Is my proffesor a mistaken or do I know nothing about Judaism?

Vesayen · October 2, 2003, 23:49

I have a Jewish history course-my proffesor is Jewish but seems non-practicing, his area of expertise is Jewish history.

He said today in class, in response to a students question that Jews believe hell exists.....

.... yes, I was quite shocked by this claim.

I immediatly raised my hand and asked where in the Torah it even mentions hell, he said it dosent, "but it is mentioned later in other texts, like the Talmud".

I was so shocked, and so embarrased I let the topic drop and he moved on.

Now I WONT claim to be a great learned chasid, I'm not-I know Hebrew well enough to understand most of the prayers/a hebrew conversation, I've read the Torah dozens of times, I know all the laws I need to know to keep sin to a minimum.... though I admit I have read very little of the Talmud.

I've always thought that if Hell exists, the Christian/Muslim God is the biggest bastard in existance, as condeming anyone to such a place for any act seems beyond imagining in the scope of its cruelty.

Is hell even mentioned in the Talmud or elsewhere? Even if it is, my thought would be that the Talmud itself is not holy, it is merely the interpretation of some learned sages, but it in and of itself has no more divine influence in it then me writing a smiley face on a roll of toilet paper.

Anyone shed some light on this?

OzzyKP · October 2, 2003, 23:57

Who knows, none of my Jewish friends have a consensus on the heaven/hell idea. My ex-girlfriend who is a strict adherant of conservative judism does not believe in heaven or hell. She says when we die we just die, our bodies rot away and thats that.

Other friends (reform) believe in heaven but not hell. I think i've heard a rabbi mention a purgatory type concept too.

I'm not sure I've heard any Jews talk about Hell, but I wouldn't be suprized, y'all don't seem to have your minds made up on the subject.

Vesayen · October 3, 2003, 00:04

Its fairly agreed that there are very ambiguous claims to an afterlife in the Torah, they are there and unquestionable-where you go from there depends on the group..... some say there is heaven and no hell, some say there is some sort of afterlife and no hell, others say "dont worry about the next world"(me)-there is NO mention anywhere in the Torah of the specifics of the afterlife, let alone heaven/hell/purgatory so hearing a "learned" person claiming the Talmud says hell exists really threw me off gaurd.

Edan · October 3, 2003, 00:09

AFAIK, your professor is mistaken. Judaism's concept of an afterlife is very vague - it emphasises the here and now of this world, not the next. The closest I've heard to something like that from a Jewish teacher is one interpretation that, IIRC, one goes through a cleansing process (like purgatory, I guess) in "Gehenom" before proceeding to the afterlife - not sure how widely held that belief is, however. There might be an interpretation that includes hell, but I haven't heard of it.

Shi Huangdi · October 3, 2003, 00:42

Quote:

I've always thought that if Hell exists, the Christian/Muslim God is the biggest bastard in existance, as condeming anyone to such a place for any act seems beyond imagining in the scope of its cruelty.

Not to threadjack, but I can't really let that one slide. I really don't think you quite understand hell in the correct sense, or at least you are getting your impression of it from Christian fundamentalists.

Here is a piece written by a liberal Catholic who nonetheless does a good job of summing up the orthodox position on Hell:

Quote:

In my opinion, the concept of an eternal hell is the greatest compliment to human freedom. I know this strikes some people as a mere play on words. Yet, I am not simply playing a semantic game.

If hell does not really exist, if it is not possible to irrevocably choose against God, then I am not a free person at all. I am a puppet who is fated to do what God wants...if I don't do his will today, I will wind up doing it eventually, almost by force.

We too often get to hung up on images of hell as a place of unquenchable fire wreaking of sulfur where there is gnashing of teeth and worms that never die and a darkness that is unpenetratable. These are metaphors for a horrendous reality.

Regarding this metaphoric language, it is important not to get too caught up in literally interpreting what is meant to describe a state of being. It is true that the Church maintains that we cannot dogmatically say that hell does not involve a real physical pain or real fire. At the same time, the Church also does not maintain dogmatically that we absolutely must say these metaphors are literal. We simply do not know the physical characteristics of hell. However, all Christians have maintained throughout all ages that the greatest pain of hell is the sense of God's absence.

