A Rant On Hell, Possible Dystheism And Afterlife

[zuker12]

I think my 5 month long journey is coming to an end, a journey in dabbling in christianity, that is. I've had a lot of useful epiphanies but a lot of grief to accompany it too. I wish I could channel my frustration into love and charitable works (I really want to get involved in some helping volunteer work), however my current state is dragging me down a lot. So here is a rant about the afterlife, hell and such stuff and their effects on our capacity to love.

 

I can't understand hell. It is a long way from any understandable punishment, if it is eternal. I thought punishments were meant to be corrective, not just punitive for the sake of punishing? I could understand blessings and punishments in this life, which could mean a shorter and miserable life for someone who did wrongs. These punishments and blessings fulfill their ordained purpose; especially if they can be linked to a creator. This is a sort of a beauty in judaism, and some other religions too. It is a different matter if both hell and punishments in this world exist; then someone gets punished TWICE + FOREVER for a finite thing that he did, AFTER being given this weak nature. Is our nature so dreadful, that the only way to control and punish it is infinite hell? How just is that? The degree of crimes we get tortured for is something as insignificant as a thought crime, like being angry with your brother. I understand why it isn't good to be angry with a fellow person, but how genuine is this forgiveness if it is done under the threat of eternal punishment? Is being robotic more important than genuinely wanting to forgive your fellow man? Isn't the point to teach one why it is so important to forgive? If so, why didn't god just create robots? It seems very contradictory to create us in such a miserable state, with such fallibility and then consign us to an eternal hell. I feel that there is a huge contradiction between our nature and the thought of an eternal punishment.

 

Is a fear of hell more important than fear of God and true love? I mean, I wish more congregations would transform into actually showing love for every man and living like Christ instead of showering condemnations of hell on everyone. Too many times I hear the weakest persons in the christian chain feel obligated to do all the “work of love”, when the clergymen get away with fire and brimstone preaching. I wish the christian communities were more about genuine love than “love” out of fear of punishment. This might be a core dilemma with christianity, though, since it does advocate some form of punishment, and most think it is eternal. I think it wasn't meant to be eternal, but got painted this way through the centuries. (Might be just another irrational belief too on my part.) I think the early christians didn't believe in an eternal punishment, just an age-enduring one. As far as I know, the early christian communities could be described as socialistic, that is they lived in communes and shared everything with their fellow men, of course spreading the teaching of love to strangers, but also so that they were ready to give. I think they could be described as kind of ascetics in communes. It is a lifestyle that interests me (however I don't know if I can live with christianity anymore, it just brings me sorrow and contradictory emotions) and I wish modern christians were ready to live a life like that. Now that would be example setting and I think it'd attract a more “peace and love” crowd than any fire and brimstone sermon. I feel it is not genuine to attract people by way of fear primarily. It produces “bad fruit”, so to speak. Of course, a core problem is with the scriptures themselves too, since they don't show as much a message of love than a message of total subservience.

 

Regarding NDE experiences, I don't think they show any meaningful insight into the afterlife. Most NDEs are positive, the “tunnel of light” kind of experiences. Some come out as hellish. They seem to differ according to cultural and religious background too. Some turn to christian universalism after their NDE, some turn to the bahá'i faith. They DO have elements that seem to be consistent from one NDE to another in many cases. Personally, the hellish experiences I think can be explained with psychology, the fact that hell is such a popular phenomenon, western culture is christian predominantly and some cases may be explained with the possibility of people lying or exaggerating. They are not consistent enough between each other to paint any credible image of an afterlife. If some people were given visions of hell, why only were they (20% of all NDE experiencers, at maximum) given this information? Why isn't that information consistent either, some get an impersonal hell and some get the very christian version of it?

 

Lastly, I'll tell you something about my current irrational beliefs. I personally think everyone will get to show their mettle, if some sort of divinity exists, or that they will have to atone for their sins, not for eternity, but possibly LONG periods of time. At least as long as they need to get corrected and pay back for what they've done. This seems justifiable, logical and it isn't such a slap in the face against this “cursed” existence. The showing of mettle might come up at the end times, and maybe people will get decapitated or otherwise grotesquely killed, or this might come up at a turning point in one's life. I don't know if the end times are here or not, and I won't pretend to know. It is not up for us to know. Of course, for the past 2000 years, everyone's been waiting for the world to end, setting dates for just about any century. If an asteroid comes up and we find that out a week before it, then of course we'll know what happens if everything goes according to the laws of physics. Laws in this physical world have worked according to expectations, so there is no reason to give anything a supernatural explanation by default. Of course something incredible could happen and then we'd be wrong. I'm going to hedge my bets on “the end times are not here” option. One thing I've been pondering is that what if we live in a dystheistic universe – that is, a universe ruled by an evil or selfish god. This is of course, always a possibility, and then we end up with the conclusion that our existence is cursed or negative by default. Then our moral questions need a lot of redefining and everything is by default a question of submission. A hellish possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. Our consciences would amount to nothing and our sense of justice would be a cruel trick against ourselves.

