Hell as deprivation?

[Qoeleth]

This is the third question I have raised about Hell. It is something I have been thinking about a lot. Many people say “Hell is a primarily a deprivation of God, or a separation from God.”

I have some troubles with this:

1. It does not seem to match with Scripture. Hell, in the Gospel, is, after all, unending fire, brimstone and the worm that does not die. It is real suffering, not just negation.
2. A deprivation does not actually constitute suffering. For example, I am living chaste celibacy. I know that sex is great. Yet, not to have it is hardly Hell. Even if being in the presence of God was 100 times better than sex, I can certainly go without out it without positive suffering- since I am going without it right now.

Is the idea of Hell as deprivation simply a way of avoiding talking about fire and brimstone?

 

[zro_x]

1. A deprivation does not actually constitute suffering. For example, I am living chaste celibacy. I know that sex is great. Yet, not to have it is hardly Hell. Even if being in the presence of God was 100 times better than sex, I can certainly go without out it without positive suffering- since I am going without it right now.

you are not going without it right now. You simply don’t have it to the degree that you will in heaven. People on Earth have god’s presence in varying degrees, but everyone who has ever lived on earth has more of it than the holiest person in hell. Since god needs to hold all things in existence in order for them to exist, the only presence of god in hell is that which is required to maintain its existence. If you were stripped of god’s presence to this extent, you would definately experience positive suffering.

 

[Della]

You could be right that some may wish to avoid the harder teachings about hell. Jesus was explicit in his description and the Church tells us the same. Still, one of the pains of hell is to be deprived of the loving presence of God, which is probably the most spiritually agonizing pain of hell, for we were made to be with God.

Heb. 12:29 says: “for our God is a consuming fire.” And one of the Psalms (which I often recite in the Liturgy of the Hours, but the verse I want elludes me) says that God’s enemies cannot withstand his fiery presence.

It seems to me that those who reject God find him too much to bear since they will not accept him in love, but raise their fist to him instead. This may be part of the burning of hell, but that’s merely my own speculation.

 

[stephe1987]

The souls in hell do not want to be in heaven. They are angry and call the love that surrounds the people in heaven “icky”… or so I’ve heard from people who’ve had visions of heaven and hell. The reality is probably magnified due to how good or bad a person was during his or her life.

 

[bzkoss236]

You don’t think an eternal separation from goodness would be without suffering? If God is the source of all goodness, imagine an eternal separation from Him.

 

[Qoeleth]

You don’t think an eternal separation from goodness would be without suffering? If God is the source of all goodness, imagine an eternal separation from Him.

Well, I can’t see a deprivation of what is good as the same as suffering. Certainly, a deprivation of, for example, food, might constitute suffering.

But it would only be suffering to a certain point. If I was deprived of ALL food, it would cause starvation. But if I was derived of some infinitely good food (which is like Heaven), it would not be positive suffering.

Now, let’s imagine “Hell of deprivation”- you go into an empty room, there is nothing there. The food has no taste. No one loves you. Nothing has any meaning. There is no hope. That would not really be that bad.

Now, add some constant positive suffering (some burnings, for example) and that really would be Hell.

So, my point is that positive suffering must be in Hell, not merely suffering of deprivation.

 

[bzkoss236]

Well, I can’t see a deprivation of what is good as the same as suffering. Certainly, a deprivation of, for example, food, might constitute suffering.

But it would only be suffering to a certain point. If I was deprived of ALL food, it would cause starvation. But if I was derived of some infinitely good food (which is like Heaven), it would not be positive suffering.

Now, let’s imagine “Hell of deprivation”- you go into an empty room, there is nothing there. The food has no taste. No one loves you. Nothing has any meaning. There is no hope. That would not really be that bad.

Now, add some constant positive suffering (some burnings, for example) and that really would be Hell.

So, my point is that positive suffering must be in Hell, not merely suffering of deprivation.

You’re stuck in a physical world frame of mind.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, I can’t see a deprivation of what is good as the same as suffering. Certainly, a deprivation of, for example, food, might constitute suffering.

But it would only be suffering to a certain point. If I was deprived of ALL food, it would cause starvation. But if I was derived of some infinitely good food (which is like Heaven), it would not be positive suffering.

Now, let’s imagine “Hell of deprivation”- you go into an empty room, there is nothing there. The food has no taste. No one loves you. Nothing has any meaning. There is no hope. That would not really be that bad.

Now, add some constant positive suffering (some burnings, for example) and that really would be Hell.

So, my point is that positive suffering must be in Hell, not merely suffering of deprivation.

