Bryan Hodge

Ethics: Medicine

Posted on April 30, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

There are many advantages to living in twenty-first century America. “It was not very long ago, as history is measured, when such things as oranges or cocoa were the luxuries of the rich and when it was considered an extravagance for the President of the United States to have a bathtub with running water installed in the White House. Within the twentieth century such things as automobiles, telephones, and refrigerators went from being luxuries of the rich to being common among the general population” (Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p. 47). Today, “Two-thirds of the statistically defined ‘poor’ have air conditioning, more than half own a car or truck. More than one-fourth of ‘the poor’ own two cars and/or trucks and hundreds of thousands own hands costing more than $150,000” (ibid, p. 54).

One of the amazing things about living in twenty-first century America is health/medical care. It wasn’t too long ago that it was unusual for one to keep his teeth till old age [When George Washington took office in 1789, he had only one natural tooth remaining (www.americanrevolution.org/dental)]. It wasn’t too long ago that smallpox was a dreaded disease [Dr. Edward Jenner made the first smallpox vaccination on May 14,1796 (John Tiner, Exploring The History of Medicine)]. Treatments now available were unknown to previous generations. Wonderful advancements have been made in medicine. It wasn’t too long ago, that rabies meant certain death [The year 1885, Joseph Meister became the first human being vaccinated for rabies. He escaped death (John Hudson Tiner, Exploring The History of Medicine, p. 102-106)]. Infant mortality and maternal mortality has greatly improved [CDC: “At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year. From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the maternal mortality rate declined almost 99% to less that 0.1 reported death per 1000 live births” (www.cdc.gov)].

However, medical advancements have brought ethical concerns. Let us consider some…

Use of Medical Treatment

“In the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa became diseased in his feet, and his malady was severe; yet in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but the physicians” (2 Chronicles 16:12). Does this verse suggest that it is wrong to seek the help of physicians?

Don’t overlook the context. Asa (King of Judah) had a habit of immediately turning to men for help, instead of seeking the help of God. (1) He made a treaty with Ben-Hadad (King of Syria) for protection from Baasha (King of Israel). The prophet Hanani rebuked him, “Because you have relied on the King of Syria, and have not relied on the LORD your God… therefore, from now on you shall have wars (2 Chronicles 16:7, 9). (2) He turned to physicians, and not God when sick (2 Chronicles 16:12). “It was not because Asa relied upon human means of medical treatment… it was because he turned away from God entirely in all matters” that these words appear (Eddie Whitten, The 12th Annual Denton Lectures: Studies in 1, 2 Kings and 1, 2 Chronicles, p. 421).

Keep in mind the following: (1) The Bible contains examples of the use of midwives (Genesis 35:17; 38:28; Exodus 1); (2) Jesus said that the sick are the ones who need a physician (Matt. 9:12); (3) Luke is referred to as “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14). (4) Paul instructed Timothy to turn to a physical remedy (1 Timothy 5:23).

It is not wrong to seek medical help. However, may we never get to the point that we stop relying upon God.

Use of Anesthesia

Prior to the mid-1800’s, dentists and surgeons operated with speed. Operations seldom lasted more than five minutes. A leg bone could be sawed through in a minute or less. Speed was essential due to a lack of our modern anesthetics.

Is it permissible to use chemicals to reduce, or remove pain? Consider the following: (1) God put Adam asleep before removing one of his ribs (Genesis 2:21). James Simpson (a 19th century M.D. in England) said, “Here is the first surgical operation. God Himself chose to perform it with the patient under anesthesia (Tiner, p. 55-57). (2) The Proverbs say, “Give strong drink to him who is perishing” (Proverbs 31:6). (3) Paul told Timothy, “use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Timothy 5:23). This may not be specifically speaking of anesthesia . However, it is speaking of the use of chemicals for the sake of infirmities.

Birth Control

One one hand: The relationship between a husband and wife is not restricted to reproductive purposes (Proverbs 5:15-21; 1 Corinthians 7:2-5). Couples are to continue to be together except by mutual “consent for a time, that (they) may give (themselves) to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that satan does not tempt you” (1 Corinthians 7:5).

On the other hand: There are certain considerations. (1) There is the well-being of the children to consider. God holds parents responsible for the physical and spiritual well-being of the children (1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 6:1-4). Thus, parents should not have more children than they can properly provide care. (Remember Octomom? She had eight children born following in-vitro fertilization. She had six other children, for a total of fourteen children. She had no husband. She had no means of personally supporting her children. Still, she chose to add more children. Such is wrong!). (2) There is the well-being of the wife to consider. Are additional children wise? Can the woman bear another child without serious danger to her health?

These things considered, birth control makes logical sense. Birth control has existed before modern birth control methods. Breastfeeding, for example, has been used to control family size [The average return of mense is 14 months after childbirth for breastfeeding women. Some return as late as 42 months postpartum (Wikipedia)]. Israelite women did not wean their children until age three (see A. Clark on Gen. 21:8. Also 2 Maccabees 7:27. Also 2 Chronicles 31:16). Islamic women did not wean before age two (Koran 31:14).

Some have thought birth control is sinful based upon Genesis 38:9-10. The sin of Onan was not in the general practice of birth control. His sin was in violating the Levite law. Coffman’s Commentary reads “The verbs… thus indicating, not a single act, but a long sustained purpose… Onan persistently and maliciously cheated Tamar of her legal rights.” Wesley Simons has written, “Onan wanted all the pleasure that came with the sexual act, but he did not want to give seed to his brother. The very reason for him knowing Tamar intimately was to raise up seed to his brother (2001 MSOP Lectures, p. 362) The Levirate law was also a part of Moses’ law (Deut. 25:5-10; Matt. 22:23-28). The purpose was to preserve the family inheritance and seedline.

A word on RU-486, or the ‘morning after’ pill. This pill became available in the U.S. in September, 2000. This pill is not mere birth control. It is an abortion pill. It changes the lining of the womb through hormones so that the week old embryo cannot implant. Thus, the fertilized egg dies.

IVF

Louise Joy Brown was born July 25, 1978. She was the first successfully produced child by in vitro fertilization. In vitro is Latin meaning “in glass”. The process is this: (1) Hormones are injected into the woman causing “superovulation” – the release of multiple eggs. (2) Approximately 32 hours after the injection the eggs are taken from the womb and fertilized outside the womb. (3) After two or three days the fertilized egg or eggs are returned to the woman’s womb. This process has aided many otherwise infertile couples in having children.

The ethical difficulty is this: While multiple eggs may be fertilized, not all will be implanted due to the number of fertilized eggs. The unused eggs are either discarded, or frozen indefinitely for possible future use. Either way, there is a real ethical problem if life begins at conception (and it does!).

Blood Transfusion

In 1818, Dr. James Blundell performed the first successful blood transfusion of human blood (Wikipedia). Some have wondered about the ethics of such based upon what the Bible teaches about the eating of blood [Acts 15:20; 21:25 cf (a) patriarchal Genesis 9:4. (b) Mosaic Leviticus 17:10-11; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23].

Things to remember: (1) Eating blood and receiving a blood transfusion are different. Randy Mabe explains, “Food is transformed by the process of the body into elements that energize the body. A blood transfusion simply replaces blood that has been lost… The argument is that food may be administered to the sick by way of intravenous injection… Therefore blood transfusions are food… This is fallacious because blood can only be used for food when taken through the digestive system… To illustrate… two dying people are admitted to the hospital. One is dying of malnutrition. The other has severe blood loss. Both are given blood transfusions. Which one will surely die? The one starving for food (2002 Spring Bible Lectureship, p. 248-249). (2) God has told men to “subdue the earth” (Genesis 1:28). We should wisely use what exists in the physical realm. (3) Paul speaking of the Galatians love for him said, “If possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me” (Galatians 4:15). It wasn’t possible. However, it is possible for us to give blood to save another’s life.

Organ Transplants

The first successful living-related kidney transplant occurred between identical twins in 1954. The first successful cadaveric kidney transplant occurred in 1962. The first successful lung transplant occurred in 1963. The first successful liver transplant occurred in 1967. The first successful heart transplant occurred in 1967.

