Is this statement truth or is it in error? When someone boldly proclaims this, have they calculated the moral and theological ramifications awaiting the position assumed-on either side-in this matter? While the passion behind this idea can clearly be seen, it must be noted that passion without logic can be a dangerous formula, especially when concerning God and Scripture. The above sentence is an excellent example of logic being displaced for a personal ideal-a standard imposed. From it at least two concepts may be extrapolated: 1.) an aspect of God’s nature is love, and 2.) the existence of a place called “hell” to which people may be “sent.”

GOD

First, consider the nature of God. Is He, indeed, loving? Yes! Scripture shows the reader this cover-to-cover. There are verses that blatantly express this: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn 3.16). Also, there are verses that imply this, for example, Genesis 1.1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The implication is as such: would anything/anyone short of a loving God (being all-knowing) have any reason to create a world with a people possessing free will, which gives them the capacity to either reject Him or accept Him. While examining the nature of God, should one stop at love or are there other character traits relating to His goodness that play a role and must be considered? What of those classified under moral purity: holiness, righteousness, and justice? In relation to His holiness, God is separate from creation and so possesses “absolute purity or goodness” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology 2nd ed, 311). Essentially, this means God stands apart from the evil in the world and is incapable of committing any such acts as those would go against who He is. James 1.13 shows that God neither tempts nor can be tempted. What about His righteousness? God is perfect, and so His law is also perfect. Because of this, He “commands only what is right, and what will therefore have a positive effect on the believer who obeys” (Ibid, 313). The justice of God is the dimension of His moral purity to which man appears to have the most trouble acquiescing. God is righteous; therefore, he expects the same from human beings. Being no respecter of persons, though, man can trust God to administer his law fairly (Acts 10.34).

Another set of qualities of God’s nature that should be considered lay in His greatness, specifically His infinity (eternal) coupled with His constancy (immutability; unchanging). To say that God is infinite means that He is both “unlimited” and “unlimitable” in respect to both space and time (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology 2nd ed, 298). The psalmist noted this when he could not flee from God’s presence (Ps. 139.7-12). A sense of comfort may also be drawn from God’s constancy. Man may be assured that God shall always act consistent with his nature, doing as He promises (1 John 1.9).

MAN

Ah, but in defining characteristics of God, man’s nature then begs to be examined before continuing to the idea of hell. Human beings possess a fallen nature-originating not from creation (as that would call God’s goodness into question), but from the failure of Adam in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). Charles C. Ryrie does an superb job in breaking down the facets the immaterial aspects of man, two of which will be shared: the heart and mind. In reference to the heart, Ryrie reminds the reader that people are “volitional” beings with hearts that can be “turned aside,” “hardened,” and “uncircumcised” (Basic Theology, 227). In reference to the mind, Ryrie states that the unsaved man’s mind is “reprobate, defiled, blinded, and darkened,” while the believer’s mind “occupies a central place in his spiritual development” (Ibid, 228). After reading this, compare God’s qualities mentioned above to these mentioned of man, so the picture may begin to become clearer.

HELL

What is hell? The following verses from Scripture should provide some insight:

God will deliver his children from hell (Psalm 86:13)

Hell is a place of weeping (Matthew 8:12)

Hell was prepared for Satan and demons (Matthew 25:41)

Wicked people will receive punishment (Romans 1:18–20)

God will punish those who do not turn from their sin (2 Peter 2:4–9)

Hell is a place of eternal fire (Jude 1:7)

God will send to hell those who do not believe in him (Revelation 21:8)

(Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible : New Living Translation., 3rd ed. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).

From these verses alone, the reader may draw the logical conclusion that hell (originally a place for Satan and his angels) is essentially a place of eternal punishment for the wicked (and only the wicked), deemed as such for not turning from their sin to God. All of this seems to pass with the average believer with the exception of “eternal torment.” For the nonbeliever, the idea of hell even existing presents a problem for belief in God. John, who presented question number 202 on Dr. Craig’s website, echoed these feelings by asking, “”How can God be considered Wholly Good, when he knowingly created the angels, the universe, and humanity, knowing that hell would be a requirement for such a world, and also knowing that a majority of people would be condemned to it for all eternity?” (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/middle-knowledge-and-hell). The doctrine of hell causes such a level of discomfort that, according to James Hunter:

