Benevolent Hell

Answering a question on Quora:

Is there anything benevolent about hell, no, right?

Yes, wrong.

First, consider the question’s two non sequiturs.

A. Taken literally, the question assigns moral significance to hell. However, hell is merely a place. In itself, it is neutral. Saying, “no, right?” is like saying that the law of gravity is evil because a tourist stood too close to the edge of a waterfall. Any moral significance derives not from the existence of hell, but from how it is used. In other words, whether it is benevolent or not depends on whether it is used justly or unjustly.

B. Whether hell is used at all by a human is like the tourist and the waterfall. The tourist can use the trail to walk away, and the human can use the Way God provided to walk away from a sentence of hell. The Way (John 14:6) is available to all. An intellectually honest person will realize that any fault, any lack of benevolence, must be assigned on the basis of the answer to this question: If there is a lack of benevolence, who is responsible, the One who provides the way of escape, or the one who decides to ignore the law of justice? 

Ignoring the non sequiturs, consider the question itself.

Violating God’s laws insults infinite God and disrespects His plans for us to have relationship with Him. Would God be benevolent to Himself if He ignored such insult and allowed unredeemed sinners to defile His presence?

Let’s take an extreme case: When Hitler’s Dr. Joseph Mengele dissected people alive, would it have been benevolent to Mengele’s victims if God ignored justice?

Now let’s take the case of people who use their judgment about hell as a rationalization for refusing God’s gift of redemption. In essence, they refuse to be rescued from a sentence of punishment for their sins. (Rejecting God and His gift is merely one sin out of many.) They refuse the post-mortem transformation that would allow them to enjoy God’s presence. Would it be benevolent to force them to endure the “unapproachable light” in which God dwells (1 Timothy 6:16)?

Hell was created not for us, but for the devil and the demons. By tempting Adam to revoke his citizenship in heaven, the devil trapped all of us in his own kingdom. He triggered all the suffering and death in history, including the suffering of any human cast into hell. If God did not prepare a hell in which to punish the devil, would God be benevolent to the human race?

My conclusion is that hell is, indeed, benevolent. But by itself, it is a half-truth.

God prepared a way to resolve the tension between justice and love. He provided Himself a sacrifice sufficient to redeem us from our sins and rescue us from the consequences of justice. God the Son paid the price at His own expense. This leads to a final question that returns us to the first question: If God debased the price He paid to rescue us from hell and thus demeaned Himself, would He be benevolent to Himself?

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

The Fairness of Hearing the Gospel

Answering a question on Quora:

If only [by] believing in Jesus can someone go to heaven, what about people who died before Jesus's birth, who have not heard about Jesus at their time? If they can all go to heaven, is that not fair for us as we have to choose which god is the right one[?]

This question requires some untangling because it makes several assumptions and implies several questions. 

The question assumes that people have been accountable for fulfilling the same requirements at all times. That is, people living before Jesus’s birth could only go to heaven if they believed in Jesus.

Actually, accountability has always been proportional. That means that a child who has no ability to grasp the requirements has no accountability. It also means that people living in ancient times were not required to know something that had not happened yet.

The question asks, If [Since] only [by] believing in Jesus can someone go to heaven…. That is terribly over-simplified. “Believing in Jesus” is a mere title or summary. When you add the details, you find that five out of six (83%) of the requirements now and in ancient times overlap.

In ancient times, the required knowledge and belief were:

• God exists; and He is just and holy.
• My thoughts and actions have made me unholy, so I cannot defile the presence of a holy God.
• My actions require a just God to punish my unholy thoughts and actions.
• God is also merciful, gracious, and loving, so He will provide a way for me to enter His presence.
• I, therefore, trust God rather than myself.

In 33 AD, God added one more detail:

• The way is Jesus’s death and resurrection. (This is enough detail for this context, although another layer of details appears when you ask questions such as, Whom and What was Jesus? and What do you mean by resurrection?)

People living before 33 AD could not know how God would create the way to enter God’s presence, so they were not accountable for knowing the how. They knew — or at least they could know — through the Old Testament commands, that they were guilty before God. Then knew through the prescribed Old Testament sacrifices that it would require lifeblood and a substitution, and that it would be a price they could not pay without themselves being destroyed. So, instead of trusting themselves, they had to trust God.