Organ transplant has become fairly common. There were 25,076 organ transplants performed in the U.S.A. in 2003; However, the number on the waiting list that year was 89,012. More than 50,000 Americans were on the waiting list for kidneys, while only about 12,000 kidneys were available to be transplanted (Thomas Sowell, Applied Economics, p. 85).

Through the years, a number of xenotransplants (animal to human transplants) have occurred. In 1984 “Babe Fae” received a baboon heart. She lived only twenty days. Most xenotransplants have been disappointing. Pig-heart valves have been used in humans since 1970 with success.

What should a Christian think? (1) The basic points from “blood transfusion” should be reviewed. (2) Wayne Jackson writes, “There does not appear to be any violation of biblical truth in the utilization of either plant or animal substances for the enhancements of human health. In fact, a proper use of such things may be a part of our responsibility to ‘subdue the earth’ [(Genesis 1:28) Animal/Human organ Transplants, Reason and Revelation, Vol. XIII, No. 3, 1993].

Cloning

Cloning is a process of a-sexual reproduction that results in an exact genetic duplication of the original. It does not reproduce the same person, but it does reproduce the same genetic composition.

There are many potential benefits to cloning technology. Agricultural benefits include such things as: (1) better producing, better tasting milk cows; (2) greater grain harvest; (3) more drought resistant crops. In these areas there is no Biblical problem. God has given dominion over His creation (Genesis 1:24-26; Psalm 8:5-8).

The ethical concerns are as follows: (1) Women could reproduce without men (e.g. Lesbian couples; single women). Let us not forget that God arranged the ideal home with a husband and wife in it. (2) Clones could be created to be used for medical reasons, such as medical experimentation, Wayne Jackson has written, “Between 1932 and 1972, the United States Public Health Service, working at various times with the Alabama State Department of Health, and other agencies deliberately withheld treatment from more than 400 black men who were suffering from Syphilis. They were duped into cooperating with the health program they believed was helping them. The experiment has since been described as ‘science gone mad’” (Biblical Ethics and Modern Science, p. 30-31). Some would do similar things with the cloned. On organ harvesting – some already distinguish between “human cloning” (cloning designed to reproduce a human who lives a normal life) and “therapeutic cloning” (Cloning designed to reproduce for the purpose of harvesting body parts). Things to remember: (a) The sanctity of life (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:8-10). (b) The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12; Romans 13:8-10).

Stem Cells

Every cell in your body contains information for every other body part. However, cells specialize. For example: There are blood cells, skin cells, muscle cells, and bone cells.

A stem cell is a cell which hasn’t specialized. It can still be used for any body part, tissue or organ.

Scientists are interested in stem cells for their potential medical benefits. They could be used to re-grow brain tissue. They could be used to regenerate skin in treating burns. They could be used to re-grow the heart muscles following a heart attack. They could be used to make new corneas.

Stem cells can be gathered from: (1) Fetus being aborted. (2) “Extra embryos” from IVF. (3) Umbilical cord blood. (4) Adult bone marrow. (5) Adult body tissue that has been stressed via chemicals, or radiation (such stress call cause a cell to return to on unspecified state). Globs of fat recovered from liposuction can be easily returned to an unspecified stem-cell state.

The use of stem cells have already benefited some. “Umbilical cord blood (UCB) stem cells have restored felling and some mobility to a woman who had been paralyzed with a spinal cord injury for 19 years (Wesley Smith, Umbilical Accord, The Weekly Standard, Dec. 12, 2005). “Based on the published science there are 72 maladies for which human patients have received some benefit from adult stem cells or Umbilical cord blood interventions. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have yet to demonstrate any human therapeutic use” (Wesley Smith, The Great Stem Cell Coverup, The Weekly Standard, Aug. 7, 2006).

Medically, there is difficulties still with embryonic stem cell use. They cause “dangerous tumors” (Wesley Smith, 2005). “They seem to be too flexible. They can’t be controlled. There’s a tendency to grow into a cancerous mass” (Stuart Shepherd, Stem Cells Found in Adult Blood quoting from David O’Steen of the National Right to Life Committee. This article was ran in my May 17, 2002 bulletin).

Ethically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the use of stem cells gathered from numbers three, four or five on our source list. However, not all are content to being confined to these options. This is the case because: (1) The use of numbers one and two from our source list would greatly increase supply. (2) Some believe that embryonic stems will eventually prove to be more versatile, and flexible in their use.

Ethically the first two sources are a problem if life begins at conception. And it does!

Posted in Abortion, Ethics, science, Stats, Technology | Tagged 2 Chronicles 16, Abortion, anesthesia, asa, baby fae, birth control, blacks, blood, blood transfusion, breast feeding, cdc, cloning, edward jenner, ethics, george washington, invitro fertilization, IVF, james blundell, james simpson, Jehovah Witnesses, joseph meister, louise joy brown, medicine, midwife, morning after pill, onan, organ transplant, physican, poverty, rabies, RU-486, science, science gone mad, small pox, stem cells, syphilis, technology, the poor, the weekly standard, thomas sowell, weaning child | 2 Comments

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 5)

Posted on April 28, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

America is rare. Few countries in the history of the world have afforded so much opportunity to its citizens to select its leaders. This brings much responsibility. It is said that a lady asked Benjamin Franklin “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” The response, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” James A. Garfield said, “People are responsible for the character of Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities… If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.” The Bible reads, “unto whomsoever much is given of him shall be much required (Luke 12:48b).

Principles by which to vote.

1. Character does matter.

God’s instructions in selecting Israel’s judges: “You shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…” (Exodus 18:21).

God’s instructions in selecting church leaders: (a) Elders—“not a novice” (1 Timothy 3:6). (b) Deacons—“let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless” (1 Timothy 3:10). Both of these verses teach that God wanted these men to have a proven track record.

2. Respect for God should be considered.

God’s instructions in selecting Israel’s judges: “You shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God…” (Exodus 18:21).

We should want leaders who understand that they are accountable to a higher power, the Almighty God. This accountability is emphasized in the Biblical record: Exodus 23:6-7, “You shall not pervert the judgment of your peer in his dispute. Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and the righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.” 2 Chronicles 19:6-7, “take heed to what you are doing for you do not judge for men but for the Lord… Now therefore, let the fear of the Lord be upon you…” Psalm 82 reminds judges that one day they will themselves be judged. All men, small and great, are accountable to Him (Revelation 20:12).

3. Desire for and discernment of truth is important.

A good leader will not surround himself with sycophants (“yes men”) who will tell him only what he wants to hear. “Righteous lips are the delight of kings, and they love him who speaks what is right” (Proverbs 16:13). “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Proverbs 27:6; also see, Proverbs 26:28; 29:12).

4. One should care for the poor and weak of society.

David said of Solomon, “He will judge Your people with righteousness, And Your poor with justice… He will bring justice to the poor of the people. He will save the children of the needy, And will break in pieces the oppressor… For He will deliver the needy when he cries, The poor also, and him who has no helper. He will spare the poor and needy, And will save the soul of the needy” (Psalm 72:2, 4, 12, 13). Also read, Psalm 82:2-4.

5. Judges should be fair.

Judges should not favor the rich over the poor, or the poor over the rich (Exodus 23:3, 6; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 16:18-19; Psalm 82:2-4). Judges should “judge righteously” (Proverbs 31:9). “The idea of impartiality in the law, exemplified by statutes of justice blindfolded, implies that particular results for particular individuals and groups are to be disregarded when dispensing justice…… (It should not say B.H.) ‘First tell me who you are and then I’ll tell you what your rights are’” (Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p. 186).

Judges should not take bribes (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19; 1 Samuel 8:1-3, 12:3; 2 Chronicles 9:6-7; Proverbs 17:23; Isaiah 5:23; 33:14-15; Amos 5:12), neither should other officials (Proverbs 29:4). The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) should be applied.

6. Law-makers should make just laws.

Laws should be made for the good of society (Romans 13:4) and not for some self-serving interest, or to commit legal robbery (Isaiah 10:1-2 cf. Matthew 7:12).

7. The Government should protect its citizens.

Concerning the kings of old: (a) David said, “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land” (Psalm 101:8 ESV). (b) Solomon would, “Save the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight” (Psalm 72:13-14 ESV). (c) “A wise king winnows the wicked and drives the wheel over them” (Proverbs 20:26 ESV cf. 20:8).

