Mar 27 2007
Pope Benedict: “Why don’t we talk about hell any more?”
Pope Benedict has given a fresh reminder that Hell is hell and bemoaned the fact that it rarely gets talked about these days. The 79-year old pontiff used a Mass in the gritty Fidene suburb of Rome to put damnation back on the agenda.
“Jesus came to tell us everyone is wanted in paradise, and that hell, about which little gets said today, exists and is eternal for those who shut their hearts to his love,” Pope Benedict warned the congregation on Sunday
“Hell exists and there is eternal punishment for those who sin and do not repent.”
Using the Gospel reading of John where Jesus saves the adulterous woman from death by stoning by saying “let he who is without sin to cast the first stone”, Pope Benedict said: “This reading shows us that Christ wants to save souls. He is saying that He wants us in Paradise with Him but He is saying that those who close their hearts to Him will be condemned to eternal damnation.
“Only God’s love can change from within the existence of the person and, consequently, the existence of every society, because only His infinite love liberates from sin, the root of every evil.”
[From me]
Wow! If I didn’t know who wrote this sermon I would have thought it came from an Evangelical.  He is right. Hell is a real place and those who say it isn’t will spend eternity away from God. I would hate to think of this for anyone. That is why I take my faith and the faith of others so seriously.
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
20 responses so far
Yup, one of my favorite thoughts, too. One of the famous old-time evanglists .. I don’t remember if it was Mordecai Ham, Billy Sunday, or whoever .. said he preached’em into heaven by danglin’em over hell. It almost seems we’d prefer to offer them an abundant life instead of scaring them about hell, which may be like offering someone an upgrade to first class when they don’t have a coach ticket in the first place.
They may not make the plane at all, that way.
Bob, that is a great analogy, I was nearly tempted to chuckle except it is way too sober a thought!
Kevin - another great post to highlight. I grew up Baptist as well and was raised with deep suspicion of the catholic church. However, I’ve noticed some really amazing stances from them particularly on the pro-life issue. Most of their traditions come from extra or not particularly biblical places, but many catholics in certain regions are way more into Jesus than the rosary or other traditions that I would question. Many people take a black / white approach… I prefer to suspend judgment and weigh the gray spots… and occasionally am pleasantly surprised. CBB
I find it sincerely depressing that people worry so much more about the life they might maybe have after they die than they do about the life they do have right now. I really do feel awful, and I believe people are trapped by this mode of thought, so I can surely relate to the urge to try to “save” people. To me, heaven and hell appear cynically transparent devices for manipulating people. I can’t even comprehend the heroic, willful act of (apparent) self-delusion it would take to buy into it as an adult. They are malicious, pernicious devices calculated to devalue the real, actual, infinitely precious life we really do have, right now. If you can’t see that in your own religion, look at the analogs in others. I’m sure Islamic Paradise immediately comes to mind, and lets not forget Valhalla and the Elysian fields. All ways of encouraging people to die the way the established religion wants them to. Laugh at the anachronisms if you like, but I find it sad because I cannot see the difference a few thousand years has made. You see fewer examples today of the afterlife being used to goad people into killing and dying, but you certainly don’t lack for examples of other coercions.
Obviously I have strong feelings here and I’m probably not presenting my thoughts in a way that will “save” anyone. I’m more interested at the moment in conveying a perspective that religious communities otherwise has to go out of their way to experience, and rarely do. Succinctly stated, I find the valuing of souls over lives to be monstrous and the ramifications of such values to be terrifying. I share this so you can imagine how people like me feel when we see concepts of afterlife informing the decisions of politicians and public role models, and how we are likely to react when such arguments are attempted in discussion. You will have more luck approaching secularists with a sword than with heaven in one hand and hell in the other (assuming you wish to).
Not only do we not talk about hell, but we very rarely shed tears that our friends are going there. Growing up in a fundamentalist background, we heard about hell often, but - forgive the judging - it often seemed to joyous that “those people” - whoever happened to be the boogey man of the week - were going there.
It wasn’t until I was at a world missions conference where I watched a missionary cry over the fact that the people to whom he had given most of his life to were without Christ and going to hell.
