The concept of “Hell”, as a realm of eternal torment for sin has always struck me as a complete contradiction to the concept of a benevolent God that wanted to prevent humanity from Hell. Sure, there is the idea that people send themselves to Hell, but what this fails to take into account is what exactly brings people to Hell in the first place, the concept of “sin”. Sin is often, at least in my experience, described as falling short of the moral perfection of God. Given the whole theology of humans as inherently sinful being, having a less than divine nature would constitute that humans are hell bound from birth. And who set these standards? God. Where they agreed to by mankind as individuals? No, not at all.
So it essentially boils down to the idea that a person is to be punished for basically being human. Not necessarily for the actions or inactions they took in life, but for the basic, unchangeable quality of our status as non-divine beings, as being an inherently fallible human is an eye sore to God, which, by definition, is an inherently perfect being, applying the standards it sets for itself upon creations it know have no chance to living up to on its own. If such a being truly exists, then it is not possibly benevolent, as it is penalizing in the greatest degree, its creations for something they have no ability to change since it finds the nature of its creations to be “displeasing”.
I would also take issue with the concept of how a lack of faith would condemn a person to Hell. It is the very emphasis on the importance of a vaguely defined requirement that serves to somewhat call into question the divinity of God. Firstly, a divine being, as such, if truly perfect, is probably not negatively or positively affected by veneration, and odds are that it does not require worship for its existence. Worship, in this sense, is more of an unnecessary ego gratification than anything else. And if it truly does need the worship, then it would imply that mortal beings have power over this entity, and thus, it is not as “divine” as previously though in the sense it transcends the restraints of mortal existence.
Secondly, the whole requirement, “having faith”, is vague. Faith in what? Does simply believing in the existence of a God constitute “having faith”? One can believe in the existence of a God, but consider it to be a monster or apathetic. On the other hand, faith in what god or goddess? Is it enough to believe in a divine being? “Having faith”, doesn’t even state what to have faith in as per that statement. Would having faith in one’s self constitute the possession of that quality, “faith”? It comes back to what is “faith”, and what is meant by “having faith”. In this, the Abrahamic faiths all agree in a centrally shared deity to have “faith” in, but what of the actions tied to “having faith”? Does this imply there is a specific life style that must be adhered to? All three of the Abrahamic faiths find “faith” to be important, even necessary in many cases, but disagree on doctrinal issues, articles of faith, life styles (such as monastic traditions), etc. Why would a divine being, with humanity’s best interests in mind, bother with requiring its creations to “have faith”, when the whole definition and implementation of that phrase is so vague and disagreed upon routinely? Doesn’t this penalize humanity for again, being non-omniscient beings? Further, the phrase “have faith”, implies that “faith”, is a choice one makes. It’s like saying you can one day simply wake up one day, having no faith in anything outside of what you recognize as “reality”, then at a whim, change your entire view of “reality”. I’ve have yet to meet anyone, theist, atheist, or agnostic, who has been able to truly do this on a whim. The whole process is more of a realization based on reinterpretation of facts and events with the addition of new information that leads to this “aha!” moment.
The next point of issue I take with this doctrine of eternal Hell goes back to the definitions of the concepts of “divinity” and “perfection”. What exactly is “divinity”? What constitutes a “divine” being? You have the Roman and Greek gods who are considered “divine beings”, but display the same traits of mortals. Is “divinity” simply the status of having more power than mortal beings? If it implies an eternal existence, then there is a conflict stemming from various traditions, such as the Sumerians with the fact their gods and goddesses could perish; a perfect example would be Tiamat and Apsu. And what bestows “divinity”? Where does it come from? The term “perfection” also raises similar questions. Does imply complete superiority in a particular field or specialty, environment, lack of weaknesses, lack of needs, etc? Is it a connotation of an inherently positive in the sense it adds something as a quality or a negative in the sense that it means the possessor lacks something, such as a need for food or water? Again, it’s vague. Does the emphasis on “having faith” necessitate a need of a “divine” and “perfect” being?
