What is hell, and what is it for?

[Vader]

Essentially, hell is a state that we put ourselves in, and there are many ways to do this, and they all involve abandoning traditional Christian teaching in one way or another and making the self the center - the individual - me.

If abandoning traditional Christian teaching leads to hell, hell itself cannot be older than 2,000 years.

Before Christianity people could not abandon traditional Christian teachings because you cannot abandon something that doesn't exist. Therefore no one could go to hell until Christian teachings became traditional.

There was indeed a hell before Christianity. Hell is spoken of quite a few times in the old testament. One specific spot is Isaiah 14:15

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

There might have been a hell before, but according to the argument above it must have been a pretty empty place.

[Menolly]

There was indeed a hell before Christianity. Hell is spoken of quite a few times in the old testament. One specific spot is Isaiah 14:15

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

hmm...

The direct translation of the Hebrew in my TANACH, direct from the HafTorah, is nether-world. And my TANACH offers no commentary on it.

Yet the word used in that verse is Sheol, which I have heard can refer to purgatory, such as Gehinnom can. But my understanding of the literal translation is simply "pit" or "grave," and it most likely means cast down with no memory of you in eternal darkness, or at least for the 12 months of purification. But not that there is a punishing place such as the Chr-stian depiction of hell.

[Furls Fire]

I believe that hell is not a place at all, but a separation from God. I couldn't imagine anything more horrible than to be without the presence of the Father. Descriptions of hell, and Heaven for that matter, are, in my opinion, metaphor in the Bible. I do not believe that there is fiery pit that souls are cast into, anymore than I believe that there are streets of gold in Heaven. Heaven to me is being surrounded by the joy and light and grace of our Lord. Hell is blackness, emptiness, sorrow and loss.

Again, this is my belief. I have nothing to "prove" it with, just what my heart tells me.

[Zarathustra]

Hell is a naive misunderstanding of tectonic forces.

[rusmeister]

Essentially, hell is a state that we put ourselves in, and there are many ways to do this, and they all involve abandoning traditional Christian teaching in one way or another and making the self the center - the individual - me.

If abandoning traditional Christian teaching leads to hell, hell itself cannot be older than 2,000 years.

Before Christianity people could not abandon traditional Christian teachings because you cannot abandon something that doesn't exist. Therefore no one could go to hell until Christian teachings became traditional.

Vader, this seems to be a rather careless interpretation of my words. Christianity springs from the New Testament, aka new covenant, new deal... I used the Present Simple verb tense, which refers to the present, not the time before the new testament. If I had used the Present Perfect verb tense and the adverb of frequency "always", then your comment would be justified.
Now Orthodox teaching is that Christ's act did impact eternity, and not merely the historical moment of His death, and so the effect did stretch throughout time in a sense, to our limited understanding. But my comments are aimed at what people do in the face of revealed Christianity.

I think Furl's Fire is very close. It IS separation from God - and that is the nature of sin itself. We don't need to wait for an afterlife to experience that. Just embrace our various sins, be they adultery, homosexual acts, alcohol abuse, nursing anger and hatred towards others. But the nature of hell is to make that the thing you prefer to God, and the nature of salvation is to (learn to) die to that and turn to Christ.

I do think that the various symbols that hell is described under are likely also in some way or other effectively literal - or certainly at least that it might as well be the same thing - something we can't imagine but this is the closest to describing it in our limited languages.

I really don't think (based on reading his work "Why I am Not a Christian") that Russell understood any of this. He seems to envision the hell described in certain versions of fundamentalism, where an evil God says "You made the wrong choice. Too bad!" and has an angel throw you into hell for eternity. Given that he was a reasoning man, I doubt he would have said his famous quote if he had understood the concept that we really do choose hell - not through saying "OK, I choose fire and brimstone for eternity", but by saying "I prefer (screwing girls, or getting blasted, my thirst for vengeance or whatever)" to God.

Just to offer an example: If I always explode in anger, and it gets just a little worse every day, what will it be like in 10 years? In 70? In a million? I think you could fairly say that it would be hell. The desire or automatic reaction would swallow up the person. You would find, instead of personality, a rage machine or, as Lewis put it in the Great Divorce, "only a grumble that goes on forever."

