What is hell, and what is it for?

[lucimay]

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.

good to see you around iQ. very good indeed!


cyberweez...i'm thinking the "they" might be Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea. just a thought. (regarding you asking who was the they that "made up" hell to control people) at least, it was the first idea that came into my head.

at any rate, hell wasn't exactly "made up", more like appropriated, as has been referenced by others in this discussion. (religions have a tendancy to appropriate from each other that way)

a quick google search turned up this,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld

[Avatar]

So many points to address.

If there was a Hell, though, I hope its reserved for the Bundys and Mansons and so forth (meaning I hope that they are/end up there, not that it's only for them per se).

I've often said that the one thing that could make me wish there was a god was that there would actually be some kind of justice. (Which leads to the problem of whose justice? what if I didn't think it was just? )

Jesus shows us that God (the New Testament God anyway) is loving and forgiving.
Christianity tacks on on the rules and the whole burning in hell thing...

...and certainly there have been times in history when individuals, even on a large scale and claiming to represent the Church have used it for manipulation for personal gain.

Agreed. Or political gain. (Often the political gain of the church as an institution and entity.)

...and making the self the center - the individual - me...

I'm screwed. I belive that the self is the centre. That all selves are all centres. But that doesn't inevitably lead to selfishness.

Let's start w/this: when did "they" make it up? And who was "they"?

Weez, a tough one. I'm not sure that we can point to a single individual, or even a specific time.

As Lucimay mentioned, the first council of nicaea did begin the production of a unified christian doctrine, although from what I can see they didn't rule on the question of Hell, but that was only the first of the ecumenical councils. (That was in AD325 btw).

Despite the fact that the council didn't rule on it, I'm sure it is at least as early as Constantine. As soon as a political power was Christian, it would have been in its interests that the populace were good Christians, and that they followed the tenets, many of which involved obedience. (Again, in the church/state's interest.)

Prior to that, while Christians were still a persecuted minority, I suspect that the focus was on the blessings and joys of god and heaven. As someone mentioned, lives were brutal and short...how much easier to tolerate it if you were promised a blissfull eternity once it was over?

So early conversion probably focused on rewards, and love, hence the early disparities in doctrine, and the need for the ecumenical councils.

Once early christianity evolved into the church as a political entity, I suspect the fear and obedience aspects came much more to the fore, as people were exhorted to obey those god had placed above them. (Very much in the state's interest, and since the states were christian, and christians were ruled by the church, very much in the churches interest too.)

And since Constantine was the first great christian power, it's probably reasonable to put that as an approximate time for the shift, although I'm sure it was already happening.

Here's a very interesting link about the origins and religious accounts of hell:

Hell - Origins
Hell - Religious Accounts

And one on the pre-christian origins of hell - Pre-Christian Origins of Hell exploring earlier use of the various symbologies of hell.

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.

Since I don't feel that presence, does that mean I'm in hell right now? (I'm teasing you Furls...I know you'll say that I just don't realise what I feel is that presence. Nice to see you around. )

Heaven is up, Hell is down.

Not in all traditions. IIRC, people in colder climates have often believed the good afterlife to be in the warm ground, and the bad one to be in the cold sky. And the Norse "hell" (Whose goddess we get the name from) Niflheim, was freezing cold. (Although maybe underground, I don't remember.)

--A

[Dromond]

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.

Quite true, rus. We are both closed minded. I'm cool with that.

[Furls Fire]

*grins at Av*

Heh...

[Avatar]

--A

[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.

Quite true, rus. We are both closed minded. I'm cool with that.

Thanks, Dromond.

At least we can appreciate that the other has taken a definite stand.

One of the great inconsistencies I find, here and elsewhere, is the number of people who pride themselves on being open-minded while they are in fact just as closed-minded (not necessarily a bad thing, despite the indoctrination in our society that teaches us to assume that it is) as any Christian - they most often are unaware that the dogmas they hold are dogmas - they assume the term is limited to extremist forms of Christianity, when in fact it is merely a proposition assumed to be true and unproved and unprovable - and usually unexamined among "open-minded" people.

