Monday, May 19, 2008

A Brief Comment on Hell

I have spent a lot of time thinking about Hell. When I was young, my eldest sister told me that Hell was walking around in darkness forever and ever. The idea terrified me, and occasionally haunted my thoughts as a child.

I became a Christian when I was 18, and still my thoughts were haunted by Hell. Not a fear for myself, but just a horror at the idea. Many people I cared about did not know God, and the idea that this was their destiny was unbearable. Even for those I didn't know, it seemed cruel.

For many years I played around with annhiliationism. According to this idea, God's judgment does not go on forever. Instead, the godless are completely extinguished at death, nothing is left.

This is a very attractive idea for a number of reasons, and I spent much time reading and thinking about it as a young Christian. Ultimately I rejected it though. There are a lot of passages in Scripture that don't provide a lot of detail about God's final judgment, and which could be taken to support annhiliationism. But there are a couple of passages that very plainly and directly contradict the idea. And the plain scriptures must inform the ambiguous scriptures, rather than the other way around.

So what do you do with that? How do you cope with an idea that your mind finds appalling? Things like this really test your faith, your trust in God. To be able to say, "I don't like this God, I don't understand it. I really don't like it. But I'm going to trust You, trust You know what You're doing," - that's a small victory.

Mockers occasionally say that God is just some benevolent father-figure in the sky that we've invented to feel good. Hard teachings like this put the lie to this suggestion. Were we to invent a god, we would make him much tamer and easier.

So there has been a growth in faith for me, because of these hard ideas. I believe that God will be vindicated at the end. No-one will be able to credibly charge Him with being unjust. That which seems harsh now will be shown to be perfectly right and fair, and even good.

Another thing that helps, perhaps, is a growing understanding of evil, a growing awareness of it. As an adult in this world, you see some terrible things, some on the news and some in real life. The existence of terrible crimes makes terrible punishment more palatable.

There is another idea, popular in the evangelical world but originating (perhaps) from Eastern Orthodoxy. This is the thought that everyone who goes to Hell chooses it for themselves. Hell is the ultimate declaration of independence. The choice is between being a servant in heaven, or being your own little king in Hell. Human pride is such that some would choose Hell. The final stanza of Invictus might be the anthem of the damned -

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

This is certainly an easier picture of hell to deal with. We might mourn people's stubbornness and stupidity, but you cannot fault the justice of God, He is merely giving people what they want. As CS Lewis wrote so eloquently, "There will be two kinds of people in the end: Those that will say to God 'Thy will be done' and those to whom God will say 'Thy will be done."

There is some scriptural support for this attractive idea. We read about people rejecting God will He patiently holds out His hand, that no-one seeks after Him, that everyone is going his own way. And in Revelation we see people still spitting out defiant blasphemies against God, even as they are enveloped by the apocalypse.

Yet there are other scriptures too, perhaps the most terrible of all, which tell of people knocking on the door to the kingdom, desperately seeking entrance, yet being told they are too late, too late, too late. Will those
who rejected God their whole life, suddenly wish to seek Him after their death? I don't know, I have to give it more thought.

But can any of these ideas, rationalisations some might call them, can any of them help us survive the idea of someone we really love going to Hell? A friend, a parent, a spouse - a son or a daughter?

Another comment from Lewis I've found helpful here, and I think this one has some substance. He wrote -

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would strongly be tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare.

We think of Heaven as a place where we are better, more holy, than we can imagine, where every fault, every sin, everything wicked and hateful has been taken out of us. Is the reverse true of Hell? Perhaps it is the place where people become worse than we can imagine, where everything that was good and loving and kind and virtuous is taken away, and all that is left is a "horror and corruption" from a nightmare. It is perhaps not so hard to believe that such a creature belongs in Hell, regardless of what it once was on earth.

