Oh Hell, The Devil made me do it.

There is a special toasty corner of Hell reserved for scumbag so called non-believers like me, or so I'm told. If that's where I'm headed then I think it's only fair to cast a critical eye over the concept.
There are various definitions of Hell according to which religion you follow, and to which sub-branch of that religion you subscribe. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, don't think that Hell is a place of flames and torment, but simply a place outside the sphere of God's love. When you pop your clogs, good JW's get into Heaven (which may actually be on Earth anyway), and everyone else just.... doesn't. It's a bit strange and vague, but that's the JWs for you.
Most people are familiar with the common concept of Heaven and Hell. Nice people go to Heaven where they get a harp and sit on a cloud for the rest of eternity; bad people go to Hell where demons poke them with sharp sticks for the rest of eternity. Heaven is ruled by God and Jesus, Hell is ruled by Satan and his minions. Oooh, you'd better be good or you'll burn in Hellfire forever!! And you don't want that, do you?
This is all well and good, if that's where you stop thinking about it. Unfortunately, some of us have inquisitive minds and can't help but probe a little deeper into this odd aspect of Christianity.

Where is Hell?
Yes, yes, we all know there are several towns called Hell or Hel, but I'm talking about the hot place ruled by the big red guy with horns.
Is it an actual physical location? Some seem to think so. Some people believe that Hell is located at the centre of the Earth (there was even a story some years ago about Russian miners going so deep that they heard the screams of the Damned). You can understand how this belief came about - thousands of years ago, people seeing erupting volcanoes probably thought that Hell was leaking. It gave them a startling insight into the world below. This could well be how the whole Burning In Hellfire idea came about.
If there really was a huge hollow cavern in the molten mantle, I can't help but wonder why it hasn't yet shown up on geological/seismological surveys...
Others seem to think that it is on some other dimensional plane of existence - it really does exist, but not in the universe as we know it.

What happens to your body?
Back to the idea of demons poking you with sharp sticks. Hell is portrayed as a place of eternal torment - every possible torture and atrocity that you can imagine will be inflicted on you, forever. You will be in constant agonising pain for all eternity (so you'd better repent, or else).
How does this happen then? When you die, your central nervous system stops functioning and your body is buried or burnt. There is a well understood process for the transmission of pain signals from your nerves to your brain. No nerve cells, no pain.
In order to be poked by demons and feel that as pain, you require a physical body with all the appropriate nerve connections. How does this come about then? Is your body mysteriously transported from your grave / cremation urn to Hell and brought back to life again? Is your "spirit body" altered to let you feel pain in the same way as your long-dead physical body used to?
What if you're a masochist and really quite like it? After all, if you don't have a real body, you could even start suggesting new and interesting tortures for the demons to try. "Hey, this pitchfork stuff is getting a bit dull, don't you have any red-hot pokers covered with ants instead? Ooh, ahh, up a bit, YES! YES!!!"
It could also be argued that the threat of eternal torment loses effectiveness after a while - if a person who actually believes in Hell commits a number of serious crimes, what is to stop him from thinking "Well, I'm going to burn for eternity for killing those ten people... What's going to happen to me if I kill another ten and rob a few more banks? It can't get any worse - where's my gun?" If he commits twice the sins, he can't exactly suffer for two eternities, can he? Or would he experience double-infinite pain?

How do you get there?
What you actually have to do in order to go to Hell varies wildly depending on your interpretation of scripture. For instance, some people say it doesn't matter what crime you commit - as long as you truly repent before you die you'll go to Heaven. On the other hand, some catholic nuns give the impression that you'll suffer eternal torment just for looking at them funny or making jokes about the Pope's silly hat.
All this can lead to some bizarre inconsistencies. A good example is the recent case of Karla Faye Tucker (and I mean no disrespect to the families involved when I use this as an example). This case made headline news in early 1998 - Karla Tucker had been involved in the pick-axe murder of two people and sentenced to death. During her time in prison she became a born-again Christian, turning her life over to Jesus Christ and repenting for her crime. This stirred up a hornet's nest as people like Pat Robertson suggested that she should not be executed, as she was a changed person (of course, many other people find Jesus/Allah on Death Row, but Tucker was A: a woman, and B: a christian, so she seemed to get preference in the eyes of Robertson and the like).
My point is this. Depending on your particular interpretation of the Rules Of The Afterlife, Tucker either:

1, Went to Hell for being a drugged-up pick-axe murderer.
2, Went to Heaven because she repented and found salvation through Jesus.

