L.B.: Explicit Content

Left Behind, pp. 101-104

I've previously joked about how the Left Behind series is "Pretrib Porno" because of its fetishistic appeal for followers of that kinky eschatology, And we've frequently noted how the characters' names -- Buck, Steele, Dirk -- seem drawn from the adult section of the local video store. But there's another sense, joking aside, in which these books truly are pornographic: they contain spiritually explicit scenes of graphic religious conversion.

Religious ecstasy, like sexual ecstasy, is difficult to portray directly in a work of art. It is too intimate, sacred and transcendent -- and any portrayal that fails to respect that will seem reductive and cheap. A good artist knows when to fade to black (or, as in Dante's "Paradiso," to fade to white), when to suggest rather than to show, when implicit metaphor will be more truthful than explicit detail. Pornographers -- be they sexual or spiritual -- don't care about such things. They neither acknowledge nor seek to convey anything transcendent in their subject, replacing transcendence with titillation. Their audience is never caught up in the mystery and ecstasy of rapture, only teased with the cheap thrills of a great snatch.*

The conversion scenes in LB, like all pornography, require the reader to overcome an instinctive reaction to look away when stumbling across such intimate scenes, choosing instead the tresspassive thrill of voyeurism.

These scenes have something else in common with pornography: They take an event that is -- or ought to be -- primarily about love and portray it as something from which love is absent or irrelevant.

We have not yet arrived at the money shot of Rayford Steele's big conversion scene, but these pages begin to lay the groundwork for it. Love is not a factor in any of this -- not God's love for Rayford, nor his love for God. Rayford seems, rather, to be motivated by fear and by a calculus of rewards and punishment.

Rayford lay there grieving, knowing the television would be full of scenes he didn't want to see, dedicated around the clock to the tragedy and mayhem all over the world. And then it hit him. ...

I should have known better, but I read that and hoped that what "hit him" was somehow connected to all that tragedy and mayhem "he didn't want to see." That Rayford's little epiphany might include the idea that all this suffering involved others who were people just like him. That his utter self-centeredness -- his contemptuous dismissal of others' pain, others' significance -- was the sin from which he needed to repent lest it destroy him.

But no, what "hit him" was the idea that he and Chloe:

... had to find out how they had missed everything Irene had been trying to tell them, why it had been so hard to accept and believe. Above all, he had to study, to learn, to be prepared for whatever happened next.

If the disappearances were of God, if they had been his doing, was this the end of it? The Christians, the real believers, get taken away, and the rest are left to grieve and mourn and realize their error? Maybe so. Maybe that was the price. But what happens when we die? he thought. If heaven is real, if the Rapture was a fact, what does that say about hell and judgment? Is that our fate? We go through this hell of regret and remorse, and then we literally go to hell, too?

Irene had always talked of a loving God, but even God's love and mercy had to have limits. Had everyone who denied the truth pushed God to his limit? Was there no more mercy, no second chance? Maybe there wasn't, and if that was so, that was so.

But if there were options, if there was still a way to find the truth and believe or accept or whatever it was Irene said one was supposed to do, Rayford was going to find it. ...

God's love is mentioned here only in the context of a possible loophole, a way of avoiding the fires of hell. Fear of hell, not love of God, is the essential point and Rayford's primary motivation for finding the secret, arcane knowledge that he must "believe or accept or whatever it was Irene said one was supposed to do."

Contrast this attitude with the delightfully repetitive insistence in 1 John 4 that All You Need Is Love. "Fear has to do with punishment," John writes, simultaneously summarizing and rejecting the central theme of Left Behind:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. ...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

I wish I could tell you that LaHaye and Jenkins were only presenting Rayford's fear-driven response to God as an initial, immature stage of his spiritual journey. But throughout the books, this remains the essence of Rayford's, and L&J's, understanding of the meaning of our relationship with God.

Salvation is never a matter of "we love because he first loved us," but is primarily seen as an escape clause from hell for those who accept or believe or do whatever it is that they do when they say the magic words. That magical utterance -- not God's love or mercy -- affords the only limit to, the only shelter from, God's all-consuming wrath.