The Christian view of hell suddenly becomes far more reasonable and ceases to be manipulation based on fear, but an expression of something that really is true about us.

[Dromond]

Hell is a naive misunderstanding of tectonic forces.

Devil Smiley aside,(or no doubt intentional ) I think there's a lot of thuth to this. For many thousands of years Man has watched fire erupt from below, and sulphur reek from below and only associate it with a sense of dreadful fascination. How could it not spark one's imagination as to what may await one's encounter with the cause of such heat and havoc?

Heaven is up, Hell is down.

[Vader]

First of all I'm a not a native speaker so if my choice of words is clumsy forgive me.

Rusmeister said "[Hell] It IS separation from God - and that is the nature of sin itself."

Whereas I strongly object against some of the things he regards as sins (but that's another discussion) I can understand what he means. However, this definition is so general that it practically makes specific Christian definiton redundant. The worst thing for someone who believes in something surely always is being separated from the object of worship, regardless if it's a stone, a car, nature, the moon, God or the own ego. Why do I need a specific (orthodox) Christian view on it if it also works without?

You might again say it's a careless interpretation of your words, but if you take an alcoholic his booze away, you separate him from his object of worship, thus forcing him to sin (according your definition). So that would be a lose:lose situation. If drinking is sin and being separated from the object of worship also is a drinker has no chance for salvation?

[rusmeister]

First of all I'm a not a native speaker so if my choice of words is clumsy forgive me.

Rusmeister said "[Hell] It IS separation from God - and that is the nature of sin itself."

Whereas I strongly object against some of the things he regards as sins (but that's another discussion) I can understand what he means. However, this definition is so general that it practically makes specific Christian definiton redundant. The worst thing for someone who believes in something surely always is being separated from the object of worship, regardless if it's a stone, a car, nature, the moon, God or the own ego. Why do I need a specific (orthodox) Christian view on it if it also works without?

No problem, Vader!
Do you mind my asking what your native language is?
FTR - what I regard as sin I do so because I accept an authority that I acknowledge knows more than I do on the basis of my own experience - just so you don't think I'm so arrogant as to decide for myself what is objective sin - a frequent misunderstanding. One discovery that might be unexpected is that there really is a rational basis on which the things I listed are considered sin. But no one ever tries to find out if that's the case. They ASSUME that the condemnation is irrational in nature.

The reason this thread was started was because of Syl's signature. I think that objections to the protestant/fundamentalist vision of hell in the West (most especially the English-speaking world) are justified - because they are right about the inconsistency of a loving God and that particular and wide-spread vision of hell - just as Russell objected to it. Where that proper outrage or disdain goes wrong is in attributing it to be THE doctrine of hell for Christianity, lumping all versions into one convenient catch-all, while being completely unaware that the oldest forms of Christianity, with the best claim to continuity (practically all Christian denominations claim to practice and teach what was practiced and taught in the first century), paint a rather different picture/understanding of hell than that to which most English speakers get exposed to.

IOW, if you accept that popular and evil version, which uses grammar like "God damn..." as if God did any of the damning, then you are responding only to what dominates in your place and time, and are wrongly judging historical Christianity on that basis (again, as Russell did).
That view of hell is fundamentally wrong. It is bad and primitive theology, which the intelligent person correctly sees as self-contradictory. (The intelligent person would be REALLY intelligent if they didn't go on to ascribe those beliefs to a continuous Christianity that really does have a well-documented 2,000 year history.)

[Vader]

Do you mind my asking what your native language is?

German.

[Cybrweez]

vader and dromond, you both stated Christianity invented heaven/hell for control. I asked for some background on that invention, no answer.

The thread that spawned this thread has quite a bit of discussion about people making claims, in regard to Christianity, w/o actually knowing what they're talking about. I just want to know if this is an example.

It should be simple to answer, b/c vader even mentioned its obvious. So, who invented it, and when?

[Zarathustra]

It should be simple to answer, b/c vader even mentioned its obvious. So, who invented it, and when?

Who invented fire, and when? Just because we don't have the original author's notes doesn't mean it had to have been god.

