannot decide for ourselves, but the rules are not always so clear, and that is the part that I call unfair, while thinking of 'those miserable souls who end up in hell'. Of course, this relies on two main assumptions. The first, that there is not only a higher power (something I'm not necessarily opposed to), but one that 'wants' as you say, and has other such human qualities. I find it hard to believe at a superior being would still be so much like us. Sure if God is truly all-knowing, he would already know who would eventually go to heaven and who would eventually go to hell; he would already know that he didn't create humans very well and some of them were bound to do bad things--and so surely could not blame them and so could not sentence them to eternity in hell. Either there is a higher power that knows all, or there's one that takes revenge, holds grudges and sentences people to eternal torture for a mistake he made at the very beginning. Secondly, that there is in fact an objective good, that transcends humankind and our nature and nurture. I haven't decided myself yet, but I'm not so sure that there is. As you say, conceptions of morals have changed over the centuries, so how can we be sure that morals are in fact rigid, independent rules? For example, to steal is a sin, correct? For that to be an objective, unchanging fact--the result of which puts you one step closer to hell--then it would have to be true in every situation. But what if I were to steal the gun from a man about to kill his wife? Would the theft still be a sin? Would letting the act happen be more of a sin? It's these grey areas that suggest to me that morals are relative and contextual, and very rarely black and white like many religions make them out to be. These are just my perspectives, which are still under development, so I'm open to having my mind changed about them! The one version of hell that has, however, stuck with me as the most intriguing, is one of the interpretations of the Tibetan Buddhist framework of karmic rebirth. In 'black and white' terms, there are six realms that one can be reborn into: gods and demi-gods (portrayed as heaven), humans, animals, hungry ghosts (hell), anti-gods (hell), and hellbeings (hell). Which one you are born into depends on the type of actions you tended to perform in your previous life (greed leads to being reborn as a hungry ghost, for example). The interpretation I like, however, says that these versions of heaven and hell are actually taking place while the person is alive. In other words, the hell you create for yourself by being greedy is the hungry ghost realm. Gods suffer from too much pride, which would mean 'heaven' doesn't require you to be a completely good person, but in the Buddhist tradition, nirvana--the escape from the attachment to, or need for, heaven and hell--can only be acquired by someone in the human realm, as it contains the right conditions (read: mindset) to follow a spiritual practice well.

[Karlitaki]

If you believe in Paradise you will believe in hell !?

[snoop]

I agree, except for the part of biggest atrocities, which is debatable of course. One could use that same argument and say that science has caused more damage to humans and the world than anything else. People no longer see nature as sacred, so we pollute the air (how many diseases do we get from that?), the soil, the water (we are not the only species that need it), decimate indigenous peoples (natural selection?), create and use nuclear bombs, go into wars because of money and natural resources and so forth. Good replies so far guys! Now, on your point about science... your comparison isn't fair. Science is not an institution in itself, where as religion is. Science does not command anybody to make nuclear bombs, use said bombs, force us to pollute the earth, or even to stop seeing nature as sacred. Now, when it comes to that last point, it might be more natural to stop viewing nature as sacred, but science doesn't make any comment on how sacred nature is, let alone tell anybody that they aren't allowed to think that. All of these things may relate to what people do with science, and in that same vein I could see how you are arguing that it is the same with religion. However, while some people do use religion to do wrong, religion actively commands certain customs, beliefs, and enforces specific rules. Science is the name of a process; one by which we seek to understand the reality we inhabit as objectively as we can possibly manage. It does not have a hierarchy of leaders and followers, and, as I've already mentioned, it does not propagate any rules or enforce a required life style. Religion is actually capable of being culpable when it comes to people doing things for its sake/in its name, science is not. A process that we utilize to understand observable phenomena cannot be at fault for what anybody does when it doesn't command anybody to do anything (other than maybe lay out the rules for the scientific method of investigation, which is harmless).

