May 4, 2013

On April 10, 2013, the Socratic Society at Oregon State University invited Todd Miles and Christian Piatt to debate on the topic; “Hell and the Love of God.” Dr. Miles took the position that hell, as a place of eternal, conscious suffering, was consistent with a God of love. Mr. Piatt took the position that a loving God was not consistent with the contemporary Christian notion of such a fate.

Following is the portion where Miles and Piatt Cross-examine each other. In Part 1, Dr. Miles presents his argument. In part 2, Piatt presents his argument.

May 3, 2013

On April 10, 2013, the Socratic Society at Oregon State University invited Todd Miles and Christian Piatt to debate on the topic; “Hell and the Love of God.” Dr. Miles took the position that hell, as a place of eternal, conscious suffering, was consistent with a God of love. Mr. Piatt took the position that a loving God was not consistent with the contemporary Christian notion of such a fate.

Following is Mr. Piatt’s argument. In Part 1, Dr. Miles presents his argument. In part 3, the two cross-examine each other. In Part 3, Piatt and Miles cross-examine each other.

May 3, 2013

On April 10, 2013, the Socratic Society at Oregon State University invited Todd Miles and Christian Piatt to debate on the topic; “Hell and the Love of God.” Dr. Miles took the position that hell, as a place of eternal, conscious suffering, was consistent with a God of love. Mr. Piatt took the position that a loving God was not consistent with the contemporary Christian notion of such a fate.

Following is Dr. Miles’ argument. In Part 2, Mr. Piatt presents his argument. In part 3, the two cross-examine each other.

April 12, 2013

I was invited to participate in a debate as part of Oregon State University’s Socratic Club series. The topic was “Hell and the Love of God.” I debated against, Todd Miles, a professor at Western Seminary in Portland, who took the position that the existence of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment was consistent with an understanding of a loving God. I took the position that it is not consistent with a God of love.

 Each of us was invited to offer a 20-minute introductory lecture on our position. Below is the manuscript for the second half of my lecture. Part one is available here. Eventually, the Socratic Club will be posting video of the event, including much more than just my introductory talk here. I will post segments of the video as they come available.

In order to understand how the Bible presents the issue of hell, we have to consider the many words often considered synonymous with “hell.” 

Old Testament – Sheol

In the Old Testament, the word “hell” appears 32 times. The phrase “the grave” is used 29 times, and “The pit” comes in at a distant third with three appearances. But all sixty-four instances of these words throughout the first 39 books of the Bible come from the same Hebrew Word, “Sheol.”

In the Jewish tradition, Sheol is a resting place for the dead. While some believe this is the same as hell, there are indications to the contrary. In the ancient Jewish tradition, Sheol is a place of rest for both righteous and wicked, with no distinction. 

Not everyone is happy about this either.

In the third chapter of Malachi, the prophet recognizes the consternation of faithful Jews who are frustrated that the wicked share the same fate. In Ecclesiastes, the priest Koheleth claims that serving God is vanity. For him, the fact that the righteous are treated the same as the wicked and vice-versa should be a call to eat, drink and be merry.

With respect to any relationship between Satan in the Old Testament and Sheol, there is none.

Some understand the serpent in the Genesis story to be an incarnation of Satan.  However, Satan first emerges in the Old Testament by name in I Chronicles, and again in Job. His primary role is to demonstrate the weakness of humanity in the face of hardship. 

In Job, Satan must receive permission from God to prove the fragility of Job’s faith by submitting him to any number of hardships. Satan’s sentiments about people are summed up in Job 2:4, when he claims, “Skin for skin! All that people have they will give to save their lives.”

He shows up again in similar form in II Samuel and Numbers, always as the antagonist. The name Satan actually means ‘adversary.’ While some may interpret this to mean he is God’s adversary, it’s more accurate to define him as humanity’s adversary, always trying to show how unworthy we are of God’s love.

In the Old Testament, Satan has no latitude to operate outside of what God gives him permission to do. Think of him more like a prosecuting attorney, beholden to God’s judiciary authority. He actually works alongside God instead of against God.

