Important to remember that the word 'Hell' is an artifact of translation. Hell is actually a pagan concept from the goddess Hel who rules the Norse 'underworld'. The word 'gehenna' does not imply a physical 'hell' and is not interpreted as such for many centuries. Augustine, for example, could never have believed in the existence of Hell since evil has no reality but is the absence or diminishment of good. It is more accurate to see the cursed as being in the same boat as Adam and Eve, simply banished from Eden. They are both literally and figuratively 'the leftovers' exactly what you'd expect to find in 'gehenna' the landfill site of Jerusalem. — Barry Etheridge

Right, I totally agree with your statement here. But this, "The whole Sermon on Mount is best interpreted as a stand-up routine", doesn't mesh very well with your insightful statement about hell.

Don't you think it is likely that the Sermon on the Mount was never delivered as such. Don't NT scholars think that it was a compilation of Jesus's teachings? Joke? If it was, one would have to have been there to read the speaker and the audience together; you'd need to scan the smirks, smiles, knowing nods, noddings off, frowns, cackles, etc. Jesus was capable of the artful dodge when pushed ("Render to Caesar what is Caesar's...), don't know much about his joke-telling abilities.

Oh but it is so obviously comic. You don't seriously think that Jesus was advising people to actually cut their hands off? It's a perfect joke, with the set up "You know what they say at the Temple?" and then the punchline "well if that's right you'd better cut your hand off or you'll never get to Heaven!", knowing wink, laughs all round! It's a brilliant satire on the uselessness of the Law and the stupidity of those who follow it's every jot and tittle believing it will get them into God's good graces, the very theme which Paul would echo so powerfully in Romans as the foundation of Christian soteriology.

The failure to appreciate that Jesus (like his father) has a 'wicked' sense of humour (also evident in those parables that can reasonably be attributed to Jesus) is one of the great tragedies of the Church's history. God knows it could certainly do with lightening up. The Gospel writer's get it, even John though his taste is more to the sardonic, dry side of humour, which is why they constantly point up the Pharisees as the butt of the joke (they think they're first in the queue, can you believe that?). The best Christian writers get it (Harry Williams totally delights in it which is why I read and quote him so often). Zefferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" nods knowingly at it. It could not be more obvious ... which of course is itself all part of the joke. Because the Pharisees, be they members of the 1st Century Temple or the 21st Century church will never get it.They will only ever have po-faced religion. The Kingdom of God, the realm of delightful laughter, will always be beyond their reach. They just take themselves and everything else too seriously to get past the door.

They just take themselves and everything else too seriously to get past the door. — Barry Etheridge

Religions take themselves too seriously to realize the historical development over time based on people's social and psychological needs. Both fed into each other to create a scenario where first animistic gods, then polytheistic, then monotheistic (consisting of dualistic/polythesitic/animist tendencies).

The Abrahamic religions consist of nodes breaking off, misinterpreting original versions. The Jewish original was a nationalistic mythological deity. The God of the Universe- Yaweh, takes petitions and sacrifices from a specific nation of people- the Israelites (an amalgamation of cannonite peoples of various similar cultural backgrounds united and eventually who formed a small kingdom). He's the patron god of the Israelites that got more credibility due to some influential prophet-types that were devoted to the President more than the rest of the council and they were able to convince the higher ups and priests to whittle away the the other pcannonite/midianite gods (remnants of this can be seen in Yaweh's other title of Elohim which is plural- meaning subsumed aspects of all other cannonite gods into one deity).

Anyways, Christianity is an odd Greco-Romanization and thus universalization of the a more-or-less nationalistic religious system (Judaism/proto-Judaism). It is taking Greco-Roman-Assyrian-Egyptian concepts of Mystery Cults (dying gods that transform the initiated), combining it with Greek ideas of corrupted matter (copies) and pure spirit (Ideas) (aka.. Paul of Tarsus notion that the Laws of Moses (Torah) is related to lower physical and Jesus' death and Resurrection related to higher/spiritual realm and supposedly thus nullifies the lower Laws of the physical realm).

