As mortal human beings, all of us realize we have a limited time on earth.  We must face physical death.  What will happen to each of us at the end of our mortal life?  Will that be the end for us, or will we have a life hereafter?  That is a question humankind has pondered through the ages, from the most primitive civilization to our complex society of today.  The many world’s religions have addressed that most basic question concerning a life after this mortal life, but let us focus now on the Christian perspective of a life hereafter.

The Bible, God’s Word, promises that we will indeed have a life hereafter, a life beyond this mortal life.  Two distinct groups of people are defined in the Bible, the saved and the lost.  The saved, or righteous, are described in Matthew 25:34-40, and the lost, or cursed, are described in Matthew 25:41-45.  Then in Matthew 25:46 (“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”) we see final destinations for both groups.  The Bible refers to the place of eternal life as Heaven and the place of everlasting punishment as Hell.

John 3:16 (For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.) defines the basic difference between saved people and lost people.  Those who are saved believe in God’s Son, Jesus Christ, whereas the lost reject Him.  The precise meaning of belief in Jesus Christ is explained in numerous Bible passages, but for me it simply means:  (1) I believe that Jesus is God’s Son and that He is able to save me from my sins;  (2) I confess my sins and trust in Jesus to forgive me;  and (3) I commit to the Lordship of Jesus in my life.

What will Heaven be like for the saved and what will Hell be like for the lost?  1 Corinthians 2:9 (But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.) tells us that the human intellect cannot imagine the peace, joy, bliss, and glory of Heaven.  In a like manner, I do not believe the human mind can fathom the terrible anguish and torment of Hell.

But, Revelation 21:3 (And I heard a great voice out of Heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.) tells us that the righteous will dwell with God in Heaven.  Thus, the very essence of Heaven is that the saved will be in God’s presence for all of eternity.  The opposite is true for the lost.  They will be separated from God forever; that is the very essence of Hell.

Herschel Hill’s book, “LOOKING TOWARD ETERNITY: A Life Hereafter?”, contains a comprehensive study of a life after this mortal life.  It is available through bookstores, amazon.com, and other internet sites.  Autographed copies can be obtained directly from the author at greatly reduced prices through this webpage.

The use of alcoholic beverages, or drinking, is a controversial issue in the Christian realm.  Some Protestant denominations, and also individual believers, cling to strong beliefs and practices regarding drinking alcoholic beverages, whereas for others it is a non-issue.  A large number of sincere Christians believe any consumption of an alcoholic drink is wrong, but other equally sincere believers are convinced that moderate drinking does not constitute a sin.  Those conflicting views have resulted in judgmental attitudes and much disharmony within the Christian community.

Does the Bible condemn moderate drinking?  The answer depends on one’s interpretation of pertinent Scripture passages, but involves two crucial questions.  1) Can limited use of alcohol be wrong for some believers but not be wrong for others?  2) Must we accept and respect the beliefs of other Christians on this controversial issue, although their views and practices may be quite different from ours?  My recent book, “PLEASING GOD:  THE JESUS AGENDA,” contains a comprehensive analysis of this contentious issue, so let us review a few conclusions from that book.

Scripture does condemn excessive use of, or addiction to, wine (alcoholic beverages).  The same is true for use of nicotine products, gambling, gluttony, or other such activities which can be harmful.  Numerous Bible passages address such excesses, including Proverbs 20:1, 23:19-21, and 23:29-32, as well as 2 Peter 2:18-19.  Those Scripture passages and others warn of the potential danger associated with consumption of alcoholic drinks.

The above passages present the use of alcohol in a negative sense, but does the Bible ever address drinking in a neutral sense, or even with a positive slant?  Scripture passages such as Ecclesiastes 2:24-25 and 9:7, Proverbs 3:9-10, Genesis 27:25, 1 Timothy 5:23, and John 2:1-11 seem to present consumption of wine as an accepted practice in the various settings and time periods of the passages cited.  Wine appears to be the beverage of choice in Biblical times, and an ample wine harvest is shown as a blessing from God in numerous Scripture passages.