Some people also erroneously refer to Satan as Lucifer. The word “Lucifer” means “Light Bearer” in Latin, which was the term used to describe the planet Venus. Some people take Isaiah 14, about Lucifer’s fall, to be a story about Satan being cast out from heaven, as it looks similar to a quote in Luke. However, most biblical scholars and historians contend that this interpretation is taken out of context.

The “Morning Star” actually was a term commonly used to describe the Babylonian Empire. The king of Babylon not only oppressed the Israelites, but he also made a habit of comparing himself to God in the scope of his power. With this understanding, the scripture in Isaiah actually is prophesying the fall of the Babylonian Empire.

As for the use of the names “Lucifer” and “Satan” interchangeably in the Bible, it doesn’t happen. Satan is not described as Lucifer until secular literature such as John Milton’s Paradise Lost adopted the pseudonym. From there, the name seeped its way into our culture until we mistakenly began taking it as scripture.

New Testament

In the New Testament, there are three words from the Greek that, when translated to English, are generally translated as “hell.” One is Hades, which appears eleven times. Another is Tartarus, which only shows up once. And the third is Gehenna, which comes up twelve times.

First up – Hades. 

Approximately 3,500 years ago, the Greek practice of Hellenism emerged. Hellenism was practiced by the preponderance of Greek culture, valuing logic, knowledge, self-care and moderation. It was influential on Jewish culture, not only in the practices adhered to by the Greeks, but also with regard to their belief in the immortal soul and the afterlife that followed.

But despite its cultural influence on Judaism, and later, Christianity, it was considered to be a Pagan, or Gentile, religion, and therefore not acceptable in the eyes of God.

Greek culture believed in a place called Hades, which was the resting place for disembodied souls. We see evidence of this in writing as far back as the 8th century B.C., in Homer’s Odyssey. Hades is described as an Underworld, literally located underground; thus we can see the first indication of why we think of hell as such.

Hades includes multiple levels, including Elysium and Tartarus. Elysium, also called Elysian Fields, can be equated with our modern idea of heaven. One difference – although Greek scholars did not always agree on where different levels of Hades were – is that we think of heaven as located above us, whereas the general consensus is that all levels of Hades were part of a larger Underworld. 

Tartarus was the level of Hades where unrighteous souls dwelled. This correlates to our modern understanding of hell, where there is wailing, fire and gnashing of teeth as those who displease God pay an eternal price of their disloyalty. For the Jews of the time, this pagan Hellenistic belief was appealing because it helped justify their faithfulness. It gave reasons beyond any earthly consequence for following the laws of the Hebrew scripture.

How heavily did Greek culture influence Jewish tradition?  Consider this: whereas the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the original language of the New Testament is Greek. The influence of Greek culture can hardly be over-emphasized.

The writings of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish priest, had tremendous sway over early founders of the Christian church such as Origen, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Josephus, in turn, was particularly interested in Greek culture and ideology, as well as that of the Essenes, an ascetic Jewish network very focused on end-times theology and Jewish mysticism. Joesphus’ noncannonical texts such as The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities were available to these church fathers, as well as to those who wrote the Gospel texts and other New Testament scripture, which is the source of our contemporary understanding of hell.

Hinnom Valley

Finally, we’ll take a quick look at Gehenna, which is actually Greek for two Hebrew words, “Gee” and “Hinnom.” Translated literally into English, Gehenna means “The Valley of Hinnom.”

This valley was notorious among the Jews, as it was the place where apostate Jews, worshipping the Pagan god Baal and the Canannite God, Moloch, would go to conduct sacrifices. Here, they would burn their offerings to Baal, which included birds, sheep, and in some cases, even their own children.

Because of this, Gehenna was considered to be eternally cursed. It was also the site where Jerusalem’s trash was taken to be burned. The site was considered so evil and repugnant that Jewish folklore told of a mythical gate in the valley which led directly down to a lake of fire.

Interestingly (and be forewarned this is a little graphic) when it rained, the ashes from the valley would be washed down to a nearby lake, at which point the fatty, animal-based remains would rise to the top of the water. If it came in contact with fire, the result would be that of a literal lake of fire, much like a burning oil slick on the surface of the ocean.

