We continue today the methodical study of “Heaven and Hell, or Divine Justice According to Spiritism” by Allan Kardec. The first edition was published in August 1, 1865. This work is part of the Kardecian Pentateuch. The answers to the questions suggested for discussion are at the end of the text below.
Questions for discussion
A. Future punishments - are they eternal? Where did this belief originate?
B. What is the main argument used by those who defend the dogma of eternal punishment? How does Spiritism refute this?
C. If the Spirit can progress, then progress is a natural law. Is the dogma of eternal punishment in accordance with the law of progress?
D. The flesh is weak, or is it the soul?
Reading Text
49. As the Spirit developed, the material veil unclosed itself little by little, and men began to have a better understanding of the spiritual things. However, this only happened gradually. When Jesus came to this world, He proclaimed a merciful God, and taught: "Love each other and do well to those that hate you," while the former proposed: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." (First Part, Chapter VI, section 4).
50. Who were the men who lived at the time of Jesus? Were they new souls, endowed, since their creation, with more understanding than those who lived at the time of Moses? No, those souls were the same ones, who lived before under the rule of the Mosaic Laws, and who acquired, in their previous lives, enough development to understand a more developed doctrine too, in the same way they have advanced today and are ready to accept a thorough education. (First Part, Chapter VI, section 4.)
51. However, Christ could not disclose to his contemporaries all the mysteries of the future, and in many matters, He limited himself to sow, using allegories, so that these seeds would develop later. The doctrine of rewards and future punishments belongs to this last line of thinking. He could not break abruptly with the preconceived ideas, nor could He rationally weaken the fear of punishment with which the offenders were threatened, without weakening the idea of duty. (First Part, Chapter VI, section 5.)
52. If Jesus threatened the guilty with the eternal fire, He also threatened them to be thrown into the Gehenna. What is the Gehenna? It was a dunghill, outside Jerusalem, where the city's garbage was dumped. Should we consider this literally? No, certainly not, although Jesus used these strong images to impress the masses. The same applies to the eternal fire, because, if there were the eternal fire, this would be in flagrant contradiction with the indulgence and mercy of God, which the Master praised so much. (Part I, Chapter VI, Section 6.)
53. In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus teaches us: Forgive us, Lord, our trespasses, as we forgive our debtors. Now, if the guilty should not expect any forgiveness, it would be useless to ask for it. God considers the forgetting of offenses an absolute condition, then how could He demand from man, a weak being, what He, the omnipotent Creator, did not do? The "Our Father" is, therefore, a daily protest against the eternity of God's vengeance. (Part I, Chapter VI, Section 6.)
54. Jesus, whenever there was an opportunity, spoke of a forgiving God, indulgent, merciful, and willing to receive the prodigal son returning to his father's home. However, He was firm with the obstinate sinner, and if He had punishment in one hand, He always had forgiveness in the other, forgiveness, which He was ready to give to the guilty, who sought Him with sincerity. (Part I, Chapter VI, Section 7).
55. The doctrine of absolute eternal punishment necessarily leads to the denial or weakening of some attributes of God, being inconsistent with absolute perfection, which results in this dilemma: if God is perfect, there is no eternal punishment. If there is eternal punishment, God is not perfect. (Part I, Chapter VI, section 15.)
56. The dogma that says that punishment is eternal contradicts the law of progress of the souls, to which it opposes an insurmountable barrier. These two principles destroy themselves, and the unavoidable condition of the existence of one is the destruction of the other. Which one exists? The law of progress is evident. It is not a theory, but a fact borne out by experience. It is a law of Nature, divine, indefeasible. If this law is incompatible with the other law, it is because the other law does not exist. (Part I, Chapter VI, section 19.)
57. According to the Doctrine, the words of the Gospel, and in line with logic and the strictest justice, man is the product of his own work, during his life and after death, owing nothing to a preferential treatment. God rewards man for his efforts, and punishes him for his negligence as long as his negligence persists. (Part I, Chapter VI, section 19.)
58. The belief in eternal punishment was acceptable for the period while man did not understand moral power. The same happens to children for a while when they are restrained by the threat of chimerical beings, which intimidate them. When they start reasoning, they, themselves, repel these beings of their childhood, and it becomes an absurd wanting to rule them using these methods. This is what occurs today with humanity, who leaves its childhood and abandons its phantasmagoria. (Part I, Chapter VI, section 20.)
