Contrary to popular opinion, I am starting to get the hang of this blogging business. My original, meticulous non-plan was to post randomly about anything I came across that piqued my interest, or about which I could make fun. I have since realized that randomness is a recipe for nothing, and nothing is not something. So, I have decided to streamline the contents of IP to somewhat factual anecdotes from my so-called life (I can too say that Clare Danes! I don't care if Jared Leto was in Fight Club, leave me alone!), as well as various ruminations of questionable maturity.
Given that my life today is not much distinguishable from that of my wax duplicate at Madame Tussaud's, I will plague you with one of the aforementioned ruminations of questionable maturity. Ahhhh, the qualifying power of self-deprecation. Actually, yesterday I was not idle. I finally watched Napoleon Dynamite, which was pretty much the best video ever made ("Whatever I feel like I wanna do. Gosh!"). And now for the seamless transition from Napoleon Dynamite to theology.
(There's a summary at the bottom if you find this really, really boring.)
I've been wondering, and I've asked some of the devout in my life, say a person doesn't believe in hell, yet he does all the things necessary to keep himself out of hell, would he still go to hell? Well, by definition, if he has done all the necessary things, then he won't go to hell. Put another way, is belief in hell a necessary condition for staying out of it?
I am sometimes puzzled when I talk to Christians (Protestants specifically, mostly evangelical) and they say that the positive of having a relationship with God makes the negative of staying out of hell wholly inconsequential. Or, as I have several times heard it put: "I am not a Christian because I want to stay out of hell, it is because of what God gives me; my relationship with God" (paraphrased). This suggests that eternity without God is one and the same as hell. The lake of fire is a metaphor. I guess the question of whether the lake of fire is figurative or literal becomes moot if eternity without God is worse than eternal physical torment.
Still, I don't think the de-emphasis placed on the negative of hell is really fair. Sure, it doesn't matter to you if you're going to heaven, but you have to appreciate that it's a pretty big thing if you're not. In any case, I don't think we can verify the existence of either in this lifetime, but hell remains a key meeting point between different belief systems. We can talk all we want about our different religious experiences, and how I interpret this in such and such a way, and that in such and such a way, and smile and get along, and enjoy the variety of religious opinion. But if at the end of the day you're going to heaven, and I'm not, then it's all meaningless.
The problem I have is that I don't see the purpose of a metaphysical system which punishes those who fail. A sensible picture can be made of a God who creates humans and wants them to join him (through salvation, in Christianity), but I don't see what punishing those who fail to join him accomplishes. Why would it not be set up in such a way that those who fail remain "unenlightened," but unharmed? There are several other major systems who have it that way. Reincarnation, found in Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism among others, as I understand it, allows for those with 'bad karma' (i.e., those who have failed) to return, albeit in a worse position, but still with the chance to improve their lot and eventually succeed, whatever they may call success. There is also "rebirth" in Buddhism. In most forms of Buddhism there isn't a self to reincarnate, much less to damn to eternal torture.
No doubt there are numerous counterarguments, those notwithstanding, there are still some belief system which contain punishment for those who fail, and some which do not. To reiterate, why would God choose the former? I know, God can be angry: "On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed" (Deuteronomy 31:17 NIV), and jealous: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" (Exodus 20:5 NIV). I don't deny that, that's his prerogative, much like everything when you are omnipotent, but it does seem out-of-tune with the way the faithful I interact with these days perceive him. Those verses, and others like them, are well-entrenched in the Old Testament, which is more restricting than the lives of faith I see.
Why would someone omniscient become angry anyway though? I mean, I know humans aren't God, but when we get angry, it is often in the heat of the moment, or because an irreperable wrong has been done us; something we can't fix. Those things don't matter when all of time is laid out before and behind you. Being angry seems unfittingly fickle for an omnipotent being. When are human leaders vengeful and malicious? Not as often upon reflection, or when there is no threat from he who would be punished. Do we punish criminals for the sake of punishment or to prevent them from recidivism? Both, to varying degrees, in varying cultures and states. Wiser and more compassionate societies do not simply execute criminals indiscriminately. Most often the criminals retain a basic, if dull, existence. Why would God not do the same? He could just reduce us to a bland imprisonment, or he could kill us once and for all and be done with it. Isn't death bad enough? Why should the failures be relegated to eternal torment?