Why would a good and merciful God be absent to his own creation? Can the God who is Absolute Being truly be absent from his creation? Why would a good and loving God cast his creatures away from himself forever?

The answer to these questions are that God is not ontologically absent from his creatures.

Nor does God cast souls into hell!

Rather, the creature chooses to reject God, and this rejection is the state of being called hell. We taste this reality here on earth when we suffer negative consequences for sin according to the universal law of justice (what some religions refer to as karma).

In saying that an eternal state of hell exist, we are saying that the human person has been created with such freedom that we are able to irrevocably reject God, who is Absolute Goodness and Absolute Being. In effect, the creature freely chooses to reject his or her own nature, which emanates from God. God, because of her own goodness, permits the creature to do this.

The condition for the possibility of choosing God is the possibility of rejecting God. Hell is the reality of this choice, even if no soul actually inhabits the reality.

Why doesn't God simply annihilate the sinner, as the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain?

We are created in God's own image and likeness. The human person has an incomparable dignity and infinite value. It would be evil of a good Creator to obliterate the height of her own creation - a being in his own likeness. God cannot annihilate us without, in effect, admitting he made a mistake, which is impossible.

So God voluntarily has put herself in a sort of "Catch-22" situation. Having created us, she cannot obliterate us without doing evil. On the other hand, she cannot force us to love her and choose her either, because to do so would violate our freedom, which is the very principle by which we most image her likeness!

Love must be free or it is not love. God is not a cosmic rapist. He will try to entice us, perhaps even seduce us, but he will not force himself upon us. If we chose to reject him, he honors our decision. While young men in modern society may have hard time understanding that no means no, God understands it perfectly, and always respects our own free choice!

Yet, how can a single action be an eternal rejection of God?

Christ answers this question by saying that only one sin is truly unforgivable in this life and the next - namely, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit! This sin is not a single act, but an ongoing and deliberate rejection of the goodness of God. Blasphemy of the Spirit is the willful rejection of grace. It is an habitual disposition more than a single act. Actions that we call sin, such as murder and adultery, represent a movement of the heart toward this blasphemy, but the act itself is not blasphemy of the Spirit. Indeed, blashpemy of the Spirit is not a single act, but a habitual state of the heart.

It is interesting to me that Satan is called the Accuser in the Bible (Rev 12:10). The Holy Spirit is called the Paracleet (a sort of legal advocate). Jesus is portrayed as the perfect man making atonement for us on our behalf before a judge who is our loving and merciful father. The image I see in the New Testament is that God is trying to defend humanity against the prosecuting attorney - Satan. Maybe blasphemy against the Spirit is despair of God's infinite mercy.

Despite the merciful image of Christ portrayed in the Gospels that even atheist recognize, Christ speaks more of hell than any other character in the Bible. Christ's mercy is manifested in his desire to see none of us make the choice to eternally reject God! It is precisely in his manifestation of mercy for particular acts that Christ is communicating to us that God never gives up on us. The only way to achieve eternal separation from God is by our own decision!

God is not only Absolute Being, but pure love. Where there is love, there is God.

Individual acts that we call sin have a tendency towards blasphemy of the spirit as they reveal a lack of perfect love. We were created with a natural capacity to love God with our whole mind, heart and soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. While conservatives emphasize our fallen state and the effects of original sin that make all of us capable of and attracted to great evil, progressives emphasize that we simultaneously have the capacity and desire to respond to grace. We were created for love!

While hell is a real a possibility, the Church has never dogmatically said any particular human person is in hell. It is our hope that as many souls as possible will be saved, and we even hold out hope that the Adolf Hitlers and the Saddam Husseins will be saved.

OzzyKP · October 3, 2003, 00:57

Facinating Shi. I agree with it.

