If Hell Exists...

  • Thread starter Thread starter ngill09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

ngill09

Guest
… I believe it poses grave problems for Christianity.

There are, of course, many different theories about what Hell is. Some are more problematic than others.

Disclaimer: This is aimed more at a Protestant version of the Doctrine of Hell. It may not apply very well to Catholic doctrine.

Problem 1:
If I were to ask you who is the most evil person you can think of off the top of your head, you would probably say that would be Hitler.

Let’s for simplicity, ignore all the other atrocities he committed and focus entirely on the Holocaust, and particularly on the Jews killed in the Holocaust. I think we could agree that the systematic murder of millions of Jews is an incredibly evil act.

I think most would agree that Hell, whatever it is in particular, is a fate worse than death.

We might also agree that God is responsible for condemning people to Hell. You might object that people send themselves to Hell, or that people “choose” Hell, but that removes Judgment from the picture, and I think that Judgment is pretty central to Christian doctrine. A criminal may choose to commit crimes which result in him being condemned to prison, but the criminal does not choose to be sentenced to prison. The judge, jury, and lawmakers choose that the criminal be sentenced to prison. They are responsible for the justice that is served in sentencing a criminal. Likewise, God is responsible for condemning people to Hell.

All who choose not to believe that Christianity is true are condemned to Hell. I’m not talking about people who have never heard of Christianity, I’m talking about people who have heard of the Gospel and didn’t believe it was true. If you disagree with this point, this argument no longer works, but accepting Jesus Christ would no longer be necessary for salvation.

If those who choose not to believe Christianity are condemned to Hell, a fate worse than death, then God’s condemnation of non-Christians to Hell is vastly worse than Hitler’s murder of millions of Jews. In fact, according to the premises above, the same Jews that were murdered by Hitler found themselves in a worse fate upon their death. For them, the Holocaust was only the beginning of their torture. Therefore, if we call Hitler evil, how much more evil is God? If God is not evil, what basis do we have for condemning Hitler’s actions? It cannot be that his victims were innocent and did not deserve death - if we accept the doctrine of Hell then we must believe that his victims deserved far worse than death! No, the only basis for condemnation is that it was not Hitler’s place to exact such punishment.

Therefore the first problem of the doctrine of Hell as I see it is that it makes God more evil than Hitler, or dramatically changes what it means to do evil.

Problem 2
Many of us have friends and loved ones who are not Christians. If Hell exists, and all those who do not believe that Christianity is true are condemned to Hell, then we face the prospect of spending eternity with the knowledge that our friends and loved ones are suffering unspeakable torment. Therefore it seems to me that my eternal fate is either one of direct suffering in Hell, or indirect suffering in Heaven. Either way, so long as otherwise good people are suffering in Hell simply because they did not believe Christianity is true, my fate would be one of eternal suffering. Even if you didn’t know anyone in life who was not a Christian, the knowledge of the suffering of billions of people would be haunting.

Therefore, if those who do not believe that Christianity is true are condemned to Hell, Heaven only exists for psychopaths. For anyone who has the capacity for empathy, there are simply two versions of Hell. And yes, if you find enjoyment at the prospect of otherwise innocent non-Christians suffering in Hell, I name you a psychopath.

An interesting conclusion:
I recently thought about the following hypothetical scenario.

I die and find myself before a throne. Upon it sits a figure wearing a kingly crown. He tells me that I face judgment now, but that he will offer me a unique opportunity. If I choose to worship him, I will be spared the torment of Hell and allowed to spend eternity in Heaven. From my vantage point I can see on my left billions of people in tortured and in agony. On the right I see billions of people prostrating themselves before the throne with their hands clasped over their eyes, singing “Only you are good, Lord! You are all that is good!”

I would be horrified by what I saw. Knowing that this being is responsible for the suffering in Hell, an incredible evil, I hope that I would have the courage to say as such. To say that the kingly crown he wears cannot hide his horns.