The deprivations you are using as examples are all external “goods.” The fact that you might not miss them when “visiting” an empty room is because you have many positive “internal” goods: emotional security, expectation you will not be in the room long, your very “self” to comfort and assure you, meaning in your life, imagination to conjure up pleasant thoughts, intelligence and creativity to ponder on meaningful ideas, perhaps even a sense of the presence of God as a loving caregiver. What if all these internal goods were also taken away?

Deprivation means “all good things,” internal and external, because God is the source of all good. I don’t think any “add-on” pain will make any difference because the anguish will be of a far deeper and more interior kind.

 

[zro_x]

The deprivations you are using as examples are all external “goods.” The fact that you might not miss them when “visiting” an empty room is because you have many positive “internal” goods: emotional security, expectation you will not be in the room long, your very “self” to comfort and assure you, meaning in your life, imagination to conjure up pleasant thoughts, intelligence and creativity to ponder on meaningful ideas, perhaps even a sense of the presence of God as a loving caregiver. What if all these internal goods were also taken away?

Deprivation means “all good things,” internal and external, because God is the source of all good. I don’t think any “add-on” pain will make any difference because the anguish will be of a far deeper and more interior kind.

couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[Theflipside]

I would disagree. I am neutral, by nature, until something either good or bad happens to me. In the event that I died (hopefully not soon) and did go to heaven (which is unlikely), it would be fantastic. But hell is merely not having those things, which I mostly live without anyway. I feel like something is missing, where not only is there an absence of God, but an excess of evil, hatred and pain, because despite the fire and brimstone depictions, that doesn’t seem to be what hell is.

 

[zro_x]

I would disagree. I am neutral, by nature, until something either good or bad happens to me. In the event that I died (hopefully not soon) and did go to heaven (which is unlikely), it would be fantastic. But hell is merely not having those things, which I mostly live without anyway. I feel like something is missing, where not only is there an absence of God, but an excess of evil, hatred and pain, because despite the fire and brimstone depictions, that doesn’t seem to be what hell is.

you are not neutral by nature, you are nuetral because God is present to you in such a way and to such a degree that you feel neutral. If you were in hell, you would be stripped even of the presence of god you currently have.

 

[Br.Carlo]

God’s peace. One of the aspects of God’s presence is his holy wrath toward sin, a point that is especially emphasized in the Old Testament. While this forms a component of what is (rightly!) called the fear of God in this present life, it is the *only *aspect of God’s presence that the damned will experience in hell. I would rate this as the most terrible punishment imaginable–the “malefic vision”, if you will. Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~

 

[vames]

Here’s a Pope Benedict XVI explanation:

poorclarestmd.org/benedictxvi/introchristianity/descended/tohell.html

"In this last prayer of Jesus, as in the scene on the Mount of Olives, what appears as the innermost heart of his passion is not any physical pain but radical loneliness, complete abandonment. But in the last analysis what comes to light here is simply the abyss of loneliness of man in general, man who is alone in his innermost being. This loneliness, which is usually thickly overlaid but is nevertheless the true situation of man, is at the same time in fundamental contradiction with the nature of man, who cannot exist alone; he needs company. That is why loneliness is the region of fear, which is rooted in the exposure of a being that must exist but is pushed out into a situation which he cannot endure.

If there were such a thing as a loneliness which could no longer be penetrated and transformed by the word of another; if a state of abandonment were to arise which was so deep that no “You” could reach into it any more, then we should have real, total loneliness and frightfulness, what theology calls “hell”. We can now define exactly what this word means: it denotes a loneliness which the word love can no longer penetrate and which therefore indicates the exposed nature of existence in itself.

In truth - one thing is certain: there exists a night into whose solitude no voice reaches; there is a door through which we can only walk alone - the door of death. In the last analysis all the fear in the world is fear of this loneliness. From this point of view it is possible to understand why the Old Testament has only one word for hell and death, the word sheol; in the last resort it regards both as identical. Death is absolute loneliness. But the loneliness into which love can no longer reach is - hell.

The Creed speaks of the descent into hell. This article asserts that Christ strode through the gate of our final loneliness, that in his passion he went down into the abyss of our abandonment. Where no voice can reach us any longer, there is he. Hell is thereby overcome, or, to be more accurate, death, which was previously hell, is hell no longer. Neither is the same any longer because there is life in the midst of death, because love dwells in it. Now only deliberate self-enclosure is hell or, as the Bible calls it, the second death (Rev 20.14, for example)."