Also
Her victims:
1, went straight to Heaven because they were innocent murder-victims...
2, Or, if they had not already accepted Jesus as their saviour, they went straight to Hell.

This leads to the insane possibility that the murderer went to heaven, and her victims went to Hell. Or even that they all went to either Heaven or Hell.
How many murder victims in Heaven get an unpleasent surprise when their "saved" murderer finally comes up to join them?

Who runs the place?
Easy answer: Satan (big red guy, horns, pointy tail etc.).
Tricky answer: God (old guy with beard and white robe).
"Don't be daft, of course Satan runs the place!", I hear you cry.
Really? How did he get the job, then? After The Fall, did Satan set up shop in the underworld and send an advertisement to God, touting for business -

Now Open - Underworld Torture Facility.Let us handle the tedious work of torturing the Damned for you.Full Repentance Or Your Money Back!10% discount on first million souls if you call today

So what happens when you die? Do you really go up to the Pearly Gates where Peter is waiting with his Big Book Of Your Life? Too many black marks and he sends you down to Hell...
Or is there some sort of spiritual Tug-O-War, as angels and demons fight it out over your soul?
It seems to me that God and Lucifer have some sort of deal going on here. If we succumb to temptation during our lifetime, we go to Hell where we get tortured until we repent, when we are magically transported back up to Heaven. How does that work? Does Lucifer suddenly realise that after 55,000 years of torture you've suddenly become a good person, and he is contractually obliged to send you "upstairs"? Or does God look down into Hell, notice the change and whisk you away to get your wings? "Oh Darn!", says Lucifer, "There goes another one. Why does that keep happening?"
Many people believe that once you are in Hell, you are there for good (or bad). That's it. No parole. Just eternal, searing, excruciating, agonising torture for trillions of years, without so much as a toilet break. Murderers, rapists and drug-dealers, as well as perfectly normal people who simply failed to believe, will have their skin burnt off for all eternity. All sins merit the same punishment, it would appear. If this is so then it seems to me that any God who would send people to such a place can only be described as a mindless monster. Alternatively, if God unconditionally loves everyone and has the ability to pull them out of Hell, but does not, then he is still an insane tyrant.
Ah, but (so I am told) God does not send anyone to Hell. They choose to go there by refusing to accept God. Does this make any sense to you? Just imagine : you die, and go up to the Pearly Gates.
Well, gosh, it looks like I was wrong all this time!
Okay, so there is a God. I pretty much have to believe now, don't I?
Can I come in? What, I can't?
I have to take the down-elevator?
doesn't seem right...

This idea about people choosing Hell just seems like some sort of sick joke, I'm afraid. How can it be said that a person who lives a blameless life, but (for whatever reason) does not accept J.Christ as their personal saviour, is making an active, conscious decision to suffer horrible pain for an infinite amount of time?

Why would Satan want us to repent?
Would Satan really want to torture you for doing his evil work? Surely he would give you a pat on the back and a pint of cold beer, not tie you to a rock and attack you with a cheesegrater. What's he going to say? "Aha! Right, you gave in to temptation and lived a life of Sin, just like I wanted you to. As punishment for disobeying God, and doing my work instead, I'm... erm... going to torture you... er... Hang on a minute.... Have I got that right?"
We are always told "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be punished in Hell.". Well, unless Hell is full of Angels doing the torturing, it seems like the saying should be "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be rewarded in Hell.". You can understand why priests never tell you this when they are ranting on about Hellfire And Damnation.
Could it be that Lucifer is working under the direct orders of God - "Now then, Luci old pal. I want you to get some big red horns and go tempt some mortals. If you succeed, you can inflict pain on them until they repent, when they can come here with me. Oh, and be careful not to let them know I put you up to it."
It should also be remembered that the Creator is supposedly omniscient. When he created the Angel Lucifer, he knew exactly what was going to happen (how could he not, if he is omniscient?). God created Evil, and created Satan as an instrument of Evil, and us mere mortals are the ones who are on the receiving end and get all the eternal torment. Might it not have been easier to simply not create Evil in the first place?
Hmmm... maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses version isn't so far-out after all. 8)
You see the sort of trouble you can get into just by applying a little bit of reasoning and thought to religion!