The Apostle Paul refers to “disputable matters,” or grey areas, in the Book of Romans and in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.  A grey area is defined as an activity wherein it is a sin for one Christian to engage in that activity, whereas it may not be a sin for another Christian to do the same thing.  Paul’s disputable matters included Jewish dietary restrictions, eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, observing the Sabbath, partaking of wine, and other similar activities.  Possible grey areas in today’s society include moderate drinking, dancing, wearing makeup and jewelry, working on Sunday, gambling, gluttony, and other such activities.  Pertinent Scripture passages include Romans 14:1-4 and 14:5-6, 1 Corinthians 8:4-9, Romans 14:14-19 and 14:20-23, and Colossians 2:16.

Romans 14:20-23 is of particular interest:  “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.  All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone to stumble.  It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.  So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.  Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.  But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”  Consumption of wine (“eat meat or drink wine”) is included in Paul’s grey areas, and “these things” refers to all the disputable matters addressed by him in the preceding verses.  It is thus a sin for a Christian to drink if he or she regards use of alcohol as wrong.  On the other hand, if he or she considers use of alcohol to be acceptable, drinking in moderate amounts would not be a sin for that believer.  Note also that what we believe about grey areas should be kept between ourselves and God.

The primary focus of Paul’s discussion about disputable matters is on Christians’ relationships with one another, not on whether we drink or not.  We are to respect the beliefs and practices of others, not try to force our views and convictions on them, not criticize or look down on fellow believers because they have different beliefs about alcohol use, and live together in peace and harmony.  I welcome your comments about this divisive issue.

Political candidates and our government are not addressing the real needs of our country.  Warmed over promises of tax cuts for every occasion, prosperity for everyone, guaranteed education and healthcare for all, ending our nation’s energy dependence, a cleaner environment and reduced global warming, victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, and ridding our government and businesses of corruption will not suffice.  Our country desparately needs straight talk instead of mere promises and tuogh love rather than pandering to various segments of our society.

Our United States of America is in dire straits.  We are bogged down in two costly wars, our military is spread thin, our financial markets are in chaos, we are running up huge budget deficits and astronomical debts for our grandchildren, many of our citizens and the federal government are living well beyond their means, families and businesses are experiencing record bankruptcies, we are dependent on expensive foreign energy sources, tens of millions of our citizens are without health insurance and adequate healthcare, global warming is threatening our very existence, education opportunities for our youth are evaporating, comfortable retirement is out of reach for a growing number of Americans, job security is a thing of the past, poverty remains unchecked in our land, Social Security and Medicare are going broke, our society is plagued with greed and corruption, and our nation is looked on with disdain by much of the world.  All that is a testament to the failed policies of our government and the selfish attitudes of our people over the last few decades, especially during the last eight years under the Bush administration.

We Americans must demand the truth from our leaders rather than promises of better times without paying the price for them.  I am convinced that sacrifice by all of our people, including the very wealthy, is necessary if our country is to dig its way out of the huge hole we are in.  I believe also that truly patriotic Americans will be willing to make these sacrifices if they understand what is at stake.  If we are unwilling to make personal sacrifices for the good of our country, our great nation is doomed to failure.  So, whoever wins the upcoming presidential and congressional elections must step up to the plate and level with the American people.

I certainly do not have the answers for all of our nation’s problems, and we surely do not have the resources to address all of them at the same time.  That means our nation’s problems must be prioritized, with some solutions being deferred to a later date.  Our new administration and Congress must work together to bring America back from the brink of failure.  They must spell out clearly what is expected of our people.  And, we as citizens must do our part, which includes living within our means and helping those less fortunate than we are.  May our participation be freely given and may God bless our efforts.  I solicit your comments.

