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