Islam is a further combination of both Christian and Jewish concepts but instead of being being Greco-Romanized it was Arabized and thus the Jewish nationalistic religious system was oddly changed to retrofit it with Arabic cultural tendencies with some added on features of Christian theology in there as well.

All of this points to my original assertion that religion and thus notions of a deity are historical developments that placate certain social constructions and psychological needs of a certain time and place.

Religions take themselves too seriously to realize the historical development over time based on people's social and psychological needs. Both fed into each other to create a scenario where first animistic gods, then polytheistic, then monotheistic (consisting of dualistic/polythesitic/animist tendencies). — Schopenhauer

That is basically a positivist or naturalist account - that human culture passes through phases, beginning with the animist, then theistic, then metaphysical, finally giving way to scientific rationalism. That analysis began with Comte but the underlying theme is also elaborated by many secular intellectuals, such as Dennett's Breaking the Spell, also much earlier works like Freud's Totem and Taboo. The last paragraph is also typical of a Marxist analysis.

The fatal flaw with all such analyses is that they presume a privileged perspective from which they claim to really know what is 'behind' religion, in a sense that religion's hapless adherents cannot possibly know, they being so caught up in the muddled superstitious ways of thought, etc, which scientific rationalism and modern political theory have so helpfully swept aside. So they are invariably materialistic and tendentious in my view.

Aside from the obviously historical and cultural elements that are found in religions, there is a great deal of testimony, some of it pertaining to things for which there is no naturalistic explanation whatever. There are accounts of supernatural events, visitations, revelations, and miracles. But the general response to that is to simply tar it all with the same brush, sweep it aside as more of the same, without responding to any of its substantive claims, basically acting on the presumption that science can, or has, discredited all such testimony, often without the most rudimentary investigation of what it actually contains.

The failure to appreciate that Jesus (like his father) has a 'wicked' sense of humour (also evident in those parables that can reasonably be attributed to Jesus) is one of the great tragedies of the Church's history. — Barry Etheridge

Have a look at The Laughing Jesus, co-authored by Timothy Freke, which claims that the story Jesus' life and resurrection was a myth derived from a number of similar religious myths circulating in the ancient middle east, and sythensized by the Gnostics into the Biblical narratives. I have seen him speak, he's a charismatic speaker, but I'm not convinced by it.

I think that something vital was lost in the formation of the early church, which coalesced out of a chaos of competing ideas, doctrines, and practices. My 'anthropology of Jesus' is that he was the God-realised being in the sense understood by Advaita Vedanta, but which is an understanding that is not shared with mainstream Christian doctrine. He was indeed a periapetic enlightened sage and as such a member of a unique class of humans.

What I observed was that there are Christian philosophers who say that 'hell' or 'damnation' can be understood as the rejection of salvation, so, in some sense, those who suffer it have chosen that fate; it is a consequence of their actions. It parallels the doctrine of 'evil as the privation of the good', which is also associated with Augustine. — Wayfarer

Ah the good old problem of evil. We see it is not resolved in this world, but surely it must be in the next?

Here is the hard line theology: there is no reward for virtue, and no punishment for vice but that which man initiates. Because, if virtue were rewarded, it would be reduced to mere prudence.

How one would like to be comforted that having been crucified and being innocent, justice reigned in the other world. And naughty children will be sent to bed with no supper. Verily I say unto ye, the arseholes will get away with it, and decent folk will be trodden upon and there will be no recourse but what ye impose yourselves. For if being good was too much fun, then everyone would do it, and the real estate of heaven would suffer inflation.

Here is the hard line theology: there is no reward for virtue, and no punishment for vice but that which man initiates. Because, if virtue were rewarded, it would be reduced to mere prudence. — unenlightened

(That is where I take issue with Protestantism, 'salvation by faith' and 'total depravity'. I think it leads to a kind of fatalism and dogmatism. It is where I think Buddhism is a superior ethical philosophy - 'by oneself one is purified, by oneself one is defiled'. But in Buddhism, there is, as it were, a larger theatre of operations.)

But I think the basic insight must be that humans are in some sense related to (i.e. 'children of') the higher intelligence (however conceived) that is the origin/source/ground of being. 'Virtue' consists of awakening to this fundamental fact, which is expressed in various allegorical and dogmatic formula. Vice consists of being habituated to sense-pleasures and broadly speaking everything that divides you from that sense of relationship.

