The short answer: YES.
However, I don't mind giving the long answer, since I've seen far too many atheists concede this point without realizing there's a simple refutation. I've spoken to several people who've said, "Oh, Judaism doesn't have a real hell, such as Christianity does."
Oh really?
I forgive them, since they are primarily operating off of the Bible, wherein there's not really an explicit mention of "hell" in the Torah. The closest you get is the word "sheol," which is used in a verse talking about the followers of Korach, who were punished with death by God:
They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation.
Even here, though, it's not clear that they went to a place of fire, torture, etc. which is the place hell is generally described as. At the very least, imagine the Sarlacc from Star Wars - that seems to be closer in comparison to the classic "Lake of Fire."
It gets even more confusing when Jacob, looked at as a "saint" in Judaism, uses the word "sheol" to describe where he will go (when he describes how he is mourning over the death of a family member). This would automatically put the term "sheol" into ambiguity - a place where both sinner and saint alike would go to. Perhaps a place of mourning, despair, or darkness, but definitely not a "hell" in any Christian manner.
Here is where most atheists come to in their research, and here it ends. However, atheists might be unaware of a simple fact - Orthodox Jews definitely believe in the Bible. But they also believe that the Bible, or the Torah, can only be properly understood through the Talmud - the Rabbinic commentary on the entire Bible.
And the Talmud is rife with references to a hell. A fiery, burning hell that rivals the worst of the Christian versions. Let's take a look at a small list:
Chagigah 15b talks about how a "heretical" Rabbi, after his death, purportedly had smoke coming out of his grave to signify how he was "burning in hell."
Shabbat 33b references that the damned are judged in hell, but only "for 12 months."
Pesachim 54a explicitly mentions the "fire" of hell.
For a much larger list, I invite the inquisitive reader to visit this link where I've searched the term "gehenna" (roughly translated as hell in Judaism) and where you can find much more references in the Talmud.
To sum up: Judaism has a belief in a hell, a Judgement Day, where all are judged and some are sent to hell, a place of fire and other tortures. Whether that hell is for 6 months, or 12 months, or eternity, is irrelevant - because the simple problem for believers is: what kind of a loving god would create ANY type of hell in the first place? How is torture a "moral" act from an "all-loving" entity?
Judaism has long been presented as if it's a "milder" religion than Christianity regarding its doctrine of hell. This shows that it's no different - it's just hidden outside of the Torah. Open up the Talmud, and it's plain to see: Judaism definitely believes in a hell.
However, I don't mind giving the long answer, since I've seen far too many atheists concede this point without realizing there's a simple refutation. I've spoken to several people who've said, "Oh, Judaism doesn't have a real hell, such as Christianity does."
Oh really?
I forgive them, since they are primarily operating off of the Bible, wherein there's not really an explicit mention of "hell" in the Torah. The closest you get is the word "sheol," which is used in a verse talking about the followers of Korach, who were punished with death by God:
They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation.
Even here, though, it's not clear that they went to a place of fire, torture, etc. which is the place hell is generally described as. At the very least, imagine the Sarlacc from Star Wars - that seems to be closer in comparison to the classic "Lake of Fire."
It gets even more confusing when Jacob, looked at as a "saint" in Judaism, uses the word "sheol" to describe where he will go (when he describes how he is mourning over the death of a family member). This would automatically put the term "sheol" into ambiguity - a place where both sinner and saint alike would go to. Perhaps a place of mourning, despair, or darkness, but definitely not a "hell" in any Christian manner.
Here is where most atheists come to in their research, and here it ends. However, atheists might be unaware of a simple fact - Orthodox Jews definitely believe in the Bible. But they also believe that the Bible, or the Torah, can only be properly understood through the Talmud - the Rabbinic commentary on the entire Bible.
And the Talmud is rife with references to a hell. A fiery, burning hell that rivals the worst of the Christian versions. Let's take a look at a small list:
Chagigah 15b talks about how a "heretical" Rabbi, after his death, purportedly had smoke coming out of his grave to signify how he was "burning in hell."
Shabbat 33b references that the damned are judged in hell, but only "for 12 months."
Pesachim 54a explicitly mentions the "fire" of hell.
For a much larger list, I invite the inquisitive reader to visit this link where I've searched the term "gehenna" (roughly translated as hell in Judaism) and where you can find much more references in the Talmud.