People's understanding of hell is obviously going to vary with whatever they pick up from the culture that surrounds them. But it is poor reasoning to assume that that understanding is what traditional Christianity teaches and then use that muddled understanding as a point/reason to reject the faith. But that is the thrust of Russell's comment and what a lot of people here actually do. Of course, I think it reasonable to reject the particular faith that teaches that kind of nonsense about hell, but the foolish thing is to apply the assumption to all of Christianity. Again, I assert that there are (and must be) valid and invalid forms of Christianity. If a central claim is a faith continually teaching unchanging Truth for 2,000 years, then it must show how those dogmas have not changed and a continuous historical presence. (If "the Landmark Church of the Holy Rollers for Jesus" appeared only 50 or even 100 years ago, then it is safe to say that it is not connected to traditional Christianity, especially if the pastor/minister is merely expounding on what he/she thinks this or that means without reference to traditional teaching in AD 200, 600, 1200, etc.)

So blast the "Landmark Church" if you want to, but keep it foremost in your mind that it has nothing to do with Orthodox, or even orthodox, Christianity, and that goes for the ideas of hell that you hear, too.

[rusmeister]

cyberweez...i'm thinking the "they" might be Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea. just a thought. (regarding you asking who was the they that "made up" hell to control people) at least, it was the first idea that came into my head.

at any rate, hell wasn't exactly "made up", more like appropriated, as has been referenced by others in this discussion. (religions have a tendancy to appropriate from each other that way)

a quick google search turned up this,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld

Cyberweez has a valid point, and the responses are sheer speculation. In fact, the supposition pleasing to the world view is formed (that Christians teach about hell to gain control of others through fear), and then unsupported ideas are expressed that would appear to lend credence to the supposition. All of that is pretty far from reason and scholarship and very much in the realm of imagination regarding history.

I did look at the page, Lucimay, and as a Russian specialist, the first thing thrown in my face was the Russian references - Baba Yaga and Koshei - who have nothing to do with the underworld at all. In the legends and folk tales they are physical creatures in the physical world. Furthermore, the word "mythology" is applied so broadly on that page that it reveals a biased world view - when I see "Christian mythology", then I rest my case. That page cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information on the topic that all would agree has unbiased and accurate information.

[rusmeister]

Jesus shows us that God (the New Testament God anyway) is loving and forgiving.
Christianity tacks on on the rules and the whole burning in hell thing...

This gives me a strong impression, Avatar, that you haven't read anything that I've said. I am not aware of anyone here on the watch who holds a dissenting view and thinks that the whole idea that God is the cause of eternal punishment is reasonable and just. If there is, please raise your hand!
That said, again, you seem to ignore the existence of a majority view of Christianity that does not find it reasonable and just. IOW, that agrees with your sentiment.

...and certainly there have been times in history when individuals, even on a large scale and claiming to represent the Church have used it for manipulation for personal gain.

Agreed. Or political gain. (Often the political gain of the church as an institution and entity.)

Having conceded that some people were real b****rds, you fall here into the trap of focusing exclusively on those b****rds as if they WERE the Church. It's like talking about the American revolution with an exclusive focus on Benedict Arnold and various turncoats and double agents who wanted to make out no matter who won and completely forgetting about what Washington and most patriot soldiers stood for, and lived and died for.
Not that it's your fault. As I observed previously, this is precisely what public school history books do in regard to Christianity - they provide almost no information about the saints and Church fathers at all, and when they do speak of the Church it is entirely in terms of corruption in the Church - focuses generally on corrupt monks and Catholic outrages (to the latter of which the Orthodox church would disclaim any responsibility or relevance, Rome having broken off in the 11th century). One of my arguments is that it is highly probable that a lot of people here have been conditioned to think about religion in a certain and negative way by public education, despite rhetoric to the contrary. It's imbedded in the policies, texts, and teacher requirements. But that's another topic.

...and making the self the center - the individual - me...

I'm screwed. I belive that the self is the centre. That all selves are all centres. But that doesn't inevitably lead to selfishness.

This is true. But our natural tendency IS towards selfishness. Of course, it is a slippery slope, but we all tend to slide down it. Very few constantly fight their way in the opposite direction - to reject self and love others, preferring them to the self. That IS true love (agape) and the essence of Christianity. But it AIN'T easy.

Let's start w/this: when did "they" make it up? And who was "they"?

Weez, a tough one. I'm not sure that we can point to a single individual, or even a specific time.

As Lucimay mentioned, the first council of nicaea did begin the production of a unified christian doctrine, although from what I can see they didn't rule on the question of Hell, but that was only the first of the ecumenical councils. (That was in AD325 btw).

Despite the fact that the council didn't rule on it, I'm sure it is at least as early as Constantine. As soon as a political power was Christian, it would have been in its interests that the populace were good Christians, and that they followed the tenets, many of which involved obedience. (Again, in the church/state's interest.)