Anyway, I don't know. It is in some ways merely a piece of theological trivia, but I think it is important in what it reflects. There are more important and complicated questions in Christianity, which are answerable in other ways (and at other times, don't worry). Still, if one can accept the essential tenets of faith, without paying lip serivce to every single thing, and he remains in the world (separate from God and a spiritual community) then that is telling, and sad.
Summary:
1. Is belief in hell a necessary condition for staying out of it?
2. What is God's purpose in creating a universe in which those who fail are punished? I understand he wants to reward those who 'get it right,' but what does he gain from damning the rest for eternity? Why not simply erase them, or let them wander wearing neutral beige, drinking watered-down oatmeal and listening to air supply?
posted by DJH at 10:01 a.m.
6 Comments:
So Why does GOD punish those who fail ? which is what I understand as your question . I'm afraid I may go into what you might consider semantics , but I still want to try to answer .
If GOD is perfect and sinless and "good" and if imperfection and sin and evil cannot go into the same place , then logically they must go to another place .
Whether the lake of fire is just a metaphor to try and emphasize how much you don't want to be there doesn't seem to be real important to me . The point being made is that you would rather be with GOD .
So if you're sitting on top of a roof of a house about to be swept away in a flood and a boat comes by and you refuse it for whatever reason , then are you being punished for refusing it . I suppose you could say you were . I see it more as a consequence of yuor action ( or inaction ) . So is GOD punishing those who choose not to accept what HE offers ? I guess you could take it that way. I see it more as you have the choice of doing what you want but there are results from choices .
ie You can tell your child not to touch the hot stove because they will be hurt , but if they still choose to touch the stove they will be hurt . Is that punishing your child ?
I will quit now hopefully before I became boring and overly repetitive.
Dad
Thanks for the response dad, I appreciate it. But it seems like you are answering the question "how does it work?" Rather than, "why does it work the way it does?"
I understand that in the Christian scheme of eternity, the perfect and the imperfect cannot coexist. But why must the imperfect be sent to another place? That is, a place of eternal suffering. Would it not be more humane just to terminate it?
God controlled all the variables when he set it up this way; he must have had a reason. So what is that reason?
I don't really know why I'm writing about this. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse. I guess my implicit point is that if the reason God wants those who fail to be punished for all time is not clearly known (and it should be, since it's crucial to everything), then maybe that isn't actually the way it is.
Well David, I don't think that your point is implicit at all. I feel like it's very obvious, and pretty relevant. I have to wonder about "dad"'s point. If good and evil have to be separated at the crux of eternity- where must each of them go? I won't begin to debate the (what seems to have a become a somewhat stale) topic of how can anyone know where and how judgement will be rendered. If it is at all.
Now, if you are indeed atop a house about to be swept away in a flood, why (if you choose to refuse help) is the boat your only option?
I would say that religion could be likened to that metaphor in that, you could choose the boat- Christianity-- but maybe there's a helicopter- Islam--or possibly a sturdy tree to hold onto- Buddhism... and so on.
AND, let's say that you choose the helicopter, does that mean that now you have damned yourself? or does it perhaps mean that you've grasped hold of enlightenment? Another interesting argument.
Each has eternal consequences or missed opportunities, but essentially the question remains the same: Heaven, Hell- what's that all about?
It's an extremely confusing subject- and I don't think that my rambling comment here, had any real direction. Not unlike your blog, David. It's a curious thing, existence.
let me try another angle . I agree with your comment that just terminating life would be more humane . And to me that is the point . A question like this needs a divine answer rather than a humane (human) answer .
what seems humane will differ from person to person and society to society . Which means you can't by definnition come up with a humane answer . I don't know why GOD appears to be choosing to allow people to go to Hell who don't accept HIS will over theirs . I'm not saying here that we don't have free choice . we do . but like the law of gravity for example , there are consequences of obeying or disobeying . You can choose to try and beat the law of gravity by wearing a parachute but if I 'm to choose between depending on a man made invention or a GOD made intervention , I'll take the one from GOD who by definition is all knowing which makes him smarter than man especially me . So while I don't know why GOD does lots of things , I do know HIM and I trust Him to do what is right from the big picture view rather than my limited view . Does that make any more sense to you ?
Dad
Reading all of this realy got me thinking a lot and this is a good thing... I guess.