And what if that is the ultimate test? What if the true price of entrance into Heaven is to choose eternal suffering rather than call what is obviously evil good?

If Hell exists, it seems to me the only moral choice is to oppose the being that would condemn innocent people to such a fate.

I suspect many will object by saying that God is the source/standard of morality and that we have no right to question or object to his actions. To me, if that is your choice then you may as well be worshiping the Devil, with your eyes closed to his evil.

Others might make the psychopathic objection that everyone deserves eternal torture, that we are all depraved and evil and have no right to question what evils are inflicted against us. I don’t feel the need to argue with psychopaths about what is moral.

Still more might object that I have misrepresented what Hell is, that Hell is temporary, or simply annihilation, or that those who do not believe that Christianity is true don’t go to Hell - that only “bad” people go to Hell. If that is the case, then that is good. So long as you accept that belief in Christianity is not necessary for salvation.

I’m really more interested in other comments or objections.
 
It’s a waste of time debating with the OP.

His theories are all junk, and he declares them for whatever he reason for doing so.
I don’t care what his reason for doing so is. He’s wrong, wrong, wrong in nearly every line.

Why bother writing reams of arguments to counter his false statements when it has all been said before?
If that’s how you want to spend your time, you’re entitled. I pass.
 
It’s a waste of time debating with the OP.

His theories are all junk, and he declares them for whatever he reason for doing so.
I don’t care what his reason for doing so is. He’s wrong, wrong, wrong in nearly every line.

Why bother writing reams of arguments to counter his false statements when it has all been said before?
If that’s how you want to spend your time, you’re entitled. I pass.
I forgot to include the objection that “You’re just wrong!”

File it under http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/images/smilies/lalalala.gif
 
All who choose not to believe that Christianity is true are condemned to Hell.
For me it’s not so much “choosing to believe” as much as it is “isn’t currently convinced.” Conviction is outside the reach of volitional decisions.
If God is not evil, what basis do we have for condemning Hitler’s actions?
Often times “bad” or “evil” as used in a moral context deals with that which is causing pain and suffering. For people that use those concepts in that way the concepts of hell that I’ve seen frequently shared qualify by definition. Something to note about this concept is that there are actions that don’t directly result in any observable harm (ex: masturbation) that would be viewed as amoral instead of immoral.
Therefore the first problem of the doctrine of Hell as I see it is that it makes God more evil than Hitler, or dramatically changes what it means to do evil.
And there have been people that have shared that view and on those grounds considered the descriptions of God that they’ve encountered to be inconsistent (maximally good + architect of ultimate suffering).
Many of us have friends and loved ones who are not Christians. If Hell exists, and all those who do not believe that Christianity is true are condemned to Hell, then we face the prospect of spending eternity with the knowledge that our friends and loved ones are suffering unspeakable torment.
I’ve not found this to be as problemmatic. Among other things our emotional states seem to be influenced by chemical state. A person’s mood will vary if he hasn’t eaten, has eaten too much, pre-coffee, post coffee, post-to-much-coffee, while on pain killers, so on. The concepts of the post-life life that I generally see involve people being given new bodies that are unlike the ones that they have now. If I granted that to be the case I can’t make inferences about what one’s mood would be like. I can only make inferences based on how I see people behaving now. That may not be a fitting model to use. So at best if I grant that there is a life after death that I have no clue what the psychology and behaviour of beings in that state would be.
 
If I were to ask you who is the most evil person you can think of off the top of your head, you would probably say that would be Hitler.

No, there’s far worse out there.

Let’s for simplicity, ignore all the other atrocities he committed and focus entirely on the Holocaust, and particularly on the Jews killed in the Holocaust. I think we could agree that the systematic murder of millions of Jews is an incredibly evil act.

Yes

I think most would agree that Hell, whatever it is in particular, is a fate worse than death.

Yes.

We might also agree that God is responsible for condemning people to Hell.

No.

All who choose not to believe that Christianity is true are condemned to Hell.

