Hell

[Jnyusa]

It's really a shame how few of us have experienced the love that all religions claim to be about.

jn

[Erunáme]

It's really a shame how few of us have experienced the love that all religions claim to be about.

It's been my unfortunate experience.

[Primula Baggins]

Eru,

Don't give up, unless you feel you must. It's out there.

Certainly I'm sending you some.

[halplm]

I've sent much as well, even if it doesn't seem that way sometimes

[truehobbit]

It's really a shame how few of us have experienced the love that all religions claim to be about.

I think that's because being mean is so much easier than being friendly, and hating takes less effort than loving.

What a religion says or what a philosophy says doesn't have much influence - we can study the merits of a religion or philosophy only by studying what it says - and by studying the effects on those few who really followed what it says.

Blaming a religion for the nastiness of people is like saying "people don't kill people - guns do" - I'm afraid it is people who kill people.

[Erunáme]

I wasn't blaming the religion...though I do tend to dislike organized religion.

.
.
.

I finished the Narnia Chronicles last night and I read some passages that I found nice. Spoilers for those who haven't read The Last Battle.

"Then I looked about me and saw the sky and the wide lands and smelled the sweetness. And I said, By the Gods, this is a pleasant place: it may be that I am come into the country of Tash. And I began to journey into the strange country and to seek him.

"So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable trees till lo! in a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like the ostrich, and his size was an elephant's; his hair was like pure gold and the brightness of his eyes like gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible that the Flaming Mountain of Lagour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert. Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but beause we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost though understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

I really like that idea and it makes a lot of sense to me...also seems more fair.

I also somewhat liked this passage:

The creatures came rushing on, their eyes brighter and brighter as they drew nearer and nearer to the standing Stars. But as they came right up to Aslan one or other of two things happened to each of them. They all looked straight in his face, I don't think they had any choice about that. And when some looked, the expression of their faces changed terribly - it was fear and hatred: except that, on the faces of Talking Beasts, the fear and hatred lasted only for a fraction of a second. You could see that they suddenly ceased to be Talking Beasts. They were just ordinary animals. And all the creatures who looked at Aslan in that way swerved to their right, his left, and disappeared into his huge black shadow, which (as you have heard) streamed away to the left of the doorway. The children never saw them again. I don't know what became of them. But the others looked in the face of Aslan and loved him, though some of them were very frightened at the same time. And all these came in at the Door, in on Aslan's right.

I like that they had a choice when they were confronted with the truth. I'm sure all those animals that went to Aslan's left were denied entry into the real Narnia (Heaven) and the absense of Heaven could be considered Hell. As long as they had a second chance, I could be okay with that. I'm not at all comfortable with eternal damnation.

[Cerin]

Eru, I've always found such comfort in those scenes, and the first passage you quoted always leaves me in tears.

[Erunáme]

The first passage gives me hope.

[Cerin]

Yes.

[Ethel]

Getting back on topic... my sense from reading this thread (and with apologies for my own meltdown) is that even those posters who acknowledge a belief in some kind of Hell don't think souls will be sent there 'lightly'. I think thoughtful people who subscribe to beliefs that involve Hell are nevertheless troubled by the concept.

Surely no one wants to think of (say) Gandhi in Hell.

Who deserves to go to Hell? Does anyone? Does Hitler? Does Charles Manson?

[Cerin]

My own feeling is that it would be presumptuous to think of any particular person in Hell, even speculatively or conjecturally. To consider and arrive at ideas of hell conceptually does not require that we ascribe certain destinies to actual people based on our limited understanding.

Who deserves to go to Hell? Does anyone? Does Hitler? Does Charles Manson?

No person deserves to go to Hell. It's our sin that deserves to go to hell. The difficulty is that our sin attaches to us. We will go where it goes if we can't get rid of it.

[vison]

Yes, Hitler would "deserve" to be in Hell. However, as I understand the matter, it is possible that if he repented, etc., he'd be forgiven and welcomed in Heaven.

Without wishing to go into tiresome detail, I believe I could arrange the Universe better than that.

However, as a non-believer, I scarcely know what to think about such a question, in all sincerity. The promise of redemption was made, and must, therefore be kept. Must it not apply to everyone?

Earlier in this thread I posted a quote of two lines from a song:

"I swear there ain't no Heaven,
And I pray there ain't no Hell . . ."

I think I better try to explain that.

I don't "believe" in any god. Religion is not part of my life and, moreover, neither my parents nor my grandparents were religious people. I am from Scottish and Norwegian roots, both dour Northern peoples. My people were tough, suffered much, endured much, had a fatalistic acceptance of hardship: and absolutely no hope there was going to be any joy or pleasure in this life or any other.

Though it was never expressed in plain words, the idea of life for these people was that life meant work and pain. Life was not easy. They scoffed at softness, at ease. A man was measured by how much he could do, how many hundredweight sacks of grain you could pile on his back, how many calluses he had on his hands, how many hours he could work in a day. A man worked hard, expected much of himself and others, despised weakness, was proud of his strength. Education, refinement, culture, were "soft", to be sneered at.