Prior to that, while Christians were still a persecuted minority, I suspect that the focus was on the blessings and joys of god and heaven. As someone mentioned, lives were brutal and short...how much easier to tolerate it if you were promised a blissfull eternity once it was over?

So early conversion probably focused on rewards, and love, hence the early disparities in doctrine, and the need for the ecumenical councils.

Once early christianity evolved into the church as a political entity, I suspect the fear and obedience aspects came much more to the fore, as people were exhorted to obey those god had placed above them. (Very much in the state's interest, and since the states were christian, and christians were ruled by the church, very much in the churches interest too.)

And since Constantine was the first great christian power, it's probably reasonable to put that as an approximate time for the shift, although I'm sure it was already happening.

Here's a very interesting link about the origins and religious accounts of hell:

Hell - Origins
Hell - Religious Accounts

The links, again, take as an unexamined assumption - for granted - that Christianity simply took the concept of hell and adapted it for "use". The authorities make no effort to examine the Christian teachings on hell and where they got them from. In short, unreasonable bias from the start. Unless you give your opponents a fair shake (and this goes for Christians rejecting atheist, pagan, and other non-Christian thought, too) you cannot reject their arguments claiming reason as a basis. (You can do so dogmatically, but you can't say that you know the arguments and claims of "the enemy" when you really don't.)

Lucimay didn't 'mention', she just speculated. (An important difference - words ARE important, and we all should choose them as carefully as we can - me included).

Again, you say "production" of a unified doctrine. I say "clarification". A difference that makes all the difference.

As soon as a political power was Christian, it would have been in its interests that the populace were good Christians, and that they followed the tenets, many of which involved obedience. (Again, in the church/state's interest.)

This of course, only applies to a Christian state. Pagan and atheist states have no need that their citizens be either good or obedient.
As to church...faith is a voluntary thing, Avatar - it cannot be forced - and wasn't genuine where it was. The basis of faith in the Church is, and always has been, voluntary faith. You will point to the exceptions and I will point out that they were exceptions.

Again, you speculate a lot: "I'm sure...", "I suspect..." "probably". There is a lot of real history out there. You don't need to suspect. The speculation takes the place of knowledge and pretends to be knowledge.

Rich, as well as poor embraced Christianity (the rich voluntarily became poor as a result. They even went through torture and martyrdom ("their lives were brutal and short") BECAUSE OF their refusal to give up their faith. That puts the lie to the idea that it was "manipulation by those in power". And they did so in the 20th century in Russia as well as in 1st-3rd century Rome. Diocletian was the worst persecutor of Christians in the early age. How then, was it an instrument of manipulation?

It is no insult to say that knowledge here is lacking. It is simple truth. I stated on the 'atheist bus' thread a need to learn history and to know the best, rather than the worst arguments of "the enemy". What you have without that is ignorance and straw men based on speculation and suppositions.

[lucimay]

cyberweez...i'm thinking the "they" might be Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea. just a thought. (regarding you asking who was the they that "made up" hell to control people) at least, it was the first idea that came into my head.

at any rate, hell wasn't exactly "made up", more like appropriated, as has been referenced by others in this discussion. (religions have a tendancy to appropriate from each other that way)

a quick google search turned up this,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld

Cyberweez has a valid point, and the responses are sheer speculation. In fact, the supposition pleasing to the world view is formed (that Christians teach about hell to gain control of others through fear), and then unsupported ideas are expressed that would appear to lend credence to the supposition. All of that is pretty far from reason and scholarship and very much in the realm of imagination regarding history.

I did look at the page, Lucimay, and as a Russian specialist, the first thing thrown in my face was the Russian references - Baba Yaga and Koshei - who have nothing to do with the underworld at all. In the legends and folk tales they are physical creatures in the physical world. Furthermore, the word "mythology" is applied so broadly on that page that it reveals a biased world view - when I see "Christian mythology", then I rest my case. That page cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information on the topic that all would agree has unbiased and accurate information.

yer funny. that link wasn't intended as any kind of "reliable source of information" but more as a "see how many ideas of hell and underworld there actually are and how easily they can be looked up or referred to on the innernetz".