*         *         *

On the one hand, some Christians suggest we should play it safe and assume there is an actual hell, lets we lead people to the false assumption there isn’t one, only to find out later we were wrong.

But considering the use of the doctrine of Hell in the Christian faith, particularly in the past few centuries, suffice it to say that the fear, judgment, emotional scarring, family estrangement, physical violence and any number of Holy Wars that have been conducted in the supposed name of saving souls from such a place, we’ve created our own hell on earth.

Does hell exist? Perhaps. But the God of my understanding – the God revealed to me by the life and teachings of Jesus – is a God that seduces us, beckons us toward love, toward light. It is not a kingdom governed by fear and the avoidance of pain, but rather a kingdom in which the hungry are feed, the weak are empowered, and the desperate find hope.

Life has to be about more than buying the right fire insurance. 1 John 4:18 reminds us that there is no fear in love, and that perfect love drives out fear. We can be governed by one or the other, but we can’t cling to both. I choose love.

April 11, 2013

I was invited to participate in a debate as part of Oregon State University’s Socratic Club series. The topic was “Hell and the Love of God.” I debated against, Todd Miles, a professor at Western Seminary in Portland, who took the position that the existence of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment was consistent with an understanding of a loving God. I took the position that it is not consistent with a God of love.

 Each of us was invited to offer a 20-minute introductory lecture on our position. Below is the manuscript for the first half of my lecture. Part two is available HERE. Eventually, the Socratic Club will be posting video of the event, including much more than just my introductory talk here. I will post segments of the video as they come available.

Hell and the Love of God
(Part 1 of 2)

I was born the only son of a Southern Baptist and an atheist. So it stands to reason that I split the difference in my adult life and became a heretic. I grew up in the Baptist church, memorizing scripture as part of our “sword drills,” and arming myself with the necessary tools to convert my friends to the side of righteousness.

The Bible was a critical means to that end of saving souls, and so it was important to know it well. But as I got older, my understanding of what it meant to know scripture began to diverge from the teaching of my church. I was being taught at school to think critically and question everything, while at Church, those same kinds of questions were not welcome.

I was taught that the earth was 5,000 years old, that scientists fabricated the fossil record to fit their agenda, and that some people – actually, a lot of people – really, most people – were going to hell.

Including most of my Jewish friends. And including my own father. And if I wasn’t careful, I’d be next. I remember waking up, shaking in my bed from dreams of the hungry flames of hell licking at my heels. My daily decisions we’re increasingly governed by fear and guilt rather than by love or a sense of what was right.

Finally, after asking one too many questions, my youth minister threw his Bible at me. “If you can’t believe every word in this book exactly the way it’s written,” he yelled, “then it doesn’t mean shit!” Well, I can’t. I’m sorry. So count me among the goats from now on, I guess.

While Jonathan Edwards wasn’t the first to preach about hell and condemnation, his ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ sermon in 1741 crystallizes the beginning of a modern movement in the church. Edwards employed fear of punishment as a primary means for conversion and doctrinal adherence. Meanwhile, his congregants fainted in the aisles and clung to the pews to avoid being dragged down into the abyss.

We can argue day and night about whether or not fear-based theology is effective, biblically accurate and even necessary. But it’s worthwhile to consider where our
contemporary ideas about hell even come from.

First, we have to consider what it is we’re talking about when we say “hell.” Is it a place of eternal conscious torment? Is it effectively the same as the annihilation of the soul, when one ceases to exist, even in the spiritual sense? Is it less physical and more of a conscious torment, where we, bound by our sins, spend eternity aware only of our irreconcilable separation from God?

Is it something awful but not eternal? Can we earn our way out? Does it have different levels like Dante’s “Inferno?” For the sake of this discussion, I’m working under the assumption that the “hell” we’re talking about is one of eternal conscious torment and suffering. Never mind if the suffering is physical or just psychic; eternal conscious suffering in itself is probably bad enough, either way.