To sum up: Judaism has a belief in a hell, a Judgement Day, where all are judged and some are sent to hell, a place of fire and other tortures. Whether that hell is for 6 months, or 12 months, or eternity, is irrelevant - because the simple problem for believers is: what kind of a loving god would create ANY type of hell in the first place? How is torture a "moral" act from an "all-loving" entity?
Judaism has long been presented as if it's a "milder" religion than Christianity regarding its doctrine of hell. This shows that it's no different - it's just hidden outside of the Torah. Open up the Talmud, and it's plain to see: Judaism definitely believes in a hell.
I have never thought anything of ultra-orthodoxy, and of the orthodox interpretation of the Talmud. The orthodox view is most certainly extraneous to the truth, But I am a very religious Jew, though the word "religious" should not be read as "meticulous in the Mitzvot."
ReplyDeleteHi Moshe. You're free to redefine any word you want, but I think the majority of Jews would say that a "religious" Jew is, by definition, some kind of practitioner of rites and rituals, such as prayer, sabbath, etc.
DeleteWhat exactly do you mean when you say you're "religious" but not "meticulous in the Mitzvot"? In what sense, then, are you a religious Jew? Is it mere culture, or identity, without any actual practice of Judaism?
One of the things we do automatically is dissect and assemble. Think about what you are doing if you interpret a spoken language: You dissect a sound wave and assemble a meaning to what is said. Here is my Berachah to you. May you continue to dissect where you came from, and from that assemble a great meaning.
DeleteWhile I appreciate your sentiment, you've avoided my question entirely.
DeleteFurthermore, I have "dissected" where I came from, thoroughly. I'm not sure what you mean by "assembling great meaning," because I don't see that there is any objective meaning. However, I do have subjective things that I feel are meaningful, and I'm fine with living my life like that.
If you want to answer my original question, go ahead. If not, that's fine - thanks for commenting.
Coming from (ultra)orthodoxy, it is hard to see a Judaism without the Mitzvot. But the Mitzvot are extraneous to the Torah, both inherently and historically. Historically, the word "Mitzvot" is a late linguistic invention. The short story is that the many instances of "Mitzvot" were added to the various "sources of Torah" as one of the means to make the Torah seem one whole. The Mitzvot are thus a layer on top, and if you peel that layer away, many feel that you are left with nothing of substance. But, for me, here is where I found my Judaism.
DeleteI'm still confused. You say that mitzvos are extraneous, but then you say that if you peel them away, you're left with nothing. I don't understand how you can hold both those positions at the same time.
DeleteYou are left with nothing, that is what MANY FEEL, but I do not. I am sorry for your confusion, but I think I wrote it correctly. Let me add that it depends on the way of scraping "Mitzvot" off. To further explain this, I would have to go far into biblical criticism, a subject that you have not touched, I believe.
ReplyDeleteThe author asks "what kind of a loving god would create ANY type of hell in the first place? How is torture a "moral" act from an "all-loving" entity?" while ignoring the fact that it is designated for the absolute wicked. He fails to recognize how erasure of some form of purgatory would raise the more pertinent question: "what kind of a moral God would allow the truly wicked to prosper without any repercussion at all?".
ReplyDeleteHe also fails to mention that most of these extremely wicked individuals can indeed be atoned for after their time in Gehenom, thereby signifying a God Who indeed shows mercy even on these most wicked of individuals.
Your argument hinges on humans having "free will," which you'd need to demonstrate. I'm not convinced humans do have absolute free will as you seem to be defining it.
DeleteFurthermore, you focus on "punishing" the "bad" people, but you fail to investigate how they came to be in the first place. Why would god "create" psychopathic serial killers, knowing what they're going to be and do, only to throw them into a hell later to "fix" them? Does that really make sense?
Your question in the 2nd half of your comment makes perfect sense if you believe in free will, which for some reason you don’t.
ReplyDeletePlease share your views on free will to continue dialogue
@N8ZL, Even atheists believe in free will. For example, the famed atheist Christopher Hitchens believed in free will.
DeleteI will only add that according to Maimonides heaven and hell does not exist. The soul likewise does not survive death, rather, the intellect is absorbed by an active intellect.
ReplyDelete