I’m sure this has been covered many times by people much more intelligent then me, but a conversation I had recently brought this topic to my mind, and I just don’t know the answer…
Basically, I want to present a few scenarios, and have believers tell me if the person is question is going to heaven, hell, or “you don’t know”…
6 month old aborted fetus
6 month old baby
2 year old child (parents are of YOUR religion)
2 year old child (of atheist parents)
7 year old child (parents are of YOUR religion)
7 year old child (of atheist parents)
7 year old child who has never heard of YOUR god/religion (perhaps living in a remote part of africa, asia, etc)
13 year old child who has never heard of YOUR god/religion (perhaps living in a remote part of africa, asia, etc)
21 year old adult who has never heard of YOUR god/religion (perhaps living in a remote part of africa, asia, etc)
If you said heaven to some and hell to others, can you explain the difference please?
In all of these cases, the person has never been given a chance, or the knowledge of YOUR god. So does YOUR god send somebody to hell for not accepting something they have no knowledge of?
If you said heaven to all, then for the sake of humanity, wouldn’t it be best if NOBODY knew about YOUR religion, so that nobody would ever be condemned to hell again?
[Also posted at: JREF]
There are many great replies back and forth on the JREF forum, so I’d certainly suggest checking out the discussion there if this topic interests you…
Jeff Randall
Sarah Hippolitus
Brian Gregory
Luis Reinoso
Matthieu Guibert
Pingback: Questions for theists re: Innocence, Ignorance, and Hell | Rodibidably
I remember that during my glacially slow de-conversion process, the doctrine of hell is one that gave me a lot of trouble. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that I was raised one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who don’t believe in the existence of hell. By this time I had converted to Orthodox Christianity but I was going to a Presbyterian Church. Both denominations that believe in hell, and I was finding it difficult to reconcile my present state with my upbringing.
One way Orthodox theologians answer this is by saying that hell is not a place that God sends the unrepentant to. They do not accept a vision of hell where sinners are tortured for eternity. Hell for them is not a place, it’s a state of mind. It is the anguish of having to spend an eternity outside of the love of God. Those who experience hell are in this situation not because God put them there. Rather, it is because they do not desire to live in God’s presence that they feel this mental anguish.
This concept of hell has become popular in the so-called “emergent” church movement. I think many contemporary Christians are finding it has hard to reconcile an omni-benevolent God with punishment in hell as skeptics are. The “fire and brimstone” picture of hell is becoming more and more antiquated. This way, Christians are able to maintain a doctrine that is such an important part of their tradition while preserving God’s goodness.
I realize that this comment does not directly answer the questions that you raised in your post. But I do think that in this post-modern world we are gradually seeing a change in attitudes about the afterlife of sinners. It would not surprise at all to see hell disappear altogether from Christian doctrine, especially in moderate and progressive circles.
I would argue that anything for eternity (even just being without god’s presence or bliss or whatever you describe an eternal hell OR heaven as) becomes hell, but that is a different discussion that I’ll go into in another post (I’ve already begun writing it, but have to figure out exactly where I am going with it).
I am curious how those sects (like JW) that don’t believe in hell get around passages such as:
I know catholics are notorious for picking and choosing which passages to believe, but I thought JWs tried to uphold the whole book (or at least their interpretation of it).
A similar question would be appropriate for those who try to remove the “fire and brimstone” vision of hell by looking at those same passages and the phrases “everlasting abhorrence”, “fiery furnace”, “weeping and gnashing of teeth”, “eternal punishment”, “lake of fire”.
The passages you quoted would not pose any problems for JWs. It’s simply a matter of hermenutics. Because JW’s deny the existence of an afterlife, they do not believe it is possible to suffer any torment after death. In support of this understanding they would point to this verse from Ecclesiastes:
“For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward . . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.” (Ecclesiastes 9: 5,10) The Hebrew word here translated grave is Sheol, which is commonly associated with hell.
So how do they deal with the passages you mentioned? Their answer is that these passages are symbolic. Of course this brings up the issue of how to reliably distinguish between what passages are to be given a literal interpretation and which ones should be considered symbolic. But this doesn’t seem to give JWs any trouble.