[Guest afireinside]

Good rant!. This time last year I was investigating NDE's. I wanted some accounts outside of Christian experiences so I could compare. It was surprising to see the low % of NDE's that were compatible with a Christian hell and ironically most of those were experienced by Christians and not unbelievers. Up until then I had bought into a lot of the Christian testimonies of NDE's and accepted them as factual. This was the first crack in my belief that hell was real.

[Ousian]

Nice read, you have some good thoughts.

 

 

I can't understand hell. It is a long way from any understandable punishment, if it is eternal. I thought punishments were meant to be corrective, not just punitive for the sake of punishing?...Is our nature so dreadful, that the only way to control and punish it is infinite hell? How just is that? 

Sure, by human standards Hell is about as immoral and unjust as it gets.  But from a Christian's perspective, it's perfectly just.  Why?  Because God is the source of morality, and regardless of how hypocritical, arbitrary, or contrived his own moral actions are, he can do whatever he wants and by definition his acts must be moral.  This was one of the serious problems I had with my religion before I gave it up: God can do literally anything and it MUST be moral by the definition of who God his.  He can (and does) turn around and give us a completely conflicting moral standard (ten commandments) which he expects us to abide by, but by which he does not.  Is this really indicative of a morally perfect creature?  It comes across as petty and morally dissonant to me.  If you assume God exists, this is something you have to accept: God can do anything and it is morally good by necessity of his nature, but the moral standards for mankind are not at all the moral standards by which God behaves.  if ANY Christian denies this, just ask them how then God, a morally perfect being, can condemn thousands of people to die for eternity, but forbid us from so much as hating another person for any reason.  As much as Christians claim otherwise, their morals are NOT absolute.

 

 

Is a fear of hell more important than fear of God and true love?

 

This is among my top 5 problems I have with religion, both before/after my deconversion (and I have a long, long list).  The Christian's motivation is essentially selfish, no matter how much one convinces oneself otherwise.  Christians are literally commanded to fear God and God's wrath for disobedience.  Thankfully, God sent his son to die on the cross, blah, blah, blah.  If we accept Jesus, we get into heaven.  That's the gospel, the gōd-spell, the "good news."  

 

But is this not solely driven by an individual's own desire to live in heaven?  Is the gospel really centered around savior, as many would claim, or around the saved?  Is not this entire story a function of human desire for immortality spurred by the inherent, biological fear of death?  

 

To anybody who would not agree with me, consider this though experiment.  Imagine if the New Testament was the same story, but nobody gets to go to heaven after death.  Jesus came down and died and was resurrected just to exemplify God's glory and establish his identity, but everybody still goes to Hell as a result of original sin.  How many people would want a personal relationship with Jesus then?  Is this really about worshiping the creator regardless of our own lives?  I have a feeling that if God condemned literally every person to Hell and only commanded them to worship and glorify Him in their pitifully short time on earth (as opposed to narcissistically sapping off their attention for eternity in Heaven), how many people would worship him, if they are condemned to Hell irregardless?  By God's subjective standards of morality, he would be perfectly justified in doing this.  By the Christian's standards of morality, he would be obliged to worship God regardless of whether he goes to Hell or goes to Heaven.  As much as any Christian will protest this (and maybe some atheists as well), I am convinced the Christian is primarily motivated by the hope of eternal life, NOT by some sort of sense of servitude to his Creator/God.

[Adam5]

One thing I've been pondering is that what if we live in a dystheistic universe – that is, a universe ruled by an evil or selfish god. This is of course, always a possibility, and then we end up with the conclusion that our existence is cursed or negative by default. Then our moral questions need a lot of redefining and everything is by default a question of submission. A hellish possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.

