| Dated: Aug. 01/98 |
The traditional concept of hell is a designated place where “bad” people go after they die. Most of us have been taught that if we would be good “good”, we would go to heaven, and if we didn’t measure up to the standards o goodness, we would go to hell to spend our eternity in fiery punishment for failure.
It is fascinating to think how the fire-and-brimstone concept of hell might have evolved. The original Old Testament name for the place to which people went if they did not qualify for heaven is Sheol. But Sheol had no fire associated with it. Rather, it was shadowy and dim, owing to the absence of the Spirit of life. The terms spirit and soul are not used in connection with Sheol. Since we can also conclude that the body did not go to Sheol, it is difficult to know just what part of the person made this journey. In the original concept of Sheol, those who were there had no activity at all and could feel neither pain nor pleasure. Existence there was a dreamlike sort of thing.
Somewhere along the line of time we became more descriptive about Sheol and changed its name to hell. Incredible, fiery descriptions of hell were preached, and the pain of the fiery experience was prominent. This teaching was inconsistent with the original concept of Sheol, the forerunner of Hell.
The devil is the reigning monarch of the smoky kingdom of hell (see article on Satan). In our day satan is pictured as being cunning and devious. The Old Testament writers made of him a sort of tempting, universal gay blade, who was always trying to get people into a pickle.
Since it has been known to mankind for a long time that the core of the earth is hot, to make this the location of hell seemed a natural thing to do. It is said that people “descend” into hell.
In the New Testament the word Gehenna has been translated into hell. But this does not at all refer to the hell of traditional horror. Rather, it refers to the Valley of Hinnom, Ge Hinnom, it was called. This was a deep ravine near Jerusalem, which was used as a dumping ground for rubbish, garbage, and dead animals. To consume this refuse, a fire was kept burning at all times. Because this was the city incinerator and kept burning constantly, it was sometimes called the “eternal fire”.
During the time of Jesus Christ, when the yoke of Roman occupation was heavy, it is said that some of the Jewish people took to human sacrifice. To do this, they converted to an ancient Semitic religion of the worship of Molech. Molech was the deity to whom children, preferably the firstborn, were sometimes offered by fire sacrifice.
Legend has it that a statue of Molech was placed at the crest of the hill over Gehenna. Children were placed on the arms of the statue, rolled off and down into the fire in the valley, where they were sacrificed. Jesus’ reference to the hellfire was to this prohibited practice, not to an eternal damnation after death.
So, you see, the entire concept of a burning hell after death is something of nebulous content. There is no real basis for accepting this belief. It has served the church well, because it has been a fear tool for getting the followers of the church to abide by its mandates.
If the validity of the traditional concept of hell is in question, what is the alternative? It is that hell is not a destination. Rather, it is an experience of life. Who among us has not “been through hell” in some way or another? It has been appropriately said by Dr. James Fischer that:” The tortures of hell are not in the core of the earth, but in the very core of life. Here too, is heaven. And also that vast purgatory in between, populated by those who have found neither overwhelming torture, nor profound contempt - the lost soul ambling without purpose through their allotment of time”.
Yes, hell is a state of consciousness. When we have permitted our thoughts and emotions to degenerate sufficiently, we suffer through experiences that seem to be degrading to our true spiritual nature.
God has blessed us with divine purpose and presence, through the Spirit that indwells all of us. In this Spirit are all the qualities that comprise the true character of God. When we are expressing the antithesis of these qualities, our life becomes a living hell.
In the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, Charles Fillmore states: ”One does not have to die in order to go to hell, any more than one has to die to get to heaven. Both are states of mind and conditions, which people experience as a direct outworking of their thoughts, beliefs, words, and acts. If one’s mental processes are out of harmony with the law of man’s [sic] being, they result in trouble and sorrow; mental as well as bodily anguish overtakes one, and this is hell”.
We have all been taught that through our behavior we choose whether we shall experience heaven or hell. This is true; but this refers to now, not of some afterlife. It is a contemporary experience. If any one of us is going to experience hell, we can be sure that it will be during his or her earthly lifetime.
When Old Testament writers referred to Sheol, it was to a grave rather than to an eternal destination. Likewise, when we experience hell now, it is as if we have buried ourselves with trouble. We have shut ourselves out from all the light and beauty that life is. Somehow, we have made the choice not to express the mystical qualities of God. This is to lie in the grave of negation.
It is our right to do this, since God has given us free will. But it is also our right not to. It is our right, through our divine heritage, to let ourselves be the free and open channels through which divine qualities of Spirit may express beauty. This is to refuse hell on earth. This is our great alternative.