It's no wonder that Rayford does not respond with love toward the vengeful, arbitrary "God" of LB. Love is something that such a God neither desires nor deserves.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* The obscene wordplay here is not mine. "The Great Snatch" is the title of Hal Lindsay's chapter on the "Rapture" in his 1970s bestseller The Late Great Planet Earth. This is the preferred translation among premillennial dispensationalists for the Greek word "harpazo," which is usually translated "caught up" -- as in 1 Corinthians 12:2-4: "I know a man in Christ who 14 years ago was caught up to the third heaven. ... caught up to Paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell." The mysterious, ecstatic quality of this being caught up is reflected in the primary meaning of the word "rapture" -- "the state of being carried away with joy, love, etc.; ecstasy." If you want to understand the meaning of "harpazo," you're better off turning to Anita Baker than to LaHaye and Jenkins.

Comments

[Eric Lee]

Your descriptions here are eerily close to this article from The Matthew's House Project:

Left Behind ... as Evangelical Pornography

[Ray]

Yes, God is love, but God (particularly in Revelations) really is vengeful and arbitrary too, right? Those without God's seal will be tormented on earth, and anyone who doesn't get into heaven is doomed to hell, where their suffering is absolute, and unending*.

Sure, it would be nice if people paid more attention to the "love your neighbour" stuff. But since the stick is always there in the background - and its a very, very big stick - is it any wonder that some people are going to concentrate on that?

* just typing that reminds me of all the stories of priests teaching children about hell - the hand over the candle, the bird flying from one end of the universe to the other, and so on...

[Mike]

Ray has a point; fundamentalist Christianity, no matter how dressed up it is, always comes down to the classical gunman scenario. Hell looms large, and creates nothing but fear.

[Darryl Pearce]

Reminds me of this forlorn speech by Rbt Kennedy announcing MLKjr's murder.

[Darryl Pearce]

...no linking? Crud.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4539/view/print

[informis]

I remember coming across the chapter on "The Great Snatch" a couple years ago, and it immediately made me think of Charlie Brown, desperately hoping to catch a glimpse of The Great Pumpkin on Halloween. What form The Great Snatch might take, and in which venues it might lurk, I leave to you to imagine.

[Karl]

That magical utterance -- not God's love or mercy -- affords the only limit to, the only shelter from, God's all-consuming wrath.

I wonder....

...if LaHay's rapture really did happen tomorrow ...if we all woke up tomorrow and discovered all the Fundagelical Christians in the world missing (along with all fetuses and children under twelve), how many of us would immediately realize what was happening and say The Prayer?

Naturally, we wouldn't say The Prayer because of any great love for God, or any sense of his majesty or grace. No, we'd say The Prayer so that we could get on board the Jesus Train just to see our missing toddlers again.

It's all about escaping wrath and judgment (which we surely deserve, of course). It's all about being reunited with The Dead. Fred is right that love for God would have nothing to do with it – which sort of describes L&J's whole apocalyptic religion, if you ask me.

[pharoute]

"Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love." Bill Hicks
"but even God's love and mercy had to have limits."
Wasn't settled as some council somewhere that God is limitless? I realize that Ray the character doesn't know much about the Bible but I get the feeling that nowhere does L&J point out their characters (and their own) errors

[Evagrius]

The LB viewpoint is really a form of Gnosticism, with secret knowledge,prayers etc;

Gnosticism is linked to nihilism, as Vogelin pointed out.

Certainly the depiction of chaos and suffering show how antiworld the LB view is.

Contrast this with the fabled depiction of St. Seraphim of Sarov- the world, this disgusting sinful, full of sinful people, world is suddenly suffused with light, light he states is from the Holy Spirit. That experience is available to all, he says, now and forever.

The LB crowd could never understand one like him,
just as they don't understand his Boss.

Ironically, it's him, and others in the same tradition,, who truly express the eschatological vision of Christianity.