[Dromond]

As far as the question, what is Hell? The opposite of Heaven, I would think. No sarcasm here. You must have a concept of Heaven to have a concept of Hell.

Knowing no evidence of either, I can only go on to the next part, 'what is it for?' To control people. To keep them from thinking they are not inherently evil. You must be saved from , what , exactly?

Cyberweez... show me where I said Christianity invented Hell. Please don't twist my words to make them mean something you want them to.

Now, that said, I can tell you I was raised Catholic and spent lots of time in church being told I deserved to burn for all eternity, unless I believed what I was being told to believe, and to give them money, of course.

What more do you need me to say to validate my above post?

Can't you imagine any of the suffering caused throughout the Dark Ages by the people in power over the peasants who basically lived in misery and was lucky to find a few Earthly joys to give them occasional reason to smile?
Then being told worse than misery awaits their eternal soul unless they believe as they're told to believe.

I'm way too busy to do any research for you.
Look up for yourself who invented Hell, and when.

[lurch]

Try this on for size. As noted in various posts,,Hell is the opposite of Heaven. With that, one can see Hell as the influence of Western Greek Logic on Eastern Parabolic thinking, As noted,,the concept of Hell isn't put forth as an " opposite" of heaven by the ancient Hebrew Rabbi's who wrote the books of the Old Testament. Judaism is an Eastern Parabolic expression, not a western Greek logic expression. So, Hell, is just a manifestation, a by product,, a necessity , a requirement, of the way people were thinking. Greek logic requires a thesis and a antithesis inorder for a synthesis to be developed. Hell is just the evidence of Greek Logic over taking Eastern Mysticism as cultural influence,,Where Christianity went, so went Hell..
So..what is Hell?..Hell is Logic and Reason.
What purpose does it serve.? It provides a means to manipulate our exterior reality to better provide for Food, Shelter,,and some kind of Peace and Harmony. When we apply our Interior reality ( the specialty of Eastern Mysticism) to and with this Logic and Reason..is where we find its failings and experience the modern concept of it.

[Vraith]

It's been a long time, but if I recall correctly, the earliest recorded (in the west/mideast, I have no idea if there are Far Eastern versions/records)version of "hell" predates even Judaism. And it wasn't specifically what we call hell, it was where all people went when they died. Heaven didn't exist, and good/bad souls weren't separated. And it wasn't specifically designed as a place for punishment or evil. It was pretty unpleasant though.
Hell evolved and changed through history, and constantly became larger, more specific, and more umm...'purpose driven' ?
At any rate, hell's development was parallel to Satan's (go figure)...in the beginning neither was what it is today (Heaven in direct opposition to Hell as reward/punishment, Satan the Avatar of evil, and God's enemy...heck, God wasn't even the same, he was just the Hittite god of war.)

As for Heaven and Hell concepts being used to control...well of course they were. What else would you call it, when people are told believe this, act like this or you will burn forever? And it's not like they were discussing interpretations, or debating issues (in the general population I mean) And even the arguments that did occur led to purges and executions, and being labeled as heretical, and the splitting of the churches.

I even once ran across a pretty well-argued paper once that concluded the plague deaths wouldn't have been as terrible and widespread if it weren't for the Catholic church.
Short version, from memory:
Ordinary people were terrified because the church was hunting witches. Cats were considered witch familiars (don't know if the church said this, but it's what the people believed) people slaughtered the cats, enormous rat population explosion, and therefore massive exposure to the plaque.
If I recall correctly, this historian got the idea because there are no (or maybe 1?) surviving breeds of native European cat. Of course, no one (in the church or not) knew this could happen, so it's debatable whether you can BLAME the church or not (depending of if you believe people are responsible/blameable for unknowable/unintended consequences or not)
Just a quirky aside.

[iQuestor]

I had a near death experience, which landed me in the hospital. I woke up in a semi-private room, with 83 year old man, who was a big fan of Lawrence Welk. He also had total command of the remote. I lay in bed for 4 days, watching lawrence welk and listening to his running commentary, and sometimes singing along.

There is a hell people, and it has a musical score.

[Vraith]

I had a near death experience, which landed me in the hospital. I woke up in a semi-private room, with 83 year old man, who was a big fan of Lawrence Welk. He also had total command of the remote. I lay in bed for 4 days, watching lawrence welk and listening to his running commentary, and sometimes singing along.

