What is hell, and what is it for?

[Avatar]

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.

Of course. It assumes that both god and hell are imaginary.

I think that if you really do examine it, you're going to discover that you are pointing to exceptions, not the rule.

That I'm not so sure of...certainly during the middle ages when most of Europe was controlled by the church it was a common enough motif. "Disobey the church/pope/priest and imperil your soul." Indulgences, purchases of mass, all regular occurrences.

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.

O.E. hel, helle "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," from P.Gmc. *khaljo (cf. O.Fris. helle, O.N. hel, Ger. Hölle, Goth. halja "hell") "the underworld," lit. "concealed place," from PIE *kel- "to cover, conceal, save" (see cell). The Eng. word may be in part from O.N. Hel (from P.Gmc. *khalija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology Loki's daughter, who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"), a death aspect of the three-fold goddess. Transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom, used in the K.J.V. for O.T. Heb. Sheol, N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna. Used figuratively for "any bad experience" since at least 1374.

Agreed. It was reinterpreted to suit the christian church.

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.

Very interesting link. I must say I do think I have more sympathy with what appears to be the Orthodox view on the matter of gods "evil" / insatiability / whatever.

But it just goes to show that every type of christianity is as convinced of other types wrongness as they are of the wrongness of other religions.

--A

[rusmeister]

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.

Of course. It assumes that both god and hell are imaginary.

I think that if you really do examine it, you're going to discover that you are pointing to exceptions, not the rule.

That I'm not so sure of...certainly during the middle ages when most of Europe was controlled by the church it was a common enough motif. "Disobey the church/pope/priest and imperil your soul." Indulgences, purchases of mass, all regular occurrences.

There are other assumptions you are making that will probably lie unexamined unless I specifically point them out. They're obvious to me, being a believer. I can see why they might not be obvious to you.

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.

O.E. hel, helle "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," from P.Gmc. *khaljo (cf. O.Fris. helle, O.N. hel, Ger. Hölle, Goth. halja "hell") "the underworld," lit. "concealed place," from PIE *kel- "to cover, conceal, save" (see cell). The Eng. word may be in part from O.N. Hel (from P.Gmc. *khalija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology Loki's daughter, who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"), a death aspect of the three-fold goddess. Transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom, used in the K.J.V. for O.T. Heb. Sheol, N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna. Used figuratively for "any bad experience" since at least 1374.

Agreed. It was reinterpreted to suit the christian church.

Again, the Christian Church built on an existing religion: Judaism. Not Norse or any other. So you can only refer specifically to the ancient Judaic concepts and claiming connections to others is fallacious (and that goes for all aspects of the faith, not just hell), and Christianity did not change or invent - it explained how Christ transformed the understandings.

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.

Very interesting link. I must say I do think I have more sympathy with what appears to be the Orthodox view on the matter of gods "evil" / insatiability / whatever.

But it just goes to show that every type of christianity is as convinced of other types wrongness as they are of the wrongness of other religions.

--A

This is true. But you seem to make a further assumption that they must all necessarily be wrong - that it is not possible, from the outset of your thinking, that one of them could actually be right. This does not logically follow from that. Again, if two or more groups of evolutionary scientists are convinced that the other(s) are mistaken in their development of the theory, and that Intelligent Design proponents/creationists are still more wrong, it does not follow that all groups are necessarily wrong just because they contradict each other. There is a reasonable chance that one of them might actually be more correct than the other, or even have "hit the nail on the head", so to speak.

[Fist and Faith]

Again, the Christian Church built on an existing religion: Judaism. Not Norse or any other. So you can only refer specifically to the ancient Judaic concepts and claiming connections to others is fallacious (and that goes for all aspects of the faith, not just hell), and Christianity did not change or invent - it explained how Christ transformed the understandings.

Are you saying that no religion/mythology/whatever, other than Judaism has had any influence on Christianity?