[There is a] measurable degree of uneasiness within this generation of Evangelicals with the notion of an eternal damnation…Evangelicals generally and the coming generation particularly have adopted various degrees an ethical code of political civility. This compels them not only to be tolerant of others’ beliefs, opinions, and life styles, but more importantly, to be tolerable to others. The critical dogma is not to offend but to be genteel and civil in social relations…[Such] a religious style…entails a de-emphasis of Evangelicalism’s more offensive aspects, such as accusations of heresy, sin, immorality, and paganism, and themes of judgment, divine wrath, damnation, and hell (Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, 394)

HELL AND ITS ETERNAL PUNISHMENT NECESSARY?

So, how does hell and everything that it entails coincide with Scripture and a loving God? God is not just a loving God. He is also absolutely JUST. Any sin (not just those we deem the worst) is an affront to the very nature of God. To think anything less is to not fully understand the concept. Man is depraved-guilty of sin-and Scripture is quite explicit about it: “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Ro 3:23). Yet, what is sin? Erickson defined sin as “any lack of conformity, active or passive, to the moral law of God. This may be a matter of act, of thought, or of inner disposition or state” (Erickson, Christian Theology 2nd ed, 596). Other descriptions include “unbelief, rebellion, perversity, and missing the mark” (Ibid, 595). Basically any evil action…any decadent thought…any perverse word that a man has committed brings him under condemnation in accordance to the perfect, fair, righteous law of God. Even without these, he would still be undeserving of God’s love due to the imparted sin under the headship of Adam (Romans 5.12). While God is both loving and just, He is also ETERNAL; thus, any sin that a man commits is against an infinite being and so stands as eternally guilty, deserving eternal punishment. Someone will surely argue “let the punishment fit the crime.” The reality of it is the punishment IS fitting the crime. When a person sins he/she rejects the authority of God, goes against His law, and attempts to assume authority, propping himself/herself up as a god. What did Christ call of greatest of commandments? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Mt 22:37). By sinning, you are “loving” your “god,” only that god is not the Lord, who made you, loves you, and offers you salvation. Finally, when a man rejects the call of the Holy Spirit to accept Christ as his Lord and Savior, his hardening of heart is complete and he stands condemned to the “second death.” As C.S. Lewis wrote:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened (C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, 72-73).

HOPE

It would seem those who adamantly argue against the supposed unfairness or existence of Hell in general are forgetting a major detail-the gift of Salvation-offered freely to anyone who would accept. Condemnation for sin was/is merited, but grace is given in spite of us.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Ro. 5.15-21)

Poor old Deuce. If it wasn’t for the fact that they were about 2 years too early, they would’ve been Steps before Steps. A mixed gender pop group, with an affinity for brilliantly camp outfits and Eurodance – if you didn’t know the dates of their releases you’d be forgiven for thinking they’d been launched by Simon Fuller in an attempt to cash in similar to his ill-fated 21st Century Girls project. That’s where you’d be wrong. Deuce was first formed back in 1994 when Tom Watkins, manager of the Pet Shop Boys and Bros spied Kelly O’Keefe, a talented young work experience girl in his office. After recruiting both her and her friend, dancer Lisa Armstrong, he then threw in Craig Robert Young and Paul Holmes to balance out the group and form the quartet.

Like many doomed pop acts, Deuce initially had some chart success. Their debut single,  the still-brilliant ‘Call It Love’, entered the UK Singles Chart at number 21 in January 1995 before peaking at No.11.  The follow-up ‘I Need You’ was entered into the UK’s pre-selection show as a Eurovision Song Content entry but came third, a crying shame. When the song was released as a single it went straight to No.10  in April 1995, their highest performing chart position. One further single, “On the Bible”, reached No.13 in August before their forgotten masterpiece of an album, On the Loose was released and charted at No.18.  Still an enjoyable mixture of thumping dance tracks like ‘Boyfriend, Girlfriend’, the Shampoo-esque ‘Kiss It’  and out-of-place but mandatory soppy ballads such as ‘I’ll Be There For You’.