No.

accepting Jesus Christ would no longer be necessary for salvation.

Wrong.

If those who choose not to believe Christianity are condemned to Hell, a fate worse than death, then God’s condemnation of non-Christians to Hell is vastly worse than Hitler’s murder of millions of Jews.

You must think you are very smart. You are not.

Problem 2

Many of us have friends and loved ones who are not Christians. If Hell exists, and all those who do not believe that Christianity is true are condemned to Hell, then we face the prospect of spending eternity with the knowledge that our friends and loved ones are suffering unspeakable torment.

Nonsense.

An interesting conclusion:

I recently thought about the following hypothetical scenario.

I die and find myself before a throne. Upon it sits a figure wearing a kingly crown. He tells me that I face judgment now, but that he will offer me a unique opportunity. If I choose to worship him, I will be spared the torment of Hell and allowed to spend eternity in Heaven.

**Heaven is not a place for people who worship God, but for people who have chosen to do good rather than evil, who have chosen to serve rather than be served. **

If Hell exists, it seems to me the only moral choice is to oppose the being that would condemn innocent people to such a fate.

True. And that being is the Evil One, who led to the existence of the state of hell - the state in which a soul rejects God’s infinite, unconditional love. Thus as Christians we profess that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of the world of darkness.
If you really want to find some useful arguments on the Problem of Evil and other similar issues, I recommend you get a copy of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft. Then you may see just how your premises are faulty, and you will also have to address arguments that are both sound and reasonable, and you will find yourself with one option: accept that orthodox, apostolic Christianity provides the most reasonable answer to the Problem of Evil, or reject arguments without being able to refute them.
 
Hell is not a theory.
Hell = Complete separation from God.
Hell is a matter of justise. It is the state for those who have rejected God.
 
hmmm. i had similar thoughts and misgivings as a teenager. i wonder how old you are. anyway, you’re right in that this does not apply itself at all to Catholic doctrine.
the lawbreaker knows he is a lawbreaker and knows the consequences for his actions if caught. the law is clear. God’s laws are also clear. if you break them it is not God who condemns you but you yourself have done it. God simply stays faithful to the rules he set. it is up to us to make a choice. hitler believed in what he was doing and was undoubtedly insane. so i can’t speak on where he is be it hell, purgatory or heaven. only God knows for sure. though i cold make a pretty good guess.
have a nice day.
 
Problem Number 1:

Is false because of the presumption that an evil person going to Hell is a bad thing. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, nor does he sympathize with their situation. He has enabled mankind with the choice between good and evil, and graciously seeks for everybody to be saved. Ultimately, He sends a person to exactly where they belong. It would be a bad thing if an impenitent evil person did not go to Hell, not the other way around.

Furthermore, reconciliation is about a desire to be in communion with God. Obviously a person in Hell is going to regret being there, but that does not at all mean that they didn’t choose it. Think about all the times that a public figure has apologized for something that they were caught doing. The question you should be asking is: “Are they sorry, or are they sorry that they got caught?”. For a person in Hell, the answer is always the later.

Problem 2:

Problem 2 is false because you are looking at it as though your knowledge were superior to God’s knowledge. If you find a person that you admired in life being condemned to Hell, the appropriate conclusion is “He wasn’t who I thought he was”, not “God is sending a good person to Hell”. Choosing to conclude the later is an act of supreme arrogance. God does not send good people to Hell.

In other words, nobody in heaven will be in sorrow for eternity because a good person was sent to Hell. It’s a completely fictional scenario.
 
Problem Number 1:

Is false because of the presumption that an evil person going to Hell is a bad thing. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, nor does he sympathize with their situation. He has enabled mankind with the choice between good and evil, and graciously seeks for everybody to be saved. Ultimately, He sends a person to exactly where they belong. It would be a bad thing if an impenitent evil person did not go to Hell, not the other way around.