This is true. But you seem to make a further assumption that they must all necessarily be wrong - that it is not possible, from the outset of your thinking, that one of them could actually be right. This does not logically follow from that.

It follows very logically from the assumption that god and hell are imaginary. If all types of Christianity are wrong, then none of them are actually right.

Again, if two or more groups of evolutionary scientists are convinced that the other(s) are mistaken in their development of the theory, and that Intelligent Design proponents/creationists are still more wrong, it does not follow that all groups are necessarily wrong just because they contradict each other. There is a reasonable chance that one of them might actually be more correct than the other, or even have "hit the nail on the head", so to speak.

If there has been no change to the forms of life found on earth since life began, then all groups of evolutionary scientists are wrong. But if there have been changes - that is, if there has been evolution - then yes, it's possible that one group is more correct than another.

[rusmeister]

Hiya, Fist!

Again, the Christian Church built on an existing religion: Judaism. Not Norse or any other. So you can only refer specifically to the ancient Judaic concepts and claiming connections to others is fallacious (and that goes for all aspects of the faith, not just hell), and Christianity did not change or invent - it explained how Christ transformed the understandings.

Are you saying that no religion/mythology/whatever, other than Judaism has had any influence on Christianity?

Almost, but you're lumping all concepts into one basket.Teaching, aka doctrine, aka dogma is one thing, and there, yes, I am saying that. Local practices are another animal, and yes, local practices (not dogma - this is critical) were influenced by existing local cultures.

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

This is true. But you seem to make a further assumption that they must all necessarily be wrong - that it is not possible, from the outset of your thinking, that one of them could actually be right. This does not logically follow from that.

It follows very logically from the assumption that god and hell are imaginary. If all types of Christianity are wrong, then none of them are actually right.

Of course. But either the proposition that Christianity is imaginary is a dogma, a first principle (assumption) that is not open to questioning, or it is a conclusion reached by reason. If the latter, then that must first be examined before you can proceed on any debate. (It looks to me like Avatar is expressing a conclusion that follows rather than a first principle) Otherwise, you are just talking at or around the people you are disagreeing with (a "Chekhovian" conversation). If the former, say so, and that aspect of discussion simply ends - there is no point in discussing anything. I know some here have felt that way about many things I have said - well, maybe the shoe is now on the other foot. I think the main difference is that I know what my dogmas are and flatly state them as such. Most people tend to think that they are open-minded, when in fact they are not. They have also reached definite conclusions and are just as unamenable to reason to the contrary as I am. Only they are not clear that their first principles are in fact dogmatic.

Again, if two or more groups of evolutionary scientists are convinced that the other(s) are mistaken in their development of the theory, and that Intelligent Design proponents/creationists are still more wrong, it does not follow that all groups are necessarily wrong just because they contradict each other. There is a reasonable chance that one of them might actually be more correct than the other, or even have "hit the nail on the head", so to speak.

If there has been no change to the forms of life found on earth since life began, then all groups of evolutionary scientists are wrong. But if there have been changes - that is, if there has been evolution - then yes, it's possible that one group is more correct than another.

But your 'if' is unproven and unprovable. It remains a dogmatic assumption. Otherwise we would now be debating whether the creation took 6 days or eons.

[Menolly]

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

...arrgh...

*sits on hands...hard*

[aliantha]

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

...arrgh...

*sits on hands...hard*

Yeah. Welcome to *my* world in Rus's universe, Menolly....

[rdhopeca]

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

...arrgh...

*sits on hands...hard*

Yeah. Welcome to *my* world in Rus's universe, Menolly....

Right there with ya.

[Vader]

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

Wouldn't this also mean that Islam is transformation and perfection of Christianity, in the literal sense of completing it - after all Jesus is a prophet for Muslims.

[Avatar]

Haha, interesting question.

