As Christians, we are confronted with defending our loving God and Savior against the onslaught of those who ask, “would a loving God condemn people to hell?  We, the believers, say, “our God is a loving God who cares for all mankind.” They, those who don’t believe in God, ask “would a loving God condemn people to hell?”

Is it foreseeable that a God whose number one selling point — his ‘love for the world’– would condemn people to hell? Well that is the charge and I will try to find the underlying reason for this.

Before I go any further, it is important that I premise a few things.  First, I presume that I am speaking to believers of some sort or I expect nonbelievers to bestow upon me the grace necessary in order that I make my points from the perspective that there is a God. The nonbeliever does not have to believe in God, but they must at least assess my arguments from the perspective that I do believe.  Secondly, if there is a God then we must also acknowledge that there is a devil; both of whom are invisible.

The first question we must ask is, why do people end up in hell?  People end up in hell for the same reason that a stone rolls downhill.  It is the way of our universe; they are controlled by natural laws. The laws of gravity control the rock. The laws of sin that leads to death control individuals. We must therefore acknowledge and understand that God does not send people anywhere. The laws that govern the world are at work. Granted, God created them at the foundation of creation. If we have ever consciously committed an act that God in His commandments warned us against, it follows that the law of sin which leads to death will take its due course. Many people believe that God’s commandments are there to restrict us. Rather it is there to give us a heads-up on the landmines that have been laid by the great agitator. We all know who I’m referring to here. This natural course of events mimics any stone at an elevation. It will roll down hill. This is the answer to the first question; people go to hell not because God sends them there, but as you will find out in a moment, because individuals refuse to get off a course that is preventable.

The second question is, who needs whom and what is the role of God? The last thing I want to do is give anyone the ultimatum that if they don’t love God they are headed to hell. Hell should never be the motivation for people to seek after God. Notwithstanding, I do know that for many individuals that is the only reason they are Christians. If that is the reason why you are a Christian, I sincerely pity your relationship with God.

If I may spend some time defining the attitude of these individuals, it is to say, there is no relationship, except for their obligatory but meaningless prayer in order to clear their conscious before they go to bed at night. These prayers also include those done to get God to act on their behalf to get something. Apart from that, there is no obedience nor is there any re-birth. Albeit, we are the ones who need God.  God and the church don’t need us. On a side note, the nonbeliever may say, ‘the church needs our money.’ That is not true.

If I was candid, and to an extent offensive, the main reason churches need anyone’s money is so they can build bigger buildings to facilitate many ‘tears’ who truly believe they are ‘wheat.’ To wrap this point up, it is man who needs God, not the other way around. This is not simply to prevent us from hell — as I will point out in a moment– but so we can know who we truly are and live this life to the fullest.

The role of God post “the fall” has been to prevent men from hell. I will show you how. What I do next is point out the many lengths at which God went to prevent men from ending up in their inevitable destruction.

Before the law, God gave men a conscious to convict them of right and wrong. The conscious that we all possess was placed there to be a barometer before God moved on to his next “scheme” of trying to acquit sinners.

Building on the conscious, God introduced the Ten Commandments. God noticed that though men’s conscious told them not to do ill they did it anyway. Sin was so prevalent that men were unable to control their urges. Therefore, He wrote His commandments on stone. He wrote it with His own hand. This was God yet again, attempting to prevent sinners from going to hell.

Then finally, in the course of time God performed the ultimate salvation scheme. I use scheme repeatedly not to say God is doing something against us, but to say He is doing these things on our behalf. God is like a good judge who exhausts every legal means necessary to provide a way for those who choose acquittal form their sins and transgressions. God became flesh, and dwelt among us as a humble, gentle carpenter. He was not a states’ man who would take sides, but as a man without a place even to lay his head. A man of the world. It is in Him that God says we must put our trust. Quite simple, huh?

How much easier can it get? Salvation is found in no other, but in the man Christ Jesus. If you ask me, God has been and continues to be in a redemptive mode. God is indeed a loving god. He knows the consequences of sin that leads to eternal separation from him in hell and he did everything necessary to give men a way of escape. Frankly, to prevent men from hell. He provided himself by dying on the cross for our sin and he provided of himself by living within us, in the form of the Holy Spirit, to guide and enable us to live in the way.

Hell is the spiritual consequences of sin concerning the law of sin and death, the same way, concerning gravity, what goes up must come down. God’s involvement at no point has been to send anyone there; rather it has been to prevent men from hell. He did this both from the front end and from the back end. From the front end, he gave men a conscious and the Ten Commandments to prevent men from sinning. Being the pragmatic god that he is, he also sent Christ to forgive those who have and will sin.

So then, since god is not sending anyone to hell, why do they get there? Those who end up in hell will not end up there because they sinned. No, those in heaven also sinned. They will end up there because they rejected God and His Son. From the standpoint of those living in a remote cave, they have a conscious to guide them. From our standpoint, we have Christ. Avoiding hell couldn’t be easier. Nevertheless, for some people, no matter how much someone does, it is never enough.

To capsulate what I ventured out to say, the perception that many have of God –and the accusation by those who hate that which they haven’t seen– is false. Men will make excuse for everything, and the notion that a good God would send sinners to hell is just another excuse.

