Hell, Christianity’s Most Damnable Doctrine

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.  [Revelation 20]

This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown in the lake of fire.  [Revelation 20]

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. [John 3]

Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, they will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. [2 Thessalonians]

This title is borrowed from a chapter in a book I reference often titled “The End of Christianity”, edited by John Loftus.  And this piece is of the same spirit and done in commemoration.  The first set of quotes shows how Christianity paints a ghastly image of judgment and hell that can reverberate in your soul (metaphor!), while the quote below aptly explains how I feel about hell.

What if I’m wrong, and what if this Christian thing is right?  … I get to the pearly gates and find out that I’m wrong.  “Say, well gentleman, I was mistaken.”  Is God going to be a peevish theology professor and say “too bad you bastard you are going to fry”?  If that’s God, then that’s a God not worth worshiping.  I’m going to hell in someone’s dogma anyway, Nation of Islam or Johavos Witness for example.  [Robert Price]


Some ask me why I have an obsession with Christianity.  I let them know that it’s because I have the drive to abolish falsehoods that haunt humanity, and Christianity is no exception.  But what has perturbed me as of late is Christianity’s haunting doctrine of hell.  Being judged and condemned to an eternity of punishment if you don’t follow the rules, that you may not have agreed to in the first place, is inherently totalitarian and doesn’t seem to be a fair system, to say the least.  This doctrine has affected members of my family—as they age, they seem to become more and more fearful of God’s judgment, or they become inordinately concerned with getting in his special favor.  We should not be living in unnecessary fear.  Some may argue that if it wasn’t for the potential wrath of God that man would sin egregiously and profusely.  They may have an argument because I’ve seen what fear can do to us homo sapiens, but I’d prefer that people rely on themselves, others, and punitive institutions to remain accountable for their actions and words.

I would like to shed some light on this doctrine of hell and figure out if there is any merit to it because as an agnostic I’m committing a grave sin.  But this is all very confusing since some liberal Protestants say I’m forgiven and will receive God’s grace regardless, while Catholics’ Catechism (book of doctrines), on the other hand, clearly states it’s a mortal sin (if not forgiven before death by repenting, I’m punishable to eternal hell).  Pope Francis in 2013, by contrast, said Jesus’ redemption is for all, even atheists, justified by a passage in the Gospel of Mark, but later rebuffed by the Vatican.  To be fair, in their attempt to be just, Catholicism even has legal jargon to explain what’s a mortal sin: it has to be grave in matters, committed with full knowledge, and have deliberate consent.  Still, these contradictions don’t surprise me as the Gospels and Epistles each have their own unique theology, and if you cherry-pick, which all denominations do, then the end result is this rainbow of doctrine you see.

Play with our Emotions

Before I start on the particulars of hell, I thought the following quote by Michael Shermer sums up the possible evolution of monotheistic faiths and how religion can manipulate our emotions, especially playing upon fear.

Religion is a social institution to create and promote myths, to encourage conformity and altruism, and to signal the level of commitment to cooperate and reciprocate among members of a community.  Around five thousand to seven thousand years ago, as bands and tribes began to coalesce into chiefdoms and states, government and religion co-evolved as social institutions to codify moral behaviors into ethical principles and legal rules, and God became the ultimate enforcer of the rules.  In the small populations of hunter-gatherer bands and tribes with a few dozen to a couple of hundred members, informal means of behavior control and social cohesion could be employed by capitalizing on the moral emotions, such as shaming someone through guilt for violating a social norm, or even excommunicating violators from the group. But when populations grew into the tens and hundreds of thousands, and eventually into millions of people, such informal means of enforcing the rules of society broke down because free riders and norm violators could more readily get away with cheating in large groups; something more formal was needed. This is one vital role that religion plays, such that even if violators think that they got away with a violation, believing that there is an invisible intentional agent who sees all and knows all and judges all can be a powerful deterrent of sin.

Pervasiveness of Hell

The concept of an afterlife, in general, is present in some way or another in most religions, with hell, in particular, being present in most modern religions with the exception of early Judaism and early Hinduism.  I don’t know the inter-dependencies of these religions, but it’s fascinating to note that most have some form of what we would call “hell”.  The best attempt I’ve seen at explaining the pervasiveness of belief in an afterlife is by Michael Shermer in his book titled, “The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.”  To touch only on the religions with an influence on Christianity, Judaism, for example, like the notion of their heaven, has an ambiguous version of hell.  There is Sheol, where the spirits of the dead go, and Gehinnom, which is a dump that was constantly burning to which became a place for sinners – not until much later does hell become a place of actual punishment.  What’s unique about Judaism in contrast to Christianity’s concept of hell is that the punishment is temporary, not eternal.  In Greek mythology, there is an underworld, also known as Hades, containing a component known as Tartarus, which is the place where torment and suffering take place.  So Tartarus is to hell as Hades is to Sheol.  Christianity recycles these words and usage can be a bit different, but the point is that hell is referenced frequently and vehemently, in fact over twenty times in the New Testament.  It was a vivid belief back then, and it still thrives today in most denominations.