I think of two great sermons: Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God by Jonathon Edwards and Payday Somedayby R. G. Lee. In those two sermons, there were the warnings of judgment and hell. It was not a “touchy-feely” or “warm fuzzies” that they gave the audience but rather a stiff warning of the danger to come. Today, we tell them they have a God-shaped vacuum in their heart that only Jesus can fill and if we receive Him into our hearts today, He will give us love, joy, peace, and happiness. So, at the first sign of trouble, the new convert walks out the church disgusted because he had been promised love, joy, peace, and happiness. People live their lives today with no fear of the wrath to come because they have not been warned to flee the wrath that is coming.
I share this so you can imagine how people like me feel when we see concepts of afterlife informing the decisions of politicians and public role models, and how we are likely to react when such arguments are attempted in discussion.
Your concept of the afterlife or even the lack thereof affects your decisions now. As you pointed out, if a person believes they will go to paradise by killing innocent people then it affects their decision making process. If you believe that you can live your life as you please with no consequences for your actions in the hereafter then why bother being “good”. A person put it one time in a chilling fashion, “If I were going to kill one person, I would kill all the people I don’t like because I can only die once.”
You will have more luck approaching secularists with a sword than with heaven in one hand and hell in the other …
At least if I approach you with heaven and hell, you will have a true choice.
Yes, hell is real, and we should never forget that–whether it where “the worm does not die and the fire is never quinched” or “the outer darkness when men cry and wail.” Either way, it is eternity without God. Chilling!
By the way: good thoughts Retroman. I too know some Catholics who are very Biblical in their outlook, and possibly the most “spiritual” (and I mean this in a very positive and Biblical sense) woman I ever met was an Episcopal.
I suspect though that a significant part of silence on the subject of hell is because there were too many preachers in the past who overemphasized it, to the exclusion of the Good News of Jesus Christ in the here and now, and produced more than one generation of “fire insurance believers.” I remember when I was saved (age 25 or 26), and we had to attend a preparation session for baptism with the pastor. He asked us why we wanted to be baptized; one woman there answered, “Because I don’t want to go to hell.” Funny thing: I had only seen her a time or two before that, and after her baptism, I never saw her again. I don’t know where she is now, geographically or spiritually; but in terms of her church involvement, baptism seemed to have no effect. Please now, no one respond saying that I am suggesting we remain silent on the subject, because we have been too silent. My point is simply that an emphasis on hell may quicken, but only Jesus saves, and an overemphasis on hell may actually detract from the message of salvation.
Clarification on last paragraph: instead of “baptism seems to have no effect,” I meant to say, “her desire to avoid hell seemed to have no effect.”
WIth a message like that I wonder if I could get the Pope to come fill the pulpit on Sunday? Oh man wouldn’t that cause a stir in the SBC?
Why don’t we talk about hell anymore? Because hell isn’t very seeker-friendly. Neither is the idea of taking up the cross.
My only problem with the Pontiff talking about “hell” is his views on Purgatory…
Who will be sent to “hell” according to the dogma of Catholicism?
Who determines Purgatory, its’ inhabitants, and the length of stay?
This has inspired for me to use the word Hell in more of my every day language. “Oh hell, I’m late… gotta go. Later”
John Hooks wrote:
This is a common question posed to atheists. It is difficult to address because it is nearly nonsensical when removed from the assumption of an afterlife.
You seem to be presuming that either I am misrepresenting my beliefs and I do believe in an afterlife (and therefore am “good”) or that I am being truthful in my beliefs and therefore I must not be “good”. However, one does not logically follow from the other. It is quite possible to believe in the afterlife yet not be “good”, and likewise it is quite possible to be agnostic or disbelieving about an afterlife and also be “good”.
My actions have consequences. Right now. Right here. In this life. To me and the people around me. That is why I am good when I can be, and remorseful when I fail to be. I simply cannot follow why you would suggest I would think my actions do not have consequences. This is exactly the sort of distortion of thought that I was complaining about. You’re placing so much value on something that no one can know that you are failing to appreciate the value of this life.
