Views on Hell and the problem with punishment

[Wryetui]

Many atheists and agnostics see a problem with the issue of Hell and punishment, a lot of people think God punishes them for not believing sending them to Hell. That view sounds very poor and childish to me and it's far to be true, without any theological debates I would like to share with you the Orthodox conception of Hell and damnation.

Some Orthodox theologians see another example of distinction between East and West in the teaching of Hell as a created place. For the Orthodox, Heaven is not a place in the sky, it is being with God. Salvation in the East, is not salvation from the wrath of God, as St. Isaac teaches that the Love of God is the Tree of Life.According to Eastern Christianity people are not sent down to Hell by an angry God. Hell as professed in the East is neither the absence of God nor the separation of the soul from the presence of God, but rather the opposite: Heaven and Hell are the divine presence experienced either pleasantly or unpleasantly, depending upon one's spiritual condition. Finally the theological concept of hell or eternal damnation also via theoria is expressed different in the West, than in the East.

The Orthodox Church holds that both Heaven and Hell are a condition of relationship with God that is either theosis or perdition, both of which are often spoken of as the effect of being in the presence of God. The Orthodox Church teaches that eternal damnation in the lake of fire and heaven occur within the same realm, which is being with God; God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of God and Heaven.For one who hates God (as existence, as Life for example called Misotheism) such a place as in the presence of God, will be eternal suffering.
The Orthodox Church teaches that Heaven and Hell are in the same realm, and that Hell is not separation from God symbolically or physically,
Hell as taught in Orthodoxy is a place chosen. The Western understanding of Hell (called inferno or infernus) can be understood from the works of Augustine as being a place possibly located under the earth. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, himself a believer in apocatastasis and universal reconciliation, argued that Hades (the place "which serves as a receptacle for souls after death" not the place of Hell per se) is a subterranean locale.
As the Church both Eastern and Western teaches, there is no place where God is not, and God's love is for all human beings, including sinners. Hell is described as self-exclusion from communion with that universal love, as cutting oneself off from love, or but as an enemy of God.Only of a human heart that excludes God can it be said that, in a sense, God is not there, and so Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote that Hell is "the place where God is not" (emphasis in the original). In his review of the Bishop's book Hieromonk Patapios criticized this expression as unorthodox.

I would like to share this to make you see that God isn't arbitrary at all, and that not all the people think or believe that God is a tyrant in the sky Who punishes people for not believing in Him, like an egoist child. That view is very far away from the Orthodox view. I posted this on phylosophy because I wasn't sure that atheists could post on the Apologetics forum, but I will start this thread there too, maybe.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Many atheists and agnostics see a problem with the issue of Hell and punishment, a lot of people think God punishes them for not believing sending them to Hell. That view sounds very poor and childish to me and it's far to be true, without any theological debates I would like to share with you the Orthodox conception of Hell and damnation.

Some Orthodox theologians see another example of distinction between East and West in the teaching of Hell as a created place. For the Orthodox, Heaven is not a place in the sky, it is being with God. Salvation in the East, is not salvation from the wrath of God, as St. Isaac teaches that the Love of God is the Tree of Life.According to Eastern Christianity people are not sent down to Hell by an angry God. Hell as professed in the East is neither the absence of God nor the separation of the soul from the presence of God, but rather the opposite: Heaven and Hell are the divine presence experienced either pleasantly or unpleasantly, depending upon one's spiritual condition. Finally the theological concept of hell or eternal damnation also via theoria is expressed different in the West, than in the East.

The Orthodox Church holds that both Heaven and Hell are a condition of relationship with God that is either theosis or perdition, both of which are often spoken of as the effect of being in the presence of God. The Orthodox Church teaches that eternal damnation in the lake of fire and heaven occur within the same realm, which is being with God; God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of God and Heaven.For one who hates God (as existence, as Life for example called Misotheism) such a place as in the presence of God, will be eternal suffering.
The Orthodox Church teaches that Heaven and Hell are in the same realm, and that Hell is not separation from God symbolically or physically,
Hell as taught in Orthodoxy is a place chosen. The Western understanding of Hell (called inferno or infernus) can be understood from the works of Augustine as being a place possibly located under the earth. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, himself a believer in apocatastasis and universal reconciliation, argued that Hades (the place "which serves as a receptacle for souls after death" not the place of Hell per se) is a subterranean locale.
As the Church both Eastern and Western teaches, there is no place where God is not, and God's love is for all human beings, including sinners. Hell is described as self-exclusion from communion with that universal love, as cutting oneself off from love, or but as an enemy of God.Only of a human heart that excludes God can it be said that, in a sense, God is not there, and so Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote that Hell is "the place where God is not" (emphasis in the original). In his review of the Bishop's book Hieromonk Patapios criticized this expression as unorthodox.

