Making Hell make sense

[Zerg]

The root of evil is disobedience. Just obey God with all your might and soul like it says in the First Commandment. And, because we are not perfect we can always run back to Jesus in the confessional.

I heard a priest say in a homily that “you have the right to go to Heaven! You need the sacraments.”

 

[Magnanimity]

A human cannot by their own abilities, “lock” their wills in this manner so that they are permanently oriented away from God. Only God can. An explicit action by God is required

This was a great post. I do agree that what the neverending and inescapable Hell implies about such a god is not good.

You may already know this, but St Thomas Aquinas gives a counterargument to your line of reasoning above. Or rather, he provides a rationale for why it doesn’t have to be “on God.” He states that the only way for a human mind to change is for it to be given either (1) new information or (2) the ability to consider old information in a new light. Upon death, so he reasons, neither of those would obtain. So the human mind/will cannot change.

Ultimately, I don’t think the argument succeeds due to my current understanding of epistemology (memory, introspection and reason would not leave a disembodied spirit, even if perception and testimony might). However, it is a reasonable argument that doesn’t entail that the onus is on God. Perhaps.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Magnanimity]

in some sense it is exactly the voice that God wants us to hear before our own empathy, our seeing of infinite value in others, and our own conscience are developed more fully.

Thanks for jumping in @OneSheep! As always, very insightful comments. I recently watched a TED talk by social scientist Jonathan Haidt and it was about the human moral sense. One utterly fascinating part of his presentation was when he noted that many psychological experiments suggest that for humans, there is often the need for a threat to get people to solve cooperative problems (to be socially moral). Relying on natural good will only works for a short time in cooperative situations and without a threat, a type of social entropy inevitably ensues and people merely want to “free ride” on the good will of others.

That’s really fascinating and plays into how I understand Christ to be communicating when he speaks threateningly (as he does with some regularity in the synoptic gospels and in Revelation). As our God, he knows what we need to hear and how we need to hear it. He’ll tell us to cut off our hands and feet and to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin. He’ll say we must depart from Him into a lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels based on what we did or didn’t do. Human psychological make-up seems to necessitate a threat (real or imagined) to compel right behavior.

And part of this whole discussion on Hell and universalism gets at what many of the staunchest proponents of universalism stated—they claimed that such discussions are not for all Christians. For the less spiritually mature among us, those folks need to hear the threatening and judgey God. They don’t need to hear that we’re all saved in the end anyway. In my reading, Origen, St Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor all said this.

it can be seen as an illusion that God wants us to see, up to the very point that we finally come to know something deeper. It is this depth to which Jesus invites us.

 

[Ana_v]

I don’t believe I implied that. I think I was trying to express the thought that it is by our choices that we merit eternal torment, as it is written on every heart/conscience what is right and what is wrong and for a Catholic who knows their Faith this is even more clear. Whilst they might be pursuing the temporal pleasure of the sex act, for example, they still know they have chosen a lesser good rather than choosing their ultimate good ie God by obeying His Commandments.

Thank you for the clarification. I am not and was not trying to be gratuitously nitpicky about word-choices. It’s just that this topic is an example of one in which I think explicit distinctions matter greatly, e.g. “means” and “ends”, “choices” and “consequence”, especially because the inner rationality or coherence of our beliefs about God (his justice, goodness) hang in the balance. The work of apologetics has to wrestle with the topic of Hell and people find different ways of trying to reconcile the tension between “the unconditional love of God” with “the punishment of eternal torment”.

Unfortunately, some attempts at doing that I think undermine common sense and the credibility of the Faith.

In another thread, someone said that God doesn’t condemn sinners to Hell; they condemn themselves. This is another example of a statement that I don’t think stands to reason (if taken literally – the second half). It’s possible that the person didn’t mean this literally, but was just trying to convey the idea that humans make choices that result in eternal misery (not that they will to be miserable), however, it isn’t always clear if that’s all that’s being done, or, if one is trying, at all costs, to portray God as the ‘passive’ player in all this with no responsibility whatsoever for the “damnation of souls”.

