Heaven and Hell
As a Christian, the most difficult question that I need to ask myself is – ‘why hell?’ If I were to look at the Old Testament God I would be able to comprehend, for the old God is portrayed as a fear-inspiring, jealous and vengeful God. Even though he seems arbitrary in his issuance of the concept of ‘justice’ I feel more amicable towards this plain, realist concept of ‘might is right’ than the seemingly unaccounted for penalty of death in the New Testament.
If Christ was so forgiving even in his last moment towards the Roman guards who crucified, speared and humiliated him – “Father, please forgive them for they do not know what they are doing,” when they have obviously witnessed and defiled Him, why does he turned away from trillions of people who might have simply not given much thought to his Words or have rejected Him based on imperfect information? I always believed that God gave us a brain and thus we should use it. Since, the concept of God is obviously not falsifiable in any conceivable way, rational people (a breed whom he created along with the less rational ones) who have faith in science (which is but one of the many ways which allow us to study the wonder of his creation) would naturally conclude that it is a futile search and conclude at best that they do not know. If there were no compelling reasons to believe, other than a personal experience with God that follows after believing, how do rational people who have not believed convince themselves to do so?
The best explanation that I have heard in defense of the separation of believers and non-believers states that non-believers who rejected God would not delight in His presence and hence, it might be tormentous to put them in Heaven with God, for an expansive eternity. I buy that argument because I cannot imagine myself worshipping somebody whose cause I do not believe and whose rule I abhor. Nevertheless, akin to societies on earth, people do not always have to love their governments for them to want to obey the laws and for them to want to live in relative peace and comfort. I am pretty sure that there are tonnes of people who would prefer a long-lived tyrant to a lifetime of imprisonment in the depths of licking flames. Even if people would prefer to opt out of bible studies, Everyday (as opposed to Sunday) school and thanksgiving, I do not necessarily think that they have opted for hell by default. I think exclusion in the form of confinement or neglect would suffice as a form of segregation. Is there a need to really punish them FOREVER by placing them in the throes of licking flames and allowing their bones to be burned to an ashen white?
When I imagine almost 70% of the people whom I love burning in Hell for their failure to accept a set of belief that is pockmarked by unintelligible reasons, unbelievable crimes and unfathomable laws, I cannot will myself to accept that this belief issues the best possible Truth. I would choose to burn in Hell than serve a God who burns people I love endlessly because they have failed to love Him. A Father who professes to love me unconditionally and beyond ways I can comprehend, would find it impossible to burn the people whom I love more dearly than myself and yet be able to profess that at the very same time. It is a blatent double-think that prescribes two mutually exclusive conditions that ought not exist simultaneously under any logical circumstances. But perhaps, God does not use logic and he most definitely does not need to, he has other tools and rules and way of thinking that is higher than ours. Christianity is a rounded concept, and whenever you reach a logical dead-end like this, you only have one way out and that is called ‘the leap of faith’. The Leap requires that you drop your logical armament and proceed with an unassailable blind faith that would shield you against any atheist corruption. And herein lies another manifestation of my eternal antagonistic selves. I have leapt across the abyss of reason and yet as I walk on I realised that a boulder tied to me with an infinitely long rope has fallen off into the bottomless abyss. Amen.
Once again, such posts encourage me to make an appointment with you when I’m back to debate such issues. I do not claim to have all the answers, but believe that grounded discourse will help in shedding some light on the matter. Hope you are enjoying your holidays =)
Loris, that was fast. I’m always touched by your concern. =) This is an older entry from another blog I keep though, so technically I am not as angsty as I was before. Just wanted to bring it over cos this blog is better organised. =) But it’s true that I have been wanting to talk to you about some of these issues too, so I’m going to look forward to your return.
I have been reading through the O.T. lately, esp in Samuel and Kings, and I do notice God being more incompassionate if you will.
God did declare Jesus as Judge over humanity because Jesus was here and He done it. He would be the more appropriate one to Judge.
I believe the reason God was more compassionate in human form rather than as God in the O.T. was due to the nature of sin.
While God was in Heaven with nothing to keep Him from seeing our sin, He was full of rage. He about rid the earth of life several times.
But His compassion kept Him from that.
Once Jesus walked the earth, the sin was removed.
