C.S. Lewis Defense of Eternal Hell - Why Even it Doesn't Work

[HighwayMan]

I am a church going person (Episcopal church) who views the Bible in quite not-conservative ways, and of all the conservative theology, the one of an eternal hell is the most impossible for me to reconcile with any kind of all-loving or all-powerful God. It just does not work for me however you try to explain it or twist it.

Recently however I checked out the various apologetic works dealing with heaven and hell of C. S. Lewis, who I consider one of the most brilliant minds in Christianity. Not so much because I agree with him on everything, but because I feel he is truly honest and one can relate to him as a seeker of answers.

So while I respect this man immensely, I found that his reasoning for an eternal hell to be born out of compassion but once again fails to in any way justify or make it less of a horrible doctrine than it is.

Something which, he admits himself in many ways. He starts out by declaring that he dislikes the doctrine and could change it if he could. He brings up a number of specific problems I myself have with it - such as how could any crime be punished for all time, how could anyone enjoy heaven if even one other human soul is eternally in hell.

To those dilemmas, he tries his best to in a way minimize how just horrible the eternal hell doctrine is by implying that:

A) People willfully choose to go to hell and like it there - "the doors are locked from inside"

While that would take the blame away from God, it absolutely does not work in any practical way. I know many atheists and people not from a Christian religion. It is beyond all levels of absurdity to suggest that they want to be tortured by eternal fires of hell in some kind of demonic dimension - that's completely ridiculous. People may be twisted, perverted, whatever - but someone who chooses pain over pleasure is clearly not in charge of their mental capacities. It does not work.

Second of all, it supposes that non-believers "hate" God. That is one of the worst Christian fallacies against atheists. Not-believing is not the same as hating. I also don't believe in Santa Clause, that doesn't mean I hate the guy. It is ridiculous to suggest that if they are actually presented with complete knowledge of this all-loving God, they would all automatically hate him and throw themselves into hell. Everyone has free will, but currently no human being has a clear revelation of God - not even the pope.

B) While hell is eternal - human beings there are really just "remains" and while Heaven might be seen to exist in a linear path, hell is something else out there


This is where I really feel he is struggling hard to jam a circle into a square. It is clear from conservative readings of a literal hell that people there are not just some shadowy remains, they fully know what's going on and are being tortured contentiously forever. "It's eternal, but some kind of pebble-dimension outside of time" -- this is logistics stretching of Olympic proportions. It is the human mind trying its darnedest to find some kind of acceptable understanding of hell when there is no evidence for such theories in the Bible, and doesn't work anyway.


As for who is going to hell...Lewis only gives one example - the most evil man you can think of. He asks how can one imagine such a horrible person to spend heaven with you. This can warrant another long discussion, but what he doesn't really address is what about 99.999% of the rest of humanity? What about all the morally gray people? That's what everyone is really. No one is perfectly good or perfectly evil. According to conservative interpretations of hell, this category doesn't even matter actually. It's about being Christian or not. You can be an atheist who spends his life working at an orphanage, and you're still going to hell. But if you're a serial rapist who does whatever they want, and at the very end of your life you fully and truly accept Jesus, you're going to heaven. Does this understanding fit with Lewis' view of all-loving , just God?


And what about the billions of people in this world who are not Christians and may or may not have heard the Gospel to various degrees? According to conservative theology, they're out of luck and going to hell for not accepting Jesus. Does this fit in with Lewis' view that all who go to hell willfully choose so? Even those who have never even heard of the Christian hell to begin with?


And lastly, the most "mercurial" of views of hell, which I have read Lewis may possibly support, is that no, those who have never heard of hell aren't going there, it's just those who do indeed hear the Gospel of Jesus but reject it. But even that makes the story of Christ a supernatural curse than anything good. A curse which you are fine if you never contact it, but it if does hit you, you must do something specific to get rid of it (accept Jesus as your lord and savior) but if you do nothing and just continue on in your way, the curse send you to hell when you die. Which sounds more of a ridiculous voodoo story.