And that is why I object so strongly to language that sounds like humans choose Hell. It seems to me to be so obviously false. The very fact that people constantly choose lesser goods (because pleasure is so immediate…the joy of Heaven distant…) is proof positive to me that humans have a strong, natural inclination away from pain and misery. Not only that, but when humans are subjected to suffering, especially for extended periods, that they find unbearable or overwhelming, they often resort to forms of escape or remedy, alcohol, drugs, sex, counseling, antidepressants, etc.

Sometimes, humans willingly endure suffering for the sake of a good, e.g. you see a vicious dog charging at a toddler and you intervene and acquire injury. But suffering that serves no purpose in the order of charity (the sleep deprived mother, the wounded soldier), self-discipline or edification is quite repugnant to humans, that’s why they avoid it by default (“fight or flight”), the most extreme example of this being suicide.

So, if the goal is to defend the traditional concept of Hell, I think one may say “Humans (knowingly) risk Hell by choosing x,y, z” but not “Humans choose Hell”.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t believe I implied that. I think I was trying to express the thought that it is by our choices that we merit eternal torment, as it is written on every heart/conscience what is right and what is wrong and for a Catholic who knows their Faith this is even more clear. Whilst they might be pursuing the temporal pleasure of the sex act, for example, they still know they have chosen a lesser good rather than choosing their ultimate good ie God by obeying His Commandments.

Hmmm. What are the characteristics of the “knowing” that they have chosen a lesser good? For example, “knowing” is also knowing priorities, having them in mind at the moment. Could you express what the person is thinking?

I think I was trying to express the thought that it is by our choices that we merit eternal torment

This “meriting” is an activity of the conscience, which physiologically/emotionally rewards us when we do good, and punishes us when we do wrong.

no human beings will Hell.

We would only will it if we were in a self-destructive state of mind, clearly not knowing what we are doing, correct?

I was trying to explain that as all actions come from the will, in that way we do “will” our end ie hell, when we deliberately and with full knowledge commit a mortal sin.

I’m at a loss as to how a person with “full knowledge” can do this. It runs contrary to an anthropology that upholds human dignity.

The very fact that people constantly choose lesser goods (because pleasure is so immediate…the joy of Heaven distant…) is proof positive to me that humans have a strong, natural inclination away from pain and misery . Not only that, but when humans are subjected to suffering, especially for extended periods, that they find unbearable or overwhelming, they often resort to forms of escape or remedy, alcohol, drugs, sex, counseling, antidepressants, etc.

To me, this shows a very insightful anthropology. Would you agree that when we choose a lesser good, it is because it appears to be the greater good?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Very good posts so far!

Just a clarification: If a human could go to hell for eternity, I don’t think the issue is necessarily with God’s love. Rather, my bigger issue is seeing how it is even possible for a human, in the first place, to actually choose hell.

If any human being is in hell, then that will not conflict with my believing in Gods’ mercy and love. I will just have to admit that I didn’t previously truly understand the nature of human action and sin.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

To me, this shows a very insightful anthropology. Would you agree that when we choose a lesser good, it is because it appears to be the greater good?

I know you’re not asking me, but this makes sense to me.

This is why I have issue with someone going to hell over an erroneous judgment.

 

[OneSheep]

This is why I have issue with someone going to hell over an erroneous judgment.

Using Luke 23:34 “forgive them, for they know not what they do” as a starting point for an anthropology that seeks to understand, rather than condemn or condone, would you go so far to say that whenever anyone does something hurtful/sinful, they do not know what they are doing?

I am using “knowing” in an all-encompassing sense, everything relevant, i.e. the harm to well-being, the value of that harm (infinite value of people), the true priorities of choices, the absence of blindness, etc.

BTW: Great thread. Amazing posts.

Rather, my bigger issue is seeing how it is even possible for a human, in the first place, to actually choose hell.

If any human being is in hell, then that will not conflict with my believing in Gods’ mercy and love. I will just have to admit that I didn’t previously truly understand the nature of human action and sin.

Have you come to understand and forgive all of mankind, everyone you held something against, towards whom you held even the slightest resentment? (Mark 11:25)

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I think people are free to an extent and so are culpable for some of their actions. But my issue is having a culpability deserving of hell. I don’t think that makes sense.

 

[OneSheep]

But my issue is having a culpability deserving of hell. I don’t think that makes sense.

