Most people
who believe in an afterlife agree that heaven of some sort exists, although
few, it seems, are willing to admit to a hell that completes the duo. Yet part
of the evidence to the existence of both is the experience of both in this life.
We live in
the overlap of both worlds; the affluent experience a humanized heaven, the poor
and subjugated often live in a reality of hell, although whether either party
deserves their fortune or misfortune is debateable.
Either way,
one day heaven and hell will be separated, neither experiencing or able to
communicate with the other. At that time, each person will be in the place chosen
by their actions, belief or disbelief during their time in this world.
But, the
argument goes, there can’t be a hell, for a God of love would never place anyone
in such a terrible place. This argument, of course, is based on the human value
of sin—it’s not really bad enough to deserve banishment from God’s presence—which
is what hell is.
Hell becomes
more understandable if we see sin from the way God sees it. Justice—if we care
enough about it—requires a penalty, either from the transgressor or someone
willing to take his or her place. A loving God was willing to give his own Son
in our place—that describes His assessment of the evil extent of sin.
I’m not sure
anyone would want a heaven where everyone attained it on their own terms. Do we
want a repeat of earth in heaven? Sin is like cancer, one cell can destroy the
body; one sin could destroy heaven. For those unwilling to relinquish, or seek forgiveness
for their sin, hell is the only place to practise it.