Government is to be “God’s minister to you for good … an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Rev. 13:4). While it is true that it may not be feasible or even possible to make laws against every sin, governments should be striving to protect citizens against violence and molestation.

8. It’s not “the economy stupid”.

The economy should not be all that matters. The physical conditions of Israel improved under Jeroboam II, yet God wasn’t impressed (2 Kings 14:23-29). The Bible records “he did evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Kings 14:223-24). Mussolini made the trains run on time. Is such all that matters? “Better is a little with righteousness, Than vast revenues without justice” (Proverbs 16:8).

Having said this, a good ruler will consider economic issues. It was a burdensome tax rate that led to a revolt in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12). Unwise economic policies hurt people. Millions have even died because of such.

9. Does the candidate value God’s design for the home?

God designed the home (Genesis 1-2). It was set up with one man and one woman.

There is an all out assault against God’s plan occurring today. Some would redefine marriage to include two of the same-sex. If this is allowed, then polygamy will not be far behind. There are some advocating group marriages .

10. Does the candidate value the sanctity of life?

The ethics of abortion and euthanasia were earlier studied. The position of our politicians on those issues could become much more important under a national health care plan.

11. How does the candidate view man’s relationship to the environment?

Does this one understand that we are to be good stewards? Does this one understand that God has given man dominion and use of His creation? Does this one understand that man is superior to animal? These are questions to ask.

12. Reflect upon the following passages:

(a) “When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice: but when the wicked bear rule, the people moan” (Proverbs 29:2).

(b) “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).

Don’t leave God behind at the polls.

Posted in Ethics, Government, stewardship | Tagged benjamin franklin, book the quest for cosmic justice, bribes, character matters, citizenship, economy, environment, ethics, government, james garfield, judge justly, just laws, leaders, mussolini, protect citizens, punish wicked, sanctity of life, stewardship, sycophants, the home, thomas sowell, vote, weak of society | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 4)

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

This world is filled with evil, and it can be a very dangerous place. April 04, 1965: U.P.I. reported, “For the past 5,500 years, the world has known only some 300 years of peace. Since 3,600 B.C, there have been more than 14,000 large and small wars in which 3.5 billion people have been killed” (Alan Isbell, War and Conscience, p. viii). Do governments have the right, even the duty, to protect their citizens from violence and molestation?

Pre-Moses

Genesis 14: A confederation of kings from the east invaded the area around the Salt Sea. Goods were plundered. Lot, Abram’s nephew, was abducted along with others. Abram took 318 of his servants (14:14), and certain allies (14:13 cf. 14:24) and went after these invading kings. An attack was made by night. Lot was liberated and the goods regained (14:13-16). In this case, a righteous man took military action against aggressors.

Moses

Self-defense: “If the thief is found breaking in and is so struck that he dies, there shall be no blood quilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him there shall be blood quilt for him” (Exodus 22:2-3a ESV). The E.S.V. Study Bible comments, “This condition distinguishes between what is permissible retaliation when a thief is caught breaking in during the night (v. 2) vs. during the day (v. 3). The stipulation protects both the one who is surprised by a thief at night (v. 2) and the thief himself, who could be identified during the day and should be brought to the judges for punishment (vv. 3b-4). It is evident that the law of Moses recognized the right of a man to defend himself and his property with force, even with deadly force under certain circumstances.

The death penalty was a part of the law [see Ethics: Government/Citizenship (Part 3)]. Robert Morey has written, “If five men acting in a group murder one victim, all five deserve to die. The death penalty can thus be legitimately applied to armies which are invading, raping, robbing, beating, and killing. It makes no difference in principle whether an army or an individual is guilty… Once we admit the justice of killing a murderer for his crimes, then, in principle, we will have to admit the justice of destroying an entire army” (When is it Right to Fight, p. 22).

All is not fair in love and war. [Let’s dismiss the war the Israelites were to carry on with the Canaanites (God ordered the Israelites to be his instrument of wrath on the Canaanite people, much as the Great Flood was upon the ancient world)]. Here was God’s rules of warfare for the Israelites: (1) Cities (with the exception of the Canaanites) were to be provided opportunity to surrender (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). (2) There was to be no scorched earth policy (Deuteronomy 20:19-20). Moreover, we know that unjust practices were frowned upon by God earlier in history (Genesis 34:6-30a cf. 49:5-7): (a) Shechem alone was guilty, not the entire people. (b) They lied to those people.

God at times instructed the children of Israel to go to war, even against non-Canaanites (see Judges 20:18, 23, 28). God could never order what is intrinsically immoral. Therefore, war itself must not be intrinsically immoral.

New Covenant

Acts 23: A band of more than 40 Jews conspired to assassinate Paul. They vowed that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul (Acts 23:11-15). Some way, this plot became known to Paul’s nephew ([(Acts 23:16). Was this discovery by God’s providence? List of plots discovered in the book of Acts: (1) Acts 9:23-24; (2) Acts 14:5-6; (3) Acts 20:3; (4) Acts 23:16-ff; (5) Acts 27:30-31]. Paul appealed to the government for protection (Acts 23:17-22). A change of venue occurred. A total of 470 men were involved in moving Paul [(Acts 23:23). This included: (1) 200 foot soldiers; (2) 70 horsemen; and (3) 200 spearmen]. All of these men escorted Paul out of Jerusalem and for a distance of about 40 miles to Antipatris. The 70 horsemen continued on escorting Paul another 26 miles to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-25).

Paul also recognized the government’s right to wield the sword (Romans 13:4). It’s to be an instrument “for good” (Romans 13:4). This passage is not dealing with the subject of war. However, it does indicate the government’s right to use force to keep peace and protect citizens.

Three Views

1. Some believe that the use of force is unauthorized. They believe that God uses modern governments, just as He did Nebuchadnezzar, without approving of their deeds. It is true that such is the case with Nebuchadnezzar (Habakkuk 1:5-11; Jeremiah 25:9 cf. 25:12). However, nothing in the context of Romans 13 indicates that what the government does is evil.

2. Some believe that the use of force is authorized for the government, but not for the Christian. The difficulty with this view is amenability. Aren’t all amenable to the same standard? This setting of the government on one side and Christians on another seems difficult to argue. The Bible is filled with examples of righteous men and women working in government: (1) Patriarchy—(a) Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18); (b) Joseph (Genesis 41:41-ff; Acts 7:10). (2) Mosaic System—(a) Daniel (Daniel 6:1-3); (b) Esther (Esther 2:17; 4:13); (c) Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:11b-ff; 5:14). (3) New Covenant—(a) Erastus (Romans 16:23): (b) There is nothing said about a centurion or a jailor being told to leave their jobs (Acts 10-11, 16).

3. Some believe that the government is authorized to use force, and that the Christian may be a part of this. All men are amenable to the same standard of God.

Thoughts

1. We are to be a peace-loving people. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you. Live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). Also read, Hebrews 12:14; Matthew 5:9.

2. We are to be long-suffering. “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:39). Slapping one on the face does not represent a life-threatening situation, or even, necessarily bodily injury. Robert Morey writes, “Jesus specifically referred to the right check as being slapped instead of the left cheek because the slap of the right cheek by the back of the left hand was a personal insult and not an act of violence done in context of war. Slapping the right check was not a life-threatening attack. It was a personal insult, like spitting in someone’s fact” (p. 45).

3. As Christians, people who want to please God, we should be very careful in what we involve ourselves. Some wars involve a clear evil aggressor and an innocent people. Many other wars involve murky situations, and circumstances in which it is not so easy to discern the good guy from the bad guy. Moreover, one’s own countries propaganda and the truth may be two different things. We should: (a) Be cautious about putting ourselves under another’s control (1 Corinthians 7:21-23); (b) Not violate our conscience (Romans 14:23).

4. Governments should protect their people. This means bearing the sword. John F. Kennedy said, “We dare not tempt them with weakness” (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 256).

Posted in Ethics, Government, Stats | Tagged abraham, Acts 23, can christian serve in government, can christian serve in military, citizenship, daniel, death penalty, erastus, esther, ethics, Exodus 22, Genesis 14, government, john f. kennedy, joseph, Matthew 5, melchizedek, number of years with no war, paul, Romans 12, Romans 13, self defense, thomas sowell, turn other cheek, war | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 3)

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Governments pass laws. Ideally, the purpose of these laws should be for society to have greater peace, protection, and order. Some of these laws concern non-Biblical issues (example: traffic laws). Such laws, when passed, do become laws which God expects us to follow (Romans 13:1-2; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17). Other laws concern matters on which the Bible also directly speaks (example: murder).