See also the next chapters, “Rose from the dead”, “Ascended into heaven” and “Will come again”.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

[The] expectation you will not be in the room long

I’ve often thought that this would be the absolute worst part of Hell; the knowledge that this is it, period, and it will never, ever end. To me, just the knowledge that you will be in the same state or pain literally without end would be the most torturous part of Hell…

 

[GEddie]

I am reminded of one of the Apollo astronauts being asked if they became claustrophobic in their tiny space capsules.

He replied that that was not an issue, as in claustrophobia, you feel trapped in a small space when everything good is outside. Conversely, in the space capsule, everything good was inside and only death was outside.

OK, imagine permanent confinement, unable to move, breathe or see and knowing this is for ever. Not just until you die – for ever. Breath, light and movement are from God. “In Him we move and have our being”. And that is not even 1% of what is lost.

Interestingly, our LORD used the image of bound limbs and “outer darkness” to describe Hell.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Qoeleth]

Here’s a Pope Benedict XVI explanation:

poorclarestmd.org/benedictxvi/introchristianity/descended/tohell.html

"In this last prayer of Jesus, as in the scene on the Mount of Olives, what appears as the innermost heart of his passion is not any physical pain but radical loneliness, complete abandonment. But in the last analysis what comes to light here is simply the abyss of loneliness of man in general, man who is alone in his innermost being. This loneliness, which is usually thickly overlaid but is nevertheless the true situation of man, is at the same time in fundamental contradiction with the nature of man, who cannot exist alone; he needs company. That is why loneliness is the region of fear, which is rooted in the exposure of a being that must exist but is pushed out into a situation which he cannot endure.

If there were such a thing as a loneliness which could no longer be penetrated and transformed by the word of another; if a state of abandonment were to arise which was so deep that no “You” could reach into it any more, then we should have real, total loneliness and frightfulness, what theology calls “hell”. We can now define exactly what this word means: it denotes a loneliness which the word love can no longer penetrate and which therefore indicates the exposed nature of existence in itself.

In truth - one thing is certain: there exists a night into whose solitude no voice reaches; there is a door through which we can only walk alone - the door of death. In the last analysis all the fear in the world is fear of this loneliness. From this point of view it is possible to understand why the Old Testament has only one word for hell and death, the word sheol; in the last resort it regards both as identical. Death is absolute loneliness. But the loneliness into which love can no longer reach is - hell.

The Creed speaks of the descent into hell. This article asserts that Christ strode through the gate of our final loneliness, that in his passion he went down into the abyss of our abandonment. Where no voice can reach us any longer, there is he. Hell is thereby overcome, or, to be more accurate, death, which was previously hell, is hell no longer. Neither is the same any longer because there is life in the midst of death, because love dwells in it. Now only deliberate self-enclosure is hell or, as the Bible calls it, the second death (Rev 20.14, for example)."

See also the next chapters, “Rose from the dead”, “Ascended into heaven” and “Will come again”.

Well, in in times of relative comfort it is easy to imagine Hell as some kind of existential state of total loniless and lack of love. But I suggest that such a state is actually not that bad. For myself, who am a kind of extreme introvert and contemplative, it actually sounds fine. Like a Carthusian, totally committed to uncompromising negative theology, to no- vision, no-words, to going ‘beyond God’. Or maybe a Buddhist, cultivating a vision of total nothingness and meaninglessness. In fact, I would find Sheol of such a nature to be pretty close to Heaven.

But physical pain- that would have to be the worst possible thing. Hell must be, by definition, the worst state possible. So, really, it would have to be worse than total deprivation- but positive, and unpredictable, physical pain. The worse pain is not, I suggest, loneliness, or loveliness, or despair, or a broken heart. These things, in fact, are often ‘luxuries’ of a romantic imagination. The worst pain is actually simple physical pain. This, at least, is my experience, and probably also that of many others.

 

[vames]

I understand this very well; I use to joke that the true, frightening hell on earth for me would be NOT being ever allowed to be alone at all. But this is the “social” loneliness, which can be very desirable. Instead, I rather liken the loneliness and lack of love described in the quote with the situations when the person(s) that you love most died and you weren’t there to say goodbye, when you badly hurt someone dear and they died before you had the chance to ask them to forgive you, when you lose the only person(s) you could talk to about what really matters to you and you would give everything to turn back time or to have at least a day more to be with them and talk to them. This is intense pain (even felt as a physical illness) and radical loneliness. People get used with it over time, find rational consolation or new meaningful relationships etc - but think about a situation when this pain can’t go away one bit and there’s noone around to turn to. This would be indeed hellish.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This is the third question I have raised about Hell. It is something I have been thinking about a lot. Many people say “Hell is a primarily a deprivation of God, or a separation from God.”