A culture of greed, selfishness, and arrogance in America has been exposed in the recent financial markets meltdown.  One’s success in our society is often measured by the amount of material possessions, or stuff, he or she accumulates.  The prevailing view among people of affluence is that they deserve the prosperity they enjoy.  Theirs is an attitude of:  “I worked long and hard for what I have, and I deserve to be prosperous.  Those people mired in poverty have not labored and sacrificed as I have, so they do not deserve to be well off.  Why should I give of my material possessions to help them when they are not worthy?”  That is an outlook shared by Christians and non-Christians alike, even those who claim to be obedient to the teaching of the Bible.  Is such a selfish stance justified in Scripture?

In Deuteronomy 8:7-18, we find an account of Moses’ farewell address to the Israelites as they were preparing to enter the Promised Land of Caanan after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness.  They were getting ready to enter and possess a fertile land rich with water, natural resources, and pastures, as well as orchards, vineyards, and fields planted by the Caananites.  The Lord God was granting the Israelites prosperity they had not worked for.  Moses warned them not to become proud and believe their wealth and good fortune were the result of their intelligence and their labor.  Note verses 17 and 18:  “You may say in your heart, ‘my power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.’  But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who is giving you power to make wealth.”  Christians today need also to recognize that God is the source of our good fortune.  Our power and ability to gain wealth comes from God, and we must never look down on and criticize those less fortunate.

We are told throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament to help downtrodden people in our midst.  That is one way we can obey Jesus’ commandment to love one another.

The religious right is comprised of fundamentalist social conservatives who share concerns and beliefs about controversial religious, moral, and social issues in our society.  The first major player in the social conservative movement, which was initiated about 30 years ago, was a group called the Moral Majority, headed by Jerry Falwell.  That initial group has been replaced by a larger and broader political organization referred to as the Christian Coalition, or the religious right.

They are a well-organized and cohesive group passionate about the issues and very active in pursuing their causes.  The religious right is active politically, aligning themselves with the Republican Party, and they strive to get their beliefs incorporated into our nation’s laws and government policies.  All social conservatives do not agree on a few of the issues, but they are in general agreement on most of them, and they are intolerant of people with conflicting views.

The Republican Party has embraced the religious right and incorporated their beliefs into the Party agenda.  Social conservatives and the Republican Party are united on the controversial religious, moral, and social issues prevalent in today’s society.  (1) They oppose abortion and euthanasia.  (2) They oppose homosexuality and gay marriage.  (3) They push for state-sponsored Christian prayer in our public schools.  (4) They support posting the Ten Commandments in public facilities.  (5) They push for teaching creationism, or intelligent design, in our public school science classes.  (6) They oppose the use of embryos in stem cell research.  (7) They oppose gun control and affirmative action programs.  (8) They strive for school vouchers.

The religious right votes for political candidates who are in agreement with them on hot-button issues of interest to them.  They try to force everyone to adopt, and abide by, their religious beliefs and practices.  That mixing of religion and politics, together with the religious right’s inflexible stand on the issues, has yielded bitter division in America.

Herschel Hill’s book, PLEASING GOD; THE JESUS AGENDA, contains an analysis of the role of the religious right in the political realm of our society.  It is available through bookstores, amazon.com, and other internet sites.  Autographed copies can be obtained directly from the author at reduced prices through this webpage.

Abortion rights is the most divisive and controversial issue in our society.  It is both a religious concern and a constitutional matter.  Pro-Lifers, led by the religious right, strive to make all abortions illegal by overturning the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.  On the other hand, Pro-Choice adherents maintain abortion is a private matter between a woman, her family, and her physician, protected by our Constitution.  Federal and state laws and recent court renderings place restrictions on abortions, yet the battle rages on.

The religious right, or social conservatives, claim abortion is a moral issue, but abortion is not mentioned in the Bible.  They argue that one of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not murder.” (NAS), and related passages in the Old Testament support their position on abortion.

