Many times when I discuss religion with the religious, some form of Pascal’s Wager tends to come up. Frequently, the religious person will ask me where I think I will end up after I die. The implication of the question is typically that I will go to Hell to be tortured for all eternity. The religious person will then inform me that if I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, I will not be tortured for all eternity. To me, this sounds like a terroristic threat.
When I call attention to the threatening nature of the religious person’s insinuation that I will be tortured for all eternity (which is a surprisingly long time) if I don’t worship their deity, the believer backs off a little bit by shifting the blame on to their deity. They often insist that they aren’t threatening me, God is. They are just passively informing me about an eminent threat. But it really isn’t that simple. They aren’t just passively informing me about a necessary consequence to my action or in this case inaction, they are making a value judgment about that consequence.
The believer isn’t just warning me about Hell, they are making a claim that I deserve to be tortured for all eternity in Hell if I don’t worship their deity. It is this value judgment that I find so disturbing. To the believer, God can do no wrong and as a result the nature of the system which believers refer to as “God’s Justice” is not just some random cause and effect scenario, but rather they see it as the best and most perfect system. You would be hard pressed to find a Christian who is willing to stand up to their deity and denounce God’s divine justice as barbaric and immoral.
By contrast, any warning I give about the consequence of an on coming storm would be devoid of value judgments. If I were to warn someone about in imminent storm, it would be immoral to root for the storm and yet this is precisely what believers do when it comes to the eternal torture of Hell.
A closter analogy would be a bank robber who puts a gun to the head of the teller while his accomplice “warns” that if the teller refuses to hand over all the money the teller would get shot in the face. The accomplice insists that it isn’t a threat; it is just a natural consequence of the bank teller’s inaction. While this analogy is extremely violent, it isn’t nearly as violent as the religious assertion that non-believers will be and ought to be tortured for all eternity in Hell.
Fortunately, Hell is imaginary!
Please check out the Atheism 101 series for frequently asked topics
If you enjoy this article, please share the link on facebook, twitter, reddit, and others. Be notified by e-mail about the latest articles by the Philly Atheist Examiner using the "Subscribe” button at the top of the page. Also consider hitting the "like" buttons at the top of the page.
Comments
Nice article, good points!
For me the question is, "Why eternity?" What has god so angry that he has to torture you for eternity? A year, maybe... two tops: Does god have such an anger management problem that he can never be assuaged?
Some theists tell me that Hell is just the absence of God. That means instead of being french-fried for all eternity, you're merely sentenced to solitary confinement or dissolved entirely. Either way, ain't God's love grand?
On another note, I'm still trying to figure out what an "eminant storm" is. Would it be the kind that has a lot of prestigious degrees and testimonials framed on its wall?
Maybe you meant to write "immanent," eh?
I've always thought that if god were truly loving, then he would be into reincarnation. If you were to have gotten "life" so wrong that you couldn't go to heaven, then a "compassionate" father would simply make you do it again until you got it right.
Hell strikes me not so much about god but more about a human need for vengeance, in this case extreme vengeance.
Oops! That should be spelled "imminent."
:)
Fixed!
Yes some who claim to be Christian do say what you explain in the article. Unfortunately this denotes a very simplistic understanding of the theology that is put forward by the less informed Christian. More detailed erudition will be forthcoming.
Please see my Atheism 101 article of the "No True Scotsman" - http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-philadelphia/atheism-101-the-no-true-...
Hell is one of the first fear based marketing strategies I can think of. If you don't buy this product, you will suffer. So, scaring the hell out of people actually scares the hell into people. Think about it.
No human being can judge whether or not someone will ultimately end up in “hell”. Although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God. Only God can judge a man's soul.
I take issue with your imaginary God's justice system. It is immoral and as stated in the article, the threat of Hell amounts to a terroristic threat.
We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves.
Well, I can't love something that doesn't show evidence of his existence and has an immoral justice system. I can't love a being that demands worship under the threat of eternal torture. Thanks about it.
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
“Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us—that is, charity—necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
“When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery.”
I don't know if you know this but working on Saturday is a sin while rape is not. In fact, the whole working on Saturday thing is one of the top ten sins. Face it Vet, the your God is immoral. As for blasphemy, it is a victimless crime, ;-)
There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest." Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.
Vicarious redemption of wrongdoing is immoral and unjust.
Hell is only a threat if you believe in such a place .
Now if you tell me I must believe in your deity or you will do me harm .
