Paul Vieira

I know it`s been a while since I`ve posted. I`ve been asking some disturbing questions of myself in the pursuit of truth. I haven`t been able to post any of my thoughts because they are scattered and definite conclusions to my questions are evading me. However, I thought I would post one of the questions that I`m contemplating.

First, before I ask the question, I need to give some background to my line of thinking. Christians are often extremely dogmatic and narrow in their interpretation of scripture. I respect people who`ve really studied a matter and stand strong on their convictions. However, in many cases, Christians are only mimicking what their favourite preacher as taught them. I`ve learned that many of the things that we take as “gospel truth” can be confirmed or challenged if we only take the time to search the matter out for ourselves. I have found that even when I start studying for myself, there is a part of me that has already formed my own conclusions and I`m looking to match scripture to what I already believe. Experience has taught me that we can actually find support from the Bible to justify our own premeditated tenants of truth. But let`s be honest! We are playing with words. Words can be manipulated, especially when we take words out of their context. In the case of scripture, we must not only consider the literary context but also the cultural and historical context. One of the basic principles of hermeneutics (guidelines for interpreting scripture) is to avoid the temptation of making a Bible verse mean something for us today that it never meant to the original audience. One of the questions that we must ask is, “What was the writer/speaker meaning to say? And what would the audience at that time understand it to mean?” This is always the primary meaning of a passage of scripture. What was the author saying to the people that he was directly communicating to?

So, why am I going on about this? Well, I`m struggling with something. It`s something that I`ve believed that doesn`t seem right to me anymore. It`s a tenant of theology that is mainstream in the Evangelical church, but it contradicts what I know about God`s character. I`m referring to a place in the afterlife that we call “hell.” Everyone is familiar with this word and every religion seems to have some kind of notion of hell. My background taught me that it is a place that some people go when they die; it is the final destination for people who don`t put their faith in Jesus before they pass from this life to the next. It is described to be a place of eternal suffering. People who end up in hell will experience extreme pain and torture for ever and ever. Now, to be very transparent, I still believe that hell exists, but I find myself questioning the nature of this place. I`m having a very difficult time understanding the purpose in God creating billions of human beings, from which the vast majority will end up suffering for eternity. The ending of this story doesn`t sit well with me.

I don`t enjoy theological debate. To me, this is not about doctrinal fencing. At the end of the day, I only want to know God better. The way I see it is that everything that happens on this planet is used by God to bring redemption. God even takes suffering and turns it around for a redemptive purpose. The scriptures speak of God`s judgment, but He always reveals His restorative plan in the midst of His judgments. The most common view of hell is not consistent with this pattern of God`s character. Where is the redemption in Hell? Why is it too late for people? What would be the purpose of torturing people for eternity without any hope of relief? God is supposed to be a Father. I don`t know any good father who would ever contemplate for a moment, allowing their children to suffer in this way. Things don`t add up here.

Please don`t email me or leave comments trying to convince me that this is a true idea of hell. I know all the answers. I know all about focussing on the will of man. “People choose this fate, not God. God doesn`t want anyone to go to hell.” These answers are not doing it for me anymore. Why is man`s will more powerful that God`s? I thought He was God! I thought He could do anything, even in the face of man`s will. If He is not willing that any should perish, then I tend to think that He will do something about that. I tend to think that God accomplishes what He wills!

Here is the thing: when you actually begin to study the scriptures to see what the writers were writing and when you try to understand what the original audience would have understood these things to mean, this version of hell that we all cling to, starts to crack. For example, many preachers who have taught on hell claim that it is Jesus who speaks most about it in the Bible. However, according to my studies, Jesus never used the word “hell.” It is an English word that we understand today to be a place of eternal torment for the wicked in the after world. Jesus obviously didn`t use that word because the New Testament was written in ancient Greek. The actual word that Jesus used was Gehenna. However, when Jesus said the word “Gehenna,” his hearers didn`t imagine a place in the afterlife at all. Gehenna was an actual place that existed in their world. It was the Greek name for a valley that was just south of Jerusalem. We read “hell,” but they actually heard the word “Gehenna.” Why do our translators use the English word “hell” to translate the name of an actual place?

It seems really fishy! I`m very disturbed by this. Things are not what they seem.

More to come later…