Term Limits?

 

Looking to term limits to reduce corruption is focusing on a symptom more than addressing the problem. The problem is lack of accountability. Due to the corrupting influence of power, whether a public official serves in the same office for one year or fifty years, corruption can be expected if a public official is not held accountable. For example, if States don't hold US Congressmen representing their State accountable we shouldn't be surprised if those delegates act contrary to the interests and welfare of their States, if the US Congress assumes powers not delegated to the US Congress by the US Constitution, if massive amounts of money go toward departments, agencies, and programs that are not constitutionally mandated, or if the US Congress fails to impeach public officials that commit crimes or violate the US Constitution.

A term limit merely limits how long we will trust a public official, and the first problem with that is we should not trust public officials, we should be holding them accountable.

The several States should be exercising the constitutional right of recall. Article 5 of the Articles of Confederation gave each State the right to recall and replace its congressmen at any time. The right of recall is not denied in the US Constitution, which means the Tenth Amendment protects the right of each State to recall and replace its congressmen.

Dinah's Mistake

“And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.” (Genesis 34:1) Dinah was likely in her early teens at this time. It does not appear that Dinah sought or obtained her parents permission or that her family was aware of what she was doing, and she put herself out of their care and protection and exposed herslf to temptations. The care of parents, especially pious parents, is an important protection for young people, especially females. Even if they have shown themselves to be responsible young adults, ignorance and inexperience can make them especially vulnerable to temptation, flattery, and seduction.

It is often assumed that Shechem abducted and raped Dinah, but the wording and context of Genesis 34:2 indicates that this was consensual fornication and not rape (E.g., consider verse 31; also note that ancient writings say there was a festival in the town of Shechem at that time. ).

Read chapter 34 of Genesis and consider a few questions: What made Shechem assume that Dinah was available to him for sexual immorality? Why did Shechem assume that Dinah would yield to his advances and why wasn't Dinah offended or resistant to Shechem's advances ("Took" in verse 2 implies that he petted or fondled her)? What made Shechem assume that Dinah's family would not be offended by his actions? Why did Hamor assume that Dinah's family would not be offended by Shechem's actions? What made Shechem assume that Dinah's family would willingly consent to let him marry her? “And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.” (Genesis 34:1) The problem was the company she kept. (Proverbs 13:20; I Corinthians 15:33)

 

Remembering Lot

 

Why did Abraham stop pleading with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah after God agreed to spare them if there be ten righteous found there? (Genesis 18:32-33) Lot lived in Sodom, and his wife and his unmarried daughters lived with him in his house. Lot also had at least two sons, at least two married daughters, and at least two sons in law living in Sodom; this amounted to at least ten people. (Genesis 19:12,14,15) But Lot was worldly and materialistic and kept close company (or fellowship) with wicked and ungodly associations. (Genesis 13:10-13; II Peter 2:7-8) What effect did this have? In a crisis Lot offered to let a mob sexually abuse his daughters, thus demonstrating a heathen attitude toward daughters. (Genesis 19:8) Lot apparently never expressed any disapproval of moral abominations until a mob wanted to abuse his angelic visitors. (Genesis 19:9) He did not witness to his sons in law until the day before the destruction. (Genesis 19:14) His younger daughters were aware and convinced of his moral weaknesses, and apparently assumed from his example that fornication is acceptable if it is heterosexual. (Genesis 19:31-32; compare Genesis 19:5-8) If Lot had followed Abraham's example there could have been at least ten righteous people in Sodom who possibly could have influenced and transformed their community and persuaded unbelievers to become believers. (Genesis 18:19)

There is a lesson here that applies to us today. What happened to traditional Christian values in modern America? The decline of western civilization was made inevitable by the decline in Christian influence. In the ecclesiastical world Bible truths and standards were disregarded or rejected as irrelevant and old-fashioned and as the ecclesiastical world compromised Bible truths and principles the secular world followed. As Christians compromised truths and values to gain the love or acceptance of the world they lost respect and influence.