Governments are authorized by God to punish those who violate their laws (Romans 13:1-ff; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Thomas Hobbes has listed five categories of punishment used by man: (1) Corporal—that is, bodily punishment. This includes capital punishment. The word capital has to do with the head being removed. It has been more generally used for the death penalty, no mater the method of death. (2) Pecuniary—that is, the deprivation of a sum of money, or property. (3) Ignominy—that is, the removal of badges, titles, offices and the like. (4) Imprisonment—that is, deprivation of freedom of movement, the restriction of movement. (5) Exile—that is, forced departure out of the land, or a portion of it. (Leviathan, chapter 28). Governments have historically used all of these methods to punish lawbreakers. Capital punishment has been used to punish violators of the most serious of crimes.

Many governments no longer use capital punishment. Wikipedia indicates that: “58 countries maintain the death penalty in both law and practice; 95 have abolished it; 9 retain it for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as in time of war); 35 permit its use for ordinary crimes, but have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions or is under a moratorium.” Thirteen states/territories in the U.S.A. are without the death penalty option: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia is also without this option (www.clarkprosecutor.org. This list is as of April 1, 2008).

What should the Christian think about the death penalty? What does the Bible say on this subject, and particularly, what does the New Covenant say?

1. The Old Covenant prescribed the death penalty for 23 offenses. Let’s divide these offenses into the following broad categories: [A.] Serious crimes against others—(1) murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16-21); (2) rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). (3) kidnapping (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7); (4) False testimony that could result in the death of another (Deuteronomy 19:16-19); (5) Striking or cursing parents (Exodus 21:15; Leviticus 20:9). [B.] Reckless or negligent behavior resulting in death—(1) home owners negligence (Deuteronomy 20:8); (2) animal owners negligence (Exodus 21:29); (3) causing miscarriage (Exodus 21:22-25). [C.] Sexual sins—(1) adultery (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:22). (2) pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:14-21; Lev. 21:9); (3) incest (Leviticus 18:16-17; 20:11-12); (4) homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). (5) bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16). [D.] Religious Sins—(1) human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2); (2) sacrifice unto false gods (Exodus 22:26). (3) false prophesy (Deuteronomy 13:1-8; 18:20); (4) divination/witchcraft (Exodus 22:18: Leviticus 19:20, 31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14); (5) violating the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36); (6) unauthorized individuals touching the holy furnishings of the temple (Numbers 4:15); (7) drunkenness of a priest (Leviticus 10:8-9); (8) blasphemy of God (Leviticus 24:10-16, 23). [E.] Presumptuous rebellion against authority—(1) against priest (Deuteronomy 17:12); (2) against parents accompanied with living as a glutton and drunkard (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Moreover, it was not just the nation of Israel. Jesus recognized the authority of Rome to execute (Jn. 19:10-11).

There are some things we can learn, and some things we cannot learn from the first point. We can learn that God is not intrinsically opposed to the death penalty. We cannot, however, learn whether or not governments are so authorized under the New Covenant.

2. The New Covenant authorizes governments to use the death penalty. Consider the following passages: [A.] Acts 25:13-19. (1) Paul recognized the authority of Roman officials to judge saying, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged” (25:10a). (2) He implied that there were things worthy of the death penalty, and that the government had such authority to execute. He said, “If I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying” (25:11a). (3) He again recognized Rome’s authority by saying “but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me … I appeal to Caesar” (25:11b). [B.] Romans 13:1-5. We’re instructed to be subject to governing authorities. Paul explained, “he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (13:4). Swords are not mere switches or rulers which smart. Swords kill!

Questions.

1. Doesn’t the Bible say that we are not to kill? Yes, it does (Exodus 20:13; Matthew 5:21-22; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:15). Brother Kerry Duke has written, “The Decalogue warned, “You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13), yet the law required the death penalty (Exodus 21:12-17; Leviticus 20:1-21). In fact, divine authorization for capital punishment was given before Moses … (Genesis 9:6)… A common approach to reconciling these passages emphasizes the distinction between the English words ‘kill’ and ‘murder’ … An examination of Hebrew words and phrases denoting the taking of life, however, reveals the weakness of this argument… At least four categories of taking human life emerge from the Old Testament teaching: (1) the intentional, malicious taking of human life (Numbers 35:20-21); (2) the unpremeditated taking of human life, perhaps from a fight (Numbers 35:22-23); (3) the accidental causing of death (Deuteronomy 19:4-6). (4) The intentional infliction of death as a deserved form of punishment… (Deuteronomy 21:22). The killing involved in the first type is the act prohibited in the Decalogue. The other three types qualify the application of this prohibition. Also, the second and third type qualifies the application of the death penalty, since this punishment was not ordered in cases of unpremeditated or accidental killing” (ox in the Ditch, p. 26-28). This same qualifying principle must be in place in the New Covenant.

2. Does the death penalty really deter? (a) God indicates that it does (Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:13; 21:21). (b) American statistics do not seem to indicate that it does. However, this may be due to the fact that very few criminals, even murderers are actually executed, and of those who are the process is very slow (Eccl. 8:11). Numbers: in 2004 there were 16,137 murders/non-negligent manslaughters in the U.S.A. 62.6% of these cases were cleared, or 10,102 (askyahoo.com). That same year there were only 59 executions (www.deathinfo.org). Only 2% of those on death row are executed each year (Freakonomics). (c) It should also be remembered that retribution is also a goal not just deterrence (Romans 13:4).

3. Isn’t life in prison a worse punishment than the death penalty? Ann Coulter has written, “Evidently not to the murderers on death row who regularly fight their executions tooth and nail” (Godless, p.27).

4. What if the wrong man were convicted? It no doubt has happened. Example: Charles Hudspeth was executed in 1892 for killing George Watkins. Watkins had disappeared. Watkin’s wife, Rebecca, was romantically involved with Hudspeth and testified that Hudspeth had murdered her husband to clear the way for them. Nearly a year after Hudspeth was executed, Watkin’s reappeared (www.bogley.com). The story reminds us that a high standard of proof needs to be required before using the death penalty. It does not mean that it should never be used.

Posted in Ethics, Government, Stats | Tagged Acts 25, ann coulter, charles hudspeth, citizenship, death penalty, ethics, george watkins, government, killing, life, murder, old testement list for death penalty, qualifying passages, rebecca watkins, Romans13, stats, stephen dubner, steven levitt, thomas hobbs, types of punishment | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 2)

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Man living in what John Locke has described as “the State of Nature,” that is man living without earthly government has great freedom. He is amenable to God’s law. He, in certain relationships, is to be in subjection to others: (1) Children to parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20). This is an involuntarily entered relationship as far as the children are concerned. This subjection is to continue until the leaving (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Galatians 4:1-2). (2) Wives to their own husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-ff). This is a voluntarily entered relationship. The subjection is to continue as long as the marriage continues, ideally for life (Romans 7:2 cf. Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). (3) Employees to employers (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25). This subjection should continue so long as this relationship exits. (4) Church members to the eldership of the local church (Hebrews 13:7, 17; 1 Peter 5:5a). Moreover, (5) all are to have a humble, submissive spirit one toward another (1 Peter 5:5b). However, He is not subject to the laws of an earthly government.

Societies form and earthly governments develop for protection, order and mutual benefit. Man living under earthly government gives up some of his freedom for these benefits.

Citizens’ and Residents Responsibilities

1. Submit.

We are to live submissively under the government’s authority. Consider the following words: (a) “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men” (Titus 3:1-2). (b) “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to the governors … for this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men… Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God.Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17). Watch the fact that different levels of government are mentioned in this passage. (c) “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities of God, and those who resist will bring punishment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2).

What if I do not like a law? The general rule is that we are to submit to the government. My personal dislike of a law is not, in itself, justification for my disregarding of that law.