“For thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb.  I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well.  My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth.  Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”  (Psalms 139:13-16 NAS)

Social conservatives interpret this passage in Psalm 139 to mean that the fetus in a mother’s womb is a person from the time of conception, and that taking a fetus’ life, an abortion, thus constitutes murder.

A Scripture passage in the Book of Exodus seems to support those who believe that aborting a fetus is not the same as taking a person’s life after he or she has been born.

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.  But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”  (Exodus 21:22-25 NAS)

This passage in Exodus was included in the Jewish “laws of retaliation,” the prescribed punishment for those who caused injury to others.  If an injury to a pregnant woman resulted in a miscarriage, the loss of an unborn fetus, the penalty was an amount set by the woman’s husband and approved by a judge.  But if there was any further injury to the woman, other than the miscarriage, the penalty was life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and so forth.  Clearly, the loss of the fetus was not considered to be the same as loss of the woman’s life.  The implication is that the fetus is not a person until after birth.

Neither side is willing to compromise on abortion regardless of potential Supreme Court decisions, hence resolution of the abortion issue in the foreseeable future seems unlikely.  So, what can be done to reduce the animosity and wrangling over abortion?  The fundamental reason for our nation’s high abortion rate is unwanted pregnancies, especially among young single women and teenage girls, and that is a matter we can do something about.  Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies would, in turn, reduce the number of abortions without changing laws controlling abortion.  But, how can that be accomplished?

Our young people’s attitudes toward sex are influenced primarily by the environments and cultures in which they live; they respond to what is expected of them.  Their behavior is determined to a great extent by the demands of their cultures and their perceptions of those expectations.  Changing the environments in which our young people live, together with developing more effective sex education programs, is therefore the key to modifying attitudes toward sex.

Such a huge endeavor would require the participation of parents, churches, communities, cities, states, and the federal government.  It would also require religious and political compromises, as well as judicial clarifications of constitutional concerns.  To be effective. a program to reduce unwanted pregnancies would surely encompass broad sex education classes which stress abstinence but include birth control instructions and selective distribution of contraceptives.  A key element must be honest and unbiased counseling of young women contemplating abortions and tweaking of our adoption laws and procedures.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life adherents must be willing to compromise on their rigid stands on abortion rights and be willing to work together to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.  That is certainly quite a challenge but I believe it is the most viable way to resolve the abortion rights argument in our country.

Herschel Hill’s book, PLEASING GOD: THE JESUS AGENDA, contains an in-depth look at the abortion issue as well as other controversial moral and social issues in our society.  It is available through bookstores, amazon.com, and other internet sites.  Autographed copies can be obtained directly from the author at reduced prices through this webpage.

State-sponsored prayer in public schools is a controversial issue in America today.  The religious right (social conservatives) maintains that the First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion expression, in any place at any time, even in public schools.  That interpretation enables them to justify state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, posting the Ten Commandments in government facilities, and teaching the Biblical account of creation (intelligent design) in public school science classes.  More moderate Christians and most non-Christians believe the First Amendment prohibits the outward expression of religion in such public forums because it imposes one’s religious beliefs and expressions on others.

The first part of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”, has been particularly troublesome.  The courts have consistently supported separation of church and state, interpreting the First Amendment to mean freedom of religion and freedom from religion, thus prohibiting state-sponsored prayer in public schools.  Students are permitted to pray in public schools, however, but not in a school-directed format.

Those court decisions have not stopped the religious right from pushing for state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, however, and the result is bitter wrangling and division among our citizens over that hot-button issue.  What kind of school-directed prayers do social conservatives want in our public schools?  Can they be Catholic prayers, Protestant prayers, Jewish prayers, Islam prayers, Hindu prayers, Native American prayers, or prayers of some other religion?  The religious right demands prayers of their choosing, namely Christian prayers, but all students do not come from a Christian religion.  Allowing state-sanctioned prayer in public schools would lead to teaching a particular religion or favoring one religion over another, obviously in conflict with the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The big over-riding question is, “Who is responsible for teaching religion to our children and youth?”  Is the answer parents, churches, or our public schools?  I believe the responsibility for teaching religion to our children rests on parents, churches, and private religious schools, rather than on public schools.  My view is not shared by a majority of social conservatives, however, so they continue to press for state-sponsored prayer, specifically Christian prayer, in our public schools.