I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, demons or angels.
There is no devil trying to tempt you to eat one more doughnut, drive a little faster, murder your neighbour, burn down a church or cheat on your partner. If you do something bad, it is your own fault and no-one else's.
Should we teach our children that they are under constant attack from evil, invisible demons, trying to get them to be naughty, and that if they do then they will horribly tortured forever? Or should we try to teach them respect for others and a sense of responsibility and accountability?

Accept responsibilty for your own actions.
Don't seek forgiveness from your deity - seek it from those you hurt.
The Devil didn't make you do it. You did.

Three Varieties of Creationist.

Hopefully as readers of my blog you may have often noticed, several of my post tend to mention or criticise creationists and creationism. Nevertheless, I should perhaps make it a little more precise to exactly what “I” mean by the term "creationist", because there is an assortment of types and, predictably, they don't all have the same opinion with one another.
This obviously can make it very tricky when attempting to deal with someone who begins denying evolution, or a discussion about Noah and the Flood or the old (or new depending how you look at it) age of the universe. Seldom will they actually say "I'm a young-earth creationist", and may even take some offence if you attach such a label to them. Nonetheless, once you have a vague idea of the key things that they accept as true, many other of their beliefs will then slot into place. This can give you an excellent idea of where they are coming from as people, but you must still be very vigilant about making too many assumptions about them. There are many different varieties of creationists and creationism, and individual advocates to each branch will have their own set of “facts” about the matter.

Young Earth Creationist (YEC)
These appear to be the most widespread sort, or at least the most vocal, at least in the talk boards and debate forums I know. The YEC is often, but not always, an American fundamentalist Christian (or is influenced by such people. I point out this is my experience and not a general snapshot of all creationist debate board users) and tends to believe in some or all of the following:
The Book Of Genesis (and often the entire Bible) should be read as literally as possible.
Strong objection to evolution (both the fact and the theory), usually accompanied by a substantial misunderstanding (or plain ignorance) of the subject.
God created the universe in seven days, less than 10,000 years ago (hence the name "Young Earth"). Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, and were cast out (the Fall).
The world was indeed flooded (the Noachian Deluge), and all present land-life is directly descended from Noah's family and the various "kinds" of creatures on the Ark. Some YECs use microevolution to explain how the millions of species we observe today formed from the initial "kinds" (even though that requires evolution to work at a fantastically accelerated rate), but do not accept that macroevolution occurs at all (even though it is essentially the same thing, over a longer period of time).
Noah's Ark is still to be seen on top of Mt.Ararat. (Several expeditions have attempted to find it, but the political situation in Turkey at the moment makes it difficult to get permission, otherwise it would certainly be an annual event.)
The light from distant stars (more than 10,000 light years away) was created in situ by God, to give the misleading appearance of great age (similar arguments are applied to many similar problems, such as the dating of rocks and fossils).
Fossils are evidence of the Flood, as they were all formed from the bodies of animals that drowned during the Flood.
Humans were special Creations of God, and we are most certainly not related to monkeys of any sort (being conjured up from mud seems much more acceptable, strangely).
The scientific method is an extremely poor way to discover the truth about the universe, and God's obvious presence should be the basis of all inquiry. Any evidence that appears to disagree with the Biblical account should be called into question, if not dismissed altogether. The Bible may be considered to be a useful (or even definitive) science textbook.
The answers to most of lifes problems can be found by reading Genesis correctly. Only by first learning about God may we learn about the universe He created.
Evolution (which does not happen) is thought to be an entirely random process.
Evolution is "only a theory", and therefore should not be considered factual. "Theory" to a creationism means the same as a "wild guess" in this context. Creationism should be taught in science classes alongside, or preferably instead of, the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is the cause of many of society's problems (such as racism, eugenics, drugs, immorality and so on).
A minority of YECs seem to think that there is a global conspiracy among scientists, atheists, NASA and the government to conceal the Truth (i.e. that the Earth is young, the Bible is true and evolution is a myth).
Evolutionism is a religion (and should not be forced upon schoolchildren); creationism is a science (and should be taught to schoolchildren as such).

