"Hell no," says Rev. Rob Bell.
"Hell yes," replies Rev. Albert Mohler.
These Christian brothers are arguing over the existence of hell. Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is, like most of his brethren, firm in his adherence to the longstanding heaven-hell afterlife divide. Bell, an evangelical superstar and the author of the bestselling Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, is all for heaven but not so sure about hell. Go to your corners, holy warriors. It's on!
It's about time this debate took place. After all, it's been raging among laypersons for centuries, not just out loud in coffee houses, living rooms and school cafeterias, but in the silent recesses of individual minds. In their solitary moments, even the staunchest believers entertain the occasional doubt about the whole eternal damnation thing. How can they not in a pluralistic world in which their friend at the office or the nice kid sitting next to them class is, presumably, doomed for eternity because they belong to the wrong tribe? As a recent Time cover story on this issue points out, the Gospel of John promises "eternal life" to "whosoever believeth in Him" -- meaning Jesus, of course -- a formula that leaves out a whole lot of decent people and welcomes reprobates who would give any heaven a bad name.
Many Christians, it should be noted, have a different understanding of who gets into paradise and who gets turned away -- a more open admissions policy, if you will -- but the believers-are-in, the-rest-are-doomed standard has been widespread and consequential. I did more than 300 interviews for my book American Veda, and that bit of cognitive dissonance -- as in, "How could a loving God condemn a good person like so-and-so to eternal torment" -- was the most common reason I heard for why people, especially young ones, turned their backs on their churches. It was, in fact, the assertion that Mahatma Gandhi is burning in hell for being a Hindu that launched Rev. Bell on the path to his controversial book.
It would seem, then, that hell might go the way of stoning adulterers, shopping bans on Sunday and other outmoded customs and beliefs. But that prospect has raised interesting questions, mainly "What then happens to heaven?" Without its fiery counterpart, paradise may be as hard to conceive of as day without night or warm without cold. If everyone gets to spend eternity in a celestial retirement community, does life on earth become like one of those athletic events for kids where everyone gets the same prize? You can expect fierce resistance to that notion from people who believe humans need the threat of harsh sanctions to behave themselves. The heaven-hell model may be irrational, but at least it gives believers some sense that the universe has rules. If hell becomes a theological dinosaur, what happens to the possibility of cosmic justice?
Materialists will say there is no cosmic justice. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. Get used to it. Life isn't fair. And, they would add, there are plenty of earth-bound, rational incentives for doing the right thing.
True enough, but others sense that there is cosmic justice, and they'll shift to another model, like karma. The concept of karma has been on the ascendant ever since offshoots of Hinduism and Buddhism began to take root in America a couple of hundred years ago, and its acceptance has accelerated in the past few decades. Since it does not depend on the judgment of an anthropomorphic (and apparently inconsistent and whimsical) deity, and because it sounds more like a scientific law than a religious doctrine, karma is seen by many as a fairer and more rational system of justice. When combined with reincarnation -- which, when you think about it, is a logically necessary companion -- the system suggests an ongoing curriculum, something akin to matriculating from grade to grade rather than having your fate sealed for all time on the basis of a single test.
Exactly how many Americans ascribe to karma I can't say. I am not aware of any rigorous studies. But a full 24 percent believe in reincarnation, and anecdotal evidence suggests that karma has become a ubiquitous shorthand for reap-what-you-sow justice. The term crops up increasingly in song lyrics, sitcoms, news reports and casual conversation. The fact that you've read this far without thinking, "What is this karma thing he's talking about?" is proof in itself. I didn't have to define it because it's already seeped into the national bloodstream, even in the pop-est of pop culture. On a recent episode of Glee, Finn and Rachel are engaged in some heavy teenage reflection. "Do you believe in that thing called karma?" he asks.
Rachel says yes, she does. Finn asks her to explain it.
"Well, it's the law of physics," she says, "whereby, for example, if you do something to hurt someone, well then the laws of the universe will work against you until you get hurt."
Simplistic, yes. Incomplete, definitely. But not too bad, considering the source, and no more facile than the sportswriter who chalked up the Lakers' collapse in the playoffs to team karma. As elucidated in Hindu and Buddhist texts, karma is a complex and nuanced concept. But I suspect it will become increasingly clear to Americans in the coming years, as those who intuit that the universe is fair -- or hope that it is -- turn to it as an alternative to the traditional heaven and hell model, which more and more people have come to see as a cosmic kangaroo court, unworthy of a tradition that equates God with love.
Visit the American Veda website.
