From the Mind of Ryan Hampton

Is Greed Good?

2010-08-02T14:11:00.003-05:00

Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, summarized all people into two broad categories: the oppressed and the oppressor. For this reason, he offered his communist ideology to the world to end profit maximization and the exploitation of the poor. Since this time, those who hold to his philosophy, whether by name or ideology, have ignorantly classified capitalism as an economic policy of greed and exploitation. Capitalism, they presume, must encourage the "oppressed vs. oppressor" and "slave vs. slave master" world, because it is in capitalism that greedy men who only want profits abuse the honest individuals. In the 1980's, many capitalists began taking this as a compliment. Capitalism is about greed, they confessed, but this greed is a good thing. Without greed, they suggested, economies cannot grow and flourish.

Although certain elements of the "greed is good" philosophy are true and do help a society prosper economically, greed is not really what capitalism is all about. Sure, the "greedy" man, who desires to maximize profit, will hire the most labor, make the riskiest yet smartest investments, acquire the most capital, etc. And, from the positive side of this "greed," without this entrepreneur doing these things, he would not have the revenue to hire his workers (even if they are of cheap labor) or give the good workers raises. Nonetheless, it is the greedy men who ultimately fail in a capitalist economy.

In order to have real economic growth, investments must be made. This, of course, means investments of all kinds - not simply the rigid definition of investing in the stock market, gold, etc., although these investments are included. College students invest their time and money into college with the hopes of earning a good job after completing their higher education. Entrepreneurs invest in land, labor, and capital with the hopes that it will provide them with more revenue than costs, thus leading to profit maximization. Ideally, citizens invest a small portion (again, ideally) of their income to the government so that their rights will be better protected than if they were left to fend for themselves in anarchy. Everyday, investments of all varieties are made. There are two types of investments: efficient investments and inefficient investments.

The wise and diligent man makes efficient investments. He studies the economy, knows his abilities and inabilities, plants his seed, and follows through. The inefficient investor does not. He may make investments which are unwise, or, he may fail to make investments that he should make. Either scenario is fueled by his greed. On the one hand, he assumes that any investment he makes will be profitable simply because his name is on it. On the other hand, he is too lazy to make investments. His greed suffocates him and he then believes he can beat the economy without playing by the rules. The greedy man may be one who wants so much profit that he continually invests and is given nothing to show for it. He may avoid what he sees as hard-work in being employed by another already-existing entrepreneur and ignorantly open a business doomed to fail. Another greedy man may choose not to invest in labor and provide jobs. His greed, which tells him he can do all the tasks on his own, will soon fail him. The diligent men and women who make efficient investments provide jobs, invest in research and development, and, at the end of the day, only stay in business because they provide a good or service the world needs. These successes come from the diligent people - not those fueled only by greed.

A common mistake a lot of students of economics make is to see wealth as simply a piece of pie. Wealth and the world's recourses are limited and scarce - this is a fundamental truth to economics - but it is not as if one man's success comes at the expense of someone else. All this means is that the successful man has more efficiently dealt with the scarce recourses the world has, which in turn, raises the standard of living for everybody. The only reason the successful man is successful is because he gives a good or service at an affordable price to plenty of people. In his success, he may also give to the poor and needy through a charity or church, higher more workers to work for him, and place his money back into the market by his desire for goods and services. Therefore, capitalism can be as communal of an economic system as it is an individualist one, and it is energized not by greed, but by knowing the needs and desires of fellow men and women.

What do you think?

God bless America

August 2, 2010

Ryan Hampton

Case Closed: Experts tell us Obama's Citezenship is no Longer a Debate

2009-08-05T18:19:00.002-05:00

With the heated debate over Obama's citezenship weighing heavy in the media recently, political experts have come to investigate whether or not the One is a true American and our rightful President. Although we should never lose faith in the One, it is important to be fair and give insightful responses to the complaints and arguments of those who deny the Hope offered now to all Americans. So, what did the experts conclude?

"We have yet to make a complete conclusion of Obama's native home," said Nancy Gore, President of HIYLO (Honk If You Love Obama), "but we have found that irrelevent right now." That sounded a big strong of a statement. What about our Constitution, or our American values? She was questioned further and continued. "You see, Obama offers hope not to just Americans but the entire world. He is a citizen to a world, not just America. As long as he was born on this earth, then the case is closed."

However some argue the case may not be as closed as it seems. Ted Kerry, who is also on the Obama's Citezenship committe and author of "Learning to Give Full Praise to Obama in the Midst of a Recession," said "I am not sure that Obama is even of this earth." Perhaps that is why we cannot find his birth records. "Still," said Kerry, "Even if he is not of this earth, we may should just have faith in Him as the Emperor of the world."

"What about our Constitution, and the rules for office of President" someone from our panel asked Hillary Edwards. Edwards responded "The Constitution did have its place and we mustn't forget that. However Obama has come to fulfil the Constitution and we mustn't forget that either. The Old Way, the Constitution, paved the way for the One, Barack Obama Who has come to set the weak and vulnerable free."

So whether or not his birth cirtificate says "United States of America" or not, we concluded, it doesn't really matter. The case is clOsed.

Funny Videos That Sound Familiar

2009-05-31T16:57:00.000-05:00

The Money Hole:

Gun Free Zone:

Global Warming:

:The ACLU

Trinity Presbyterian Church's Move to Cahaba Heights

2009-05-16T15:46:00.000-05:00

Just in case any of you have not heard, we received our CO (Certificate of Occupancy) yesterday afternoon, and will begin meeting weekly at our new building in Cahaba Heights, a suburb of Vestavia Hills, Alabama. This has been a while forth coming, yet it has also not been overly dragged. It did take a lot of work, but it does seem the Lord is rewarding our efforts.

The first thing we should do is give God glory and thanks for this opportunity to now own our own building. We have of course, owned our own building before, at 1401 Montgomery Highway in Vestavia. Overtime, we began to slowly descend into nothing. It was as if the Lord made us start over, almost, though certainly not entirely, from scratch.

Shortly after voting in favor of continuing the congregation instead of closing doors, several new families joined. Before we realized it, God gave us the gift/curse of outgrowing our facilities. Fortunately, the Lord gave us Berney Points Baptist Church to be a good and beneficial host to us. And not only did BPBC help us, but in certain ways, we probably helped them.

Now, after renting the facilities of BPBC for some four and a half years (give or take), we have worshipped for the last time at BPBC. We now have our own building once again. This is a gift for us. Many of the members of our congregation have never been able to worship at our church while having our own facilities.

We must ask what this means for us now. Because God has given us this blessing, we must use it to bless others. We must begin learning geography as well as Christology. In size, the building may be similar to that at 1401, but the location is vastly different. We are not off a major highway in a bustling Vestavia Hills. Nor are we a church with no sign that sits right off the interstate, but detached from a real city or community. Now, we have our sign, and we are a representative of a community. We do not represent CREC churches as much now. We are not as much of a global church known for its theology. We are a community church known for its love for that community.

It is easy, though maybe not as much now as used to be, to find Baptist churches that represented a community. It is not hard to find plenty of FBC’s around as you roam from city to city through the South. While we have a fun time naming our churches after Reformers or Reformed ideas, it is often hard to find a FPC, and even when we do, it is not the face of the community. My point is that often times churches like ours are known more for theology than community, and many Baptist churches, for example, are known more for community.

I am not trying to degrade the importance of theology, and I believe there are things we bring to the Kingdom that many other denominations do not. And since hiring Pastor Lusk, community has been a major theme of our church. And most people who visit our church can see that. Even before Pastor Lusk came, we had a form of community not many other churches had. I remember one of my first impressions upon our first visit to RHPC (former name of TPC) when I was ten was that the people were nice. Now, the Lord is giving us this building and this community, so that our love flows out from within just our congregation, to the wider community. It is time people like me use our hands and fingers for things other than posting theology on the internet. Instead of focusing on growing our minds by what we take in, it is time we focus on growing our hearts by what we give out.

It is easy for Presbyterian churches, through their form of church government, to be connected with another Presbyterian church five states away, yet hard to be really connected with the community. I even see this within our congregation. I hear so much about Jim Jordan’s church and Jeffrey Myers’ church, or about the works of Peter Leithardt and Douglas Wilson. I hear about CCB or about our sponsored church St. Marks in Tennessee. I’m sure with great reason, and I’m not by any means speaking against the Presbyterian form of church government. But are we known more just within our CREC Presbyterian group, or for being a blessing to the community we are in? I’m sure the same could be asked for many other churches like ours nationwide. Are we known for critiquing the other churches of this city because they don’t share our liturgy, or are we known for working with them to accomplish the same goals we have: to do the will of God and advance His Kingdom? Will we be known more for the blessing we are to Cahaba Heights, or for the blessing we are to CREC Presbyterian theology?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we need to take over the Cahaba Heights community and make a monopoly on the churches. There are other churches in the community as well, and they may doing a great job. But we need to take the community we have with each other, and share it with the wider community. Nor am I saying I think we have a lot to change if we are to do a good job at the goals listed above. I believe God has been preparing us for this, and would not give us this building if we were not ready. But I am saying we should not take this for granted, nor only look at the benefits it gives us (not paying rent, not having a time to be out, better acoustics, not having people fuss about our little children). Those are great, but we should look at this as a new and better way to spread the Kingdom, first to Cahaba Heights, and then to Birmingham, and throughout the entire earth. “Presbyterian” should become more of an adjective for the noun (and perhaps even verb?) “Church,” instead of a noun within itself. I’ve heard it was mentioned we could take out the word “Presbyterian” from our name and just be “Trinity Church.” While I don’t think this is completely necessary or helpful, I am glad we are seeming to focus more on what it means to be a church than what it means to be Presbyterian.

In all ways, we should thank God for this new building we will worship in tomorrow. We should also thank Him for giving us BPBC for a while. It has been helpful. I am also personally thankful for the men and women in the church who helped make this possible. I did very little helping compared to some people in the church. We should also expect some stress to come in the first several weeks or so, until we get fully moved in and situated. I will probably be at BPBC in the morning for the first fifteen minutes or so of service to direct any misguided members or visitors to our new building. I look forward to coming for the second half of the service at our new building tomorrow morning.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless the Church

May 16, 2009

Ryan Hampton

Holy War - Redemption - Maturity

2009-05-01T23:29:00.000-05:00

Holy War – Redemption – Maturity. These are the three themes we see in the Bible, and they all go together. I want to speak about each of these.

I carefully ordered these three. Really, Holy War is the first and third of these. It is through Holy War that we are redeemed, and through Holy War that we, as God’s redeemed People, mature. God wages Holy War to save those Whom He has elected, and we His People, wage Holy War in our hearts so that Christ may work in us and bring us to maturity.

In the beginning, there was no real official Holy War. Actually, perhaps it should not be said so much that God wages Holy War, as it is Satan who wages it. Satan rebelled against God. This was the first act of war. God gave him a home called Hell, and God began to create a home for His People. But yet again, Satan waged Holy War, targeting the chief of God’s creation, man.

After Satan won this battle, God exercised just war against the enemy. This just war was not aimed at destruction, but redemption. While Satan had his own strategy, God had the better strategy: redeeming His People.

Throughout the entire Old Testament we see pictures of this. Satan would wage an attack, and God would come back and put Satan down in His place. As God put Satan down and brought His People up, He redeemed them. He did this on the ark and at the Red Sea. Finally, God redeemed His People through the cross of Christ and has promised to come again to complete that work.

War is going on. Now God calls on His People to fight in the war. This does not mean that Christians should wage national war on a country because they do not officially confess Christ as King. This means that the Christian, on an individual level, and the church on a corporate level, fights against sin. It means we are called to hate sin and pray for our sin to be damned. It means that we cut off our eye if it causes us to sin (Matt. 5:29). It means you cut off your internet chord if that causes you to sin. It means you pray against sin. It means you join with the Assembly of the Saints in worship. It means you forgive those who sinned against you, because that is the only way for your sin to be forgiven (Matt. 6:14-15).

As we wage this Holy War, Christ brings us to maturity. Although creation was created good, man was still called to maturity. Adam had the task of watching over and protecting Eve. This protection was a protection for any kind of evil that could come. Although the earth was good, it was still vulnerable, as we see in Genesis 3. Perhaps on a smaller and different level, Adam and Eve were called to win the Holy War that Satan waged in Heaven. If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would have continued to mature into a state of invulnerability of evil, and thus, won the war. That invulnerability of sin is what God wants to bring us to through Christ, the new Adam.

How long will we mature? Perhaps for eternity. Even in Final Resurrected glory, when God’s Kingdom is no longer vulnerable, we will perhaps have places to mature. Granted, if sin is not vulnerable, we will have won the war, and we will mature in other ways. But until sin is fully defeated, we are called to fight in this Holy War so that it may bring us to maturity and final Redemption with the return of Christ. Christ is the new Adam, and so the Church must be the new Eve. Christ was a better Adam. So we must be a better Eve.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless the Church

May 1, 2009

Ryan Hampton

Worship Services

2009-04-08T18:37:00.000-05:00

Many seeker-friendly church services give us a sermon that ends something like this: “If there is anyone here who has not accepted Christ, you may do so now. Every head bowed and every eye closed, raise your hand if you want to accept Christ.” There is a place for this language and it is great if it leads someone to Christ. But I’m not for sure this is what the purpose of a sermon is.