Herschel Hill’s book, PLEASING GOD: THE JESUS AGENDA, contains a very comprehensive analysis of this issue, as well as analyses of similar controversial issues such as posting the Ten Commandments in government facilities and teaching creationism in public school science classes.  His book is available through bookstores, amazon.com, and other internet sites.  Autographed copies can be purchased directly from the author at reduced prices through this webpage.

The religious right claims we have “taken God out of our school,” resulting in widespread immorality and wickedness in our society.  Is that a valid claim?  Let us consider the facts as we look at our nation’s history and where we are today.

Teacher-led prayer in public schools, teaching Bible stories in the classroom, and display of religious symbols in schools have becomecontentious matters only in the last few decades.  Prior to the social conservative movement initiated by Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority some thirty years ago, few of our citizens objected to such religious trappings in public schools.  Religion was thus allowed to be a small part of our public school system, and one could rightfully say God was in our schools.  Was America a more moral, merciful, and just nation through all those early years?  After all, we had the Bible, God in our schools, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights to guide us throughout our nation’s history.

But, were our Christian forefathers moral and just as they slaughtered large numbers of Native Americans, confiscated their lands, and defaulted on numerous treaty agreements?  And, what constitutional rights did those Native Americans enjoy?  Only white male landowners could vote in the early history of our country, and it was not until 1920 that white women won the right to vote.  African Americans were not allowed to vote until after Reconstruction, and even then all kinds of rigged rules and procedures prevented most of them from voting.  Could one honestly say America was fair and just in determining who could cast a ballot?

White Christian Americans owned African American slaves until shortly after the Civil War, during the time God was in our schools.  Could we classify the cruel and inhuman treatment of those slaves as moral, merciful, and just?  The best-known white supremacist organization in our country since the Civil War is the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), made up primarily of white Christian males.  Those religious thugs terrorized African American neighborhoods throughout the deep south, burned crosses in front of people’s homes and churches, torched those same homes and churches, lynched black men, and raped black women and girls.  I would not consider the KKK’s treatment of African Americans as moral and just.

There were essentially two justice systems in our country’s early history, one for white people and one for people of color.  The judges, attorneys, and juries were all-white, and racism dictated judicils outcomes for legal proceedings involving African Americans.  Black people were convicted of crimes they did not commit, white folks were found innocent of crimes committed against black people, and African Americans’ property was confiscated or stolen through rigged legal proceedings.  That judicial oppression of black people was neither fair nor just, and it took place while God was in our schools’ classrooms.

What does America’s past tell us about our present?  Perhaps it tells us that religious trappings are not as important as what is in our hearts.  Our conduct toward others is a reflection of our internal attitudes, biases, desires, and motivations.  State-sanctioned prayer, religious symbols, and religious expressions in our public schools are merely external things which have relatively little impact on our vital relationships with others.

Our logical conclusion must be that eliminating state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, display of religious symbols in our schools, and religious expressions in the classroom has not caused all the immorality and wickedness permeating our society. Then what has?  That is an extremely difficult question best left for sociologists, but allow me to suggest a few possibilities.

Mandatory military service (the draft) was discontinued during the Viet Nam War era, relieving our young people of the patriotic obligation to serve our country.  Public television burst into our midst, exposing our youth and adults to increasing levels of violence, immorality, greed, corruption, and self-gratification.  Special-interest groups and corporations with big money and selfish interests gained control of our politicians and our government.  Greed and corruption became firmly entrenched in our way of life and in our relationships with one another.  As a people, we have become more and more self-centered.  Could all those things contribute to the decay of our society over the last few decades?