Follow Philip Goldberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/phil_amveda
Gadadhara Pandit Dasa: The Birth of Krishna: When God Came To Earth
Rob Bell, Hell and God's Love – The Debate that Won't Die ...
Pastor's Book: There's No Hell? Read 'Love Wins' by Rob Bell - ABC ...
David Lose: The Rob Bell Controversy: Does Anyone Go To Hell?
Rob Bell's Hell: A Threat to the Evangelical Business Plan - TIME
Rob Bell Stirs Wrath With New Views On Old Questions - NYTimes.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGm9G8qXjn0
God will become tainted by arbitrary behavior if God is doing all this. Karma seems to be a more reasonable assumption. One should also understand that the role of God and attitude to God is different in Hinduism compared to western systems. In Christianity, a sin is against God and hence God drags such a person to hell. In Hinduism sin is an offense against oneself and God plays no role in any punishment. God only distributes the fruits of Karma. Moreover a Hindu has the right to disagree with God if what God says appears to him to be against reason. For example, Yogavashistha Ramayan II.18 says:
"The remark of a child is to be accepted, if it is in accordance with reason; but the remark of even Brahma Himself, the creator of the world is to be rejected like a piece of straw if it does not accord with reason."
It is obvious that in a system where even God can be asked questions, God can not be punishing people. So Karma is the only way out to secure justice.
Personally, my definition of karma is the truism that whatever action you take has effects. Being conscious of what those effects may be is what is important. Those effects may affect you and others-friend and foe alike, in complex ways. Becoming unable to move forward because you think about it too much is a problem. Physical, literal rebirth doesn't work for me-I am, in a sense, reborn every minute in the shadow of my past acts, but that's as far as I go with reincarnation.
In this culture, Karma is simply McHell--Fastfood, get it in the drive thru and launch it out an open window from a moving car at whoever crossed you today.
All those people to be oppressed, deserve it, you see, because they must have been bed in their "past lives.'" Oh, it gets even better. Since they do deserve theitr suffering here and now, because of "bad karma" left over from "past lives," the fortunate high caste few do them no favor by helping them. If we help the poor escape suffering, this view holds that we are actually harming them, because we are holding them back from gaining merit by being good, patient low-caste sufferers.
Sounds wacky to you too, does it? There really are people who think that way..
The whole point is that it boils down to judgement. Hinduism is a system that has no central authority which forces dogmas down people's throats. So people are expected to use their judgement. It is entirely possible that some people would come to ridiculous conclusions. Such things are part and parcel of freedom. The whole issue has nothing to do with either caste or karma.
Modern Hindu practice conflates jati and varna (moral stature), claiming that an entire jati or community has one single Varna or moral stature. That is not what Hindu scriptures say where it is clearly stated that Varna depends on past and present conduct. It would not be correct to blame the concept of karma for modern Hindu practice of caste. This is reinforced by say Indonesian Hindus of Bali and Java who do not practice "caste" and yet accept karma.
Hell couldn't be worse than that.
A 'soul' due to some past life action enjoys the fruits of that action in the current life. But, take this back far enough and you have to wonder how/why the FIRST action of the soul was initiated, due to what past event? Thus, one sees that one has once again fallen into an infinite regression of causes and the mystery still remains. Karma and soul theory have a moral utility, but do not pass the test of provability. In this mysterious existence, all we can do is follow our moral sense while realizing that thought will always lead to infinite regressions.
Is there some cosmic justice? That must remain a matter of faith.
Simply put, the concept of "karma", divorced from it's oriental culture of origin and theological context, makes no rational sense and makes a true mess out of any concept of the word "justice". If anything, the writer of Ecclesiastes can be considered a "western rational materialist" by the definition you've used: " Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all." (Ecc. 9: 11 - a good look at verse 2 is also relevant here.)
The point is, that if westerners really understood how closely tied the concepts of "karma" and "caste" were, they would reject both and begin searching for a more "just" solution to their dilemma. The problem in the west, is not about rationalism - it's about Protestant heresies/misunderstandings that arose out of Calvinism which everyone should reject regardless of their faith.
Buddha called Karma 'imponderable', and forwarded the concept in opposition to:
1. God's will
2. Predestination
3. Randomness
So, karma is just an acknowledgement that our actions do matter, that the world does not turn in a predestined way, nor via its 'creator's' whims, and not without causality in play either.
Karma is just as mysterious as whatever is behind the timing of the next radioactive decay event, which is not, even in principle, predictable.
Erroneous folk understanding of karma abound, like 'destiny', or 'action-reaction along the lines of 'a tooth for a tooth'. But the concept is more subtle than that, and ultimately is a repudiation of the other 3 views mentioned above.