(Some of my earlier kin WERE religious. The Scotch branch were Presbyterians of the old, savage sort. The Norwegians were Lutherans (I have two Lutheran bishops in my family tree), and if the Scotch were hard, the Norwegians were harder.)

The women were much the same. None of my people were given much to talking. I guess I got it all, generations of words pouring out of me. And my Dad, he was a great storyteller and better yet, a happy, gentle man who took joy in his life. Where he got that from I don't know.

When I first heard the lyric I quoted above, I felt a kind of instant bond with whoever wrote those words. That was the sort of thing any of my ancestors might have said.

The religious ones might have hoped for Heaven, I don't know, I never knew any of them. But I think it would have been a hope that existed despite their certainty that they were miserable sinners, we are all miserable sinners, and for people like US, hah! Heaven is too good for us. And it was "soft", to want something you couldn't have, somehow.


But Hell. Well, yes. Probably God made sure there was a Hell, all right.

Anyway. I haven't done a very good job of explaining it, but that's about the best I can do right now.

[Cerin]

You did a wonderful job of explaining, vison.

[Jnyusa]

Without wishing to go into tiresome detail, I believe I could arrange the Universe better than that.



Vison, you crack me up. Really.

None of my people were given much to talking. I guess I got it all, generations of words pouring out of me.

For some reason that brought almost tears of joy to my eyes.

Jn

[Cerin]

I was thinking we could use the rest of this thread as a very open experiment about how to use the forum. That is, communicate freely about our ideas, as it's still new to us.

So let me say without wanting to make anyone feel defensive or criticized, that I feel my religion is being laughed at.

Let me try and explain my reasoning, so that we can maybe all come to understand one another better.

This thread is about Christian views of hell. vison thinks she can arrange the universe better than the Christian God. Jnyusa thinks that's side-splittingly funny, because she doesn't think much of this arrangement either.

Scoffing? It seems that way to me. I didn't react that way to the original comment, but just when Jnyusa responded with the emoticon.

What do others think? I think it would be really useful if we could have an open dialogue here. No one getting upset, no one criticizing, just explaining how it looks to us so we can use this thread to learn for the future.

I think vison is extremely witty, and she cracks me up, too. I think this would be ok if this thread were in Lasto. I would just ignore it there. But according to my understanding, it doesn't seem right here. I'm supposed to be safe from ridicule.

[Athrabeth]

It's really a shame how few of us have experienced the love that all religions claim to be about.

I think that's because being mean is so much easier than being friendly, and hating takes less effort than loving.

You know, I feel that exactly the opposite is true. I think we humans, for all our failings and folly, are born to be naturally generous and empathetic rather than mean and cold-hearted. I think hate is a terrible burden that takes far more effort to haul around than love. Love is just plain and simple, really. We all know how to do it right from our beginnings, I think.........instinctively. Hate is far more complex; so much so, it has to be learned.

The problem is, I believe, we humans are quick learners.

[Faramond]

Hating takes less effort than loving when you're angry.

***

Cerin, I don't think either vison or Jnyusa is scoffing at anything.

[Jnyusa]

Without wishing to go into tiresome detail ...

This is the part that made me laugh, Cerin, because vison has expressed her views about religion so many times before, and obviously knows it. And she has a way with understandment that takes the sting out of her expressions of disbelief (for me).

It is not vison's beliefs that crack me up - I take them quite seriously - it is her way of putting things. I do not feel that her intention is to ridicule anyone else because when she does have personal criticism she states it quite differently, that is, in quite a different style.

That particular post seemed to me a sincere attempt to explain the background for her unbelief, and as such I feel it should be respected.

Jn

[Cerin]

Well, I do feel that my religion is being laughed at and disrespected. It must be something about the expectation of 'safety' that is making me more sensitive, so I think it is probably best that I steer clear of discussions here.

[Jnyusa]

Cerin, your supposition seems to be that yov has addressed his question to Christians and it should really be up to the Christians in this thread to express their views. There is certainly merit to that interpretation, and as such I think it is more appropriate for me to leave the thread than for you to leave it. I certainly cannot address Yov's question, whereas you can.

To address the purpose of the forum, however, I would not like posters to see it as a forum devoted to religious apologism. Unbelief can also be expressed and discussed. There are ways of expressing anti-religion that can make people of a particular faith very uncomfortable and that is something we want to avoid. There are also ways of expressing religion that can make people of other faiths uncomfortable. But I don't believe that vison's post falls into those categories, and neither does yours and neither does mine. In my case at least, you know well that I am not anti-religious.

This thread is exceptional because yov has asked for illumination of a particular topic which only a few of us can rightly illuminate. It is a topic that attracts the attention of everyone, but you are correct that the thread does not solicit the opinion of everyone and in this case the participation of everyone is likely to lead to misunderstanding.

Jn