Hell-free Christianity Impossibility

Christianity without Hell? Don't get me started. John Shore who wrote this article actually said, "I want that Christianity. I insist upon that Christianity." His hypothesis towards the benefits that a Hell-free Christianity could bring are freedoms to not love our neighbor as ourselves, everyone will go to heaven (that's easy to assume), there would be nothing to save anyone from, and it would allow Christians to preach to others about God's appealing love and not his wrath. However, God's wrath in the form of Hell etc. is critical to understanding his essence and learning to live like Jesus.


God is love, and his definition of love also means being righteous. Allowing every soul-stained being, those who have accepted Jesus and those who have not, to enter into the perfect holy dwelling of Heaven would simply not be right. What would God be if he went against his nature and did not punish the wicked? Everyone would be free to live a fearless life, according to Shore. But how and why would a righteous God show no wrath to the unrighteous? 

Wrath is mentioned 181 times in the Bible. I don't think God intended that number to be so high for no reason. As one of many answers to Shore's questions and comments to the ridiculous Christianity without Hell religion, Matthew 25: 44-46 says,  “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’  “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Basically, this parable Jesus told says that if you will not accept others, then you will not accept him also, so eternal punishment will be your reward but for the ones who have accepted him- the righteous- receive eternal life.

We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. We will not all go to heaven (it's an impossibility), so obviously there is something to save people from-eternal punishment. And knowing the unrighteous will receive eternal punishment, how could we not preach God's love alone and not his wrath? 

The real reason for this punishment is to correct wrongdoing. According to Proverbs 12:16, "Fools show their annoyance at once, but the prudent overlook an insult." And Proverbs 16:22 says, "Prudence is a fountain of life to the prudent, but folly brings punishment to fools.

Shore represents the population that doesn't like to do the hard work-facing reality by sharpening the mind and looking ahead toward the good brought about by punishments. Recklessly wasting money on one hundred lottery tickets provides no guarantee that you will win the prize. Who ever heard of giving cash prizes for free? Jesus gives the prize of allowing us to accept him, but we need to know the truth that not accepting him and living the fool's life for the flesh will lead to eternal punishment in Hell before the winning numbers are revealed.

Hillsong LGBT Speculations

Renowned world-wide church, Hillsong, has spoken out against gays and lesbians. Or have they? Brian Houston, a senior member of Hillsong in New York, has given his recent sermons themes concerning acceptance of LGBTs into the church. “The world we live in, whether we like it or not, is changing around and about us,” he said. The possibilities that rejection of homosexuals from possible Christian conversion could lead to their depression and even suicide versus the fact that acceptance of homosexuals can work against or for the words of God by proclaiming His word yet tolerating sin would appear hypocritical and blasphemous. This was his final answer, “The world’s changing, and we want to stay relevant as a church, so that’s a vexing thing.” 

In world view terms, this is no clear, definite answer; it is weak and cowardly. Hillsong might just as well accept homosexuals, drug addicts, drunkards, etc. if Houston, representing the large organization, is unable to clarify and act on which side of the argument is right: loving acceptance or sorry rejection. Either way, not voicing an opinion and backing it up will fail to bring the changes we wish to see. Houston's wife, Bobbie, also gave her input saying, “It’s not our place to tell anyone how they should live. That’s their journey.” I agree with this statement. God gave us the free will to choose to live in Christ or outside of Christ, but he condemned those who committed sexually immoral acts and homosexuality specifically, according to Leviticus 20:13, which says, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." 

We know that God loves everyone (excluding the sin they commit) and desires that all should enter into a loving relationship with him, but should the church encourage the love that God wants Christians to show to sinners knowing that many LGBT members may lead others to believe that their sexually immoral acts condemned by God are okay?

Jesus himself spent most of his time on earth mingling with sinners of all sorts, and not just the world, but his own people came against him for this in Luke 5:30-32 saying, “...Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus gave his answer. I believe that the church should accept homosexuals. I find it difficult to say so, but if Jesus accepted sinners, then the church should too. Relatively recently have gays and lesbians began to emerge and openly proclaim their sexual orientations, which does not mean that the sin has recently begun, it has only been revealed. If perhaps drunkards kept secret their sin and chose to reveal it just this year, the teachings of the Bible would still remain true- show all sinners available means to repent and come to Jesus. 

Reverend McFarland: Banned or Forgiven?

1 Corinthians 15:33 says, "Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." This is why Reverend Juan McFarland, the pastor for ninety five year old Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, was fired by the congregation in the middle of his twenty fourth year of leading the church. But why would a long-term godly man get the pink slip so suddenly? Aren't Christians supposed to support their spiritual guides?

[FOX news' summary] McFarland had been accused of having sex with members of the church without forewarning his condition of AIDS. Not to mention that he also used illegal drugs, mismanaged church funds, and fired several church employees on September 28, 2014 when he suspected that they were on to his sinful deeds. 

A vote was placed during a service a week later on October 5th to inquire whether or not he ought to be fired. The result, an eighty to one landslide vote. McFarland would go a.s.a.p. However, refusing to be let go after the vote was revealed to him on that day, he attempted to set up a defensive barrier by secretly blocking access to church resources to everyone but himself and a few accomplices by changing locks, placing guards near the doors, and rearranging who could access its bank accounts. He also knew about recent bylaws previously created by the church in January of 2013, which stated that pastors can only be removed only if they personally resign or die and that it is legal for them to fire any church service member they please. He was legally protected on multiple fronts! 