Again, the Christian Church built on an existing religion: Judaism. Not Norse or any other. So you can only refer specifically to the ancient Judaic concepts and claiming connections to others is fallacious (and that goes for all aspects of the faith, not just hell), and Christianity did not change or invent - it explained how Christ transformed the understandings.

Luckily I saw your reply to Fist and understand you're speaking dogmatically, and not practically. Otherwise I would have gone off on a tangent about germanic and semitic languages and the saxons etc. etc.

So you don't think regional pagan practices had an effect on the church doctrine? What about setting the dates of important events?

And what religions had an effect on the development of Judaism? Which effect was passed down into Christianity?

This is true. But you seem to make a further assumption that they must all necessarily be wrong...

As you assume I (and all others) must be. Of course we assume that. The root of our difference is afterall based in one big assumption. You assume there is a god, I assume there is not. *shrug*

The debate over fine points of doctrine is all very well and good, and fun, but it does not...can not, confront that fundamental point. Does it matter exactly how I misunderstand what Christianity says or seems to say? (Well, I'm interested because there are some bits that I agree with assuming I understand them.) But the underlying assumption of it all is effectively meaningless to me.

--A

[Vraith]

And what religions had an effect on the development of Judaism?

I can tell you a couple peoples, anyway (I'm don't recall what, or if, they named their religions per se): the Hittites, (at least partly contemporaneous with very early Judaism) and the Sumerians (far earlier)

[Menolly]

And what religions had an effect on the development of Judaism?

I can tell you a couple peoples, anyway (I'm don't recall what, or if, they named their religions per se): the Hittites, (at least partly contemporaneous with very early Judaism) and the Sumerians (far earlier)

Babylonians, of course.
At least, on the Talmud...

[rusmeister]

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

...arrgh...

*sits on hands...hard*

Menolly, it would be silly to pretend that Christianity claims anything else, and that it claims it as truth. You're acting as if I created this situation. I am describing what is, if nothing else, historical fact (given that you discount me personally), and it seems like you (and Ali and Rob) are offended at the historical fact, because you surely can't be angry at me merely for mentioning it.

Let me clarify that I mean "perfection" exactly in the sense of completion, not in the sense of "new and improved".

[rusmeister]

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

Wouldn't this also mean that Islam is transformation and perfection of Christianity, in the literal sense of completing it - after all Jesus is a prophet for Muslims.

Only if you believe Islam to be the truth. I do believe Christianity to be the truth, and Islam to be false, so no, that's not the case.

[rusmeister]

those who say that Christ stands side by side with similar myths, and his religion side by side with similar religions, are only repeating a very stale formula contradicted by a very striking fact.

These ideas were old before any of us were born. We have discovered nothing new.

Practically all of modern knowledge and attitudes toward Christianity are colored by being surrounded by it. None of you can examine it dispassionately, like you can Buddhism or Shinto or Islam - as things far removed from you and your culture (cf Intro to the Everlasting Man)

the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. And a particular point of it is that the popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it.
...
the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. He does not judge Christianity calmly as a Confucian would; he does not judge it as he would judge Confucianism. He cannot by an effort of fancy set the Catholic Church thousands of miles away in strange skies of morning and judge it as impartially as a Chinese pagoda.
...
In other words, I recommend these critics to try to do as much justice to Christian saints as if they were Pagan sages.

The response to influences on Christianity and Judaism is that they were both radically different from all of the "influences" surrounding them. (There is truth in the influences charges- see below) The startling claim of monotheism right smack in the middle of Hittite, Sumerian and Babylonian polytheism, and of an invisible God that forbade statues and images of Him, and Christianity's claim of a God Who personally walked the earth in a definite historical time, and that people saw him, and ate his flesh and drank his blood. No other founder of a great and lasting religion actually said "I am God". Not Abraham or Moses or Mohammed or Siddhartha. Only Christ.
It is how they differ that gives the lie to the claim of other religions that it is just like them. It isn't.

