The lifespan of the traditional hell in modern society

Post Reply New Topic

I have a Catholic friend. He is close friends with several agnostics, one atheist, and me, a voyager on the seas between religions. He has stated that his belief in Hell is that it is like jail: You do your time, then you get out.

A friend of a friend who's Muslim has told her that they believe a nonbeliever simply waits longer to get into Heaven.

Both of these fates are very different from what I learned to be the traditional damning Christian and Muslim Hell. I have seen, however, Christians and Muslims interact with those outside their faith happily, lightheartedly, without trying to convert them. There seems to be a train of thought that passive conversion is the best conversion, but I've also heard from many and read in both faiths' texts that some have alternative, more forgiving versions of the afterlife different from traditional interpretations.

I have a theory that mainstream religious thought of the masses will begin to shift towards a more forgiving idea of Hell in the years to come. And perhaps a more hateful group of steadfast traditionalists. However, this will most likely be a minority in integrated areas.

Make note: 24% of marriages are interfaith, (while these may occur in part with different denominations marrying each other, said denominations, especially in Christianity, damn the others). It is difficult for many youth to think that their friends, family, crushes, all good people, will suffer eternally if they do not convert in a limited amount of time.

Of course, many will still hold on to Hell, perhaps especially religious leaders. However, at least in multifaith areas, if they become more prominent, I think Hell will be less inclusive or less damning to most people.

Wait a minute!

I thought that regular official Catholicism already had a belief in a temporary version of Hell called "Purgatory" that you might end up going to. You serve a finite number of years- and then go to Heaven.

"So all sins are forgivable, except one. The sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. "

Matthew 12:31. "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven."

If you are an atheist? Not so much.

At least, traditionally.

I'm talking about Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism (or to Islam for that matter).

Catholicism has four places you can go to after death: Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and Limbo. Whereas Protestantism only has Heaven and Hell. Purgatory is a kinda temporary Hell (then you go to Heaven). Limbo is for unbaptized babies, and "virtuous Pagans".

So your friend who is Catholic might as well as just say that he believes in only Heaven and Purgatory (except for the babies and the pagans).

If he were Protestant then it would make sense for him to say that he is breaking with convention and believes that "you go to Hell for a temporary prison sentence, and then go to Heaven". My point was that Catholics already have the concept of a temporary Hell- which is called "Purgatory".

My reading has indicated to me that one goes to purgatory in Catholicism unless one is Catholic, (whereupon they go to Heaven), or "rejecting the Holy Spirit", whereupon they are "unforgiven."

However, the Pope has indicated that Atheists go to heaven... I concede that perhaps this is a conventional belief.

I have Catholic relatives who believe my family are going to Hell.

This is actually one of the most contentious issues in Catholicism... It even has it's own fancy word... Soteriology.

In Cantate Domino - issued at the Council of Florence (1431-1449), and considered Infallible "ex cathedra" by some - Pope Eugene IV made the following statement:


Source: http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that "everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" is (1) Hell and (2) a somewhat permanent state of affairs...

However, the Pope Paul VI then issued Lumen Gentium (1964) under Vatican II (1962-1965), which revised the above (while - somewhat ironically - simultaneously re-affirming the concept of papal infallibility)

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... um_en.html (see sections 16 and 18)

... aaaaaand the Catholic Church has been arguing with itself over the above ever since...

Perhaps he is choosing a side.

In any case, it's a topic I'd like to research further.