Herschel Hill’s book, PLEASING GOD: THE JESUS AGENDA, contains an in-depth discussion of the role of religion in our public schools and in the political realm of our society.  It is available through bookstores, amazon.com, and other internet sites.  It can also be purchased directly from the author at a reduced price through this webpage.

The religious right strives to include the teaching of creationism, or intelligent design, along with evolution in public school science classes.  Evolution is an established scientific theory supported by centuries of research and reams of reliable data, but creationism is a religious belief based solely on the Biblical account of creation.  A majority of our citizens consider the teaching of creationism in our public school science classes to be a mixing of science and religion.

Scripture addresses the “who” and “why” of creation, whereas science focuses on the “when” and “how.”  As a devout Christian, I believe strongly in the Biblical account of creation, however I do not believe science and the Bible are contradictory.  I do not understand just how it is, but I am convinced science and Scripture are compatible.  My view is that scientific facts, the works of God, are fully compatible with the Bible, the Word of God.  Humankind does not yet possess the knowledge to ascertain one hundred percent correlation between the Bible and valid scientific findings, but I am confident it does exist.

Herschel Hill’s book, PLEASING GOD: THE JESUS AGENDA, contains a comprehensive analysis of this issue, as well as analyses of similar controversial social issues such as school-sponsored prayer in our public schools and posting the Ten Commandments in government facilities.  His book is available through bookstores, amazon.com, and other internet sites.  Autographed copies can be purchased directly from the author at reduced prices through this webpage.

We are in the midst of a hotly contested political election, and a large number of Christians are heavily involved in partisan politics.  Millions of Email messages move across the internet each day, many of them containing innuendos, misrepresentations, outright lies, and all kinds of character assassination.  Recipients of those slanderous Email messages quite often forward them to family and friends, ultimately reaching a multitude of households.  Christians are just as guilty as non-Christians of originating and forwarding that internet “trash talk.”

All of us relish political Email messages favorable to our candidates of choice, as well as those messages critical of opposition candidates.  Committed Christians forward Emails slamming opposition candidates to family and friends without considering the truthfulness or the nature of the messages.  Their primary goal is to slander the names of candidates they dislike and slam their positions on controversial issues.

As Christians, we do not always realize that God reads all our Emails.  I am sure He is sometimes displeased with the contents of our Emails, but He is most likely displeased even more with our motivations and attitudes leading to the slanderous messages.  Most Christians feel strongly about keeping the Ten Commandments and other instructions for living presented in the Bible.  They dare not break the commandment (Exodus 20:7) pertaining to misusing the Lord’s name, or using His name in profanity.  But, do they feel as strongly about giving false testimony (lying) about someone (Exodus 20:16)?  False testimony surely includes Email lies, innuendos, and misrepresentations about political candidates.

James 2:10 tells us that anyone who stumbles at any point of the Law is guilty of breaking all of it, so who are we to say one of the Ten Commandments is more important than another?  Also, Paul instructs us in Ephesians 4:29-31 to get rid of all unwholesome talk, including slander.  My interpretation of the Bible is that any slander or untruthful message against another person is a sin, even if that person happens to be a politician.  It does not matter if we originate the message or simply forward it to someone.

A message concerning a candidate’s experience, position on an issue, age, qualifications for office, party affiliation, voting record, or financial status would not be slander provided all the information is accurate and undistorted.  Such a message represents “clean politics.”

What can Christians, and others, do to eliminate a lot of the political trash talk permeating the internet?  First, each of us can refrain from sending Emails classified as lies or slander.  Second, we can delete and not forward those Emails we cannot verify to be accurate and non-slanderous.  I believe anything less would displease God.  Third, please pass this post on to family and friends within your sphere of influence.  Just maybe, we can eliminate some of the Email political trash talk on the internet.  Thank you and God bless you and God bless America.