What The Hell?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

INTRODUCTION

My grandfather died when I was ten years old.  He was, as all grandfathers should be in the eyes of ten-year-olds, a good man.  From what memories I still have of him, he was an honest man, true to his word, who dealt fairly, if not always kindly, with everyone.  He was a humble farmer, who tended his land as passionately as any.  He enjoyed going to turkey shoots, but deplored hunting for sport.  Owing to the German-ness of his blood, he was straightforward, direct, purposeful, inventive, and industrious.  He also had his vices and foibles.  He was given to impatience, distemper, and occasional rudeness and could hold a grudge like none other than yahweh.  Most damning of all, my grandfather was a hard drinker, a heavy smoker, and never allowed subjects and verbs to get in the way of swear words when constructing his sentences.  Because of these latter qualities, by the reckonings of my Pentecostal doctrine my grandfather was a sinner.  As a result, his death was, naturally, an extremely painful and difficult event for me.  He had quite suddenly fallen into a coma, in which he remained for two weeks.  During that time I had prayed with the full fervor of a faithful child that he would be granted one last opportunity to wake up and repent of the wickedness of his ways.  But the wake up never came, and he just silently slipped away… INTO HELL!  I was inconsolable.  The last tears I ever shed in my life fell into my grandfather’s coffin as I realized that I would never see him again, not in this life, not in the next.  He was in hell…

 

I am drafting this treatise in an effort to make plain my understanding of the subject of hell, an endeavor I have taken upon myself for two principle reasons.  Firstly, there have been a number of recent posts from doubtful christians and/or fledgling freethinkers outlining their fears of hell, some of which seem overbearingly powerful.  In truth, in the ten years since I left the church, I had quite forgotten what the fear of hell was like.  However, having been reminded of it, and having seen the need to lend comfort and clarity to those still under its beguilement, I cannot turn away without offering what I can.  It is my hope, therefore, that submitting these humble paragraphs concerning hell will allow the salving balm of knowledge to flow upon the wounded, through the collective of Ex-christian thought.

 

The second reason for which I am launching this proverbial vessel of verbiage is because I firmly believe that out of all of the destructive doctrines of the christian religion—and I believe all christian doctrine to be destructive—the most damaging is the doctrine of hell.  This is especially true when it is inflicted upon the minds of innocent and impressionable children, even as I experienced it upon the death of my grandfather: tormented by the thought that he was suffering at the very hands of Lucifer himself and that god had allowed him to die, despite my earnest pleas that he be given one last chance.  It is my intended purpose, therefore, to inflict as much damage upon this contemptible doctrine as is possible.

 

THE HELL OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

To begin with, I suppose a few remarks concerning the relevance of an afterlife to the human psyche are in order.  Humans are, so far as is known, the only species of animal that believes in an afterlife.  Additionally, it can be observed, from contemporary literature, mythology, and artwork, that belief in an afterlife has been present in the minds of humans, almost as long as the minds of humans have been present.  This is true because humanoids were the first species to have the capacity for self-awareness.  Unfortunately, the ability to be aware of oneself comes with a price, for if one knows that one exists, then one also becomes aware of the possibility of non-existence.  In other words, humanoids were the first species to become aware of their own impending deaths.  One of the advantages that homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) had over their homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) counterparts, was the ability to plan ahead.  This ability, coupled with the awareness that they would someday die, eventually gave rise to belief in an afterlife as a means of coping with the terror of nature and the horror of death.  As modern humans slowly progressed from hunter-gatherers, to farmers, to founders of civilizations, their ideas on the afterlife became more sophisticated, and eventually, the idea of a netherworld where the souls of the dead were sent, was born.

 

Nearly all of the ancient cultures had some version of a netherworld ensconced within their myths and traditions; however, since the topic of this treatise is the christian doctrine of hell, I will confine my remarks to the beginnings of the christian view of hell, which can be found in the literature of the ancient Hebrews, namely the old testament.  Beginning as nomadic tribes in the Mesopotamian region, the Hebrews eventually settled along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea and built a small empire, which was eventually overthrown by the Babylonians, and the Hebrews were taken into captivity.  At some point, either during or after this captivity, the Hebrews began to believe in Sheol.  Although the literal meaning of this word is “the place of the dead,” out of the 64 times it is used in the old testament, 32 times it is translated as “hell”.  It should be noted that Sheol did not originally constitute a place of judgment, torment, or punishment; it was merely the place of the dead.  The precise origin of the word itself is disputed, but the concept most likely arose from the practice of burying families in the same crypts, thus allowing their souls to continue to commune in the afterlife.  This practice may also have given rise to the idea of separate chambers within the netherworld, a notion that possibly evolved to its pinnacle in the rings of Dante’s “Inferno.”  Sheol is ruled over by the yahweh god as indicated by Amos 9:2, I Samuel 2:6 and Proverbs 15:11, in contrast to the modern christian hell overseen by the Devil and his fallen angels.  The term Sheol could also be used figuratively to mean a state of tribulation or misfortune, as in Jonah 2:2, in much the same way that “going through hell” and other applications of the term are used today.

