The existence of hell is a claim that conservative Christians (and other religions) assert to instill the notion that sinners would languish from eternal fire and be punished for all the immoral acts that that they have committed. In reality, the existence of hell remains questionable as several arguments about the evil and the eternal fire are inconsistent and lacks clear evidence to prove such. Even theologians and religious people continue to debate on the existence of evil and hell because of the contradictions on the notion of God’s true attributes. Although opposing views state that hell is non-existent, I still argue that it is impossible that God would consign anyone to the fires of hell because of evil acts, regardless if hell is either existent or non-existent.
The problem of hell remains one of the most controversial ethical issues that needs to be further understood, and at the same time, disputed. Traditional doctrine of hell describes hell as atrocious and ghastly, compared to heaven’s tranquil and serene description. According to tradition, there are only two places where persons would go to when they die: either in heaven or hell. However, there are no clear reasons on why the person would end up in heaven or hell (Buckareff and Plug 39). The traditional notion about the hell is eternal punishment. Unbelievers and sinners would remain in the fires of hell as an end to their evil acts (Baker n.p). These sinners would remain in hell forever while the good ones would ascend to heaven, which is far more superior than is hell. Religions that believe in the concept of afterlife and the justice that God would impose continue to search for answers on whether some persons would be sent to hell (Buckareff and Plug 39).
Biblically, the images of hell have surfaced in various scriptures such as in Isaiah where “the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against God, for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be abhorrence to all flesh” (Ragland n.p.). According to Gospel of Mark, Jesus described hell as the place where the sinners’ worms, “never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Ragland n.p.). Based on Matthew’s Gospel, those who did not care for the least of Jesus’ family will be eternally punished in the eternal fire of devils and angels. In addition, there are will be darkness, “weeping, and gnashing of teeth” (Ragland n.p.). On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke states that no one can escape hell once consigned there (Ragland n.p). Even the Qur’an describes hell as a “prison-house” where unbelievers and sinners remain forever to recompense for all the sins. The sinners will be burned to taste the “divine wrath” (Ragland n.p).
Ragland has also explained that psychologically, the hell is a place of physical torment and languishes, and where sinners are punished and tortured. The symbols and metaphors of psychological suffering reflect on fire, darkness, and pain (n.p).
In addition, God will annihilate the damned. Once the sinner would be placed in hell, God will execute the annihilation and the person would never exist and be eternally gone. Annihilationist believes that this is God’s way of expressing for them: through retributive punishments (n.p.).
These gruesome images of hell are contradictory to various claims about God that is existent, merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate (Baker n.p; Buckareff and Plug 40).
Objection
On the one hand, there is a strong objection that hell is existent and that there is no reprieve for sinners because God imposes justice and truth to mankind. Kvanvig explains that there is hell and it is a form of punishment for people who are judged to have sinned and some people are sent there and no one would be able to escape for eternity (n.p). Sinners would perish and be destroyed; some of them would be annihilated if not awarded with immortal life, while some would be given conditional mortality (Afterlife n.p).
The Roman Catholic itself teaches that Hell is a place where sinners and unbelievers are punished because of the person’s denial of faith (CCC n.p). This teaching is supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that the Church affirms hell’s existence and its eternal nature. “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC n.p).
In order to support this argument, traditional supporters of the hell doctrine propose that God is above everyone and therefore, post-mortem reconciliation would not be possible because God can do or would do every righteous means to human beings (Buckareff and Plug 48).
In addition, some people do not maintain a relationship with God. Some do not desire not to be faithful to God, or even prepared to let go of their rational ability, and this can also be expected in the afterlife. There is no place, therefore, for those who choose not to maintain a relationship to the omnipotent and omniscient God than in hell. Because they do not share God’s intentions in the world, they are unwilling to pursue and promote a primary purpose (Buckareff and Plug 49).
Salvation is also mentioned in many scriptures of the bible and explained heaven and hell as a post-mortem result. Theists believe in God’s being as a dignified god, and therefore any immoral acts may warrant punishments commensurate to the wrongdoing of the person. In the essence, the person’s evil acts deserve punishment to please God and to glorify his infinite dignity.