So is it a matter of the punishment being too harsh? I am seeing more in your question.

I think people are free to an extent and so are culpable for some of their actions

There is a range of definitions for the word “culpable”. What is your definition?

To me, in order for a doctrine or understanding of hell to be coherent, it has to show that someone knowingly and freely chooses hell, such that the individual is getting what he wants.

Yes, that is what it would take for it to be coherent.

I don’t think anyone will object to the “knowingly” and “freely” part.

I contest the assertion that anyone knowingly (in the all-inclusive sense I described earlier) chooses an eternal hell. To me, the assertion runs contrary to the catechism’s “people desire the good”. And then, we are only free to make choices based on the information we actually know, and have in mind, about the choice.

If someone goes to hell, without getting what he wants, then it seems hell has to be reduced to ignorance, or lack of full freedom, in which case that individual couldn’t possibly deserve an eternal hell, anyway.

Yes, the choice to go to hell would have the same basis as the choice to crucify, that people who chose that path would not know what they are doing. There would have to be a blindness or lack of awareness involved, right?

So what I am hearing in your question is that you would not hold their choices against them, or God as you know Him would not do so. He would understand, forgive, and see their blindness or lack of awareness.

So anyway, how can we make hell coherent? How can someone choose hell, even knowing God is his ultimate good and happiness?

Well, one can humbly claim that it is possible even though the chances of it happening run completely contrary to human nature. The claim would not be based on observation of people, and it would have to be admitted that the claim contradicts what we know about human dignity. The only argument I can support is the observation that I am not omniscient. Even so, if the claimed existence of hell endorses the idea that the only allowable image of God is that He loves/forgives conditionally, then such a claim is in error.

 

[Magnanimity]

The very fact that people constantly choose lesser goods (because pleasure is so immediate…the joy of Heaven distant…) is proof positive to me that humans have a strong, natural inclination away from pain and misery . Not only that, but when humans are subjected to suffering, especially for extended periods, that they find unbearable or overwhelming, they often resort to forms of escape or remedy, alcohol, drugs, sex, counseling, antidepressants, etc.

This is so very well said. I could not agree with you more. The evidence that addiction is actually caused by loneliness and misery prior to contact with the substances is very strong. Suffering, misery, loneliness and torment are the particular reasons why folks anesthetize themselves. Journalist and writer Johann Hari has documented a lot in these regards.

Human wills are ever inclined toward some good(s) and they absolutely reject severe suffering/misery/torment. The global statistics on “successful” suicides are staggering. The WHO tracks suicides and reports 800,000 on average every year, and this is just from the data they’re given by countries that report it (only 60 of which have good quality vital statistics). The real number likely exceeds 1M annually, to say nothing of the several million attempted (but unsuccessful) suicides. And yet the medieval Hell would place ‘damned’ souls into a state of unending torment and suffering… No escape. No hospitalization. No rehabilitation. No hope.
It is a shocking repudiation of the divine image and likeness that we all bear.

 

[CRV]

It’s just that this topic is an example of one in which I think explicit distinctions matter greatly, e.g. “means” and “ends”, “choices” and “consequence”, especially because the inner rationality or coherence of our beliefs about God (his justice, goodness) hang in the balance. The work of apologetics has to wrestle with the topic of Hell and people find different ways of trying to reconcile the tension between “the unconditional love of God” with “the punishment of eternal torment”.

I agree with you here.

someone said that God doesn’t condemn sinners to Hell; they condemn themselves.

I’ve been told that by a priest before, and understand that to me, that we do in fact condemn ourselves by the choices we make - by choosing to commit and a mortal sin, ie full knowledge and with full deliberate consent of the will.

convey the idea that humans make choices that result in eternal misery

correct.

to portray God as the ‘passive’ player in all this with no responsibility whatsoever for the “damnation of souls”.

As God has given us freewill, he is therefore a passive player as you put it. He doesn’t will anyone to go to hell. But because he wants us to freely love Him by our own choices he won’t override our wills, because if He did, then we are no longer free.

sounds like humans choose Hell.