I've just about run out of thoughts. It's not a subject that occupies me like it used to. Yet it is clearly a very important subject, one of the most important, so I'm glad this conversation has been happening - we need to talk about this stuff. If you've made it through to the end, many thanks for reading. I hope it has been useful.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shivers - those illustrations are gonna give me nightmares.

David McKay said...

Hi Craig.
The pictures make your page look more interesting than a page of text, text, text.

But do they present an accurate picture of hell, as the Bible defines it?

Healyhatman said...

You ever played Doom 3 Craig?

kristina said...

the idea of someone we really love going to Hell really bothers me. Especially as I watch my parents age.

it is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses... Sorry, at the risk of sounding ignorant I really don't understand this quote.

DJP said...

I think anti-Christians particularly hate the fact of Hell because it is the ultimate "Game-over." They play their lives like a game, on the premise that their likes and dislikes bear any relation to reality.

Hell is when "But I wanted to be God!" is shown in its true light.

Hell will be when they have no choice but to admit what they really knew along.

It's no wonder they hate it so. Party over, bill due, pay up.

CraigS said...

David - no, I don't think the pictures are accurate, they are just art

HH - I played right through Doom 1 & 2. Unfortunately, I don't think the damned are given plasma guns when they enter the real hell

Kristina - by "gods" he just means immortals

Dan - yep, game over. I think a lot of people have a vague suspicion that there is a day of accounting, time to pay the bill...

DJP said...

Romans 1:32 leads me to suspect it may be more than a vague suspicion; and all the big talk and chest-thumping is just so much whistling past the graveyard.

Romans 1:32 -- Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

hayesy said...

"That which seems harsh now will be shown to be perfectly right and fair, and even good.... Perhaps [hell] is the place where people become worse than we can imagine"

This is truth which settles it for me. (Though I would not say anyone 'becomes worse', I think it will be a revealing of who they are.)

Paul Washer (great preacher!) says something along these lines:
People sometimes try to blackmail others, "I'm going to hell. How do you feel about that?"
I'll tell you: on that day when God judges you guilty, all of creation will rejoice and glorify God. On that day, when my own sons are sent to hell I will rejoice along with them. [I take it his sons aren't Christian - this isn't easy to say, he is not being glib]
You see, on that day we will see you as you are: we will realise all that we loved in you was really God's grace - and we glorify Him; but now, with all that stripped away, you are seen for the filthy, wicked thing you are.
So filthy that, when God pronounces His sentence upon you all creation will rejoice at His justice in condemning this monster.

That is powerful doctrine.

David Castor said...

I don't think that the ideas in Eastern Orthodoxy correlate all that well with a Calvinist schema. It seems to me that you can't borrow these ideas when you want to assert God's sovereignty in the process unless you want to water down the Calvinist understanding of Hell.

Of course we can tame God, but I wonder if you've made an error in the other direction. I think their is plenty of motivation for people to create a harsh, cruel God too. And simply because the picture of God you've created is harsh and cruel, doesn't necessarily mean that you've got the authentic article.

David Castor said...

their = "there" by the way. I do know the differents, er, difference.

Gordon Cheng said...

On pictures of hell: I think the reason God chose not to give visual art regarding hell (and I admit that I speculate) was that it was so prone to distortion and misinterpretation.

They tend to cause the viewer to focus on things the Bible doesn't. And if they are badly done as art (in the eye of the beholder), they turn the whole thing into a bit of a joke.

Dave Lankshear said...

Will those who rejected God their whole life, suddenly wish to seek Him after their death? I don't know, I have to give it more thought.

Isn't that the idea behind the "grinding of teeth"? I've heard from a number of sermons & pastors that this "grinding of teeth" thing is the clenching of the jaw in regret. "I KNEW I should have done something about this earlier!" I think all these stories are parables illustrating regret, loss, and sadness — but not mitigating the responsibility of the damned to have responded to Jesus.

Also, isn't Revelation saying that those in Hell continue to curse God and defy Him, and that's why they deserve Hell forever?

onlinesoph said...