Oerdin · October 3, 2003, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Here is a piece written by a liberal Catholic who nonetheless does a good job of summing up the orthodox position on Hell:

Shi: That's a good article; well, worth reprinting here. I do have a few questions though. Are you sure it was written by a Catholic? I ask because several things about it seem absolutely Protestant in their out look. For instance refering to God as "she" instead of he is popular in Protestant Churches (since God is supposed to embody both the male and the female) but to my limited knowledge Catholic Priests always refer to God as "he".

He does have some thought provoking ideas as to what hell is. The idea that hell is the absence of God while accepting God meanings heaven suggests that people/souls that are in hell can change their out look and go to heaven if they agree to accept god. That is a comforting thought.

Of course I still remain an unrepentent atheist who thinks most of the Bible and it's ilk the Koran and the Torah are nothing more then the nonsensical ramblings of desert tribesmen and religious lunatics so the point is mute. Lazerous and the Gimp wrote a few threads about things and restrictions from the bible which simply were nonsensical to the critical thinker plus there are commands which the bible says God ordered people to follow which are simply ignored. The food restictions and the orders to kill nonbelievers are glaring examples.

SnowFire · October 3, 2003, 01:21

From what I understand, a Hell is referenced in the sidebooks, as your professor says. However, as other people have mentioned- and you yourself said- most Jews don't emphasize this point. It's much like how Christians generally still acknowledge a few of Paul's weirder bits of theology, without putting a lot of time into them.

so the point is mute.

I think you mean "moot." Points don't have mouths in the first place, so it's weird to call them mute.

Berzerker · October 3, 2003, 01:29

I thought "Hell" came from the hebrew "sheol" meaning "grave".

Quote:

We too often get to hung up on images of hell as a place of unquenchable fire wreaking of sulfur where there is gnashing of teeth and worms that never die and a darkness that is unpenetratable. These are metaphors for a horrendous reality.

But when you think about this, what will happen to the body? The grave where worms consume the flesh followed by fire and darkness? Sounds like the future! The sun goes red giant and consumes the Earth with fire, then nova and a white dwarf followed by a burned out hulk - a brown dwarf or perhaps consumed by a passing black hole.

Shi Huangdi · October 3, 2003, 01:40

"Shi: That's a good article; well, worth reprinting here. I do have a few questions though. Are you sure it was written by a Catholic? I ask because several things about it seem absolutely Protestant in their out look. For instance refering to God as "she" instead of he is popular in Protestant Churches (since God is supposed to embody both the male and the female) but to my limited knowledge Catholic Priests always refer to God as "he".

He does have some thought provoking ideas as to what hell is. The idea that hell is the absence of God while accepting God meanings heaven suggests that people/souls that are in hell can change their out look and go to heaven if they agree to accept god. That is a comforting thought."

It is written by a Catholic, though one who dissents against many of his Church's teachings.

As far as the possibility of repenting in hell... In theory you could be right. In practice, we see God's teachings in the bible that Hell is eternal. So while in theory God might be willing to listen to the plea of a penitent soul in Hell, the fact that the soul is in Hell means it will not be seeking to repent- if it were the soul would not be in Hell. After all, Hell is for those who have exhibited final impentience, a steadfast unchanging refusal to repent. And once in Hell, there is nothing there that would make them change their mind- there might be if hell was a cave with a fire with men in red jumpsuits poking you with forks- but what Hell is a state of self-exclusion from God and all that is good. In such a state, there is nothing but hate there, and you certainly are not going to be seeking forgiveness from that which you hate.

Ben Kenobi · October 3, 2003, 02:45

Shi:

That's a good article, though I'm surprised that you say it is written by a dissenter.

Quote:

The idea that hell is the absence of God while accepting God meanings heaven suggests that people/souls that are in hell can change their out look and go to heaven if they agree to accept god.

When Christ returns, he promises to judge the living and the dead. Once he comes, that's it. Everyone gets to see God face to face. What good is it to accept God then?

If we can repent in Hell, why should we bother to repent during our time on Earth?

Shi Huangdi · October 3, 2003, 03:00

"If we can repent in Hell, why should we bother to repent during our time on Earth?"

Re-read my post. As a matter of theory, God might be able to accept the pleas of a penitent soul in Hell, after all he is all-merciful. As a matter of practicality, Hell is eternal and repentence there isn't going to happen.