There is a hell people, and it has a musical score.

I'm laughing so hard my gut hurts and I can barely type. I'm pretty sure this guy is still alive: he was my great-grandads roomie when he broke his wrist and hip.

[rusmeister]

If abandoning traditional Christian teaching leads to hell, hell itself cannot be older than 2,000 years.

Before Christianity people could not abandon traditional Christian teachings because you cannot abandon something that doesn't exist. Therefore no one could go to hell until Christian teachings became traditional.

There was indeed a hell before Christianity. Hell is spoken of quite a few times in the old testament. One specific spot is Isaiah 14:15

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

There might have been a hell before, but according to the argument above it must have been a pretty empty place.

Actually, in the sense we understand, it no doubt is! But as I said, people are free to choose their obsessions and passions to salvation, which would require them to love God and love their neighbor as they love themselves. Like I said, the Great Divorce is a great read that accurately describes the essence of that.
But the idea of companionship in hell is practically a contradiction in terms - if we will love our selves more than God and our neighbor, then we wouldn't be able to bear the companionship for a day, let alone eternity. So yes, I'd say that it's fairly safe to say that the experience of hell must be separation - and if from God, then from others as well (our neighbors - those near to us).

"Before" is a word of time. If eternity is that which exists outside of time (as we know it), then time words are nonsense in reference to it.

[rusmeister]

There was indeed a hell before Christianity. Hell is spoken of quite a few times in the old testament. One specific spot is Isaiah 14:15

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

hmm...

The direct translation of the Hebrew in my TANACH, direct from the HafTorah, is nether-world. And my TANACH offers no commentary on it.

Yet the word used in that verse is Sheol, which I have heard can refer to purgatory, such as Gehinnom can. But my understanding of the literal translation is simply "pit" or "grave," and it most likely means cast down with no memory of you in eternal darkness, or at least for the 12 months of purification. But not that there is a punishing place such as the Chr-stian depiction of hell.

Hi Menolly!
A quick note - the punishment in Christianity is better understood as self-inflicted. Again, the idea of external eternal punishment,as has been said, makes no sense in the context of a loving God - it would only make sense in a context of possible redemption, but not in that standard (and illogical) view you refer to.
And FWIW, in Orthodox Christianity we do speak of sheol and gehenna as different (other) concepts of hell. I forget the details at the moment, but it has to do with the fact that the Last Judgement has not taken place yet - therefore, in the sense usually referred to, no one has actually yet been eternally damned, and sheol and gehenna refer to a pre-eternal 'hell', if you will. We know next to nothing about the fate of the dead, but we do know that the final "game over" has not happened. It's one reason we can pray for the dead - for mercy, comfort and support, for our loved ones for example. It's also why we can pray to the saints and ask them to pray for us, something many mistakenly take to be a form of worship. It's actually just the same as asking living friends to pray for you.

[rusmeister]

Heaven is up, Hell is down.

This one thing you say, at least, is very true.
If you can distinguish between metaphor, symbol and literal understandings. you might be able to see that statement a little differently.
If, as from the believer's point of view, the world is a created thing, might not the Creator have arranged the creation to reflect what is truth in eternity? In which case the "fiery depths" would not give birth to the idea of hell, but rather the reverse (a real hell gives birth to the creation of fiery depths).
Again, you can believe, or not believe. But the proposition is rational, and therefore is at least equally as possible as yours.

In the end, faith is a choice. When you make a decision, then no evidence one way or the other will sway you. But reason or not, evidence or not, it comes down to a final choice: to believe or not. There is no evidence I could possibly offer to people who have already chosen not to believe. It wouldn't matter. The reverse is also true. I have made my choice.
It's good to be intellectually honest about that, rather than pretend to be "open-minded" when in fact one is not.

[rusmeister]

I had a near death experience, which landed me in the hospital. I woke up in a semi-private room, with 83 year old man, who was a big fan of Lawrence Welk. He also had total command of the remote. I lay in bed for 4 days, watching lawrence welk and listening to his running commentary, and sometimes singing along.

There is a hell people, and it has a musical score.