Can God forgive really really really really really really bad people?

To the cat, “cat and mouse” is just a game. Cats will stalk mice, catch them, torture them, release them, catch them again, torture them more, and eventually kill them. You know it's a game to them because even after the rodent dies, the cats don't necessarily eat them immediately. Often they'll walk around with the carcasses in their mouths like it's some kind of toy. Still other times they will leave it as a “gift” for their owners. Many cat owners abhor this behavior. Sometimes, they leave their cats' bowls full of food thinking cats won't hunt if they're not hungry. I've heard though that well-fed cats only prolong the torture because, again, it's a game to the cats.

Are cats evil when they do this? I ask because I'm still a little fuzzy about how atheists define right and wrong.

Critics often criticize Christianity by attacking the justice/mercy of God. I came across an article online, written by The Friendly Atheist, where he made this very argument. Consider this quote from the article:

To the Almighty, nothing is unforgivable. Let that sink in. Nothing. You can be a genocidal maniac who eats crushed-up infants on toast during snack time… and still go to heaven if you eventually repent. [italics and ellipsis in original]

To drive this point home, the author relates the horrific career of Liberian-born Joshua Milton Blahyi. Blahyi's vile history supposedly began at age 11.  You can read the gruesome acts attributed to Blahyi in the article where One source cited describes Blahyi as, “the most evil man in the world.” Blahyi later claimed to be a born-again Christian, forgiven of his many sins, and bound for an eternity in glory with the Father.

Critics often point to the forgiving nature of God and question its “fairness.” Could even people like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, after their lifetimes of sin, have been forgiven by God if they had just confessed and accepted Jesus on their deathbeds? Even many Christians struggle with this concept and will hem and haw when asked to defend it. Indeed, that is why skeptics like the Friendly Atheist continue repeating the criticism. I see many flaws with this argument.

The first problem with this criticism is that, at its core, it commits the fallacy of an argument from incredulity. This is where a speaker essentially claims something seems too outrageous to be true. It's hardly a rebuttal when you think about it. Even if it seems unfair of God to forgive really bad sinners, it doesn't make it untrue. Romans 10:13 says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” There's no qualifier in that verse limiting salvation to “only those who haven't been that bad.”  It says, whoever.

Next, atheists have a problem claiming any moral high ground because, ultimately, they have no objective standard of morality. If they are correct and the universe is all there is, then everything that happens is nothing more than matter acting on matter. One person murdering another is no different than a cat torturing a mouse or an apple falling from a tree. It's just the way things are and the universe doesn't care. Actually, if one particular cat were able to torture thousands of mice, it would probably be considered a superior cat from an evolutionary perspective. Likewise, one human who is able to personally murder thousands of others could arguably be described as the “more fit” human if the goal is the survival of the fittest.

Think carefully about atheism. If there is no ultimate Lawgiver, then “morality” is merely the product of whatever people think is preferable. You may think Blahyi’s acts were horrible but he didn't think so at the time. Without appealing to anything beyond human opinion, what makes your view right and Blahyi's wrong? By that same token, critics try to say that God's standard of justice is perverse. On what grounds can they say their opinion is correct and God's wrong? Evil can only exist if God exists. Their argument, then, really has no teeth. They rely solely on the fact that it sounds awful that God could forgive someone like Hitler.

I understand that we struggle sometimes to understand God. It's a symptom of our sin nature. God is infinite and perfect; we are finite and corrupt. His ways are not our ways so we should never presume to judge God according to how we think it ought to be done. It's laughable, really, that the clay should think it can instruct the potter. To understand God, we need to look into His word.

In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus tells the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I always encourage people to read the Bible themselves but, for the sake of brevity, I'll give you a thumbnail: A land owner goes into the marketplace early in the morning and hires people to work in his vineyard. He agrees to pay them a penny (the standard wage for a day's work). Throughout the day, he returns to the market and hires more workers. He even hires some 1 hour before quitting time. At the end of the day, as the workers are leaving, the land owner gives all of them a penny. Those who were hired first felt slighted that the people who worked only 1 hour got the same pay as they, who had worked all day.