[coriolis]

Best. Post. Ever.
I have always had a problem with Christians like LaHaye and Jenkins. You have taught me that they are stuck in the embryonic stage of their spiritual journey. No wonder they lock themselves in their tiny church communities, home school their kids, and then send them off to bible college. No wonder they continue to live in sin; hating the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner.
How can they love when they only know fear?
Thank you Fred.

[Scott]

...if LaHay's rapture really did happen tomorrow ...if we all woke up tomorrow and discovered all the Fundagelical Christians in the world missing (along with all fetuses and children under twelve), how many of us would immediately realize what was happening and say The Prayer?

I'd say a prayer of thanks, but that's probably not the response L&J wanted.

[pepperjackcandy]

but God (particularly in Revelations) really is vengeful and arbitrary too, right? Those without God's seal will be tormented on earth, and anyone who doesn't get into heaven is doomed to hell, where their suffering is absolute, and unending*.

Depends on your "flavor" of Christianity. I grew up under the tutelage of several particularly liberal UMC pastors.

Thus our services/sermons focused on God's love and sharing that love with others. And by "love," I mean the love of a brother or a friend, not the pseudoparental "love the sinner and hate the sin" crap).

As to Revelation particularly, we actually had a sermon one Sunday about Revelation as seditious literature. All of the talk about angels and seals and stuff was a code, because the Romans read the mail, and coming right out and saying "the persecution of Christians won't last forever, because the Roman Empire will fall soon(ish)" would've gotten the sender, the recipient, and anyone else the Romans could find arrested and probably killed.

[spencer]

Charlie Brown, desperately hoping to catch a glimpse of The Great Pumpkin on Halloween

Of course, it was in fact Charlie Brown's pal Linus who held out hope that this would be the year that the Great Pumpkin finally showed up.

And where Linus had his pumpkin, Charlie Brown had his football . . .

[EliB]

In C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, which is one of my favorite fantasy novels even though there's something in it to offend nearly everyone including me, there's one of the few convincing descriptions I've read of being "caught up". Lewis keeps it abstract and unnamed, but the thoughts afterward ring true:

To be aware of all this and to know that it had already gone made one single experience. It was revealed only in its departure. The largest thing that had ever happened to her had, apparently, found room for itself in a moment of time too short to be called time at all. Her hand closed on nothing but a memory. And as it closed, without an instant's pause, the voices of those who have not joy rose howling and chattering from every corner of her being.

"Take care. Draw back. Keep your head. Don't commit yourself," they said. And then more subtly, from another quarter, "You have had a religious experience. This is very interesting. Not everyone does. How much better you will now understand the Seventeenth-Century poets!" Or from a third direction, more sweetly, "Go on. Try to get it again. It will please the Director."

But her defences had been captured and these counter-attacks were unsuccessful.

[Mnemosyne]

Those without God's seal will be tormented on earth, and anyone who doesn't get into heaven is doomed to hell, where their suffering is absolute, and unending.

Actually, I saw something on late night TV one time -- probably a religious program -- that explained that, in Revelation, the sinners who get flung into the fire after judgement do not go to Hell. They die. They cease to exist. Their punishment is that there is no afterlife for them, only a permanent death.

Hell is kind of a extra-Biblical myth, as I understand it -- there's not a whole lot about it in the Bible.

Though I did read a pretty funny book by L. Sprague de Camp one time where a college lit professor ends up flung into Norse myth and has to follow someone down into Hel (yep, one L in Norse). As they travel downwards, it of course gets ... colder and colder and colder. Because while a desert people would conceive of a flaming-hot Hell, people in lands of ice and snow will naturally think of the opposite as being most, well, hellish.

[Garnet]

In C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, which is one of my favorite fantasy novels

I've always preferred Voyage to Venus, myself, which is a sort of recounting of the Garden of Eden and the temptation of Eve stories, but this time with a voice in opposition to that of the serpent, though the voice is a mere mortal and the serpent seems to be something rather superhuman.

But the whole trilogy is just fantastic.