Cyberweez has a valid point, and the responses are sheer speculation.

absolutely no one said cyber DIDN'T have a valid point. and the responses (mine in particular) are EXACTLY that, sheer speculation.
thats why i used the language i used in making the post.
here, let me post it again so you can see what i mean,

cyberweez...i'm thinking the "they" might be Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea. just a thought. (regarding you asking who was the they that "made up" hell to control people) at least, it was the first idea that came into my head.

the bold parts are where i make it clear (or at least i thought i was making it clear) that this was a thought that occurred to me.
i wasn't debating. i wasn't pontificating. i wasn't lecturing. i wasn't saying anything was carved in granite.
i was posting the first thought that came into my head after reading cyberweez's post. i thought my thought might worth sharing so i did.

and yeah...what you said. i was speculating. just joining in the conversation.

ps...

russian specialist? all things russian? or...russian history? or cuisine? or literature or...what? just curious what you meant by "russian specialist", as you say, the words we choose are so important.

[Fist and Faith]

Any discussion about Hell is entirely speculation anyway...

[Vader]

Any discussion about Hell is entirely speculation anyway...

Or in other words: Hell is for those who discuss it.

[Fist and Faith]

I was trying to think of the best reply to that... But then I saw your sig, and lost track of the whole topic!

[Cybrweez]

Maybe the sig is the reply.

[rusmeister]

cyberweez...i'm thinking the "they" might be Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea. just a thought. (regarding you asking who was the they that "made up" hell to control people) at least, it was the first idea that came into my head.

at any rate, hell wasn't exactly "made up", more like appropriated, as has been referenced by others in this discussion. (religions have a tendancy to appropriate from each other that way)

a quick google search turned up this,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld

Cyberweez has a valid point, and the responses are sheer speculation. In fact, the supposition pleasing to the world view is formed (that Christians teach about hell to gain control of others through fear), and then unsupported ideas are expressed that would appear to lend credence to the supposition. All of that is pretty far from reason and scholarship and very much in the realm of imagination regarding history.

I did look at the page, Lucimay, and as a Russian specialist, the first thing thrown in my face was the Russian references - Baba Yaga and Koshei - who have nothing to do with the underworld at all. In the legends and folk tales they are physical creatures in the physical world. Furthermore, the word "mythology" is applied so broadly on that page that it reveals a biased world view - when I see "Christian mythology", then I rest my case. That page cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information on the topic that all would agree has unbiased and accurate information.

yer funny. that link wasn't intended as any kind of "reliable source of information" but more as a "see how many ideas of hell and underworld there actually are and how easily they can be looked up or referred to on the innernetz".

Cyberweez has a valid point, and the responses are sheer speculation.

absolutely no one said cyber DIDN'T have a valid point. and the responses (mine in particular) are EXACTLY that, sheer speculation.
thats why i used the language i used in making the post.
here, let me post it again so you can see what i mean,

cyberweez...i'm thinking the "they" might be Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea. just a thought. (regarding you asking who was the they that "made up" hell to control people) at least, it was the first idea that came into my head.

the bold parts are where i make it clear (or at least i thought i was making it clear) that this was a thought that occurred to me.
i wasn't debating. i wasn't pontificating. i wasn't lecturing. i wasn't saying anything was carved in granite.
i was posting the first thought that came into my head after reading cyberweez's post. i thought my thought might worth sharing so i did.

and yeah...what you said. i was speculating. just joining in the conversation.

ps...

russian specialist? all things russian? or...russian history? or cuisine? or literature or...what? just curious what you meant by "russian specialist", as you say, the words we choose are so important.

Hi Lucimay,

I wasn't saying you were claiming otherwise. Avatar seemed to be taking your post in the direction of something more than your intent, and I was responding to that.

Specialist - well, by now pretty much all things Russian. As a 'Merican born 'n' raised, getting my degrees (BA and MA) in Russian (Language and Literature), marrying one, moving and living there, etc, I'd say ask anything. Chances are good I can answer most reasonable questions. Over the last few years getting the hang of Old Church Slavonic has been a new direction...

[lucimay]

ahhh. i see. thanks.

[Avatar]

Speculation? Of course it's speculation. That's why my post is littered with words that denote speculation. Apart from anything else, I assumed that for Weez's question to mean anything, it had to be based on the assumption that whoever originally talked of hell being "made up" was right. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.

If, on the other hand, you have something to offer about actual evidence thereof, I'm all ears. Hey, I'm all ears if you just want to explain how chistianity started using it too.

Oh, as for the earlier non-christian states, I'm sure they had their own means of trying to enforce control. What is certain though is that the threat of hell wasn't one of them. (Although things like the threat of being reincarnated as a cockroach might well have been.)