 

Around the beginning of the Common Era, the traditional religion of the Hebrews, Judaism, was starting to gain different interpretations as a result of influences from other cultures within the Roman Empire; most notably Greek philosophy and theology were beginning to impact followers of Judaism.  The natural consequence was that a number of sects, such as the Pharisees, who believed that god would punish the wicked and reward the righteous in the afterlife, arose within the religion.  In contrast, the Sadducees did not believe in the afterlife, because it was never written about in the Torah.  As a side note here, I would like to point out that in the creation story, rendered in the Torah, the punishment god gave for the first sin committed was merely death, there were no threats of hellfire and brimstone; it was simply stated that if the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were consumed, the consequence would be death.  With the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70CE, a new idea emerged within Judaism, namely that the people of god are the temple of god and could therefore commune freely with god without temples, priests, or sacrifices.  Christianity took root from this idea, though at first, christians were seen as only another sect within the parent religion.

 

THE HELL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

This brings us to the new testament, where three different words are often translated as “hell”.  The first of these words is Tartarus, mentioned only once in 2 Peter 2:4.  Tartarus was a term the Greeks used to describe a place within their netherworld, Hades, where the souls of those who angered the gods were punished; and the “chains of darkness” reference is an allusion to Jewish mythology.  Given that Peter uses the heathen term Tartarus, and that “chains of darkness” also refers back to myth, it is likely that this passage is meant to be taken figuratively, rather than as a literal reference to a physical hell.

 

The second term used in the new testament is the word Hades, already mentioned above.  Since this word is essentially just a Greek synonym for the Hebrew Sheol, I will not belabor the points made above concerning Sheol, other than to reiterate that both Hades and Sheol were not places of judgment, torment, or punishment.

 

This brings us to the third and final new testament term, Gehenna.  This word refers to the valley of Hinnon where the Hebrews had erected an altar to the god Moloch, before which they engaged in ritual sacrifice, including the sacrificing of their own children.  After they were brought back to the worship of the yahweh god, the Hebrews saw this valley as a place of desolation and abomination.  It became a sort of ancient landfill into which the bodies of executed criminals, refuse, dead animals and the like would be dumped.  For sanitation reasons, fires were continually ablaze in the valley.  Moreover, it was a place completely infested with worms, maggots, and other detritivores who would feed on the rotting matter, hence the phrase, “Where worms never die.”  It became common to describe a conspicuously severe punishment, or notorious method of death, using the word Gehenna, similar to modern phrases such as “He must have endured pure hell until the very end.”

 

As a final point of discourse concerning hell as presented in the bible, a few comments should be made on the subject of the lake of fire.  Occurring only in the book of Revelation, the lake of fire often seems to be either confused with, or equated with, the modern christian view of hell.  However, Revelation 20:14 makes it clear that, not only are these two different things, but that ultimately, hell itself will be cast into the lake of fire.  The lake of fire is a strange new concept for the bible; it appears nowhere else in the mythologies of the Mesopotamians from which the Hebrews came, nor in the mythologies of the Greeks who held certain influence over the Hebrews.  However, by the time that the new testament books were being written, Egyptian theologians were beginning to have some influence over the christian movement.  The underworld of the Egyptians described in the Coffin Texts contained both rivers and lakes of fire; and the fifth “hour” of the Amduat portrays lakes of fire using a standard “lake” hieroglyph with red “wave” lines instead of blue, in order to represent flames.  It is likely that the lake of fire envisioned in the book of Revelation, then, owes its homage to the mythology of Egypt.