The bible may not give visual art, but it does paint pictures with words (flames, torment, fire, a burning tongue and unquenchable thirst, darkness), which is a form of art.

These images, obviously, aren't as specific as the terrifying pictures Craig has posted!!

Hell is an important topic, purely by its inclusion in the bible, but perhaps a little less sniper-ing and "over the head" references to things like Zecariah, less "shoot the atheist" and a bit more down to earth discussion (haha, pardon the pun) may be helpful for lay-people like me who are reading and probably not commenting:) Just some feedback.

onlinesoph said...

Sorry - that last paragraph was not directed at Gordon, but just general feedback over the discussion, which I have found hard to follow at times.

CraigS said...

On that day, when my own sons are sent to hell I will rejoice

That is heavy. I can't even begin to imagine being able to do that...

CraigS said...

I don't think that the ideas in Eastern Orthodoxy correlate all that well with a Calvinist schema.

I somewhat agree. CS Lewis was not a Calvinist, and he seemed to be a strong believer in the ability to choose or reject God.

On the other hand, all Calvinists would affirm that the damned genuinely choose to sin and reject God, and that the choice is as real as any they make.

CraigS said...

Thanks Soph, good advice.

I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on the subject too...

Healyhatman said...

You should try Doom3 Craig, I think you might like some of the imagery of Hell. Much better than Doom 1 and 2 9although Doom2 was fairly awesome).

I see your snide allusion to what I said DJP in your "Game-Over" reference. Atheists don't want to be God djp, which is some insane crap I heard my mum repeat yesterday - I'd never heard it before and it's not the way it goes. Unbelievers don't secretly believe in God and are just in denial djp. They really do not believe in your God. We don't like the idea of Hell because it's too much like your God is a sadistic torturer throwing his toys around in the fire, and that's not the sort of thing we think any person should worship.

I'll leave it at that for now.

CraigS said...

When we say unbelievers want to be God, we mean that they want to be the ultimate moral arbiter, the one who decides what is right and wrong. That is the essence of rebellion against God, the essence of sin.

Dave Lankshear said...

And... HH... I have to add (but do not enjoy pointing this out)...

pretty much the very essence of this statement.

We don't like the idea of Hell because it's too much like your God is a sadistic torturer throwing his toys around in the fire, and that's not the sort of thing we think any person should worship.
It's about you deciding what's right and wrong, when actually God is the one with that job.

onlinesoph said...

no worries. Maybe in person, after church sometime with Sam. Not sure what I think about this topic. I really liked reading your "brief" comment though.

onlinesoph said...

We don't like the idea of Hell because it's too much like your God is a sadistic torturer throwing his toys around in the fire, and that's not the sort of thing we think any person should worship.

Sounds like in your view, the only thing you "should" worship (if you were to worship anything, that is) is something you approve of, something which meets your standards of what constitutes decent or moral behaviour. A God who condemns people to Hell doesn't fit in with that, so I'm not surprised you don't want to worship Him. But if this is the case, don't say you have no interest in playing God. What is a god really, if not someone or something who is the ultimate authority on right and wrong, who can determine what people should and shouldn't think?

Whether or not you agree, you have to admit HH that Christians have got guts and integrity. They don't make gods into their own graven image. They don't rewrite who god is to satisfy their own need for a spiritual crutch - for if that were the case, why "program" him to send people to Hell? We're not stupid - surely we can create a more palatable god than that.

Healyhatman said...

Well if you use that as your definition of "acting God" then sure.

And whilst I can admit, onlinesoph, that some Christians have 'guts' and 'integrity' by no means do they all have such. Most of the people commenting on here are alright, with a few notable exceptions (where IS Giraffe Pen?)

And I doubt it was about making a God they liked. They lived in a harsh world and they needed absolute obedience from the masses in order to survive. A harsh God for a harsh place - by no means a loving fluffy god as some Christians like to think of him. Because if their God was to love them and let them into heaven regardless of what they did, then it wouldn't have been a God worth pworshipping.