Furthermore, reconciliation is about a desire to be in communion with God. Obviously a person in Hell is going to regret being there, but that does not at all mean that they didn’t choose it. Think about all the times that a public figure has apologized for something that they were caught doing. The question you should be asking is: “Are they sorry, or are they sorry that they got caught?”. For a person in Hell, the answer is always the later.

Problem 2:

Problem 2 is false because you are looking at it as though your knowledge were superior to God’s knowledge. If you find a person that you admired in life being condemned to Hell, the appropriate conclusion is “He wasn’t who I thought he was”, not “God is sending a good person to Hell”. Choosing to conclude the later is an act of supreme arrogance. God does not send good people to Hell.

In other words, nobody in heaven will be in sorrow for eternity because a good person was sent to Hell. It’s a completely fictional scenario.
Again, in response to you and others, these points only hold for versions of Hell in which otherwise good people are condemned to Hell simply for not believing that Christianity is true. Of course, if people can go to Heaven simply by being good without believing in Christianity, this poses other doctrinal problems, I think.
 
Again, in response to you and others, these points only hold for versions of Hell in which otherwise good people are condemned to Hell simply for not believing that Christianity is true. Of course, if people can go to Heaven simply by being good without believing in Christianity, this poses other doctrinal problems, I think.
It seems to me you are presenting a strawman of hell.
How do you know who is, or will be, in hell?
 
It seems to me you are presenting a strawman of hell.
How do you know who is, or will be, in hell?
I don’t think anyone will be in Hell. These hypotheticals are in response to the many people who believe that salvation is through Christ alone and that those who do not worship Jesus Christ are damned to Hell.
 
I don’t think anyone will be in Hell. These hypotheticals are in response to the many people who believe that salvation is through Christ alone and that those who do not worship Jesus Christ are damned to Hell.
What you think does not realy matter in this case, does it? Either hell is inhabited, or it isn’t. Its condition is not dependent on what you think.

Your hypothetical is nonsense. Your supposed condition for damnation is far to simplistic to make any sense.
 
If you really want to find some useful arguments on the Problem of Evil and other similar issues, I recommend you get a copy of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft. Then you may see just how your premises are faulty, and you will also have to address arguments that are both sound and reasonable, and you will find yourself with one option: accept that orthodox, apostolic Christianity provides the most reasonable answer to the Problem of Evil, or reject arguments without being able to refute them.
I’m just quoting this so you get another chance to look at it. Your assertions are horribly flawed, and not in all keeping with Church tradition or, really, basic logic. (R_C address this in his post, very briefly) I’d suggest you read it again, as your entire arguemnt is based on the faulty premise of God choosing to send people to Hell. It is not God’s decision, but rather the decision of the individual who chose to reject God throughout their life. This is a highly complicated subject, and one which you do absolutely no justice in your assertions; you require far, far more studying to be able to discuss this based on what the Church actually teaches on the subject.
 
What you think does not realy matter in this case, does it? Either hell is inhabited, or it isn’t. Its condition is not dependent on what you think.

Your hypothetical is nonsense. Your supposed condition for damnation is far to simplistic to make any sense.
Indeed, what I think does not change what is. But if God sends people to Hell simply for not believing that Christianity is true, then the observations in the OP are valid, and God is evil, Heaven is just another form of Hell, and the only moral choice in the face of these facts is to refuse to worship such an evil being.

Therefore, those who are unsure whether Christianity is true need not force themselves to believe its dubious claims out of fear of Hell or Judgment.
 
The basic elements of your argument are invalid, which makes the discussion rather difficult. This is a Catholic forum, and we are discussing things from a Catholic perspective…
 
I’m just quoting this so you get another chance to look at it. Your assertions are horribly flawed, and not in all keeping with Church tradition or, really, basic logic. (R_C address this in his post, very briefly) I’d suggest you read it again, as your entire arguemnt is based on the faulty premise of God choosing to send people to Hell. It is not God’s decision, but rather the decision of the individual who chose to reject God throughout their life. This is a highly complicated subject, and one which you do absolutely no justice in your assertions; you require far, far more studying to be able to discuss this based on what the Church actually teaches on the subject.
I expected this dodge. You’re conceding most of my points by implicitly admitting that Hell is an unjust punishment. Would a judge try so desperately to back out of admitting responsibility for putting a dangerous criminal in jail? No one avoids responsibility for enacting true justice. And yet you complain when anyone suggests God’s responsibility for enacting punishment in Hell. It seems you think Hell an unjust punishment.

