It’s no surprise that many people hate hell. Nobody loves punishment!
Hell is synonymous with evil, because hell is the abode of those who reject the one true and living God. Those who reject God are, by nature and in essence, evil. They are evil since they have not repented of their sins, so their sins are unforgiven.
Heaven and hell are consequences for man’s life on earth. If there’s no hell, people can do what they want and how they want. Those who do not want consequences for their actions hate hell.
It doesn’t matter whether we like or hate hell. If it is there, it is there.
Why the hell? Instead of asking “why should there be a hell?” we could ask “what would happen if there is no hell?”
So if there is no hell, there would be…
No Punishment & No Justice
Hell is the perfect punishment for evil. Since evil exists, punishment should prevail. If there is no hell, there will be no perfect punishment for evil.
Human justice systems are not omniscient. So some offenders will always escape the clutches of the human justice system. Moreover, corruption is rampant, and that includes the human justice system. Corruption entails that the innocent could be punished and the guilty go scot-free.
Whatever the case may be, lack of punishment is effectively a lack of justice. How can there be justice when evil people go unpunished and innocent people suffer?
Therefore, if there is no hell, evil would remain unpunished. Hence there would be no justice.
Sovereignty of Evil
Evil people prosper in this time and age (cf. Psalm 73: 3). When evil people prosper, the weak and innocent suffer deeply.
The movie “Purge” depicts a synopsis of a world where evil rules the good for a brief period of time. One day in a year is earmarked to “purge.” There would be no consequence for crimes (evil) that day. People could go berserk and unleash evil for 12 hours on that day whn all crime is legal. Purge was a vent to unleash one’s concealed evil into the world and a means to an artificial population control.
During “purge,” evil is sovereign. This would be the perpetual state of the world if there is no hell.
When evil rules, evil would be the superior rule. If there is no consequence for evil deeds, i.e. if there is no hell, good cannot be the superior moral (good need not be stronger than evil). If evil rules over good, evil would be the sole standard for life. Hence evil will pulverize the good.
Amoral World
Evil rules when there is no punishment. If evil is sovereign, this world would be amoral (evil would be the only superlative moral). Wouldn’t morality cease when the right-wrong moral distinction is erased?
For the sake of this discussion let us categorize evils as lesser and greater. The lesser evils could be gossip, jealousy, bad temper leading to minor offenses, rivalry, factions, party-spirit, and envy.
The greater evils could be the horrendous evils. Christian philosopher and priest, Marilyn McCord Adams lists horrendous evils, “…the rape of a woman and axing off of her arms, psychophysical torture…betrayal of one’s deepest loyalties, cannibalizing one’s own offspring, child abuse…child pornography, parental incest, slow death by starvation, participation in the Nazi death camps, the explosion of nuclear bombs over populated areas, having to choose which of one’s children shall live and which will be executed by terrorists…I regard these as paradigmatic, because I believe most people would find in the doing or suffering of them prima-facie reason to doubt the positive meaning of their lives. …” 1
Predicated on the fact that life is more valuable than materials, it might be of less significance to the victim and the society if a thief who robbed a pen was not convicted of his crime. But it is of a great significance if a murderer of a child remains unpunished for his crime.
The thief who habitually steals pens could progressively deteriorate into robbing millions. During this progressive deterioration, the thief could also become a killer. Thus the possibilities for the lesser evil to transform into greater evil are endless.
What prevents a man from committing petty crimes when evil rules? Man, on average, may not commit horrendous evils always. But man is totally susceptible to committing the lesser evils such as, sexual immorality, gossips, quarreling, jealousy, rivalry, factions, party-spirit, and envy, which in turn could lead to horrendous evils.
The lesser evils would also increase in intensity and magnitude. When lesser evils increase, the society becomes exceedingly volatile. Living under these conditions would be unbearable. In other words, we would be living in an amoral world under constant suffering.
If evil rules, violence would be rampant and peace would cease, for the world we live in would be amoral.
God’s Non-Existence
A world without hell could only be postulated under the condition that God does not exist, i.e. an atheistic paradigm. It is very reasonable for evil to prosper and for justice and peace to be non-existent in the atheistic worldview.
The atheistic paradigm would not (or cannot) offer any reasonable or logical answers to the problem of evil. Such is the moral bankruptcy of atheism.
Ask an atheist to explain the presence of evil. More often than not, they would quote Richard Dawkins in his work “River Out of Eden” and say “there is no such thing as evil.”
Mind you, it is Dawkins and his followers who brand the God of the Bible as evil. On one hand they say that there is no evil, but on the other hand they contradict their statement that there is no evil to assert that the God of the Bible is evil.
God forbid, if a calamity befalls these atheists, who claim that there is no evil, would they enjoy their calamity or suffer through it in pain and tears? Evidently, no sane human would enjoy evil but only suffer through it in pain and tears, for pain is inherent in evil.
So an atheist who denies God’s existence will deny evil and will deny hell. He has no other option. So if there is no hell, there is no god.
Conclusion
If there is no hell, then:
- Evil would be unpunished.
- Evil would be sovereign (rule over good).
- The world would be amoral.
