An Outside Perspective
These aren't the best answers, I admit, and I'm not a Christian, but:
• Why do you believe that God feels there is a need to torture people in hell for eternity- for things that they had done on earth in a body that makes it very easy for them to sin in the first place?
I believe it's doctrinal. See
Matthew 25.32-46, for instance.
I would also note that it's not always the proposition that the body makes it very easy to sin. To the one, the
rules themselves can be described as problematic, such as Christ's standard of adultery (
Matthew 5.32). To another, there are
some faithful who believe the Fall of Man at Eden was preordained; I don't have a copy of it on hand to quote directly, but there is a "Bible paraphrase" called
The Clear Word, written by Dr. Jack Blanco, that transforms
Genesis 3.22-23—
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"—therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
—into an explanation by the Father to the Son that what happened was part of the Plan.
Obviously, neither of those points are definitive, and in truth I can't say how widespread Blanco's theology is; I do know it was controversial within his own church.
• Why is there a chance for repentance on earth but not in the afterlife?
Prevailing belief, I think. Some scattered considerations:
• When I was a child, someone taught a friend of mine that one could pray their way out of Hell. Maybe it was something to curb the nightmares after the scary stories unsettled the kids. I don't know; I have no idea where that one comes from.
• The theological record of Christianity includes "
The Harrowing of Hell", which K. M. Warren described in 1910 as:
... the Old English and Middle English term for the triumphant descent of Christ into hell (or Hades) between the time of His Crucifixion and His Resurrection, when, according to Christian belief, He brought salvation to the souls held captive there since the beginning of the world."
• Again, I'm pressed for a citation, as it's been several years since I read through the material, but there is a proposition that only humans can learn and evolve. Or, rather, the
angels cannot. From that proposition, one might postulate the difference between the material and the spiritual, such that once transformed to a spiritual state—i.e., redeemed or condemned—one can no longer learn and evolve. Certainly, in some depictions of Heaven or Redemption, this is the case, as the redeemed become one with the total perfection of God. While nothing in that demands that a certain variant or corollary be true—e.g., that souls in Hell cannot learn and evolve—I can certainly see the intuitive attraction.
Again, I would disclaim that these aren't the best answers; one should not construe them in any context as a definitive assertion. But we must also remember that, when it comes down to
vernacular faith, very little is scripturally or doctrinally pure.
In that context, we might recall the paternalistic aspects of Christianity; God the father, Jesus' appeal at Gethsemane to "Abba" (Daddy), and so on. There comes a point when parents reject the apologies and appeals of their children, very frequently
after punishment for wrongdoing has been demanded. "I'm sorry!" doesn't always stop the spankings. It doesn't always get the child a shorter grounding term. It doesn't always get the game console back.
• Why do you believe God set it up for anyone to go to hell at all?
I have nothing useful to offer toward that at this time.
Thus disclaimed, some suggest politics. In this context, I recommend Elaine Pagels'
The Origin of Satan, which is subtitled, "How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics". The book examines the development of the Gospels, and presupposes the theoretical
Quelle or Q-source asserted to underpin the synoptic books. Its overarching theme is to demonstrate how
historical circumstances lent to the characterization of the Devil, alternately in the Jews, from whom the Christians splintered; then the pagans, in facilitating their conversion to Christianity; and ultimately in fellow Christians, asserting diabolical heresy. Even setting aside the question of the Q-source, it is a compelling historical overview of the Gospels.
Yet even that is insufficient, as prior to the period of Christ, there evolved an apocalyptic movement among the Hebrews that includes the myth of Satan's fall, seemingly making something like Hell a necessity.
• Why not just learn lessons on earth and gain growth from them, if one so chooses- instead of punishing a person for an eternity for having done things that might go against his "commands"? I mean why not just live and let live?
Not being of the faith, I will forego this question, for while I might speculate some about history, it would be inappropriate to apply such speculation to people who are capable of answering for themselves insofar as they are, in fact, presently alive.
• What about any of this/hell seems like unconditional love to you? Could you think of an alternative other than hell? If so what?
Again, I cannot answer this question, though I would note here—since I should probably note somewhere—that I have encountered an argument from Christian faith that there is no such thing as Hell. This looks to the eternal fire as the "second death", a form of annhilation. That is, the fire might burn eternally, but the soul is consumed, and thus forever denied any chance of finding union with God.
• Would you set it up for your child to live in a closet and torture them in a painful manner for not obeying or believing as you'd want them to? Don't you feel that is what God has done by setting it up for others to go to hell?
Not being of the faith, this is another question I cannot answer directly, though I would suggest that it comes back, at some point and to some degree, to vernacular faith. I'm not certain it would be fair to presume that every member of the corpus Christi has given reasonable—or, indeed,
any—consideration to the question. To the other, that's also a fine reason to ask the question.
But some
apparent paradoxes or contradictions in a faith construction can be explained—though not necessarily reconciled—by what seems a safe presumption that not everyone has stopped to think about that point.
All of which, of course, reminds that there is only limited utility in someone like me trying to address these questions for you in the sense of actually answering and resolving the apparent contradictions you suggest.
Heart said:
I'd like to hear an answer other than, "Well because he's God he can do these things" Okay, so the Biblical God has the power to do those things--but why would a loving God use such barbaric, unloving, brutal ways and why are those ways okay to you? How do you justify them?
If you wouldn't want to be raised by someone like that, marry someone like that, vote for a president who is like that then why would you believe and dedicate your life to a God like that?
I do not wish to leave the impression that I'm ignoring these issues, but as an infidel I am unable to offer an answer from faith.
Some critics—perhaps cynics—might suggest that the problem is one of faith. One accepts certain assertions and characterizations on faith. And it is not necessarily appropriate for
faith to question. That is, if one accepts that God, as such, is the ultimate reality, then that reality is what it is. Thus, while our human perspective might suggest there is a contradiction between love and eternal punishment, we are not God. We are not the ultimate reality. On faith, we are to accept that one thing equals another, insofar as if we had God's perspective then it would all make sense.
There is a Hebrew tradition of the Shekinah, which would be the bottom circle on the Tree of Life, except that once upon a time something happened that caused this particular sephiroth to shatter. In this Hebrew tradition, we all who exist in Malkuth—the Kingdom—carry within ourselves a fragment of the Shekinah, and when we all return our shards, that the Shekinah might be whole again, the glory and unity of God will become apparent, and the sinful differentiation of the Universe that compels our animal needs be reconciled into a totality or divine harmony. The restoration of the Shekinah will make God's perfection manifest, as the word itself is derived from the Hebrew
shakan (שָׁכַב), a verb pertaining to settling, dwelling, or residing.
It is not a doctrinal tradition, as I understand it. I can find those who would assert that Shekinah and Malkuth are synonymous. The tradition I describe is somewhat sectarian, descending from the controversial Isaac Luria as a Qabalistic theory developed in the sixteenth century.
____________________
Notes:
Weigle, Luther A., et al. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. Second edition. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. Quod.Lib.UMich.edu. June 27, 2011. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
Blanco, Jack. The Clear Word. Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000.
Warren, Kate Mary. "Harrowing of Hell". The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. NewAdvent.org. June 26, 2011. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07143d.htm
Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1995.
See Also:
Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.