Ben Kenobi · October 3, 2003, 03:59

They've had their chances. God has been merciful to them during their life, and they chose to reject God.

Jesus talks about throwing those out who did not believe in God, but not about inviting those people back in. I agree that those who would go to hell would not want to repent.

Shi Huangdi · October 3, 2003, 04:11

Well, we are know discussing the issue of whether the gates of hell are locked from the inside or from the outside.

I believe that God, being all-merciful, would not refuse to return to the love and grant forgiveness to a soul that genuinely sought it. Of course, if the soul had any inclination whatsoever to repent of their sins, they wouldn't be in Hell in the first place. Talking about inviting people back in would be pointless, as such an offer would be declined of course.

Az · October 3, 2003, 04:21

umm, yes, Vesayen, hell exists. but it's not eternal. It's like the drycleaner on the way to god, or something.

Imran Siddiqui · October 3, 2003, 04:32

Quote:

It is written by a Catholic, though one who dissents against many of his Church's teachings.

Eh? How can you be a Catholic if you are against Papal Infalibility (against Church teachings)? That doesn't make sense to me.

Whaleboy · October 3, 2003, 04:41

The hell is kind of metaphorical. Its supposed to be a guilt thing. I think new testament writers took the old testament references a bit too literally.

Jewish hell rules!

Drake Tungsten · October 3, 2003, 04:45

Quote:

Jewish hell rules!

It's not as cool as Shinto hell.

Urban Ranger · October 3, 2003, 05:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Re-read my post. As a matter of theory, God might be able to accept the pleas of a penitent soul in Hell, after all he is all-merciful. As a matter of practicality, Hell is eternal and repentence there isn't going to happen.

Why should this article taken to be authoritative over the bible?

Zealot · October 3, 2003, 06:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
I thought "Hell" came from the hebrew "sheol" meaning "grave".

Let's go by parts:
"Sheol" is the hebrew word for grave, and that is exactly what the Bible, in the Hebrew scriptures, refers to when a person dies, it goes to the grave and be without any conscience of anything at all. It ends with death.
In the greek scriptures, the word "Gehenom" has the same meaning, but not literally, because the Gehenom was the Jerusalem's incinerator, probably outside the city's walls. It mainly represents the 2nd and final death, the one those who don't repent will have. Death, not torment.
There is also the greek word "Hades", wich is translated almost everywhere as hell. Hades does mean the same thing literally as Sheol, but if you know about the genesis of the Catholic church you know what happened...

So "biblicaly speaking" there is nothing after death, until someone is ressurected. Anything beyond this has pagan/phylosophical influences.

Edit: fixed the word Gehenom

Az · October 3, 2003, 07:14

Gehenom is a geographical location. "Gey-Hinom" 'Gey'=valley in hebrew

Zealot · October 3, 2003, 07:27

Yeah, but in the Christian times there was one used as an incinerator place, right?
I'm talking a bit from head, but I'll do some deep research in case I'm mixing anything.

Az · October 3, 2003, 07:30

Actually, IIRC, it was used in pagan times as a place of human sacrifice.

Dr Strangelove · October 3, 2003, 08:18

Gehenom was actually Jerusalem's garbage pit, a valley where the people burned their refuse.

Perhaps the fire and brimstone of hell is metaphorical, referring to the eternal turmoil of the souls that are lost and which will never know love, mercy or peace? Has anyone here ever suffered a wrong that could not be redressed, and being unable to let go of it suffered from a lingering anger? Such unrequited anger often turns inward or seeks another focus, and being unsatisfied will stoke itself to ever increasing intensity. This I think is the root of the word "madness". Imagine then the anguish of the damned, condemned to never know spiritual peace. Surely they would burn inside like a raging fire that forever feeds on itself.

lord of the mark · October 3, 2003, 09:44

you'll have to ask your prof for his text references.

I presume he means gehenom.

As others have mentioned it is an actual place outside Jerusalem. Like Az, ive always heard it mentioned as a bad place because of pagan sacrifices, not cause it was a garbage pit. Maybe a different jewish trad from Christian trad on that one?