So yeah. All this is not to rag on Lewis - again, I think he was a great man with a great understanding of the Christian faith. However, no one is perfect, and his failings come in trying to reason the view of eternal hell. It troubles him deeply, as it should all people with a heart and mind, but instead of rejecting it, unfortunately he attempts to defend it.


What do people on here think? (Whenever I've brought up the subject in General Theology, I've pretty much been called a heretic too stubborn to understand it...but you're free to hold that opinion here too! )

 

[Praisegod Barebones]

HighwayMan,

I have enjoyed reading your post, for you bring up a subject which is also very dear to my own heart. I too enjoy reading C.S. Lewis, and started doing so many years ago when I was Anglican. I am now a convinced Catholic thanks to the likes of Newman (I've heard it said that Lewis himself was drifting towards Catholicism and may have eventually swam the Tiber if he'd lived long enough!).

You bring up many valid points. More than I can address with my own understanding right at the moment. So let me just add my two pennyworth for now....

Firstly, allow me to address the erroneous belief that those who have never had the chance to hear the gospel are condemned to eternal damnation in hell. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 1260) clearly states to the contrary:

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

A individual's state of mind is all important. God will be their judge, not theologians.
Obviously, those who have been fortunate enough to have heard the Good News of salvation offered by the Creator through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, have an advantage; knowing that God is Love makes one WANT to live a life devoted to Him.

Now, as for your last "mercurial" view of hell, i.e.the paradox about those who never heard the gospel being better off in the next life than those who heard and failed to obey it... let me direct you to the words of Lord in Mark 4. Jesus teaches the parable of the sower, and how some will accept the Good News whilst others will (ultimately) reject it. He then says (in verses 21 and 22) that the light of God will expose EVERYTHING in the end. Not even the thoughts of our hearts will remain hidden from His judgment. And then, in verse 24:

"And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given."

In my humble opinion, this says two things: Firstly, that we will only be judged on what we UNDERSTAND to be right. We cannot be judged on what we cannot understand. Secondly, that the more we understand the Word, the more He makes Himself known to us. Knowledge of the Word creates more thirst for greater understanding. The fact that you and I are having this discussion is proof of this!

So what happens to those who are saved (those who have heard the Good News and accepted it as Truth), but who have failed to bring their personal lives completely in line with their knowledge of God's standards of right and wrong?

Purgatory. That's right, Purgatory! Purgatory is the place where God's justice meets God's mercy. I know MOST of us will be spending at least some time there.

Lastly, yes Hell is "locked from the inside" - those who are consigned there are those who actively reject the offer of salvation or who WOULD reject it if it was presented to them.

Hope that helps.

 

[By Faith Alone]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7781557/?

OPEN THE BOOK!

 

[Praisegod Barebones]

By Faith Alone,

I concur with your belief in the necessity of searching scripture "from Gen 1:1 to Rev. 22:21"...but, unfortunately, even that falls short of coming to a clear understanding on any one theological topic (such as Hell). It does so for two reasons:

Firstly, because most protestant churches do not include within their canon the seven Deuterocanonical books that were in FACT extant at the time Jesus walked the earth. The OT passages quoted within the gospels are ALL taken WORD-FOR-WORD from the Septuagint rendering of holy scripture, and this rending INCLUDED the seven Deutercanonicals that Luther tore out of scripture to suit his own understanding. Therefore, any conclusions arrived at concerning the idea of the "eternality of hell" MUST include a study of these books.

Secondly (even WITH these Deuterocanonical books), no doctrine of theology can be arrived at through scripture alone. If that were the case, all the protestant churches would hold to exactly the same beliefs on each and every theological subject. The FAACT that they do NOT is PROOF that sola scriptura is a hoax. I can walk into ten different protestant churches and get ten different answers on the subject at hand. Catholics, on the other hand, hold to Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Magesterium in ALL matters of theology. Any answer given to any question must be upheld by all three. So, 10,000 people can walk into their local Catholic church in 10,000 different places around the world and all get the SAME answer to the question. The Church is ONE. See how that works?