[Thomas Ware]

It wasn't Charlie Brown, it was Linus - Lucy's brother, Lucy being the one pulling the football out of Charlie's reach.

I'm sure glad you read this crap, so I don't have to.

[J. Michael Matkin]

I wouldn't mind a little more fear of wrath and hell to take hold in the power centers of the nation. The President in particular would be well advised to remember that every Dives gets his due.

[Ray]

I've never read the Bible through, and my religion classes were twenty years ago, but a quick google finds quite a few references to Hell. Right after the beatitudes in Matthew 5, Matthew 10:28, and, well, you can go find plenty more yourself, I'm sure. The details might not be in the Bible (any more than there are detailed descriptions of heaven), but I think the idea of eternal pain and suffering is there.

That desn't mean that all teachers will emphasise it so much. Hell doesn't seem to play much part in Fred's personal religion, and it was absent from pepperjackcandy's tutelage. But isn't this just a case of nicer Christians picking and choosing the bits they'll believe in, just as much as the not-so-nice ones do?

[Ray]

Oh, and on Revelations in particular - yes, I agree that it makes most sense as a code for talking about an oppresive empire falling and the faithful being able to worship in piece. But you'll notice that when the oppressive empire falls, the oppressors get the shit kicked out of them. So the message is not just "hold fast in your faith, and you will be delivered", its also "mess with God and you will pay"

(I'm reading a history of Byzantium at the moment, and its notable how many heresiarchs and persecutors are recorded - by Christian historians - as suffering dreadfully for their errors. The deaths of Herod and Arius, for example, reinforce the message that God will punish the unbelievers)

[coriolis]

Conjoining the threads of CS Lewis and Hell: I've always clung to Lewis's description of Hell found in "The Great Divorce": Hell is Queen Victoria's London. (Think Dickens.)

[Ray]

"worship in piece"?

(hangs head in shame)

[Fernmonkey]

Actually, I saw something on late night TV one time -- probably a religious program -- that explained that, in Revelation, the sinners who get flung into the fire after judgement do not go to Hell. They die. They cease to exist. Their punishment is that there is no afterlife for them, only a permanent death.

Which isn't that much of a punishment for atheists, is it? It's only what they've been expecting all along.

[Dave Lartigue]

I'm reminded of the the conversion of Edmund in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Aslan talks to him alone in a tent, and the narrator says something like, "And nobody knew what Aslan said to him, but when he came out, he had shaped up and never was a bad seed again." (Paraphrase, of course.)

There's two implications here. First, there's no reason we should know what Aslan said to Edmund. It's a personal matter for two reasons: it's between him and Aslan, and whatever would work to show Edmund the error of his ways won't necessarily work for anyone else. We all have to find our own paths to salvation.

The second implication is, Edmund didn't go around telling everyone what Aslan said that changed him. Apparently, what he did was be a decent human, and that in itself was evidence enough that Aslan's word got through to him.

You only have to talk about your belief and your faith if there's no other way you demonstrate it.

[Lila]

I've always rather liked Dorothy Sayers' description: 'They chose the not-God, and when they had it, they found it to be Hell.' Not an exact quote, but words to that effect. Much the same idea as Lewis's depiction of the unbelieving dwarves in "The Last Battle"--they're in Heaven but refuse to be "taken in".

[Dave Lartigue]

I'm posting this as a separate comment because it's not related to my previous one, but I think you can't just shrug away Hell. Regardless of how important it seems to be compared to love thy neighbor and stuff, it's still there. They still talk about it, and Jesus even mentions it. And the previous commenter was right...all the love thy neighbor in the world isn't going to outweigh "eternal punishment" for some people.

There's a "Christian" t-shirt I saw somewhere that said "Don't believe in Hell? It still exists, and you're still going there!"

Hell is a huge problem not just because of certain Christians' fetishistic obsession with it. It also doesn't make any damn sense to atheists like me. Hell, damnation, sin, all of that just completely bungs up the whole story, in my opinion.

And don't even get me started on "the Devil"...

[Ray]

"I've always rather liked Dorothy Sayers' description: 'They chose the not-God, and when they had it, they found it to be Hell.'"