The concept of Hell in of itself is likewise, often misunderstood. The concept of a realm of eternal torment is found in earlier, non-Abrahamic faiths, such as the Greeco-Roman religion. In that faith, it was realms like Tartarus and Hades, and people were sent there based on their actions, not an absence of “faith”. Further, the image of fire and brimstone, in which the wicked are punished, is seen in the Zoroastrian Hell, but unlike the Christian and Islamic Hell, the Zoroastrian concept of Hell is both older and considers Hell not eternal, but temporary. Much of Judaism’s earlier texts, such as the Torah, refer to “Sheol” and “Gehenna”, but not once, in their original texts, is there a reference to what is now understood as “Hell” in the Christian and Islamic traditions. Sheol is simply “the grave”, in which existence ends; there is no torment for past transgressions. “Gehenna”, is an actual place outside of modern day
Jerusalem. The doctrine of an eternal Hell developed over time.
Lack of proportionality and consent. There is an inherent lack of proportionality with the punishment of an eternal Hell with the crimes committed by a person. Granted, there are some crimes, such as genocide, which are so barbaric and monstrous that there is little, if anything the person responsible for such crimes can do ever in a single life time to truly atone for such a transgression. However, your average person does not do anything nearly to the scale of genocide. And in the case of disbelief, or “lacking faith”, being eternally punished is blatant overkill. Also, considering that the very laws that humanity breaks in the form of “sin”, were such that we never had a say in their creation, implementation, nor agreed as a whole as to whether or not we are to be bound by them resembles more of an authoritarian dictatorship than anything else. It goes back to this: how is it reasonable to bind someone to a law that they never signed on to, never knew about, nor has even the slightest chance of being able to follow, even if the person in question had both agreed to follow to the best of their ability and full knowledge of that law? And what law binds the creator of Hell? Since when should anyone trust that a being, which is completely unaccountable for its actions, yet wields supreme power? The doctrine of an eternal Hell reeks of a being with supreme power, yet no accountability as there is no such penalties for itself violating its own laws, yet mortals who violate such laws end up in a punishment completely out of proportion with their transgression.
My last issue with the concept of an eternal Hell is just that, its finality. In the Abrahamic faiths, a person must meet the right prerequisites prior to death, lest they find themselves in Hell. If to avoid Hell, a person must “have faith” in a particular religion or doctrine, then odds are, the majority of the world in going to Hell by default. Is there a second chance, post mortem, for avoiding Hell? In the scenario that you must have meet the requirements prior to death, the answer is “no”. How fair is such a standard? It invites half hearted attempts to use religion as a sort of cynical insurance policy, as per Pascal’s Wager. And much like the half hearted nature of Pascal’s Wager, the person in question has an exponentially high chance of being “wrong” in their religious “afterlife insurance policy” with the premise that there is only one “right” religion or “right faith”. Without a chance to reevaluate their stance in light of clear and definitive proof that hypothetically comes with death, the individual is practically pre-destined to end up in Hell. How does a system like this show evidence, or even proof of a just and benevolent god?
Taking these issues into account, the doctrine of an eternal Hell sounds more like a primitive fear tactic, a misunderstanding of some earlier view of Hell being a state of mind in which the soul is away from God, and such distance is what causes the pain, or the workings of a truly fickle and cruel being. Since when does the lacking of faith, in whatever the object to have faith in is today, resulting from your life experiences constitute a crime so heinous as to warrant eternal punishment, or even temporary punishment? Since when does a “perfect”, and “divine” being desire, or even care about or for, worship from beings already deemed to be it inferiors? If the crimes of disbelief and being a fallible human are heinous enough to warrant being cast from the presence of a “benevolent” being that supposedly holds humanity’s best interests in mind, then out of principle, going to Hell is a morally just and principled choice.