Many people get scared off by the word liturgy because it seems to replace the heart of Christian worship with text and empty recitations. Certainly, the heart of worship should not be seen as meaningless, and certainly a passionate charismatic worshipper worships God more truly than a Reformed worshipper going through the motions of worship with no real meaning or connection. But I also believe that nearly every church has some form of liturgy, in the sense of order to worship. The question becomes how deep, meaningful, relevant, and ultimately, Biblically sound the liturgy is.

While faithfully attending my church Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), I have been privileged to see other church services from other churches, primarily Church of the Highlands, where I go with some friends Sunday evenings. It is nice to see the worship services of other local churches who aim to lift high the cross. I don’t expect every church to have the same structure as ours, and that is okay even though I like our order and structure, which makes it both formal and personable. Church of the Highlands is seeker friendly and has done a lot for the Kingdom and I enjoy the sermons by Chris Hodges. But it seems that a lot of these churches end with the “every head bowed every eye closed” style, and despite being aggressive and seeker friendly, I am not sure they do as much for the Kingdom as a deeper liturgical service would.

Both Trinity Presbyterian and Church of the Highlands have an order to the service. Church of the Highlands has about twenty-five minutes of contemporary Christian music, followed by a sermon that always ends in the same seeker friendly way. After this there is offering and the service is pretty much over. Our service goes much deeper in its order and probably exemplifies the Church’s life more fully. We are called into worship. We confess our sins. We have the reading of Scripture and a sermon. We give our tithes and offerings. We confess our faith. We participate in the Lord’s Supper. We are called forth into the world to live out the Great Commission. This becomes more relevant to the Christian life. It is more consistent with God’s covenants He has made with His People. Sermons lead us into applications and ultimately into further communion with Christ by eating at His table. Each layer leads and flows into the next.

We go to Church to be the Church and renew covenant with God. We win the lost by being the Church everywhere else. When a non-believer steps into Church, they should see the Church in covenant with God, not be pressured into “making a decision.” Scripture does not give us much detail on worship services. But it seems the pattern is something like this: someone is converted, they are given the teaching of the Word, and then they eat and fellowship with other believers. Sometimes, yes, they are converted by the preaching of the Word, but once they enter the church, they are given Word and Sacrament (Sacrament follows the preaching).

There is a time to preach and offer salvation to others and it is good to see churches like Church of the Highlands have the heart to do that. And certainly going to church is a place where salvation should be offered. But I don’t think the modern approach and liturgy is always the best way. While these seeker friendly churches probably do a better job than we do at really reaching out to others on a personal level (which should certainly be commended), they often fail more at really keeping faithful Christians who keep covenant with God. Beyond this, non-believers are often more drawn into a deeper and richer liturgical service because they are able to see the richer side of the Christian faith. It grows on them. They don’t feel pressured into anything.

With all of this said, I wish the Church could ultimately become a Church that is seeker friendly and offers salvation to the lost and is good at keeping faithful Christians who mature in the faith. Often churches have one and not the other. But the point of our worship service is not to strategize how we will win the lost, nor is it a place where we even necessarily directly attempt to win the lost. It is where we keep covenant with God. I do think that more Reformed and deeper liturgical services could do better at having more mission trips and really reaching the lost in ways similar to many contemporary seeker-friendly churches. I wish seeker-friendly churches would broaden and deeper their worship services into a real place of covenant renewal service for God’s People, to train and equip Christians to be faithful to their King.

What do you think?

God bless the Church

God bless America

March 27, 2009

Ryan Hampton

Why You Should Go to Church

2009-03-02T16:41:00.001-06:00

I want to ask the simple question of why one should go to church. Can't you just be a good Christian without going to church every week? Isn't that legalistic? This could be asked from multiple vantage points or points of departure, so this look is just one of those. However I do believe all of the different points of departure I have used are related and build off each other. It doesn’t make this any less valid.

I will look at it from the perspective of the Church corporate being the Bride of Christ. Or perhaps you could say, we are currently engaged to Christ, awaiting the actual marriage that will happen in the last day as we enter into Final Resurrection glory. Each one of us are sons of God individually, but a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Bride of Christ.

Usually when people are planning on getting married, they go on dates. If they didn’t ever see each other, their relationship would be thin, and marriage may not be the best of ideas. In the same way, we who are to be married to Christ, should not cut off communion with each other and Christ. We must have our “dates” with Christ, which takes place each Lord’s Day in church.

Christ does it the traditional way. He picks us up. Now true, it seems like we are the one’s driving to His House. But it is He Who calls us into His presence, takes charge, and brings us into the throne room of Heaven upon our confession of sin and His declared forgiveness. He comes near to us, to draw us into His presence. He invites us to His house for dinner at His table in communion. We do things for Christ such as give our praises, but it is primarily Him who takes charge and works in us, bringing out the best in His Bride elect. If you reject these things Christ does for you on a corporate level, how can you expect to have a real personal relationship with Him, or take parts in the fruits of His Kingdom after this life?

If you are out of the Church, don’t get down on yourself. Look at it as going on a date with your Groom – the Groom Who loves you enough to lay down His own life for you in the cruelest of ways. Come into Church not hoping for an emotional experience, but expecting God’s work to give you strength in all you do. One day we will live with Christ in His presence. For now we must accept and love the community He has given us now, and await the Final Resurrection glory we are promised to obtain in the Last Day through Jesus Christ.

What do you think?

God bless His Church

God bless you

March 1, 2009

Ryan Hampton

The Great Paradox

2009-02-06T14:26:00.001-06:00

With the recent election of Barack Obama, conservative Christians mostly responded with a two-fold voice. This two-fold voice was not something that separated the conservative Christians in two groups; rather, it was a voice that ran down the middle of most conservative Christian individually.

This two-fold voice that spoke loud after it was announced that Obama was our Commander-in-Chief elect. The voice was something like this: “How could America elect such a man to the nation’s highest office” and “We must trust God because it was He Who put this man in office, and He did so with a reason.”

Both replies, I believe, have truth in them. The second is definitely true, and I believe for various reasons not pertaining to this blog that the first is a valid question. But the two may seem contradicting: if God was the One Who put this man in office, then how can we blame the American mob for electing him? Was it not in God’s plan that He would lean the hearts of the majority of Americans to Barack Obama?

Christians who were against Obama believe both that this was an American mistake and a Sovereign plan, because they essentially recognize this as a paradox. The Bible is full of paradoxes. How is Jesus both God and man? How is Jesus both God and the Son of God? How are there three persons in one God? How is God all-knowing, yet Scripture shows us certain emotions God feels at a certain time as if He did not see what was coming (the best example is perhaps God feeling sorry for creating the man in Gen. 6:6)? How is Mary both virgin and mother (no, not step Mother, but the one who gave birth to Christ)? The list could go on, but these are just obvious examples from Scripture. We must realize that these questions are answered in the supernatural world, not the world that our sinful ignorant hearts and minds can fathom.

Therefore, Christians against Obama find no problem in accepting this paradox of the election of the “wrong yet right” man. But this again is only the most recent obvious example. The attacks of September 11, 2001 could be a similar example. We trust that God is in control, yet we grieve with the evil that has taken place, and we feel anger toward those who caused the evil. Perhaps orthodox Christians do not understand this relationship, but they nevertheless accept both God’s Will and the responsibility of man.

But for some strange reason, we argue about this where it matters the most: our salvation. We cannot accept this as a paradox. For some Christians, the word “predestined” that Paul uses simply means “God always knew,” and some Christians on the other end ignore or twist the parts of Scripture that tell us Christ died for all, or we should preach God’s Word to all, etc. Why can we not simply accept God’s absolute Sovereignty in our salvation, while also keeping the existence of human free will? The two do not have to be in disconnect. The Bible teaches both, so both should be taught and accepted.

There may be some disagreements in emphasis, but that should be it. This should not be something that splits a church or calls one’s salvation into question (unless they are completely one-sided beyond any real orthodox teaching). Christ’s death was completely in the Sovereignty of God, yet those who put the nails into his body are not held guiltless. Sure we don’t understand. That’s fine. God does. In the same way, we should not hold the ones who reject Christ guiltless just because we see their rejection as predestined. Both human responsibility and the Sovereignty of God exist. Sure, I can’t explain it. But I cannot fully fathom (or even almost fathom) the Trinity, yet I believe it.

We can deepen our minds and try to fathom these paradoxes. Some people call that a waste of time, but I honestly don’t mind. Perhaps God in knowing what decisions mankind would make when left to their own will, places certain decisions in front of them, knowing their results, to carry out His plan. Perhaps God put a predestined plan in motion at the beginning, knowing what would happen through human choice, and then engages in the world with emotion by hiding certain things from Him at the beginning as well (where God has a free will and a sense of vulnerability that was predestined by God before the world began). I am not saying either of those views are correct completely or even to any degree at all. We don’t know, we can only exercise our minds in the paradox. But nonetheless, we must accept both God’s Sovereign plan and our responsibilities in every facet of life, even our own salvation.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

God bless His Church

February 6, 2009

Ryan Hampton

Tough Economy May Be Good For The Church

2009-01-27T17:12:00.002-06:00

Many people are worrying frantic over this tough economy in our nation today. Jobs are becoming less and less available, the value of the dollar is dropping worldwide, while we hold every penny in our pockets with precious value. The recent inauguration of Barack Obama has lead many to believe the economy is back on the rise, while leaving many others including myself worried that this is only the beginning.

But perhaps what we need is a tough economy. While we have been so blessed for so long (and while even this economic downturn is not yet disastrous), it is good to be reminded of our fortune. The love of money is the root of all evil, and America has lived through several generations that have adored money.

Having riches is a good thing, so long as they are earned and used wisely. But not everyone in America earns their money in the way they should. Some are given riches by the government, some by theft, and some from their rich old man. Moreover, not everyone is rightfully thankful and content for what they have; some beg the government, the banks, or their parents for more. Meanwhile, these people learn nothing about the value of work, honesty, and a free market.

With this said, I welcome any economic downturn with optimism, an optimism that when we wake up and grow up, we will turn it back around. Perhaps we need a few tough years – or decades – to wake consumers and spoiled kids up and let them realize what they have. Then we can put higher value in things like family, friendship, education, love, hobbies, God-given talents, church, etc., instead of material wealth. In short, we can be content with what we have, but not in what we have given. We cannot serve two masters. We can serve only God or money. And if the money is not readily available to us, it may leave us with just one choice. And if that is the case, then I welcome any economic woes with full heart.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

January 27, 2009

Ryan Hampton

Our Hope and Community: The Story of the Bible

2009-01-08T00:15:00.002-06:00

What is the story of the Bible? Is it a book of virtues? Is it a book of nice fables? Is it a book of law? It may be a book of virtues, filled with many stories, but the story of the Bible is much deeper than this.
All of history is one story. That is how we must look at all of history. The Bible is a historical book that gives us the history of what has happened, and a foreshadowing of what is to come. All of history is one giant myth made fact. It captures the essence of human desire, emotion, and longing through God’s eternal sovereign plan.

When we look at the beauty of this eternal sovereign plan, we see great similarity in many stories, myths, and fables we hold today. These stories we love so much, such as the Chronicals of Narnia, Harry Potter, Cinderella, etc., are all loved by us because they give us a story of hope, meaning, purpose, love, etc. But all of these stories find their fulfillment in God’s story, as captured to us in the Bible.
In Scripture, we see a pattern of one overall theme, and many mini-versions of that throughout. This is called typology. For instance, we see the overall theme that Adam sinned, and Jesus is the second Adam who comes to save us from our inherited sin in Adam. Along the way, we see people who point us back to Adam, or perhaps point us ahead to Christ. Noah points us to Christ in that he begins the world anew, as Christ comes to make us new. Noah is like a new Adam, and a picture of what the ultimate new Adam will be like. Moses reminds of Noah by being saved through the “ark,” the basket, over water, and then points us ahead to a deliverer by saving his people from Pharoah. There is the theme in Scripture, of being saved by water, wood, bread, etc., which point us to being saved by the waters of baptism and the tree that Christ was nailed to, and at the Lord’s table. There are many women who point us to Eve, or the new Eve, the Church. All in all, Scripture is about a man who comes to save His Bride, but in order to do so He must die for her. This man, the new Adam, is also God, and this Bride, the new Eve, is made of men and women of all generations and races. Simply an amazing story, and yet it is one-hundred percent true!

With this in mind, let’s take a brief look at Scripture. Scripture begins with creation, and God giving us a pattern. He created the world in six days, and rested on the Seventh. He then gave the chief of His creation, Adam, a task. His task would image what God had done: he would subdue the earth, and rest every seventh day. God saw it was not good for man to be alone, so He created a community for Adam, imaging God Himself, Who is a community of three persons. Now there is a community between all persons of God, and Adam, Eve, and all future generations. The community is found primarily in the Garden of Eden, and man is to complete his task through the land of Eden and in the outer lands.

But man fell and broke community with God, and was thus kicked out of the Garden, the central place of community. God kicked man out of the Garden, but did not give up on man, promising a new Adam. For the next some four thousand years, God used prophets to prepare the way for this new Adam, ultimately culminating in John the Baptist preparing the way for Christ. God kept some community with His People by making covenant with certain men. The new Garden was the Tabernacle, you could say, but only certain people could go inside, and only at certain times. The community was now just for God’s chosen People, the Israelites. God would show Himself to certain people in voice or even appearance, but the overall community that was present in the Garden was broken.