I would like to share this to make you see that God isn't arbitrary at all, and that not all the people think or believe that God is a tyrant in the sky Who punishes people for not believing in Him, like an egoist child. That view is very far away from the Orthodox view. I posted this on phylosophy because I wasn't sure that atheists could post on the Apologetics forum, but I will start this thread there too, maybe.

It seems to me that one consequence of this vision of Hell is that a lifelong atheist could, in principle, enjoy the fruits of Heaven. Standing before God, they would obviously become theists, and could at that point decide whether they desire communion with the divine, thereby determining their fate (Heaven or Hell).

 

[Wryetui]

Well, it depends. We have a fair God, how can you live a careless life, even insulting God and not believing in Him and when you die, after you see Him, you can be in Heaven? I think not, usually Heaven or Hell are continuations of this life, if you, in this life, have struggled to be like God, to love Him, to pray to Him, to feast for Him, to abstain for Him, if you have cleansed yourself through confession and you have divinized yourself more and more with every eucharist, besides the grace of God which really makes it all then most likely God will reward you with Heaven, you will see Him as He really is, in full communion with Him, all the wishes of your life became true, you are finally perceiving God, you are finally seeing Him.

But, if people like you, who doubt of God, who despise His Word, who compare Him with every other idol, who think it's ridiculous to believe in Him, you will pereceive God as Hell, because you are not worthy of His love, and His love will make you suffer, because you chose in this life to become incompatible with Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, it depends. We have a fair God, how can you live a careless life,

Nothing about atheism entails living a careless life.

even insulting God and not believing in Him and when you die, after you see Him, you can be in Heaven?

Why not? Given this vision of Heaven and Hell, it's possible in principle.

I think not, usually Heaven or Hell are continuations of this life, if you, in this life, have struggled to be like God, to love Him, to pray to Him, to feast for Him, to abstain for Him, if you have cleansed yourself through confession and you have divinized yourself more and more with every eucharist, besides the grace of God which really makes it all then most likely God will reward you with Heaven, you will see Him as He really is, in full communion with Him, all the wishes of your life became true, you are finally perceiving God, you are finally seeing Him.

But, if people like you, who doubt of God, who despise His Word, who compare Him with every other idol, who think it's ridiculous to believe in Him, you will pereceive God as Hell, because you are not worthy of His love, and His love will make you suffer, because you chose in this life to become incompatible with Him.

What's wrong with doubt? Why would God be offended by sincere doubt? Why would that make someone unworthy of being loved and deserving of pain? There are people besides atheists who do not believe in the Christian God. They were born to a culture in which Christianity was rare or unheard of, and therefore they came to worship other gods. Why should they suffer for not having been exposed to the correct theology?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I guess I've become pretty unorthodox in my thinking. To me heaven and hell are states, not places.

I believe the Bible's strongest truth is found in its allegorical sense, and the allegoric sense, once uncovered, is even more rational and systematic than orthodox doctrine. Everything centers on truth--heaven is existence in a wholly true state, the concept found in the Gen account.

Hell is both a process and a state--it's an experience of spiritual death and rebirth from each "bit" of spiritual information, e.g., a process that takes place in essence, not matter. That process, though spiritual, is very much like (or bears an analogical and experiential relationship to) the physical act of being burned which is why there are so many references in Scripture to hellfire of one sort or another. Analogies are drawn from the physical to explain spiritual processes; it seems the physical realm models or represents the spiritual in some way.

Ultimately, hell as an experience is an act of love from God--it is the annihilation of false value from human essence and its simultaneous rebirth to a true state. Death and Resurrection resulting in restoration.

Though I've not tried to elaborate this, this view can extrapolate to a form of Christian pluralism where any person who believes in and conforms to Christ (Truth) is doing God's will. In this life we make it a club (believe in a particular man) while the big picture is to believe in Truth (Jn 14:6) to be saved, and lots of folks do that. When we don't we suffer hell, which replaces that value within us that hinders conformity with truth. The process is designed to work on all people.

 

[Wryetui]

I am not here to speak about other people, because I am not the one who will judge them, and since we have a fair God He will judge them by their conscience. Which one is your excuse? You have met the true God, can you compare to them? Which one will be your response when God will ask you why didn't you wanted His love? Will you say belief in Him wasn't logical? Will you criticize Him, Him being perfect and all-knowing, because He didn't reach to you?

