Hellish Dogmas Full of Foolishness
Christians who defend the doctrine of endless torture routinely fail in their attempts to show how the whole span of Scripture supports it conclusively. But even if we can find a stray verse here and there that appears to teach the doctrine, does that seal up the traditional argument? I say it most certainly does not.
There are larger issues to consider than just "this verse teaches this" and "this verse teaches that." Such principles as the benevolence of the Creator, His desire to redeem His erring creatures, His perfections (which must rule out cruelty and excessive punishment).
"But a punishment of infinite duration is not excessive," says the traditionalist, "because we are sinning against an infinite Being." Yes, but we are finite. Our sin occupies the span of no more than a century (usually much less). How much sin can a person pack into a single human life to justify trillions and trillions of years -- rolling on in endless succession -- filled with nothing but ghastly punishment? Is this reasonable? An eternity of punishment for sins committed within a fleeting block of time?
Imagine that Congress were to pass a federal law mandating dismemberment and death over a slow fire as the punishment for speeding on all interstate highways. Of course, such a penalty would be incredibly out of proportion to the wrong committed and would draw universal revulsion. But this doesn't begin to compare with traditionalism's infinite sentence for sins committed in a finite span on earth. Burning for such a duration that even the life span of all the stars in the universe would be a trifling blip, all this is supposed to come from the hand of a God whose "mercy endures forever."
Add to this the fact that humans all enter this world with a bent toward doing what is wrong, a bent allegedly handed down from an ancient ancestor, and the difficulties assume astronomical proportions. Not one of us is capable of living a life free of sin -- we just flat-out can't do it. And so humans receive this horrific punishment for failing to avoid the inevitable. Does that accord with any rational person's sense of justice?
Suppose a country made it a law that every resident walk 20 miles once a year, and that failure to do so would merit a swift execution. We would assume that, no matter how backward and depraved such a culture might be, it must make exceptions for people incapable of walking: the sick, the lame, the infirm. But no, even they must make the trek -- inability exempts no one. Can you fathom the worldwide condemnation of such standards of justice? And yet, this outrage is the very standard millions of Christians impute to the perfect, benevolent Father. His creatures can't live a life free of sin, even if they honestly desire it; and yet, an eternity of torture is considered just deserts for such poor creatures.
Rational Christians know that this idea clashes with our inner sense of rectitude. They deal with the discomfort in a number of ways. Some steel their hearts with cruel dogmas so that all sympathy ebbs away, freeing them from the struggle. They speak with icy exactitude about original sin, total depravity, judicial hardening, reprobation, even infant damnation. Accordingly, any erstwhile tenderness toward their fellow men has all but crusted over. The sentiment from such people is plain as it is ugly: "If God has predestined them to hell, then that's where I want them. And if you have a problem with that, you just don't love the truth."
Others deal with the inner conundrum in the opposite manner. They paper over the doctrine, despite their claims of accepting it. The traditional hell never comes up in conversation, in sermons, in any of their literature. People all around them are going down to perdition every day, but they don't seem to notice: the church potlucks go on as usual. These tenderer Christians employ the popular euphemism "eternal separation from God" -- rhetoric that doesn't grate on the moral sensibilities the way Jonathan Edwards' language does. They also say silly things like, "God doesn't send anyone to hell, people send themselves there." But that impotent effort to get God off the hook still leaves us with billion of humans convulsing in agony, world without end (just as Dr. Edwards would affirm).
"Yes, it's horrible, but this glorifies God's justice," I hear some people say. An omnipotent Being shutting up weak creatures in hell forever because they couldn't do what they by nature were incapable of doing: You call that a glorification of justice?? If I were to torture mice to demonstrate my vast superiority over them and their wretchedness in my sight, would anyone be impressed? Would anyone NOT condemn me for it?
If this really is at the heart of Christian teaching, then it's no wonder that people shun Christianity. And I don't blame them. But, happily, an increasing number of Christian believers are dissenting from the hellfire of "old-time religion." May their tribe increase.