 

[Anto9us]

I wouldn't say exactly that Luther "tore the deuterocanonicals out of scripture"

He made sure to take a Masoretic Hebrew OT and Erasmus' Greek New Testament with him when he was "kidnapped" by the Knights and taken off to Wartburg castle (the kidnapping was fake, but the knights made it look good, Luther's hands were tied and he had to run behind a horse for awhile)

It is true that Luther preferred Masoretic set of Hebrew Scriptures over Septuagint, but I think eventually so did Jerome (but he had awreddy based Vulgate on Septuagint)

Not all protestants are "sola scriptura"

Anglicans/Episcopalians are "Scripture Reason and Tradition" and do have deuterocanonical works occasionally in lexical readings

Methodists are "Scripture Reason, Experience and Tradition" (the Wesleyan Quadrilateral)

In C S Lewis book THE GREAT DIVORCE, people went to hell by bus.

I like the deuterocanonical part of Daniel where an angel takes the prophet Habakkuk by the hair while Habakkuk is carrying a pot of stew to some harvesters and flies him all the way to Babylon - stew pot and all -where Habakkuk lowers the stew down to Daniel in the Lion's den and is whisked back to Judah

Greek Orthodox have Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh that Catholics don't

one strain of Ethiopian Orthodox considers Enoch to be canonical to this day

 

[Phantasman]

What do people on here think? (Whenever I've brought up the subject in General Theology, I've pretty much been called a heretic too stubborn to understand it...but you're free to hold that opinion here too! )

Yep. You're a heretic. But so am I.

Lewis may have been seeking spiritual truth over man's truth. And had a glimpse of what that truth is. Where did God ever say "the catholics are right"? To teach otherwise is to be a heretic.

Faith is having the belief God the Father knows what he is doing and it will be perfect as he is perfect. How does one believe in a God ignorant of love and patience who is perfect among ALL? By not seeking the wisdom to really know who he is.

 

[HighwayMan]

Faith is having the belief God the Father knows what he is doing and it will be perfect as he is perfect. H

That one doesn't quite work for me, but I suspect is the driving motivation for why many insist on defending every (traditionally accepted) part of the Bible - because they fear that seriously questioning or flat out rejecting something is going against this perfect image of God, and therefore they would automatically be in the wrong regardless of the question or the argument.

I understand faith when it comes to the practicalities of existence that are beyond human understanding (what is existence, what is eternity, was there a start, etc. etc. ) but not when it comes to questions of morality and justice, which is what hell is about. If something in the Bible seemingly says that genocide is ok, or rape is ok, or slavery is ok, or eternal hell is a real and just punishment...that goes against all developed human standards of morality. And if the argument is that we should completely abandon human morality and just blindly trust "God's word" (again, as understood through a conservative lens) then I see no point at all to the human experience or free will. It would mean God's gifts to humans, the only thing that sets us apart from the animal kingdom - reason and morality, are completely useless, in fact they become vices we need to get rid of in order to fully (and blindly) worship God.

And I am unable to see morality and reason as vices. In fact you can write off civilization all together. Without them, people would still be in caves wondering how to start a fire.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Debating the existence of Hell doesn't make it go away.

 

[HighwayMan]

Debating the existence of Hell doesn't make it go away.

Actually reasoned debate and discussion is the only to ever progress on any issue.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Actually reasoned debate and discussion is the only to ever progress on any issue.

1. I don't understand your statement.
2. Hell is not going away because people talk about it.

 

[HighwayMan]

1. I don't understand your statement.
2. Hell is not going away because people talk about it.

If you don't want people talking about a topic, maybe an internet discussion forum is the wrong place to be...

 

[abysmul]

C.S. Lewis Defense of Eternal Hell - Why Even it Doesn't Work

HighwayMan. I wish I had the time at this moment to respond thoughtfully. As a great admirer of C.S. Lewis, I have to say excellent post and that I am in much agreement with you. Keep thinking, keep studying, keep praying, and thank you for starting this thread.