Jesus lived, died, and rose again to create the way to enter God’s presence. The exact how was not something ancient people could know, but it is something we know. Since we know the how, we are accountable for following it.

Imagine being on a sinking ship in the middle of the ocean. Someone tells you that a helicopter is hovering overhead, rescuing passengers.

• If you do not believe the ship is sinking, you will drown.
• If you decide to swim 2,000 miles to the nearest shore, you will drown.
• If you look at the helicopter and then return to your room, you will drown.
• If you believe them intellectually but do not let them hoist you up into the helicopter, you will drown.
• If you believe in the helicopter but insist on getting to it your own way, you will drown.

The question focuses on the way of escape, which is trusting that God paid our penalty. In a sense, failing to use that way of escape can be blamed for going to hell. But that is simplistic. The sinking ship represents our unholy thoughts and actions. Drowning represents going to hell. Failing to put faith in Christ’s actions is just one more unholy failure. A sinner does not go to hell for any single moral crime (although one is enough), but for a lifetime of moral crimes.

God sends people to hell for their sins. People send themselves to hell by failing to follow the way of escape that God created.

As for having to choose the right God, all men, always,  have "had to choose the right God." Only one God deals honestly with the problem of sin and justice. For example, when Islam's god forgives, he does so at the expense of satisfying justice. Only the Judeo-Christian God satisfies both justice and love.

The question ends by asking about fairness. Fairness is a relative concept. It is a question that children ask when they don’t get what they greedily desire. “Johnny got a gift he didn’t earn, so it’s unfair if I don’t get a gift.” If there is unfairness, it is created by us. We are the ones making the choice to repent and trust Christ or to reject God’s way.

From God’s perspective, “fairness” would have been making Jesus the political ruler over all earth 2,000 years ago instead of letting the Innocent One take the wrath the guilty deserve. Fairness would be letting all humans go to hell.

Since Jesus created a way to be saved from hell, fairness is allowing us to choose our own fates. Fairness to ourselves would be responding according to our knowledge of the way, living accordingly, and passing that knowledge along.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Assuming credit is given where credit is due, permission granted for non-remunerated use.

Israel's "Genocide" Against the Midianites

The Problem of Evil...

includes an argument that, when God commanded Israel to wipe out certain populations, He contradicted His own nature. If God contradicted Himself, then He is not Good, is misrepresented by the Old Testament, or does not exist.
I've never seen an Atheist put it that logically, but that's what their lazy rhetorical questions imply.
One specific example of "genocides" is Israel's first significant war, one against the Midianites and the five kingdoms led by Balak.
In Numbers 31:16, we read that the prophet Balaam advised the Baal-worshiping nations to lure the men of Israel to sexually sin and to worshiping their idols. Numbers 25 documents that this had resulted in the deaths of 24,000 Israelites. God then orders Israel to war against the nations that had lured them into sin, killing every man, woman, and male child (chapter 31).
Chapter 31 verse 19 adds a new element of understanding. The killing had made Israel's warriors ritually unclean -- which is another way to say, they had sinned. They were required to remain outside the camp of Israel for a week while undergoing purification rituals prescribed in Numbers 19:11-22.
In other words, although going to war had been a necessity, in God's eyes, acts of war were still an evil. This implies that God's judgment reflected weighing the evil of killing in war and the evil of failing to go to war.
Refraining from the war would have violated justice against the Baal-worshipers whose actions had cost thousands of Israelite lives. The events of chapter 25 were an insult to God Himself. Inaction would have left in place the temptation to sin. And the silence would constitute a failure to warn Israelites against repeating their apostasy.
So like the Atheist, God saw the so-called genocides as evil. However, unlike the Atheist, He had weighed the war against its context and judged it necessary. This answer may be generalized to the subsequent wars as Israel took possession of the promised land. One more lesson can be drawn from Numbers 25 through 31. Temptation can have life-and-death costs. Believers must deal decisively with circumstances that would draw us away from God and into sin and idolatry.
Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal and non-profit use, provided credit is given where credit is due.

God Judges Whose Sins?

Bible contradictions usually depend on a misunderstanding of one or the other side of the seeming paradox. A Quoran asked,

Why do we continue to blame Adam and Eve for us being sinners and remaining in our sinful ways when God judges each of us personally? Why are we able to blame Adam and Eve for our sins? Why do we blame others [Adam and Eve] for our own sins?

