However, I still do not see the merit of hell.
First we must understand what God is. If God is just another entity like us, just somebody out there, some where, deciding the fate of the human race, when in reality he could have just cut us some slack and kick back and share a root-beer, then i can understand why you would perceive hell as unnecessary and unfair. This kind of God is absurd to me; but this is not a mature understanding of God, and it is not the God of Christianity.
If God is the true root of all objective and subjective happiness, being, and everything that is truly good, then surely you can see that in rejecting God, we don’t just lose a friendship, but rather we lose all that which is good in being, except for the goods that naturally belong to the fact that we exist. We retain only the objective good of existing, which is absolute and unconditional. Thus we must suffer hell existentially.
But before we can understand “existential hell”, we must understand that when we speak of good in reference to God, we are not merely giving a subjective compliment in regard to that which gives “pleasure”. We are speaking of a true objective goodness. We truly mean “God is Love”; and we mean exactly that when we say it. It is not a relative expression of opinion, but rather it is a superior understanding of that which is objective. The fact is, unfortunately, most people do not understand what true love is. They have glimpses of the objective good, and they gain some understanding of it “indirectly” through trial and error which might occur when they are in the pursuit of pleasure, and when they experience the pitfalls of life. Many of us learn this way. And so there are many people out there that have a very simple understanding of that which is good in so far as they perceive things only in regards to pleasure, pain and risk, simply because they make the error of acquainting these things with the ultimate good of existing. This is not to say that they are stupid, or that atheists or other like minded beliefs systems cannot perceive the good, but it still remains true that many of them do not have a
metaphysical understanding of good and love, and thus they have a problem with hell. So, from this perspective, when we suffer, I can see, emotionally speaking, why love might seem contradictory, especially when we contemplate of hell. We do not understand why love leads to such things because we have a very simple understanding love. However, we are capable of learning, and so we must understand that if God is objective love, then one must be free to reject the objectivity of love, because love is ultimately selfless and “
serving”, and thus does not force its self on upon the will of men and women, but rather provides a platform upon which they can freely choose and understand that which is good. For being is generous. Even more so, if one can reject love, then one must be free to experience reality without love.
Some have said, rejection of love is rejection of God and is therefore rejection of Gods ontological-being and that therefore this would seem to justify a total rejection from existence itself; and that this ontological rejection is the true definition of hell. But true Love is as such that one must have the dignity of choosing and living out ones choices, and this enables the objective good of taking responsibility for ones actions, which is an objective good, and at the same time this respects the objective dignity and value of “existence”; which is God, and thus is good. If God were to wipe us out from existence, then this would mean that existence is not objectively good; which is a contradiction in terms if we are to perceive goodness as being grounded in the objective. And so, to reject God is by definition, “existential hell”. God is as such that hell logically and potentially follows necessarily from the existence of freewill.
The reason why people find this hard to except, is because of the way in which they value the “good”. They wield the good as if it were objective and universally true, but they perceive it in a relative sense in so far as it serves their purpose. They accept goodness in their lives only so far as it benefits their will. In other words, people want a good that is subject to their own ends. A true objective love is unflattering to the ends of human distinction. Those who meditate on love become aware that there are certain logical truths which in fact do not benefit the simple pleasures, tastes, and ideas of the human ideal of material survival. Love gives spiritual priority over the material good, for there can be no true material good with out that which is spiritually good. Love sometimes means sacrificing the material good, and it can even mean the sacrificing of ones life. Love is not just pleasure.
When people reject hell, they are really rejecting the objective good. Some people are confused and do not understand and so think that hell is evil. But there those that do not like it because it doesn’t serve their own subjective purpose. A mature and responsible understanding of love is open to the concept of hell.
One more note on scripture. The people who speak of God in scripture speak of him on very human terms. They sometimes use human expressions that are not literally true of God, but are analogous to God. When you interpret scripture in the understanding that God is love you will realize that there is allot of metaphors, analogies and even stories that cannot be logically true of Gods being. Thats not to say that there is falsity in the bible. I believe that the underlying message is true and good, but you must be careful to interpret it in the correct manner.
Does this explanation help you? Out of ten, what would you give it?