 

[joneysd]

I am a church going person (Episcopal church) who views the Bible in quite not-conservative ways, and of all the conservative theology, the one of an eternal hell is the most impossible for me to reconcile with any kind of all-loving or all-powerful God. It just does not work for me however you try to explain it or twist it.

Recently however I checked out the various apologetic works dealing with heaven and hell of C. S. Lewis, who I consider one of the most brilliant minds in Christianity. Not so much because I agree with him on everything, but because I feel he is truly honest and one can relate to him as a seeker of answers.

So while I respect this man immensely, I found that his reasoning for an eternal hell to be born out of compassion but once again fails to in any way justify or make it less of a horrible doctrine than it is.

Something which, he admits himself in many ways. He starts out by declaring that he dislikes the doctrine and could change it if he could. He brings up a number of specific problems I myself have with it - such as how could any crime be punished for all time, how could anyone enjoy heaven if even one other human soul is eternally in hell.

To those dilemmas, he tries his best to in a way minimize how just horrible the eternal hell doctrine is by implying that:

A) People willfully choose to go to hell and like it there - "the doors are locked from inside"

While that would take the blame away from God, it absolutely does not work in any practical way. I know many atheists and people not from a Christian religion. It is beyond all levels of absurdity to suggest that they want to be tortured by eternal fires of hell in some kind of demonic dimension - that's completely ridiculous. People may be twisted, perverted, whatever - but someone who chooses pain over pleasure is clearly not in charge of their mental capacities. It does not work.

Second of all, it supposes that non-believers "hate" God. That is one of the worst Christian fallacies against atheists. Not-believing is not the same as hating. I also don't believe in Santa Clause, that doesn't mean I hate the guy. It is ridiculous to suggest that if they are actually presented with complete knowledge of this all-loving God, they would all automatically hate him and throw themselves into hell. Everyone has free will, but currently no human being has a clear revelation of God - not even the pope.

B) While hell is eternal - human beings there are really just "remains" and while Heaven might be seen to exist in a linear path, hell is something else out there


This is where I really feel he is struggling hard to jam a circle into a square. It is clear from conservative readings of a literal hell that people there are not just some shadowy remains, they fully know what's going on and are being tortured contentiously forever. "It's eternal, but some kind of pebble-dimension outside of time" -- this is logistics stretching of Olympic proportions. It is the human mind trying its darnedest to find some kind of acceptable understanding of hell when there is no evidence for such theories in the Bible, and doesn't work anyway.


As for who is going to hell...Lewis only gives one example - the most evil man you can think of. He asks how can one imagine such a horrible person to spend heaven with you. This can warrant another long discussion, but what he doesn't really address is what about 99.999% of the rest of humanity? What about all the morally gray people? That's what everyone is really. No one is perfectly good or perfectly evil. According to conservative interpretations of hell, this category doesn't even matter actually. It's about being Christian or not. You can be an atheist who spends his life working at an orphanage, and you're still going to hell. But if you're a serial rapist who does whatever they want, and at the very end of your life you fully and truly accept Jesus, you're going to heaven. Does this understanding fit with Lewis' view of all-loving , just God?


And what about the billions of people in this world who are not Christians and may or may not have heard the Gospel to various degrees? According to conservative theology, they're out of luck and going to hell for not accepting Jesus. Does this fit in with Lewis' view that all who go to hell willfully choose so? Even those who have never even heard of the Christian hell to begin with?


And lastly, the most "mercurial" of views of hell, which I have read Lewis may possibly support, is that no, those who have never heard of hell aren't going there, it's just those who do indeed hear the Gospel of Jesus but reject it. But even that makes the story of Christ a supernatural curse than anything good. A curse which you are fine if you never contact it, but it if does hit you, you must do something specific to get rid of it (accept Jesus as your lord and savior) but if you do nothing and just continue on in your way, the curse send you to hell when you die. Which sounds more of a ridiculous voodoo story.


So yeah. All this is not to rag on Lewis - again, I think he was a great man with a great understanding of the Christian faith. However, no one is perfect, and his failings come in trying to reason the view of eternal hell. It troubles him deeply, as it should all people with a heart and mind, but instead of rejecting it, unfortunately he attempts to defend it.


