Is there a heaven and a hell?

I was in jail (no not as an inmate, they didn't catch me yet :) ) when the above question came up. I was there as part of an alpha team and we were having this discussion with the “guests” (captive audience :) ). It's not a question we talk a lot about on the outside, but prison (and the hard knocks of life) have a way of focusing the mind. My response was that if God exists and He is just, there has to be a heaven and a hell. I mean death is not good enough for the likes of Hitler, Bashar Al-Assad and a lot more (probably including myself!).

Someone voiced the opinion that Heaven and hell are here on earth. It seems to me that there is something in this, I mean if we remove all the bad out of life, it gives us a glimpse (probably a poor one) of what heaven is like, and if we remove all the good out of life we likely have a glimpse of hell. These can be uncomfortable thoughts, but for me there is comfort in the gospel which tells us that if we admit that we are wrong (easier to do in the pen) and turn our lives over to Him, there is forgiveness and provision for life in all its fullness in the here and now, and even fuller in the hereafter.

Can questions be wrong?

During my daily readings today, I came across a question by the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection (that is why they were sad-u-c :) sorry I can resist anything by temptation). The question boiled down to asking in the resurrection whose wife would a woman widowed and remarried be. Jesus answers “Do you not greatly err because you do know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?” Jesus is essentially saying “Your question is wrong.” When questions are wrong, it is usually because of ignorance or because they cloak a hidden assumption. “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” is a much a statement as it is a question. It's hard to answer that one well, no matter what I say I condemn myself!

I find this a lot in discussing God. “Can you prove to me that God exists?” If I say “no,” I am dismissed because most of our society has bought the lie that only things that can be verified scientifically are valid. But you cannot prove scientifically that you were in bed last night, nor can you prove scientifically that love is real. We are however the poorer if we live our lives as if things that cannot be proved scientifically are false. And actually nobody does. We all act in faith in something, or we would not get on a bus or a plane! If I say “yes” (to the above question), and give one of the classical proofs of God's existence, I am met with such statements as “all truth is relative.” I do need to say though, that in my experience that line is only brought out when the other person is starting to loose the argument!

Most questions by skeptics involving God, have some hidden presupposition. The last question above assumes (and assumes wrongly) that scientific proof is the only valid proof. If this were the case many criminals would go free who should not go free. What I am saying is that the testimony of a witnesses is held up in court as a valid “proof.” It does need to be examined and tested, and this involves the character of the witness. This by the way, is one way we can find God, through the testimony of credible witnesses. Perhaps you don't know any. In my book that would be a valid excuse. But hey, I'm not God (ask my kids :)).