Aqui hay un artículo excelente de Wikipedia que desafortunadamente no puede conseguir en español que habla del absurdo concepto del infierno:
The problem of Hell is a variant of the problem of evil, applying specifically to religions which hold both that:
1. An omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God exists.
2. Some people will be penalized by God with everlasting punishment.
The problem consists in reconciling the assumed attributes of God, particularly omnibenevolence, with the existence of a place of eternal torment. The existence of hell might be considered incompatible with justice or divine mercy.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 The problem
o 1.1 Issue of justice
o 1.2 Issue of divine mercy
o 1.3 Apocatastasis
* 2 References
* 3 See also
* 4 Bibliography
* 5 External links
[edit] The problem
There are several major issues to the problem of hell. The first is whether the existence of hell is compatible with justice. The second is whether it is compatible with God's infinite mercy, especially as articulated in Christianity. A third issue, particular to Christianity, is whether hell is actually populated, or if God will ultimately "restore all things" (apokatastasis) at the end of the world. Criticisms of the doctrine of hell can focus on the intensity or eternity of its torments, and arguments surrounding all these issues can invoke appeals to the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God.
In the Abrahamic religions, Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrong-doing or sin in this life, as a manifestation of divine justice. Nonetheless, the extreme severity or infinite duration of the punishment might be seen as incompatible with justice. However, Hell is not seen as strictly a matter of retributive justice even by the more traditionalist churches. For example, the Eastern Orthodox see it as a condition brought about by, and the natural consequence of, free rejection of God's love.[1] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that hell is a place of punishment[2] brought about by a person's self exclusion from communion with God.[3]
In some ancient Eastern Orthodox traditions, Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.
I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna, are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love?...It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God...it torments sinners...Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. —St. Isaac of Syria, Ascetical Homilies 28, Page 141
[4]
Martin Luther expressed his solution for the problem as:
1. God is infinitely holy 2. Any transgressions against God are transgressions against His holiness 3. Any such transgressions against infinite holiness require infinite punishments
[edit] Issue of justice
Some opponents of the doctrine of hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed, an overkill.[citation needed] Humans apparently can commit ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ a finite amount of sin, yet hell is an infinite punishment. In this vein, Jorge Luis Borges suggests in his essay La duración del Infierno that no transgression can warrant an infinite punishment on the grounds that there is no such thing as an "infinite transgression".
Against the alleged injustice of Hell, some theists, particularly in the Thomistic tradition, have argued that God's infinite dignity requires that any transgression against him warrants an infinite punishment. On this view, the correct punishment for a crime is proportional to the status of the wronged individual. Opponents of this view reply that the correct punishment is also proportional to the intentions and understanding of the wrongdoer.
The eternity of Hell has also been justified in the Scholastic tradition by appeal to the irrevocability of the reprobate's decision to oppose God after death. Eternity is perceived not as an infinite stretch of time, but as an unchanging present. Proportionate justice is administered through the intensity of this eternal punishment, which varies according to the sinner.
Another argument against the justice of Hell is that humans are not culpable for their sins, since sinning is unavoidable to them. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Epistle to the Romans, 3:23) Most Christians attribute this inclination to sin to some variant of the doctrine of original sin, rather than to God directly. This aspect of the problem of hell reduces in part to the theistic problem of free will. The monotheistic religions, even those that lack a doctrine of original sin, agree that sin is to be imputed to the sinner and not to God.
Some theological schools, most notably the Scotists and Calvinists, have taken the position that divine justice is entirely a matter of God's positive law, not deducible by natural reason. Thus, whatever God does is just by definition, and if this contradicts our human intuitions of justice, then our intuitions are mistaken. This view is opposed by Thomists and others who espouse a natural law view of morality, or consider that divine goodness ought to be congruent with human virtue and rationality.
[edit] Issue of divine mercy
Even if it were admitted that eternal punishment were merited as a matter of strict justice, there would remain the problem of harmonizing the existence of Hell with God's infinite mercy or omnibenevolence.
As in the problem of evil, some apologists argue that the torments of Hell are attributable not to a defect in God's benevolence, but in human free will. Although a benevolent God would prefer to see everyone saved, he would also allow humans to control their own destinies. This view opens the possibility of seeing Hell not as retributive punishment, but rather as an option that God allows, so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be. C. S. Lewis most famously proposed this view in his book The Great Divorce, saying: "There are ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
Nonetheless, free will alone would not seem to adequately resolve the question, especially in the context of most Christian theologies of grace, which grant that God could indeed convert the heart of every sinner and yet leave the freedom of the will in its integrity.[5] In the Thomistic tradition, God grants sufficient grace for salvation to all men, yet it ************SPAM/BANNEAR************ effects salavations for some. The early modern controversies on grace among the Jansenists, Jesuits and Dominicans focused in part on the question of sufficient and efficient grace, and whether these differed in kind.
Some modern critics of the doctrine of Hell, (such as Marilyn McCord Adams) claim that, even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the awesome responsibility of our eternal destinies. Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book, The Problem of Hell, agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances. One should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated. Still, the mere fact that one must believe in God or be subject to eternal damnation or annihilation, even if the choice is completely made by a person, is a scare tactic that inevitably forces or scares one into having to believe in God. It would seem corrupt and evil to say, "You can believe in me or not, but if you do not, you will burn in Hell forever and suffer eternal damnation."
It is also debated as to whether or not every human being on Earth is in favourable circumstances to believe in God. For example, it is unlikely that many people born in Iran to Muslim parents would become Christian, God could be seen as punishing these people unfairly. This argument was used by French phliospher Denis Diderot, who, when asked about the validity of Pascal's Wager, replied "an Imam could reason the same way." A further issue is that God, being an omnipotent being who wants all his subjects to believe in him, could make his existence a lot more obvious than is the case, an argument used by Bertrand Russell, who declared that if he were to face God on Judgement Day, would reply "Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!".
[edit] Apocatastasis
Even if the consistency of Hell with divine justice and mercy could be established, there would remain an additional problem in Christianity, since the New Testament in several places asserts a universal salvific will, and suggests that at the end of the world, all things will be restored to God. This "restoration of all things" or apocatastasis, was interpreted strongly by certain early Greek fathers, most notably Origen, as suggesting that sinners might be restored to God and released from Hell, returning the universe to a state identical to its pure beginnings. While Origen emphatically denied that the demons and the reprobate would be saved, his theory of apocatastasis could be easily interpreted to have such implications, as was the case during the later Origenist controversies.
In the twentieth century, a belief in Christian universalism reappeared among many Protestant thinkers, and the notion that Hell might be empty was even espoused by the noted Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar. Balthasar was careful to describe his opinion that Hell might be empty as merely a hope, but even this claim was rejected by most conservative Catholics, including Cardinal Avery Dulles.
[edit] References