Donald Miller, bestselling author of the book, “Blue Like Jazz,” said, “If the religious fundamentalists are right, heaven will be hell. And almost nobody will be there.”

Author and former pastor Rob Bell, best known for his bestselling book, “Love Wins,” stirred up a tidal wave of controversy not so much for suggesting there wasn’t a hell, but for suggesting a loving God would ensure that such a place would sit empty.

I want to geek out on some semantics for a minute before getting into some of the other really nerdy stuff I have to say. Let’s consider, for a second, the phrase, “Eternal Conscious Suffering.”

Let’s take the first word: Eternal. By definition, eternity cannot have any beginning or end. So by definition, if we’re to be condemned to an eternal hell, we are already there. Now, some would argue that life on earth is hell enough, but even the most ardent Christian apologist would not suggest that this, here and now, is hell.

Although I told someone at my church in Portland about having a two-hour debate on this topic, and he was pretty sure that sounded like hell to him.

Next, consider the word “conscious.” Consciousness is a manifestation of the human brain, a tool that helps us know who, where and when we are. Without it, we have no awareness of the distinction between us, our inner world and the rest of the outer world. Without consciousness, there is no “I” or “other.” At the point of physical death, consciousness as a cognitive function stops.

Is there such a thing as soul consciousness? Perhaps. But for what purpose? To what end? In Romans 8 verses 38-39, the Apostle Paul tells us that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

In first John, chapter 4, verse 8, we have one of the most famous verse in scripture: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Note that it doesn’t say “God is like love,’ or “God has love.” It says that “God” and “Love” are one and the same. So God is love, and nothing we can do in life or death can separate us from God.

Perfect unity with love, it seems, would eliminate the necessity for consciousness. The experience of oneness with God (which Paul says is inevitable because of Jesus) is the closing of the gap between “self” and “other.” There is no separation, and therefore, no use for consciousness, never mind the scientific impossibility of human consciousness as we understand it continuing after physical death. 

Third, we need to understand what it means to suffer. Bear in mind that suffering is different than pain. While pain is a physical response to threat or injury, suffering deals with emotional or psychological pain. Though this can be brought on by physical pain, it can also be related to trauma, loss or separation. 

So both consciousness and suffering seem dependent on some separation being present.  In this case, that would be our separation from God, yet Paul tells us this isn’t possible.

And if such separation can and does exist beyond physical existence, we’re left with a number of troubling questions we have to contend with, like: 

  1. Why would a loving God condemn a soul to eternal suffering for temporal decisions made during their lifetime?
  2. Can God not tolerate sin? If so, how did God create people with the capacity to do something that our Creator can’t endure? But in the Book of Acts even the disciples are given the authority to forgive sin.

These questions present a conundrum, because if God can’t expiate sin without our participation in asking for that forgiveness, then God is weak. If, instead, God chooses not to forgive sin unless we ask for it, opting instead to let us suffer for all eternity because of our mistakes, then God is not loving.

(Part two of this lecture will be available on the blog tomorrow.)

December 23, 2015

kyloI know, I know. Cyber-ethics may not sound that riveting on first blush, but from Wikileaks and Anonymous to your kids on Youtube and every time you swipe a credit card, cyber security is everywhere. And with that incredible power comes both the potential to use and abuse it.

Kinda like chainsaws. Or Bibles. Anyway…

I talk with professional hacker Mike Collins this week about the ethics surrounding cyber security and encryption. Thought we’ve confounded the government’s efforts to peek in on our chats and other end-to-end encrypted data, it’s also equally impenetrable when used by terrorists and cyber-criminals. And it has been, a lot lately. So what to do when something so essential to daily life also is used against us? Mike tells all.

We also wax all things Star Wars (Amy and I have already seen it twice), and Amy even rolls the epic series into her fear of the week. No, she doesn’t think she’s going to be struck down by Kylo Ren’s awesome new light saber, but it’s about equally as likely as that. And fear not, ye unchristened few who have not graced the hallowed halls of your local theater yet; we divulge nary a spoiler for the lot of ya.