Over the weekend, Brad Pitt made an appearance on the Bill Maher Show where he shared his concern for the homosexual community supposedly having their rights taken away by Christians. Click her for a YouTube Video.

After listening to his diatribe, I had a big problem with their ridiculous assertions and the impression that they gave that somehow Christians are preventing gays from accessing their rights as Americans.  Therefore, for the sake of clarity I want to dissect this entire discussion because for some reason many people—those that I consider intelligent– seem to have a problem comprehending the issue.

The assertion is that Christians are preventing gays from being gay and from exercising their rights as Americans-the same right that we as Christians exercise to worship. The first question I want to ask is, “are Christian preventing gays from having homosexual sex?”  The answer is no.  We are not preventing gays from having sex.  We are not telling gays they can’t have sex.  The homosexual community knows the responsibility that those of us who are Christians have towards them regarding this issue. Our responsibility as Christians towards the homosexual community is as humane as someone telling a friend not to drink and drive.  It is not an act of controlling their lives but a genuine care and concern for their spiritual well-being.  Moreover, if they permit us to believe that there is a God but despise the care and concern that comes with that belief, it would be akin to demand that Al Gore refrain from talking about global warming.  As Christians, since we know the things that God despises it is our civic duty to speak out concerning those things.  However, our speaking does not mean that they have to listen, as is the case today.  Nevertheless, I want to stress the point in order to have this basic question answered, “are we preventing gays from having homosexual sex?”  Are there gays today who, because of Christians cannot have homosexual intercourse?”  The overwhelming answer to that question is no.  We are not preventing gays from having sex the same way gays are not preventing Christians from going to church.  That is point number one.

Point number two.  “Are we preventing gays from having relationships with each other?”  The answer that question is also no.  There are many gay people that I know of who are in relationships with each other–and I know what you may be thinking about and I will get to it.  Therefore, we are not preventing gays from having relationships either.  They are openly gay couples all over America.

I noticed that gays are attempting to piggyback off the Civil Rights movement but the fact of that matter is, no one is demanding that gays sit at the back of the bus, no one is telling them that they can’t enter through the straight doors nor are there any straight or gay water fountain etc. The attempt to piggyback off the Civil Rights movement is a fraud.  That is point number two.

Point number three is the only issue and it regards the State (Government) acknowledging their relationship as Marriage. Before I go any further, let me stress once again that gays are not restricted from being gay and they do have the right to be gay and engage in everything that relates to being gay.  So where did this notion that Christians are denying gays their rights come from?  It is a deliberate skewing of the facts. It is a skewing of reality.  The real issue regards marriage.  This is the crux of the issue and the only issue.

We believe that there is a difference between a relationship involving two males or two females from a relationship with individuals of the opposite sex.  Let me repeat that for fast readers; there is a difference between a relationship involving two males or two females from a relationship with individuals of the opposite sex. As simple as that is, it is the most important point in this entire debate.  “Do differences exist and is there a difference between homosexual relationships from heterosexual relationships?”  I quote, ‘state the facts, be clear and then give me your opinions.’  The facts as I believe it is that there is a difference between a heterosexual relationship from that of a homosexual relationship.

For the sake of clarity, I am not saying that same-sex couples are less capable than heterosexual couples nor am I saying that children necessarily need a heterosexual relationship in order to grow rather than a homosexual relationship.  I am not even going there.  I don’t believe I need to go there.  The point is, two male or two female are not the same as a male and female.  The same way a smart car and SUV are not the same simply because they are vehicles.  The argument made by homosexuals is that because they want to enter into a committed long-term relationship with someone, that endeavor becomes the same as an endeavor involving two individuals of the opposite sex.  To go further, their view of the world is akin to saying that voting for McCain and Palin is the same as voting for Obama and Biden simply because they’re politician.  There are differences and differences do exist.

Since those of us with an intellectual capacity understand that there are differences, let me make my final point.  The word marriage has already been assigned to individuals of the opposite sex who have Eros love for each other. Moreover, if people of the same sex want to have a relationship like marriage, they need to choose another name that would distinguish their relationship. That is as simple as this debate is.  The word marriage is already taken and it is taken for individuals of the opposite sex the same way the word (acronym) SUV has been taken for vehicles that are like an SUV and if you invent a car like a smart car, you can’t call it an SUV. Am I making any sense out there?

I don’t care personally if you want to be in a Civil Unions—or you can name it something else. That’s not the point; we do not have a problem with gays enjoying the benefits that those who are married enjoy, but they cannot expect us to accept that when we teach our kids about marriage there is confusion as to the kinds of relationships we refer to. I have a daughter and when she is of age and I asked her, are you going to get married at a certain age, I don’t want to have to clarify whether I mean to a male or to a female. The word marriage must have its implicit and explicit meaning and the word for gay marriage should do the same. There must be a distinction.

The notion that there are no differences and people of the same sex must come under the umbrella of marriage and use the same name to represent their relationship is absurd. That is our objection. In conclusion, I hope I have clearly identified that Christians are not preventing homosexuals from having intercourse nor are we restricting them from having long term committed relationships but we do insist that the word Marriage is taken.

Therefore, if Brad Pitt and Bill Maher or any other elitists want to get involved in this issue and they proceed to do so, I think they should at least understand the issue and understand their opposition’s contention.