Which is a nice enough idea, but isn't really compatible with the undying worms and eternal fires. (Or with the possessing demons and tempting devil, for that matter)

[Beth]

""Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"

Which of you, no matter how disobedient, disrespectful, or even criminal your son is, would condemn him to eternal torment? If God is the loving Father Jesus said he was, nobody will be condemned to Hell for all eternity. Someone could choose the hell of denying God, but they would still retain the chance and choice of salvation. Otherwise, God is nothing but a sadist.

Jesus even mentions it.

Are you sure? Judaism has many different ideas about the afterlife -- there's nothing, there's nothing for bad people and heaven for good people, there's a sort of purgatory where sins are burned away before entering heaven, there's a cycle of rebirth until the soul performs all the mitzvahs necessary to enter heaven --- but I don't think the concept of eternal hell was ever one of them. Did Jesus actually talk about eternal damnation, or might he have been referring to one of these other beliefs?

[Ray]

"Otherwise, God is nothing but a sadist."

Well, yeah. Hence the problem many people have with God.
Jesus explicitly mentions Hell in Mark 9 43 (and after) "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out."
Again in Luke 16 (the parable of the rich man) "In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side."
There's also Matthew 25 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ...Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.... Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

[Dave Lartigue]

Are you sure?

Luke 16.

[Beth]

Thanks Ray, and Dave, but I still have a few doubts. Except for that last bit of Matthew 25 ("they will go away to eternal punishment"), he could be describing a temporary punishment, with "eternal" referring to the nature of the place, not the length of the sentence. It seems odd to me that Jesus would insert such a radical and cruel concept into his teaching. In general, Jesus' teachings were not that far from those of other Rabbis, and tended to emphasize God's love and compassion. It's odd too, that he wouldn't have been clearer about it. If you read those passages from a contemporary Christian perspective, you'd naturally assume he was talking about eternal damnation, but if you heard them from a 2,000 year-old Jewish perspective (as his audience would have) you'd assume he was talking about a limited torment.

Perhaps I'm also resisting the idea because, if true, it would leave me with a terrible choice. I could either be condemned to eternal suffering or have to spend eternity praising a sadistic God who is torturing most of my friends and family. That would be a sort of hell in itself. So it seems that either way I'll have to endure eternal misery. My only choice is which sort of misery I prefer.

[Dan Lewis]

As Dave asks, why? "Hell is a huge problem not just because of certain Christians' fetishistic obsession with it. It also doesn't make any damn sense to atheists like me. Hell, damnation, sin, all of that just completely bungs up the whole story, in my opinion."

I suppose it depends on what story you think is being told. If you see life as short and bittersweet, then pain and suffering stretched out over endless years seem pretty pointless. If you see life as a tale told by an idiot, capricious and random, beads on a string, then everything is equally pointless.

On the other hand, if, like Christians, you already see personal choices as meaningful and irrevocable, and people as immortal, then some kind of hell or damnation is almost a syllogism.

It is with this kind of picture in mind that Christians say "They chose the not-God" and then attempt to explain how fire and brimstone and ever-hungry worms are appropriate symbols for that choice. Thinking of them as more than symbols is misreading, as if Dante thought that in reality Satan had three heads and was endlessly devouring Judas, Brutus, and Cassius, or that suicides are transformed into gallows trees, or that the terminus of hell is a frozen lake at the center of the earth. Hardly; but these were the appropriate symbols for what Dante wanted to say about treachery, suicide, hell.

CS Lewis said somewhere that the picture we have of the devil is of a man in a red suit, with horns, hooves, forked tail, pitchfork, and a goatee. Then he added that though this is a ludicrous picture, we shouldn't disbelieve in the devil because of it. We should just take the picture as far as it goes, then set it aside.

