Gundulf

I'm curious to EXACTLY which part of the whole hell doctrine people particularly object to. Is it the fact that it is eternal? Is it the torture? Which part is it, specifically, that makes it so objectionable to you?

That is, would the concept of hell be not so distasteful if...

1. Hell were eternal, but not so terribly full of torment - "Eternal Life in Prison", but you still get to work out and watch HBO...?

2. Hell was torture and pain, but of a specifically limited duration? (Granted parole after, say, 10,000 years...):devil:

3. He only punished people for "real" sins, as opposed to unbelief?


Or is it the entire concept that God could/would punish people at all that is distasteful about the concept?

Thoughts?

Toto

This is not the right forum to discuss this question, since there are no particular scriptural references that explain it, so I think I will move it to GRE.

But basically, the doctrine of Hell seems unfair, arbitrary, and the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged crimes.

Can you think of a good thing to say about Hell? Even modern religionists are trying to redefine Hell as just "separation from God."

MadMez

I object to the entire concept of "Hell" as...

1. There's no one set of rules for who gets to go.
2. There's no definition as to what happens when you get there.
3. There's no agreed location, either physical or not, as to where it might be, or even if it doesn't have a "where".

But most of all..

4. This bullshit "you better believe or suffer!" line is fed to children to justifiy recruitment into the various terrible religions and cults in the world.

"Distasteful" doesn't illustrate my disgust enough.

parkdalian

A few notes:

Hell serves almost no function except for revenge.

It only deters believers and they don't agree on exactly what hell is supposed to deter.

Hell is delayed punishment and does not remove threats from society.

Assuming the Earth and humanity have a finite existence, suffering in hell absolutely does not serve any more practical purpose after the end times. And if humanity went on sinning and dying without end, hell would collect an infinite supply of suffering souls.

Gundulf

"Separation from God" - I imagine that such a punishment wouldn't be terribly threatening to many people...

"Please, don't throw me in the briar patch..."

non_existence

actually hell isn't meant to be merely a concept, it's meant as a reality. big difference between concept != reality.

you project your wishful thinking onto something subtle & hidden which is part of the underlying reality we exist in. it's perfectly possible for hell to exist AND at the same time for us to barely have any information about it.

reality exists _independent_ of us having evidence for it. consider every single important scientific discovery: the phenomena discovered had already existed long before the particular year that humans happend to discover it.

if you use those reasons as a basis for the conviction that hell un-exists, then you're merely refuting & disbelieving something constructed out of your own (confused) assumptions and preconceptions [with no connection to reality]

I agree that it's very distasteful, but this has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether hell actually exists or not. why do you even mention this ?

beorne

The concept of good people being rewarded after death and bad people being punished/reformed appeals to our sense of justice. But the idea of an eternal torment violates that same sense of justice. If hell were a place where everyone was punished/rehabillitated/taught to play nice, in an equitable manner, commensurate with the evil each had done, it would be..... well it wouldn't be the doctrine of hell anymore.

Merzbow42

Perhaps. Either way you can't prove it. Sorry.

Since there is no concrete evidence for this place called Hell, we are left to speculate on its nature and likelihood in an empirical vacuum with only the catechisms of a particular religion to guide us. And the Hell of the Bible is incoherent (annihilation has more scriptural backing), and in opposition to the God of the Bible's very nature.

Unbeatable

Obviously this would make it less distasteful to me, but it would still be distasteful.

Obviously this would make it less distasteful to me, but it would still be extremely distasteful. Even if the time was essentially limited to the average length of an earthly prison sentence, it would be distasteful to me. When humans do things like this to each other, at least we have an excuse-- we're petty, bloodthirsty apes who can't help the way we evolved.

...less distasteful, but if it involved intentionally causing people to suffer, it'd still be distasteful to me.

I find the human desire to cause suffering for perceived "wrongs" distasteful. I find our tendency to project such desires onto the universe embarassingly, childishly arrogant on top of that. It's hard for me to even take seriously the idea of a god who shares our base desire for vengeance yet doesn't share our evolutionary background or pragmatic needs. The hell doctrine bugs me because of how it reflects upon its human creators.

rjf

As I understand it, the traditional Xian justification for Hell was that if you harmed a person, you should be punished. If you harm a king, you should be punished more than if you harm a peasant. Harming gawd, it being infinitly greater than even the greatest king, would warrant an infinitly greater punishment.

The problem I have with this is

1. How can I possibly harm an infinite being?
2. Why are people who allow someone else (Jebus) to suffer for them granted a pardon, whereas those who suffer for their own wrongdoings are made to suffer eternal pain?
3. It offends every shred of decency in me to punish someone for any but the most heinous of crimes. Gawd, supposedly all good and all powerful, is either incapable of helping rehabilitate sinners, or is capable but refuses. If the first, he is not deserving of worship (even us lowly mortals can help others rehabilitate themselves). If the second, he is malicious, sadistic, and still not deserving of worship. If, as must therefore be the case, gawd is not worthy of worship in the first place, why is he permitted to punish at all?

I could go on, but the horse is already dead.