--A

[rusmeister]

Speculation? Of course it's speculation. That's why my post is littered with words that denote speculation. Apart from anything else, I assumed that for Weez's question to mean anything, it had to be based on the assumption that whoever originally talked of hell being "made up" was right. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.

If, on the other hand, you have something to offer about actual evidence thereof, I'm all ears. Hey, I'm all ears if you just want to explain how chistianity started using it too.

Oh, as for the earlier non-christian states, I'm sure they had their own means of trying to enforce control. What is certain though is that the threat of hell wasn't one of them. (Although things like the threat of being reincarnated as a cockroach might well have been.)

--A

(Please bear with the first paragraph)
I guess rather than tell you what I see, I would ask if you can identify the assumptions which lie behind the idea of the threat of hell being used by states as a means of enforcing control. It is one of the many superficial, tired ideas that is eagerly grabbed onto and not examined at all - it is taken for granted based on the shoddy and biased history generally acquired through mass education and to be found in most widely published school history textbooks. I mean, explain exactly what that means. I think that if you really do examine it, you're going to discover that you are pointing to exceptions, not the rule. But if you aren't consciously aware of what you are taking for granted and examining it, then you are holding no fair trial, but rather a kangaroo court.

When Christianity began, hell, which is actually an English word that is used to express multiple concepts of the afterlife, was re-interpreted from the Judaic understandings to how they were transformed by the significance of Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Thus, Christ's words were a first starting point, the epistles added clarifications as misunderstandings began to develop, and clarifications were further added by the Church fathers.

Here is a very good outline, not only of Orthodox beliefs, but - of greater interest to you - why you all (I'm assuming that most here are of western origin, culturally speaking) have the ideas of hell that you do today. IOW, the evolution, if you will, of the concept of hell in the West:

www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

If you know anything about the Great Awakening, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", etc, you would likely acknowledge that the western concept, Protestant from Catholic, modern from both, is based on the idea of an angry, vengeful and sadistic God. I'm with you in rejecting that picture of a truly evil God.

[lucimay]

i'll say one thing for you, rus. yer a tenacious cuss! maybe a little bit perceptually biased, but tenacious nonetheless!

[rusmeister]

i'll say one thing for you, rus. yer a tenacious cuss! maybe a little bit perceptually biased, but tenacious nonetheless!

Thank you! :bow emoticon:
And bias is a compliment as well, if you have come to a conclusion consciously through reason!

[rdhopeca]

Speculation? Of course it's speculation. That's why my post is littered with words that denote speculation. Apart from anything else, I assumed that for Weez's question to mean anything, it had to be based on the assumption that whoever originally talked of hell being "made up" was right. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.

If, on the other hand, you have something to offer about actual evidence thereof, I'm all ears. Hey, I'm all ears if you just want to explain how chistianity started using it too.

Oh, as for the earlier non-christian states, I'm sure they had their own means of trying to enforce control. What is certain though is that the threat of hell wasn't one of them. (Although things like the threat of being reincarnated as a cockroach might well have been.)

--A

(Please bear with the first paragraph)
I guess rather than tell you what I see, I would ask if you can identify the assumptions which lie behind the idea of the threat of hell being used by states as a means of enforcing control. It is one of the many superficial, tired ideas that is eagerly grabbed onto and not examined at all - it is taken for granted based on the shoddy and biased history generally acquired through mass education and to be found in most widely published school history textbooks. I mean, explain exactly what that means. I think that if you really do examine it, you're going to discover that you are pointing to exceptions, not the rule. But if you aren't consciously aware of what you are taking for granted and examining it, then you are holding no fair trial, but rather a kangaroo court.

When Christianity began, hell, which is actually an English word that is used to express multiple concepts of the afterlife, was re-interpreted from the Judaic understandings to how they were transformed by the significance of Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Thus, Christ's words were a first starting point, the epistles added clarifications as misunderstandings began to develop, and clarifications were further added by the Church fathers.

Here is a very good outline, not only of Orthodox beliefs, but - of greater interest to you - why you all (I'm assuming that most here are of western origin, culturally speaking) have the ideas of hell that you do today. IOW, the evolution, if you will, of the concept of hell in the West:

www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

If you know anything about the Great Awakening, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", etc, you would likely acknowledge that the western concept, Protestant from Catholic, modern from both, is based on the idea of an angry, vengeful and sadistic God. I'm with you in rejecting that picture of a truly evil God.

I have to say, Rus, with all sincerity, that Christ sure was misunderstood a lot; at least that is the conclusion I have drawn from the many times I have heard "clarifications added by the Church" when discussing things with you.