I'm seeing that McFarland is a very dangerous man! He would definitely corrupt some good character if we were leading my church. One of the members who McFarland recently let go, Deacon Nathan Williams Jr., claimed that the church tried to help the pastor overcome his sins etc. just like God's word wants us to do in Luke 17:3, which states, "Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him." The pastor sinned and was rebuked, but he clearly did not repent. So should he be forgiven? Hebrews 10:26-27 says, "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries." 

Although Rev. McFarland may have served the Lord's people for a solid twenty four years, I do not believe that a person, who has committed sins such as these and continues to do them against the congregation's wishes and against God's wishes, should be allowed to lead a church. It sets up an evil example implying that [because a pastor committed a sin without consequences, I must be able to do it too. He knows more than I about God and the Bible.] I would feel horrible if I or others were comfortable taking advice to improve faith and relationship with God from anyone who constantly behaves in this manner even if he or she was a "servant of God" and bylaws protected them. Although, this does not mean that we should stop helping those who are fallen. We all sin all the time, but we are never not to accept aid from brothers and sisters in Christ to overcome these sins. God never gives up on us, so we should never give up on Him.

Missionary Ebola Treatment : Embrace it don't Fear it

The recent discovery of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa has led to an arise of Christian missionaries swarming the Ebola patients to medicate their bodies as well as their souls. Because it has been found that the doctors attending patients in third world countries such as Africa were Christian missionaries, there has been much criticism and bewilderment. Why would Christians "waste their time" helping the poor in the harsh conditions of Africa when they could be much more comfortable and make more money working at home in America?

For one thing, no one else but Christians will help these sufferers; they will die unless treatment is given! Second, their concern is about whether or not God is pleased with their service to fulfill his calling of being a witness and sharing faith, so they care more about serving God and His children than money and happiness. Third, they want to convert their patients to Christianity in the process, because in times of trouble, distress, or near death, that is when a person is most vulnerable and open-minded, knowing that their life will possibly end. To me, these sound like fantastic reasons to stay in Africa and treat those with Ebola, especially if they accept Christ and are able to enter into Heaven. Even Brian Palmer, and atheist and the writer of the article, "In Medicine We Trust", of Slate, agrees that Christians are doing great deeds for the poor, yet criticism continues to exist.

Were I a non-Christian liberal, for instance, I might say to my friend, Brian Palmer, "How could you convince yourself to believe that what Christians are doing is beneficial? They're medical practices are unsanitary and don't follow standards. Plus, it's pointless; we have no real cure for Ebola. And when you die, there is no afterlife. It's just eternal darkness of which you are unconscious. I dislike Christians always forcing their opinion onto others and they don't give them a chance to think about what ideas they are accepting." That is the main idea behind these criticisms. However, were missionaries to be forcefully pulled out of Africa for performing "illegal" medical aid because of the wishes of those opposed, it would be no different than pulling out the legalization of gay marriage, abortion, etc. 


From this perspective, it appears that Christians have just as much right as others to complain about these acts that go against God's wishes, but they do not choose to do so. How could two groups supporting peace be so inwardly (and externally in many cases) hostile towards each other? The answer is that one group includes God's rules in the equation and the other does not. God gives his people free will, but he did not give the ability to enact free will in sin without some form of judgment generally known as Heaven or Hell.

Convoluted Evolution with David P. Barash

Evolutionary biologist and professor, David P. Barash, gives "the talk" to his students every year concerning evolution and creationism. He believes that the two ideologies are unable to exist together, and, therefore, one must lightly overlap the superior belief or be eliminated altogether. In one reasoning of Barash, he states, "God might well have used evolution by natural selection to produce his creation." This is Barash's form of "comfort" for his creationist students- that it is possible for religion to play a small part in the evolution theory. However, he also speculates that "...namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness", which implies the notion that he does in fact desire to leave Creationism out of the full equation. 


Here I turn to the classic argument: what existed before the single-cell organism? If you choose to venture further back, you have an impossible organism structure. A cell requires at least one component such as a nucleus, ribosomes, mitochondria, etc. to survive. In addition, there are at least seventeen arguments to refute evolution, but the far fetched probability of a cell popping up by chance ought to be enough to end the search for what or who created the earth. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British mathematician and astronomer, described the chance of evolution occurring "is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." If that is not enough to stagger your mind, then what will?
Humans are constantly seeking out ways in which evolution might have realistically occurred. Sure, it might be fun to play God and pretend to know how the world functions and came to be as a glorified world-renowned professor, but where does the search finally end for the evolutionist? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", according to Genesis 1:1. One of my friends, whom I share this verse with, chooses to ignore it, because he feels that "evolution makes more sense than some guy in the clouds creating the earth single-handed", or something to that effect. But is evolution really that much more believable?
If you read the evidences against evolution and see how outrageous its philosophy is, then why can't I also quote scripture from a different belief and not stimulate another pattern of thinking that leads to truth? The answer is that we have been lied to by those who simply do not know this truth. That is why God gave us His word in the early on in the Bible in the first place, virtually at the point of creation. Only in the Bible will we find the truth. And so brings the cause for missionaries. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 says, "And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." It is absolutely crucial to learn God's ways early on in youth, so you do not fall for the deception of our corrupted colleges, governments, and nations, which is not all that difficult to see past with the Holy Spirit in your soul. Colossians 2:8 says, See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.