The Necessary Ingredient, Soul. 

As a confession, I do not accept Scripture as divinely inspired by the holy spirit nor as it being inerrant.  In fact, the more I study the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament the more I view it as a very human book indeed.  A descriptive analysis of what hell is to most Christian denominations includes a very unpleasant place of fire and torture, unlivable but yet mostly ongoing, and has an element of punishment for committing grave sins.  The details across denominations of how one goes to hell vary so much, which is typical, that it boggles the mind how anyone can conclusively agree with one over the other.  Besides, like most religious truths, this is all based on a priori reasoning or top-down deductive logic.  This is where one’s conclusions are based on-premises, in a more or less closed system, derived on reason alone—that is, there is zero empirical evidence for hell.  Not that truths can’t be ascertained deductively, like mathematics or syllogistical reasoning, but if the premises are false, then your conclusions and rationale are nothing more than fairytales.

To get back to how one gets to hell, we must first understand the concept of the soul.  For brevity, we’ll look at just how key denominations view the soul and see how it’s integral to the understanding of hell.  For starters, the concept of mind-body dualism and the immortality of the soul is completely foreign to the Bible; the immortality and separation of the soul from the body is a Greek phenomenon, espoused by Socrates and Aristotle.  Moreover, the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) uses the word soul (nephesh) to mean “life” or “vital breath”, and there is no equivalent English version of the word soul in Hebrew.  Moreover, the Jews believed in a whole-body resurrection not an ascension of the soul.  However, the Hebrew bible does say that the soul—a vague concept of life itself—can die and does go to Sheol upon death, regardless of status with God.  Also, some have argued that the bible has a notion of duality, see Luke 16:19–31 on Lazarus, 1 Samuel 28, and Luke 23:43.  Regarding the New Testament, it is a little more complicated and uses the Greek word psuche, which means “life”, while the word spirit is used interchangeably.  The apostle Paul generally describes death as “sleep” awaiting the final resurrection.  Although much is spoken about eternal life, nowhere is there a teaching of the immortality of the soul or of that of an explicit duality existing between mind and body.  These concepts were introduced by the Greeks and incorporated into church doctrine by the church fathers Origen of Alexandra and Augustine of Hippo and by the philosopher Thomas Aquinas.

How does it work?

So if you are a biblical inerrantist, then there may be some challenges to accepting the Greek’s version of the soul, for, conceptually, it is not found in the bible at all.  And yet it is one of the more popular beliefs of Christianity.  Changes to scripture or needs to establish doctrine are usually made to overcome common objections or to solve theological problems.  Although I can only widely speculate as for the need for immortality and duality of the soul, it is possible that it allows for immediate judgment, i.e., suffering, or exaltation, of the individual upon death since bodies don’t rise from the dead, which was the common expectation of the time.  Moreover, since the second coming has yet to come (and never will come), where universal resurrections would occur, this duration of time can pose a problem as the body does decay and disappear, so raising an immaterial, immortal soul would be a solution to that problem.  A universal resurrection is when all the dead from past to present get resurrected by Christ at the last judgment: see John Chapter 5:28-29.  And eschatology, so we know the theological discipline, is the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind [Webster’s Dictionary].

I’d say there are two broad categories that sum up how the soul interacts with hell.   For Catholics and Greek Orthodox, they believe that during the general resurrection and last judgment – when the second coming of Jesus Christ occurs to raise and judge all – those who are not worthy will be permanently separated from God and, of course, eternally punished for their sins.  One’s soul dies after committing a mortal sin (grave) and is separated from God if they don’t repent beforehand, but the venial (slight) sins get purified in purgatory, which is supposedly a less severe form of a transient hell.  And those lucky ones without any mortal sins go to heaven.  Also, all this occurs at the last judgment, where the soul is reunited with the body, but, confusingly, this does not necessarily mean that those that die don’t get judged immediately as well, in what’s known as the particular judgment—double judgment?  Most Protestants, on the other hand, believe in conditional immortality – that is, the soul does not live until the resurrection of the dead or second coming of Christ – so the soul dies with the body at death.  This doctrine is more specifically known as Christian mortalism, and can be found as far back as the Protestant Reformation with Martin Luther and as recent as with N.T. Wright from the Anglican church.