 

DESCENT INTO DARKNESS

Thus it is clear that the biblical representations of hell were all entirely based upon, and informed by, the mythology of the cultures which held influence over both the Hebrews and the early christians.  None of the terms used in the bible represented the place of eternal torture and punishment espoused by the modern christian doctrine of hell; and most scholars today consider the translations of these terms into “hell” to have been a mistake, given the current understanding of the term “hell.”  The concept of hell, as viewed by christians, did not emerge until the Medieval Period, where it was exercised by the church as an instrument for controlling the masses.  During the Medieval Period, hellfire sermons, mystery plays depicting hell, vision literature (akin to modern near-death experiences), and grotesque images in artwork were all used, not merely as  means of entertainment, but also as means of indoctrination.  Indulgences were sold for the forgiveness of sins and to ensure that the souls of loved ones would be placed in Purgatory rather than sent to hell.  The ever-present fear of hell ensured that the illiterate, uneducated commoners would be perpetually subservient to the church, to which they owed their salvation.  Nothing about the doctrine of hell has changed since it was perfected in what have been quite accurately described as “The Dark Ages.”

 

HELL AS A FALSE DICHOTOMY (CONCLUSION)

Having seen that the christian doctrine of hell is nothing more than superstitious myth, let us, for the sake of making a final point, pretend that it is not myth, but actual truth.  If it is true that I must accept christianity or face eternity in hell, then I really only have two options: jesus or Beelzebub.  However, as an atheist, I have rejected the idea of christianity and the christian god based on the lack of evidence to support the claims of both the religion and the existence of its deity.  I have not sinned; I am an honest man.  I have never killed, raped, or molested anyone; I even find most pornography to be distasteful.  In fact, it would be fair to say that I am very much like the description I gave of my grandfather in the introduction, the only conspicuous difference being that I do not smoke.  Yet for all of my virtues, I will be cast into hell simply for preferring to KNOW the provable rather than BELIEVE the unprovable.  So my only two options are to spend all of eternity in hell for the sin of having doubts, or to spend all of eternity in the presence of a god who is willing to throw me into hell for the sin of having doubts.  This, for me, presents a false dichotomy.  These are not two different options; they are both the same option.  For me, the hell of spending all of eternity WITH the christian god would be no different than the hell of spending all of eternity WITHOUT him.  I choose therefore, to be true to the doubts I have, and in so doing, to be true to myself, and if anyone doesn’t like it, well, they can go to hell.

[MerryG]

[Jds22]

Thank you for sharing and taking the time to write that.

[pawn]

Nice rant. Well said.

[miekko]

An otherwise really good post, but this one bit - that doesn't per se damage the main point - makes a claim I think is

1) unnecessary

2) likely wrong

3) at the very least too strong a positive claim

 

"One of the advantages that homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) had over their homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) counterparts, was the ability to plan ahead. "

 

Neanderthals are known to have made tools to process leather with. That requires some ability to plan ahead - you need to know you're going to do something out of leather, and this suggests you're planning to do something with that leather, and you need to realize you need a tool in order to do that. No currently extant species other than mankind, afaict, make tools to work on tools with. (Which, essentially a tool to work clothing with is - clothing is a tool to keep the cold out.)

 

Even if that isn't evidence enough that they knew how to plan ahead, I don't think we really have any evidence that lack of such an ability was one of their traits.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

An otherwise really good post, but this one bit - that doesn't per se damage the main point - makes a claim I think is

1) unnecessary

2) likely wrong

3) at the very least too strong a positive claim

 

"One of the advantages that homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) had over their homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) counterparts, was the ability to plan ahead. "

 

Neanderthals are known to have made tools to process leather with. That requires some ability to plan ahead - you need to know you're going to do something out of leather, and this suggests you're planning to do something with that leather, and you need to realize you need a tool in order to do that. No currently extant species other than mankind, afaict, make tools to work on tools with. (Which, essentially a tool to work clothing with is - clothing is a tool to keep the cold out.)

 

Even if that isn't evidence enough that they knew how to plan ahead, I don't think we really have any evidence that lack of such an ability was one of their traits.

 

You bring up a very good point, meikko.  It would have been more accurate for me to have said that moderns had more sophisticated thought processes which enabled them to use better planning strategies than their neanderthal counterparts.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

[TheSpiritualPilgrim]

Great post and some really good points! Thanks for taking the time to write it out. I hope it helps many to gain freedom from the fear of hell. As an adult Christian I gave up on the doctrine of hell and was a closet inclusivit for some time before deconverting. But I do remember being a kid and worried for my "unsaved" dad. It's crazy the things people will teach innocent kids to believe.

[miekko]

 

An otherwise really good post, but this one bit - that doesn't per se damage the main point - makes a claim I think is

1) unnecessary

2) likely wrong

3) at the very least too strong a positive claim

 

"One of the advantages that homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) had over their homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) counterparts, was the ability to plan ahead. "

 

Neanderthals are known to have made tools to process leather with. That requires some ability to plan ahead - you need to know you're going to do something out of leather, and this suggests you're planning to do something with that leather, and you need to realize you need a tool in order to do that. No currently extant species other than mankind, afaict, make tools to work on tools with. (Which, essentially a tool to work clothing with is - clothing is a tool to keep the cold out.)