Modesty & Unisex Appearance

 

Many resent the use of Deuteronomy 22:5 because it is in the Old Testament. But you cannot understand the New Testament, and you cannot rightly divide God's Word, without the Old Testament. (II Timothy 2:15; 3:16; also consider Psalm 33:11, Proverbs 19:21, I Corinthians 10, & James 1:17) Should we insist that commands against murder, rape, and theft do not apply today since those restrictions are in the Old Testament? (Incidentally, there was a time when State and federal laws required the same penalty for rape as premeditated murder because of Deuteronomy 22:26) It is no more inappropriate to use Deuteronomy 22:5 to condemn unisex appearance than it is to use Psalm 23 to preach a funeral. Regardless of prevailing trends and customs, it is important for men to look masculine and women to look feminine and for both sexes to dress decently and wear gender-appropriate clothing. (Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 2:8-10; etc.)

It is important to consider whether certain clothing is worn by the opposite sex to discern whether it is proper. Some argue that this means women cannot wear a belt or socks because men wear such things, or vice versa, but that is evading the issue. We are talking about the obvious and not some hidden or neutral item that does not have anything to do with the sex of a person. (Also, just because a certain appearance or article of clothing might be acceptable in a certain circumstance does not make it appropriate everywhere and all the time.)

Because of the popularity of the myth that male and female think and feel the same about sex, many otherwise conscientious women fail to realise the impact of their clothes and appearance. While neither gender is immune to lust, and both genders can be verbally and visually stimulated, women tend to be more verbally stimulated, and men tend to be more visually stimulated.

If you are single, you should consider what kind of relationship you hope for and what kind of person you want to attract; for obvious reasons I have never tried to catch a fish by putting deer lure on a hook. Here is another example: If a woman hopes to attract a batterer or a womanizer, then a potty mouth, loose morals, or using her body as bait make perfect sense.

Also keep in mind that if you are not trying to sell something or give it away you should not advertise it. If you wear an army uniform, it should not be a surprise if someone thinks you are a soldier. If you wear a police uniform, it should not be a surprise if someone thinks you are a cop. Likewise, if you wear the attire of an harlot it should not be a surprise if someone thinks you are immoral and making yourself available for immorality. (Proverbs 7:10)

Modesty also helps a woman avoid dangerous situations. (Please note that this is in no way saying or implying that immodest attire in anyway justifies rape or any sexual abuse. This is merely pointing out that provoking lust, even unintentionally, in weak minded and perverted men, that a woman may not recognise as such or even be aware of, is dangerous.) 

Ask yourself: What do you look like in this clothing from a distance and does it tend to attract the wrong kind of attention? Do you appear feminine or masculine? What do your clothes, appearance, and behaviour say about you? Do your clothes and appearance tend to indicate dignity and virtue? Do you focus on outward adornment at the expense of neglecting inner adornment? (I Peter 3:3-4) What are the motives behind your choice of clothes and appearance? (Romans 6:12-13; I Corinthians 10:14, 31; Titus 2:11-12) Do you find it necessary to use the arguments of the world to justify your choice of clothes and appearance? (Romans 12:2; I Corinthians 1:20; 2:5; Colossians 1:9; 2:8)

 

Food For Thought: 

 

Good Reasons for Wearing Skirts and Dresses Only

Reasons for wearing skirts and dresses

4 Reasons Why I Don’t Wear Pants

Would I Wear This in Front of Jesus?

Unisex

The Connection Between Evangelism and Gender Issues

God Can Effectively Use A Few Or One

 

Three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, maintained their integrity in spite of enormous peer pressure, religious intolerance, and threat of death. (Daniel 3:1-18) Note that Nebuchadnezzar’s words indicate some knowledge of Bible teachings that he did not learn from his pagan advisers, which implies that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego used opportunities to teach him Bible teachings. (Daniel 3:25) As a result of keeping their integrity a pagan empire was reformed, religious freedom was established for God’s people, and many unbelievers became believers. (Daniel 3:28-29) Nothing in Scripture says or implies that the same thing cannot happen today.

