I was reading a biography of Stevie Smith by Frances Spalding, and a chapter concerning her relationship to Christianity - by which was largely meant the Church of England.
At one point it quoted a passage to the effect that the one thing SS found most repellent was the idea of Hell. In particular, to summarize, Stevie rejected:
Hell regarded as a place of eternal torment, to which people were sent by default, on the basis of divine judgment.
In rejecting this idea of Hell, as well in her response to this rejection - i.e. ceasing to be what she regarded as a Christian - I suppose Stevie Smith was representative of her era.
Certainly I have often seen or heard the same kind of thing said by others.
It seems that (in some broad sense) Hell came-in with "Christianity" around or after the time of Jesus - and disappeared with Christianity through the 19th and 20th centuries.
And, at about the same time as Hell was disappearing - people began finding the idea repellent; because those who rejected Hell also assumed that Hell was not true: assumed that the Hell concept is ,and always had been, false.
And therefore the Hell-rejecters infer that the primary nature of the Hell concept was as a psychological manipulation used to terrorize people into joining and obeying the Christian church.
In other words, the Stevie-Smith-esque moral critique of Hell, already rejects the reality of Hell: it already assumed that Hell is not and never was real.
The question I address about Hell is: Where did it come from, where did it go*?
What has apparently happened; is that the modern human mind has become unreceptive to the reality of Hell. What once seemed real, possible, almost inevitable - has come to seem an obvious deception. A cruel, because manufactured, mass manipulation.
To summarize: Hell used-to "work" very effectively as a mechanism of population control; but it does not work anymore.
This historical change towards Hell-incredulity is usually interpreted sociologically; meaning in essence that the change in Men's minds was caused by changes in society.
If the sociological explanation is true this would imply that if modern society was changed then Hell could again become an effective motivator; and this change would happen whether Hell is regarded as a reality that is now being denied, or if Hell is regarded as a not-real tool of social control.
But I believe that sociological change to restore Hell could not and therefore would not happen.
I suggest instead that Hell first came, and then went, because of changes in human consciousness.
In other words; I am saying that Hell arose because Men's minds became receptive to the idea; and this change led to sociological change; and then Hell dwindled because Men's minds changed further - and then society changed to reflect this.
The idea is that Hell is a product of a particular phase of Mankind's consciousness - and that phase has now passed.
On this view; because Hell is primarily a product of Man's consciousness; then it would not be possible to restore the ancient idea of Hell.
And if Hell is a product of consciousness at a particular phase of development; then a modern-day religious society could not motivate people with such an idea of Hell, even if it is true; and for the same reason; a tyranny could no longer effectively control society with the false-but-believed threat of Hell.
What was this phase of consciousness that was so receptive to Hell? I would term it a semi-alienated state of partial group-mind.
My idea is that in ancient (pre-Christian) times; Men were not alienated but were (mostly) immersed in their society, and actually lived as a part of the group-mind. The after-death experience was then regarded in a groupish way - whatever happened beyond death, happened to the members of the group.
Men were not then afraid of becoming an "existential outcast" in the manner of Hell.
Hell emerged when Men each began to separate their personal consciousness from the group-mind; and Hell was (I suggest) a consequence of this state of being semi-alienated.
Man's hope was to retain the state of being in this group-mind after death; but Hell came from the terror that - after death - the group may choose to cast-out the individual because of that individual's transgression of the group-norms, and consign him to the eternal torment of being existentially-alone.
The sociological phenomenon of Hell was therefore a consequence of Men's innate angst concerning emergent alienation from the group mind; which is why Men became receptive to the idea of Hell.
But in the development of human consciousness, Men continued to detach from the group-mind; until for recent generations Men have ceased to experience the primacy of the group-mind - to the point of being unaware of it, and even denying its reality.
Modern Men regard themselves as almost-wholly alienated; and therefore tend spontaneously to regard death as an inevitable and universal annihilation.
In the officially (and inwardly-perceived) modern secular-mainstream understanding of each Man dwelling in a purposeless and meaningless universe - there can be no divine judgment.
