There has been an extremely interesting discussion going on across the country as of late; its about the existence of hell.
Although primarily a discussion about the Christian concept of Hell, it think it is an extremely important discussion, one that wouldn't have begun without an Evangelical preacher named Robert Bell. A growing controversial figure, he's become famous for his "hip" look as a preacher wearing more than tight clothing, even, jeans! (HOW DARE HE!) His cool look and young attitude has gained him a very youthful crowd, and one willing to listen to his preaching.
Earlier this year, Mr. Bell wrote a new best-seller book titled "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived." In it, he challenges modern Evangelical (and Christian) beliefs in Hell (some have called him a heretic). The idea of the book came from his church of 7,000 goers, where the preacher stresses discussion among the people about the faith instead of religious dogma. Since then, he's gained even more attention when TIME Magazine put him on the front of their cover with the question: Does Hell Exist? Meanwhile, the Magazine has listed him in their annual TIME 100 most influential people in the world.
The questions that the pastor raises are important ones; ones that began during an art exhibit in his church. The pastor writes about it in his book:
An artist in the show had included a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi. Hardly a controversial touch, one would have thought. But one would have been wrong.
A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: "Reality check: He's in hell." Bell was struck.
Really? he recalls thinking.
Gandhi's in hell?He is?We have confirmation of this?Somebody knows this?Without a doubt?And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?
The experiences poses important questions: Is Gandhi in Hell? How do we know? What is it based on? Does Hell even exist?
Traditional religious teachings from the three Abrahamic religions strongly believe and warn of some form of hell (though there are variations from the Christian Hell). Other religions don't include hell, but an endless cycle of reincarnation until you reach Nirvana, or simply no end of life at all.
I would highly recommend you read the TIME magazine coverage of the discussion here. I've come to think that the idea of hell is inseparable from any belief system and I'm not the only one.
Regardless of how this place of punishment is described, there is one thing in common: it is used as an enforcement tool. Religion without a place for punishment isn't much of a religion because there is no way to enforce consistency in belief and also no form justice system.
What happens to the mass murders? Straight to heaven? Probably not. To the adherents of the faith? (depending on the belief) Sure, they have a ticket to some kind of heaven. Without Hell, there is no incentive through fear of burning for all eternity, to not have sex before marriage, fight yourself from being gay, not masturbate, drink or eat pork (depending on the faith). Yet nothing is black and white; the gray area comes with the Gandhi question and its a question that needs to be answered.
Gandhi spent his entire life working for justice, freedom, and improving the lives of so many, but because of his own divine beliefs, he's not in heaven. In fact, he's being punished for his beliefs on earth. This is where the Pastor is so shocked. Gandhi? Well then, what of Aung San Sui Kyi? The peace driven Dalai Lama? Malcolm X? The freedom activists in the Middle East? and the endless list of non-Christians who've made the world a better place and helped their fellow humans in good deeds?
This doesn't just apply to the Christian idea of Hell. What of Judaism? Islam (although I think Islam's idea of heaven is far more accepting of more people from personal knowledge). But if you think that is the extent of our exploration, you'd be wrong. We have to take a step deeper, and one I have been thinking about for sometime. Gandhi is burning in hell because, although he did great deeds for his fellow man, he (supposedly) believed in the wrong god. If you have the personal belief that perhaps Gandhi is actually in Heaven (despite thousands of years of religious doctrine that Hell exists for those that don't accept Jesus as their Savior, or Allah as the only God, or Vishnu as the Destroyer of the World) the remains question: Why is a belief in any of the divine beings mandatory for our acts to be judged well and rewarded? Isn't the act itself moral? Or is it such when someone believes in the higher being? Is an act only moral when it has the blessing by a holy book? When an atheist helps his neighbor, why isn't that considered a good act? The fact is, the act IS good, especially considering that many a holy books advocate for very immoral behavior.
If there is a God, there must be a heaven, and also a hell. Religion and faith can never be separated from the idea of hell because without some form of punishment, what is my incentive to believe in any of the Gods? I can do whatever I want without having to worry about being punished since we are all going to Heaven someday.
It is a tough relationship, and one that really needs to be discussed further. Robert Bell's stance has forced the discussion to us all, but his position is dangerous for religion. He doesn't explicitly say that hell doesn't exist, but he does say that our idea of what happens after earth is just speculation (some choose to talk about that speculation further). If his speculation leads to less of a stress of hell, religion's enforcer is lost and overtime, its adherents. What do you think? Must hell exist for religion to stay solvent? Can it exist without it? Are acts considered moral by a God? or are they moral per se?
No comments:
Post a Comment