Having said that, it sort of begs the question of why. That’s okay. I’m allowed to say, “I don’t know.” I have some shrewd guesses, though. Doing harm to others causes most humans to feel pain. We have empathy; the ability to model other people’s experiences and emotions. The kicker is, it’s really hard to turn it off. There are lots of tricks to do so, but for most people it takes a conscious act, and it keeps turning itself back on at the most inconvenient times. People who’s brain lacks the facility for empathy behave exactly as you cast the average atheist; someone with no concept of the consequences of their actions beyond how they will be directly affected. In a word, a sociopath. I hope you do not really think of atheists as sociopaths, but that is the outward appearance.
The truth is, “why are we good?” is a very difficult question. It is not obvious why humans (Christian or otherwise) should ever act altruistically, but it is obvious that they do. Its a fascinating area of current research. Religion loves difficult questions, because its much easier to take credit for them. “What makes the sun shine?” “What makes the stars sometimes fall?” “What makes men do good things?” Let’s just say God did it and get back to more immediate matters. When this happens, its referred to by atheists as “the God of the gaps”, a universal catch-all that fills the uncomfortable holes in human knowledge.
By the by, I’ve used “good” in quotes because I suspect if we got right down to it, we would have wildly different definitions. I think this is perhaps the source of your presumptions. You might say something like, “good is what comes from God, evil is what comes without God.” Given that definition, I can see how your questions would follow logically, but it’s not a very useful working definition given how damned ineffable God likes to be. We can’t use that definition to tell good from evil. The words become meaningless.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Geekwad. Since words have become meaningless from our presuppositions and differing worldviews then maybe we can open a dialog to come to a definition of “good”? In the atheist worldview, what is the definition for “good” and what is the motivation for doing “good”?
I hope you do not really think of atheists as sociopaths, but that is the outward appearance.
My intention is not to typecast atheists as sociopaths nor to build a straw man but to pose a serious inquiry to this discussion.
You are correct, our premises are different therefore must be considered in our discussion.
Mr. Hooks, from the context I gather that you are both Quinn and John. I guess in my haste to score points, I mischaracterised your question. It doesn’t presume I cannot be good so much as challenge me to prove I am. Thanks for not quibbling.
I’d be happy to discuss the atheist position, in my view, of “goodness”. Simply stated, anything that is positive from a particular point of view is “good”. Of course, that same event from another point of view may well be “bad”. “Good” cannot be evaluated in isolation, it requires a context to have meaning. There is always an implied “…from a particular point of view” after the word when an atheist says it.
In casual conversation, it is usually pretty clear what the point of view being discussed is from the context. For example, when speaking of broad topics — nuclear power, birth control, what have you — one infers the point of view to be something like, “to the net wellbeing of humanity.” When speaking of a sporting event, it would be, “to the team I prefer.” (Was it good when the Blue Jays won two World Series? Most people would probably say no, but I am serenely certain that they are wrong. (-; Interestingly, professional athletes who are religious often seem to unconsciously apply the same relative view of goodness, or they would not pray for victory!)
Atheists have nothing in their worldview from which to hang absolutes. We don’t believe in the universal yardstick by which Christians measure goodness. When entertaining a Christian worldview for the sake of discussion, we can take the implied rider on “good” to be, “to God,” and so still have something of a discussion without too much confusion. I still think this makes it impossible to tell good from bad, because of the law of mysterious ways, and so is not very useful. A Christian describing something as good or bad with this definition seems to be saying they know God’s plan.
However, if the other party is not willing to entertain other forms of goodness, the discussion quickly becomes tiresome and pointless. It is also considered bad form to rail against “moral relativism.” It is akin to saying, “I know the right way, the one way, the only way, and I don’t need to hear about any other way because they are all wrong.” What’s the point of talking to someone like that if they doesn’t have a halo and a chorus of angels accompanying them?
Relatedly, atheists have no problem describing something as “bad” because that is also relative. Many would not use the word “evil” in the same context, however, because it connotates absolute morality.