And the idea that mortal life death might lead to a default-inevitable state of being tormented cannot for a modern Man) be true - because for modern Men, after death there is nothing.
For modern Christians (with the alienated consciousness we share with other modern Men); Salvation and Hell are alike consequences of personal choice in relation to the divine; not a judgment.
And as this alienated consciousness continues to develop; these personal choices of post-mortal situation become more individual, bespoke, unique - and reciprocally less and less group-defined, less and less categorical in nature.
Modern Christians now understand Hell (insofar as they have thought about it seriously) more as a positive choice - Hell is a choice made by those who have decisively-rejected (for whatever reason) the desirability and chance of resurrected eternal life in Heaven.
Hence, for the consciousness of modern Christians; "Hell" is real but differently-understood than 1-2000 years ago.
The modern concept of Hell is nowadays negatively-defined as "everything but" Heaven.
For modern consciousness; Hell is therefore an open-ended variety of possibilities - and insofar as Hell is for some individuals experienced as a situation of eternal torment - then this is what has been asked-for, and from-which they do not repent.
*NOTE: The title of this post references an amusing and enjoyable novelty song that my kids used to dance-to; mainly from a Wii Just Dance compilation.
When I saw the asterisk I thought 'Is he really going to foot note Cotten Eyed Joe?' Sometimes I forget that a large portion of the world isn't american.
ReplyDeleteI've sometimes wondered with exasperation why God has never revealed the structure and progression of our consciousness to us. He has a good reason I suppose, though I do hope it isn't 'You wouldn't get it'.
What Jesus actually taught, and this is consistent with Revelations so it is what early Christians believed, was that those who followed him would have “eternal” life (I looked up the Greek word and it can be translated either as “eternal” or “more full”). Not everyone will get that, but the clear implication is that those who don’t will just get this current life, and then die and pass out of existence. These people will probably live as if they had just one life.
ReplyDeleteIn the second century AD, (neo-) Platoists infiltrated Christianity. The most prominent seems to be someone named Athenogoras. He has been memory holed but you can look him up. The eternal soul was a Platoist concept, but at least somewhat consistent with Christian teachings. An Orthodox priest once explained to me that the notion of an eternal soul was not Christian, which surprised me at the time, but I researched it and this turns out to be true. It comes from Plato, but again not totally inconsistent with early Christian teachings.
The Platoists also taught that some souls would be tormented in the after life. This does happen to contradict the rest of Christian teachings, and is illogical. If God was a sadist, and wanted to torture his creatures, there is no reason he couldn’t just incarnate them in Hell to begin with and skip the mortal life part. If the first, mortal life, was a sort of test to see if people were capable of functioning in the later, higher planes, a God who was not a sadist would just discard the failures and not bother to torture them. He wouldn’t resurrect them so they would somehow torment themselves, or be tormented by the saved. They would just pass out of existence. Logically, either God is a sadist, in which case he would incarnate (some of) his creatures in Hell, or not a sadist, which meant even if this life was a sort of test, the failures would just get their first life and pass out of existence afterwards.
As an aside, without the afterlife torture chamber, predestination, either the Augustinian single predestination, or even the Calvinist double predestination, becomes much less of a problem, but that is an issue for another thread.
This doesn’t contradict the point of the post, in that separate after lives for different sorts of people arose when group consciousness was replaced by individual consciousness, and then was replaced by the idea of no after life at all, so people went from the idea of one after life for everyone, to separate after lives for separate groups, to no after life for anyone. My point is that this seems to have been something separate from early Christian teachings, and later imported into Christianity from outside teachings.
@Lucas - It seems to me that "revelation", in the sense you imply, isn't really A Thing - at least not in the way people seem to assume, or want it to be (something like a recipe). As a different starting point; I would state as an article of my faith, that every individual can always "know" what is necessary to attain salvation, and theosis in mortal life - insofar as that is what he honestly wants.
