The Problem of Hell (Abrahamics Only)

[Laika]

Hey everyone,

I am currently trying to reconcile my belief in the "goodness" of Communism with the necessity of a secular "hell" for unbelievers (and much to my discomfort that includes the people replying to this thread). the way I understand "hell" is what happens in Gulags and in concentration camps in China and North Korea. It is quite real and the evidence of that hell is available for everyone to see. I can't really plead ignorance before it to smooth over conversations with others or decieve myself as to what my beliefs entail. Its too important for that.

Whilst it is not the eternal punishment of the immaterial soul, its social functions are largely the same: the use of coercion to "reform" those who have committed sins against a higher power as a source of morality and law. I'd call it the state, you would call it god- but I think you can see the parallels when a greater authority demands not merely outward conformity to a set of principles but their acceptence as an authentic expression of the self. I don't know how to reconcile myself to the belief that people should be punished for thoughts and feelings or otherwise victimless crimes that are "sinful" based on asserting that there is a "right" path that everyone must follow. The sense that any power should have the right to judge people in such an absolute way with the power of life and death, to inflict great pain and suffering upon people who you care about including myself is very unfamiliar.

I'm not expecting a clear yes or no answer, but I just wonder how those of you who believe in the existence and necessity of hell reconcile it with the desire for forgiveness, love and compassion that abrahamic religions expect of there adherents.

All responses, long and short are welcome. If you can point me to a key text from your traditions that thinks over these questions, that would also be very welcome as I might be able to use some of the ideas to fill in the gaps in my own thinking or re-examine it entirely.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Godobeyer]

Hey everyone,

I am currently trying to reconcile my belief in the "goodness" of Communism with the necessity of a secular "hell" for unbelievers (and much to my discomfort that includes the people replying to this thread). the way I understand "hell" is what happens in Gulags and in concentration camps in China and North Korea. It is quite real and the evidence of that hell is available for everyone to see. I can't really plead ignorance before it to smooth over conversations with others or decieve myself as to what my beliefs entail. Its too important for that.

Whilst it is not the eternal punishment of the immaterial soul, its social functions are largely the same: the use of coercion to "reform" those who have committed sins against a higher power as a source of morality and law. I'd call it the state, you would call it god- but I think you can see the parallels when a greater authority demands not merely outward conformity to a set of principles but their acceptence as an authentic expression of the self. I don't know how to reconcile myself to the belief that people should be punished for thoughts and feelings or otherwise victimless crimes that are "sinful" based on asserting that there is a "right" path that everyone must follow. The sense that any power should have the right to judge people in such an absolute way with the power of life and death, to inflict great pain and suffering upon people who you care about including myself is very unfamiliar.

I'm not expecting a clear yes or no answer, but I just wonder how those of you who believe in the existence and necessity of hell reconcile it with the desire for forgiveness, love and compassion that abrahamic religions expect of there adherents.

All responses, long and short are welcome. If you can point me to a key text from your traditions that thinks over these questions, that would also be very welcome as I might be able to use some of the ideas to fill in the gaps in my own thinking or re-examine it entirely.

Thanks in advance.

Hello Laika

I do believe Judgement Day is for justice.

The people whom choice to do evil (bad people) should pay what they did.

I do think Hell is temporary for most people.

 

[Glaurung]

I'm not expecting a clear yes or no answer, but I just wonder how those of you who believe in the existence and necessity of hell reconcile it with the desire for forgiveness, love and compassion that abrahamic religions expect of there adherents.

Hell isn't a failure on the part of God's mercy, but the consequence of a creature's complete and irrevocable refusal of that mercy. As a Catholic, I understand God to be our final end, the very purpose and goal of our existence. If you lose that, then you lose the only thing that can make you truly happy. It is this state of loss that we call hell. God therefore simply isn't comparable to "the state", a human construct of social organisation.