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven I sent my Soul through the Invisible, Some letter of that after-life to spell: And by and by my Soul returned to me. And answered, “I Myself am Heaven and Hell.” ---John Milton
This item is an excerpt from the book "Alternatives" by William L. Fisher, and reproduced with the express permission of Unity School of Christianity, Unity Village, MO.
Return to Unity Church Home Page
10. Satan
The popular view of satan is somewhat comical. He is caricatured as being small in stature, red in color, with small horns in his forehead, a pointed tail, and carrying a pitchfork, which is the weapon supposedly used to prod people into sinning. Sometimes he is pictured with a moustache and beard. He is also shown as having cloven hooves and very much resembling the mythical Greek god Pan.
Tremendous cunning and power are attributed to satan by some people. It is said that sometimes a battle rages between satan and God over the custody of a person’s soul. The devil supposedly wins an occasional battle. This is a rather frightening consideration, because it accords more power to satan than to God. It would make us wonder if we have a right to call God “Almighty”. Perhaps, if this were the case, we would more appropriately call God “part mighty”.
In the Old Testament Book of Job there is an interesting story concerning satan. Job is put to many trying tests to see if he will remain loyal to God. Job’s virtue prevails. The prominence of satan in this fictional drama, however, seems to have given “him” a powerful place of consideration in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus it is that the traditional view of satan is that of a second god, a god of evil who prevails in today’s world to influence the evil-doing of humankind.
Where did the belief in satan originate? In the purest Jewish tradition there is only one God. This God created the earth and made it a garden, peopled this earth with all sorts of creatures, warmed it with the sun, enchanted it with the moon, and dazzled it with the stars.
The “satanic” influence came on the scene only when God’s people began to get their own ideas, which were not in keeping with the divine intentions of God. In the allegory of creation, there was no devil until Adam and Eve began to think in opposition to divine principles. This is important for us to remember.
We must also remember that the story of creation was not the first part of the Old Testament to be written. During the period in Jewish history known as the Babylonian captivity (nearly 600 years before the time of Jesus Christ) the first of the Jewish scriptures were recorded. Prior to this time, they were handed down from mouth to hear, from generation to generation, in what was called the oral tradition. The first Bible stories began with Abraham. It was later deemed desirable to write the story of creation.
What influenced the introduction of a satanic character into the allegory of creation? The actual origin of he concept of satan is hidden in almost impenetrable mystery. But one tempting trail leads to the religion of the Persians. The ancient Persians had a two-god religion: One god was Ahriman, the god of darkness and evil; the other was Ormazd, the god of light and goodness. Many religious scholars feel that this Persian philosophy had an influence on Hebrew theology; hence, the character of satan became a part of the Hebrew legends, and these legends, in turn, became the basis of the Hebrew scriptures.
Another promising trail leads to the Babylonian legend of the creation of the world. In this legend there is a fallen angel named Kingu. He is said to have had an army of demons who went around helping people get into trouble. Some people feel that Isaiah’s reference to Lucifer relates to this fallen angel; but Isaiah’s reference is to Daystar, a name the Babylonian king used for himself.
Greek mythology also comes into the picture here. Hades was the kingdom of the dead, with both Elysian fields for the good and places of torment for the wicked. The mythical Greek gods were in charge of the these places - the good gods were in charge of the good places and the bad ones in charge of the bad places. As already noted, the depiction of satan in our time strongly resembles the Greek god Pan.
Because the Jews were in captivity in Babylon for about seventy years, it is likely that Babylonian legends would have influenced the Hebrew legends. Following the Babylonian captivity, there was the Persian occupation of Palestine, with the likely influence of Ahriman. This was followed by the Greek occupation and the possible and likely influence of Greek mythology. All this happened from about 600 BC to 120 BC - a formative period in Jewish religious thought. Satan makes a couple of other brief appearances in the books of Zechariah and Chronicles.
There is not much said about satan in the New Testament. Paul makes one reference to the “devil” in II Corinthians 4:4:”The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God”.
It is written that a “tempter” came to Jesus. Though it is not written who this tempter was, Jesus later called “him” satan. Jesus was in the wilderness and was tempted to change stones into bread. It is reasonable to assume that the tempter was the voice of human hunger speaking to Him. When He was at the pinnacle of the temple and was tempted to throw Himself off and land safely, it was probably the voice of human desire for quick, sensational recognition. In the third temptation, He thought about becoming the political and military leader that the Jews expected their Messiah to be - and to worship materiality that would go with filling such a role. This was the voice of worldliness speaking to Him. There was no being outside Jesus, only the voice of His own human nature. For example, the pinnacle of the temple was a high platform where Roman soldiers had an outpost. If there had been a visible satan there, these soldiers would have encountered “him” and attempted to destroy “him”.