A Damnable Doctrine

So far we’ve read about how Christianity sends horrific messages that we will be damned to an eternity of hell if we do not believe in him, obey the gospels or commit grave sins without repenting.  I argued that it seems rather totalitarian to have to accept these terms without consent.  But of course, some will argue that any decent parent would punish their children for misdeeds without the child’s consent.  And this is the part that I just can’t accept—complete submission to an authority that I have doubt exists.  And, even if God did exist, I don’t understand this obsession with submission and worship.  I suppose if God did create all that exists and is the very nature of existence itself, then reverence for him would be appropriate but not necessarily submission.  Regardless, the real crux of the issue is how can a merciful God punish sinners.  Again, the analogy of a good parent could challenge that, but, wait a minute, this punishment is for eternity.  And this is not in accordance with the Gospel of Matthew’s teachings on the Sermon on the Mount.  For example, Matthew Chapter 5:38, one of the six antitheses, talks about how the Hebrew Law promotes peace and justice in a community by “taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” although he takes it a step further and suggests that one should suffer the wrong by not retaliating at all, by turning the other cheek.  So, first, Matthew agrees with the Code of Hammurabi, which is about the punishment fitting the crime, but then builds upon it with a radical conclusion of non-violence.  So if he believes in the Hebrew Law of justice, how could Jesus also agree that being damned to eternity is just; that is, how could any crime ever warrant an eternity in hell if God is merciful.  We know he’s just, but he’s also merciful and benevolent.

To compound on matters, Matthew discusses in the parable of sheep and goats, Matthew 25:26, that those that are charitable to others will inhabit the Kingdom of Heaven.  The Kingdom of Heaven (God) has various interpretations by theologians and secular scholars, but it suffices to say for now that it is a desirable place if one is in God’s good favor.  So Jesus’ parable is commanding you to be compassionate, and I, therefore, have great respect for it; however, it ends poorly by saying, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  The parable is essentially saying those that do not follow suit in charitable acts are damned to eternal punishment.  Now perhaps this is hyperbole for effect, but this is not the way Christianity takes it.  So in taking it how Christians take it, this does not sound, once again, like a just and merciful God.  Some may say that’s just God’s prerogative and leave it at that.  I, however, when trying to square it aware with theological attributes ascribed to him, e.g., righteousness, love, merciful, and so forth, have a difficult time taking the claim seriously.  If the religion is taken seriously, by contrast, these claims of eternal hell frighten people and may possibly even work as recruitment or retaining mechanism for the more than two billion worshippers.  I, on the other hand, believe that people should be committing good deeds for the sake of the actin it of itself, not for a reward such as the Kingdom of Heaven.

So the doctrine arguably doesn’t always coincide with scripture’s message, with a merciful and just God, and is totalitarian in its structure.  However, there have been arguments proposed to counteract these objections, e.g., free will.  Free will is the ability to freely choose between different courses of action.  I think free will should be viewed on a continuum—with some behaviors and thoughts giving the person more freedom to choose over others—say the instinct to eat, on one extreme, versus the decision to go for a car ride or stay home, on the other extreme.  I’d say it’s even more convoluted than that since genes, emotions, influences, and so forth, make it even more difficult to really ever have a truly free decision.  This is not to say that we shouldn’t be taking responsibility for our actions, for who else is going to?  Many believe that God has given us this free will, and therefore we have the ability to choose him or to exclude him.  As C.S. Lewis has said, “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.'”  I’d argue that why would God give us this freedom of our ultimate destiny in the first place if he knew we were susceptible to the wrong choices.  The counterargument is that there had to be free will, so someone could choose to love him, and you can’t love someone if you don’t have that choice to do so.  But I’ve always wondered why God has this obsession with wanting you to love him in the first place?  Why can’t he just let go and be free?

Some theologians say that God can’t determine someone’s actions ahead of time, which contradicts omniscience by the way, because of free will and that he can’t interfere with someone’s will as it would no longer be free will. That’s a simplistic black and white reading of human behavior.  As I discussed, free will is complex, and it’s not an all or nothing concept.  Moreover, if everything God creates is good, he wants good for everything he’s created, he’s omnipotent and omniscient, then why couldn’t he interfere occasionally to assist with good decisions and create a change in the hearts of atheists?  If he didn’t make the person aware of it, this would still keep the integrity of free will intact, as theologians define it.  The bottom line is that theologians don’t want to part ways with scripture; they must accept the passages that contain eternal damnation references because of the inerrancy criteria. They are then forced to come up with an explanation that will also be compatible with God’s attributes.  This flimsy explanation is free will.  Free will appears to be a convenient tool that theologians use to rationalize suffering and why some go to hell—it is nothing more than an oversimplified abstraction of human behavior used to their advantage.  It’s fraught with semantic problems and doesn’t portray the reality of decision making.  And, also, it’s not necessary since you can love someone without making a choice; it happens all the time, unconsciously.  Lastly, there’s one more argument often put forth and that is the mystical – esoteric or transcending human knowledge—explanation.  So some will claim that it’s beyond our understanding, which is possible, but I’d propose that the more probable explanation is that, like free will, this is a cop-out or rationalization.  It’s time we put the concept of hell as a destination to rest.