If you visit the question on Quora, please read the answer by Brian S. Holmes for a thorough and accurate answer. Also read the final paragraph in Barbara LeMaster’s answer for a great illustration. (Skip the first part, though.) Here, I answer the question in my own words to make sure the point gets across.

Prologue

Since Adam was the head of his family, let’s simplify “Adam and Eve” to just Adam. As the older, more experienced spouse, and as the one God had spoken to, Adam had a responsibility to fully inform Eve and guard her against error. And although Eve was deceived into sinning, Adam knew what he was doing. So his share of the responsibility was far greater.

Answer

The question assumes that God judges us for what Adam did. He does not. What we do judges us now, and He will one day pass sentence. Notice the distinction between creating guilt and passing sentence.

God’s holiness and glory are unbearable. God, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). When that glory is revealed, we cannot bear it. “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11).

It is our guilt, not our heritage, that disqualifies us from defiling God’s presence. Unless redemption intervenes, we will stand before Him for sentencing in accordance with our own thoughts and actions. “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne…; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds” (Revelation 20:12–13).

“Deeds” includes both deeds of thought and deeds of action. You should be able to complete this quote from 1 Samuel 16:7: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord….” That is why Jesus said that if we so much as hate someone without just cause, we are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:22) and if we look at a non-spouse with sexual desire, we are guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28); and coveting is listed in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17).

Adam needed redemption from the sin that gave us our tendencies, but we need redemption from how we act out out those tendencies. For our sins, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Postscript

The text above is very bad news. It gets much, much worse if you look it up and read it in context. It would be incomplete without the good news that complements it. The bad news gives context to, value to, motivation for the good news.

In the midst of the quotes from Revelation above is a reference to the Book of Life. Those whose names are written in the Book of Life will not be subject to that awful judgment. The label “dead” does not apply to them, and their judgment, a separate occasion, results in reward instead of in sentencing.

(The judgment in Revelation 20 is called the Great White Throne Judgment. The judgment of the redeemed is called the Bema Seat Judgment. It is comparable to the judgment of winners at the Olympics in which they receive medals as rewards.)

Redemption is held out as a gift, ready to be applied to all who receive it. The conditions include changing our minds about our sins and trusting Christ for his substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

Our worst sins include preferring a false image or mental model of God (or worse, rejecting Him outright), rationalizing our sins, trusting in self-righteousness, and prioritizing earthly desires above relationship with God. Violating do’s and don’ts like the Ten Commandments merely enacts those sins. A responsible sinner admits, “I am guilty, my guilt condemns me, and I cannot justify myself in any way.” That is the repentance side of the coin.

The reverse side of the coin is faith toward God. Not just any God that we imagine, but God as He has revealed Himself to be: namely, God as Creator (whether via Creationism or Theistic Evolution is irrelevant); and as Creator of time and space, existing in His creation as three equal Persons who voluntarily fulfill distinct roles. “Christians” with limited imaginations create idols by rejecting God’s triune nature, but the “Trinity” is the only model of God that fits all the revealed evidence.

Faith toward God excludes faith toward heritage, church membership, and self. Redemption is a gift received, not wages deserved. Gifts and wages are mutually exclusive, as are faith and works. Because of our pride, many, if not most, Christian churches try to mix faith and works. They add various do’s and don’ts such as ceremonies, deeds, and refraining from sins. Some sneak the do’s and don’ts into repentance by saying that it includes changing our behaviors. Some sneak them in by saying you need the do’s and don’ts in order to hang on to the gift. They fail to recognize that changed behaviors results from receiving the gift rather than causing or securing it. Refusing to receive the gift as a free gift insults the Giver.

Within God’s character lies a tension between His attributes. God is love, but he is also holy and just. Justice drives judgment, but Love drives redemption. Love does not mean simple forgiveness. Justice must be served. That is why God the Son took our place in judgment. Being God, He bore a sentence that would have destroyed us. And being God, he could not be held by death. The resurrection is proof, not only of His identity, but also of the new life that God offers as a gift.

The question applies to all of us: Do I, knowing my condemnation, receive the gift as a free gift from the God Who is?

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I cannot copyright it. However, I hope that if you copy it, you will give credit where credit is due.

Christ's Ransom, Bribe, Substitution, or (Irrelevant)?