Each time Jesus Christ, in His higher nature, rejected the temptation. Had He succumbed, the power of God working through Him would have been nothing more nor less than magic to Him. But because He remained in a high state of spiritual consciousness, He became the ethical Messiah of the world.
Here, then, is the alternative concept of satan: Satan is not an impish being with a pitchfork, prodding people into a sinful life; rather, satan is the lower nature of all people. It is the self of us that can tempt us to do things that we know are not for our highest good. Satan is the selfish, human, cunning, devious ego of limitation that motivates the human personality to turn away from God. It is the part of us that must decrease as our spiritual nature increases.
How do we overrule this part of us? “I, when I am lifted up from this earth, will draw all men to myself”. We must elevate our desires of human appetite, raise the standards of our moral passions, bear up our spiritual aspirations, ad be receptive to the drawing power of Christ. This is to lift up and spiritualize the human self, thus defeating our “satanic” nature. When this happens, the kingdom of Christlikeness will be established in our hearts, minds, and worlds. This is the objective of true Christianity. Rather than doing battle with an external force that doesn’t exist, the overruling of the lower nature by the higher is the ultimate accomplishment.
This item is an excerpt from the book "Alternatives" by William L. Fisher, and reproduced with the express permission of Unity School of Christianity, Unity Village, MO.
Return to Unity Church Home Page
11. Sin
- Most religions give a lot of attention to the subject of sin. This is because sin is degrading to the person, and religion is designed to upgrade people. The way religion has used the concept of sin, however, is questionable. If religion has used the accusation that a person has sinned in order to make him feel more guilty and, therefore, more dependent on the church for salvation, this is indeed a questionable tactic. And if the church has taken a person’s feeling of sinfulness and used this to make him fearful of a burning hereafter, the ethic of this approach is also questionable.
When I was growing up the sins that were applicable to me were not hard to define. first, I was taught that it was a sin not to empty my plate dinnertime--because there were so many hungry people in the world. Next, I was not supposed to use swear words. and finally, my morals were to be above reproach. Basically, then, sin dealt with dinnertime, swearing, and sexual behavior.
The reference to eating everything on my plate was born out of natural parental concern for my physical well-being. to call it a sin when I did not clean my plate, was nothing more nor less than a parental tactic and understandable.
Taking the Lord’s name in vain was another matter. Usually the curse words that ere condemned came from the New Testament. to use the name of Jesus Christ, or any part of it, during a expression of anger or hostility is certainly immature. There is no question in my mind that such use of the Master’s name is wrong. It also usually indicates a limited vocabulary on the part of the user.
But we must remember that the commandment--”You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain”--was given to us through the Old Testament (Exodus 20:7). What was the name of the Lord according to Moses, who gave us this commandment? It certainly was not Jesus Christ. God gave Moses the name during the experience of the burning bush. You will recall that Moses wanted to know whose voice it was who spoke to him. that voice, the voice of God, identified as “I Am Who I Am.” when Moses wanted some authority for returning to Egypt, this same Divine voice said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’”(Exodus 3:14). Keep this in mind, because one of your alternatives on the subject of sin lies within this information.
The third area of sin dealt with moral behavior. If we are inclined toward reckless promiscuity in our moral behavior, it is often a symptom of a poor self-image. A person who thinks well of himself or herself is not inclined toward this kind of behavior pattern. I do not know if such behavior is a sin against God; but I am sure that it is a sin against ourselves. If we truly believe that we are spiritual beings, how is it possible to degrade ourselves through any behavior we deem as demeaning? So, in this area of is, we need to take a good look at how we really feel about ourselves and our actions.
Traditionally, sin has been defined a missing of the mark. this means falling short of our highest potential. There are obviously many ways that we can and do fall short. the important thing to remind ourselves is that such falling short is not, does not have to be, a permanent life experience. there is a definite remedy for it.
Consider the quality of our words. As mentioned, the name of God as revealed to Moses is I AM. This means that anytime we use the words I am associated with any quality that would degrade or betray our spiritual character, we are taking the Lord’s name in vain. Any time we say, “I am sick,” or “I am poor,” or “I am angry,” we are associating the name of God with qualities that are the antithesis of the true character of God.