Are there any exceptions? There are two exceptions to this general rule: (1) When the government orders me to do what God does not want me to do, then I am not to submit myself to the government. (2) When the government forbids me to do what God wants me to do, then I am not to submit myself to the government (Acts 4:19; 5:29). The reason for this is sometimes explained that God’s law is higher than man’s law. Therefore, if the two are in conflict, we should follow God’s law. Brother, Kerry Duke has offered this—“The appeal to a higher/lower law distinction … ignores the fact that obedience to rulers is a part of God’s law… (The real answer is) Rulers have no right to contest any item of divine legislation. When they do so, they have overstepped the bounds of delegated authority. (However) As long as they operate within the confines of this realm, they function as agents of God” (ox in the Ditch, p. 83-84). All authority resides with God. He has given government certain authority. When they do things contrary to His authority, they are claiming power He has not given them.

2. Obey the King.

We should understand from where authority comes (see the last paragraph under the previous point). Jesus has all authority (Matthew 28:18; John 17:2a). He is “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16).

Earthly governments typically have layers of officials (I Peter 2:13-14). The lesser official has delegated authority from the greater authority. The lesser authority is subject to the greater. The United States of America has no human being as king. However, we do have a Constitution to which earthly officials are subject. The Constitution serves as “king.” The officials in the government have overstepped their bounds if they operate plainly outside the authority the Constitution gives them. However, as Christians we are to “bend over backwards” to live peaceably. We are to “pursue peace” (Hebrew 12:14). “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). We are to “go the second mile” (Matthew 5:41).

One other thought, just because something is not listed as criminal behavior by an earthly government does not necessarily mean that it is not sinful. Earthly governments pass laws to maintain peace, safety, and order. They, likely, will not criminalize all sinful behavior. Such would not be practical or feasible. Moreover, God’s law concerns itself with not just external behavior, but also internal thoughts. John Quincy Adams remarked, “Human legislators can undertake only to prescribe the actions of man … the Legislator gave them rules not only for action but for the government of the heart” (David Barton, Original Intent, p. 327).

3. Pay Taxes.

The government is funded by tax revenue. We’re instructed in God’s word to pay the taxes we owe to the government. Consider: (a) “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:7). Note: The first word is a general term; the second word refers more specifically to taxes on imports and exports. (b) “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). The word “therefore” connects these words with the previous stated fact that Caesar’s image was stamped on the coins they were using. Healthy economies have a universally recognized and trusted system of exchange. Jesus’ point was that they were using Roman coins and thus they should pay taxes. If you accept government services, then shouldn’t you pay taxes? However, watch the words “… and to God the things that are God’s.” Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9). He created us. We belong to Him. We owe Him far more than we owe earthly governments. We owe Him our very being. “All things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16).

What if the government is corrupt? (Please, tell me what government isn’t in some way!). The ESV Study Bible contains this comment on Romans 13:6-7: “Christians must not refuse to pay taxes simply because they think some of the money is used unjustly, for the Roman Empire surely did not use all of its money for godly purposes!” God will judge government leaders for any corrupt use of tax revenue. However, we are to pay our taxes. I find no biblically justified exceptions. If things get so bad that one can’t in good conscience support the government, then maybe it is time to renounce citizenship and remove to another’s jurisdiction (many emigrated from Nazi Germany for this very reason).

4. Prayer.

Christians are instructed to pray for government officials (1 Timothy 2:1-2 cf. Jeremiah 29:4-7). The reasons we are to pray for the government rulers are mentioned: (1) “that we may live a quiet and peaceable life” (1 Timothy 2:2). The Jews of old were instructed to pray for Babylon while in Babylon “for in its peace, you will have peace” (Jeremiah 29:7). Christian’s prayer is not primarily about “the good of the human ruler, but the Christian subjects” (David Lipscomb, Civil Government, p. 80). (2) God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Timothy 2:4). We’re praying for an environment which provides maximum opportunities to preach the gospel.

5. Honor.

We’re to honor and respect government officials for their position (1 Peter 2:17; Romans 13:7). Men of old knelt and bowed before kings and those in great authority (Genesis 37:7, 10; 41:42-43; 43:28; Mt. 27:39). We do not have a human king. We do not bow before our government officials in this country. However, we are to respect their position. We don’t want to be among those who “reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.” (Jude 8)

6. Motives.

Why should we so behave? (1) Such behavior gives us a clear conscience before God (Rom. 13:5 cf. 13:2). (2) Such behavior avoids wrath (Romans 13:2, 4-5). (3) Such behavior properly represents Christianity (1 Peter 2:14 cf. 2:12-14).

Posted in Ethics, Government | Tagged citizen and residence responsibility, citizenship, david barton, ethics, government, honor, john lock, john quincy adams, obey, prayer, residence, state of nature, submit, taxes | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 1)

Posted on April 20, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Man could live without earthly governments. It likely would be chaotic. John Locke has written, “Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them is properly the State of Nature. But force, or a declared design of forces upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the State of War” (Two Treaties of Government 2:19:5-10). Perhaps, it is this chaotic situation which is hinted at with the words “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” [(Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) Note: For ‘an alternative view of this wording ask For B. H. bulletin Oct. 23, 2005].

Societies form and government develops for protection and mutual benefit. Thomas Hobbs has written, “The introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life” (Leviathan, p. 129). John Locke said that civil society was formed by men “for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another” (2:95:1-10).

God has authorized the formation of governments. Ancient Israel is unique. God, Himself, established Israel. However, it is clear that He approves of the existence of other earthly governments (Matthew 22:16-21; Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17).

Government Responsibilities

1. Protect and Defend.

Society collectively, and individuals, especially the weak and vulnerable need to be protected. The old covenant said of a righteous king, “He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight” (Psalm 72:13-14 ESV). Earthly judges were told “Give justice to the weak and fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4 ESV). The proper role of government is to be “God’s minister to you for good … an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4). Though, history is full of examples of governments abusing power, the government should not be “a terror to good works, but to evil” (Romans 13:3 cf. 1 Peter 2:13-14).

Included under this first point could be included the idea of caring for the general welfare. Remember Joseph’s roll down in Egypt (Genesis 41-ff).

2. Punish.

Laws not backed up by the teeth of law enforcement, and the punishment of violators will not be respected by most. God has given teeth to the government. God has authorized governments not only to make laws, but to enforce those laws, and to punish those who violate those laws (Romans 13:1-ff; 1 Peter 2:13-14).

Wise governments: (a) Punish unlawful actions (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Montesquieu has written, “A certain Marsyas dreamed he cut the throat of Dionysius. Dionysius had him put to death, saying that Marsyas would not have dreamed it at night if he had not thought it during the day. This was a great tyranny: for, even if he had thought it, he had not attempted it. Laws are charged with punishing only external actions” (The Spirit of The Law, 12:11). (b) Have high level of proof required before convicting anyone [(Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:5; Mt. 18:6; 1 Timothy 5:19, 22 cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21) Note: Evidence can be considered a “witness” see—John 5:31-36; 1 John 5:9; 2 Peter 1:18-19]. (c) Practices Lex Talionis, that is they punish according to the crime (Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21; Also—Luke 12:42-48).

Interesting observation: under the old covenant, if a city did not see that justice was done in a murder case, then guilt was upon the city leaders (watch the words “put away the guilt of innocent blood”: Deuteronomy 21:1-9 cf. Numbers 35:31-34; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:11-13; 1 Kings 2:31). The punishment of a murderer was not optional. It was duty.

Note: The issue of the death penalty will not be dealt with in this article. It will be a part of this series in a later article.

3. Make Just Laws.

Many examples could be given of oppressive, unjust legislation. Montesquieu wrote “The Carthaginians, in order to make the Sardinians and the Corsicans more dependent, prohibited them from planting, sowing, or doing anything of the like on the penalty of death; they sent them their food from Africa” (book 21).

The Bible speaks of those who misused their position in the government. Israel’s lawmakers were rebuked “woe to those who declare unrighteous decrees, who write misfortune, which they have prescribed to rob the needy of justice, and to take what is right from the poor of My people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless” (Isaiah 10:1-2). They had made laws so they could “legally” rob people of their possessions. Others make laws, and pass judgments for bribes. Notice—“The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes overthrows it” (Proverbs 29:4). Numerous passages speak against taking bribes (Deuteronomy 16:18-19); 1 Samuel 8:1-3; 12:3; Isaiah 5:23; 10:1-2; 33:14-15; Amos 5:12).