When Christ came, He restored some of that community. We now have church to go to weekly, on the Sabbath, the Day of Rest. We have the communion of the Saints. We have Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, etc. And now this community is for all people who chose Christ, and the Church is not only for Priests, or “super-holy” people. The Church is the new Israel, but not just for one nation. Our corporate church worship is a new picture of Adam’s community in the Garden of Eden with God.
There are those who have died, and have gone to Heaven. There is community there as well. And as we worship God in corporate worship, we worship with all Saints, and with all the company of Heaven. We get to take part in a meal, the Lord’s Supper, in which we eat with Christ. We have much more Christian community with God then we realize. This is why going to church is important. It is where we keep covenant with God, share in His blessings, eat the daily bread He gives us, give our tithes and offerings to Him, etc. It is where we weekly renew covenant with God. This is where God first and foremost makes Himself known to us, so that we may go out and complete our tasks the rest of the week in our day-to-day lives.

Still, this is not the final goal. Nor is Heaven even the final goal. We still have our sinful nature. Heaven and earth may come together weekly. But even yet, there is still something missing. Although we come into Heaven’s presence, we do not see God, the angels, or the souls of those who have gone into Heaven. Heaven and earth are still two separate things. We have great community, but this, nor even Heaven, is our final hope.

Our final hope is in Final Resurrection glory. Heaven and earth will be one. Jesus will be King. There will not be a disconnect between our bodies and souls. We will have one good nature, and not our sinful nature. As many people in the Old Covenant prepared the way for Christ, so now we must prepare the way for the Final Resurrection. We do this by obeying the Great Commission, taking part in the community God has given us (which is the church), and preaching the Good News to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. One day our community with God will be completely restored, and it will be even better than before the Fall. And we will have all of this forever!
But the first and foremost way to wait upon this final glory and community is to be thankful and partake in the glory and community we have now in Christ. Going to church is not something we do to win brownie points with God. It is where God makes Himself known. And if we forsake the assembly of the Saints now, then how do we expect God to let us into final glory? We must appreciate the story of the Bible more. Appreciate that we are God’s chosen People Who have been saved because our Groom, the Son of God Himself, died the death that the worst of sinners die. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of Christ and His Bride. This story should fill our hearts and minds with wonder, and cause us to look ahead, and prepare the way for Christ’s second coming.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His Church

January 8, 2009

Ryan Hampton

The War on Religion

2008-12-25T13:10:00.000-06:00

The War On Religion
By Ron Paul

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

December 30, 2003

Verses: Courtship vs. Dating

2008-12-17T21:28:00.000-06:00

Courtship vs. Dating

One debate that is growing in today’s American society is that of courtship vs. dating. How do two young people of the opposite sex pair off and eventually become one flesh in the covenant of marriage? Is dating the way this happens? Or is courtship the more appropriate way? Or perhaps is there a mysterious third alternative that has yet to be named?

I personally believe that the debate between courtship and dating is overrated by both parties. Those who reject the idea of courtship as silly, outdated, or too romantic for today’s time are often ignorant of the many dangerous associated with the way many people date today. However advocates of courtship who call dating “ungodly” or “unbiblical” often replace wisdom with rules – rules that are often times not found in Scripture in the first place.

The Bible is not a handbook on how to get married. Although we can use creative logic and principles found in Scripture to give us certain ideas of what the “falling in love” process should look like, it is never appropriate to make such legalistic rules as if Scripture demands them. Many who advocate courtship complain that while one person is dating, they may be dating several people at one time. These same people complain when two people get committed to each other so quickly. These people are often unable to understand all of their rules. How are we going to expect hormonal teenagers to understand them?

I do believe the way many people date today causes problems. I am not advocating we keep the world’s standards of dating, and that any attempt to revise the system is foolish. Many of the ideas that courtship offers are good ideas and should be taken into account. But what some people would call courtship, others may only call a wise form of dating. And some radical people who push for courtship push for what is close to arranged marriages, which is not Biblical either.

What are the differences in dating and courting? Essentially the goal of dating is to get a girlfriend, whereas the goal of courting is to get a wife. Courting usually promotes more family involvement. But other than this, the general idea of courting is not that much different than the idea of dating. It is foolish dating and fundamentalist courting that has its differences, and both are dangerous.

So what are the problems in today’s world of paring off a man and a maiden? I believe we push dating too early and marriage too late. Think about it: boys and girls reach the age of sexual maturity (or you could say sexual immaturity) at about age twelve. Now days, it is not uncommon for two twelve or thirteen year-olds to start “going out.” And somehow we expect them to not get married until their late twenties. So we have about fifteen years for boys and girls to date each other, all while their hormones are most rampant. This is no safe way to expect abstinence. On top of this, we have more divorces. Some people push for late dating and late marriages. This too has its problems in that children fail to grow up the way they used to. Beyond this, keeping older children who want to date from dating may cause rebellion. Pushing for early dating and early marriages would work, except we must then take the responsibility of maturing much quicker than we are now in today’s society.

I do not believe one should date, court, or whatever else you may call it, until marriage is at least in sight. Some fundamentalists believe that no one should date until one is completely ready for marriage. I believe this is too tall of an order. But I do believe marriage should at least be in the seeable future. One should not date someone without at least considering the possibility of marrying them. Recreational, directionless dating only goes south.

I also believe that it is wise to not simply do things alone. I am not against being alone on a date if you are mature enough to, but going in groups is important for various reasons as well. I believe the families should know who their children as well. Family relations is one thing that destroys relationships. I have seen family relations tear down one relationship, and both parties wound up getting hurt.
The problem is not, I do not believe, whether we date or court. It is that we are not preparing people for marriage. Conventional wisdom tells us that people should not think about marriage until their twenties. But I believe marriage should be on people’s minds from a very early age. We should be preparing ourselves to be emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, physically, etc. ready for marriage. Men should know how to treat women (with respect), and women should know how to treat men (by not always clinging to them for attention). This way we will be more prepared to date (or court), and beyond that, to marry.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

December 14, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Thanksgiving: The Forgotten Holiday

2008-11-24T17:19:00.001-06:00

We are gearing up for another Iron Bowl, a day of turkey, and a time for college students everywhere to come home and finally re-unite with their family and enjoy some good ole home cooking from their momma. That’s right, it is Chri. . .oh never mind, Thanksgiving (the forgotten holiday) time again!

Of course, underneath all of this, is a time to be thankful. Sometimes it is good just to ponder on our blessings. We live in a nation, that despite her problems, is still a relatively safe and free place to live. We can go to church and not fear for our lives in the process. We can watch college or pro-football over a big plate of turkey and dressing. We can spend time with our families. We should be thankful for any work God has entrusted to us, and seek to be wise in how we use our money.

Not everyone in the world is blessed in these ways. Those of us who have good families, decent incomes, a free nation, and many other blessings should be thankful for all of this. However it is often those with the least who are the most thankful. Those of us who are rich are often times not thankful. Everyone is blessed to simply be alive, and have a chance to have a relationship with God and people.

I say this, and I am probably somewhere in between. I do not have everything I want all the time. But I have far more than I deserve. Even when times are tough financially, or when it is easy to give up pursuing a Christian life, I realize all I have been blessed with. This Thanksgiving, however, I am going to attempt to look at myself as rich, and not middle-class. Compared to what I deserve, I am rich.

What applications can we take from this? I believe that if we were more thankful, many parts of our lives would become better. Particularly, I believe that our politics and evangelism would change. I believe that if we were more thankful for what we had, we would not rely on the state as much. We would work harder and work more. We would have a real family, instead of the state being our family.

Furthermore, if we realized how fortunate we are to have our blessings, we may treat other less-fortunate people with more respect. We may be able to identify with them more. Sometimes our problems in evangelism and communication is that we fail to put ourselves in each other’s shoes. If we did this, we would be more competent communicators and witnesses, and would probably take more responsibilities for ourselves instead of relying on the state to take care of those financially or emotionally troubled.

In short, I encourage everyone this Thanksgiving season to be thankful. Don’t get too excited too quick about Christmas. I love Christmas and look forward to it. But how can we appreciate Christmas as much if we are not thankful first? Thanksgiving has become the forgotten holiday, and thus, we have forgotten to be thankful. The first Thanksgiving was probably the most thankful Thanksgiving. Yet it came at a time when people were starving and freezing to death. I encourage you to look at what you have, thank God for all you have in specific detail, and allow that to influence every part of your life, not just now, but also into the future.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

Be thankful!

November 24, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Nature of Man

2008-11-20T10:51:00.001-06:00

We have a messed up view of human nature in our world today. It seems like we cannot get it right. We may put man ahead of God. Or perhaps we believe in a relative morality ideology that in essence teaches us that man is not sinful, because there is no real right or wrong. Perhaps we believe that man can make it on his own, and that he does not need others to survive.

There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.

One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.

Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.

Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”

But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.

Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.

Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.

This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.

Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.

In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.

I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.

The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.

The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.

Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.

And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

God bless His Church

November 19, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Obamanation

2008-11-05T12:22:00.001-06:00

**To all Obama lovers, forgive my harsh words. I do wish the man well, and I ask that you read this open-mindedly.**

I have to admit, there are different sides of me when it comes to the reality of Obama soon being our President. Part of me is worried to death, part of me is hopefull that this will be a brick wall for America to run into, and start over returning to the ways of the Founders. Part of me just has faith in God. I realize that even if Obama is President, no matter how much he abuses his power, Jesus is King. Of course, I also wonder if Obama's life has much time ahead of it. I would not be shocked if someone takes his life in the next eight years.

Overall, I think that, despite socialism and anti-Americanism, I can handle an Obama Presidency. I guess that if I had the slick rhetoric skills of Obama, his money, support, and power, I might be tempted to abuse my power too. God in His infinite plan, put Obama here to be elected as our President for a reason, and I must trust His Will.

But my problem is that the American people are so ignorant to elect someone like Obama. Can our people not see we need less government, not more? Can they not see that we need a sensible foreign policy, one that, whether pro-war or anti-war is at least pro-America? Can we not see that socialism and communism does not work? Do we not understand the Constitution? It seems we have not realized these things. If we did realize these things, I believe that our President elect would not be Obama.

I know that we can not all of a sudden return to the ways of our Founding Fathers without some sort of catastrophic blow to our nation. We have simply drifted too far. But I am dissapointed in my fellow American's that we, of all people, have fallen for socialism. I would think that surely America would be a place where her people would not fall for such tyrannical government as socialism. I have been hopefull that we can sooner or later elect someone into office who would at least start returning us to a more Constitutional form of government, with a federal relationship between the states and their common central government. I would think that maybe we would start educating ourselves to realize that we are a mixed government, not a pure Democracy. I thought that we would eventually realize that we are a Constitutional Federated Republic, not a Socialized Centralized Democracy. If electing Obama is any indication, then we have apparently not realized these basic truths that founded this nation, and give us many of the gifts we benefit from even today.

I know Obama may sound good, but look at his policies. Is socialized healthare (excuse, "universal" healthcare), allowed in the Constitution? Is redistributing wealth an idea that Adam Smith would have supported? Is being friendly with terrorists, and stating who you want to bomb on national television really pro-America? Maybe some of the rumors about Obama are a smear on him, but if just half of them are true, he seems very anti-American, and anti-Christian.

God is in control, and He is still King. He may want Obama to destroy America for all I know. I would hate for that to be the case, but God has His reasons. People did not expect or want to see the Roman Empire to fall from within, but that is what happened. And the fading away of Rome is what in large part, over the course of some thousand years, help set up America herself. Interestingly enough, it was the Church that is in large part accredited to overthrowing the empire. The Church, with no real political power, overtook the greatest empire the world had seen, without war.

Now, under an Obama Presidency, the Church more than ever should be the Church. If the Church wants to get involved in the political system, the best way to do it is to be the Church. The most political thing the Church can do is to be the Church. Whether this restores America, overthrows America with the Power of the Gospel, or something entirely different, is in God's Hands. But the Church should not complain about an Obama Presidency when She has not done Her job. The Church has failed to show us what proper Biblical government should look like, and has failed to teach Herself government from a Christian perspective. Thus, our culture is not going to recognize the dangers of socialism. Our culture is not going to see the anti-Americanism and anti-God in Obama's policies. Thus, our result will be Obama himself.

If the Church is simply the Church - helping others instead of asking the government to help us, cleaning homes instead of searching them for Harry Potter, fixing our own marriages before asking the government to fix others, etc., then one of two things will happen. The Power of the Gospel will save our culture because our culture repents and follows the Gospel, or the Power of the Gospel will be a sword that our unrepentent culture cannot handle, and thus our culture will fade away like Rome, but the Power of the Gospel will give greater benefits throughout the earth.