Herein lies our alternative. To use the words I am in this way is much more subtle profanity than the kind usually thought of as profane. therefore, the ill effects of such an association can creep into our lives without our realizing what we have done to ourselves. Our words do have a tremendous effect upon our well-being. Therefore, it is important that we never associate the words I am with anything less than the qualities we normally associate with God. We need to affirm: I am well and strong. I am alive with the joy of God. I am rich with God’s bountiful supply. This is to use the name of God as it was intended to be used.
There is also an alternative to be considered in the very definition of the word sin. We have most often thought of sin as a falling short of the mark. The degree of the sin has been determined by how far short of the mark we fell. Also, there was some question as to what the “mark” we aspire to reach really was.
The alternative definition of sin is “living under a false sense of separation from God.” It is a false sense of separation because we cannot actually be separated from God. God is our very Spirit, the life that pulsates in and through our beings.
However, if we labor under the delusion that we are separated from God, the effect is almost as if we were. If, in our own consciousness, we feel that God is “there” and we are “here,” we will feel separated from our highest good. We will feel as if we really are poor, tired, sick, and the rest of the negative host.
For this reason, every prayer that we pray should be one for healing--to heal our sense of separation from God. It may well be that this sense of separateness is the only real sin. Everything we experience that could be termed sinful stems from this sense of separation from God.
If we feel at one with God, which we truly are, how could we ever feel deprived of any good thing in life? Much to the contrary, a feeling of at-one-ness with God gives us a sense of assurance that all is well with our world. We know that God is blessing us constantly with the strength of Divine presence, which works mightily in and through us.
This was the great secret to the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. “I and the Father are one,” He said. He meant for us to know this Truth for ourselves. When we do know this Truth, there can be no feeling of separation from God. then the one major and basic sin is removed from our lives. When this falseness disappears from our thinking, fantastic thing happen to us. Our minds become illumined with actual, useful wisdom. divine energy flows through our bodies, revitalizing us. From our hearts the very love of God flows, as compassion toward all. Our personal worlds are peacefully prosperous, and we are grateful.
Give some serious thought to this alternative concept of sin. To feel at one with God is life’s greatest felling.
This item is an excerpt from the book "Alternatives" by William L. Fisher, and reproduced with the express permission of Unity School of Christianity, Unity Village, MO.
If we use this page it needs more work, and colour.
Return to Unity Church Home Page
12. Life After Death
Before we begin to think about life after death, it is necessary to come to an understanding of the experience called “death.” Death seems like such a final thing. In order to conform to the practices of our society, we find it necessary to make all the trying funeral arrangements, even though we may not agree with the practices involved in a contemporary funeral. There are visiting hours, the memorial service itself, and a trip to the cemetery. When the committal service at the cemetery is over, it all seems so final -- we often even refer to the gravesite as the “final resting place.” A life is over.
Is it? Is life over when we leave the body of a loved one at the cemetery? Obviously, the body is no longer alive. But is the body the person we loved? Hardly! We really loved that person’s character, his or her responsive mind and loving heart and compassionate soul. These do not die. If nothing else, they live on in our memory. We are the ones who choose how long and how pleasant our memory of them shall be.
Life is the supreme quality of God. Without life, none of the other qualities could exist. The human body is fragile. Surely the God who created this life would not confine it to the limitations of this fragility. The actual quality of life itself is eternal. It has lived on through ages and shall continue forever. this is the nature of life, as dictated by its history, its present, and its prognosis.
At the time of death, or soon after, the soul is believed to leave the body. This part of us that lives on is an unseen self, spirituality with its own identity. But where does this invisible substance go? Traditionally, we have thought that it goes wither to heaven or to hell, depending on the quality of personal behavior.
But let me give you an alternative-and please hear it through before you reject or accept it. It is reincarnation. This is the teaching that the “dead” person lives again as a human being in another human body. The teaching of reincarnation is not foreign to religious thought; it is enthusiastically embraced by many of the major world religions, especially the Eastern ones. It is not even foreign to Christianity. As a matter of fact, it was fairly well accepted in Christian thought until the Council of Constantinople in AD 533, when a ruling was made by the church fathers against it.
The question we are dealing with is simply this: Have we lived before in another body and will we live again in another body after we leave this one?
Jesus Christ did not deal directly with reincarnation, but He did refer to it. It was a part of the teaching of the Essenes, a prominent sect of His day. There are some historians who believe that Jesus was an Essene in His thought, if not in fact. Reincarnation, it seems, was one of the accepted ideas of those times. Jesus opposed many if the teachings of the times, but we have no record that He ever repudiated or denied reincarnation.
Drop us a line! Page maintained by Robert Russell who can be reached at e-mail address [email protected].