Lawmakers should not make laws to receive gifts from special interest groups, or to “legally” rob someone. Such behavior violates the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), and their God ordained role as “ministers to you for good” (Romans 13:4).

4. Impartiality.

The law should be applied fairly to all. The judges of old were told, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor hand the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15; Also—Exodus 23:3; Deuteronomy 16:19; 2 Chronicles 19:6-7). They were admonished, “Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but the Lord…” (2 Chronicles 19:6). Jesus’ Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) demands impartial judgment.

Posted in Ethics, Government | Tagged citizebship, ethics, government, government's responsibility, john locke, just laws, justice, montesquieu, punishment, state of nature, thomas hobbs | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 4)

Posted on April 18, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

This is the final part on race and prejudice. In this article, we will deal with a couple of points left untouched to this point…

One Race

The term “race” can be used to mean different things. It can mean: “(1) A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. (2) A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality or geographic distribution: the German race. (3) A genealogical lineage. (4) Humans considered as a group (www. thefreedictionary.com). There is only one human race, if we use definition number three and four.

The Bible affirms a common lineage. (1) The name “Eve” means “life”. She was so named “because she was the mother of all living” [(Genesis 3:20) Note: This is said in prospect, a figure of speech known as prolepsis, much like the name “Abraham” cf. Genesis 17:5]. (2) God “made from (lit. “out of“, ek) one [(the work is masculine gender and is thus rendered “one man” by the ESV). Note: Some manuscripts read “one blood”. Adam Clark, “Often used by the best writers for race, stock, kindred: So Homer, Iliad, vi. ver. 211… So Virgil AEn. viii. ver. 142…], every nation.

Is such possible? Is it possible that all the genetic variety which exists today among humanity could have come from some common ancestry? Absolutely! Wonderful, detailed material on this point can be found in the book The Truth About Human Origins by Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson (Chapter 9: The Problem of Skin Color and Blood Types, pp. 429-462), and in briefer detail in the book Convicted by Brad Harrub [Chapter 13: Where Did Man Come From? (part 2), pp. 199-200]. Here is a summary of their color – (a) If Adam and Eve had only dominated genes (AABB), they would have been dark colored, and would have produced only dark skinned offspring. (b) If they had only recessive genes (aabb), they would have been light skinned, and would have produced only light-skinned offspring. (c) “If Adam and Eve had been ‘heterozygous (AaBb; two dominate, two recessive genes), they would have been middle – brown in color. And from them – in one generation – racial difference could have occurred” (The Truth About Human Origins p. 445). (2) Concerning blood type, they write “The variations that we see in blood types fit easily into the biblical account, once we understand the possibilities. From the four phenotypic blood groups (A, B, AB and O), there are six possible genotypes: AA, AO, BB, BO, AB, OO. No medical difference exists between AA, and AO; both are considered type ‘A,’ and behave the same. In similar manner, there is no significance to BB or BO; they are classified as type “B.” Types ‘A’ and ‘B’ are said to be co-dominate. That is, they take precedence over ‘O’ if it is also present… so if mother and father are types AO and BO, then the blood type of their offspring can be: A, B, AB, or O… If Adam was type AO and Eve was type BO, then all four blood types would be possible in their offspring” (ibid, p. 458).

Caution

We should not be rash in concluding that an action or decision is due to racism, misogyny, or discrimination against the poor. This may not be the issue.

Examples:

1. The composition of a sports team may or may not be the result of racism.

Clearly, prior to Jackie Robinson breaking MLB’s color barrier in 1947, there were black players talented enough to have been given the opportunity to play MLB. They were not provided that opportunity due to racial discrimination.

However, the fact that during the 2008-2009 NBA season, 82% of all NBA players were black is not due to racial discrimination. It is due to ability. In this day, any NBA team would be foolish not to be starting the best players available regardless of race. There have been several white players who’ve played very well: e.g. Larry Bird, John Stockton, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, etc.

2. The police questioning one of a certain race may, or may not, be due to a dislike of that race.

It could be due to a dislike of a particular race. Imagine, a police officer stopping and detaining all Arabs because they were Arabs and he dislike the Arab people. Such would be a clear case of racism.

However, suppose a police officer responds to a APB to be on the lookout for a person of a certain race and certain height, certain gender and weight, etc. and he stops you. He is not prejudging your guilt. He is not motivated out of a hatred of your race. He is simply looking for someone and you fit the description.

3. Variance between the wages of men and women may, or may not, be due to misogyny.

It seems to be a fact that women earn less on average, than do men. One source indicates that a woman earns on average 78.5 cents for every dollar earned my a man (John Stossel, Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, p. 40). Another source has said that for women twenty-five years and older who hold at least a bachelor’s degree and work full time, the national median income is about $47,000. While similar men make about $66,000 (Super Freakonomics, Steven Levit and Stephen Dubner, p. 21).

Is it possible that some employer would hire men at a higher wage than women to do exactly the same job with the same out-put? Certainly. I am sure that it happens. Though, such would be economically foolish. Why would anyone hire any man when he could hire a woman for less?

There are many reasons why the wage variance exists. (1) Part of the explanation may be in the kind of jobs men and women are willing to take (Stossel, p.40) . (2) “Women are more likely to leave the workforce or down shift their careers to raise a family” (Levit and Dubner, p. 21). Thomas Sowell has written, “Most women give birth to children at some point in their lives and many stay out of the labor force until their children reach an age when they can be put into some form of day care… These interruptions of their career cost women workplace experience and seniority… However, as far back as 1971, American women who worked continuously from high school through their thirties earned slightly more than men of the same description” (Basic Economics, p. 198).

4. The fact that certain goods cost more in one neighborhood than in another may not have anything to do with unjust discrimination.

The varying cost could be due to a number of things such as: (1) Transportation costs. (2) Security costs. “Although businesses in some American communities must incur the extra expense of heavy grates for protection from thieves and vandalism while closed, and security guards for protection while opened, businesses in other American communities have no such expenses and are therefore able to operate profitably which charging lower prices” ibid, p. 378). (3) Insurance cost. (4) Government bureaucracy/or corruption.

If Discriminated Against...

Conduct yourself in an honorable way. Branch Rickey of the Dodgers told Jackie Robinson, “This will not be easy… there will be fans in the stands who will yell awful things at you. Even some of the umpires will be against you, and will not give you fair calls… You cannot lose your temper and get into a fight. That’s what they want you to do. It will give them an excuse to throw you out of baseball… No, you must have the guts to fight back in another way. The only way to fight is by keeping your temper, and playing the best baseball you can” (ed. William J. Bennett, The Children’s Book of Heroes, p. 30). As Christians, we must approach life similarly. “This is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15 cf. 2:12).

Posted in Ethics, Race, science | Tagged adam and eve, basic economics, branch rickie, children's book of heroes, dirk nowitzki, ethics, jackie robbinson, john stockton, john stossel, larry bird, men and women wages, mlb, nba, origin of the races, prejudism, punnnett square, Race, science, stephen dubner, steve nash, steven levitt, super freakonomics, thomas sowell | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 3)

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Unjust prejudice exits all over this earth. Some times it takes the form of ethnocentrism, which is prejudice based on cultural differences. “Even people who look very similar can have improper attitudes toward each other… The Irish and the English… The Koreans and the Japanese are two examples that come to mind” (Trevor Major and Richard Melson, A Christian Response to Racism, a tract published by A. P.). Some times it takes the form of racism, which can be defined as “discrimination or prejudism based on race” (education.yahoo.com/reference;dictionary). Christians should shun such prejudism. We should see the individual, and not lump the individual into a stereotypical grouping. We shouldn’t judge the individual by our pre-conceived thoughts about the group.

In this article, we will explore some of the ways racism has been defended. Even the Bible has been misused by some to defend such.

Darwinism

The original title of Charles Darwin’s book was “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection — or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life.” Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, remarked, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts believes that the average Negro is equal, still less the superior of the white man” (Brad Harrub, Convicted, p. 198). Adolph Hitler parroted Darwin saying, “Nature … chooses from the excess number of individuals the best as worthy of living… A stronger race will drive out the weak” (Mein Kampf, p. 132). This thinking was also a part of the early eugenics/birth-control/sterilization movements of the 20th century. “Thus in the progressive era of the early twentieth century, racial and ethnic minorities were viewed in largely negative terms and the progressive support of the eugenics movement was not unrelated to the presumed desirability of preventing these minorities for propagating too many of their own kind” (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 111).