The way I understand it is, when this is said, it is to explain in perhaps as few words as possible the meaning that Catholics who know their Faith, know what things are considered grave matter, and so if a person committed this act with full knowledge that it is a mortal/grave sin, and did so with full consent of the will, then knowing it is a mortal sin and knowing that commiting a single mortal sin the consequences of such is hell, thus can be said they’ve" chosen hell." (Sorry if I can’t explain it any better).

humans have a strong, natural inclination away from pain and misery .

true.

when humans are subjected to suffering, especially for extended periods, that they find unbearable or overwhelming, they often resort to forms of escape or remedy, alcohol, drugs, sex, counseling, antidepressants, etc.

 

[CRV]

Also true, no-one likes to suffer. Though I wouldn’t put counseling in the same category as this would be assisting the individual to comes to terms with whatever happened, to help the person heal and move forward hopefully. Nor would I put antidepressants in that category either as this is medicine to treat a chemical imbalance within the brain and also is used to treat neuropathic pain - so it is medicine. But if an individual was not suffering from either of these diseases and still took the antidepressant to escape emotional pain, that would be an abuse of drugs/medicine and is sinful, because there is no medical need to take the medication.

But as the catechism says CCC #1756 " It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

Sometimes, humans willingly endure suffering for the sake of a good, e.g. you see a vicious dog charging at a toddler and you intervene and acquire injury. But suffering that serves no purpose in the order of charity (the sleep deprived mother, the wounded soldier), self-discipline

I don’t see these examples in that way. The sleep deprived mother - benefits the baby and presumed spouse allowing spouse to sleep is an act of charity in both cases (as an example not discriminating against single parents etc). The wounded soldiers’ suffering resulting from an injury incurred in protecting innocents is a huge act of charity, and whilst not willed, I don’t think in either case these individuals were totally ignorant of the possibility of suffering and so accept it. Though obviously would wish it not to be, but accept it when it and if it does.

“Humans (knowingly) risk Hell by choosing x,y, z” but not “Humans choose Hell”.

I understand the point you are trying to get across, but I respectfully disagree because to me that is one and the same. If by freely and knowingly choosing to commit a mortal sin and risk hell, in that sense the person is "choosing hell’ because they know that’s what their decision/deed merits/where they’d end up with all the suffering that occurs there if they die unrepentant. But they could also choose not to do a,b,c, and therefore “choose heaven/God” (even if one has to pass through purgatory before reaching Heaven).

 

[CRV]

Hmmm. What are the characteristics of the “knowing” that they have chosen a lesser good? For example, “knowing” is also knowing priorities, having them in mind at the moment. Could you express what the person is thinking?

If one chooses to do evil, then one has chosen the lesser good. So choosing to do whatever is not of God is a lesser good. People know when they’ve done the wrong thing or not, either before they do it or afterwards.

This “meriting” is an activity of the conscience, which physiologically/emotionally rewards us when we do good, and punishes us when we do wrong.

Not sure I follow you there. I understand the expression of merit to mean the consequences of/just punishment or reward as applies to our acts.

I’m at a loss as to how a person with “full knowledge” can do this. It runs contrary to an anthropology that upholds human dignity.

I’m not.

Edited to add:- As I have not studied philosopy, nor have I been to university or have I done any extensive studying, nor am I a professor of anything - so obviously others here are better than I am. But that does not negate the fact that my understanding or opinions are just as valid as others.

I now bow out of this conversation.

 

[Lavenderson]

There are three descriptions of the nature of hell discussed by Church Fathers of the past.

1. Eternal Torment (the Church supported view)
2. Annihilation (the damned suffer what they are due, then they cease to exist)
3. Universalism (all will be saved, even the devil himself)

Universalism is poison, and is to be avoided like poison. Eternal Torment and Annihilation are two sides of the same coin, since the experience of hell from the perspective of the damned will feel exactly like eternal torment without relief. But observing the final destruction of hell from the perspective of Heaven will appear as an eventual annihilation of hell and all those in it from existence itself.

If you go to hell, experiencing it eternally is justified because anything less would contradict God’s justice. However, God died for us once, and His Passion is the last chance hand He extends to us as we are sinking in the quicksand of hell, and this very act is God’s mercy manifested.

