Sunday, July 16, 2006

The Injustice of Hell


In many church's today we don't here much about hell. I don't know why because Jesus talked about it all the time. In fact Christians have claimed that Jesus death and resurrection provides the only way to escape the just punishment of hell.

The lake of eternal fire, the place of torment where all who are less than perfect will burn for all eternity.

This seems unjust for two reasons:

1) The sin was not eternal. Take the worst person you can imagine. Hitler for example. Yes he was responsible for the torture and murder of millions. He certainly deserves to be punished, no question. But for how long???
God could certainly list all of his sins, but at some point; maybe after a million years of torment for each death for which he was responsible, surely he would have paid the price.

It is not just to give eternal punishment for finite offences.

2) Why is there only one punishment. Hitler is burning in hell for eternity right next to Gandhi. Both are earned the same punishment?? While medieval theologians tried to give hell levels, the bible doesn't make those distinctions.

It is not just to give the same punishment to both severe crimes and minor crimes.


Finally, why does God need Jesus to die in order to forgive the creatures he created and caused to sin, so he won't send them all to a hell he created because he is so LIMITED he can't forgive them himself.


The whole concept of hell is unjust and makes little sense.

Democracy


There seems to be some confusion in the minds of many Christians in the west about what exactly democracy is. A confusion that has led them to threaten the very nature of democracy itself.

Hand in hand with democarcy is the concept of free speech. Without the open exchange of ideas and the value of debating competing ideologies democracy simply does not work. In my opinion all ideas have a right to be heard in a democracy. Not only heard but debated and vigoursly criticised, adapted and defended.

The hallmark of a free society is the right of citizens to hold differing views. Having said that this does not protect any view from criticism and condemnation. There was a time not so long ago when western democracies clearly held racist views, whilst some may still hold those views the overwhelming number of citizens have supported the enactment of laws to prevent racism.

The press plays a vital role in informing citizens of differing viewpoints. Again however whilst press reports should consider a variety of views they must in the end reach a conclusion. Remembering that any view not covered in one report, can easily be presented in another or in a different publication.

A democracy does not offer to protect your views from criticism or intellectual attack, it offers a vital marketplace of ideas with rigorus debate. If you don't want your views discussed keep them to yourself in private and enjoy the freedom to hold your own views religious or otherwise. This is the other grest offering of democracy.