What do people on here think? (Whenever I've brought up the subject in General Theology, I've pretty much been called a heretic too stubborn to understand it...but you're free to hold that opinion here too! )

I don't really see the problem through out creation there are equal and opposites so an opposite to heaven does not seem so unusual.

If you consider God does not send anyone to hell they chose not to be with God and they have all their lives to make that decision.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Actually reasoned debate and discussion is the only to ever progress on any issue.

Hell isn't an "issue", in the sense that men have issues with politicians or some such thing, though I will agree that reasoned debate may help someone to understand the concept a little more. It is a dogmatic statement which is already decided upon by the Christian Church as fundamental to the faith. It is incumbent upon Christian to acknowledge and believe it. If they are unable to satisfy themselves intellectually, then we must at least accept it in obedience to the Faith.

I'm not naive or stupid, so I'm well aware that people have been resurrecting long ago decided debates and re-approaching them in a fresh way as if they've stumbled upon some new mystical information, but before something becomes a dogma in Christianity, you can bet that there was plenty of debate, exegesis, prayer and study by many theologians, doctors, and Saints of the scriptures, apostolic traditions, and the Fathers of the Church.

Just saying.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

If you don't want people talking about a topic, maybe an internet discussion forum is the wrong place to be...

Never mind.

 

[HighwayMan]

Hell isn't an "issue", in the sense that men have issues with politicians or some such thing, though I will agree that reasoned debate may help someone to understand the concept a little more. It is a dogmatic statement which is already decided upon by the Christian Church as fundamental to the faith. It is incumbent upon Christian to acknowledge and believe it. If they are unable to satisfy themselves intellectually, then we must at least accept it in obedience to the Faith.

I'm not naive or stupid, so I'm well aware that people have been resurrecting long ago decided debates and re-approaching them in a fresh way as if they've stumbled upon some new mystical information, but before something becomes a dogma in Christianity, you can bet that there was plenty of debate, exegesis, prayer and study by many theologians, doctors, and Saints of the scriptures, apostolic traditions, and the Fathers of the Church.

Just saying.

It was an absolute "issue" for C.S. Lewis himself, that's why he devoted a good deal of his writings to not simply talking about hell but considering and working through several objections to it, including his own....he even says he would give anything to be able to change it. His apologetic work attempts to satisfy it intellectually, this is what the discussion is about.

Also, which "Christian Church" are you talking about? The Roman Catholic Church certainly has very different views from Evangelical Christianity. While both talk about hell, the understandings of it are clearly much different. And so does the Anglican church which C.S. Lewis was part of, and the related Episcopal Church I go to. You can't lump all into one category.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Highwayman,
Been a while since I read him, but I think Lewis's comment about the "door" in Hell being locked from the inside goes along with other comments he made regarding how such a person has lived a life hating not loving, rejecting not serving, denying not knowing the Supreme Good.

I recall he says something like such a person is not about to do a 180 and be remorseful for their life. That in some perverted twisted sense they would see any "door" or way out of Hell as being a denial of everything they stood for. They would stubbornly hold such a door close while blaming their current state on God and cursing Him even more. They would not want to be in the Light, denied any longing for it in this life and not about to long for it at all in the next. They would not see their situation as their own doing at all, would blame God even more and hate Him even more. A way out would mean moving toward that which they hate, so they would refuse it and would not allow that door to be openned - effectively locking themselves in.

He sees their hatred, rejection and denial growing in hell rather than being a place where they are suddenly sorry for their life. The hatred consumes them, to the point Lewis says they would no longer be recognizable to anyone as human, still "alive" in the sense of existing but just "what remains".

The tea pot tells the pot maker "I" am not a tea pot. And finally one day, the maker says "Ok, you are not a tea pot." We were made for one purpose and will only be truly be "happy" being that. If we believe we are free to "be that" or "not" then having God leave us to our own desires is either going to make us truly happy or "not". The idea that a person choosing "not" upon being granted their hearts desire in the next life is then suddenly going to long to be something else is misguided I think Lewis would say. They are only going to want to be "more not". And that can only mean more hatred, rejection and denial of the Supreme Good. And Lewis felt strongly that such emotions cannot but change a person in every way, emotionally, mentally, physically...etc - similar to changes severe stress can do - especially as prolonged stress does to people in this life.