Your God is hardly unique in that fashion anyway.

hayesy said...

Craig, if you want to hear how Paul says it (much, much better than I), this is the sermon it is from:
The Greatest Text in the Bible.

The entire sermon is gold, so I'd recommend listening to all of it, but the part I was paraphrasing starts at 1:02:52

onlinesoph said...

Your God is hardly unique in that fashion anyway.

Yeah, I see what you mean. In terms of being a harsh God, Allah sounds like a pretty tough deity to please!

By “they”, do you mean early Christians living under Roman rule, or just the general concept of authorities inventing God to subjugate the masses (which, by the way, reminds me of a really cool episode in Buffy).

I remember learning the phrase “When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” at school. The then Catholic church would use the concept of purgatory and the fear of hell to get money from people – i.e. fashioning god and misrepresenting religion to rob people blind. I guess what you’re suggesting is a more extreme version of that – inventing God and religion to deal with society. But if you’re going to stick by that as a theory, then you’d need to show that Bible was fabricated, Jesus didn’t exist, eyewitnesses who saw him were biased, etc, etc – which is an awful lot of work, near impossible considering how strongly the historicity of Jesus – whose life, death and life again is the basis of Christianity – stands up compared to other historical events we consider fact.

Anyway…that aside, I’m not sure about this harsh God vs. Happy God thing you’ve got going. In the Bible, or even just in the life and teachings of Jesus, who is the best picture we have of God – the concept is Hell is linked with the righteousness of God. Just as a just judge cannot let crimes go unpunished, God cannot let sin remain.

But it is here that we see the love of God at its most powerful, in Jesus who went to Hell in our place (and it is here we must end in all discussions about Hell).

And that’s where I totally disagree when you say that my God is not unique. Because I don’t know of any other God who would give His life for mine, who would and send His son to Hell in my place.

hayesy said...

Amen to that. A thousand times amen.

DJP said...

HH

"I see your snide allusion to what I said DJP in your 'Game-Over' reference."

Not sure what you're referring to. It isn't always all about you. Oh but there I go again. Hello? Atheist!

"Atheists don't want to be God djp, which is some insane crap I heard my mum repeat yesterday - I'd never heard it before and it's not the way it goes. Unbelievers don't secretly believe in God and are just in denial djp."

The marvel that is you, HH, is that you don't even sense a twinge of irony when you write such things, do you? You just go on and on, unaware of the dimmest or brightest bulb, blaring or flickering in the darkness.

David Castor said...

I don't know that that's a particularly appropriate way to write, Daniel. Healy has been good enough to engage with you in discussion civilly - the least you can do is return the favour.

Dave Lankshear said...

Yeah, I'll second that.

Healyhatman said...

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to DJP. So I'll ignore it and move back to the comment from onlinesoph.

I'm a little confused by yours and someone else's comments soph, where does it say that Jesus was sent to Hell in our place? After he died I thought the prevailing belief was that he rose up and went to heaven to sit at his Father's right hand.

And which of our sins did he come and die for? We still get baptised to wash away the original sin, or was it that Jesus was used as a biblical scapegoat, taking all the world's sin of the time and removing it so God didn't decide to have another worldwide killing session in the same vein as the flood?

And back to my original comments... Any of you played Doom3? If so, what did you think of the Hell levels? Sure you can't beat demons with shotguns (although you might be able to, having never met a demon whilst holding a shotgun it's hard to say) but what about the imagery? And the things the PDAs say that you pick up in hell?

Dave Lankshear said...

HiHH,
With hell being described as a place of darkness at one point, and then a place of fire and burning at another, and even the name for the place where Jesus was executed — Golgotha — being a place of burning rubbish also used as a metaphor for the underworld, I'm quite sure the biblical authors understood all these images to be just that, metaphorical images.

Today they might have used images more from toxic / genetic accidents... so think HalfLife instead of Doom3.