59. Belief is an act of understanding. Therefore, it cannot be imposed. If, for a certain period, the dogma of eternal punishment was harmless and beneficial, nowadays it became dangerous. Anyone who studies the matter in detail will arrive to the conclusion that in our days the dogma of eternal punishment has produced more atheists and materialists than all philosophers. (Part I, Chapter VI, section 21.)
60. Why then should a belief be maintained at all costs, when this belief has diluted itself through its disuse, and it harms more than it benefits a religion? It is sad to say, but material interests control religion, regarding this point. This belief has been greatly exploited passing the idea that money can open the gates of Heaven and Hell. The amounts collected like this, yesterday and today, are uncounted. (Part I, Chapter VI, section 21.)
61. The New Revelation, providing more reasonable notions of afterlife and proving that we can reach happiness by good works, must find a tremendous opposition, the stronger because it puts a brake to one of the most profitable sources of income. It has always been like this, whenever a new discovery or invention shakes deep and predetermined habits. Those who live of old and costly processes never stop defending them as superior and excellent, while discrediting the new, and more economical. (Part I, Chapter VI, section 22.)
Answers to the proposed questions
A. Future punishments - are they eternal? Where did this belief originate?
The closer to the primitive state, more material is the man and this has an influence on his conception about the Creator. A meek and compliant God could not be God, because without resources to make Him obeyed. Relentless revenge and terrible and eternal punishment was nothing, therefore, incompatible with the idea of God and it was not repugnant to reason. Now, as people were implacable in their resentment, cruel to enemies and inexorable to the conquered, God, who was superior to them, should be even more terrible.
Therefore, for such men, religious beliefs assimilated to their rustic nature were necessary, since a spiritual religion, all love and charity could not combine with the brutality of their customs and passions. Therefore, we should not reproach Moses and his draconian legislation, or the fact that he presented us with a vengeful God, since those times required so. The belief in eternal punishment was, due to this, a mere consequence of the conditions in which this doctrine began to be taught. (Heaven and Hell, Part I, Chapter VI, sections 2, 3 and 20.)
B. What is the main argument used by those who defend the dogma of eternal punishment? How does Spiritism refute this?
The main argument in its favor: "It is a sanctioned doctrine among men that the seriousness of the offense is proportionate to the quality of the offense. For example, the lese-majesty crime, i.e., the attack on the person of a sovereign, is considered more serious than in relation to any other person, and, therefore, is more severely punished. And being God much more than a sovereign, because He is infinite, so infinite must be the offense to Him, and infinite, therefore, the respective punishment, i.e., eternal."
The denial to this argument is based on the very attributes of God: eternal, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, supremely just and good, infinite in all perfections. Therefore, an infinite and just being, cannot have the smallest share of evil. Considering that a temporary offense to Divinity could be eternal, God, taking revenge for an infinite punishment, would then be infinitely vengeful too, and being infinitely vengeful, God cannot be infinitely good and merciful, since one of these attributes excludes the other. If God is not infinitely good, then He is not perfect, and not being perfect, He is no longer God. If God is cruel to the guilty, then He is not merciful, and if He is not merciful, He is no longer infinitely good.
Moreover, why would God give men a law of forgiveness, if He, Himself, did not forgive? If so, we can conclude that the man, who forgives those, who offended him and repays evil with good, would be better than God, deaf to the repentance of those who offend Him, eternally denying them the slightest affection. (Ibid, Part I, Chapter VI, sections 10, 12, 15, 16 and 17.)
C. If the Spirit can progress, then progress is a natural law. Is the dogma of eternal punishment in accordance with the law of progress?
No. The dogma of eternal punishment is irrational and inconsistent with the law of progress. (Ibid, Part I, Chapter VI, sections 17, 18, and 19.)
D. The flesh is weak, or is it the soul?
The expression the flesh is weak refers to man's weakness, that is, to Spirits, when incarnated, and, therefore, subject to all possible influences, under which they many succumb. The flesh is weak because the Spirit is weak, and this reverses the question, since it considers the thinking being responsible for his acts, and not his body. Flesh, deprived of thought and will, cannot ever prevail over the Spirit, which is the being who thinks and makes decisions. (Ibid, Part I, Chapter VII, First Part.)