Old Earth Creationist (OEC)
OECs are a great deal more liberal than YECs in their philosophy, and also more diverse. They tend to acknowledge many more of the findings of science, especially to do with the age of the universe (at present estimated at 14.55 billion years), even though there is likely to be some overlap with YEC beliefs. The bulk of theists would most likely loosely fit the explanation of an OEC, although they probably wouldn't identify themselves as such. Their beliefs tend to include:
The Earth and universe are indeed ancient. However, God still created it all, but over a period of many years (the seven "days" become seven long periods). Alternatively, God caused the Big Bang in such a way as to ensure that the Earth formed as we see it today.
The scientific method is a good way to discover the truth about the universe, but God's presence should not be lightly dismissed. Any evidence that appears to disagree with the Biblical account should be examined carefully, but tentatively accepted if it stands up to scrutiny. The Bible may be an excellent guide to life, but it is not a science book. By learning about the universe we may learn something of God.
The description of Creation in Genesis may be seen to match the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe and life on Earth. e.g. "Let there be light" corresponds to the Big Bang, and the sequence of events when God created life roughly correspond to the sequence described by the theory of evolution.
Some OECs accept that humans evolved, but believe God was in control all (or at least some of) the time (this is also known as "theistic" or "guided" evolution). God uses evolution as a tool to direct the development of life.
Alternatively, all other life evolved as normal, but God created humans himself, or created us by adding a soul to our soul-less ancestors when they had reached to appropriate stage of development (this appears to be the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance).
Some OECs still do not accept evolution, but feel that God creates new species Himself, either when current ones naturally die out or just when the time is right. In His mysterious manner, God inexplicably creates things in such a way as to give the impression (to the uninformed) that they evolved. But they didn't.

Intelligent Designer (ID)
IDs are little more than modern version of YECs.
Some YECs, realising that they were getting nowhere in their challenge to replace evolution with creationism in school science classes, are now instead trying to introduce the theory of "Intelligent Design". This is on the whole creationism stripped of all religious references – no Genesis, no Jesus, no Noah, no Bible, no God. The idea is pretty much the same, however. The universe is so astoundingly intricate that it just had to have been designed by a powerful intelligence. It amounts to the Argument from Design wearing the Emperor's New Clothes, nothing has changed but the way it is described, and seems to be a very persuasive and insidious (as well as scheming and cynical) way of getting creationism accepted by school boards and parents.
The argument from "irreducible complexity" is one of the main weapons used. The idea here is that if something cannot possibly function with any of its parts missing, then it is irreducibly complex, and cannot possibly have come to be without some sort of outside intelligence causing its design. Complex biochemical processes in the human body are favourite examples. They believe that if something is so complex that it cannot possibly have formed through natural processes (such as evolution) then the only option available is an intelligent designer - e.g. a supernatural being - e.g. a deity - e.g. the Christian God of the Bible. In the dichotomy they wish to establish, if there is no possible natural cause, then the cause must be supernatural.
It is obviously a very short step from saying that there is an Intelligent Designer to saying "And just who could that Designer be? Why, pick up your Bibles and find out!".
In a Christian-dominated country such as the USA, having Intelligent Design introduced into schools as a respectable science is effectively the same as replacing science with fundamentalist Biblical Creationism. If children are being taught about God as The Creator at home and in church, and their science teachers start talking about an Intelligent Powerful Force That Created The Universe, it's quite obvious that the children will see them as being one and the same. Call me an old cynic, but that is clearly the agenda here.
The IDs try to distance themselves from "traditional" creationists, as they wish to be seen as serious scientists trying to enlighten us and not Christian Fundamentalists trying to preach to us. Rather than relying on anecdotal evidence of miracles, they want to present a convincing, scientific case for Intelligent Design (creation) – or at least cast enough doubt on mainstream science that people will see their theories as a reasonable alternative.
To a certain extent, this is just a new version of the God Of The Gaps idea – things that science currently has trouble explaining are viewed as being inexplicable except through a superhuman Intelligent Designer (God). Of course, if everyone were to subscribe to this, then all science would come to a screeching halt ("You can't work out that problem? Then don't think about it any further – God did it.").
( Presumably, the examples of duff design to be found throughout nature are due to the Intelligent Designer trying to throw us off the scent… )
OECs and YECs tend to strongly disagree with each other, and you can probably find many websites from each side that attack the opposing point of view (oh, the bitter irony).