[aSpirit]

Science is not an institution in itself, where as religion is What is religion, who defines it? What is the difference between religion and philosophy? To me the only difference is that Philosophy hasn't been turned into a profitable business by promoting salvation to those who adhere to it, whereas religion is usually used to enrich and empower greedy and corrupt leaders. If we all accept that, then blaming religion is like blaming rock n' roll for drug use, violence, depravity and such. You're not targeting the real cause. Are the Beatles to blame for what Charles Manson did? Unless you believe those 'religious leaders' were named by God to enforce others to live in a certain way, then the argument is flawed. When scientists in the 30's and 40's said that smoking was good for your health, weren't them to blame for the deception? Today we know they were wrong, but at the time no one dared to question the massive propaganda.

[snoop]

You're missing the point. Religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam claim their holy books are the word of God. These books have various rules, commandments, values, and beliefs in them. I am not referring to religion by its more obscure meaning where it collectively addresses the overall concept of the various belief systems out there, and quite honestly to purposefully pick that meaning of the word in this conversation seems a bit disingenuous on your part. Rock n' Roll doesn't tell people that they have to use drugs, be violent, or act depraved or they will go to hell/if they want to get to heaven, and it isn't possible to misinterpret what it tells people to do, because it doesn't try and tell people to do anything. Rock n' Roll is a genre of music, not a belief system with a holy text whose author is God Himself. Again, the Beatles as a band were just playing music. Music has never been a belief system that must be adhered to and commands its listeners/believers into doing something if they want a divine reward and to avoid a divine punishment. The case could be made that he misinterpreted their lyrics or whatever, but the fact of the matter is as I've already outlined. Even though millions of people see the Pope as a religious leader, it's not even that important of a factor in my original argument. All I need is the Bible/Quran/Torah or any other holy book. All I need is the fact that a religion is a belief system with its own set of values that demands faith in God and to adhere to His will. Your argument is the one that's flawed. When it comes to your argument about scientists and smoking, scientists did not force anybody to smoke, lest they receive eternal damnation/if they wanted eternal salvation. This isn't even mentioning the fact that they were simply mistaken, and actually owned up to that mistake--something that can't possibly happen when it comes to religion. Either the Bible or whatever book is the word of God, or it isn't. Also, I would have to argue that your claim that nobody dared to question the "massive propaganda" isn't something you can back up. First and foremost because we know better today. If nobody dared to question it, how did we wise up to the fact that smoking is bad for one's health? And now it sounds like you are conflating scientists with tobacco company public relations representatives. When scientists make a statement about something, it isn't propaganda. It's what the evidence currently points to. Propaganda is information that's either false or deceptive that is spread for either financial or political gain, something that "science", a process of understanding one's reality, cannot take part in. And that leads me to my next point: that you are also conflating scientists with science. Whether a scientist chooses to engage in shady behavior or not doesn't make what that scientist does science's fault. Again, I can see where you are coming from if you want to say that what one follower does wrong doesn't mean that religion is wrong, but when a religion clearly states its rules in its holy text, its clear in this case that we're no longer talking about the same thing. Some of the bigger atrocities aren't the fault of religion, but plenty still are. Stoning prostitutes to death, genital mutilation, condemning homosexuals to death, denying homosexuals equal civil rights, and various other issues. Now, I'm fine if you want to get one last word in about this, but we're starting to stray from the topic. Please refrain from continuing this particular debate.

[aSpirit]

