RE: Who's Who in Hell?
January 27, 2017 at 10:28 pm
(This post was last modified: January 27, 2017 at 10:29 pm by Redoubtable.)
I find the mental gymnastics Christians go through to justify Hell peculiar to say the least. In recent years it has become trendy among some Christians to "rehabilitate" the concept of Hell into something more palatable to the "modern" (I would say empathetic) mind.
Today many Christians, Catholics especially, have a hard time coping with the coexistence of a loving, merciful God and the eternal suffering of Hell. They make peace with this dilemma by rehabilitating Hell in the sense that they re-frame it to be viewed as the natural consequence of our free choice to reject God when we sin, so they say "God doesn't send us to Hell, we send ourselves." This refrain has become so worn out and it doesn't even keep consistency with the imagery or language used to describe Hell and God's judgement in the Bible and other Christian literature which depicts Hell as a punishment imposed by God. As just one example in the NT Jesus tells his followers not to fear those who can only destroy the body, but the one (God) who can destroy both body and soul in Hell. This is stark contrast to the passive God who doesn't inflict the punishment of Hell, but only allows us to make our own choice to reject him and so damn ourselves.
Needless to say I find both conceptions morally repugnant, but I find the "rehabilitated" case particularly unpleasant because it sacrifices seeds of empathy to preserve this immaculate image of the god whose every act is allegedly praiseworthy but in reality would be considered a moral monster if he was a man.
This is how absurd I find this conception of Hell:
Imagine this scenario: a man instructs a toddler by a poolside not to enter the pool because if they do they will drown and die. Despite the man's instructions the toddler (irrational, ignorant, and impulsive as toddlers can be) is attracted by the water and walks into the pool. As the toddler is drowning, the man sits back and allows the toddler to drown. After the child has died a fearful and agonizing death, a bystander from far off rushes to the scene and questions the man as to why he didn't save the child. The man replies, "I warned the child not to go into the pool, that they would drown and die if they went in it; but alas the child made their choice and I merely confirmed it by allowing them to accept the consequences of their decision."
This is essentially how Christian apologists view god in this conception of Hell, and what a terrible god this is; one who doesn't even afford the children he allegedly loves full knowledge of the "rules of the game" and its consequences, judges us in a most horrific manner, condemning us to unending agony, and then has the gall to wash his hands of this and tell us it was our choice to suffer eternally. This is the mentality of the worst kind of sociopath.
Today many Christians, Catholics especially, have a hard time coping with the coexistence of a loving, merciful God and the eternal suffering of Hell. They make peace with this dilemma by rehabilitating Hell in the sense that they re-frame it to be viewed as the natural consequence of our free choice to reject God when we sin, so they say "God doesn't send us to Hell, we send ourselves." This refrain has become so worn out and it doesn't even keep consistency with the imagery or language used to describe Hell and God's judgement in the Bible and other Christian literature which depicts Hell as a punishment imposed by God. As just one example in the NT Jesus tells his followers not to fear those who can only destroy the body, but the one (God) who can destroy both body and soul in Hell. This is stark contrast to the passive God who doesn't inflict the punishment of Hell, but only allows us to make our own choice to reject him and so damn ourselves.
Needless to say I find both conceptions morally repugnant, but I find the "rehabilitated" case particularly unpleasant because it sacrifices seeds of empathy to preserve this immaculate image of the god whose every act is allegedly praiseworthy but in reality would be considered a moral monster if he was a man.
This is how absurd I find this conception of Hell:
Imagine this scenario: a man instructs a toddler by a poolside not to enter the pool because if they do they will drown and die. Despite the man's instructions the toddler (irrational, ignorant, and impulsive as toddlers can be) is attracted by the water and walks into the pool. As the toddler is drowning, the man sits back and allows the toddler to drown. After the child has died a fearful and agonizing death, a bystander from far off rushes to the scene and questions the man as to why he didn't save the child. The man replies, "I warned the child not to go into the pool, that they would drown and die if they went in it; but alas the child made their choice and I merely confirmed it by allowing them to accept the consequences of their decision."
This is essentially how Christian apologists view god in this conception of Hell, and what a terrible god this is; one who doesn't even afford the children he allegedly loves full knowledge of the "rules of the game" and its consequences, judges us in a most horrific manner, condemning us to unending agony, and then has the gall to wash his hands of this and tell us it was our choice to suffer eternally. This is the mentality of the worst kind of sociopath.
