Is the fire in Hell a metaphor? 
I think so.
1. If the fire is literal, it contradicts other verses. For example, in Matthew 8:12, we read: "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth." Here, hell is called the 'outer darkness'. If the fire is literal, there shouldn't be any outer darkness. Fire lights everything up. But you might say that 'outer darkness' is a metaphor. And I would agree. But what reason do we have to prefer one metaphor over another? The choice to make fire literal seems arbitrary. So, I'm inclined to call them both poetic descriptions.
Further, in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, we read that the damned, " . . . will be punished
with everlasting destruction." Should destruction be taken literally? Some think so. But these think the damned will be annihilated in Hell. But other verses say the damned are punished forever and ever. Is 'forever and ever' a metaphor for a long time, and thus 'destruction' is literal? Or is 
'destruction' a metaphor, and 'forever and ever' literal?
It seems like there are alot of metaphors used about Hell. And 'fire' is just one out of other metaphors. Fire just seems to be the one metaphor in everyone's imaginations. This might be because of Dante's Inferno.
2. Fire is a gas. You need fuel, oxygen, and heat. When these conditions are met, the gas gets a certain structure. This structure is what cons
titutes the flame. So, fire is basically gas that glows. But gas has mass. So, gas has extension, since whatever has mass has extension. But in Hell, we are disembodied spirits. Spirits have no mass, and so spirits have no extension. So, if the fire is literal, it seems the heat wouldn't affect spirits. The reason we now feel burns is because we have a physical body with nerves. But disembodied spirits don't have nerves. So, it seems disembodied spirits can't feel burns.
But can't something physical interact with something non-physical? Yes, but what do we mean? If we are now embodied souls, our souls can make our bodies move. I can lift up my hand. In this case, something non-physical affected something physical. While we're embodied, I'd say Yes! If you cut me, I feel pain; and when I feel pain, I'll cry out. When I cry out, it's not because my body is in pain, but 'I' am, my Self, body and soul. But this is only because my body and soul are in union. As Aquinas says, they are a body/soul composite. But in Hell we'll have no body. And so it's hard to conceive 
how a disemodied spirit can feel pain caused by physical stuff, like fire.
But there's a further problem. Hell itself is a spiritual place. So, it seems the conditions for fire can't even be realized. Fuel and oxygen aren't properties of spiritual places.
3. A note on poetic language. Just because the fires are figurative doesn't mean the experiences in Hell are any less severe. Suppose you're talking t
o a man who is in love with a woman. He has never been in love with any other woman but this one. Suppose he has never experienced or observed someone whose love was taken away. What if he asked, say, Edmond Dantes what it felt like to have Mercades torn from his rapture? What if the closest Dantes could get at 
describing the experience was if he told our man that his heart was ripped to shreds? Or, that the blue sky of his happiness had been blackened? Or that, as a result, his lonliness stretched out like a barren desert? Is Dantes trying to diminish the serverity of his experience? Perhaps only poetic langauge can grope at what the true nature of Dantes' anguish was. 
Personally, 'As a deer pants for water, so my soul, oh Lord, pants for you.' touches - another metaphor? - deeper than, 'I have a desire for God.' Or, 'Our God is a consuming fire.' resonates more than, 'Nothing gets in God's way.'
I think so.
1. If the fire is literal, it contradicts other verses. For example, in Matthew 8:12, we read: "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth." Here, hell is called the 'outer darkness'. If the fire is literal, there shouldn't be any outer darkness. Fire lights everything up. But you might say that 'outer darkness' is a metaphor. And I would agree. But what reason do we have to prefer one metaphor over another? The choice to make fire literal seems arbitrary. So, I'm inclined to call them both poetic descriptions.Further, in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, we read that the damned, " . . . will be punished
with everlasting destruction." Should destruction be taken literally? Some think so. But these think the damned will be annihilated in Hell. But other verses say the damned are punished forever and ever. Is 'forever and ever' a metaphor for a long time, and thus 'destruction' is literal? Or is 
'destruction' a metaphor, and 'forever and ever' literal?It seems like there are alot of metaphors used about Hell. And 'fire' is just one out of other metaphors. Fire just seems to be the one metaphor in everyone's imaginations. This might be because of Dante's Inferno.
2. Fire is a gas. You need fuel, oxygen, and heat. When these conditions are met, the gas gets a certain structure. This structure is what cons
titutes the flame. So, fire is basically gas that glows. But gas has mass. So, gas has extension, since whatever has mass has extension. But in Hell, we are disembodied spirits. Spirits have no mass, and so spirits have no extension. So, if the fire is literal, it seems the heat wouldn't affect spirits. The reason we now feel burns is because we have a physical body with nerves. But disembodied spirits don't have nerves. So, it seems disembodied spirits can't feel burns.
But can't something physical interact with something non-physical? Yes, but what do we mean? If we are now embodied souls, our souls can make our bodies move. I can lift up my hand. In this case, something non-physical affected something physical. While we're embodied, I'd say Yes! If you cut me, I feel pain; and when I feel pain, I'll cry out. When I cry out, it's not because my body is in pain, but 'I' am, my Self, body and soul. But this is only because my body and soul are in union. As Aquinas says, they are a body/soul composite. But in Hell we'll have no body. And so it's hard to conceive 
how a disemodied spirit can feel pain caused by physical stuff, like fire.But there's a further problem. Hell itself is a spiritual place. So, it seems the conditions for fire can't even be realized. Fuel and oxygen aren't properties of spiritual places.
3. A note on poetic language. Just because the fires are figurative doesn't mean the experiences in Hell are any less severe. Suppose you're talking t
o a man who is in love with a woman. He has never been in love with any other woman but this one. Suppose he has never experienced or observed someone whose love was taken away. What if he asked, say, Edmond Dantes what it felt like to have Mercades torn from his rapture? What if the closest Dantes could get at 
describing the experience was if he told our man that his heart was ripped to shreds? Or, that the blue sky of his happiness had been blackened? Or that, as a result, his lonliness stretched out like a barren desert? Is Dantes trying to diminish the serverity of his experience? Perhaps only poetic langauge can grope at what the true nature of Dantes' anguish was. 
Personally, 'As a deer pants for water, so my soul, oh Lord, pants for you.' touches - another metaphor? - deeper than, 'I have a desire for God.' Or, 'Our God is a consuming fire.' resonates more than, 'Nothing gets in God's way.'
No comments:
Post a Comment