The motivation to do good or not do bad is often selfishness, directly or indirectly. Essentially a cost/benefit analysis. “I could take Julie’s last beer, but then she would be sad, and that would make me feel bad. Also, she might stop giving me beer in the future. I would enjoy a beer right now, but not enough to justify the risk.” We can ignore those cases as uninteresting. I think the quote you paraphrased provides a clue about the rest of the cases. Let us again ignore the selfish reasons to not keep killing (increasing risk of getting caught, for example). It appears to be a perfectly rational argument. So, for what rational reason wouldn’t we just keep killing everyone who annoyed us?
Answer: None at all. I am not saying there aren’t rational reasons to be discovered, I am saying they are irrelevant. Humans are not rational creatures. Logic requires perfect knowledge to give perfect results. If we depended on rationality to make our decisions, we would probably behave even crazier than we already do. Garbage in, garbage out. Rather, we rationalise decisions we come to through other means. Through our drives and emotions. Though they may be irrational, they’ve had about five hundred million years to find the voodoo that works. (”Voodoo” in the technical sense, meaning actions you perform to obtain a desired result without knowing how the actions produce the result.)
Why does someone jump into an icy river to attempt to save a single other person? The cost/benefit analysis says it doesn’t pay; now you have two people in imminent danger! You might say God makes them do it. I find that answer unsatisfactory, but I don’t have a complete answer of my own to substitute. I am content to say that most humans have a strong drive to try to preserve each other’s wellbeing, and leave it up to the evolutionary psychologists to discover how we came to possess that drive. The short answer is pretty obvious; humans who collaborate thrive, humans who do not struggle to survive.
This is strongly related to another common question, “why don’t athiests all just kill themselves?” Once you adjust for the impedance mismatch from the assumption that atheists think life is pointless, you’re still left with the reality that it is normally really, really hard for a person to kill themselves. Barring certain mental states, it takes an act of supreme will to overcome the drive to survive.
Anyhow, it’s a difficult subject, so I’ve just sort of rambled around hoping to hit on something that resonates. Thanks for your interest.
Kevin: Serious students of Pope Ratzinger will seek out the April 2 New Yorker Magazine for a dissection of his theology as it mirrors and challenges Islam.
I hope you will bring it to Wade Burleson’s attention as well as this article should interest us all across the Baptist/Protestant/evangelical spectrum.
Thanks for the heads up Stephen. I saw your bio. I used to live in Rome, GA and coached football at Pepperell.
Thank you, Geekwad. I apologize for the confusion. I have been using Blogspot and recently switched to Wordpress. I am still learning to use Wordpress and realized that it was posting me as John Hooks. I was able to change it today so from now on it will post me as Quinn Hooks.
The Pope is definitely not an evangelical. He is a staunch defender of traditional, conservative Catholicism, though. There are quite a few shared doctrines between us as conservative evangelicals and traditional, conservative Catholicism, among them, the doctrine of a literal hell. There are also some very important doctrines on which we do not see eye to eye, such as, justification by grace alone, and through faith alone; direct access to God the Father through the mediation of Christ alone; and the sufficiency of Scripture. Don’t look for me in line to join up with any ecumenical movement that seeks to unite us as Christians under the umbrella of the Pope and Rome.
We are in hell now what else should we talk about?
Sadly Catholicism contends that while hell may be literal, your place in it can be changed after death i.e. through purgatory. The RCC errantly teaches that you can somehow make restitution for your sins yourself at that point, because they fail to apply scripture appropriately to the whole doctrine, and thus are leading many Catholics into a false sense of security over the whole issue. God has determined that repentance is for THIS side of heaven alone, and unless you sort out your sins before Him NOW, you cannot have any facility to do so after you die - if that were the case, there would be no value in Jesus having died for our sins if we could somehow work to improve on our sinful state by our own merit, prayers, works or any other method.
And those who like to joke or make light of hell, by contending they are in it here on this earth show they have absolutely no true idea of what it is all about. Sadly many who consider themselves Christians (for all the wrong reasons) may get a shock when they die and Jesus turns them away from His presence. :(.