[1] Harris, Sam. Free Will. Free Press.

[2] Horn, Trent. Why We’re Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love. Catholic Answers Press.

[3] Loftus, John. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.

[4] Loftus, John. Christianity in the Light of Science. Prometheus.

[5] Mele, Alfred R. Free. Oxford University Press.

[6] Miles, James B. The Free Will Delusion: How We Settled for the Illusion of Morality.

[7] Musolino, Julien. The Soul Fallacy. Prometheus.

[8] Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. Henry Holt and Co.


  1. CJO says

    the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) uses the word soul (nephesh) to mean “life” or “vital breath”

    Literally, nephesh means “breath”. It is extended to mean “living (because breathing) being”. Animals have a nephesh, and its usage in the Hebrew scriptures is often in a sense that English “soul” can take as well, simply “person,” as in “the ship sank with 100 souls on board”. It’s not actually a very good fit with the Greek concept, because there’s a fundamental split between Western and Semitic (Near-Eastern) folk-anthropology. In the NE conception, a disembodied nephesh is a contradiction, a category error; breath is a property of bodies, and therefore inseparable from them.

    The Hebrew for “heart,” lebab is actually a better fit for some aspects of the Western concept of the soul. The heart in Near-Eastern thought is the seat of moral judgment, understanding, and deliberation that leads to action. So while the nephesh is the baseline minimum requirement for a body to be alive, the “enlivening force,” the lebab is the animating force more like the Greek psuche. It still makes no sense to have it floating around disembodied because it’s conceived of as a manifestation of the actual, beating pulmonary organ in one’s chest, and that fundamental split down the centuries has caused a lot of the incoherence of matters like the nature or possibility of “salvation” and “eternal life”. For instance, in Paul, who was trying to shoehorn the Near-Eastern soul concept into a Greek framework.

    Anyway, good discussion on Hell, which I quite agree is a damnable doctrine.

  2. publicola says

    There is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife, no nothing after death. Life has no intrinsic meaning on a cosmic scale. Existence has no meaning. Human existence is a product of random chance, a molecular experiment. Humans have constructed these myths because they can’t face the thought of non-existence. We haven’t been put here for some purpose, we are simply here. Pretty dark and dismal, I know, but it’s the only explanation that makes any sense. People ask, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” The answer: no reason, they just do. They ask, “How could God allow evil?” Answer: there is no God. Occam’s Razor: the simplest answer is usually the right one. Once you come to terms with it (I’m not saying it’s easy), it’s not so bad. Humans, being what they are, need to have meaning in their lives, a raison d’etre. The best way to provide this meaning on a human scale is to serve your fellow man, not in hope of some reward, but just because we are all we have. Ironically, this is one of the core principles of Jesus’ teachings. I could be tragically wrong, but I have found no evidence to contradict me. Believe me, I would like nothing better than to spend eternity in some Elysium, but it’s not in the cards. Surprisingly, when I had finally rejected these myths, I found it to be very liberating. I was once where you are now, questioning, questioning…. But the day came when I decided I would rather face an ugly truth than live in a self- delusion. My answer may not be your answer. You must decide for yourself. Good Luck.

  3. says

    This is, basically, the mirror image of the most toxic form of ultra-Calvinist dogma, written by someone who knows (like those he understandably detests) just enough to be dangerous, but (like those he detests) not enough to be really useful. I mean, the fact that you’re surprised that some ‘doctrine arguably doesn’t always coincide with scripture’s message’ says it all. Welcome to the reality of Christianity since, well, certainly the Council of Nicea AD 325, and arguably AD 51-55 in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. This article’s vitriol and scorn might be appropriate and relevant for conservative evangelical Christians and other cults, but not many others. Come back after you’ve read the theology and philosophy of Rowan Williams, or Sarah Coakley, or Vladimir Lossky, or Martyn Percy, or Karl Rahner, or Pete Ward, or John Barton (any modern, self-respecting theologian not in the right-wing Protestant bubble really – not simply N.T Wright). Beating up religious caricatures and straw men might be enjoyable and cathartic (and necessary in many circumstances), but is unhelpful for authentic discussions, and is unbecoming of good secular rationalism.

    • joncavaz says

      Thanks for the comment. Yes, looking back at it now, I’d agree that it had an unnecessary tone of contempt to it. But I appreciate the list of liberal theologians that may shed some light on how to reconcile some of that stuff. If there’s one in particular that stand’s out as helping me best change my mind, then let me know. Wait, I do seem to remember that I made a distinction between protestantism and catholicism, but I suppose you are saying within protestantism there are more liberal teachings that deal with this stuff more satisfactorily?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.