Here are some things to remember: (a) We’re all human beings. Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub have written, “We constitute a single biological species. Men and women with familial and cultural ties on different continents can meet, marry, and have families of their own — a fact that frustrates any attempt to parcel the world’s population into distinct subspecies or well-defined races” (The Truth About Human Origins, p. 436). (b) Moreover, some have confused education with ability “As late as the First World War, white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi scored lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania” (Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, p. 23). However, “As late as the 1930s, only 7 percent of black youngsters of high school age were attending high school in Mississippi” (ibid., p. 230). The education of blacks was outlawed or discouraged in the South for many years.

Mormons

The Mormons have a long history of racism. (1) They teach that the Lamanites were once “white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome” (2 Nephi 5:21). However, “because of their iniquity” and “that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21cf. Alma 3:6; Mormon 5:15). (2) The mixing of the seed between races was forbidden (2 Nephi 5:23). (3) However, if the Lamanites would repent they could be removed from the curse of their blackness (2 Nephi 5:22 cf. 3 Nephi 2:14-16). (4) It wasn’t until September 30, 1978 blacks were allowed into the Mormon priesthood.

The Bible nowhere teaches such a doctrine as is taught within the book of Mormon.

Bible

1. Cain’s Mark. The Bible speaks of a mark being placed upon Cain (Genesis 4:15). Some have suggested that the mark was dark skin. The Bible does not say this. One has as much evidence to say it was dark skin, as another does to say it was white skin and blue eyes. Moreover, the mark was not a sign of condemnation. Instead, the mark was provided to protect Cain’s life. Finally, if the mark were black skin, and if this mark did pass on to Cain’s descendants, such would not have one thing to do with how Cain’s descendants should be treated, today. (Ezekiel 18).

2. Curse of Canaan. Some desperate to find justification for their racism have inferred without adequate evidence that the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-27) was dark skin. Nothing in the text implies such.

Some have suggested that the curse was not only upon Canaan, but also upon Canaan’s father, Ham (cf. Genesis 9:18, 22). Then, it is claimed that the name “Ham” means “swarthy.” However, we should remember: (a) The curse is said to be upon Canaan, not Ham. (b) The name “Ham” does not seem to have originated with the curse (Genesis 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18; 9:22). (c) It is far from certain that the name “Ham” has anything to do with blackness. The term may mean “warm” or “hot” (Strong’s, B-D-B-G) or “submissive one” (ed. Curtis Cates, 35^th Annual MSOP Lectureship, p. 177). Scholarship does not support the idea of blackness to be a part of this word.

3. Inter-racial Marriages Forbidden. Moses (a descendant of Shem cf. Gen. 10:21-ff; 11:14-ff) married an Ethiopian or Cushite (a descendant of Ham Genesis 10:6-ff; Numbers 12:1-ff). Note: Their skin color must have been distinct from Israel’s. Remember, Jeremiah asking, “can the Ethiopian change his skin?” (Jeremiah 13:23). Miriam and Aaron murmured about this, or at least used this as a pretense to complain against Moses. Yet, God upheld the leadership of Moses (Numbers 12:1-ff).

It is true that God instructed the Israelites not to marry the Canaanites (Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:2-4; Joshua 23:12-13 cf. Judges 3:5-6). However, a careful reading will reveal that the concern was not of race or color, but of religious and spiritual influence. Canaanites who submitted to the one true God seem to have been accepted (Rahab Matthew 1:5 cf. Joshua 2 cf. Joshua 24:31; Judges 2:7, 10). Moreover, it should be realized that there is no listing of nations or races that are forbidden to inter-marry in the New Covenant.

4. The Jews Killed Jesus. Many Jews were not pleased with the filming of “The Passion of the Christ”. They were afraid that the film would stir up anti-Semitic feelings and hatred. It was feared that the movie would make the Jewish people responsible for the death of Jesus.

The truth is clear. The facts cannot be denied. Jewish people were responsible (John 19:11; Matthew 27:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). These who delivered Jesus to Pilate were guilty of “greater sin” (John 19:11). Alas, this has been used to justify mistreatment of the Jewish people.

Things to remember: (a) Jesus was an Israelite (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-28; Romans 1:3, etc.). (b) The twelve were Israelites (Acts 1:11; 2:7). (c) Paul was an Israelite (Romans 1:11; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5; Acts 21:39). (d) The early church was composed exclusively of Israelites and Jewish proselytes until the conversion of Cornelius’ house (Acts 2:4-ff; 11:19 cf. 15:7). (e) It was the Israelites who carried the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11; 13:45-46; 18:5-6; Romans 1:14-16). (f) The fact that God removed His hedge of protection from the nation of Israel has no bearing upon whether individual Israelites could be saved (Romans 1:16).

Posted in Ethics, History, Marriage, mormon, Mormons, Race | Tagged blacks, cain's mark, canaan's curse, darwinism, english, ethics, hitler, huxley, interracial marriage, irish, japanese, jews, jews killed jesus, korean, marriage, mein kampf. book of mormon, Mormons, mormons and blacks, Race, thomas sowell, whites and blacks testing | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 2)

Posted on April 14, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

In an ideal world, justice would be blind. People should be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, or the fatness of their wallet. Joseph Addison said, “Justice discards party, friendship, kindred, and is always, therefore, represented as blind.” The Law of Moses instructed such blind justice (Exodus 23:3; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19; 27:19; Proverbs 24:23). The New Covenant teaches us “The Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12), and that we are not to be “judges with evil thoughts” (James 2:4, cf. Deuteronomy 1:17; Leviticus 19:15).

However, life is not always ideal. Economic prejudism does exist. It exists for a variety of reasons: (1) Sometimes it exists due to a feeling of superiority. (2) Sometimes there is a belief that all poor people are poor due to their own faults, or their lack of right standing with God. It is thought that if they were right with God, they wouldn’t be poor. (3) Sometimes there is a belief that the rich are all crooks, or that they have unfairly enriched themselves at other’s expense.

Bible

James 2:1-4, “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or, ‘Sit here at my footstool,’ have you not shown partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (cf. Deuteronomy 1:17; Leviticus 19:15). Economic prejudice is nothing new. Guy Woods commented on James 2:1 “‛Hold not’ is me echete, present active imperative of echo, with the negative; i.e., quit having the habit of holding the faith in such fashion” (A Commentary on the Epistle of James, p. 106).

(1) Many despise the poor. The Proverbs say: “The poor man is hated even by his own neighbors, But the rich has many friends… Wealth makes many friends, But the poor is separated from his friends… All the brothers of the poor hate him; How much more do his friends go from him! He may pursue them with words, yet they abandon him” (Proverbs 14:20; 19:4; 19:7 cf. Job 19:13; 42:11).

Some have made the error of equating all poverty and misfortune with personal foolishness or sinfulness (Job 8:5-7; 11:13-20; John 9:1-2; Acts 28:3-4). Such thinking is still common today. It is true that sometimes (even many times) the poor are poor due to their own choices. Some common causes of poverty are: (a) laziness (Proverbs 10:4-5; 19:15; 24:30-34; 28:19); (b) wastefulness (Proverbs 12:27; 21:17; 23:20-21 cf. the Prodigal son of Luke 15); (c) improper use of credit (Proverbs 22:7; 6:1-5). (d) lack of preparation for the future (Proverbs 6:6-11). However, poverty is not always the result of such. Some other causes of poverty include: (a) health issues (cf. Job; Acts 3:1-3); (b) natural disaster (cf. Job); (c) evil men, thieves (cf. Job); (d) evil corrupt government; (f) persecution (cf. Revelation 2:9). Clearly, there are biblical examples of the spiritually righteous being in material poverty [Job; Lazarus (of The rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16), the church in Smyrna (Revelation 2:9)].

(2) Others despise the rich. This is nothing new. The Law of Moses instructed, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor… You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute” (Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:3).