All in all, I am dissapointed in America. We elected a socialist. That is unnaceptable for a nation founded on such principles as America was founded on. But maybe what we need is a brick wall to run into, and maybe Obama is that brick wall. Maybe the Church will get woken up. Who knows. I'm not too worried about an Obama Presidency itself. I voted my conscience, and let God deal with the results. But it is a little frightening that our culture would be so ignorant as to vote for Obama. May we wake up and smell the coffee. While we can.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

God bless President-elect Barack Obama

November 5, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Final Thoughts Before the Election

2008-11-02T22:19:00.005-06:00

**Please do not discard this as simply another one of Ryan Hampton’s boring political notes. Though it may be political, and at times boring, I believe I can bring up some points that will be helpful for you and I to consider heading into the election this Tuesday. And although I am pessimistic towards the choices we have for President this year, I do offer some sort of optimism in this nasty political season. I ask that if you have time, to read this open-mindedly, and give me your thoughts (I know many of you do not have much time, but any thought is greatly appreciated : ))**

Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.

There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.

First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”

Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.

A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?

Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.

I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).

Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.

I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.

Please consider what I have said here.

Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:

Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people

http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html

John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0

Chuck Baldwin for President

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek

What do you think?

God bless America

No King but King Jesus

Pray for our Troops

November 2, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Happy Halloween: The Meaning of the Season

2008-10-31T13:54:00.007-05:00

In a day filled with surprises, junk food, and many secular traditions, it is very easy to forget the meaning of the season. If you didn’t know any better, you would think I was referring to Christmas. But believe it or not, I am referring to Halloween. That’s right y’all, I am making the case that “The Devil’s Holiday” itself is actually a day filled with unique Christian tradition.

The origins of Halloween has secular and pagan roots. In the Celtic world of some 2,000 years ago, the New Year began on November 1. This day was the end of summer and the beginning of the dark and cold season. This time of year became associated with death, and it was soon believed that the night before November 1 the worlds of the living and dead became blurred. Such traditions of wearing costumes became prevalent. Thus, we have an early form of the Halloween tradition, and obviously,
this is very pagan.

But some few hundred years into the Middle Ages, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 as “All Saints’ Day.” This was a day set aside by the Christians to honor all Christian Saints, especially martyrs. This does not mean that the Christians worship the Saints themselves any more than Mother’s Day means we worship Mothers, or President’s Day means we worship the Presidents. This was a Christian holiday that was set aside to thank God for raising up men and women in the Church who would be willing to live and even die for the cause of Christ. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

Another term for Saints is “Hallowed ones.” Thus, another name for All Saints’ Day would be “All Hallows’ Day.” Hence, October 31 became known as “All Hallows’ Eve,” and eventually, “Halloween.”

So how did the Christian holiday of Halloween blur with the Celtic traditions of November 1 and the night before? Many people believe that the Pope had intentionally made November 1 All Hallows’ Day to replace the Celtic holiday. Christians have been known for doing this sort of activity over the years to mock pagan rituals that deny the Truth of the Gospel. Even such traditions of dressing up could have been used by the Christians to symbolically scare off demons from hampering the spread of the Gospel. It was a day in church history where the Christian could be proud of who he or she was, could mock the enemies of God, and be thankful for the rich Christian history he or she was apart of.

This does not mean that the Christian’s relied on pagan ritual for the support of their worldview. Rather it means that even prevalent pagan traditions fall short of the Gospel when the Gospel is spread. “Mocking” the enemies of God did not mean that we wage war on everyone who is not Christian; rather it means we show the non-believers just how sharp of a Sword the Gospel is, that it can pierce through anything that attempts to hinder the spread of the Gospel.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed (or perhaps mailed as some believe), his 95theses. The timing could have been intentional by Luther to make his 95 theses public on the eve of All Hallows’ Day. Thus right in the midst of All Hallows’ Day, we celebrate the Reformation and the brave Saints who gave their lives for the preservation and reforming of the Church.

So tonight as you go trick-or-treating, or walk around at your church’s Fall Festival, or whatever it is you do, I encourage you to think about God’s Church, the Bride of Christ. Think about the brave men and women who have pledge their lives for the Gospel. May we do the same. May we rise again as the lion hearted Saints of early Christendom. May we seek the unity of the Body of Christ, by tearing down denomination’s walls that keep us from piercing through our enemies with the Gospel, and worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth. May we remember the Saints of early Christianity who faced persecution in Rome, the Reformers Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and Martin Brucer, the brilliant Christian thinkers and writers who pledged their lives to studying God’s Word, i.e. C.S. Lewis, Peter Leithart, etc, and the Christian’s today who are facing persecution for spreading God’s Word, i.e. Roy Moore. May we stand together now as Saints and stand up for God. If it means giving up our lives, then may our blood become part of the seed of the Church.

Halloween may have origins in paganism. But when the Gospel took hold, the Pagan rituals did not stand scrutiny to the Sword of God. As Christian’s, we cannot let the Pagan’s take back the Holiday that we have won. This has unique Christian tradition. If you are an enemy to God, then you may enjoy Halloween tonight as you celebrate it with pagan intentions – that is, until the Gospel comes knocking on your door saying “Trick or Treat?!”

What do you think?

Trick or Treat?

God bless America

God bless His Church

Happy Halloween

October 31, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Liberty Vs. Security

2008-10-28T05:26:00.000-05:00

Nearly two-hundred and fifty years ago, Patrick Henry made the claim that he would rather have death than a life of no liberty. Patrick Henry and many more of our Founding Fathers understood and cherished the idea of liberty. Today, we have seemingly forgotten the value of liberty, and make excuses for not holding to it so dearly.

A life with no liberty, to many of our Founding Fathers, is not worth living. They understood that the government is here to protect and secure life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. True, they understood the idea that freedom doesn’t come free. Sometimes in order to obtain liberty, we must give up our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor as they did. Obviously in order to have our property protected, we must give a small portion of our profit to a common defense, in the form of taxes. To secure our lives, it is sometimes required that brave men and women give up their lives. To secure our liberty, we must enslave ourselves to the cause of liberty itself.

But never did our Founding Fathers embrace the notion that liberty and security are opposing forces. They believe as I do, that when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both. After all, the purpose of the government is to secure liberty. Why then would we sacrifice the very thing we want secure in the name of security itself? Why do we believe we must submit everything to the government to direct our time, money, education, etc., in the name of security?

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. In the Bush administration, we have seen the idea that we need a “Patriot Act” to better secure us. We give up our privacy to what should probably be considered an unconstitutional establishment. We have the notion that a one-hundred years war is justified in the name of securing the peace. The government even forced nearly a trillion dollars of our money into corrupt banks in the name of securing the economy.

Democrats may claim to support personal liberties, but they often sacrifice our liberties in the name of securing comfort. Democrat and socialist Barack Obama wants to take away our liberty of choosing our healthcare in the name of the comfort of having affordable healthcare for everybody. Many Democrats suggest we must give up the liberty of owning a gun, a personal security, so that we have the comfort of knowing there are no guns around us (which is not very comforting to me if the criminals own guns). We must give up the freedom of educating ourselves so that the government can provide a level of comfort of teaching every child (again, not very comforting that the government controls education).

When will we stop sacrificing liberty for security, or comfort? When will we stop relying on the government and do things better ourselves? Liberty does not necessarily mean we are never enslaved to anything. In a sense as mentioned above, our Founders were enslaved to the cause of liberty. The major world religions teach that their followers be enslaved to the core principles of their faith. But our enslavement should not come from the rule or force of any other man. We cannot sacrifice liberty, and in the long-run have more security. In order to be more secure, our liberties must be secure. As Patrick Henry seemed to understand, what is the purpose of this life, if all of our liberties are taken away? Why live if we are not allowed to spend our money how we want to, worship how we want to, educate our children the way we want to, or even take care of our bodies the way we want to? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

October 27, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Why I Believe in God

2008-10-15T20:55:00.001-05:00

Why do you believe in God? It is probably something that you have been asked, or at some time will be asked. It’s not always the easiest question to answer. The idea of there being a governing all-powerful force behind everything that happens is certainly no simple idea, and there is no perfect syllogism that would convince the most staunch of skeptics. Still for us Christians, it is an important question. It’s not important in that we question God or doubt our faith until we receive a sufficient physical or philosophical proof, but it is important because we as Christians are told to “always be ready to give an account for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15).

Reading 1 Peter 3 tells us to separate Christ in our hearts, living in accord to His ways, abstaining from anything sinful, etc. And in a sense, this should be our ultimate apologetic for the faith. Our works should be carried out in such a beautiful way that would make people think, “If man really is made in the Image of God, then I want to know this God.” However verse 15 tells us to give an account of our faith. The wording seems to indicate that we should be prepared to verbally defend the Hope in us. And so with this mindset, I have asked myself, “Why do I believe in God.”

Obviously there are many different angles to come into this. I could give the scientific argument that it would be frankly impossible for the world to come together the way it is all by chance. That would be a good and valid argument, but I would probably lose a debate with an unbelieving scientist. I could give historical evidence for Christ being the Son of God, and that too, but would be valid. But again, someone could simply dismiss it as something strange going on with “that man Jesus.” I could give a philosophical defense, by asking how we can have any sort of absolute Truth without an absolute God of Truth, and that is by all means a very valid way to defend the Faith, and in some ways ties into the argument that I will present in a moment. But again, the skeptic will always rebuttal by attributing the same questions you pose to the universe to God. “If God can be infinite, why not the universe?,” if God can have truth, why not the universe?,” if God is eternal, why not the universe?,” and the list goes on. Or perhaps they would argue that there was an outside force that was not God that caused the universe into existence, e.g. a multiverse system. No matter how persuasive you see these arguments as being, there is something radically missing.

Certainly the goal should not be that you in one hour convince the most raving of skeptics to pick up the Cross and follow Christ all his life. It is certainly a great thing if that happens. However the goal of apologetics is simply to keep those who reject God from using their schemes to pull those struggling in the faith or searching for faith away from Christianity. We should be able to come across as if the Christian worldview is not under-minded by the “rational” atheistic worldview (or any other worldview). The struggling Christian should have his faith reinforced when he sees Christianity offer a solution to all of the arguments posed against it. The person in search for some identity and faith should see that the Christian worldview holds scrutiny to anything posed against it.

With this in mind, the most basic and sometimes the most beneficial argument to use, is to say that we as Christians, and each one of us on a personal level, have been given the knowledge of the Grace of God. We know God because He revealed Himself to us, and that no matter what argument is used against Christianity, nothing can shake the foundation of someone’s faith. Obviously this does not go far in convincing many skeptics, but if we show integrity and our lives reflect that, then perhaps the truth of our arguments will be made known. However, there is still nothing wrong with going a little bit further.

So why do I believe in God, without just saying God has revealed Himself to me? I believe that the beauty of this universe reflects God. I believe that the questions we pose to the universe at large are only answered through a Christian worldview. Again we could use the example of truth. What is truth, and from where do we obtain it? Pilot asked Jesus this question during Jesus’ trial. Jesus answers it in John 14:6 by saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” This in a sense is Jesus saying that any philosophical question to the universe is answered in Him. We all long for a direction or purpose, and Jesus calls Himself the way. Perhaps we wonder where life originated. Jesus calls Himself the Life. It comes from the Word made flesh, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of the Father God.

Perhaps we wonder what love is. To an atheist, love is simply a human emotion, where if consistent with their thinking, only happens through random predestined chemical processes. The God of Christianity calls Himself love (1 John 4:8). Therefore, the God we know and love, is from whom we obtain any of our earthly love among one another.

What about the problem of evil. This has been used against Christianity, but I believe can be used in favor of Christianity. Christianity shows us what evil is (Satan, abominations to God). It shows us how it originated (Satan rebelling, and the Fall of Man in the Garden). It shows us a solution to evil (Jesus Christ). Atheists cannot answer any of those three questions, yet still believe in the existence of evil. Any other religions can makes stabs at the problem of evil, but there is always something missing. Christianity offers us the reason for morality at large. Where is there any form of absolute morality under a worldview that teaches we are all here by random chance? Yet even the most staunch atheist believes in some form of moral standard, often similar to that of the Christian’s.
People search for faith search for a community. They search for true love and grace among each other. They search for a personal community with God. Christianity offers both, and both only through Jesus Christ. It offers it so much through Christ, that He is God who came to us even when we were too sinful and fallen to come to Him.

The idea of death and resurrection that even Hollywood adores is given a radical example in Christianity. It is seen through Jesus, and from Him in each believer individually. You could argue that it is seen in God’s People universally by falling in the Garden, and ultimately being resurrected in Christ on the last day.
Imagine even the idea of marriage. Christianity shows us what marriage is. In fact, Christianity is the greatest love story of all. The Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve) and ends with a marriage (Christ and the Church). The story of the Gospel is about a Man dying to save His Bride. Again, we long for this story, and it is offered in the Gospel (keep in mind we are made in the Image of God).

I could go on all day about how each of our questions about the universe are answered in Jesus Christ. He becomes all we need. I have not even gone into detail about the beauty of such things as music, art, creation, etc., that we know could not have become so beautiful on their own. I hardly mentioned how the sciences show us that a Creator is the only way to view existence, or the history that shows that Christ really did rise from the dead. All I did was show that the Christian worldview holds more than scrutiny to any other worldview or any question we pose to the world. The skeptic may still say that this is made up because it is what we need. But this is too great to be made up. Beyond this, what else is there that would answer all the questions I had just mentioned? They are not just answered, but are only answered through Jesus Christ. May our lives and actions as Christians become even a greater defense than the words I have mentioned here.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

Pray for our church

October 11, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Ryan Hampton Endorses...