I think that where there IS truth is in a) local practices, as I said above, and b) in forms of Christianity that fell away from the original Church. That is another post, though. I am working with one eye and desperately need to see a doctor, so I'll close there.

[Vader]

Wouldn't this also mean that Islam is transformation and perfection of Christianity, in the literal sense of completing it - after all Jesus is a prophet for Muslims.

Only if you believe Islam to be the truth. I do believe Christianity to be the truth, and Islam to be false, so no, that's not the case.

With all due respect, this answer does not really satisfy me. If it's not about knowing but "simply" believing, there is no reason why belief A should be right and B not. Just as some believe Christianity to be the truth someone else believes worshipping nature might be the truth. And if truth is just a matter of personal belief there cannot be an absolute truth. And what would be God (or any omnipotent deity) without absolute truth?

[rusmeister]

Wouldn't this also mean that Islam is transformation and perfection of Christianity, in the literal sense of completing it - after all Jesus is a prophet for Muslims.

Only if you believe Islam to be the truth. I do believe Christianity to be the truth, and Islam to be false, so no, that's not the case.

With all due respect, this answer does not really satisfy me. If it's not about knowing but "simply" believing, there is no reason why belief A should be right and B not. Just as some believe Christianity to be the truth someone else believes worshipping nature might be the truth. And if truth is just a matter of personal belief there cannot be an absolute truth. And what would be God (or any omnipotent deity) without absolute truth?

Quite correct (regarding Christianity vis-a-vis Islam). I should have said that I do not accept that to be the case.

Reason has its limitations. There comes a point where what we can logically prove through reason ends - the limitations of our own knowledge and minds as human beings. Beyond that point we can neither claim reason nor demand that reason go further, and it comes down to a simple choice: to believe or not. Now of course there are many different beliefs, ranging from the entirely sensible, or compatible with reason, to the essentially senseless. Christianity belongs to the former.The Tooth Fairy belongs to the latter. Varying faiths vary in their degree of sensibility (compatibility with reason).

Truth, in the physical world, is clearly not merely a matter of personal opinion. Otherwise, a person who believed that he was a duck and could fly would "make it so". Why on earth should it be so for the metaphysical world? On what grounds do you assume that that is the case? That is where reason may reasonably be demanded. Assuming that is just as mystical as any religious faith.

[Loredoctor]

Reason has its limitations. There comes a point where what we can logically prove through reason ends - the limitations of our own knowledge and minds as human beings. Beyond that point we can neither claim reason nor demand that reason go further, and it comes down to a simple choice: to believe or not.

That's under the assumption that reason has an end. Logically it does not, only if you assume that there are things that reason or science cannot support (i.e. the existence of God). If there are no things that reason cannot disprove (i.e. Hell does not exist) then it makes no sense to say that reason has limits.

This is ignoring Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and certainly not taking into account Father Stanley L. Jaki's argument that systems of physics are incomplete and therefore no ultimate theory or final theory is attainable. However, I believe there are limits to the theorem.

[rusmeister]

Haha, interesting question.

Again, the Christian Church built on an existing religion: Judaism. Not Norse or any other. So you can only refer specifically to the ancient Judaic concepts and claiming connections to others is fallacious (and that goes for all aspects of the faith, not just hell), and Christianity did not change or invent - it explained how Christ transformed the understandings.

Luckily I saw your reply to Fist and understand you're speaking dogmatically, and not practically. Otherwise I would have gone off on a tangent about germanic and semitic languages and the saxons etc. etc.

So you don't think regional pagan practices had an effect on the church doctrine? What about setting the dates of important events?

And what religions had an effect on the development of Judaism? Which effect was passed down into Christianity?

This is true. But you seem to make a further assumption that they must all necessarily be wrong...

As you assume I (and all others) must be. Of course we assume that. The root of our difference is afterall based in one big assumption. You assume there is a god, I assume there is not. *shrug*

The debate over fine points of doctrine is all very well and good, and fun, but it does not...can not, confront that fundamental point. Does it matter exactly how I misunderstand what Christianity says or seems to say? (Well, I'm interested because there are some bits that I agree with assuming I understand them.) But the underlying assumption of it all is effectively meaningless to me.