Christians who have trouble understanding how God can mercy on especially evil people are, in fact, demonstrating the same attitudes as the workers hired early. They are, in a sense, saying, “God, I've worked much harder at being good than that person. How can you give him the same reward as me?”

The owner of the vineyard gave an interesting reply to the complainers. He said, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?” The Bible says that God will have mercy on whoever He chooses to have mercy (Romans 9:15). If God has made salvation available to anyone on the condition that the person believes in His Son, then who are we to attach strings? Should we say, “God, I know that person accepted Christ but let me tell you how bad he's been....”? If so, we are placing our sense of justice above God's. If you really think some people can be forgiven but not others, then you are endorsing a type of salvation by works. You're essentially saying, “This person has been good enough to deserve Christ's forgiveness but this other person hasn't.”

At the bottom line, no one deserves God's mercy. Indeed, if it is deserved, then it's not “mercy,” is it? We all have broken God's commandments and we all are deserving of hell. The Father has made salvation available through the Son. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the one who takes away the sin of the world. Please do not mock God by saying some sin is more than His blood can cover!

God forgives sins. It doesn't matter if you don't think He should; it doesn't matter if you don't understand why. He still does. People should rejoice when they read articles like those written by the Friendly Atheist. It shows that even your sins can be forgiven. No matter how great. No matter how many. Accept Jesus now and though your sins be like scarlet, they'll be made whiter than snow. Now that's good news! Praise God!!

Genesis 38: What happened in Timnah didn’t stay in Timnah!

Genesis 38:24-26, And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. 

I know it’s been a while, but does anyone remember the commercials that said,  “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” It's a simple concept, really. The idea they're selling is that you can come to a wild town where you don't know anyone, indulge yourself in whatever you desire, and then return home like nothing happened. No one will know what you've done. At least, that's what they want you to think.

I imagine that's exactly how Judah felt in Genesis 38 when he visited Timnah. He was going there to have his sheep sheared (literally, that's not a euphemism). He might have been thinking the same things the Las Vegas commercials are promoting. He's alone in a strange town and probably thinks he can indulge himself with anonymity.

On the road leading to Timnah, Judah encounters a veiled woman. The Bible doesn't say why, but for some reason Judah believes she's a prostitute. The Bible does says she was veiled. Perhaps that was a practice among prostitutes so that they can engage in their trade while remaining anonymous. If so, isn't it curious that Judah would be aware of such a practice? I wonder if he's done this before. Anyway, Judah propositions the woman and agrees to give her a kid (a baby goat) in exchange for sex. The woman agrees but Judah wasn't traveling with a goat. Instead, he leaves some personal items with her as a sort of deposit until he can send the kid later.

Here's where it gets interesting. What Judah did not realize is that the veiled woman was his own daughter-in-law, Tamar, the widow of his late son, Er. Tamar had been waiting on the road leading to Timnah so that she could confront Judah about marrying his youngest son, Shelah. The Bible doesn't say why she agreed to Judah's advances; perhaps it was so that she could later blackmail him into letting her marry his youngest son but Tamar became pregnant as a result of her time with Judah.

Judah went on his merry way believing the elicit encounter was over and done. After all, what happens in Timnar, stays in Timnar, right? Well, some time after returning home, he found out that Tamar was pregnant. He became furious because he knew she was betrothed to his son and demanded that she be punished. Realization set it, though, when she produced the personal items that he had given her as a pledge. In modern vernacular, we might say he was “busted.” Tamar went on to deliver twins – Pharez and Zarah.

It's not hard to imagine the horror Judah felt when he learned that his supposedly discreet fling would have such public and lasting consequences. But I think not even Judah was fully aware just how enduring his shame would be. Not only are we reading about his exploits centuries later, but he and the product of his affair are immortalized in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:3, “And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;”  How sad it must be to be mentioned in the Bible not because of your devout faith, but for your complete lack of morals. What might have been a badge of honor is diminished to a source of eternal embarrassment.  

I wonder sometimes if we might act differently if we knew our dirty secrets would all be revealed. Perhaps we’d be a little more circumspect.  The idea that whenever you're in a strange place anything you do will be kept secret is a lie. Perhaps our misdeeds will not be published in the Bible but we should never suppose that they will never be known. We are warned in Numbers 32:23, “and be sure your sin will find you out.”