2008-09-29T00:59:00.002-05:00

With just a little over a month until the general election, I have figured it is time for me, Ryan Hampton, to throw out my official endorsement for our next President to all of my millions (*cough*choke*gag*) of readers. Some of you who have read much of what I have said lately probably have a good idea of who it would be. Some of you probably have a good idea of who it would be because you know that I, Ryan Hampton, am no liberal, much less a socialist like Barack Obama. And so you naturally figure that I would endorse John McCain.

But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.

I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.

Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.

Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.

Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.

I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.

I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.

Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 29, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Andy Griffeth is Back!!

2008-09-28T13:48:00.002-05:00

Well maybe not quite. He's old and seems to be we past his prime. But it is good to see him back in this music video, Brad Paisley's cou "Waitin' on a Woman." I know that a lot of today's music, even in country music, is corrupt and not, for lack of better terms, real. But this is actually a fairly decent song, and putting Andy Griffeth in the video, in my opinion, makes it better. He will always be remembered as Sheriff Andy Taylor from Maybury, but even in this video, he's still the same town sheriff, just a bit older! I am unable to enbed this onto my blog because of user requests on youtube, but I have provided the link to take you to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKgnkIN8C8

Lessos From the Olympics

2008-09-05T08:37:00.001-05:00

The Olympics have recently been wrapped up in Beijing, the Communist Capital of the world, and I must say that America did really great. America earned the most medals of all countries, and was only second to China is most golds. Michael Phelps added to the summer of super-heroes by becoming, to steal Ray Melicks word, "aqua-man," Nastia Luckin and Shawn Johnson took gold-silver in the women's gymnastic all-around, Dara Torres was one of the fastest women swimmers, and certainly the fastest 41 year-old, American beach volleyball took gold in both men's and women's, and as expected, America took gold in men's and women's basketball. That's not to mention plenty of other sports where America took home medals as well.

I believe that our olympians represented themselves and their nation well. Outside of being close with China, America dominated the competition and did so with class and sportsmanship.

And it makes me wonder - what if our leaders viewed their jobs the same way as our olympians viewed their jobs. What if John McCain and Barack Obama took the Constitution as seriously as Michael Phelps took the techniques of swimming, or Nastia Lucan took the routines of gymnastics. We can only wonder. Maybe I would vote for one of them in that case.

Kerri Walsh and Misty May don't take an oath with their hand on the Bible to win gold. But they do it anyway. Michael Phelps did not swear on national telivision to win gold in all of his competition. But he did anyway. Those who are elected President take an Oath of Office with their hand on the Bible to simply do their best to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic. But it seems so often that they are the enemy of the Constitution themselves.

I can only wonder, what if our leaders cared as much about their jobs as most of us care about ours, where we'd be today.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

August 25 , 2008

Ryan Hampton

Some Inconvenient Questions

2008-09-05T08:35:00.001-05:00

Some Inconvient Questions

September 5th 2008 (finished just past mid-night)

Ryan Hampton

After hearing much about global warming (we were supposed to read a book about it over the summer for Samford), I think it is time to shed some logical light on the issue. Now this is not going to be a whole bunch of propaganda telling you about how there is definetely no such thing as global warming. I am not going to give you much direct evidence about how our temperature changes are definetely cyclical, or about how I can show there is not temperature or climate change after all. I may hint at some of that evidence, but my main purpose in this post is actually to ask plenty of questions that any proponent of government intervention because of their belief of global warming or climate change has been left unanswered.

What do I mean? Well consider what many global warming finatics tell us. They tell us that the earth is definetely warming (or they may use the term “climate change” on cold days). They tell us it is our fault. They tell us that it is a problem. They tell us that since we caused this problem, then we must be able to fix it over time. But since we are not going to individually take the sacrafice, the government must force the issue upon us by law, and eventually this should turn into a global effort – still, most likely, by force.

Here is the way I look at: the burdon of proof falls upon the one’s making these claims. The idea of a global government controlling the environment comes only after all of the other things have been proven. That is a lot to prove! I mean think about it. Do we have full proof that the earth is really warming up a whole lot? Now I’m sure it has been some. Most people say that. But c’mon. I’ve heard that we just came out of the “little ice age” in the 1800’s. So perhaps we are just recovering from that and it’s all good. Perhaps it is cyclical. Perhaps we are warming a little but is it necessarily a bad thing? Maybe not. Maybe it is even a good thing. Maybe we get more flowers, more sunshine, more green grass (ironically that is what we are supposed to move toward anyway). Maybe it is a problem, but maybe not. Again the burdon of proof is on those who believe that it is a problem because they are advocating doing something about it. And if they do prove that, there are still more questions to answer.

Are humans involved. Sure, we drive SUV’s. Sure, every now and then we accidently set off a wildfire. I’m trying to think what else we may do. Mow our lawns using gasoline. But do these things contribute to global warming? Really? Does mowing my lawn really make the earth hotter? Or even driving the gas-guzzling 1993 Ford Explorer? Where is the proof from those who bear its burden? I have heard that everyone driving cars for about fifteen years does not even put out as much heat into the atmosphere as one single volcano that we can not control. So is it really our fault? If the models that are used to show how the earth’s temperature has risen over-time are correct, we must also admit that the earth’s temperature is cyclical. If the graphs are incorrect, then perhaps people five-hundred years ago were “suffering” from the same heat that we are today.

And you know something? I would wager to say that we are more energy efficient and environmentally beneficial with our recources than we used to be. The “environmental” Native Americans would burn down a whole forest to get some wood or some land. A whole forest when they only needed a little bit of it. Do you know how they would kill just one buffalo? Run a whole herd off of a cliff. They’d kill them all when they only needed one! These actions today would be considered wrong as they should be. The Indians knew no better and had little of the machinery (oh the evil machinery!) to be more energy efficient. We do. So not to sound like a hyper-libertarian, but the free market will work better than government intervention. That goes for a safer environment as well as the economy. We are constantly coming up with better ways to do things because we as humans demand it. There is a scarcity in the world, so we by nature know we must have things that best deal with that scarcity. The free market will probably overtime push SUV’s out of the market because we come up with better solutions for carrying a large family somewhere – more enery efficient and economical ways. And yes we may even by the power of the businessman (oh that evil greedy businessman!) get something other than gasoline to power our automobiles – without government intervention.

And even if we have been causing global warming, could it be that perhaps our actions level off somewhere – where we don’t just keep on and keep on getting warmer? I find it very hard to believe that we will just die in the next fifty years because we got too hot. I believe in God and I don’t think He’d let that happen to His earth. Even if your atheist, you probably believe that the earth has been here for billions of years anyway. So are you just going to all of a sudden think that the earth is warming due to non-cyclical reasons and unless we do something, the earth is going to die? This happened all of a sudden and evolutionists are supposedly uniformists!

But let us assume even yet that the earth is warming, it is a problem, humans are causing it, and it appears that we in and of ourselves are making no progress to fix our problem. This is the beginning – and only the beginning – of an argument for government intervention. If we are not fixing the problem, will the government help? Will the rewards be worth the sacrafices? What about the things we give up? What if we gave the government so much power to control business and our personal decisions that we fell under some sort of tyranny? What if we fell back into the life of the 1700’s? As romantic as it is to think of those times, I am glad for the improvements we have made. Instead of dying from a blizzard riding on the back of a horse to go see an old friend, we drive cars and write e-mails, etc., and then complain of the heat or the price of gasoline! What if we took away all the things that make our life the blessed life it is now, and returned to living in a life where turning 50 was a big deal, and where an out-of-state travel may have taken a couple of weeks if not your life?

Furthermore, even if we realized that government intervention is the right thing to do, we must ask what the proper precedure should be. We should go about this in a Constitutional way – probably an ammendment passed in the way that the Constitution prescribes. And the last thing we need is a global government to get involved. The last time I checked, I am an American, not a globalist. The last time I checked, we can individually take action by picking up after ourselves, not being careless with our recources, etc. I have nothing wrong with personal action to keep the world a better place. But making a wager that we as humans are controlling the weather and the government must get involved because of it, takes much proof to many questions. And so far I see more questions than proof.

My verdict is this: until I see more evidence, the idea of global warming is still up in the air (no pun intended).

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 5th 2008

Ryan Hampton

Waiting on God

2008-08-17T15:49:00.000-05:00

**"Waiting on God," by Ryan Hampton, is inspired by the August 10, 2008 Trinity Presbyterian Church Youth Bible Study located in Branchville, Alabama, as taught by Pastoral Intern Jeremy Sexton.**

Patience is a virtue. It is so much of a virtue that the world’s problems stem from one man’s lack of patience, and the Redemption in the world come from one man’s patience.

Yes – I am referring to the Fall of man and the death and Resurrection of Christ. But what Christ faced – except in much greater amount – was very similar to what Adam and Eve faced when tempted by the Serpent in the Garden.

Let’s read Genesis 3:1-6:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

And now let’s compare this to the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11:

1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"
7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]"
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

There is great similarity in these passages. Both were tempted by Satan. Both involve food. Both deal with the three basic roots of sin. 1 John 2:16 says, “For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.” This is considered all that is in the world. These three sins – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – are essentially the roots to all of our sins in some form or fashion. Both Adam and Jesus were tempted in direct ways to each of these.

For instance, they were tempted by the lust of the eyes. The food looked good. Food was offered in both cases. So was the lust of the flesh – that they could have dominion. Adam and Eve already had dominion over the animals and Garden, and life was good for them – but they had still not reached full maturity. God was preparing them to multiply into future generations and be lord over creation. But they weren’t ready yet for everything.

Pride was also in both cases, especially in the case of Jesus being tempted. Satan told Christ that if He was really God, He should be able to jump off of the Temple, and save Himself, similarly to how many mocked Him on the cross. In the Garden, it was a bit more subtle and not quite as noticeable. But Satan questioned more of God’s identity to Eve. He wanted her to think that God was jealous of Adam and Eve and their life, and that the only way to keep them from becoming even greater would be from not eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Of course, Jesus’ temptations were probably harder for Him, because He was offered food while He was fasting. He was hungry. Adam and Eve had so much other food around them at the time anyway. Also, Jesus knew that He would have to undergo death, and what is perhaps even worse, His Father turning His back on Him. Adam and Eve were certainly in a maturing period, but they already had so much as it was. They were not expected to die for God.

So both of these temptations was actually more aimed at the patience level. Jesus had the patience to declare “It is finished!” at the right time – not a premature time. If Adam and Eve would not have eaten of the fruit when offered to them by the Serpent, I think there is a good chance God would have later given it to them. There was nothing sinful about the Tree in and of itself. In fact, Scripture says that they could eat of any tree. It almost seems to imply that eventually, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would be given to them.

But Adam and Eve ate prematurely. Jesus waited on God. He had His Father, God Almighty, turn his back on Him. Jesus suffered through fasting, rejection, and even a death much more painful than we can imagine. Yet He was patient. He waited on God. Adam and Eve on the other hand did not wait on God, and prematurely ate from the forbidden fruit.

So what applications can we take from this? I think we need to wait for God. Do not prematurely rush into anything. This could be true whether it’s work, relationship issues, marriage, leaving home, college, etc. How often do people rush into things, especially relationships? And how often do they work? A lot of people rush into going to a high-level university, and find themselves back home with no degree and a whole lot of debt two years later (I hope this does not happen to me!!). People often think they can wake up with a good job, instead of perhaps starting at minimum wage and then working up the line to have a good full time job. People often rush into thinking they should move away from their house. Home is not big enough. Their family is not good enough. But most eighteen year-olds are not mature enough to be all on their own. Many people rush into taking part in marital fruits prior to marriage, instead of waiting until real vows have been spoken. [I actually think this is very symbolic to the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden. They both deal with life, some sort of lust, something is good and moral but only after a certain waiting time, and in a sense, both deal with marriage – our marriages here on earth, and man’s relationship with God similarly to how the Church is the Bride of Christ.]

Society teaches us to rush. It teaches us that we must find our own happiness. That we can tell ourselves what is right and wrong. It teaches us that we become our own gods. But our society is in many ways Adam’s Serpent. Jesus responded by giving Scripture to Satan. So when Satan in the disguise of society and her conventional wisdom tells us not to wait, tell us to be only our own, and all of the other popular rhetoric, shun it away with the Word of God, so that you may be equipped for every good work (II Timothy 3:16-17).

So I encourage you to wait on God. Wait on Him to give you what you need. He will take care of you. He takes care of the birds care-free, so He will take all the more care of you (Matthew 6:25-34). And ultimately, we will reach our greatest treasures in Heaven and the Final Resurrection (Matthew 6:19-21). And when you are patient, God will allow you to have true Dominion. We will then inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5 tells us that it is the meek of all people who will inherit the earth. So wait for God; do not prematurely take part in the pleasures of this world. Allow God to give you all the joy you need. Easier said than done, but certainly a nice goal.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His Church

Pray for our Troops

August 17, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Politics of Racism

2008-08-03T13:26:00.001-05:00

The Politics of Racism

This will probably a long in-depth blog and might bore you. But I do believe that if you have patience and try to follow this, then it should (hopefully!) be thought provoking, interesting, and possibly even worth your time.