The prophetically titled ‘Let’s Call It a Day’, was scheduled for release as a single in November ’95, but was cancelled after O’Keefe quit. Despite this and then being dropped by London Records, the group staggered on Rasputin-like, signing to Mike Stock’s label and recruiting dancer Amanda Perkins before releasing a defiant new single ‘No Surrender’…which flopped at No.29.  Fleeing to Australia in the hope that no one would have heard of their rapid rise and fall, Deuce relaunched yet again, this time without Craig Young but a random blonde chap replacing him for TV performances whose name time has forgotten. Even the Sugababes bother to name their bandmates. After their final Australian single, a dance remix of ‘No Surrender’ which failed to chart, Deuce finally gave up the ghost.

Young went on to do bits of acting, popping up in everything from bits of theatre, presenting MTV UK  and appearing in Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Armstrong is now a make-up artist and Holmes apparently went on to write songs  for other people. Sod all appears to be known about the other bandmates, but they’re probably still alive, performing at a regional pride event near you.

Deuce’s lifespan might’ve been relatively short, but I’d still go as far as saying that Pete Waterman & co obviously pecked at their carcass a large amount when it came to producing Steps in ’97.  Even the video for ‘On The Bible’  was blatantly ripped-off by/inspired the now-iconic ‘Tragedy’ video. But part of why Deuce really appealed to me when I first discovered them is all their obvious imperfections and slightly more adult feel as opposed to Steps’ kiddy-friendly choreography. On the Loose is definitely worth checking out if you’re taken by the singles, rather than you remaining doomed to a life of Scooch as your only alternative Brit Europop group.  There were whispers a few years ago that Deuce were contemplating some sort of a return, but much as I love them I’d rather remember them like this; young, Nineties and wonderfully cheesy as fuck – rather than ageing, with a new conservatory to pay for.

POST-MORTEM OVER. Rest in peace Deuce.

There was a recent article, posted on the 23rd of October (US time) by a Dan Delzell, entitled Does Christianity Stand on Faith or Evidence? at The Christian Post website.

The article attempts to articulate an empirical and reasonable defence of the reliability of the Bible by regurgitating very outdated stuff that the author probably got from books by Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler or any of evangelical christianity’s so-called apologists. He is either very ignorant of contemporary biblical scholarship or he is simply blinded by evangelical prejudice so as to filter out any research or data that is contrary to his views on christianity.

I would reckon that, from reading the article, the author presupposes that the bible is INERRANT since it was “inspired” by God. This would explain why he attempts to state very silly assertions like:

“There are over 300 Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The statistical probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even 8 such prophecies would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. If you are willing to think rationally when it comes to religion, you will discover that it is impossible that the Bible did not come from God. No scheme of man could have pulled it off over those many centuries. In order to reject the Bible, a person must have a strong predisposition against it from the outset. Otherwise, the evidence makes it a ‘slam-dunk case’.”

Sigh. It would be reasonable to assume the validity of these prophecies only if the probability of natural causes can be, by and large, ruled out. But since the writers of the New Testament had access to the Old Testament, or more accurately, the Hebrew scriptures, it is very reasonable to propose the idea that these writers re-create the Gospel accounts so as to make the “prophecies” fit.

One might argue this is simply my naturalistic bias. But has Dan read any credible scholarship on the gospels? Doesn’t he realise that the canonical gospels cannot be interpreted as accurate historical and biographical accounts in the modern sense of the word(s)? The majority of mainline biblical scholarship has discredited the birth narratives of Jesus as metaphor and theology, not history. Has Dan acquaint himself with the fact that much of the birth narratives of Jesus are uncannily similar to ancient “son of god” myths that also propose virgin births, sons of gods and resurrections?

Another point is that most of the alleged “prophecies”, if interpreted in their original historical and social contexts within the Hebrew canon, were never intended to refer to Jesus at all! Most of them have already been fulfilled in the era purported in the Hebrew scriptures themselves.

Another ignorant assertion which Dan made in the article was:

“There is no dispute among scholars regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible.”

Huh? Where did he get his information from? From Josh McDowell again? Come on. The archaeologist from which he quoted, William Albright, was from a very outdated archaeological school that has since been discredited by modern archaeological research. Much of the historical narratives in the Penteteuch (the first five books of the OT) are now known to be myth and fiction – there has been no archaeological verification of any of the patriachs, the battle of Jericho, the Exodus from Egypt, etc. Has Dan really done his homework?