 

 

Hi Zuker, the problem with an evil God is the problem of good, the opposite problem to the problem of evil. The problem of good is how to reconcile the existence of good with an evil Deity.  For example there are lots of happy people around, all enjoying themslves and doing things that are fun.  Why would an evil entity allow that? 

[ExCBooster]

Or, for another angle on it, forget for a minute about the theological or ethical conundrum of Hell, and consider instead what this belief's function is.

 

What does a belief in Hell GAIN those who believe in it? An idea doesn't last as long as it has (you'll find it's fairly modern, though, and imported from outside Judaism) or be held by as many people so fervently without it serving some kind of useful function. Not every culture believes in this sort of "afterlife" in the strict sense. With some versions of reincarnation, for example, a being is simply shunted straight into another life after they die. No hanging about on fluffy clouds. Also, a lot of other ideas of an "afterlife" are no different than regular "life" anyway. Even some fairly familiar cultures had completely different concepts of what a "soul" even was, like the Ancient Egyptians, who had an idea of a plural, compound soul, with each living person composed of multiple souls, with different functions, such as the Name, the Ka, the Ba, the Shadow, and so on (it's really complicated...). Or, in other cultures, that, while living, your soul, or pieces of it, could get lost, and have to be guided back to the body. Heaven and Hell are cultural beliefs. The question, really, is what function are they performing for the cultures that believe in them?

 

What does Hell and Heaven do? It gives the idea of some kind of inescapable judgement, tied to religious belief, that's it. It enforces conformity to religious, and therefore cultural norms. Heaven is the carrot, and Hell is the stick. Think about who talks "hellfire and brimstone" the most: the most socially conformist and restrictive of Christian belief systems. Religions don't ever stand on their own. They act as a part of culture. That's how religious belief gets tied to voting patterns and what clothes people wear. And, they'll enforce these social structures with very real social consequences with the threat of Hell...

[violetbutterfly]

Bluelobster, I think your experiment would prove the point even more if in your hypothetical situation, there is no heaven or hell, but only the life we are given here on earth.

[seven77]

By the Christian's standards of morality, he would be obliged to worship God regardless of whether he goes to Hell or goes to Heaven.  As much as any Christian will protest this (and maybe some atheists as well), I am convinced the Christian is primarily motivated by the hope of eternal life, NOT by some sort of sense of servitude to his Creator/God.

 

 

There is another motive for True Believers: Righteousness. Never underestimate it. Some believers stake their very being, all that they are and all that they have ever done, on the righteousness they get from living rightly aka pleasing God. This righteousness is their reward here on Earth. It is this righteousness that goes on with them to heaven and it is this righteousness that is proof of the living God within them.

 

It is their righteousness (living to please God and having believed that they have pleased him) that separates them from the rest of world. To some Christians, Heaven matters not, nor does Hell. Many Christians I've encountered do not believe in a literal Hell, but instead define Hell as "eternal separation from God". They claim that all will want God in the end, but only those that received him during life will live on with him in the afterlife. To these Christians, it is your choice in life (to follow God, to believe his Word) that matters. What comes after is of little importance.

[florduh]

I can't understand hell.

 

I can't understand Hell, Heaven, Limbo, Krishna, Souls, Reincarnation, Psychics, Mediums, Pyramid Power, Psychokinesis, Xenu or the Easter Bunny. People have made up some pretty weird and unsubstantiated shit throughout our history on this planet. The less sense these outrageous and unfounded claims make, the more people seem to want to believe. Crazy, huh? Well, there is some evidence for the Easter Bunny.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

Hi Zuker, the problem with an evil God is the problem of good, the opposite problem to the problem of evil. The problem of good is how to reconcile the existence of good with an evil Deity.  For example there are lots of happy people around, all enjoying themslves and doing things that are fun.  Why would an evil entity allow that? 

 

If a sadistic god truly did create the universe and allowed its creations to experience joy and happiness in a short, temporary life in which they are ignorant about what happens after they die, only to sentence them to an eternity of suffering in an eternal afterlife, it sounds like it would be a lot worse than simply creating them in a universe where only suffering exists, all the time.

 

If its creations knew what it was like to experience love, pleasure, and all of the other good things people experience, before being forced to suffer forever, then those creations would feel more than just pain and anguish. They would know what it was like to have something good and have it taken away.

 

For this sadistic god, that would be like giving a small child a stuffed toy, waiting for the child to become attached to the stuffed toy, and then taking the toy away for the purpose of making the small child cry, only billions of times worse.