If the otherwise innocent are damned to Hell for not believing that Christianity is true, then God made the law that made such disbelief punishable by eternal torment and condemned them to that fate. It would be like declaring anyone eating dog food in your house punishable by blinding, then watching your dog eat dog food, then gouging his eyes out, then saying that you have no responsibility for anything.
 
Unless Christianity is true, in which case subscribing to its creeds & fulfilling its sacraments is good by definition. You can’t operate on the premise that Christianity is right and then say that a good person is being sent to Hell because they didn’t accept Christianity “but were otherwise a good person”. That doesn’t make sense. What made them a good person? Because they weren’t a sadomasochistic rapist? Because they had a job? Because they had children and friends that they loved? Who cares? What credit is it to them to love those that love them?

You will not find an orthodox person on Earth that will make an absolute statement on who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. That is not part of Catholic Church teaching. What it teaches is what is good and what is evil, and it provides you with everything you need to know for those that seek the truth and want to be in unity with God. It is left to God to discern and judge each individual and the unique circumstances of their life.
 
I expected this dodge. You’re conceding most of my points by implicitly admitting that Hell is an unjust punishment.
I said nothing that would even remotely imply this. I said that God does not send people to Hell, and that people chose it for themselves. How, from this, you decided that I said that Hell was unjust, I will never know.
Would a judge try so desperately to back out of admitting responsibility for putting a dangerous criminal in jail? No one avoids responsibility for enacting true justice. And yet you complain when anyone suggests God’s responsibility for enacting punishment in Hell. It seems you think Hell an unjust punishment.
Why should a judge take responsibly for upholding the law? It is a guilty verdict awarded to an individual who broke the law which sends a person to jail, not the judge. A human judge determines and extent of time. For God, that extent is eternity. While it’s true that mistakes happen in the human legal system, God is all knowing, and therefore is not mistaken when he judges a person’s heart. Essentially, it’d be like if the judge and jury all had esp, and were able to read the defendants mind to know, 100% if they did it or not.
If the otherwise innocent are damned to Hell for not believing that Christianity is true, then God made the law that made such disbelief punishable by eternal torment and condemned them to that fate.
As I said in my last post, you need to study what the Church actually teaches. People are not automatically sent to Hell for simply not being Christian, they are sent to Hell for a systematic rejection of God. We believe that non-christians who live good lives are not automatically damned to Hell; which is a fundamental and flawed premise of your assertions.
It would be like declaring anyone eating dog food in your house punishable by blinding, then watching your dog eat dog food, then gouging his eyes out, then saying that you have no responsibility for anything.


This is so stupid, I barely know how to respond to it…

If you told everyone over and over again that eating dog food would kill them, and gave them innumerable opportunities to stop eating it, why should it be your fault that they wind up dead from eating dog food?

As I stated before, it appears that you know aboslutly nothing about Catholic salvation theology. Why don’t you stop wasting your time trying to sound intellectual, and focus on actually studying a topic before you try to debate it.
 
Indeed, what I think does not change what is. But if God sends people to Hell simply for not believing that Christianity is true, then the observations in the OP are valid, and God is evil, Heaven is just another form of Hell, and the only moral choice in the face of these facts is to refuse to worship such an evil being.

Therefore, those who are unsure whether Christianity is true need not force themselves to believe its dubious claims out of fear of Hell or Judgment.
Your conclusion is based on the false premise that God sends people to hell. This is not so, so your conclusion must be rejected. You OP observations are invalid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top