Since my english is not very strong especialy when it comes to writting, i'll be very brief.
It seems to me that were things get a bit confusing is when we start involving time into the concept of Heaven and Hell. I mean what's the point of explaining eternal suffering when we can't even describe eternity. Heaven is eternal as well, we are to be eternaly rewared and do we even know what that meen or why that is? If someone gives me the most delicious brownies ( likes those where ingridients include more butter then Cocoa) and decides the i can have a infinit amount, i'll a have a few... maybe a few more if i can have unlimited suplies of milk but at some point, i'll have enough and i'll stop. We can only be reward so much and therfore we can probably only be puniched some much but still God decided to make both of these states eternal... maybe that reflect s him a bit more... I don't realy know what i'm talking about anyways.
Also I felt like I had to mention this about the image of the roof and the flood: I'm not sure about all spiritual teaching but one thing i know is if i decide to follow one, i need to stick to it or to change all together. One thing about Jesus teaching is that "[He]is the way. the truth and the life and no ones come to God but by [him]" Thinking that I have more then one possibility kinds of put me in a fragile and unsecure position... wich i dont like... and i beleive wich God those not like me to be in either. Since I'm in ni position to have an opinion on that one, i dont and i stick with my convictions.
....
I guess i was not that brief afterall.
-Sam-
Viv,
Thanks for posting. I'm glad that my rambling directionlessness is rubbing off on you. Btw, for those of you who don't know, Viv is short for Wivian, who is a friend of mine from Saskatchewan (a 'prarie' province, possibly near the center of Canada) whom I met in Guangzhou "the Saskatoon of the East."
Dad,
Yes, that does make more sense to me, well, the first part anyway. I think you are saying: thinking of it in terms of humaneness is merely a human way of looking at it. Also, humaneness is not a universal value: it "differs from person to person and society to society."
Those are both sound points. I think the second point (about 'cultural relativism') is fair when speaking about humaneness in general. But the question at hand is about the humaneness of a specific act: damning a person forever. I can't imagine that there are any cultures which would see any benefit in that. That reminds me of something I read in ethics once (paraphrased): "It's all well and good to talk about cultural relativism in theory, but parachute out of an airplane at any random place on earth, go up to the first person you see, grab whatever he is holding in his hands, then run away in the opposite direction and see what happens."
As for your first point (humaneness is a human way of thinking) . . . yeah, that's fair enough, but it's pretty easy to say "we just don't know" about anything related to God. I don't mean to say that it's disingenuous to say so; it isn't. I guess I just should have thought out my question better in the first place. That is, I should have asked a question that is more answerable. But I like the way this one turned-out anyway, with a bunch of previously silent people responding, at length. I guess I could have just posted it on a theology messageboard, or something, but this is more fun. I guess this question is kind of like a . . . . . sec, gotta look it up . . . "koan: a paradoxical annecdote or a riddle that has no solution; used in Zen Buddhism to show the inadequacy of logical reasoning." You know, like: "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" or "If a tree falls in the forest . . . "
Sam,
(For those of you who don't know, Sam is Leah's bf, they both live in the Seychelles and ride sea turtles, if I remember correctly.) That was a funny analogy. Yeah . . . I agree heaven and hell are beyond our comprehension. I guess I thought that before, but I wanted to hear what other people thought.
Your second point is helpful. I think sometimes when we are within a certain belief system it seems like if we admit that any other belief system has some truth in it, then that must affect our own belief system. Like, "if that one is right, this one can't be right too." So sometimes we avoid exploring other belief systems. But yeah, you're right, it doesn't necessarily follow that if there is one thing true about something else, that we need to abandon, or even alter, our present beliefs. After all, the commandment says "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me," not "Thou shalt never consider the possibility of there being some truth to some other things." In any case, we still have to pick something, so it's best just to pick what makes the most sense and works for you. Well, we don't have to pick anything, but the alternative is sitting in your room, reading books and wondering what the perfect system is (which is lame, trust me). Meanwhile you are incapable of taking any action at all. That's not really good for much, except for helping you to realize that it isn't really good for much. To break the suspense, there is no perfect system, so it's best just to try and find a principled approach, and stick to it; be consistent/faithful to it. Is that what you were getting at? That's what it got me thinking towards anyway.
Je suis un taco.
Post a Comment
<< Home