Nevertheless, the premise about the problem of hell should be viewed based on the notion about God’s character. While the bible offers vivid, often metaphoric descriptions of afterlife, judgment day, heaven, and the hell, it must be noted that other views about God’s character destroys the integrity of His character. In essence, God does impose on His people; instead, offers alternative means to exercise their free will to respond to God’s compassionate efforts (Kvanvig, n.p).
A clear objection on traditional opponents’ view that God does not offer redemption to sinners is that the ability of human beings to redeem and offer forgiveness to their fellowmen. Family members forgive each other whenever anyone of them commits mistakes. If humans themselves forgive and accept the transgressions of their fellowmen, why can’t God also forgive them? Even within the justice system, criminals are given the opportunity to undergo rehabilitation and reintegration.
Reply
In Baker’s article in The Huffington Post, hell must be razed because of the following arguments:
God does not avenge nor showcase His power. His aim is to save everyone.
The doctrine of hell fosters eternal hopelessness.” Suffering in hell denies every soul of any chance of forgiveness, healing and redemption. This concept also denies the person of God’s compassion.
The concept of hell is infinite, while the bible says otherwise. According to the bible, God will abrogate the evil and all the people on judgment day would be reunited to Him.
Hell fosters contradictions between justice and love. The concept of hell denies the rightful way of serving justice and promotes a picture of God who punishes, torturous, and unforgiving. It also leads to wrath and considers punishment as a righteous act.
Hell describes a violent God who is ever-willing to punish unbelievers eternally.
The concept of hell also fosters an eternal punishment for sins committed at one point in the person’s lives (n.p.).
These points raised by Baker puts into question the concept of afterlife. Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that there is afterlife and that the quality of life spent while living would be commensurate to the life after death (Buckareff and Plug 39).
Another strong objection to the claim about the existence of hell is the propagation of various religious groups that they are righteous ones. Discrimination among religious minorities is evident in all parts of the world. The act of discrimination itself by proponents claiming to be Christians, is unjust and unloving, and most of all, immoral.
Hell is a merely a product of the notion promoted by conservatives and traditionalists that everyone must be moral and any immoral act is evil and therefore punishable. Theists agree that it is undisputable that God is morally perfect and therefore, his acts are just and loving. Certain things mentioned are true and since God’s character can be described as such, it is motivated by His desires and other pro-attitudes that support His character. God does not, therefore, act unjust and unloving. This premise is supported by Jews, Christians, and Muslims (Buckareff and Plug 42). Again, a practical example of this is how human beings treat each other especially when one has sinned to one another. Parents’ usually forgive their children who have sinned against them, and so as friends who have encountered indifferences. Even philandering husbands are forgiven by their wives. J.R. Lucas explains that God forgives people who are asks for forgiveness. It is a form of gift, a gift of divine grace for the worthy ones. God has a continuous desire to renew and restore His relationship with people, and therefore, He provides an avenue for people to work on their relationship with Him (Lucas 84). Baker adds that the image of God as merciful, forgiving, and compassionate is contradicted and does not genuinely promote the very essence of the Gospel.
Conclusion
Given the above premises, the argument that the hell is non-existent is strong. For theists who believe that the attributes of God is morally just and loving, He would never create a space where everyone would languish through eternity. The concept of hell introduces a powerful, unforgiving, and unloving God contrary to what the Church, theologians, and religious imbibe to people. It also introduces a rigid concept of justice since disputes the forgiveness rendered by humans for sins committed against them. Indeed, the concept of hell denies both believers and non-believers to live in a world created by an omnipotent and omniscient being where everyone can enjoy their freedom, and exercise their morality on their actions.
Works Cited
Afterlife. “What is Conditional Mortality?” Afterlife. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.
Baker, Sharon. “The Problem with Hell.” HuffPost Religion. Web. 27 Aug. 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-l-baker-phd/why-i-want-to-raze-hell_b_692924.html
Buckareff, Andrei and Allen Plug. “Escaping hell: divine motivation and the problem of hell.” Religious Studies. UK: Cambridge University Press. 2005. Print
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1997 Print
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. “The Problem of Hell.” USA: Oxford University Press. 1993. Print
Lucas, J.R. “Forgiveness in his Freedom and Grace” MI: Grand Rapids. 1976. Print
Ragland, C.P. “Hell.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. n.d. http://www.iep.utm.edu/hell/