But whatever that imagery, my advice, don't be there.

DJP said...

Pity, HH. I would have thought the verbatim quotations of you would have been something of a clue as to what I was responding to, but... not to you, I guess.

So we're left to take the word of a man incapable of cogently defending a transcendent ethic, that he's not in denial.

Because, you know, everyone who is in denial knows it, and they're all really quick to admit.

hayesy said...

"Unbelievers don't secretly believe in God and are just in denial djp."

Hahahaha I admit I was completely lost, and sympathetic to Healy up till now: djp, perhaps being a little more explicit will help. Your manner reveals an unacceptable sense of superiority. Christians ought to be humbler than non-Christians, not consider themselves above them.

Having said that, haha this is very ironic! "I'm not in denial... because if I was I would admit it, ok?"

Healyhatman said...

Obviously if I was in denial I wouldn't be able to admit it. But it's a secret belief of (some, which appears to include DJP) Christians that atheists really do believe in God they just don't want to admit it for (and the overwhelming majority seems to be in favour of the following) then they wouldn't have to fear reprisal for their worldly actions. As that seemed to be where DJP was going, that's what I was trying to say - that atheists aren't people who believe in God but don't want to worship and don't want to be judged - we really honestly and truly DO NOT BELIEVE. In the same way Christians don't believe in Zeus, we don't believe in the Christian God. Atheists are just like Christians in that regard - there's a huge list of Gods we both don't believe in, it's just that atheists believe in one less

Now if he was trying to show himself up as superior to me by virtue of his Christianity, well then shouldn't all Christians, again by virtue of their Christianity, be better than me? But they're not. Some are, some are fantastic specimens of humanity, but then again some are Ben Stein or members of the West Borough Baptist Church.

Dave: Did you see RoboCop? The part where one of the bad guys gets covered in toxic waste and his skin starts to turn to boils and melt away? Right before he was splattered over the windshield of the care? A toxic waste / genetic experiment version of hell would probably be populated with people like that poor guy :P

Oh and hayes, you haven't commented on the AskTheAtheist question recently, what's up?

Dave Lankshear said...

Yeah, I joined the army young and so missed the compulsory "Zombie flicks" of university life, and so was quite repulsed by that moment.

"Help me" blat!

I'm still squeamish about Zombie flicks but enjoyed "I am Legend" because they were more "sick" than actually "undead Zombies". Also, New York was awesome. It was the main character in the movie!

Now, allow a little digression but while we're on TEOTWAWKI themes... oil's nearly hit $130... Goldman Sachs are talking $200 in the next few years... and I'm wondering if I should really have got my family to a "I am Legend" bunker before it all starts to get jiggy. Hopefully it'll just be a Great Depression though... I think Australia's gas and coal will help us get through.

hayesy said...

Healy, sorry: I've been head-in-the-books this week, since the previous couple of weeks I didn't do any work... I knew it would catch up with me.
I'll return to it when life returns to normal.

onlinesoph said...

good questions - think I'll answer them on my blog.

Matt said...

This is the first time I have been to this blog as I was fascinated by the topic. It's quite intriguing that the comments left by some bloggers are really caught up in the notion of religion vs. non-believers. I would challenge you to find an open minded group of both belivers and non-believers that did not agree that our society is founded on the ideals put forward by religion. But to be able to strip away these labels that affect objectivity and discuss a topic that creates so much fear in people is exactly why religion fails. So my concern then with the comments left on this essay topic is that too many 'believers' need the blanket of their faith for protection in order to talk about topics such as hell. Faith is the ultimate misgiving, created by men to control the masses. The very fact that this topic can't be discussed in terms of life and death is really sad. The idea of Hell is enough to strike fear into the hearts of many, but religion only provides a false bravado for this false ending. Truth is not an easy tablet to swallow, but if we are to keep our thinking rooted in the dark ages, as it is here, then that truth is further distorted.