Let's talk about Hell.
And I know I may sound misguided, but bear with me for a second.
Now, it's established that Hell is a place for torment and suffering, a sort of consequence for allowing the will to rebel against God, yes? It's a place where you are being divinely punished.
Now, in every depiction of Hell, and hitherto, I've yet to see any large complaint about this particular detail, hell is depicted as a fiery red color, yes? Hell is burning red hot flames, yes?
If Hell is a place of eternal suffering and pain, why the hell aren't the flames blue? Blue flames burn hotter than red flames, and thus, wouldn't they inflict more damage, and bring more pain? So why not blue flames? Would it be appropriate for some artist of a religious descent to make note of this, and to update the images of hell?
Infact, if Hell is a place for suffering of the soul, then what need would there be for fire? Isn't fire just a release of heat energy that would eradicate only that which is tangible? Unless if the soul is tangible, then I would not see a need for flames? But even then, under constant exposure to such flames, oughtn't the body that is the soul fated to a quick incineration?
Thoughts?
To be honest, the view that hell is a burning pit of fire is a bit of an outdated belief; most (Christian) religions understand it as some state of eternal loss, and not anything tangible as such. I usually interpret the flames as this sense of loss rather than literal things burning. Different sources depict hell differently.
ReplyDeleteThat's quite interesting. Tahnks for clearing that up
ReplyDelete