 

[TillICollapse]

I cannot imagine wishing any sort of eternal suffering on someone. I can understand temporary types of punishment, but eternal, I cannot imagine wishing that on anyone or anything.

Having said that ... as a believer, please realize you are just one of millions who claim to have a belief and understanding about such things. There are lots of different versions that believers put forth of what may happen to a person when they die. Why should yours be considered over any other belief ?

If there is a "God" ... and that being has the ability to possibly cause someone to suffer for eternity (or allow it), then I would think knowing the truth would be important ... not just having a "belief" amongst millions of other beliefs, but knowing the truth of whether or not there is such a "hell". Most believers arguably believe they have the "truth" and can trace their reasoning back to tradition, apostolic succession, revelation either new or old, understanding of scriptures, etc. So again, why should yours be considered ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not here to speak about other people, because I am not the one who will judge them, and since we have a fair God He will judge them by their conscience. Which one is your excuse? You have met the true God, can you compare to them? Which one will be your response when God will ask you why didn't you wanted His love? Will you say belief in Him wasn't logical? Will you criticize Him, Him being perfect and all-knowing, because He didn't reach to you?

What would your response be if, in the afterlife, you encountered the God of a different religion?

 

[Wryetui]

That's an incomplete question, you have to give me the name of that supposed god and the requirements of atonement in that religion so we can see each case in particular, because the word "religion" is not like the word "blue", it has hundreds of meanings.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's an incomplete question, you have to give me the name of that supposed god and the requirements of atonement in that religion so we can see each case in particular, because the word "religion" is not like the word "blue", it has hundreds of meanings.

Suppose you encountered the God of Islam. What would your response be?

 

[Wryetui]

I cannot imagine wishing any sort of eternal suffering on someone. I can understand temporary types of punishment, but eternal, I cannot imagine wishing that on anyone or anything.

Having said that ... as a believer, please realize you are just one of millions who claim to have a belief and understanding about such things. There are lots of different versions that believers put forth of what may happen to a person when they die. Why should yours be considered over any other belief ?

If there is a "God" ... and that being has the ability to possibly cause someone to suffer for eternity (or allow it), then I would think knowing the truth would be important ... not just having a "belief" amongst millions of other beliefs, but knowing the truth of whether or not there is such a "hell". Most believers arguably believe they have the "truth" and can trace their reasoning back to tradition, apostolic succession, revelation either new or old, understanding of scriptures, etc. So again, why should yours be considered ?

Yes, my Church is one of those churches who can trace back to apostolic tradition and the times of Christ, the Oriental Orthodox have the same view of Hell like us and the roman-catholics share something similar, you see the co-relation for them being from the time of the apostles, but, none of the Protestant denominations can say the same. History speaks against them. They can claim to be the church of Christ, the true one as much as they want, but if they come from the 17th century, for example, how can that be possible?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, it depends. We have a fair God, how can you live a careless life, even insulting God and not believing in Him and when you die, after you see Him, you can be in Heaven? I think not, usually Heaven or Hell are continuations of this life, if you, in this life, have struggled to be like God, to love Him, to pray to Him, to feast for Him, to abstain for Him, if you have cleansed yourself through confession and you have divinized yourself more and more with every eucharist, besides the grace of God which really makes it all then most likely God will reward you with Heaven, you will see Him as He really is, in full communion with Him, all the wishes of your life became true, you are finally perceiving God, you are finally seeing Him.

But, if people like you, who doubt of God, who despise His Word, who compare Him with every other idol, who think it's ridiculous to believe in Him, you will pereceive God as Hell, because you are not worthy of His love, and His love will make you suffer, because you chose in this life to become incompatible with Him.

What is your view on people of other religions besides Christianity and hell?

Basically, 2/3 of the worlds population are not Christian. If a Hindu lives a good life of caring for others, are they doomed because they are not Christian?

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes, my Church is one of those churches who can trace back to apostolic tradition and the times of Christ, the Oriental Orthodox have the same view of Hell like us and the roman-catholics share something similar, you see the co-relation for them being from the time of the apostles, but, none of the Protestant denominations can say the same. History speaks against them. They can claim to be the church of Christ, the true one as much as they want, but if they come from the 17th century, for example, how can that be possible?

