![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ross Douthat weighs in on the question that has been making the rounds in Christian circles these days, whether Hell is real?
_ _ _
Atheists have license to scoff at damnation, but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices. If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either. They’re like home runs or strikeouts in a children’s game where nobody’s keeping score.
In this sense, a doctrine of universal salvation turns out to be as deterministic as the more strident forms of scientific materialism. Instead of making us prisoners of our glands and genes, it makes us prisoners of God himself. We can check out any time we want, but we can never really leave.
The doctrine of hell, by contrast, assumes that our choices are real, and, indeed, that we are the choices that we make. The miser can become his greed, the murderer can lose himself inside his violence, and their freedom to turn and be forgiven is inseparable from their freedom not to do so.
As Anthony Esolen writes, in the introduction to his translation of Dante’s “Inferno,” the idea of hell is crucial to Western humanism. It’s a way of asserting that “things have meaning” — that earthly life is more than just a series of unimportant events, and that “the use of one man’s free will, at one moment, can mean life or death ... salvation or damnation.”
If there’s a modern-day analogue to the “Inferno,” a work of art that illustrates the humanist case for hell, it’s David Chase’s “The Sopranos.” The HBO hit is a portrait of damnation freely chosen: Chase made audiences love Tony Soprano, and then made us watch as the mob boss traveled so deep into iniquity — refusing every opportunity to turn back — that it was hard to imagine him ever coming out. “The Sopranos” never suggested that Tony was beyond forgiveness. But, by the end, it suggested that he was beyond ever genuinely asking for it.
Is Gandhi in hell? It’s a question that should puncture religious chauvinism and unsettle fundamentalists of every stripe. But there’s a question that should be asked in turn: Is Tony Soprano really in heaven?
-- Ross Douthat for The New York Tiimes
_ _ _
It doesn't address my own point. Which is not that Hell would not be an appropriate place for some twisted souls. Remember I use the example of Hitler. My problem is with the idea that this horrendous punishment should be eternal.
A few thousand years in the lake of fire may not be so out of place for a Hitler or even your more garden-variety serial killer, but an eterntiy of such torture can begin to seem beyond any reasonable conception of justice. And, again, it's not like they would then have to be permitted into Heaven after their little roasting, but can simply burn off eventually into oblivion or absolute nothingness.
This would still give real bite to the issue of free will, without throwing into question the morality of our Christian coneption of God.
_ _ _
Atheists have license to scoff at damnation, but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices. If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either. They’re like home runs or strikeouts in a children’s game where nobody’s keeping score.
In this sense, a doctrine of universal salvation turns out to be as deterministic as the more strident forms of scientific materialism. Instead of making us prisoners of our glands and genes, it makes us prisoners of God himself. We can check out any time we want, but we can never really leave.
The doctrine of hell, by contrast, assumes that our choices are real, and, indeed, that we are the choices that we make. The miser can become his greed, the murderer can lose himself inside his violence, and their freedom to turn and be forgiven is inseparable from their freedom not to do so.
As Anthony Esolen writes, in the introduction to his translation of Dante’s “Inferno,” the idea of hell is crucial to Western humanism. It’s a way of asserting that “things have meaning” — that earthly life is more than just a series of unimportant events, and that “the use of one man’s free will, at one moment, can mean life or death ... salvation or damnation.”
If there’s a modern-day analogue to the “Inferno,” a work of art that illustrates the humanist case for hell, it’s David Chase’s “The Sopranos.” The HBO hit is a portrait of damnation freely chosen: Chase made audiences love Tony Soprano, and then made us watch as the mob boss traveled so deep into iniquity — refusing every opportunity to turn back — that it was hard to imagine him ever coming out. “The Sopranos” never suggested that Tony was beyond forgiveness. But, by the end, it suggested that he was beyond ever genuinely asking for it.
Is Gandhi in hell? It’s a question that should puncture religious chauvinism and unsettle fundamentalists of every stripe. But there’s a question that should be asked in turn: Is Tony Soprano really in heaven?
-- Ross Douthat for The New York Tiimes
_ _ _
It doesn't address my own point. Which is not that Hell would not be an appropriate place for some twisted souls. Remember I use the example of Hitler. My problem is with the idea that this horrendous punishment should be eternal.
A few thousand years in the lake of fire may not be so out of place for a Hitler or even your more garden-variety serial killer, but an eterntiy of such torture can begin to seem beyond any reasonable conception of justice. And, again, it's not like they would then have to be permitted into Heaven after their little roasting, but can simply burn off eventually into oblivion or absolute nothingness.
This would still give real bite to the issue of free will, without throwing into question the morality of our Christian coneption of God.