—-
But to go into “Why Hell?” God cannot allow Sin into Heaven. Sin is the disobedience of God. God has also got to follow His own rules. He has declared that Sin = Death. He paid for Sin when Jesus died. We have to accept that death and sacrifice our lives so to speak so that we can have eternal life.
Without that sacrifice and acceptance of Jesus’s death, we are lost as bad as the O.T. folks.
Since Jesus died, there was Abraham’s bosom, after Jesus brought forth the people from Abraham’s bosom, there is now only Heaven and Hell. Heaven to be with God and Hell which is the absence of God (originally made for Satan and his angelic followers) Since people with sin cannot by God’s own laws go to Heaven, they must go to Hell as they cannot really come back to life and they have to go somewhere..
That is my view on it.
Hi Jason, am not sure if you’re an evangelical bot that goes around replying to blog entries or a real person who has seen my post. In case you’re the latter, I shall make my responses here. =)
I might be wrong of course, but I think you have a few strange points.
1) God has got to follow His own rules. I think that it is somewhat inimical to the idea that God is omnipotent. If even God is circumscribed by his ‘own’ rules, then perhaps there exist some inherent good in the ‘rules’/laws that he dictate. If that is the case, then we should understand what is superior about these rules and why their universality exceeds even God’s omnipotence.
2) That because people with sin cannot by ‘God’s own laws go to Heaven, they must go to hell … because I quote, “they have to go somewhere”, I think I have addressed this point in my entry. That ’somewhere’ should not by default mean eternal damnation in the burning throes of hell. Surely there can be a less extreme way of segregation.
In any case, I think that the leap of faith is better than any rational argument that a christian apologist can mount. It preserves the beauty in the belief as well render it impervious to logic. =)
lemme try replying now that i’m in singapore! my previous attempts in london kept failing!
1. reverse causation is when the effect chronologically precedes the cause!
2. i didn’t know you’re a christian!!! :O
3. contradictions are impervious to logic too!
1. God is omnipotent is an Universal Statement by that effect wenz point is that its universality has failed.
3.Contradictions are not impervious to logic.
Contradictions fail logical rules.
heyy.. I acty cannot recall e context in w u used reverse causation, it’s for e entry on philosophy right? Are you gg to be ard in sg for long? If so, let’s meet up before u fly off to Beijing again? =] Well, you didn’t know cos I am only a christian in a pretty narrow sense o the word. =P And yea, I think contradictions can only be impervious to logic because we haven’t discovered the ‘logical’ rules which applies to them in their system. E.g. quantum physics.
hello! my life’s been in an utter mess i’d haf to meet u after beijing! :/
heyy.. don’t worry abt it.. js let me noe whn u’re free to meet.. haf a great time in beijing! =)
In Joshua’s mind,
Hell must exist because,
“Goodness is the absence of evil”-Augustine
“Light is the absence of Darkness”-Augustine
Thus if Good and Evil are not compatible and the presence of one signifies the absence of another.
Then technically speaking (if P is good)
P= -(-P)
or -P = – -(-P)
Because you can only define Goodness or ( in my logical extension) Heaven in terms of what is not there (Evil or Hell) then Hell must exist in order for Heaven to.
Also in Joshua’s mind,
if Knowledge cannot be gained through Science or its philosophical assumption of Episteme, then how should we acquire knowledge? Failing to provide a means to adequately acquire knowledge on the mysteries of God makes it redundant to discuss what God means to anyone.
Since
1. If we cannot be sure of knowledge, then the Devil could always be making up false knowledge for you to believe
2. you should therefore not trust anything.
3. Anyone could come up with his/her own conception of God and that would be really sinful cause you are merely making God in your Own Image, which totally breaks Commandment no 1
Next in Joshua’s mind,
Jesus did not come to offer Heaven.
Jesus came to take away the Sins of the World.
Heaven was never an end product of belief and neither should it be an aim for any Christian. Christians merely accept that they have found salvation in the death of christ and thus will rise with him on the last day. Rising to heaven remains a privilege. Christians do not have a special right or place or guarantee in heaven.
Lastly!
The leap of faith must be taken with absolute cautiousness, one may leap into oblivion and pass what philosophy can offer us.
Moreover, before you leap, the fundamental existentialist stance that there is no essence before existence must first be accepted and appreciated. Perhaps Sartre should have been placed before Kierkegaard.