ReplyDelete@Ed - I don't think an objective history of Christianity is possible in the way you are stating it, nor the conclusions you draw from it. History is a secular concept and practice, that implicitly aspires to a timeless universality. Indeed, it mostly (sometimes entirely) excludes the operations of the divine in the world. We all (me included) tell ourselves stories, sometimes very detailed stories - but the primary truths are simple, and must be graspable by a single mental act.
Your writings on this blog have helped me work out my thoughts on hell over the years. Thank you for sharing your insights with your readers.
ReplyDeleteIn my worst moments in life, I've often wondered if this Earth is actually hell. Or maybe we've all died a first death and are now in purgatory together on our way to either heaven or hell via our second/final death. Death could be defined as the doorway we cross where we choose our ultimate destination and change into our final form. Maybe the first death is spirit into matter and the second final death is matter into matter+spirit+soul, then we choose one of two final places: heaven (eternal love) or hell/annihilation (anti-love and anti-being). Just as evil must be invited in with our consent so that we choose hell, we must willingly consent to God (Love) so that we choose Heaven.
@Kathlene - Glad you are finding it of some value!
ReplyDeleteComment from "Ed":
ReplyDelete"In my worst moments in life, I've often wondered if this Earth is actually hell."
I have wondered exactly this, and so have other people. There is a sub-reddit titled "Are We in Hell", that is one of the more interesting of this type.
Since we are both mortal, and have no memory of any previous lives, this life doesn't fit as a place of eternal punishment. But I think people underestimate the suffering. I now think this life is a sort of boot camp, where experiencing suffering and evil is the intention, so some people learn how to do with both effectively enough that they can then move into additional lives in additional universes, and put that knowledge to good effect.
@Ed - "I now think this life is a sort of boot camp, where experiencing suffering and evil is the intention"
ReplyDeleteI sense that such explanations of suffering and evil are - in effect - a roundabout way of denying the reality of suffering and evil, which means denying the problem is really real. I think this explanation derives from trying to salvage the goodness of God in a context of assuming that God is "Omni".
My understanding of God is one that has the creator operating with already-existing Beings of many kinds and degrees of evil (i.e. failure to live 100% from love, hostility to creation, etc) and with the operation of entropy intrinsic; such that suffering and evil *cannot *be prevented - and this is exactly why we need Jesus to enable there to be a place and state without suffering or evil... But not in this world - in another and post-mortal world of Heaven.
So I see no need to posit a general explanation of the creator planning this life as deliberately hostile and challenging.
Recovering Materialist has left a commen':
ReplyDelete" The question I address about Hell is: Where did it come from, where did it go*?"
Traditionally speaking, it came from the words of Jesus in the Gospels and, sociologically speaking, it departed as people lost belief in and respect for Christianity and the supernatural.
" What has apparently happened; is that the modern human mind has become unreceptive to the reality of Hell. "
Yes, I agree: we're secularized, soft and squeamish. Or WEIRD people are (not [other religionists]). But what is the reality of Hell, according to the Jesus of the Gospels? An eternal punishment of fire (and undying grave-worms) where we are sent after death by God's judgment of our behaviour in life. Is that what Jesus actually said and wanted us to believe, in your opinion?
C.S. Lewis didn't believe in that kind of Hell, understandably enough. It's not how a loving God would behave, according to modern, soft, squeamish, secularized sensibilities. And he suggested we had chances, after death to escape Hell and enter Heaven, by our own free will. I can't see how to justify that from the Gospels , rather than from the influence of modern secularism.
...So what should we believe about Hell as Christians or potential Christians? Is is a kind of self-willed existential exile from Heaven, as C.S. Lewis presented it, or a literal place of eternal agony, as Jesus presented it? I admire C.S. Lewis, but he wasn't the Son of God or founder of Christianity, merely an interpreter of it nearly 2,000 years later.
@RM - I set the agenda on this blog! I have responded to your first comment, but nothing about your second comment suggests you have considered what I said then - or my true beliefs as described frequently and in detail over the past few years.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in what I actually think (as opposed to what you are projecting onto me!) you might explore the blog using the word search function; or look at some of the mini-book Lazarus Writes (see the sidebar link) - especially its introductory sections about how I interpret the Bible and why.