[Ray]

On the permanent nature of damnation - the parable of the rich man ends " between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence"

I have no idea what the Jewish tradition is, but the idea of _eternal_ damnation doesn't seem to be a recent invention. Its part of the catechism of the Catholic church - "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

Is this all symbolic? The Inferno is clearly a work of fiction, in a way that the Gospel of Matthew is not supposed to be. Sure, anything in the Gospels _can_ be interpreted symbolically, but then where do you stop? If Hell is only a figure of speech, what about heaven? (And why are we privileging the interpretation of a 20th century writer "they chose the not-God", over the _gospel_ written by _an apostle_)

[Ray]

Why does it mess up the story? Because a lot of the teachings of Jesus are fine. Love your neighbour. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. God is love. You can construct a perfectly good philosophy from those few ideas - it looks like Fred basically has, as have many others like him.
But the loving God of redemption and forgiveness does not sit well with the wrathful God. And the God who condemns people to an eternity of hell is the wrathful God, no question about it. So the story is messed up. What does "Love your neighbour" mean, when Jesus is also saying "But if your neighbour doesn't love Me, he will burn for eternity?" As Beth says, its hard to reconcile the two.

" if, like Christians, you already see personal choices as meaningful and irrevocable, and people as immortal, then some kind of hell or damnation is almost a syllogism."

First, Christians are not the only ones to think personal choices are meaningful. Second, Christians think that baptism (and/or confession) washes away sin, which means personal choices are revocable. Third, if the soul is everlasting and immortal, why should God limit his forgiveness to the first 100 years of that soul's existence? If you can repent on your deathbed and be forgiven, why not after 1000 years of torment?

The problem is not that an eternity of suffering is 'pointless'. The problem is that it's cruel and vengeful. An all-powerful and all-loving God could surely come up with something better than that. Simple death, if nothing else.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Since we're throwing around C. S. Lewis quotes, I'm remembering another depiction of Judgement and Hell in The Last Battle -- all the creatures who ever lived in Narnia came forth toward Aslan, and looked upon His face, and all those who came over with love and delight at the sight subsequently went into the door to joy everlasting; and all those who beheld Aslan in fear and disgust swerved in the other direction and entered great Darkness.

It's a metaphor I like, for several reasons.

First, it makes us cooperative in our own Judgement. Those who love God will be with God forever; and those who don't, won't. It's up to us even at that last second. (I'm guessing this depiction probably didn't please some of Lewis's readers. Among them, the ones that also had trouble with Aslan's conversation with Emer, I think his name was.)

Second, it doesn't disclose the nature of Hell. We can assume the beings who didn't go to Heaven were simply made an end of--no afterlife for them--but in truth we just don't know. They go into darkness and we see them no more. And why should we? It's not our business, is it? It's somewhat unhealthy to focus on the torments of the sinners; better to focus on how to make oneself right with God.

(Caveat: The above views propounded by a devout Wiccan. Your mileage may vary, especially if you share more of Lewis's views than I do.)

[Mabus]

Actually, I found Lewis' description reasonably appropriate, if not all that precise. And I'm one of the more...problematic people around here. (Though actually, you might note that the talking animals who are lost apparently cease to be sapient beings--I found that the most frustrating part.)

[Mabus]

(Er...that was a response to Nicole, in case it's not clear.)

[David]

Of course Lewis also wrote The Great Divorce in which he posits that souls in Hell are given the opportunity to visit Heaven and if they choose, to stay. His examination of why some would in fact choose to remain in Hell (which he paints as more of a Limbo) is an interesting psychological study.

Lewis also remarked that he was tempted at times to believe in the notion that no one seeing God in person would be able to reject him, leaving no need for a Hell.

[pharoute]

hell/no hell, loving God/vengeful God it's a toughy. For me it's analogus with Jesus' teaching that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable. If one sees the Holy Spirit as the immediate communion with God and God's love then if you reject/blaspheme the Holy Spirit you are rejecting the state of forgivenes. As a better thinker than I put it "Forgiveness isn't imposed; it's accepted." Heaven isn't imposed; it's accepted. Jesus' teachings are designed to get you break down the wall around your heart, to get you to see that you are a fully loved child of God. Lilies of the field and all that. You probably won't find the path if you believe you're entitled to it.