For over a thousand years, Christians believed that Christ’s sacrifice was a ransom paid to the devil. Much of Christian doctrine has been developed in response to new ideas. This idea did not become an issue, so nobody studied it in depth for a long time.

The word ransom does appear once in the New Testament (Mark 10:45), and Satan is said to be the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), but that’s not enough to support the theory. The theory was discredited by Anselm of Canterbury in the twelfth century. Anselm argued that instead, the sacrifice was a gift from God the Son to God the Father that restored God’s honor, which had been insulted by the Fall. In turn, God would simply forgive the sins of Jesus’ followers.

Anselm’s explanation fit the scriptural evidence better than the ransom-to-the-devil theory, but the Protestant Reformers, having been freed from Roman Catholic group-think, modeled scriptural evidence even better. They pointed out that Anselm’s theory created a violation of God’s Justice.

The current theory, held by most Christians, is that God could not simply forgive sins without violating one of His major attributes, Justice. Justice, not God’s ego, had to be satisfied. Therefore, God the Son, like a big brother, stepped in to bear our punishment (2 Corinthians 5:21). The gift of justification is sufficient for all and available to all, but only those who fully recognize their need for the gift and submit to God's free bestowal of His grace receive it. 

• (Tangents: 
• (Submit to God's free bestowal means accepting the gift as a free gift. This excludes thinking that we deserve the gift due to parentage, due to our own efforts such as good deeds (that are already owed to God) or participation in ceremonies, by the efforts of others (such as parents and priests baptizing us or saying prayers for us), or by our own perseverance.
• (Hyper Calvinism disagrees about the order of events in conversion. It claims that the gift is sufficient only for those God chose, and that people do not need to actively receive redemption because God takes the initiative in applying it to His chosen. Afterward, they submit because they have received redemption and enlightenment, not in order to receive it.)

Jesus was uniquely qualified to die on behalf of others.

• Being fully human, He could represent man.
• Being fully God, He could live a sinless life and had no sins of His own for which to be punished.
• Being infinite God, the value of His death was sufficient to pay for the sins of all humans.
• Being fully God, He could survive the punishment.

Unfortunately, we see a massive departure from basing theology on biblical evidence. Theologians who are more Marxist than Christian introduced the idea that Christ’s sacrifice was an example of love and not an act of redemption. Ideas like sin, guilt, sacrifice, and repentance offend their advanced, civilized sensibilities — not to mention their egos. 

That idea shows up in the teaching of many “New Evangelical” and mainline churches. They want to be "current" and "relevant," so they avoid offending people with messages about sin and Jesus's blood. The message focuses instead on how a relationship with God makes life better, safer, healthier, and especially, more prosperous. In this gospel, you don’t need God because your guilt would defile heaven and you could not bear to be in God's fiery presence; you need God because He wants to be your friend and provider.

Some call this recent message “sloppy agape,” wherein agape (ah-GAH-pee) is the Greek word for the highest level of love. In stead of obeying scripture's command to balance truth and judgment against love, they focus on love alone. Whereas the message of redemption portrays Christ's sacrifice as the elixir that cures sin's deadly disease, sloppy agape delivers a mere energy drink.

So we’ve gone from redemption being a ransom to the devil, to the sacrifice being a bribe to God, to a substitution for us in our punishment... and if we don’t correct the trend, to irrelevance.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal and non-compensated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Moral Equivalence between Trump and Clinton

Democrats love to point at Donald Trump's sex-talk tape to drive a wedge between Trump and female voters. For the sake of argument, I will assume that the talk represents actions because maybe some women will come forward to confirm that Trump made unwanted bodily contact with them. Then Team Democrat invokes legal terminology, calling such contact assault, although few would agree that such contact meets the common-sense definition. (The requirement of prior consent has only recently move from the realm of moral manners to the realm of political correctness.)

Having convicted Trump of assault in the Democrat-controlled media, Team Clinton ignores Bill Clinton's lifelong history of infidelity, harassment, assault, and violent, forcible rape. If forced to admit to it, they minimize the numbers; and even then, they deflect by stating that Trump is not running against Bill Clinton. Never mind that Hillary Clinton managed a branch of Bill’s campaign organization that one member of their team, Betsy Wright, called the Bimbo Eruption Squad. I’ll get back to that in a moment.