When God destroys hell once and for all, the damned will cease to be. But this is not equivalent to experiencing a neutral exclusion from both Heavenly bliss and hellish torment, as annihilation might sound at first glance. Once in hell, the damned will know nothing but torment for as long as they possess “being” itself and for as long as they have the ability to “experience” whatsoever. Maybe this is why the Church has traditionally emphasized the “eternal torment” side of the hell coin instead of the “annihilation” side, which I unhesitatingly support as with all dogmas of the Church.

But those in heaven will not have to worry about experiencing Heaven while knowing many souls are simultaneously experiencing hell. There won’t be a hell one day, and the damned will perish with it, knowing only eternal torment without the privilege of experiencing a “rest” from it.

 

[Magnanimity]

You seem to have elaborated a fourth position. I’m trying to think of what to call it. Can we call it the death row position? The person is going to be banished, punished and suffer, and then at the end of it all, will be destroyed.

 

[Lavenderson]

You seem to have elaborated a fourth position. I’m trying to think of what to call it. Can we call it the death row position? The person is going to be banished, punished and suffer, and then at the end of it all, will be destroyed.

I’m not sure what to call it either. I guess its my attempt to adhere to Church doctrine (which will always take priority) while reconciling all the scriptural verses that speak on hell. Adherents of all views of hell use scripture for justification, sometimes within the context of all other verses regarding hell, sometimes not so much.

In Christ all will be saved, yet few will make it through the gate of Heaven. Those in hell won’t find relief from hell, yet hell is eventually destroyed. God is always omnipresent, yet hell is separation from God. How to reconcile all these? Maybe your perspective, either from Heaven or hell, determines your view.

Scripture describes hell as a separation from God’s love, peace, mercy, joy, and light. But I would humbly argue that this separation may also include being separated from His power of sustaining existence itself, which He has done continually in all places since Genesis. Once you are separated, I’m not convinced God would continue sustaining your being. His justice is rightly served then the “plug is pulled.” You won’t feel some neutral position of exclusion from bliss nor relief from torment. You simply won’t “be”.

Those in Heaven will see hell’s annihilation, but torment for the damned will feel unending because to them there is no feeling of “end,” since experiencing an “end” necessitates existence. If “existence” is pulled from those in hell, unending torment is precisely the description I would use.

 

[Magnanimity]

Well, I’ll give you this much. One very ugly ramification of the medieval view of Hell is that good and evil (heaven and hell) are like to parallel train tracks that extend indefinitely into the future. Hell and evil have indefinite extension on that view. That’s not a great picture. That’s an improvement over this present reality only by degrees and not by total transformation. It’s a quantitative improvement rather than qualitative.

And annihilationism at least has this to offer–it does not unjustly extend the punishment/banishment/suffering/torment of those in hell into unending future states, as the classical view does.

But death is never a happy ending–never something we want. In fact, we are repulsed by death, by the very fact of it. And the vision of annihilationism is like a spiritual death (a final death)–a true cessation. It’s preferable to the classical view, but not preferable to the view that all will, in the end, be saved. How could it be?

I appreciate that you’re attempting to incorporate all the data into a single, coherent view. That’s what we’re all doing. No data can be ignored, whether scriptural, testimonial (views of the most prominent intellectuals of the church), rational (reasonability) or from nature (what we observe about humans in the world).

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@magnanimity and others:

I know many of you have gone over such things in greater detail than myself, but ultimately, it’s not even the church’s teaching that I get hung up on. It’s Jesus words that suggest people who truly do choose evil.

 

[RobynP]

ultimately, it’s not even the church’s teaching that I get hung up on. It’s Jesus words that suggest people who truly do choose evil.

I know this is kind of an extreme example but: is a white supremacist who enters a synagogue with a gun and opens fire truly and freely choosing evil?

I get what you’re saying that it doesn’t sound possible for human beings, who naturally are drawn to the good, to ever really choose evil.

But I don’t know how else to explain acts of horrific violence like that.

And if that shooter never repents, and instead continues to stew in his hatred for Jews and the God of the Jews, could he ever be in communion with that God?

Someone on this thread said for there to be an eternal hell God must permanently prevent someone from repenting. I don’t think I agree.

I believe God IS eternally offering those in hell a chance to reconcile, but their hatred is so strong they continually reject it.