I have some troubles with this:

1. It does not seem to match with Scripture. Hell, in the Gospel, is, after all, unending fire, brimstone and the worm that does not die. It is real suffering, not just negation.
2. A deprivation does not actually constitute suffering. For example, I am living chaste celibacy. I know that sex is great. Yet, not to have it is hardly Hell. Even if being in the presence of God was 100 times better than sex, I can certainly go without out it without positive suffering- since I am going without it right now.

Is the idea of Hell as deprivation simply a way of avoiding talking about fire and brimstone?

I think it’s more than just separation from God. The jailers are the devil and demons, who are not only evil, but also cruel.

I think we were given allegories for hell in World War II, in the form of concentration camps on one hand, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other.

But then I’m biased. I’ve said ad infinitum the night my own father died, he materialised in my room. We argued and conversed, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared. It was also clear he was terrified of something coming for him, and not just “separation”.

There are those who might think my experience was demonic. The trouble with that is that a certain well known Catholic exorcist states the devil cannot see the future.

My father made some specific predictions, one of which was “You’ll meet a pastor. You’ll think he’s great, but all he’ll do is discourage you even more.” Now I was an atheist at the time.

I met the pastor four years later, did develop an enormous amount of respect for him and learnt a lot from him. But he did discourage me. About nine years later, he said to me, “I owe you an apology … You needed encouragement, but all I’ve done is to discourage you even more.”

I pointed out to him he’d just quoted my father back to me almost word for word, yet my father died four years before I met him, and thirteen years before he apologised for his discouragement.

So if the devil cannot see the future, how did my father’s apparition get that prediction so spot-on, along with a few other comments he made about future events in my life?

I get a bit annoyed with this business of it’s just “separation from God”. It’s a lot worse than that, going by the scream. I still remember it, and that was nearly 34 years ago.

As far as I’m concerned, the “separation” business is just soft pedalling judgement. Which is something my old pastor mentioned above once commented on - “I think Catholics tend to soft pedal judgement. I think they do anyway.”

And I think he was right. If discouraging.

 

[corazon13]

The deprivations you are using as examples are all external “goods.” The fact that you might not miss them when “visiting” an empty room is because you have many positive “internal” goods: emotional security, expectation you will not be in the room long, your very “self” to comfort and assure you, meaning in your life, imagination to conjure up pleasant thoughts, intelligence and creativity to ponder on meaningful ideas, perhaps even a sense of the presence of God as a loving caregiver. What if all these internal goods were also taken away?

Deprivation means “all good things,” internal and external, because God is the source of all good. I don’t think any “add-on” pain will make any difference because the anguish will be of a far deeper and more interior kind.

I agree. The loss of our true selves, our essence, unique and marvellous, made in God’s image, I think is what we lose when we distance ourselves from God. This is, I can assure, a very painful state. I think the pain in greater when we distance ourselves from the God we had actually met, understood, known to be real. Therefore I understand hell to be an extremely painful spiritual state ( of heart and mind), rather than aburning furnace, which to me seems a metaphorical description, as all biblical language.

 

[vames]

I get a bit annoyed with this business of it’s just “separation from God”. It’s a lot worse than that, going by the scream. I still remember it, and that was nearly 34 years ago. As far as I’m concerned, the “separation” business is just soft pedalling judgement. Which is something my old pastor mentioned above once commented on - “I think Catholics tend to soft pedal judgement. I think they do anyway.”
And I think he was right. If discouraging.

I think this separation includes guilt, the “absolute” guilt - when they 1) know exactly all their past wrongdoings, as opposed to us, who can’t remember everything, 2) know they cannot make reparation anymore and cannot ask for forgiveness anymore, as opposed to us, who have the chance to be forgiven and aren’t *separated *from this chance as long as we live. I remember you heard your father saying “It’s too late for me”. This would be the true and hopeless “gnashing of teeth”.

This doesn’t imply that your father actually is in hell or that his scream was because he was about to be taken there; I see your vision rather as a representation of how we would react if we were in such a position, thus a warning for the living. After all, if he was indeed your father, in some way he was allowed to tell you he’s sorry, so he helped you to forgive him. So If I were you, when it comes to HIS soul, I’d rather pay attention to those words of repentance and I’d pray for HIM; but when it comes to MY soul, I’d rather pay attention to “It’s too late for me” as a potential warning for ME and I’d focus on what he said about what is needed for salvation - if I remember well, it was something like “how you treat the others”.

About devil and predictions - I remember some folks on the Fisheaters forum who were talking about ouija boards and demonic dreams with various predictions that came true, this being the most frightening feature of such things. So… only God knows what the devil actually can and cannot do.