Daniel prayed openly in defiance of religious intolerance and threat of death and as a result of his unswerving devotion a pagan empire was reformed and many unbelievers became believers. (Daniel 6:4-26) Nothing in Scripture says or implies that the same thing cannot happen today.

One lone man, Jonah, preached repentance in the capital city of a pagan empire famous for extreme cruelty and persecution of God’s people, and as a result an entire city converted and an empire was reformed. (Jonah 3:1-10) Nothing in Scripture says or implies that the same thing cannot happen today.

 

Attention Deficit Disorder

 

Putting undisciplined behavior in the category of a disease makes it easier for liberals to condemn all corporal punishment of children. (Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15) All too often children are diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder based on little or no examination and merely because they exhibit childish attitudes or undisciplined behavior, and often in spite of any contradicting evidence (such as when a child in question demonstrates the ability to give undivided attention to a TV, video game, or phone conversation for long periods of time). Some of the studies and claims on this remind me of an episode of the "WKRP IN Cincinatti" TV show in which a psychiatrist (who turned out to be a quack) being interviewed on the air insisted that all children are mentally insane because they are childish. I do not claim expertise, nor am I attempting to diagnose anyone's child, and I also acknowledge that there are psychological maladies with a medical or biological basis. I am simply encouraging everyone to study this matter further.

The Great A.D.D. Hoax, by David Keirsey

ADHD: The Hoax Unravels, By Philip Hickey, PhD

ADHD: A Destructive Psychiatric Hoax, By Philip Hickey, PhD

 

DIFFICULTIES IN DETERMINING THE ETHNICITY OF PEOPLE IN SCRIPTURE

The ancient world did not have surnames as we use them, and people were often referred to as being in a certain category based on geography and were called by their first name and the distinguishing place of origin. (“Jesus of Nazareth” is an example.) Someone being described as “Ethiopian,” “Egyptian,” “Hittite,” “Hivite,” or “Canaanite” may tell us something about their geographic location or origin but may not tell us anything about their ethnic composition. For example, the land of Canaan was the land of the Hebrews before the Canaanites moved in, and there were Shemites (descendants of Shem) already living in the land of Canaan before the patriarchs arrived. "Canaanite" could mean a descendant of Canaan, a resident of the land of Canaan, or a merchant, depending on context, and context may not always clearly indicate which meaning applies. This and the uncertainty about which ethnic groups occupied which areas and when those ethnic groups occupied certain areas can lead one to believe an individual was a different ethnicity than what he was if one is not careful.

Consider a few examples:

·        Hagar was an Egyptian slave given to Abraham by the Pharoah of Egypt. (Genesis 12:16; 16:1) Hagar was not an ethnic Egyptian: Hagar is a Hebrew name and Egyptian slaves originated from foreign lands. (Note also that Genesis 21:21 does not say Hagar went to Egypt to get a wife for Ishmael. There were Egyptian trade routes that went through the Wilderness of Paran, which would explain how Hagar got Ishmael a wife that came from Egypt when Hagar and Ishmael lived in the Wilderness of Paran.)

·        Judah married a Shemite woman. (Genesis 38) Why does the text specify the name "Shuah," and how much evidence is there that Shuah the son of Keturah in Genesis 25:2 and Shuah in Genesis 38:2 is not the same person? (Note also that the word "daughter" can also mean granddaughter or great granddaughter. -Genesis 38:2, 12)

·        Tamar was a Shemite woman. (Genesis 38) Ancient rabbinical writings say that Tamar was a daughter of Shem (the son of Noah), who was a priest; this would explain the penalty prescribed by Judah. (Genesis 38:24; Leviticus 21:9; note that much of the Mosaic Law codified customs or practices already in vogue among Israelites. Also note that Shem was still alive when Jacob turned fifty, and it was not unknown for extremely old men to father children.)