Clifton Gardner did a similar piece on this (1) in which takes up much less of your time to read. I will try to expound upon Clifton's points, and go into deeper detail.

His point was that liberalism is actually filled with much more racism than conservatism, and that, conservatism at its truest is actually not racist at all, despite what the liberals and the media tell you about how conservatives are passionless, authoritarian, rich, white, idiots from the South.

But I will go into deeper points, discussing what worldview and religion have to do with this, and I will be fair. I will give criticism to conservatives when they need it, and I will not bash every liberal in this world as a racist. I will only blame the liberals worthy of being held a racist as a racist, and the rest; I will simply try to inform politely.

But let me explain my politics, which I consider to be more or less conservative, although I may not fit in exactly with every so-called conservative today. It begins with my Christian worldview.

I believe that God created this world and all that is in it. That includes me; that includes you. I can only trust Him for my life, and give thanks ultimately to Him for the blessings upon this life of liberty and property He has given to me. I believe that I, like all other people (except Jesus), am a sinner who deserves Hell, and can only be saved by the blood of Christ. In the New Covenant, this salvation is open to those of all races, both to men and women, from all cultures, ways of life, etc., and can be received simply through faith in Christ. The theology of predestination might could be argued (that is, God predestines His people from before all worlds, so salvation is in God's Hand), but even yet, since we would not know who the elect were, we must assume as if this salvation is offered to all, and must preach the Gospel to everyone as if they can receive it. Obviously, this is not racist.

Now to some, this Christian worldview supposedly leads to the conservative politics of forcing Christianity, hating those who may not believe exactly as they do, etc. But that is not where it leads me or many other Bible-believing conservatives. Here is where it leads me:

God created everyone, and He created him or her equally.
God created everyone good, but each man has responsibility for his sinful nature, and must call upon God to have it forgiven.
God gave us certain Rights under His Law. The core Rights He gave us are the Rights to life, liberty, and property.
The way each individual exercises these Rights is between him and God. He must make his decisions and take responsibility for his actions before God.

But we have a little problem: men being sinners, will want to naturally use force against others to achieve their ends, something they do not have the Right to do under God's Law. Taking the life of someone is murder. Taking their liberty is slavery. And finally, taking their property is theft. All of these things (murder, slavery, and theft) can be used to achieve one's ends at the expense of others. But God works in very subtle ways, and is not going to strike someone down the moment they kill someone. Before the Flood, God pretty much let it go. But when it got out of hand, God sent a flood to destroy the evil of the world. Afterwards, He promised not to destroy the world again like that, so He gave man the authority to set up government for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).

Therefore governments purpose is to secure everyone, of all races, their Rights to life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of their own happiness.

But we have a catch 22. Government is comprised of sinful men. Sinful men usurp one's Rights. Therefore there must be limits on government. In America, we have a Constitution that limits the Central government to their authorities. We have checks and balances. Also, as written in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow bad government (certainly as the Declaration says it is wise to suffer under sufferable, for no government is perfect, but there are times to overthrow a bad government). Not all governments do or should limit themselves in the exact way, but a limited government is important so that the government protects our Rights, and does not usurp them.

To sum all of this up, let's look at the Declaration of Independence itself:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now within this Christian worldview that establishes this basic form of government, there are some questions that still linger and are harder to answer. What about war? Immigration? What about social issues, as today we have the homosexual marriage debates, debates over drug laws, abortion, etc.?

With war, we are killing people, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that destroy life and property, and we are sometimes withholding the liberty of our soldiers. Yet at the same time, it is the duty of the government to protect us at home, and sometimes war becomes the only rational way. Therefore, "war as a last resort" is generally the battle cry for foreign policy. Putting that in perspective in today's world is very hard to do.

Immigration is hard because we should want to offer liberty (although ultimately liberty comes only from God – 2 Corinthians 3: 17) to everyone. We certainly do not want to take it away from those who seek it – even foreigners. But at the same time we must be willing to guard our borders from any enemy we may have. If we have no border, we essentially have no nation or government, and that goes against the Christian worldview.

Social issues are hard as well. Homosexual marriage does not directly take away my life, liberty, or property, but it by no means is apart of the conservative Christian morals that come from the Christian faith, and this relativism can sometimes be enough to destroy a nation. (Abortion would be different, because it involves taking life, which should definitely be protected by government and law.)

And all of the civil rights battles, the civil war, and all of the other political turmoil that has gone on, particularly in the conservative South, does lead some in their right minds to assume that the South or that conservatives our racist. I had one person from Connecticut say that her Aunt, or someone or another told her that a lot of people in the South are racists. And although I find it a bit of a smudge on the South, and very untrue, to someone who does not understand the complicated issues and has had a one-sided education on the "Civil War," it may seem like a fair statement.

And while certainly I am no liberal on the issues I listed above (war, immigration, homosexual marriage), I do think it is possible that some conservatives are a bit too hard-nosed the other way. I would not consider it racist that they support the war, want real tough immigration laws, and are morally and legally against homosexual marriage, but perhaps some conservatives do border a small amount of bigotry, or if not, perhaps it can easily be seen that way to someone who grew up hearing liberal propaganda.

So I have been fair. I have, to the degree that I can without falling over dead, put myself in the shoes of a liberal, and seen how some conservatives may could border or appear to border being bullies, or being bigots of some sort. But now it is time to look at the liberal point of view, and show its racism. And I will begin with none other than an atheistic worldview.

How do liberalism and atheism go together? Liberals are all for giving, right? And isn't that what Christianity is largely about? Helping the poor, providing equality for everyone, etc.? And how would racism fit into this?

I am not going to say that all liberals are racist, or that all liberals are atheists, or even all atheists are racist, or any other combination of the three there is. But the platform of modern liberalism is very atheistic, and very racist in its essence. How so?

Well imagine that there is no God (atheism). We are all here by the chance of predestined molecules that arranged in the way they did to form us. There is no real standard of good and evil, we must make it for ourselves. Furthermore, Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" becomes supreme, where if one group of species can survive over another by force, then so be it. And if that worked for different kinds of fish, then it could work (though no one would admit it), for humans today, where one race can claim superiority over another. Consider what Darwin had to say: "Whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." (2).

And with no God, we have no destiny, nothing to live for other than today, etc. We live for ourselves; for today; that's it.

So what is the purpose of government, if it is not to punish wrongdoers as Paul spoke of in some of his writings? In an atheistic worldview, there is either no government (because there is no real "sin"), or there is an all-powerful government, because it is now the government's job to become god. This sounds like modern liberalism: moral relativism, yet the government controls wages and measures equality, and, to put radically, teaches racial superiority. Abortion is kind of the climax of it, because it teaches both moral relativism, and it teaches that the government can strip an unborn child of its Right to life. It teaches that we can by force take away the unwanted children of the world.

And government programs that liberals ask for fits right in with this atheistic racism. Equal opportunity becomes equal wages, or at least that's what it seems. It's not the government's job to control wages. Our property is between God and us. The government, at the very least, stands as the middleman between God and us in the world of modern liberalism. Think about it: liberals call conservatives racists, when it are the liberals themselves asking to distribute wealth by force from one group of people to another based on race and/or social status. That is the real racism!

Government control of education, as offered by the liberals, is atheistic, and in a sense, racist. It puts all of man into on common basket for the government to control. It strips poorer children the opportunity to receive better education because they are stuck in the bad sides of town with bad school zones. So much for the cultural diversity that liberals are supposedly for. So much for the freedom to choose our religion that liberals are supposedly for. We are stuck being taught what the government wants us to be taught – whether it is politics, religion, etc.

Modern liberalism took hold in the mid nineteenth century, mostly in the North. Interestingly enough, they were called Republicans. Northern intellectuals were the one's who founded government schools. Darwin, someone of the middle of this century, brought evolution to a whole new perspective. Even Abraham Lincoln, America's "hero" and the one who supposedly saved the blacks, was swept into the idea of racial superiority. Consider his words:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (3)

Strong words for the man who "united" America. Of course, Lincoln was also the person who waged the bloodiest war in American history.

This Republican Party stayed strong in the North until the Democrats in the South lost touch with reality and taught the things this new liberalism began to teach. Republicanism began to change into what it is today: a moderate change from oppressive liberalism. The ideas of liberalism then spread to people such as Karl Marx among others who took the ideas into a more radical approach. These liberal extremist ideas were coined with terms such as "communism," "socialism" and "fascism," although even many Republicans today are fascists. It becomes easier to see how atheism and communism fit together, but modern liberalism is really not far from communism or socialism. Consider the song "Imagine" by John Lennon:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

It's easy to see the atheism in this, but Lennon was a communist as well, a strong supporter of Karl Marx. And the idea of the world being one is the same utopian propaganda we hear from modern liberalism. The idea that the government can take away hunger and greed is part of modern liberal propaganda. John Lennon would not be far from modern liberalism.

To be fair, I understand that many liberals are simply misguided by the attractive propaganda taught by modern liberal leaders. It sounds good to think that the government can solve our problems; it sounds nice and fair that we'd all make the same amount of money; and it seems to be only descent not to judge homosexuals, people who put drugs in their body, etc. (And for the record, I have not judged any of these people in this blog or even mentioned government control in the matter anyway, simply that I do disagree with their choices by a real moral standard). And it's easy for me being brought up a white Southerner to be conservative, as I'm sure it is easy for someone of the Northeast to be liberal. For some, liberalism teaches we're all one, so we must all live as one, which would include wages, etc. Even some who borrow from atheism only do so thinking it makes us one and equal, not realizing that atheism teaches more racism than Christianity which is offered to all groups and races of people. I think this is the reason for much tension in liberalism. Liberalism teaches some sort of racial superiority that the government can control; yet it teaches some sort of moral relativism in which you can be whoever you want to be. And atheism is the cornerstone to both of these ideas. So it makes me wonder, inasmuch as liberals justify homosexuality, a woman's "right" to choose, "equal opportunity" for minorities, if liberals really have a hypocritical motivation, being to destroy these things. Perhaps conservatives are the better friends to the homosexual, minorities, and a struggling soon-to-be mother, because they offer a true and real alternative that is much better than a hypocritical liberal answer.

These issues are confusing, and can sometimes be taken both ways, so I understand some liberals are simply mistaken and misguided (as are some conservatives on tough issues as well). But I have done a great deal to show that liberalism is founded much in atheism, which can in the long run be the most racist worldview there is. The politics I believe in, however, based on my Christian worldview, is by no means racist. I look at people as people, not classes or groups; majorities and minorities; whites and blacks; etc. People are people created in the image of God – from conception, I believe – with unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and property, or perhaps more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. You can call this conservative, libertarian, Constitutional, or for all I care, liberal. There was a time when these beliefs were considered liberal or Democratic (but if you called me one of those, please put "classical" before it). But I am unable to stand on the platform of modern liberalism because it goes against who I am, my core beliefs, etc. I am forced to believe in small government, free markets, and a meaningful Constitution, none of which are racist.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless you

Pray for our Troops

August 2, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Works Cited:
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=20692146491&subj=518112463&index=1
(2) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
(3) http://home.att.net/~howingtons/abe.html

More suggested articles:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/justice
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Top 11 Ways To Destroy America

2008-07-19T13:26:00.001-05:00

Top 11 Ways to Destroy America.

I don’t know about you, but I love America. But if you do want to see America destroy or fade away, then rest assure because I have given you 11 ways to successfully destroy America. And if you are one of those like me who love America, as I’m sure you are, then do not support any of these 11 ways. I wanted to keep this to ten, but when I came up with the eleventh way, I did not know which one to take out. So we’ll just have 11. I am trying to order this so that as you get closer to # 1, the more important it is. But this is hard because these are all so important. So may the countdown begin.

#11: Teach political correctness. One thing that can cause America to fade away is being politically correct. It’s hard to say exactly what political correctness is, but it generally has to do with teaching a relative moral or philosophical thought, that is, that there is no real standard of truth. This can destroy our country from within when we justify homosexual relations, abortion, or the like. Now this is not to say that anything not politically correct is good. Some people make outlandish statements that are really wrong. But we should stop forcing ourselves to avoid the truth in our words in the name of not offending anybody. If the truth offends somebody, I think it can also set them free.

#10: Have a weak border policy. I am by no means an anti-immigrant, or one who blames them for economic downfall and disregard for Patriotism. In fact I have blamed some conservatives for treating the border issue to seriously. I really do not see why we should make English our official language. I see no Constitutional jurisdiction for this, nor do I find it securing that the government should control the way we speak. But we do need some real border philosophy that we can manage, that keeps criminals out of our nation. I don’t think we need a fence, and I do not claim to know exactly how we do it, but we need something better than what we have now. Perhaps even less paper work, because those who avoid easy paperwork are probably coming here for illegal purposes, so that way we will have an idea of who should and should not be here.

For several administrations now, we have failed to get a grip on the border issue. Government hands our money to our immigrants, while citizens turn too far the other way sometimes, bordering (no pun intended) resentment to our immigrants. How about we treat them as human beings, and once they legally become an American, we treat them as Americans like you and I. They have all our privileges, and yet also their own personal responsibility. Until then, this will become a dividing issue at home and abroad, and the legals will be punished for the illegals crime, and the illegals will be rewarded for the legals work.