--A

Hi Avatar!
Didn't want to lose you in the shuffle.
Let me answer the last question first (it's the easiest): Of course it matters tremendously whether or not you misunderstand Christianity. It is only meaningless because you don't understand it. If you understood, you might agree or disagree, and therefore have a valid basis to accept or reject it. If you do not understand it (and this is my thesis and working assumption based on everything posted here by most people), then you cannot reject it and call yourself reasonable in doing so. It may be mystical, it may be strange, it may require you to walk on your hands - but it may be the truth. People here consistently attack Christianity when it is clear that most know only what they have been personally exposed to, and that imperfectly. I doubt most here have bothered to ask whether that is what has always been taught or whether it might be possible that this or that version/denomination of Christianity is invalid by an absolute standard.

It really does come down to who is right. (See my response to Vader on assuming there is no truth regarding the metaphysical world.)

Hopefully my recent posts have clarified what I see to be important regarding "influence of one religion on another". Where they flatly contradict each other one cannot speak of influence. One can only speak of conflict.

Now I do think that most versions of Christianity were influenced by the Roman Church, and I do think that the Roman Church was itself, influenced. But for the first 1,000 years it was only a mood, where caesarism gradually turned into papism and the final insistence that there be a supreme human ruler on earth. Protestant beliefs formed from accepting or rejecting various forms of Roman Catholic doctrine (dogma). (This is where I think there is some truth to what you are saying.)
However, the eastern Church remained entirely outside that loop. The influences there never touched the dogma at all, and remained confined to practices. Even the Old Believer Schism was over practice, not dogma.
On setting of dates, compare the evolution of setting of dates in the Catholic Church - which really did make the calendar the center - and the Orthodox Church, which has always stuck with a Pascha (the resurrection of Christ and most important day of the year) that follows the Jewish passover. It's also interesting to note how Pascha became so trivialized in the west - while being intellectually acknowledged as the most important event of history, the Incarnation (Christmas - which runs a close second) was what came to claim the honor of celebration, and Pascha is barely noticed, especially in the Protestant world.

Thus, western people like yourselves have lots of valid objections to what they have seen in Christianity. It is on the basis of that experience that they reject it. But so what? I am in solidarity with them in rejecting it, as well, and I know of a Christianity that never engaged in the things that created the western Christianity that has all those elements that you rightly object to (from the worldly power and authority of a single corruptible man, indulgences and the Inquisition to 'fundamentalism' where each person interprets Scripture on their own and makes up their own versions of the faith in the process and then knock on your door in an effort to save you).

The Orthodox Church says, "Come and see!"

[Menolly]

Let me clarify that I mean "perfection" exactly in the sense of completion, not in the sense of "new and improved".

*I should just walk away*

I understand that, rus. It is the "argument" employed by messianics and "Jews for Jes-s" the world over.

My point is, Judaism is not incomplete. Those who become messianics are not "completed Jews," but are usually those who had very little personal connection with Judaism itself prior to being approached and converted. They have never known the completeness that is Judaism, and calling those who become Chr-stians "completed" is an insult to those of us who are complete with Judaism.

If someone is content with their belief, or lack of belief, they are complete. Period.

[rdhopeca]

So yes - where it counts, you can only look to Judaism as an influence, but even that term is misleading, because the religion itself is a transformation and perfection of Judaism, in the literal sense of completing it, rather than simply looking to it for guidance or ideas.

Wouldn't this also mean that Islam is transformation and perfection of Christianity, in the literal sense of completing it - after all Jesus is a prophet for Muslims.

Only if you believe Islam to be the truth. I do believe Christianity to be the truth, and Islam to be false, so no, that's not the case.

Only if you believe Christianity to be the truth.