The totalitarian state is an impotent god, no matter how many it sacrifices on its altars. Your moral quandary exists because you do not truly believe the state to have the rights which your ideology states it should. If you want it resolved, I would advise you to just abandon your idol. I mean what does your communism actually do for you? Can you see nothing to hope for, but the the impossible implementation of a dead utopian ideology?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's my belief that Hell is simply being apart from God. It's a choice we make and it's NOW. The more you love, they more you experience heaven. The less you love, the more you experience hell. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

We just can't conceive just how bad being apart from God is, so we invent all sorts of wild speculations over what hell must be like. Look at Dante's cerebral painting of our worst fears embodied in all of his levels of hell. It's the Christian version of a horror show. Nothing more.

 

[Kemosloby]

Assuming your authorities are good and not corrupt. God despises corrupt authorites, so if the authorities reward evil and punish good, this does not seem to apply.

Romans 13:3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.

 

[allfoak]

Hey everyone,

I am currently trying to reconcile my belief in the "goodness" of Communism with the necessity of a secular "hell" for unbelievers (and much to my discomfort that includes the people replying to this thread). the way I understand "hell" is what happens in Gulags and in concentration camps in China and North Korea. It is quite real and the evidence of that hell is available for everyone to see. I can't really plead ignorance before it to smooth over conversations with others or decieve myself as to what my beliefs entail. Its too important for that.

Whilst it is not the eternal punishment of the immaterial soul, its social functions are largely the same: the use of coercion to "reform" those who have committed sins against a higher power as a source of morality and law. I'd call it the state, you would call it god- but I think you can see the parallels when a greater authority demands not merely outward conformity to a set of principles but their acceptence as an authentic expression of the self. I don't know how to reconcile myself to the belief that people should be punished for thoughts and feelings or otherwise victimless crimes that are "sinful" based on asserting that there is a "right" path that everyone must follow. The sense that any power should have the right to judge people in such an absolute way with the power of life and death, to inflict great pain and suffering upon people who you care about including myself is very unfamiliar.

I'm not expecting a clear yes or no answer, but I just wonder how those of you who believe in the existence and necessity of hell reconcile it with the desire for forgiveness, love and compassion that abrahamic religions expect of there adherents.

All responses, long and short are welcome. If you can point me to a key text from your traditions that thinks over these questions, that would also be very welcome as I might be able to use some of the ideas to fill in the gaps in my own thinking or re-examine it entirely.

Thanks in advance.

If i may reply,
I will try not to be annoying.

The goodness and hell of what you speak are states of mind that are manifest in the physical.
These are opposites so they sit at opposite ends of a scale that is a measurement for all of the states that exist.
The world is what it is because each of us choose to make it this way.

Nuff said.

 

[Laika]

If i may reply,
I will try not to be annoying.

You have suceeded. Thanks.

Hell isn't a failure on the part of God's mercy, but the consequence of a creature's complete and irrevocable refusal of that mercy. As a Catholic, I understand God to be our final end, the very purpose and goal of our existence. If you lose that, then you lose the only thing that can make you truly happy. It is this state of loss that we call hell. God therefore simply isn't comparable to "the state", a human construct of social organisation.

The totalitarian state is an impotent god, no matter how many it sacrifices on its altars. Your moral quandary exists because you do not truly believe the state to have the rights which your ideology states it should. If you want it resolved, I would advise you to just abandon your idol. I mean what does your communism actually do for you? Can you see nothing to hope for, but the the impossible implementation of a dead utopian ideology?

Thanks for you reply. You are right that my moral quandry is because I do not believe the state has the rights it cliams in Communist ideology. As much as I would wish to ignore it however, the physical limits of man's powers pose limits to our ability to realise our moral ideals. Even if I believed that the system of forced labour camps in north korea was wrong, niether an act of will nor compassion will close them. An individual conscience alone, no matter how bold or courageous, is not powerful enough to resist a totalitarian state nor capable of establishing a free society by individual resistance. It is true that a totalitarian state is not omnipotent because it is as limited as the people who compose it but it is a matter of degrees. Resistence of totalitarianism instead relies on processes and powers "greater" than individuals alone. On this much the Communists are correct and its why I still have to pose the question even if I may wish to believe otherwise.