#9: Elect Barack Obama as President. If you want Hitler as our President, your sadly out of luck. But the good news for you is you just might get the next best thing. Barack Obama is basically a socialist. Think about it: universal healthcare, gun controls, government control of eduction, etc. were some of the same things that people like Karl Marx, John Lennon, et al pushed for.

If you were to take these tips on how to destroy our nation, Barack Obama would be guilty of about all of them. He is already politically correct, although if you analyze his (may I say important meaningful) words, then you will realize he is, in a politically correct way saying, “I AM A SOCIALIST.” Obama would hand out money to immigrants, which is certainly not the best way to handle the issue. And as you follow our future American-destroying tips, you will realize that he is guilty of about all of them as well. I don’t have time to fully explain everything, because I’m limiting each “tip” to just a couple paragraphs or so. But Obama would not be a saviour to our nation. He’s not even sure what his foreign policy is. He’s already flipping on that now. Even if he gets us out of Iraq in a couple years or less, he’ll have us somewhere else we definitely don’t need to be. I don’t think that Obama is the anti-Christ or anything like that, but he’s certainly not America’s saviour.

But the sad thing is, his opponent fascist John McCain is not much better.

#8: Keep the same two-party system monopoly we currently have in politics. Monopolies are never thought of as good things. Especially government controlled monopolies. One of the worst monopolies is when it comes to who will be our leaders. Washington D.C. is filled up with the same air heads year after year only in slightly different order. And our two party system has turned into a one-party system with two branches: the fascists and the socialists.

I think it is time we as American’s stand up and stop voting for the “best” of the two evils. McCain may not be as bad as Obama, and may not destroy the nation as much as quick, but do you really want someone as President who thinks that man can control the weather, and will therefore pass laws regulating your every action in the name of environmentalism? That is crazy, hypocritical, and politically correct all at the same time! Do you want someone who hangs on both sides of the fence as much as McCain? “I want the government to make healthcare more affordable to everyone, so we must give our economy choice” (not exact wording). That is like saying, “I think I should be a communist, but I’ll be fair and let there be some capitalism.” If you read on his website, he speaks of some of the same things Obama would: the government doing stuff for us. He’s no capitalist. He thinks we must sacrifice liberty for security. And while he may, today, claim that he’s pro-life, do you see him really making strides to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

And this is from the best of the two main people running. But fortunately, I have the freedom to vote for someone else, someone better, so that maybe in the long run, we can make a move to overturning this two party monopoly. And I just might exercise that freedom. I recommend that you at least check into that as well, otherwise, us and our posterity will endure the same mess we’ve had for years.

#7: Have the government “fix” our “climate crisis.” One thing I mentioned about McCain is his environmental movements. It scares me to think that the person who may become our next President actually believes that mankind can control the weather. It scares me to think that the government would pass laws about what we can and can not do in the name of environmentalism.

Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t really think that is the case. I see little evidence that we are attributing to warmer weather, much less, that the government should fix it. And I see a lot of circular reasoning in the save-the-climate-freaks. Samford University, which is where I will attend school at in the Fall, gave us summer reading at orientation. The book was about global warming, and is entitled “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” and is written by Elizabeth Kolbert. On page 17, the writer says, “As the climate warms, there is a good chance that these gases will be released into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming.” Think about it, the cause and the result are the same. She is basically saying, “As the earth gets warmer, the earth gets warmer.”

I don’t have a problem with believing that the earth is getting warmer. It seems to be, but then again, some people called the 1800’s the “Little Ice Age.” The earth’s temperatures have varied over the centuries. There are so many questions to answer before assuming that the government should get involved: if the earth is really warming we must ask, “Is it temporary or will it probably continue to warm?” “Is it a bad thing that the earth is warming, or are there some good effects as well?” “Is this man made?” “Can the government really fix the problem?” “If the government can fix the problem, do the good results outweigh our sacrifice?” Just because the earth is warming, there is no reason to assume that the government should be involved. I’ll let God control the weather, not Congress or the President.

#6: Continue to inflate the economy with fiat money and abandon the gold standard. Have you seen the commercials telling you to buy gold? Probably so. There is actually probably some truth in them. The value of the dollar has gone down so low, meaning you could get so much money for gold, which never really looses its value. Unfortunately, legal tender laws and the federal reserve hinder gold from really being used in circulation. We are left with the meaningless inflated paper that we call money. And, of course, its value has dropped.

Think about the Great Depression. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson created the federal reserve. All of a sudden we had a lot of money, which was good for most of the 1920’s. They were the “roaring twenties.” But in 1929 the dollar had lost so much value, that all the success of the economy now came back to haunt them. It’s like buying everything on a credit card with no limits. It’s all great, until the credit card bill comes in!

Abandoning gold is a common mistake of nations, and America has been no different. It started early on, one of the few mistakes our Founding Fathers made. The Confederates made this mistake fighting for their independence, and it weakened their economy. The problem was worsened in 1913. Finally in 1965 quarters, once made of silver (at least some form of precious metal), were no longer made of silver. Look at a $20 bill from say, 1950. It basically says it is redeemable for real money, gold. Now, $20 bills no longer say that, because we don’t have the gold to back up our money! This leads to high gas prices, just to name one of the many affects.

If we have a solid monetary money system, we would earn what we get. If anything, money will gain value as more and more people are fighting for the same dollar. The dollar has more credit at home and around the world. Saving money would be good. Under an inflated economy, we’re always one step under the current. It’s basically a hidden tax – perhaps the worst form of tax there is.

#5: Have a lolly-gagging foreign policy. Our name around the world is important, and we don’t help our case by having a weak military. And we certainly don’t help when we think we’re invincible.

We don’t have a weak military, but it seems to be weakening. What happened to Ronald Reagan’s strategy of “we win they lose?” What happened to winning a war without firing a shot? What happened to going to war, taking care of business, and then leave and send our troops home to safety? Now we go to the Middle East to build nations. Going over there to protect ourselves may not be a bad thing. I was for that on 9/11/01. But we have no moral right to build nations. We don’t need to make enemies overseas. I’m not sure we’re much safer now than we were on 9/12/01. “Gentle Giant” is not the best description of American right now, although it probably should be where we want to head. Feared and respected; yet respectable.

If we bring everyone home now, then there will probably be a lot of chaos. But building nations over there makes the chaos worse. And certainly while there is a time for war, our ultimate goal should be that we have little war. But whatever the case, when we are in war, it should not be lolly-gagging. We need to be the strong nation America is.

#4: Practice Socialist Economics. One way to destroy America, which comes from within, is to practice socialist economic policy. It’s the policy of Barack Obama. It’s about government control over the economy. But this is not good. Free markets work better. In a free market, we make our own choices, and since we make them for our own benefit, we will probably make beneficial choices. The government will not make choices better than us.

Besides this, isn’t it stealing to take from one person and give it to the other? And that is the philosophy of socialists and communists. We take the money (supposedly from the rich), and give it to the poor. Now it sounds good, but I’d rather this be charity than government forced taxation. No matter who you are, who you take from, and who you give it to in return, stealing is stealing. Even if 51% of the vote said it wasn’t!

The “common storehouse” did not work in the days of John Smith. It taught laziness. The same is today. If you know you’ll get something from the government, then why work?

But even things like minimum wage and price caps are socialistic, and they don’t work. Prices will go up with minimum wage. The worker not worth the new minimum wage will be out of a job. And companies will go out of business with price caps. If you want lower gas prices, stop inflating the economy, and allow us to drill where there is oil, increasing supply, lowering demand, lowering prices.

#3: Have the government continue to control education, education our children. One of the scariest things ever is to think that the government controls the education of children. But you know what? That’s how it is in America today!

Think about it. The government takes your money, supposedly gives it to education, forces children to attend one certain school (monopoly) unless they pay extra for a private school, and then hires teachers who then teach children. But I don’t want to be educated by the government. One person, I can’t remember who it was, said that “Man is better not educated than to be educated by his rulers.” And we worry about God in schools; prayer in schools; what side of history you teach in schools, etc. But if we let individual schools decide these things, and not the government, and let you decide where you go to school, then we wouldn’t have near as many of these problems. The free market would handle it.

Education is too important to be left to a free market, you say. Well I say that the education of our children is too important to be left in the hands of a few greedy politicians.

#2: Abandon the Constitution. This is being done today. Our leaders take Oaths of Office with their hand on the Word of God, swearing to uphold the Constitution. But I’m not sure how much they mean it. Their actions don’t seem to show that they mean it much. The Federal government controlling education is unconstitutional. Roe vs. Wade was (and is) unconstitutional. There are prescribed ways to pass laws and go to war, and we have done much of that in an unconstitutional way.

And how many voters really take time to think about who the most Constitutional candidate is? We have abandoned one of the most important documents ever in our history. And being an American without caring about the Constitution is like being a Christian without caring about the Bible.

I know that the Constitutional is fallible. It was written by men, not divinely inspired per se. But it is important. And when we abandon this document, we really abandon a large amount of what America is. This leads to our socialist economic policy, our inflated fiat money system (which is unconstitutional, since government can only “coin” money constitutionally), our bad education system, etc. Let’s restore the Constitution.

Fortunately there was one candidate who wanted to restore the Constitution. It was Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he only received little votes.

# 1: Take God away from public life. The best way to destroy America, is to force God out of our public life. This hurts us individually, but also as a nation as a whole, by abandoning much of our worldview in fighting for independence. The ideas of limited government and liberty which we cherish come from a Christian worldview. God gives us liberties, and governments protect them, not usurp them. And there is nothing unconstitutional about this. Congress shall not pass a law regarding religion, but that does not mean that there can be no religion, or that Congress shall force religion out, or even that states can have their own establishments of religion (although it would not be wise at this time and place for any state to establish a religion). But if we remove “In God We Trust” from coins, we may start trusting in men, which will give us a big utalitarian government. Let God control the weather, have final vengance, and let us in the name of God individually give to the poor, not the government who is comprised of foolish sinful men. To save America, we must trust in God, and keep Him in public life – not by force, but certainly not by force shall we remove Him, and His blessings, who has truly shed His grace on thee, America. God bless America.

So there you go. Hope you enjoyed that. Let me know what you think, agree or disagree. I’ll be happy to listen to what you have to say.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

July 19, 2008

Ryan Hampton

God is Closer Than You Think

2008-07-11T22:40:00.002-05:00

One mistake we as Christians often make is assuming that God is somewhere far off. We fail to see God as right here with us, and His glory among us. We fail to open our eyes and see God. In a sense, we fail to know much about God, and much of God.

I'm not a superstitious finatic who thinks that I can hear God's voice, or think that He reveals Himself in things such as dreams or grilled cheeses or animal crackers. I don't think that God necesarily gives us things that are meant to be extroadinary signs of His existence, except perhaps in a few cases to help someone who's faith is struggling.

But God is right here among us. His presence is here when it is just you alone at night, and His presence is even greater when two or more are gathered to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Matt 18:20). And even something that is not God Himself may be something that shows His glory.

What are some things that show His glory? Perhaps a corporate Body of Believers singing hyms of praise together in corporate worship. How about the sacraments of Baptism and Communion? Perhaps when a child is brought to life on earth, or when two people are made one through marriage. Or perhaps even, as put before, when you get lost in prayer that it seems as if God is your best friend.

This does not mean that one day of worship will be a revival for the history books. It doesn't mean that God's going to show all His glory at once. It doesn't mean that the elements in the Lord's Supper become the real physical substance of what they represent. But it does mean we must have a higher view of corporate worship and the sacrament of Communion. It's more than just a nice memorial; it's the place we have supper with Christ, who is among us. Corporate worship is where we ascend into God's presence and the gates of Heaven are opened up for us, and we worship with angels and archangles and all the company of Heaven.

Scripture often speaks of the gates of Heaven being opened up to someone. In the Old Testament and at the beginning of the New Covenant, God would give more direct signs to His People because they did not have the written Word, or many of the other advantages we have. Their access to God was limited, so God had to come down more in real voice and substance. So today we are not able to literally see Heaven, whereas, though only in certain rare situations, God may reveal Heaven to some of His People in the Old Covenant.

But it always seems as if Heaven was right among them. They simply had to be shown. We can not literally see Heaven now, but that does not mean it is not right among us. Heaven never moved. (It is not as if earth and Heaven are the same thing, but perhaps Heaven is some sort of parallel relation to the earth; a fourth dimension we can't see, or something like that.) The book of Revelation often pictures Heaven as right among us, as if there is simply a door in between (Rev. 3:8, 20; 4:1). It seems as if Heaven is right there. And although we can not literally see Heaven, we do have the ability to come into God's real presence through the name of Jesus Christ, something that people of the Old Testament may not have had. We do not have to go through a Priest, or our parents or ancestors, or an animal sacrifice to have any relation with God. All we need is Jesus Christ.

This simple yet profound theological idea, that God is right with us, gives us both a vision for God's Kingdom, and an idea of how we should live now. We have the vision that one day Heaven and earth will be joined. That our body and souls will be one. Many think that we are physical creatures with spiritual experiences, while others say that we are spiritual beings with a physical experience. The truth is we are meant to be both body and spirit, both together. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were with God. God was right among them talking to them. The Garden was in a real sense God's Kingdom. There may have been a Heaven, but it was one with the earth. But the Fall seperated it all. Our bodies and spirits are now apart, and our direct relationship with God is cut off. But in the end when all things are made new, it will all be one again, and we have everything and more of what we had in the Garden.