And what would a holiday episode be without some Trump to Trim your Tree? We chat up how the Donald is shifting the entire GOP landscape, and why progressives are both thrilled and scared poodles about it. Finally, what does the historic 196-nation climate accord mean for your life? Hell we don’t know, but it won’t stop us from talking about it!

Here’s hoping you enjoy a Christmas, Festivus or Hanukkah filled with peace, love, family and at least one ritual airing of grievances. Now lift that pole way up over your head and give it a toss! Oh, and if you don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, that’s ok. We love you anyway.

Listen to the show HERE

Subscribe on iTunes HERE

If you already like the show, please click the iTunes link above and take ten seconds to rate the show. Thanks!

October 8, 2015

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOur national defense budget is between five and six times more than any other country on the planet. What we spend on our military eclipses that of other top six countries combined according to some reports. According to others, we outspend the other top ten nations.*

And yet we have gaping vulnerabilities.

We have enough guns to arms every man, woman and child on our entire country.

And yet, lone gunmen still attack us, and someone is a fatal victim of gun violence in the U.S. every 48 minutes of every day, on average.

When is there enough to actually make us safe?

The argument I hear most often for why we need to continue arming ourselves is that the only solution for bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

So remind me: the bad guys always wear big, black hats and a “bad guy” badge, and the good guys have white hats and perfect teeth, right?

Meanwhile, we bombed a hospital this week filled with innocent doctors and civilians in Afghanistan. Are we still the good guys?

And what about the eight-year-old who shot their eleven-year-old friend when they got in a fight over a puppy? Was the shooter a bad guy? Was the parent who bought and kept the gun in the house? If they were, why didn’t we know ahead of time and not give them a gun? See your rule above about only “good guys with guns.”

Now, I do agree that just getting rid of guns isn’t enough. I showed my son a video of an event where I spoke in which the hosts melted down guns used in murders and forged them into gardening tools. “But dad,” he said, innocently, “you can still kill someone with a shovel, if you want to badly enough.”

He’s right.

This doesn’t mean we don’t still need to place stricter controls of firearm possession. Part of changing the human heart and conscience is changing the norms of the culture it’s within. And one step of that is creating a “new normal,” in which guns are at least harder to get and possess than a passport.

But as I wrote in my book, postChristian, “the human heart should be registered as a concealed weapon. The mind may hatch the schemes and formulate the justifications, the hands may build the bombs and wield the swords, but the heart, driven supposedly by love, is the match to the fuse that sets the whole damned thing in motion.”

By the time another tragedy strikes, and we’re left asking why it happened and what we should do, it’s too late. We have to start today, right now. We have to work actively and personally to cultivate and live out compassion in every relationship we have. As my friend and author Sarah Thebarge says, that requires more than sympathy (feeling bad for someone else’s struggle or suffering), and  even more than empathy (identifying with someone else’s suffering). Compassion requires investing our whole selves in that other person, to the point of suffering and struggling alongside them, even when it’s hard.

We also have to take heed from Walter Wink and strive to creatively and nonviolently systems of dominance, oppression, violence and intolerance all around us. The world tells us that we have two choices when faced with these: do nothing “in the name of peace,” or respond in kind (our first basic, primal tendency). But as Wink says, Jesus teachings of nonviolence aren’t the same as being a doormat and letting people simply walk over us. It also doesn’t mean that violence justifies a violent response, as such behavior changes only the rulers, but not the rules.

(For an example of both working in real time together, read my previous article about my wife engaging disruptive protesters outside our church. One gentleman went from joining his peers in praying for her death and wishing our children to hell, to coming back to the church an hour later without his friends and asking us to help him.)

It takes intentional, contemplative imagination. It requires us to resist our instinct to strike back. But it also requires more courage than doing nothing and hoping things change on their own. It’s been done with tremendous success throughout history, time and again, and yet we fail to believe it’s possible for us too.

But it’s time. Right now. For everyone asking why, for everyone asking what they can do, this is it. It’s hard, it will take a lifetime, and you may never see the fruits of your efforts. But ultimately, I’m convinced that it’s the only two-fold path the the peace we claim to want so desperately.

Christian Piatt is an author, blogger and podcaster. Support his newest project, “Not That Kind of Christian,” by visiting HERE.