As Az mentions, its more like purgatory than hell. You can stay there for up to 13 months, depending on how bad you were. Thats one explananation of why you say kaddish (prayer for the dead) for 12 months - on the one hand you want to shorten their stay in gehennom, on the other hand you dont want to insult your loved ones by implying they might have been so bad as to need the whole term in gehennom.

OTOH, gehennom is used in contrast to gan eden (garden of eden, paradise) so in that sense its equivalent to hell.

Theres also the wilderness of Azazel, where the scapegoat that carries the sins of the people was sent on Yom Kippur.

Zealot · October 3, 2003, 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As others have mentioned it is an actual place outside Jerusalem. Like Az, ive always heard it mentioned as a bad place because of pagan sacrifices, not cause it was a garbage pit. Maybe a different jewish trad from Christian trad on that one?

I never said it wasn't, but what's the time span of that? When did that happen? Wich century at least?

Vesayen · October 3, 2003, 09:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Not to threadjack, but I can't really let that one slide. I really don't think you quite understand hell in the correct sense, or at least you are getting your impression of it from Christian fundamentalists.

Here is a piece written by a liberal Catholic who nonetheless does a good job of summing up the orthodox position on Hell:

It's not a testament to freedom because your still forced into one choice.

Either be good and go to heaven, or be bad and go to hell. Now you "choose" to go to hell, but what if I dont want to be good AND I dont want to go to hell? Since god made the system he is still forcing me to a place against my will by virtue of a lack of alternatives.

lord of the mark · October 3, 2003, 09:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
of its cruelty.

Is hell even mentioned in the Talmud or elsewhere? Even if it is, my thought would be that the Talmud itself is not holy, it is merely the interpretation of some learned sages, but it in and of itself has no more divine influence in it then me writing a smiley face on a roll of toilet paper.

re the role of the Talmud.

Jewish tradition has that the talmud IS the expression of the oral law, at least the core principle of which were passed down from Moses (see the opening chapter of Pirke Avot) The talmudic discussions are definitely seen as divinely inspired, even if not the word of G-d.

Both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism (for different reasons, since C. Judaism doesnt take the Pirke Avot tradition itself literally) accept the Talmud as binding on Halachic matters - ie laws, genreally on matters of ACTION, ethics, ritual, prayer, etc. The talmud is filled though, with remarks on all kinds of side topics - from philosophy, to medicine, to legends, etc. All these are called "aggadah" and are definitely NOT binding. As you say, just the opinions of learned sages. There is some debate about whether ANY matters of belief are subject to halachah, and are therefore binding. Orthodoxy generally says yes, and CJ says no. This is a big question, since O claims that rabbis who dont believe that the Bible is the literal word of G-d (as some C rabbis dont) are not in violation of halachah, and not valid rabbis, and by extension that any rabbi who accepts the authority of such rabbis (IE All C rabbis) is not a valid authority. C rabbis,even those who hold that the bible is the literal word of G-d, accept their "heretical" colleagues on the ground that such theological questions are NOT matters of halachah IE are not subject to law.

lord of the mark · October 3, 2003, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Zealot

I never said it wasn't, but what's the time span of that? When did that happen? Wich century at least?

pre-exile, im quite sure. some time between 1000 BCE and 586 BCE.

Vesayen · October 3, 2003, 10:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Well, we are know discussing the issue of whether the gates of hell are locked from the inside or from the outside.

I believe that God, being all-merciful, would not refuse to return to the love and grant forgiveness to a soul that genuinely sought it. Of course, if the soul had any inclination whatsoever to repent of their sins, they wouldn't be in Hell in the first place. Talking about inviting people back in would be pointless, as such an offer would be declined of course.

I reject the concept of Christianity because of my Jewish upbrining but also because I am an empiricist(which makes me reject Judaism to a degree as well).

I believe VERY strongly in "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" and would like to think in that respect I am more honest then most...... where would I fit in that diagramn lol? I'm a good person who utterly rejects your god because he makes no sense from what I have learned.