It goes beyond the scope of the thread and perhaps of the rules regarding respectful questions in a DIR, but as a materialist and a communist, what I hope for comes from mankind and our efforts itself. That bears quite a strong resemblence to the left hand path in many ways. Such a belief is however extremely vulnerable to recognising our own imperfections and vulnerabilities, as well as the moral consequences of an excessive belief in our own self-importance and the desire for us to possess certainty as a measure of our own self-worth. I do struggle with nihilism and depression but what communism gives me is the hope that I can overcome it by my own efforts based on knowledge and I can have value- that I can be the light in the dark. It is perhaps an idol and a false prophet so I cannot cliam that it is perfect, only that it is human. I hope that is a little more relatable than a long and dreary exposition of marxist theory.

 

[allfoak]

You have suceeded. Thanks.



Thanks for you reply. You are right that my moral quandry is because I do not believe the state has the rights it cliams in Communist ideology. As much as I would wish to ignore it however, the physical limits of man's powers pose limits to our ability to realise our moral ideals. Even if I believed that the system of forced labour camps in north korea was wrong, niether an act of will nor compassion will close them. An individual conscience alone, no matter how bold or courageous, is not powerful enough to resist a totalitarian state nor capable of establishing a free society by individual resistance. It is true that a totalitarian state is not omnipotent because it is as limited as the people who compose it but it is a matter of degrees. Resistence of totalitarianism instead relies on processes and powers "greater" than individuals alone. On this much the Communists are correct and its why I still have to pose the question even if I may wish to believe otherwise.

It goes beyond the scope of the thread and perhaps of the rules regarding respectful questions in a DIR, but as a materialist and a communist, what I hope for comes from mankind and our efforts itself. That bears quite a strong resemblence to the left hand path in many ways. Such a belief is however extremely vulnerable to recognising our own imperfections and vulnerabilities, as well as the moral consequences of an excessive belief in our own self-importance and the desire for us to possess certainty as a measure of our own self-worth. I do struggle with nihilism and depression but what communism gives me is the hope that I can overcome it by my own efforts based on knowledge and I can have value- that I can be the light in the dark. It is perhaps an idol and a false prophet so I cannot cliam that it is perfect, only that it is human. I hope that is a little more relatable than a long and dreary exposition of marxist theory.

If there were no power within man to overcome adversity, whether it be of mind, body or spirit, mankind would perish.
There is no need to label what this is that man has as a birthright, what is lacking is the knowledge that it exists at all no matter what you want to call it.
The time of man is on the horizon.
Religion has for the most part lost it's way and real knowledge will soon begin to replace it.
There is a renescience coming but much of the old knowledge and ways are still intact, once they are gone then things will change rapidly.

 

[arthra]

Whilst it is not the eternal punishment of the immaterial soul, its social functions are largely the same: the use of coercion to "reform" those who have committed sins against a higher power as a source of morality and law. I'd call it the state, you would call it god- but I think you can see the parallels when a greater authority demands not merely outward conformity to a set of principles but their acceptence as an authentic expression of the self. I don't know how to reconcile myself to the belief that people should be punished for thoughts and feelings or otherwise victimless crimes that are "sinful" based on asserting that there is a "right" path that everyone must follow.

While we find the use of the word "hell" in some Baha'i Writings I think our perspective is different from previous dispensations...

We don't posit a concept of hell that means the "use of coercion to reform those who have committed sins..." Hell for us means our being alienated from God by our own choices... while heaven means being near to God.. through our gradual progress.

Hell is not for eternity in our view either... Yes it might take one person longer than another to recognize truth and begin reflecting the attributes of God. The following article also focuses on the Baha'i view:

Do Baha’is Believe in Hell?

 

[Rival]

There is no eternal hell in Judaism, not like what you'd find in Xianity.

 

[rusra02]

The idea that God torments people for all eternity is a vicious slander, IMO. The Bible does not teach this, nor does it teach that man has an immortal soul. Jehovah told Adam that if he sinned, he would die and "return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) Thus, I believe eternal death, non-existence is the punishment for rebellion against God's Sovereignty. When we try to live our lives independently of our Creator , it will never end well, IMO.