·        Joseph's wife Asenath was the adopted daughter of Potipherah and the biological daughter of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and the biological daughter of Shechem, the prince of the town with the same name. (Genesis 41:45)

·        The Bible specifies that Zipporah was a Midianite, and then later refers to her as Ethiopian because the Midianites lived near Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Empire sometimes extended to both sides of the Red Sea. (Exodus 2:15-21; Numbers 12:1)

·        Rahab was a woman of Hebraic (probably Midianite) ancestry. Consider: The name Rahab is distinctly Hebrew and predates the Book of Joshua. (Job 9:13; 26:12) Her comprehension of, and affinity toward, the God of Israel and her ease of communication with the spies. (Joshua 2) The spies agreed to spare Rahab and her family without any reservations. (Joshua 2:12-14; Deuteronomy 7:1-3; 20:16-17. Incidentally, Rahab was not a prostitute. The Bible does not say that Rahab was an harlot, it refers to her as Rahab the harlot. Rahab was an innkeeper, it was not common for a woman to be an innkeeper, and "harlot" was a title for female innkeepers. On the town wall at or near the city gate was the normal location for an inn, and her family living with her was typical of innkeepers.)

·        Did Boaz violate the command in Deuteronomy 23:3 by marrying Ruth? Ruth was an Israelite woman. Ruth 1:15-16 does indicate that Ruth and Orpah might have come from families that worshipped pagan deities, but this does not mean they were not Israelites. Israelites often worshipped the gods of the lands that they had taken and often tried to mix the worship of Jehovah and the worship of pagan deities. The land of Moab was the first land conquered by the Israelites after wandering in the wilderness, and the Amorites had already conquered and occupied the land of Moab when the Israelites came. (Numbers 21:25, 29) The Israelites conquered the land of Moab and killed everyone there. (Deuteronomy 2:32-34) Then the Israelites advanced into the land of Ammon and killed everyone there. (Numbers 21:33-35) After the Moabites and Ammonites were killed or driven out the entire area of the Jordan river was settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and from that time onward that area was purely Israelite territory and Israelites living in the old lands of Moab and Ammon were often called Moabites or Ammonites (Consider that Anglo-Saxon Americans living in California today are called Californians, and being called Californians and living in a former Mexican territory does not make them Mexicans.). (Deuteronomy 3:12-16) Three hundred years later it was reported that the Israelites still had exclusive occupation of the lands of Moab and Ammon. (Judges 11:12-26) About one hundred and thirty years after the Israelites occupied the land of Moab, Elimelech and his wife and two sons left the land of Judah and “went to sojourn in the country of Moab,” which was occupied exclusively by the Israelites, and Elimelech’s sons married women of the country of Moab and one of them was Ruth. (Ruth 1:1-4; Numbers 21:25, 29, 31, 33-35; Deuteronomy 2:32-34; 3:12-16; 23:3; Judges 11:12-26)

·        Was Uriah born to ethnic Hittite (pagan) parents and then later in his life converted to Yahwism? Uriah “the Hittite” had a distinctly Hebrew name that means “Jehovah is my light.” (II Samuel 11:3)

·        Was the Ethiopian eunuch the first gentile convert? The Bible account does not say he was an ethnic Ethiopian and saying that he “had come to Jerusalem for to worship” implies that he was a Jew and was not a literal eunuch. (Acts 8:27; Deuteronomy 23:1) Castrated men were often important public officials who could be trusted to take care of the women’s quarters or the royal harem and other important duties. Over time the term eunuch was often an honourary title for public officials entrusted with important responsibilities, such as the royal treasury.

·        “Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.” (Acts 16:1-3) Was Timothy half-Jew and half-Greek? The word here rendered Greek can mean a Grecian or a person who speaks Greek. Hellenistic Jews were Greek-speaking natural Jews that adapted to gentile culture and neglected or forsook circumcision and other Jewish customs.