 

Even if that isn't evidence enough that they knew how to plan ahead, I don't think we really have any evidence that lack of such an ability was one of their traits.

 

You bring up a very good point, meikko.  It would have been more accurate for me to have said that moderns had more sophisticated thought processes which enabled them to use better planning strategies than their neanderthal counterparts.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

 

Basically though, the neanderthals aren't really relevant to your argument. You can introduce the effect of the ability to plan ahead in combination with early homo sapiens having the idea of an afterlife without ever having to compare or contrast with the neanderthals.

[Adam5]

Great post.

 

Hell is a perverse teaching. I remember having my doubts about it when I was a Christian. And hearing people saying that when people go to hell its like they shut the door from the inside, because they cant stand God. Or soemthing similar. Its really bizarre the type of justifications they come up with.

 

So I shamefully ignored the issue as a Christian, which is what I think a lot do. In my experience pastors/priests remain silent on the issue, than discuss the absudity of believing in a "God of love" who tortures most of mankind for all eternity.

 

If a God or somekind of deity did exist, I think it is blasphemous in the extreme, to label a being so cruel and sadistic.  Christians and Muslims make God out to be a sadistic monster.  All of this I think is very strong proof that a Bible God does not exist.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

An otherwise really good post, but this one bit - that doesn't per se damage the main point - makes a claim I think is

1) unnecessary

2) likely wrong

3) at the very least too strong a positive claim

 

"One of the advantages that homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) had over their homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) counterparts, was the ability to plan ahead. "

 

Neanderthals are known to have made tools to process leather with. That requires some ability to plan ahead - you need to know you're going to do something out of leather, and this suggests you're planning to do something with that leather, and you need to realize you need a tool in order to do that. No currently extant species other than mankind, afaict, make tools to work on tools with. (Which, essentially a tool to work clothing with is - clothing is a tool to keep the cold out.)

 

Even if that isn't evidence enough that they knew how to plan ahead, I don't think we really have any evidence that lack of such an ability was one of their traits.

 

You bring up a very good point, meikko.  It would have been more accurate for me to have said that moderns had more sophisticated thought processes which enabled them to use better planning strategies than their neanderthal counterparts.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

 

Basically though, the neanderthals aren't really relevant to your argument. You can introduce the effect of the ability to plan ahead in combination with early homo sapiens having the idea of an afterlife without ever having to compare or contrast with the neanderthals.

 

 

The intention here is to demonstrate that the idea of an afterlife is a by-product of our evolution.  I could have chosen to do this in any number of ways; I chose to do so by comparing moderns to neanderthals as they were one of the closest cousins moderns had.  I, admittedly, oversimplified the differences in the mental capacities of moderns and neanderthals, for the sake of brevity; however, I do not agree that some such comparison was unnecessary.  The idea of an afterlife is directly tied to our evolution and the idea of hell is directly tied to the afterlife in Western christianity.  Lemurs do not contemplate the flames of hell; neither do chimpanzees fear torment by demons.  This idea occurred later in the evolutionary process; the point remains, though, that it is nothing more than a by-product of our evolution, not a sound reflection of anything real or physical.

[RenaissanceWoman]

Great post.

 

Hell is a perverse teaching. I remember having my doubts about it when I was a Christian. And hearing people saying that when people go to hell its like they shut the door from the inside, because they cant stand God. Or something similar. Its really bizarre the type of justifications they come up with.

 

Why do Christians never wonder why people "can't stand God"? Do they hate him because God seems absent at best, downright cruel at worst? (But I thought he was so loving?) Do they hate him because he hasn't revealed himself in a positive way in their individual lives and on the entire planet in general? (Again, I thought he loves his creation enough to actually DO something to reveal his power and love, such as alleviate even the tiniest of sufferings?) Or perhaps they hate him because his followers are all such self-righteous, unloving, money-grubbing, back-stabbing, condescending, cliquish douches? (But I thought they were filled with the supernatural love of Christ and awesome power of the indwelt Holy Spirit?)

 

If Christians are going to say people can't stand God, they ought to at least have the honesty to ask themselves why that would be. Ummm... maybe because God isn't real? Just askin'.

 

It's not their god that we can't stand. It's all the evil that surrounds the idea of said god, and the practices of the people who embrace him.