You will be in the hospital ,not me !!!
A hospital is a real place ...
I don't think your really understood the argument here. I am not saying that I am threatened by Hell, but rather that when Christians talk about Hell, they are making a terroristic threat.
Typo - "closter analogy"
The very fact that Staks believes that as a single human being he is, or even has the capability to be, the ultimate judge of what is (un)just and/or (im)moral makes it impossible to take anything he has written, or even thought about, seriously.
So what you're saying is that you can't judge that rape and murder are morally wrong. Wow, I do believe that is the very definition of insanity. Please turn yourself over to a mental institution as soon as possible.
No, you missed the point. We both believe that rape and murder are morally wrong -- we differ in the basis for that belief.
What I am saying is that God has let me and countless others know in no uncertain terms that rape and murder are wrong and that He has the authority and the wisdom to declare that to those He created. Your basis is ......... what? Your opinion? Another human being's opinion? Humanity's collective majority opinion?
The point is that establishing the basis for an absolute morality is a difficult exercise when you declare there is no absolute authority.
Instead of addressing the issue of the article, you attempt to fall back on the old "moral grounding" argument. I address this in another article: http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-philadelphia/atheism-101-is-there-mor...
Ahh ... I see you can specify your name even without logging in or creating an account here. The last 2 posts by Anonymous were mine.
Is hell a threat? Nope......hell, that was easy. Should I explain, hell doesn't exist in my universe so the threat is just plain unreal. I'm not so sure it would scare me anyway, after all I'll be dead right?
I don't think your really understood the argument here. I am not saying that I am threatened by Hell, but rather that when Christians talk about Hell, they are making a terroristic threat.
As always, your articles are interesting... and I vehemently disagree with things you wrote, but that's to be expected if I'm a Christian, right?
"I will go to Hell to be tortured for all eternity." That's an interesting way of wording it. Perhaps a better way would be to say, "You will be separated from God and extremely unhappy" though there still is some debate as to whether its eternal or whether its for a defined period of time. Even if a person suffered for a defined period of time and then was no more, since God is immortal and those in Christ have eternal life, that would, in essence, make what the unbelievers have also a loss of eternity or an eternal punishment.
I already live without gods and I am pretty happy about that. The "Separation from God" argument just doesn't hold. interestingly enough, sin is defined the same way.
"they aren’t threatening me, God is." Perhaps we could say, God is warning everyone what the natural consequences of permanent rejection of Jesus Christ." Obviously you do not see it as a threat, because it does not frighten or worry you.
"they are making a claim that I deserve to be tortured for all eternity in Hell if I don’t worship their deity. It is this value judgment that I find so disturbing." I think you should have used the same wording that you did in the previous paragraph: Believers are telling you what the Bible says Jesus Christ has said about those who reject Him. And since we don't know if you will ever be saved or not we cannot say that you will certainly end up sadly separated from God for all eternity, so we say, "Those who reject Christ will end up there." but we don't know who those people will be.
"God’s divine justice as barbaric and immoral." For one, C.S. Lewis has argued that the gates of hell are barred from inside. He basically says that spending eternity in heaven with God for those who cannot stand God would be a "hell" of sorts for unbelievers... Thus they end up getting their wish to be left alone. Other theists have argued that what happens to unbelievers after this life is nothing more than a perpetual rejection of God, though He does exist, they simply still refuse to honor or acknowledge Him, or confess their sinfulness and need of His mercy; in essence they go on in miserable self-justification exile for all eternity.
Wow, I wish we could leave longer comments instead of having to break them up like this... sorry.
Here's another take on it from Jonathan Edwards America's best known early Theologian and Philosopher: "“Every crime or fault deserves a greater or lesser punishment, in proportion to the crime. If any fault deserves punishment, then the greater the fault, the greater the punishment. If there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful."
He goes on: "God is a being . . . of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; therefore he is infinitely honorable.... His authority over us is infinite, and His right to obedience is infinitely strong. He is infinitely worthy to be obeyed, and we have absolute, universal, and infinite dependence on Him. If there be any sin against God, it must be infinite evil . . . for it is a sin against an infinite being. And so it is an infinite evil . . . If people were guilty of only one sin, that sin is sufficient ground..."
I don't blame you for attempting to rationalize your way out of Hell-belief. It is pretty barbaric and immoral. But there is no real biblical support for your rationalization. If there is a place absent from your deity, then your deity isn't really a deity at all.