*According to a Washington Post article from 2013 we spent more than the top 13 countries combined, but our defense budget has decreased slightly since then.

August 6, 2015

3308271344_a5122cc34e_zI’ve written a great deal about hell. I even debated a theology professor from Western Seminary about the existence of hell and whether we can reconcile such a concept with a loving and merciful God. Our understanding of God’s involvement in the world, as well as God’s so-called “plan” for us after we die, raises so many interesting questions and conundrums that some people dedicate entire careers to exploring it.

But for the most part we don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it all, and what it means for life today. Generally, we assume that all (or at least most) Christians believe that there’s both a heaven and a hell, and that unless you get “saved,” which is defined differently depending on who you ask, you can’t go to heaven when you die. You go to hell instead. Forever.

Many of us don’t spend much time or energy thinking about what this means with respect to God. For me, it seems that the potential for us to be able to go to hell for all time for something we did in this life sets up one of three explanations about the nature of God:

  • If God decides to send us to hell forever for something we did or didn’t do in life, this makes God a monster, a worse parent than any other parent I’ve ever met. After all, would any of us ever willingly submit our children or loved ones to an eternity of suffering and solitude for anything they could do? And if not, do we really imagine a God that is less merciful or loving than we are.
  • If God doesn’t “send” us to hell per se, but still allows it to happen, the indifference of God is staggeringly chilling too. This means that God could stop it from happening but doesn’t. And again, falling back on the parent analogy, there are some things that a parent will let their children learn the hard way, but there are always limits. If I see my child about to do something that will do them or someone else irreparable damage and there’s something I can do about it, you can bet I’ll do it. So how is it that God is more hellbent (pun intended) on teaching us a lesson or saying “I told you so” than we would be?
  • If God would love to stop our condemnation and suffering from happening but can’t then the God we worship maybe be loving and merciful, but also weak. And if so, then who created hell? Us? Could such a weak God create something that could then create something else that is beyond God’s reach? I’ve also heard the argument that God can’t tolerate sin. Like, no sin at all? If I took a peppermint in eighth grade will God cast me into outer darkness?  Or if I didn’t go through the right rituals, say the right things and join the right church, my fate is simply out of God’s hands? The rabbit hole of absurdity gets deeper and more confounding the further down we go with this argument.

It also creates a terrible conundrum about humanity. Recently, I wrote an article about the pro life/pro choice debate, and a commenter posed a question worth considering:

…if the doctrine of the age of accountability is true and most Christians seem to think that it is, (here’s the question) Hasn’t abortion guaranteed that more people will go to heaven than the church has?

To explain, the doctrine of accountability he’s referring to is the idea that sins don’t actually stay on your “permanent record” until you reach what is called the age of accountability. Some churches believe this is a specific age, so you’d better get all your naughties out before then. But others say it’s simply the point at which you know you’re doing wrong versus acting out of ignorance. This along raises problems, like whether a sin is a sin if you acted out of ignorance at the time, but maybe realized later it was wrong, or if you never realize it but did harm to someone else. But let’s just hang onto the idea of the age of accountability idea as it is for now.

Philosophers and theologians have played with (and argued about) this idea for centuries. Rob Bell even poses the absurd but natural question in his book, Love Wins, that emerges from this belief system. So even if we don’t argue the theological morality of abortion, the question still remains if the only truly merciful thing to do is to murder our children before they reach the age of accountability to ensure they spend eternity in heaven. After all, we’re taught in many, many churches that the afterlife is far more important than our physical, earthly life. So if we really believe this, why aren’t we doing it?

For the most part it’s for one of two reasons: either we preach it but don’t truly believe it, or our theological life is shallow enough that we just don’t work hard enough to wrestle with such problems.

When people ask me why I’m a universalist, or why I don’t believe that hell exists as some existential place where souls go to suffer, it’s because such conundrums dissolve in the face of universalism. If you believe in (or at least hope for) a God that is pure, unadulterated love, grace and mercy (as I do), then a universalist theology seems the only  reasonable conclusion.


Browse Our Archives