Of course, this relies on two main assumptions. The first, that there is not only a higher power (something I'm not necessarily opposed to), but one that 'wants' as you say, and has other such human qualities. I find it hard to believe at a superior being would still be so much like us. Sure if God is truly all-knowing, he would already know who would eventually go to heaven and who would eventually go to hell If there's more than one higher power, that explains why different civilizations had their own set of beliefs and rules to follow. They would be either serving their gods or the antithesis, the enemy of the gods and humanity, the devil. What this means is that different people would go to hell for different reasons in different times and places. And having good intentions wasn't always helpful. According to the myth, Prometheus was thrown in hell because he decided to be good to humanity and share the fire with us. Zeus got angry and punished him. The one version of hell that has, however, stuck with me as the most intriguing, is one of the interpretations of the Tibetan Buddhist framework of karmic rebirth. In 'black and white' terms, there are six realms that one can be reborn into: gods and demi-gods (portrayed as heaven), humans, animals, hungry ghosts (hell), anti-gods (hell), and hellbeings (hell). Which one you are born into depends on the type of actions you tended to perform in your previous life (greed leads to being reborn as a hungry ghost, for example). The interpretation I like, however, says that these versions of heaven and hell are actually taking place while the person is alive. In other words, the hell you create for yourself by being greedy is the hungry ghost realm. Gods suffer from too much pride, which would mean 'heaven' doesn't require you to be a completely good person, but in the Buddhist tradition, nirvana--the escape from the attachment to, or need for, heaven and hell--can only be acquired by someone in the human realm, as it contains the right conditions (read: mindset) to follow a spiritual practice well. I subscribe to the belief that there are many heavens and many hells, so I accept that these are all possible destinations for the souls. Thanks for sharing that and the interpretation. Isn't a nightmare a small taste of hell that we experience in this life? Concerning an eternal truth, it is probably what every religion attempts to achieve, a timeless changeless teaching. I like the allegory of the blind men and the elephant: they all had something meaningful to share, but the truth is greater than they could understand from their limited perspective. You're missing the point. Religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam claim their holy books are the word of God. Disingenuous? I thought we were having a healthy and intelligent discussion up until now. Music, science, religion and everything can be used for anything. They use songs and hymns to compel soldiers to fight, to feel brave, proud, etc. Melodies alone can evoke a number of different emotions, even without lyrics. What part of my argument you didn't understand? Religion is philosophy with a promise of immortality. No one is forcing you to believe and follow what any religious text says, if they are, they are criminals (not even God is supposed to interfere with your free will). Texts were written by people, not by God. If you accept their authority it is by your own free will. If a 'prophet' comes and says that when you turn 20 years old you should commit suicide to go to heaven, why would you do it? You should use your discernment to decide what is right and wrong, if that ain't obvious. Just because they are big institutionalized organizations that doesn't make them different from clowns in a circus or cult leaders. The only difference is that they were more cunning and successful than the latter. Science/scientists will also defend ideas that are profitable to them because they are a business today. Why do we still use fossil fuel when there are better alternatives? Why do we have to use disposable light bulbs when they can make durable ones? Why do we have to pay electricity bills when every house could have its own power source? Why do we still treat diseases when there are cures? Many will defend them because they keep us entertained with fun toys, but most people don't know what happens behind the curtains and can't tell how much they're missing out.

[moSh]

If there's more than one higher power, that explains why different civilizations had their own set of beliefs and rules to follow. They would be either serving their gods or the antithesis, the enemy of the gods and humanity, the devil. I subscribe to the belief that there are many heavens and many hells, so I accept that these are all possible destinations for the souls. Thanks for sharing that and the interpretation. Isn't a nightmare a small taste of hell that we experience in this life? Concerning an eternal truth, it is probably what every religion attempts to achieve, a timeless changeless teaching. I like the allegory of the blind men and the elephant: they all had something meaningful to share, but the truth is greater than they could understand from their limited perspective. Ahhh I think I finally just understood your position fully. I think I misinterpreted your responses to assume you thought hell was inextricably bound to a single law of good and bad. But, correct me if I'm wrong, you mean to say that hell is like our prison system--we put people in it based on laws we've created, that can change and are likely to differ across nations (or in this case, across gods), is that right? One god might have a seemingly pretty fair judgement of who deserves salvation and who deserves damnation, while another might not? Hell is there, but whether or not people get there isn't not dependent on a universal, unchanging set of rules? Going back to one of your first points then, that hell appears in practically every culture, does this not support the idea that it's a totally human conception rather than the product and governance of an array of different higher powers that can't decide between them who to save and who to punish? You relate it to prisons, which we came up with; is it not more likely that it's a very human solution to the problem of counterproductive persons, to put them somewhere they can't hurt the rest of us anymore (and ideally suffer)? Would a god, with its superior power and clairvoyance, really give a shit?