Yes many appeal to revelation, or true understanding (Sola Scriptura, etc), etc, not just succession and tradition or history only. So if someone believes they receive a revelation from God directly in any century for that matter, for example, then there you go. Or if they are appealing to their understanding of scripture, then they may appeal to what they believe Jesus actually meant, so on and so forth.

So amongst all these beliefs and claims, why choose one over the other ?

 

[Wryetui]

God is the one who judges, how can I say something about how He judges others? How can I talk about His decisions when I don't know them? The problem with atheism has always been on focusing more on what we don't have instead of what we have, so they remain empty on both sides, focusing on what we don't have is useless because we will never know it, and not focusing on what we have is useless because we close our eyes to what we should be watching.

If we, who are bad, because we are bad and rude, take care of other's people souls with questions like: "what will happen to them?" or "will they suffer?", showing pure love, how do you imagine God will behave with them, if He is the purest love ever existing?

 

[bhsmte]

God is the one who judges, how can I say something about how He judges others? How can I talk about His decisions when I don't know them? The problem with atheism has always been on focusing more on what we don't have instead of what we have, so they remain empty on both sides, focusing on what we don't have is useless because we will never know it, and not focusing on what we have is useless because we close our eyes to what we should be watching.

If we, who are bad, because we are bad and rude, take care of other's people souls with questions like: "what will happen to them?" or "will they suffer?", showing pure love, how do you imagine God will behave with them, if He is the purest love ever existing?

How do you know what you "have" and what you don't "have"?

 

[Wryetui]

Yes many appeal to revelation, or true understanding (Sola Scriptura, etc), etc, not just succession and tradition or history only. So if someone believes they receive a revelation from God directly in any century for that matter, for example, then there you go. Or if they are appealing to their understanding of scripture, then they may appeal to what they believe Jesus actually meant, so on and so forth.

So amongst all these beliefs and claims, why choose one over the other ?

Because I prefer to stick with the oldest one, the original one. All the sects, the denominations and the "churches" we see today cut themselves off of the Orthodox Church, the church from the beginning, the roman catholics and us were the same, we believed the same, the teachings from the very beggining and the establishments, but then the roman-catholics chose to separate from us, they went West adding more things, theology that was different from the original one, and we received the name of "orthodox" because we continued carrying on the teachings of the original church, of the beginning, unchanged. That's why I prefer to stick with my Church.

 

[Wryetui]

How do you know what you "have" and what you don't "have"?

What you have is all the christian teachings of every church in this earth, or not only christian teachings, but islamic teachings, hindu teachings, etc... I mean, the things that we can read or see. What you don't have are answers to the questions like "what does God do in His free time?" or "what was He doing before creating the universe" or "will God save those nice hindus?"

 

[bhsmte]

What you have is all the christian teachings of every church in this earth, or not only christian teachings, but islamic teachings, hindu teachings, etc... I mean, the things that we can read or see. What you don't have are answers to the questions like "what does God do in His free time?" or "what was He doing before creating the universe" or "will God save those nice hindus?"

Yes, we have a myriad of theologies and even many sects of beliefs within the same theology and that is a fact.

Now, I guess each person reviews the same and determines whether they are capable of reconciling any of those beliefs in their own mind.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What you have is all the christian teachings of every church in this earth, or not only christian teachings, but islamic teachings, hindu teachings, etc... I mean, the things that we can read or see. What you don't have are answers to the questions like "what does God do in His free time?" or "what was He doing before creating the universe" or "will God save those nice hindus?"

So what we do have is a collection of conflicting theological claims enshrined in ancient texts and revered by disparate traditions.

 

[TillICollapse]

Because I prefer to stick with the oldest one, the original one. All the sects, the denominations and the "churches" we see today cut themselves off of the Orthodox Church, the church from the beginning, the roman catholics and us were the same, we believed the same, the teachings from the very beggining and the establishments, but then the roman-catholics chose to separate from us, they went West adding more things, theology that was different from the original one, and we received the name of "orthodox" because we continued carrying on the teachings of the original church, of the beginning, unchanged. That's why I prefer to stick with my Church.

If you want to go "old and original", then why don't you go farther back ? Why not believe in the ancient Sumerian religions ? There are a lot of texts which survive from that era (cuneiform), perhaps even more than Judaeo-Christian texts (I'm guessing here) ... and it's often argued that much of the mythos and narrative of the Judaeo-Christian beliefs build upon the earlier Sumerian/Babylonian/Akkadian/etc ones anyways. So why not go even more ancient and earlier ?

Is Orthodox the dominant religion in your community by the way?