[Ray]

I have no problem at all with the idea that Heaven is communion with God, basking in God's love, recognising that you are a fully-loved child of God, seeing the wonder that is God, etc, etc, etc.

It's the "thumbscrews for everyone else" bit that disgusts me.

I also find it kind of ironic that, while on other matters we should look to the practices of the early church, when it comes to heaven and hell the important descriptions are in twentieth century novels, not the Gospels. (Which is not to say that you _shouldn't_ construct your religion like this.)

(Oh and CS Lewis, condemning Susan for growing up? Not so nice.)

[David]

Condemning her for growing up? Not quite. Her fault was not growing up, but becoming shallow and vacuous, obsessed with image and attitude. One can grow up well or badly. Lewis described in Susan the young girls who race towards revealing outfits, boyfriends, and trying to look as much as possible like Britney Spears in order to appear 'mature'.

I'm not fully up on my history of theology, Ray, but I'm pretty sure there's been a variety of opinions on Hell since the very beginning, and it's just the fire and brimstoners that have been the loudest. I know J. Michael Matkin's well-learned in beliefs of the early fathers - perhaps he could enlighten us.

[Daryl McCullough]

fernmonkey writes: [...the sinners who get flung into the fire after judgement do not go to Hell. They die. They cease to exist...] Which isn't that much of a punishment for atheists, is it? It's only what they've been expecting all along.

That's right. In this view of things, it's not so much that death is the punishment for sin, but that eternal life is the reward for faith in God.

[scylla]

What a wonderful discussion! In my view, the sticking point comes down to this--if God truly condemns non-"Christians" to eternal hellfire, then we not talking about God, but some form of spiteful, self-absorbed, uber-being. And I join with others in saying, "Fine, I'll stay behind."

But I don't think we'll have to make that decision, because (assuming we can talk intelligibly about God as something separate from ourselves)God does not condemn anyone, but only provides a continuous opportunity to recognize the reality of our existence--our relation with others and with the divine.

Hell is simply not opening our eyes to see what IS. And truly, if we cannot see, we are condemned to the torment of living in a tortured dream of our own device. So when Jesus talks about the great gulf and the torment of those on the other side, he acknowledges how easy it is for us to close our eyes to Life, and how dramatic the consequences when we do. Any other interpretation is just bad sci fi.

[scylla]

Oh, and speaking of people permanently stuck in bad sci fi, I offer into evidence in support of my point: the republican leadership. Have they not formally declared their rejection of a reality-based existence? There is no reality, sillies, the neocons say--only the reality we create. And damned if they don't keep manufacturing it anew every day. What kind of spiritual understanding can we expect from people apparently incapable of believing the evidence of their senses?

[Ray]

Why is eternal hell bad sci-fi, but possessed swine/ water into wine/ raising the dead/ ascending into heaven/ the whole "He's a God AND a man!" thing* legitimate?

*more Byzantine fun

[Beth]

"between us and you there is a great gulf fixed"

Surely God could have crossed that gulf though, and brought the rich man over if He chose. You may be right that the rich man's suffering is eternal, but considering the general beliefs of the people Jesus was talking to, I'm still not sure. Either way, Abraham's compassion is quite a contrast to the exultant schadenfreude suggested in L.B. I suspect that if L&J had written that story, Abraham's response would have been, "Why should we help you, you loser?"

If you can repent on your deathbed and be forgiven, why not after 1000 years of torment?

Exactly. And if all that torment cannot lead to repentence and salvation, what is it but cruelty and vengence? But maybe neither heaven nor hell is eternal. Maybe the saved experience such bliss at being in God's presence that they finally unite with God completely and cease to be individual souls altogether. And maybe hell burns away all the pride and shallow desires of the damned until they too are able to love God purely and unite with Him as well.

What a wonderful discussion!