I don't honestly know if, when one dies, that there is anything beyond that, but I think your life establishes a kind of trajectory, so to speak, and where you're aiming, has consequences beyond this existence.

...by oneself one is purified, by oneself one is defiled'. — Wayfarer

That is a strand of Buddhism, but it makes no sense to me, that the impure is the agent of purity. I prefer the Taoist notion that it is inaction that allows the mud to settle and the water to clear. It seems to me that enlightenment and salvation have the same function here, as goals to strive for. And striving to end strife is as good a way as any of muddying the waters.

But this quietism is not fatalism; the fatalist will not be still, but continues to act as before.

But I think the basic insight must be that humans are in some sense related to (i.e. 'children of') the higher intelligence (however conceived) that is the origin/source/ground of being. — Wayfarer

Again, this seems like pious hope, wishful thinking. Vice has no relation to virtue. Hatred is not the child of love, but the absence of love.

The fatal flaw with all such analyses is that they presume a privileged perspective from which they claim to really know what is 'behind' religion, in a sense that religion's hapless adherents cannot possibly know, they being so caught up in the muddled superstitious ways of thought, etc, which scientific rationalism and modern political theory have so helpfully swept aside. So they are invariably materialistic and tendentious in my view. — Wayfarer

It does not have to be evolutionary necessarily, but there seems to have been a trend from localized gods to the more universality of gods (usually in some council or family) as societies developed into larger stratified civilizations and empires. Monotheism was a simple derivative of taking the president of the gods and pretty much making that one subsume the other gods' roles into a unified being that handles all of it and who doesn't like the petitions going to anything else.. Anyways, I am not even suggesting it is as simple as a progression because even in animistic religions or polytheism (like many Hindu sects and Yoruba of West Africa), there is usually an underlying "force" that the other gods are a manifestation of. However, this "force" is usually deemed too impersonal to care about human events, and thus impotent to the psychological needs of surviving and social relations that humans must contend with. Interestingly, as societies became more complex, the Force in the background started to get in the foreground again and you get a situation where Hindu samhadis are trying to unify with the Atman. So you get a situation where there is a neo-emphasis on uniting with the impersonal force of the universe rather than petitioning so-and-so god for a particular event to occur or for favorable outcomes in a particular aspect of life (fertility, good agricultural conditions, trade, etc.).

That is a strand of Buddhism... — Unenlightened

No, the quoted aphorism is non-sectarian, common to all schools; it is from the Dhammapada. I interpret it as saying 'you alone are responsible for your fate'. (Although in later East Asian Buddhism there was a debate between 'self-power' and 'other-power' as a source of enlightenment.)

Monotheism was a simple derivative of taking the president of the gods and pretty much making that one subsume the other gods' roles into a unified being that handles all of it and who doesn't like the petitions going to anything else.. — Schopenhauer

That type of figure is like Jupiter or Zeus, or one of the other 'chief gods' of the ancient pantheons. But I think the doctrinal response to that by Christians is that God is not 'a god' in that sense. I think that In the context of ancient cultures, the only understandable analogy for the 'one God' was as 'a god' - like Zeus or Jupiter or Baal, a tribal or regional deity to whom sacrifices were made and favours asked, but, as you say, as chief amongst them. But I think depicting God in those terms, was a concession to the popular mentality, or a way of depicting some fundamental truth about life in a way that would be intelligible to those cultures.

And still today there are plenty of people who believe (or disbelieve) in a sky-father figure to whom they pray for favours or healing or good fortune. (Indeed that figure can take the form of Buddha). But whether that is the real meaning, or the definitive meaning, ought not to be assumed.

you get a situation where there is a neo-emphasis on uniting with the impersonal force of the universe rather than petitioning so-and-so god for a particular event to occur or for favorable outcomes in a particular aspect of life (fertility, good agricultural conditions, trade, etc.). — Schopenhauer1

George Lucas derived the idea of 'The Force' from Eastern mythology.