The problem with hermeneutics is once you start “interpreting” the book, it leaves it open to many different interpretations, and there is no objective way to know who’s interpretation is correct (or if none of them are correct).
As for JW’s denying the afterlife, it would seem that there are a WHOLE LOT of passages that refer to heaven and hell that they would have to find a way to dismiss. And once you’ve dismissed those, why stop there, why not continue on and dismiss the whole book eventually?
Pingback: A few quick thoughts on Hell | Thinking Critically
Hermeneutics causes a great deal of conflict among believers, about a great many things. My general advice to a believer is to study and pray – it’s not about choosing which parts should have literal or symbolic interpretations – it’s about faith and conviction. I’m not sure what advice to offer a nonbeliever, or someone with a significantly different set of beliefs who just wants to understand, except to say that questioning the things that don’t make sense to you is always a good idea. Sometimes there is no satisfactory answer available because no one can agree on what the answer is, but the question itself has value as both an opportunity to learn something, and an opportunity to get others to clarify their thinking.
My personal answer to the question you posed is, “I don’t know.” I do know that some sects believe that at least some of those people will go to hell and it is the horror of that belief that drives church missions.
Yeah a believer…
I enjoy when people with different views are willing to engage in conversations about topics like these.
I would agree 100% with the advice to study. With the brains that we as humans have, constantly learning is one of the greatest things that we can do.
The prayer I would disagree with, but that is another post for another time.
- Do you believe that the bible is the word of god (written by god, inspired by god, or in some other way it comes god ; and not written 100% by men)?
- Do you believe that the bible has some sections that are not meant to be taken literally?
You seem to be a christian, so while your answers may not be what I expect, I’m going to guess what your answers will be, to explain why I asked those two questions (if your answers are not what I expect, I will of course be willing to respond to whatever your personal answers are).
My guess is that you believe that the bible is in some way, divine (that is, it’s not “just a book” like the works of Shakespeare, Dan Brown, etc). I also guess that you believe that some passages are not meant to be taken as literal truth. These two positions are the ones that the vast majority of christians would agree with.
Now, if the book is not meant to be taken 100% literally, and if it also comes from a supreme being, it would make sense that it would be important for mankind to know which passages should be taken literally, and which ones are allegory or symbolic or what have you.
For example, when the bible says “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” nobody would claim this is referring literally to somebody slapping you. This is an allegory meaning that is somebody harms you in some way, don’t harm them back, but instead take the high road. If people take this line literally, then they are missing the entire point of this passage.
Now if you, as I assume, believe this book comes from god, you should also believe that it’s very important for mankind to follow the meaning of the words. So when you say “it’s not about choosing which parts should have literal or symbolic interpretations” you are missing a very important issue, and essentially turning the sermon on the mount into a really awkward tale that is not nearly as profound and moral as most christians beleive it is.
It is at least partially for this reason that understanding which passages are literal, and which are not, should be of the utmost importance to those who call themselves christians.
- Do you count faith as a virtue?
If I were to tell you I have faith in thor, would you find that virtuous? How about if I told you I have faith in l ron hubbard (the founder of scientology)? What if I said I have faith that when I hear voices in my head that those voices should be listened to without question? What if those voices tell me to kill somebody? What if that voice tells me to sacrifice my son on an alter?
- Do you believe conviction is a virtue?
Do you that the 9/11 hijackers had conviction that what they were doing was “right”?
I agree 100%
I agree 100%
I really respect this answer, more than you might expect. I firmly believe that saying “I don’t know” is one of the hardest things for most people to do, especially when it is related to a subject they are passionate about. But I would hope that with something that is rather important (such as where you may spend eternity) that “I don’t know” is not the end, but the beginning of a search for understanding.
This is true, but even with missionaries around the world there are still those who will be born, live their lives, and die; all without ever having seen or heard of a bible or jesus.
- So given that you don’t know if those people go to hell in my scenarios, do you personally believe that any of them (assuming they lived what most people would consider a “good moral life”, not perfect but generally did the “right thing” in their life) are deserving of punishment for not having heard of your religion or for not being old enough to understand it?
Pingback: Is there a punishment worse than hell? | Thinking Critically
Pingback: The Believer’s Brain – Fred Burgess | Thinking Critically