- There should be no God (for hell is only plausible if God exists).
But this is the existential reality. Sovereignty is singular. There cannot be two sovereign beings i.e. two maximally great beings. When a being is sovereign, all other beings are subjugated.
We are not living in a world where evil is sovereign. We are living in a world where God is sovereign. Although Satan is the temporary ruler of this world, the sovereign God is in total control.
We know that God is in total control since our world is not amoral. There are punishments for evil. Evil does not rule over good.
Good still rules over evil. This is precisely why a good number of people enjoy a rather peaceful existence. The presence of God entails peace.
God has temporarily allowed evil to reign. But HE has assured us that not a hair from our head will perish.
God is good. God does not tolerate evil.
If we repent of our sins, believe and remain in the Lord and Savior Christ, we will be saved. Those who do not believe in Christ remain evil, since their sins remain unforgiven because of their conscious rejection of Christ.
Such an evil person sins against an infinite God. Sins against an infinite God mandate an infinite punishment in the form of hell. Hell then is the eternal abode of all those who reject Christ.
In case you have not received Christ yet, please pray and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your God and savior. I pray that you repent of your sins and ask Christ to forgive you. The merciful and loving Lord will forgive you and you will be with God forever and ever. I pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.
Endnotes:
1Marilyn McCord Adams, “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God,” The Problem of Evil (ed. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 211-12.
Originally posted at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2016/02/why-hell.html
You claim “hell is the abode of those who reject the one true and living God.”
At best the chances of “one true and living God” is at between 30% to 50% because a couple of other major religions have the same claim. Maybe it is all the same one God, however pride, elitism, ignorance and blind faith has assured that this is absolutely not possible, therefore violence has often been the answer to this idea even though the faithful claim they worship all loving, benevolent and peaceful gods, Strange that.
You claim “If there’s no hell, people can do what they want and how they want.”
As a biologist you would have some idea of the laws of nature and the ecological equilibrium systems that maintain the survival of life on our planet that usually only falters through environmental factors when humans are involved in destroying this balance. Unless it is a catastrophic change most will normally recover. All animals including the human species relies on this equilibrium to some extent for survival.
Animals apart from humans understand nothing about gods however all animals including humans from the days of living in caves inherently understand what social behaviours, morals, traditions and attitudes they need to learn and teach to their siblings to maintain a productive life and their continued existence. You would also understand if we are not plants we are animals categorised as mammals in fact, even though many religions reject any aspects that categorise us as mare animals.
You claim “God forbid, if a calamity befalls these atheists, who claim that there is no evil, would they enjoy their calamity or suffer through it in pain and tears? Evidently, no sane human would enjoy evil but only suffer through it in pain and tears, for pain is inherent in evil.”
We atheists can handle calamity as well, if not better as any God fearing Christian and I was under the impression from another of your writings that pain and suffering bought one closer to God, however you are now saying pain is inherently evil. Evil or not we all handle our problems and disasters in our own way, some people like the security of a god or deity to comfort them, others depend on friends and family and some like isolation.
You are using your religious belief to try and distinguish differences between theists and atheists that do not actually exist in such a way to promote your faith as you think it does.
Hi Rajkumar,
I’ve only just found this site and am going through and reading a load of articles! Very good stuff.
I just have a quick question regarding this article. You say: “Sins against an infinite God mandate an infinite punishment in the form of hell. Hell then is the eternal abode of all those who reject Christ”. Just briefly why do you think an infinite punishment is necessary just because God is infinite?
Also I often hear fellow Christians argue that people continue to sin in Hell which is why they are there forever. How would you respond to that? If it is possible to continuing sinning (freely) then would it not be possible to ask for forgiveness (freely) in Hell?
I am extremely sorry for such a delayed response. Absence of automatic notification upon receipt of a new comment impedes the possibility of an immediate response.
1. Is an infinite punishment necessary just because God is infinite?
The Bible informs us of an infinite punishment. If we question the infinite punishment, then on what grounds can anyone suppose that an unrepentant rebellion against a maximally great and holy being is undeserving of God’s wrath?
Sins are an assault on the infinite God – the raising of a finite will against the will of an infinite being. When we sin we fail to carry out our obligations to whom everything is due. Hence, we cannot consider sin as a finite rebellion deserving finite punishment.
Furthermore, God designed man to be in an eternal relationship with HIM. However, when man rejects God, he experiences an eternal consequence of living away from God.
2. If it is possible to continuing sinning (freely) then would it not be possible to ask for forgiveness (freely) in Hell?
Inmates of hell would sin since they would not possess the sinless perfection of the inmates of heaven, hence they would retain the propensity to sin. Since hell is a post-judgment location, forgiveness is impossible [after the final judgment].
I do hope that you would be able to read this response sooner than I did. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Remain blessed.
No worries! I wasn’t expecting an immediate reply. Thank you for the response, gives me some more to think about!
Hell would be dehumanizing only if God willingly sent people to hell when people were innocent. But this is not the case. Man by birth is a sinner. When man rejects God, he goes to hell.
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
Always fascinating to see genuinely dehumanizing views rationalized in narratives about morality.