The word 'religion' has a huge range of meanings, of which deity worship is one. But yoga, asceticism, trance states, and those kinds of practices, are more derived from shamanism than from deity worship. Shamans were also responsible for divination, knowing the movements of the herds and understanding the seasons, as well as medicinal plants, and all manner of other 'powers'. But that stream of culture is ancient indeed, there are statues of deity figures sitting in lotus positions sourced from the Mohenjo-Daro findings in NW India, that date back 6,000 years. So it isn't as if those kinds of practices succeeded deity-worship, they have always co-existed as part of the culture.

The shamanic roots of yoga was something explored by religious studies scholar Mircea Eliade in books like https://amzn.com/0691119422 and https://amzn.com/0691142033

But yoga, asceticism, trance states, and those kinds of practices, are more derived from shamanism than from deity worship. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Hence my neologism of neo-emphasis on the impersonal force. Perhaps the shaman taps into the force in a proto-version of what the Yogi is trying to do. Alongside (and probably prior to) animism was/is animatism. However, though similar in a sense that it is tapping into a transcendental reality- equating shamanism with full blown Raja Yoga practices may be more of a surface-level comparison. Although, I would not doubt that shamanic practices were a proto-type that led to more developed metaphysics of such practices. Being that Mohenjo-Daro is considered one of the first full blown civilizations, even by that time, these theologies were probably more developed than localized shamanic practices of foraging bands or semi-permanent small subsistence villages.

[deleted]

I was referring to your comment regarding the possibility those in hell may not be aware of their plight, and Lewis' comment about "terrible freedom" (freedom, necessitating choice in life, being something which always seemed terrible to him. Like life itself--the Pevensie children thus being better off dead and so he killed off most of them at the end of the Narnia series).

But we can't get away from the fact that scripture describes hell as a place of terrible, never-ending suffering, like unto being roasted in a fire or furnace. And yes, choice is involved. In the New Testament, at least, that choice includes the choice not to believe Jesus is God. Now, "believe in me or burn forever" seems to me indicative of a certain vindictiveness, and is somewhat surprising in an Almighty being, as is the idea of him being jealous.

Important to remember that the word 'Hell' is an artifact of translation. Hell is actually a pagan concept from the goddess Hel who rules the Norse 'underworld'. The word 'gehenna' does not imply a physical 'hell' and is not interpreted as such for many centuries. Augustine, for example, could never have believed in the existence of Hell since evil has no reality but is the absence or diminishment of good. It is more accurate to see the cursed as being in the same boat as Adam and Eve, simply banished from Eden. They are both literally and figuratively 'the leftovers' exactly what you'd expect to find in 'gehenna' the landfill site of Jerusalem. — Barry Etheridge

Well, I'm not sure to what extent the writers of the Gospels and Revelation were aware of Norse concepts of the underworld. Greco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife were grim in their way, but as far as I'm aware being burned eternally didn't figure much in them. Fire was generally considered divine or quasi-divine, in fact, by pagan philosophers, rather as it was to Zarathustra. I'm sure the apparently satisfying vision of nonbelievers roasting forever came from somewhere, but don't really know its origin. I say "satisfying" as the saints and those who make it to heaven are sometimes described as being able to witness from there the terrible plight of those in hell.

Luther said that the greatest thing about heaven would be its view of hell.

Now, "believe in me or burn forever" seems to me indicative of a certain vindictiveness, and is somewhat surprising in an Almighty being, as is the idea of him being jealous. — Ciceronianus

'Vindictivness', 'jealousy', etc, are analogies. They depict 'the holy' in a kind of anthropomorphic way, so as to get through the thick skulls of tribal nomads.

'Vindictivness', 'jealousy', etc, are analogies. They depict 'the holy' in a kind of anthropomorphic way, so as to get through the thick skulls of tribal nomads. — Wayfarer

I don't think we should assume those who wrote scripture were merely using such analogies to impress the dullards among them, but themselves knew better or thought differently.

Luther said that the greatest thing about heaven would be its view of hell. — Wosret

What a guy. But he wasn't alone, I'm afraid. Here's Thomas Aquinas from the Summa Theologica:

"In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned." Perfectly, forsooth.