Some have made the error of concluding that all rich are dishonest and evil beings. It is true that some rich do cheat, oppress, and run roughshod over others (Proverbs 22:16; 30:14; James 2:6; 5:4 cf. Leviticus 19:13 cf. Deuteronomy 24:15). It is true that some rich use their wealth to wrongfully influence, and pervert judgment (Exodus 23:6 cf. Deuteronomy 16:19 cf. Amos 5:12). However, the Bible does speak of some who were materially rich and spiritually righteous [(Job (Job 1:3); Abraham (Genesis 13:2); Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57)]. Wealth itself is not condemned. The rich are instructed, “Not to be haughty, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God” and to “do good … be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share” (1 Timothy 6:17-18). We should thank God for the rich who so behave.

Some have a flawed understanding of economics. They assume that one man’s increase necessarily means another man’s loss. This simply isn’t so. Thomas Sowell has illustrated, “individuals who stand in the relationship of employer and employee, or landlord and tenant, would never have entered into such relationship in the first place unless both sides expected to become better off than they would have been if they had not entered into those relationships. In other words, it is not zero-sum activity” (Basic Economics, p. 421). The idea of turning a profit is not viewed in the Bible as something sinful (Proverbs 31:16, 18, 24; Matthew 25:14-30; Acts 18:3, you don’t think that they sold the tents for the exact same amount as the materials cost that went into the tents, do you?)

Remember

1. Look at the individual, and don’t generalize all into a class stereotype. Not all poor are sinful bums, or prodigals. Not all rich are rapists of society. “Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

2. Remember the words, “Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in the faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (James 2:5).

3. Let us strive to be rid of envy (1 Peter 2:1), such thinking is not from above (James 3:14-15). Politicians often play upon class envy. Let us be careful not to be demagogued.

4. If one is right with God, one is rich indeed (James 2:5).

5. The righteous should not be envious of the wicked who are materially rich (Psalm 37:1-2; 73:3, 17; Proverbs 3:31-33; 23:17-18; 24:1, 19-20 cf. Luke 16:19-26). We need to understand their end (Psalm 73:17).

6. “The rich and the poor have this in common, the Lord is the maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2).

Posted in Ethics, Money, Race, Textual study, Wealth | Tagged ecomonics, envy, ethics, James 2, job, joseph addison, justice, Lazarus, prejudism, Race, rich man, rich poor, riches, thomas sowell, trust, wealth, zero sum activity | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 1)

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

An ideal world, justice would be blind. We should be judged by the content of our character, and not the color of our skin or our socio-economic level.

However, life is not always idea. Racism exists around the globe. The Jews have been the object of racial hatred in Europe, the Chinese minorities in southeast Asia, the Armenians in the Ottoman empire, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Japanese in Peru, the Indians in Burma, the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, natives and blacks in America.

Racism exists for a variety of reasons. (1) Sometimes it exists due to a feeling of superiority. (2) Sometimes it exists due to fear. (3) Sometimes it exists due to some historical event.

Biblical Example

Racial or ethnic tensions certainly existed between the Jews and the Samaritans of the First Century A.D.. there were several reasons for this: (1) The Samaritans were a mixed breed, and not of pure Jewish lineage. After Assyrian conquered Israel (722-721 B.C.), a remnant of Israelites remained in the land (Amos 5:1-3; 2 Chronicles 30:5-9; Luke 2:36). The King of Assyria then moved foreigners into the land (2 Kings 17:24-26; Ezra 4:2, 8-10). It seems that in time, many from the remnant intermarried with the foreigners. (2) The Jews rejection of Samaritan help in rebuilding the temple. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians (586 B.C.). The Jews returned from Babylonian captivity (536 B.C.). The Samaritans offered their help in rebuilding the temple. However, their offer was rejected (Ezra 4:1-3). The reason for this rejection is not specified. Was it due to Samaritan idolatry? Was it due to some Samaritan plot to hinder the work? (3) The Samaritans became a great opponent of Jewish efforts to rebuild. They: (a) Lobbied Persia, lying about the Jews (Ezra 4:4-24; Nehemiah 6:6-9). Josephus says that the Samaritans told Persia that it wasn’t a temple, but more of a military fortress which was being built (The Essential Writings, p. 188). These lobbying efforts continued for about sixteen years and even brought the work to a complete halt for about two years (Ezra 4:4-7, 23-24). (b) Mocked (Nehemiah 4:1-6). (c) Plotted violence (Nehemiah 4:7-16). Joseph indicates, “They killed many of them (workers B.H.) and hired foreigners to assassinate Nehemiah. But Nehemiah surrounded himself with bodyguards and was not deterred (ibid, p. 191 cf. Nehemiah 6:1-4). (4) The Samaritans established a rival temple in Samaria (cf. John 4:20). One from the Jews, from the priestly tribe, married a daughter of Sanballat, a Samaritan and fierce opponent of the Jews (Nehemiah 2:10, 19; 4:1-3, 7-8; 6:1-3; 5-ff). Nehemiah said, “I drove him from me. Remember them, O my God because they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Thus I cleansed them of everything pagan” (Neh. 13:28-30). Josephus writes, “Whereupon Manasseh came to his father-in-law, Sanballat… Sanballat promised him not only to preserve him the honor of his priesthood, but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest… He also told him further, that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem, upon Mount Gerizim, which is the highest of all mountains that are in Samaria” (ed. Dub McClish, Studies in Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, p. 268 quoting Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, pp. 348-349). (5) The Samaritan’s behavior before Antiochus (167 B.C.). Josephus writes, “Antichos came back to Jerusalem… when he treated the inhabitants with great cruelty… He dismantled the walls of Jerusalem, burning the finest parts of the city, and stationed a Macedonian garrison in a citadel overlooking the temple. He carried away the golden vessels and treasures on the temple, putting a stop to the sacrifices. He polluted the altar by offering up a swine on it, knowing that this was against the law of Moses. he compelled the Jews to give up their worship of God and to stop circumcising their children. Those who persisted were mutilated, strangled, or crucified, with their children hung from their necks. When the Samaritans (emp. mine) saw the Jews suffering these cruelties, they sent letters to Antiochus denying any Jewish relationship. They also asked that their temple ‘temple without a name’ on Mt. Gerizim be known as that of Zeus Hellenias (Antiochus’ god B.H.)” (The Essential Writings, pp.209-210).

In Jesus’ day, The Jews had “no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). Robert Taylor Jr. writes, “Jews usually avoided traveling in Samaria thus crossing Jordan below the southern Samaria boundary, traveling north in trans-Jordan and crossing Jordan again when past Samaria’s northern boundary. Though about twice as far as the shorter route, they gladly did it due to the Samaritan alienation they felt with deep intensity” (Studies in John, p. 54). The term “Samaritan” came to be used much as some use the “N” word today (see John 8:48). The Samaritans were not always too fond of the Jews (Luke 9:51-56). Hatred existed on both sides.

However, Jesus was different. He traveled through Samaria (John 4;1-ff; Luke 9:51-56; 17:11-ff). He spoke with Samaritans (John 4:7-ff; 4:39-42; Luke 17:11-ff). He healed a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19). Though, collectively the Samaritans may have done many evils, Jesus pointed out that we should consider the individual. He told a story showing that even a Samaritan could be kind and helpful (Luke 10:25-37). He pointed out the gratitude in a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19).

Moreover, it was just the Samaritans. Jesus pointed out good in Romans (Matthew 8:5-10, esp. v. 10), and Greeks (Matthew 15:21-28, esp. v.28; Mark 7:26 tells us that this woman was Greek), and in Syrians (Luke 4:21-28). “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35).

Posted in Bible History, Ethics, History, Jesus, Race | Tagged america, antichos, armenians, Bible History, blacks, burma, chinese, ethics, history, ibos, indians, japanese, Jesus, jews, John 4, josephus, justice, lebanese, Luke 10, Luke 17, Luke 9, mt gerizim, mt zion, nehemiah, nigeria, ottoman empire, peru, prejudism, Race, samaritans, sanballet, sierra leone, sri lanka, tamil, temple, zeus | Leave a comment

Bryan Hodge

Ethics: Medicine

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 5)

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 4)

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 3)

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 2)

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 1)

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 4)

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 3)

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 2)

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 1)

Welcome!

Subscribe!

Categories

Recent Posts

You are in good company with

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Welcome!

Subscribe!

Categories

Recent Posts

You are in good company with