You even admit that you don't really buy into these rationalizations. You believe in a Hell because the Bible talks about Hell so much, but you try to find reasons to make Hell less of a bad place as described. Like I said, I don't blame you for this but you have to admit that you are pulling this stuff out of your ass or out of the asses of other people like yourself who were uncomfortable with the Biblical view of Hell.
Lastly, before you blast me:
In your storm analogy, however, you seem to pull a fast one, a red herring or a straw man, criticizing Christians as rooting for unbelievers to go to hell. Admittedly, Christians are humans and I expect some do wish their enemies to go to hell, many probably wish Hitler and Stalin and Bin Laden hell, but I doubt that any wish hell on anyone they witness to. I may be engaging you in your debate here, and I certainly believe in a hell in some form or other for those who reject Christ, but I certainly do not root for hell to come and overtake you or for you to die and experience a Christless eternity. Certainly not.
I expect many Christian believers would want to witness to you, many probably pray for you, and many probably love you as best they can... as I do.
We may vehemently disagree, but we do not need to hate one another.
Steve
I don't think you understood what I was saying here. Christians hold that non-believers DESERVE Hell... unless they become believers. So if I continue to reject belief in the Christian deity based on a lack of evidence, the Christian position would be that I would continue to deserve eternal torture. That is one of the rationalizations for "witnessing." But the fact remains that the system itself is immoral.
For one Christians hold that ALL OF US deserve hell, that includes we Christians, but by the grace of God in Christ He has rescued/ransomed us. I expect you understand that we do not exempt ourselves from it.
You can say "it is immoral" as much as you want, but by saying that it appears you are claiming a standard of morality that all are part of, that all are subject to, a standard that is above all of us, something that is non-material... Is this what you are saying?
What could have happened in our evolution that has made us so terrible that we deserve to tortured for eternity? It seems to me that we still have a lot of kinks to work out, but on the whole, we made some great steps forward in our evolution. Yes, we've behaved barbarously, but nobody gave us a manual. We've been working this out since we became able to reason.
If what you say is true, then your god should be in hell suffering right along with everyone else. In our society we would call what god intends to do... extreme child abuse.
Yes, I have blogged before about the dominant Christian view that all people are evil sinners but the heart of this issue is the terroristic threat of Hell. Stephen, you seem to be an educated person and as such I am sure you are aware that there is an entire field of Philosophy called "Ethics." Don't play stupid on me here. If you want to discuss moral grounding, I have written an Atheism 101 article on that topic already: http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-philadelphia/atheism-101-is-there-mor...
Stephen,
Here's the part I don't understand. If god is "omnipotent" and "omnipresent," how can there be a place where god does not exist? That would negate the argument that hell is just separation from god. In fact, if god were omnipresent, he would be there, in hell, watching the torture and watching his alleged children suffer.
That makes this hell thing even that much more barbaric.
Nothing exists without God sustaining it... and, yes, in essence, God is everywhere and everytime because He is infinite. If God does exist, which I believe He does, He is sustaining your life at this very moment, keeping your heart pumping, holding your molecules together, keeping the world spinning and revolving around the sun. Yet you are unaware of Him being there. If you were all alone on a desert isalnd somewhere for years and years and years (think "Castaway") chances are you would end up miserable, although God would certainly be present and there as well. Same could be said for "hell".
I pray you don't find out how horrible it will be, Ben.
Is that a threat, Ben? I believe it is.
I think you're right, Staks, it's one of those thinly veiled threats, but a threat nonetheless.
Staks, are you being serious with the comment “...rather that when Christians talk about Hell, they are making a terroristic threat, or is this hyperbole? I don't believe you to be serious. I'm sure you know what terroristic threats entail? Terrorism definition: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Again, I believe I addressed this issue in the article. Thanks.
Staks, elaborate what is meant by “...immoral justice system.”
RE: ..."I can't love a being that demands worship under the threat of eternal torture. Thanks about it.”
God does not demand us to worship him. We have free will to do as we please however there can be repercussions to our actions. For example, I can choose to drink and drive however this could lead to a serious car crash.
God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him." “Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts."
Again, I believe I addressed this issue in the article. Thanks.
RE: I don't know if you know this but working on Saturday is a sin while rape is not. In fact, the whole working on Saturday thing is one of the top ten sins. Face it Vet, the your God is immoral. As for blasphemy, it is a victimless crime, ;-)”
Huh? Are you serious? How did you come to this notion? Well, assuming you really believe this my response will be forthcoming.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!