Equivalence of Scale

As stated, Democrats and the media ignore, or if forced to acknowledge it, grossly understate the number of affairs that Bill Clinton has had. Arkansas State Troopers have described how Clinton abused state resources by using them to procure women and provide security (the main threat being Hillary). He did not, contrary to some claims, have affairs with a few women; he had affairs with hundreds.

Democrats also ignore accusations of forcible, violent rapes dating back to Clinton’s college years. When people cite the Rhodes Scholarship as proof of how “smart” Bill is, ask yourself why he did not complete even his first year. Proof of the answer remains effectively buried in the past, yet it remains highly credible in light of Bill's record. At least a dozen specific victims have been identified by name, but only a few have come forward, the most prominent being Juanita Broaddrick. As crime statistics tell us, when a perpetrator is convicted, that one conviction usually represents a worse crime and an order of magnitude additional crimes.

Some will argue that Clinton has never been convicted of his crimes, so they don't count, as though the vast majority of crimes, which never result in convictions, never happened. Add to that abuse of probability Clinton's powers of authority and riches. Who was going to prosecute when the State Attorney General of Arkansas raped Juanita Broaddrick? What beauty contestant was going to file a complaint, with Clinton's Hollywood friends offering an acting career in exchange for silence? What bureaucrat was going to go public, with pets disappearing, a stranger implying that the same could happen to her children, and her career in the balance? What prostitute would go public about rich Bill Clinton's illegitimate son when she could have a sugar daddy paying her off?

What Difference Does It Make?

Some people ask rhetorically, “but what does that have to do with doing his job?” Consider some examples.

Job Performanc

In the 1990s, a security video was leaked showing a pair of well-dressed visitors — as I recall, the king and queen of a European country — left standing outside a White House entrance. The video went on for almost an hour. Much later, it was revealed that Bill and Monica had been fooling around on that date and that Bill had let business of state go unfulfilled. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Damaging? The inhospitality and insult bordered on “international incident” in seriousness.

Embezzlement

The Clintons have shown (in SO many ways) that they are willing to abuse public assets for their own pleasure. It was not Arkansas State Troopers’ job to shuttle Bill’s “dates” and to track Hillary’s whereabouts so they could warn Bill if she was coming. It was not Secret Service guards’ duty to collect and destroy soiled materials after visits from Monika or Eleanor. In the business world, such abuse of assets would be called “embezzlement” and would result in firing and possibly imprisonment. But what non-partisan authority can do anything about it?

Nation Security 

Bill’s adulterous activities render him vulnerable to blackmail. That the Clinton machine, with Hillary at its head, worked so hard to keep the accusations quiet proves that if the behavior did not threaten national security, it at least threatened Bill’s and Hillary’s careers.

Honestly Comparing Trump to the Clintons

The first conclusion is that the accusations of groping against Trump pale in comparison to the accusations that Bill Clinton is an adulterer on the scale of Magic Johnson, as well as that he is a serial rapist. The fact that Hillary “stood by her man” says a lot about the sincerity of her pretended concern for women and for victims of violence. It gives credibility to the claim that her real motive is not concern, but votes.

The second conclusion relates to Hillary’s role. When a person helps a criminal get away with a crime, she accepts an equal share in the guilt for the original crime. Every once in a while, you will read about some getaway driver sentenced to even more time than the criminal he assisted. Bill would never have gotten away with his scandals and crimes had Hillary not paid off and threatened Bill’s victims. So she is just as guilty as him.

Why does it matter so much to some people?

Because, despite the severity of the accusations, Bill Clinton got away with all of it, and Hillary Two Face led the cover up.

Because the media ignored the story. (The main TV networks waited a year before reporting the Lewinsky story, and one network NEVER reported it.)

Because Democrats in congress refused to view the evidence and then said, “There’s no evidence.”

Because, even while ignoring what their own guy did (and still does), they hold Trump accountable for much lesser offenses.

Because Trump apologized, while all we get from the Clintons is finger-wagging and “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski.” (Partisan spin does not get any more twisted than claims that "Trump is guilty because he apologized, but Clinton is innocent because he has no remorse.")

Because Americans are tired and frightened of corrupt, greedy, dishonest, self-entitled, two-faced politicians who get away with plundering the system, rape, murder, and violating national security.

Are they alike in type? Perhaps. But are they alike in degree? Not even close.

Copyright 2016