As far as I know, Tertullian (one of the early Christian apologists) limited his delight in torment to what would take place on Judgment Day. Who knows what he thought (hoped?) would take place in hell. But he had great expectations about Judgment Day:

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause."

The use of "spectacles" is interesting, it being a word often used in connection with the Roman ludi in the arena, including gladiatorial games. It seems the Last Judgment was to be a Christian spectacle. And in fact the Christian Roman Empire proved to be far better at persecution than the pagan Roman Empire.

Excellent! Seeing evil destroyed is a good thing!

We're just creatures. Inherently, and when we are wronged, or we see others wronged, part of us wishes to pay back that suffering and pain a thousand fold -- but those that hurt us are just people, that themselves were hurt, and now fear monsters. There are no monsters though, just people.

Excellent! Seeing evil destroyed is a good thing! — Agustino

Yes, especially the dancers; very evil. Notice he didn't mention lawyers? He was one himself. He may not have been a very successful one, though. Roman magistrates had judicial authority, and he pictures them liquefying in flames.

part of us wishes to pay back that suffering and pain — Wosret

That's just what justice is.

That's what vengeance is, and it always come too late.

That's what vengeance is, and it always come too late. — Wosret

Not really - justice has a sense for a fair punishment. Vengeance is just unfair punishment (and often also unlawful one) - overly great punishment for the wrong that was committed.

"infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person."

Actually almost verbatim that's what vengeance is. If we were really going to settle things, equalize them, then we'd better start with Cain.

We can't bring anyone justice, it's far far beyond our means, all we can do is try to mitigate, and prevent as much suffering and harm as possible, and promote flourishing, and health. Harming others, no matter how much you figure they deserve it is working at cross-purposes to this. You're then part of the problem, and not the solution.

If you'd said justice in the sense of preventing future harm, you'd be right. You didn't. "Paying back with suffering and pain" is always vengeance. It's jealously over the favoured world which someone took away from us. A fantasy we have power over others, which can return the lost world we desire so much-- "Burn them for eternity and the loss will be resolved."

It won't be. What is lost cannot be undone.

on a person by another who has been harmed by that person — Wosret

Well we have justice precisely so that punishment isn't up to the harmed one to decide - because again the punishment needs to be fair. Vengeance would occur more frequently if there was no law. And still it occurs in cases which are not adequately and fairly governed by the law, and in which people are not adequately protected by the law.

f you'd said justice in the sense of preventing future harm, you'd be right. You didn't. "Paying back with suffering and pain" is always vengeance. It's jealously over the favoured world which someone took away from us. A fantasy we have power over others, which can return the lost world we desire so much-- "Burn them for eternity and the loss will be resolved."

It won't be. What is lost cannot be undone. — TheWillowOfDarkness

To each as they deserve - that's what justice is. If that's what justice is, then the evil deserve to suffer no?

No. No-one deserves it, not even Hitler.

Punishments for the protection of the community and improving the lives of victims in certain ways are deserved, but not suffering specifically.

We don't deal out justice to make people suffer. Sometimes it is an unavoidable consequences of protecting the community, so there is suffering within the context of punishment, but it's not why punishment is applied.

To think otherwise is just our jealousy over what's been lost. It's idea that because you didn't get what you desired, the person who prevented it or took it away from you doesn't deserve any sort of existence or happiness. A tantrum at not getting what you want and being unable to to control others to your wishes. Your God is honest when describing themselves as jealous.

God is ultimate example of being unable to live in a world which does not meet what someone thinks they deserve. Someone not acting in the way you desire? Burn them for entirety. They must have nothing but pain in their lives.

No. No-one deserves it, not even Hitler. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Can you justify this please?

doesn't deserve any sort of existence or happiness — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who said this? It's only been said that if someone does something wrong they have to pay for it - the fair share of payment, not more and not less. The fact that they need to pay for their sins isn't to say they don't deserve any sort of existence or happiness - that, at least in most cases, is too extreme of a punishment considering the offence.

The Lord says that vengeance is his, though. Remember? What is ours is apparently to watch his vengeance, from prime seats (thrones), provided we've been good.