Cultural Hell Is Not Theological Hell

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases. Ignoring the whole-paragraph contexts to respond to bits and pieces of them is quote mining.

If God is loving, then why would He send you to hell for rejecting Him? This seems to be one of many key questions that nonbelievers wrestle with in our culture, and very prominent Christian apologists like Frank Turek have been presented with it. The problem, however, is that many people who raise this objection don't even know what Hell is. Some think it's just a place of divinely sanctioned torture, but is that true? There are indeed many words that the Bible uses to describe Hell, but the most basic concept is simply the separation from God. If you reject God, then you're rejecting all of His attributes — justice, order, mercy, faithfulness, humility, and selflessness — and embracing their opposites: injustice, chaos, lack of mercy, betrayal, pride, and narcissism.

Notice, however, that none of these negatives can exist unless their positive opposites are defined. You cannot have injustice if justice doesn't exist or is subjective. You cannot properly define chaos if order doesn't exist. You cannot have a lack of mercy without mercy to lack. You cannot properly define betrayal without first defining faithfulness. You cannot have pride if you don't know what humility is. You cannot have narcissism if you don't first have a standard of self-sacrifice by which to measure it. Either the good that becomes evil (in these cases) exists or it's undefined, and if good is undefined, then evil is also undefined. If evil is undefined, then can you call out any egregiously evil act as such? No, and if there were no God as atheists love to claim then all of the above would be completely undefined.

We can, in a sense, think of anarchy as a kind of hell on Earth: Without standards, without order, everyone can do anything and everything that he or she wants, including that which harms others. The result? A kind of socially Darwinistic society in which the strong become stronger, the weak become weaker, and everyone suffers. Anarchy creates chaos. It gives evil ones free reign to inflict evil on each other, creating and multiplying more evil. Instead of keeping them civilized, anarchy turns men into savages.

Now, take that anarchy and lengthen it to an eternal scale. That's what hell is: eternal anarchy. Without God's order, the result is an evil free-for-all where all inhabitants can all inflict as much evil on each other as they desire, but they only distance themselves further and further from God in the process. It's nothing like the stigma that we've given it by any means. Rather, it's simply what happens when there is absolutely no control whatsoever: inhabitants can do whatever the **** they want to each other, including the most grotesque of evils imaginable, and even including evils beyond comprehension.

In this context, we can see that the answer to the question posed in the introductory paragraph does become clear: You send yourself to hell. The assumption behind this loaded question is that God does the sending — not true at all. It's a quarantine for evil — it's where inhabitants fight evil with evil, and evil magnifies itself in an endless death spiral. If you reject God's order, you create chaos. If you reject God's love, you create hate. Hell is the creation of its inhabitants: like an inner city controlled by gangs or a country controlled by terrorist organizations, it's where eternal infighting creates eternal decay. That's what you get if you reject the gift of substitutionary atonement — the only thing that can keep us from this fate.

Hypocrites March on Washington: No Pro-Life Women Allowed

WARNING: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases. Ignoring the whole-paragraph contexts to respond to bits and pieces of them is quote mining.

While the peaceful transition of power — one of the things that makes this country great — has indeed been successful, people on the left continue to make hypocritical arguments that in every way are completely contradictory to their own actions. Take, for example, Madonna, who claims to express vehement opposition to objectification of women… after having offered to perform oral sex on men who would have voted for Hillary before the election. Madonna's entire career was built on self-objectification, which shows a total mismatch between her words and her actions — obvious hypocrisy. Her march on Capitol Hill is only more proof of how hypocritical she is, because it completely excluded pro-life women, despite being labeled a "women's march".

It's no surprise, however, that the left continues to traffic in rhetoric and actions that fundamentally contradict each other when their underlying position on which all others are based — moral relativism — is a self-refuting idea to begin with. The idea that it's wrong to impose morality is itself a moral claim that someone is imposing. See the problem? The claim and the standard that it conveys fundamentally contradict each other. It's just like the truth claim denying the existence of truth, the use of English to claim to not be able to speak English, the use of a philosophical assumption to claim that the only way to determine whether something is true is via the scientific method, or the judgment not to judge.

Ah, but wait a minute, doesn't the book of Matthew, second chapter, first verse, say that Christians in particular shouldn't judge? The situation of Matthew 7:1 is the Sermon on the Mount. The type of literature that Matthew 7:1 conveys is a single-verse fragment of the commandment that is and should always be quoted as the Matthew 7:1-5 paragraph. Its object is a judgment not against judging in general (which would be logically self-refuting precisely because it's a judgment), but against committing specific sins and then going on to hypocritically judge others who commit those exact same sins without first repenting, and it is prescriptive, not descriptive. One must S.T.O.P. and think about not only what he or she is quoting but, in this case, the following 4 verses as well before quoting, because if not, then it's completely out of context.