I agree. And it all seems to come back to understanding ourselves and our choices in this life, realizing the depth of suffering we create for ourselves with our bad choices, and the wonder we can experience if we only open our hearts to it. This seems like the real tragedy of the simplistic reward-or-punishment view of L.B. Christians. It cuts off this whole line of thinking. They don't have to bother with what "heaven" and "hell," or "salvation" and "damnation" really mean. They never have to really examine their own souls and their own actions, and I believe they are the poorer for that.

[cjmr's husband]

What a wonderful discussion!

Concur; this thread, unlike others I've seen recently, has had a distinct shortage of personal attacks, deliberate misunderstanding, devil's advocating, and gang-up-on-ing. I can only assume it's because of my own non-participation :-)

Keep up the good work, keep it clean, and we can all learn something.

[What is in a name?]

What a wonderful discussion!

It is not just a wonderful discussion. It is, actually, a taste of Heaven:

Concur; this thread, unlike others I've seen recently, has had a distinct shortage of personal attacks, deliberate misunderstanding, devil's advocating, and gang-up-on-ing.

[Dan Lewis]

Matthew 7:

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Hell means "away from Jesus". The rest is left as an exercise for the reader. Thumbscrews or not, the possibility is meant to be unnerving, and especially unnerving to those who call themselves followers of Jesus. This is one of the places where a definition of hell as "choosing not-God" comes from.

I said "if, like Christians, you already see personal choices as meaningful and irrevocable, and people as immortal, then some kind of hell or damnation is almost a syllogism." If you don't believe one of these things about people or choices, then obviously you won't agree with the conclusion.

Then Ray asked me, "Second, Christians think that baptism (and/or confession) washes away sin, which means personal choices are revocable."

There is an important way that your choices are irrevocable: you can never change them again. This isn't just true of the choices we make for or against religion or God or something. You had breakfast this morning. You had cereal; it was Cap'n Crunch. You had a glass of orange juice and read the newspaper. You are no longer able to have had an omelette for breakfast, or to have read a Neil Gaiman novel, no matter how much you wish you could.

Now say your religion says that eating Cap'n Crunch is a sin, and you apologize to God or whip yourself or whatever it is you have to do. In an important way, your choice has been revoked; you've changed your mind and restored your spiritual communion. But that you ate the Cap'n Crunch is a fact of life.

What if it were a fact of life that you could reject your spiritual communion with God? This is a sort of meta-sin, the kind of thing some people think Jesus was talking about regarding blaspheming the Holy Spirit ("the unforgivable sin"). The reason the sin is unforgivable is because it rejects forgiveness, rejects communion with God. Isn't that hell? Why couldn't it be a fact of life, in the past, permanent? I'll point out, though, that this bears very little resemblance to the "pitchforks for the un-Protestant" thing in Left Behind.

[Dan Lewis]

The other thing Ray asked about was time, specifically "if the soul is everlasting and immortal, why should God limit his forgiveness to the first 100 years of that soul's existence? If you can repent on your deathbed and be forgiven, why not after 1000 years of torment?" I think there is an important issue we have been skirting around the edges of here (and I did it myself, in the last post).

What month is it right now in hell (on the Christian hypothesis)? June? The fact is, none of us knows for sure that people live for lengths of time in hell, or even that time exists in hell. I'd opine that it doesn't, and that the issue rests on the interpretation of words like "eternal" or "everlasting" that don't make much sense to us human beings living in serial time.

So, in other words, the assumption behind "If you can repent on your deathbed and be forgiven, why not after 1000 years of torment?" is that being in hell is like living, only more so, and longer, and it hurts, and it's cruel.

But to the contrary, hell is not like living because hell is permanent.

I'd say that hell is an indestructible palace of one's own making, lovingly furnished, planted with the most fragrant flowers and delicious fruits, populated with our ideal companions, providing the fulfillment of our wildest dreams... lacking only the love of God.

I sympathize with Beth's comment here; "it all seems to come back to understanding ourselves and our choices in this life, realizing the depth of suffering we create for ourselves with our bad choices, and the wonder we can experience if we only open our hearts to it." If hell were only torture it would be pointless. But if hell is the depth of suffering we create for ourselves, it all seems so natural, doesn't it?