The moment one attempts to use external verification from extrabiblical sources, one will realise that there is a disparity.

Dan also claims that the bible was “scientifically accurate”. Duh. Is he going to mention stuff like the laws and regulations that Moses implemented for his people such as the laws of hygiene? Is he going to mention the alleged verses that mention that the earth is a “circle” - and thus claiming that the bible knows about the global nature of the earth? Is he going to mention about currents and circuits in the oceans which the bible also mentioned? Etc etc.

All of these do not prove anything at all. The Quran also offers several mentions that apparently corroborate with science, as would most of their apologists would love to suggest. It would be no leap of logic that ancient communities do have some knowledge of the natural world, albeit incompletely. This does not prove that the bible has its origins in the divine.

Dan also mentioned manuscript evidence as well as the notion that the bible is rather forthright about its protagonists’ successes and failures. If only Dan dig a bit deeper into the field of textual criticism, he would come out agnostic about the whole thing. As for the latter, it is one of the silliest statements around. What is the apologist trying to prove? Ancient mythologies and legends abound with accounts of very flawed and errant heroes as well. Does that prove that these myths were divinely originated? Duh.

Much of what the Christian Post author offered as “evidence” for the Bible’s inspiration from God are inconclusive and very much debatable, like in the fields of textual criticism. Issues like historical and archaeological research has now been more or less conclusive that the bible cannot be relied upon for real history.

He claims to be open-minded. If evangelicals are genuinely open-minded and willing to go where reason and evidence leads them, they would no longer be evangelicals. The fact of the matter is that evangelical christians have always been CLOSE-minded, interpreting data to simply fit to their already accepted conclusions and ignore or explain away any data that contradict. That is not honest scholarship.

I was an evangelical christian too. I was open-minded and was willing to study the facts. Arguments proposed by Dan are all too familiar to me, of which I myself have used them in the past. But were soon found wanting when scrutinised in the crucible of rigorous scholarship.

The bible is a collection of writings written by human beings living in ancient communities far removed from our own. It is written in myth, fable and metaphor and was never intended to be historical fact.

*******

‘Call It Love’ by Deuce was never going to be fondly remembered, but it deserves more credit than it is often given.

‘Call It Love’ is certainly bold. The kitsch production immediately grabs the listener’s attention, and the mix of Eurodance and bubblegum pop conveniently complements each other.

It’s also clear, from the onset, which the track plays up to its camp sound, which is an endearing quality.

Lead singer Kelly O’Keefe’s vocals are less restrained than her contributions in their minor hit ‘On the Bible‘, but her confident and dynamic performance suits the tone of the song. It makes it instantly distinctive and appealing.

Just as appealing are the nice touches that ‘Call It Love’ has.

The dramatic piano solo, which is used sparingly in the beginning of the song and during the break, makes the track even more striking.

It is also welcoming to see lyrics that have had some thought put into them, even if they are too repetitive.

These fiery lyrics – which include “You can think what you like/It’s the same every night/You go on and on and on” – are ideal for Deuce’s brash attitude.

It ensured that they were a cut above all of the other manufactured acts in 1995; they had that little bit more maturity and professionalism about them.

There’s no doubt that Deuce packed ‘Call It Love’ with exciting bursts of energy, but there’s a possible reason why it only peaked at Number 11 in the UK Single Chart upon its January 1995 release.

Popular manufactured acts at the time – including Boyzone, Take That, East 17 and MN8 – were usually all-male acts.

Mixed sex bands such Optimystic were less popular during this period, and Deuce’s main failing was that their male identity failed to match O’Keefe’s unique style.

The tame vocals from Paul Holmes, during his solo, meant that their verses lacked purpose without O’Keefe’s input.

This severely damages the longevity of this début single. O’Keefe, along with the superb dance-influenced break, was the saving grace of ‘Call It Love’.

Without her star quality, it is highly likely that Deuce would have immediately plummeted to the depths of mediocrity.

‘Call It Love’, nonetheless, remains a fun and catchy slice of camp pop, even if it did nothing more than that.

It doesn’t sound as fresh as it did 1995 and it’s fluffy at times, but it still has bags of charm. It may have even been a minor pop classic if O’Keefe had been marketed as a solo artist.

It sounds crazy enough to have worked.