How does this apply to abortion, you may ask? Because all the arguments that the left makes on that matter are completely relativistic. "My body, my choice", "that's not morality, that's tyranny", and countless other arguments like those are relativistic, self-refuting statements. Not only that, but they also conflate the unborn child with a body part, which is science denial to boot. If the DNA of the unborn child is not 100% identical to that of the mother — which it clearly isn't, because you need a sperm *and* an egg to make a child, which in turn means that the unborn child has 50% of the mother's DNA and 50% of the father's DNA — then "my body, my choice" is a lie.

Ah, but wait a minute, aren't there potential health risks to the mother that need to be explored as well? According to the available statistics on the matter, only 0.7% of the 60+ million abortions performed since Roe v. Wade are due to rape or incest and only 0.3% are due to the health of the mother being at risk (and the percentage of that percentage that is merely mental or emotional stress — an inexcusable reason — is unknown but probably high). Another 0.7% are due to birth defects, but again, the percentage of those defects that are incapable of killing the child anyway before birth (like Down syndrome for example) and therefore inexcusable are also high. That leaves 98.3% of abortions, for, get this, economic reasons. Think about that. 98.3% of 60+ million unborn children are killed out of pure lust, greed, selfish ambition, and outright sexual narcissism.

People selfishly think that they can have sexual intercourse out of wedlock and kill the child before he or she is born so that they don't have to pay the price of having the sex out of wedlock in the first place, why? Again, because they're selfish, greedy, and stupid. Either don't have sex in the first place or give the child up for adoption, but it's tyranny of the parents to think that you can use abortion as a mere sexual crutch, greedy to force taxpayers to pay for the sexual crutch in question, malignantly narcissistic to think that if you can't take care of the child then no one else can, and all of the above to have the nerve to think that it's OK to even have that impromptu sex in the first place. It's for this reason that we elected Trump and Pence as President and VP: because at least their administration will treat political dissidents with the same degree of dignity as those with whom they agree, unlike Obama, who gave special favors to lobbyists with whom he agreed while at the same time completely ignoring or even attacking those with whom he disagreed.

What Mixing Matter with Antimatter Tells Us About Genesis 1:3

Disclaimer: The following are paragraphs, not individual sentences or phrases; therefore, picking them apart is quote mining. It’s also quote mining to raise an objection about one paragraph that already has an answer in another paragraph (or another post on this blog) because these arguments all build on each other.

Update: Some have raised objections based on the fact that baryon-antiparticle collisions do sometimes release particles other than photons. Why do they? That's right, because the energy generated converts back into those particles — and, thus, back into matter — on its own. Therefore this is actually empirical evidence supporting this.

Of all the parts of the Bible that come under atheistic attack, which one comes under attack the most? It seems like the first book, doesn't it? Why is that? Is it because they think that it somehow contradicts science? News flash: not if examined closely enough. The verse that really sticks out, based on the interchangeability of matter and electromagnetic energy, is Genesis 1:3.

According to that verse, what existed before matter? Light. Light is energy, is it not? Not only is light energy, but it's energy in its purest form. Granted, the vast majority of light is invisible — radio waves, microwaves, heat (infrared) rays, ultraviolet rays, X-rays, and gamma rays are all just invisible forms of light (some of which can be deadly, but that's another topic entirely) — but it's still light regardless. It's given off by everything from wood fires, to filaments in light bulbs heated by electricity, to explosives, to nuclear weapons, to even the ultimate in thermonuclear reactors: the Sun. Notice, however, that the more you tear matter apart (or fuse it together), the more light you generate?

Ah, that's where we come to the ultimate energy source: combinations of matter and antimatter. Antimatter, by definition, is like matter but with opposite electric charges. The antimatter equivalent of a proton, for example, is of the same mass and composition as a proton but with a negative charge. The equivalent of an electron, likewise, is of the same mass and composition as an electron but with a positive charge. When such particles — antiprotons and positrons, respectively — come into contact with protons and electrons, respectively, they completely annihilate each other, and in so doing convert each other into 100% pure energy — not 4% energy (the matter conversion efficiency of an H-bomb) but 100% pure energy. What kind of energy? That's right, light! Deadly, mostly invisible light, but still light.

If matter and antimatter are indeed convertible into energy, which they are, and if the energy that results from matter and antimatter annihilating each other is light, which it is, then isn't the reverse — energy being converted back into matter and antimatter — also possible? That scenario is exactly what Genesis 1:3 is on about. In a universe where total destruction of matter's (and antimatter's) building blocks yields various forms of light, you'd expect those building blocks to themselves be fundamentally made of light in some fashion. By doing experiments with complete destruction of subatomic particles, that is exactly what we see.

As Frank Turek says, "Science doesn't say anything; scientists do." Science on its own is just a method. It's merely a tool for scientists to use, and the scientists therefore must come up with some interpretation based on the evidence that they see. These experiments with subatomic particles are no exception to that rule, and because of the way the Bible is worded, such that light is the very first thing that ever existed according to its pages, I for one am all the more convinced of its veracity by examining the results of these experiments, which do nothing short of confirm the Bible's implication in Genesis 1:3 that the smallest building block of matter and/or antimatter is in fact a photon.