That is what I recall from reading CS at least.

 

[Praisegod Barebones]

Highwayman,

My only point was to say that we cannot come to a complete understanding of Hell by examining scripture alone. This is why great scholars such as C.S. Lewis were never able to come to firm conclusions on such delicate subjects. The bottom line is, Jesus didn't give us a book; He gave us a Church. For me, Hell is what the Church says it is.

If you want to read a very fascinating private take on this subject, read HEAVEN & HELL by Emanuel Swedenborg. That will be SURE to blow your mind! As a Catholic I do NOT consider it doctrinal in any way...but I do believe much of it to be extremely insightful.

Take care and God bless,
Praisegod Barebones

 

[HighwayMan]

Highwayman,
Been a while since I read him, but I think Lewis's comment about the "door" in Hell being locked from the inside goes along with other comments he made regarding how such a person has lived a life hating not loving, rejecting not serving, denying not knowing the Supreme Good.

I recall he says something like such a person is not about to do a 180 and be remorseful for their life. That in some perverted twisted sense they would see any "door" or way out of Hell as being a denial of everything they stood for. They would stubbornly hold such a door close while blaming their current state on God and cursing Him even more. They would not want to be in the Light, denied any longing for it in this life and not about to long for it at all in the next. They would not see their situation as their own doing at all, would blame God even more and hate Him even more. A way out would mean moving toward that which they hate, so they would refuse it and would not allow that door to be openned - effectively locking themselves in.

He sees their hatred, rejection and denial growing in hell rather than being a place where they are suddenly sorry for their life. The hatred consumes them, to the point Lewis says they would no longer be recognizable to anyone as human, still "alive" in the sense of existing but just "what remains".

The tea pot tells the pot maker "I" am not a tea pot. And finally one day, the maker says "Ok, you are not a tea pot." We were made for one purpose and will only be truly be "happy" being that. If we believe we are free to "be that" or "not" then having God leave us to our own desires is either going to make us truly happy or "not". The idea that a person choosing "not" upon being granted their hearts desire in the next life is then suddenly going to long to be something else is misguided I think Lewis would say. They are only going to want to be "more not". And that can only mean more hatred, rejection and denial of the Supreme Good. And Lewis felt strongly that such emotions cannot but change a person in every way, emotionally, mentally, physically...etc - similar to changes severe stress can do - especially as prolonged stress does to people in this life.

That is what I recall from reading CS at least.

Yes, I do think this is what he says.

Which is an interesting way to look at things...but it goes directly against one clear and popular account of hell presented in the Bible: The Rich Man and Lazarus:

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “

According to this story, the rich man in hell is clearly in agony because he doesn't like hell and doesn't want to be there. His tone definitely seems repentant. And Abraham recognizes him entirely as the person that he is - he is there with all his thoughts and memories in hell, and he is even pleading not for his own release, but that his brothers not to make the same mistakes he made. Every one of these qualities seems to go against the "hell lover who hates God and everything good and there is nothing human in him" argument - in fact it presents a tragic figure that people in heaven should feel forever sad for. Even if he was a stranger, let alone your own brother/son.

 

[HighwayMan]

Highwayman,

My only point was to say that we cannot come to a complete understanding of Hell by examining scripture alone. This is why great scholars such as C.S. Lewis were never able to come to firm conclusions on such delicate subjects. The bottom line is, Jesus didn't give us a book; He gave us a Church. For me, Hell is what the Church says it is.

If you want to read a very fascinating private take on this subject, read HEAVEN & HELL by Emanuel Swedenborg. That will be SURE to blow your mind! As a Catholic I do NOT consider it doctrinal in any way...but I do believe much of it to be extremely insightful.

Take care and God bless,
Praisegod Barebones

Thank you, I will look for this work.