This idea is also relative to us here and now. We are told to make our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). Our many bodies are to be one Body in the Lord, and our many sacrafices are to be one sacrafice in the Lord. We should not be Christians merely as individuals, but as one People. And when we live as one People, we see God the most. When we reject community and friendship and become mere individuals, we can not function fully as a Christian. We need each other. It is one Body that is the Bride of Christ, not many bodies.

So in summary, God is closer than you think. He is right here with us. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world where Heaven, whether is be a fourth dimension or a parellel universe or whatever, is not fully revealed. But God does reveal some of it through worship, through heart-felt prayer, through the love Christians share together as friends, through Christians together singing hyms of praise, through the sacraments, etc. He does not show Himself in animal crackers or grilled cheeses as some may make millions off of believing. But He is right here among us.

So while friends should not be the only reason you go to church, perhaps it should be one reason. Friends can helps us come closer to God and see Him revealed to us.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His Church

July 11, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Independence Day

2008-07-04T14:54:00.001-05:00

I think it is good to occasionally sit back and think about our many blessings we have as people and as American's. And Independence Day, the Fourth of July, is the fitting time to do so. So that we do not fall or fade away as a nation, we must take the time to remember both those fighting for us now, and those who have fought for us before.

It may be cliche' to write this and to talk about our Troops, but yet it is necesary. Our men and women - some of whom are my age - are out fighting for us, or preparing to fight for us. Fighting so that we can debate who should be our President, whether or not we need more or less or the same taxes, debate the roles if any the Federal Government should play in the economy, and debate our presence in the Middle East in the first place. Those are great things that should be debated, but sometimes we should put those aside for our love of our nation. Whether you are for this war, against it, or just unsure what to think like myself, you can still join others in a love for America, and a support for those who are fighting.

But I don't want to only think of those overseas in the present. Many have gone before them in previous wars. Many men died fighting to become an independent nation just less than two and a half centuries ago. July 4th is the birthday of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Each one who signed that document pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for their nation. And even in our great success as we are today, so often both us as regular citizens, and our leaders forget about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. We forget about those who founded this nation as a City upon a hill. Think of the unity and togetherness our early leaders had, even in a time that should be much more splitting than today. Breaking off from another nation is nothing small. Yet the American's joined together then to claim their independence, and so may we this Independence Day come together and reclaim ours.

So while you are celebrating with your families today, eating watermelon, swimming, or whatever you are doing, take a time to thank God for the brave men and women of the past and the present who have fought and perhaps even gave up their lives for this nation. May we be ever greatful.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

July 4, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Hypocricy of Feminism

2008-06-30T10:35:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago I posted a blog entitled "The Other Side of Feminism" in which I argued that we shouldn't blame just women for feminism. Feminism often comes from men failing to be men. You would have to read my blog to understand my full points, but I think that the blog did well to show others at fault for the dangerous movement as modern feminism.

But that doesn't mean I justify all women feminist leaders either. There is a great amount of hypocricy in their ideology. So often women fight for the "right to chose" to have an abortion, and fight for equal pay in the workplace (something that should be handled by the free market), but so often utterly ignore the disrespect that many men, or boys, give them.

I have been reading "How To Ruin the United States of America" by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth. In it they make a good point. The writers argue, "It amazes us that the women's-rights lobby is too busy fighting for abotion and for allowing multimillionare females into country clubs to notice that the most popular form of music among youth today routinely refers to all women as 'hos' and 'b*t*hes.' Don Imus can't get away with this - why is it tolerated in the rest of the radio dial?"

Not to defend the comments made by Don Imus, but if the media would have left it alone then they would be much more harmless than the songs "Low" or "Stronger." If Don Imus should have been mandatorily fired, then perhaps half the rap songs should be banned from the radio.

This is kind of an inverse of my previous blog on feminism. The other one showed the fault men had to play in feminism. This one, you could argue, shows women's fault in not just feminism itself, but for the lack of respect they get. If they want respect then actually attack real disrespect, and don't become so disrespectful as to fight for the "right," or so it is called, to abort a baby or fight for money you did not earn. Stand up for yourself where it matters, practice what you preach, and if you want to dominate the workfield, then all the more power to you to do so on your own initiative without the government's help. If you want respect, then make yourself respectable. Don't tolerate being treated as a sex object, and don't place yourself in a position where you probably would be treated as one.

If your going to be a feminist, then do so without being a hypocrite about it.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

June 30, 2008

Ryan Hampton

I Think the Nail Was Hit on the Head: College Thoughts

2008-06-22T20:46:00.001-05:00

Well after hearing about the times you will enter college and how prepared I should be, it appears the day has come. This Fall I will start classes at Samford University, and I will be living on campus. So out of 18 years of preparation, I should have a plan, a lot of goals, and pretty much be well prepared for college.

That is the propaganda, anyway. For a couple of years now, half the questions I receive from older friends and family members is about what I want to do with my life - where I will go, what my major will be, and where it should take me. I have felt uneasy answering. I could take an educated guess what I will do and where my life will be four, five, six, or seven years down the road. I could sound ignorant and apathetic by saying the truth, that I really just don't know. And really, I don't know now. I really do not know where I will be five years from now.

But I heard someone speaking at Samford who made the whole transition sound a little more comforting. Why worry about predicting our futures? Basically, she said that there is too much pressure put on sixteen and seventeen year-olds into knowing what they want to do with their life. Why should we expect sixteen year-olds to know where they will be six years down the road?

Now I know that to some of you this may sound like an excuse for perhaps my laziness. But I'm not saying we shouldn't have goals; I'm not saying we should not start looking into what we are good at, what jobs are available, where God may take us; I'm not saying that God's Providence undermines our responsibilities. But why worry too much about the future when it is in God's hands? I think so often we like to wiggle our way around what Scripture tells us. I'm all about taking Scripture in its proper context instead of rushing to conclusions, but I take Scripture as it is. And when Scripture tells me not to worry about tomorow because God feeds even the birds, and is sure to provide for us all the more, I take that for what is says. If I'm a little uncertain about where my life will go, as long as I do my best and do my best to glorify God in the process, I really can't second guess Providence.

So where will I be five years from now? I don't know. Right now I must focus on the present. I work at Chick-Fil-A, I just graduated high school, I go to Trinity Presbyterian Church, I have a devotion to work, church, family and friends. I must focus on these things first. Perhaps five years from now my life will be the same mundane life it is now. I have higher goals than this, but as long as I don't settle for less than what God is giving me, then I can't complain with this. For all I know, though I don't plan for things to move this fast, I could be a married Father, making $80K a year writing articles a few grammer corrections better than what I write now. For all I know, I won't even be alive five years from now.

So instead of setting goals for ourselves about the money we will receive and the careers we will have, and the degrees, and the fact that our jobs will be something that comes easy to us...oh and about how we will change the world, about who we will marry, and already expecting God to make sure we get the kids we want, and telling Him if their going to be boy or girl, it's time we set more mundane goals for ourselves. Work for your employers as if you are working for God, because, you really are working for God; study hard when the Fall comes around; guard your eye even on a campus with a two to one girl/guy ratio; attend church services weekly or as close to weekly as possible. And as you get older, you may have different goals, but they may be just as mundane. Love only one woman (or man); work hard for your family; train up your children in the way they should go; etc. But sometimes the more simple and mundane goals are what makes you a good person. Why focus on something that has not come, perhaps never will come, something that you can not see, when you should focus on what you have now, and excell in it?

So to those entering college as I am, don't be scared. Just do your best and give it all to God. Trust His plan, and it will be fine. I have known plenty of people who constantly change their minds about they want to be when they grow up. I know of one person who has consistently known what he wants to be, that is my friend Timothy who wants to be a proffessional violinist. Other than this, people seem unsure, or ever-changing. So likewise, I urge the parents of these young men and women not to worry much either. Have faith in your children, and more importantly, in God. Certainly encourage your children to be looking to what they can do with their life. Some parents may be living the regreat of not caring enough. But their is a difference in not caring and simply not knowing. If you have done your job as a parent, then I imagine the child will be mature enough by now not to mess everything up, and wind up okay.

So all this to say, I think that the particular lady at Samford (I believe it was the Head of Freshman Life or something like that), hit the nail on the head in her comment. Sixteen and seventeen year-olds, or even eighteen and nineteen year-olds don't have to know what they want to do with their life, other than one underlying purpose: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. And that mundane vision, is much more eternal than any college degree.

What do you think?

God bless you

God bless America

June 22, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Politics Today

2008-06-16T13:35:00.001-05:00

Politics

Well I feel the urge to write something. I really haven’t had much time to write stuff lately (working 45 hours a week does that to you ; )) But I feel the urge to write something while I can, and one of the things I want to write about is the current politics, especially of the elections coming up in Novemeber.

The 2008 Presidential race, as far as the Reps and Dems go, is between McCain and Obama. I admit it wasn’t exactly how I predicted it. I didn’t really think McCain would get the nomination. He didn’t have the “presidentialism” that others had, and he fell way behind when Giuliani got ahead. I was also a bit skeptical of Obama, if he really had what it took to get him through the Democratic nomination. I was not sure he could get past Hillary, and now that he has, he, despite all the turmoil that has come up with him, is perhaps the favorite in the general election.

So this would probably be my time to say that although I’m not a huge McCain fan, he’s good enough to endorse and support – especially over Obama. I’m supposed to say that I think McCain has better war tactics and economic tactics, and seems a little closer in line to my beliefs. This seems like my time to, even though I haven’t supported him in the primaries, to give a defense for what will be my vote for him this November.

But if that day comes, it is not today. Nor am I supporting Obama. I don’t really like either one. I guess McCain is probably the lesser of the two evils, but he’s no angel by any means. I know that since I’m not running for President and since it’s a harder job than it seems and my leaders are given to me by God, people say I shouldn’t complain. All those things are true, but somehow I still feel an urge to complain and feel justified.

Both have flawed economic plans. I was looking on Obama’s website just a few minutes ago. I didn’t want to assume he bad just because everyone else said so. I wanted to see his own words. What does he support? He basically wants a plan for anything that might be a problem – a government plan. Since we have children with disabilities and we’re caring Americans, we need a government program to help them, so says Obama. Since the temperature of the earth may be a little higher than it was a few hundred years ago, we need government intervention to cool it down and “control” our environment, or so Obama tells us. We need more government funds into our education system because it is the backbone to America, according to Obama that is. But I don’t want the government to control or attempt to control children with disabilities, the environment, or education. It’s my job to help those adapt to the disabilities the Lord graciously created them with. It’s my job to be a good steward of what the Lord has given me so that I may play my part in keeping a good environment (not that I or any man can control its weather!). It’s my job to get a good education! And its your job on the issues as well. It is not the government’s job! If Obama and other liberals are so against the government bordering with religion or morality, then why force charity on us by taking our money in the name of the poor and disabled?

McCain isn’t quite as bad as Obama on these issues, but he has his ways. He’s a big believer of the “global crises” and wants government to help it. He talks about his “plans” and when I hear politicians talk about their plans I get scared. Here is my plan: get the government out of the economy. Maybe I sound too libertarian but the philosophy holds true with economic principles. I don’t think Obama or McCain either one really understands much about government altogether – about how we have government to protect our Rights given to us by God, namely which are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the government’s job to create utopia. It is the government’s job to secure the peace and protect our life. McCain and Obama both seem to think that the Constitution gives us our Rights. Our Rights come from God not Constitutions. This is just part of their flawed philosophy. If man gives us Rights, then man perhaps also can take away rights, legislate morality, and promote a utopian society. This sounds like Socialism or Communism! Meanwhile, they utterly ignore what the Constitution really says. To many politicians, it tells us what rights we have and if they are not mentioned, then it must mean we don’t have the rights and the government must stop us from the act. The Constitution was actually written for the opposite purpose: to list out where our Federal government should go, assuming that what is not listed is for them not to go. There may be slightly different interpretations to the Constitution, and some may interpret it very strictly while others interpret it broadly, but nonetheless it is a very important work for our leaders to follow, abide by, and defend to the best of their ability. I'm not sure if McCain or Obama care much about it. And when they take their oath of office, whomever it is, they will swear with their hand on the Word of God to defend it.

I don't think either of these candidates is real wise on foreign policy. They each have different views it seems, so it would make since I'd chose one of their views and side with one candidate on the issue. But both are interventionists. McCain may be a strong supporter of the military, and I admire his service to his nation and his patriotism, but that doesn't necesarilly make him wise in foreign affairs. I think McCain may be a little tougher on our enemies that Obama, but I also think he would drive us into war with almost the entire Middle East, making more enemies. However we do it, we need to start returning to the humble foreign policy our Founders promoted and Bush ran on in 2000. Obama may say he'll give us that some, but I'm not sure. I think in his four or eight years (if he's elected), he would bring us into some war or perhaps make enemies with another nation and set us up for war sometime in the future. Maybe that’s just speculation, but I wouldn’t really doubt any of that.

So since I don't like either candidate and I don't support or endorse either one, what do I do? I am kind of stuck between the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and the Constitutionalist candidate Chuck Baldwin. Barr is one of the better Libertarians in my opnion. He was actually an ex Republican Congressman from Georgia. Chuck Baldwin is a Baptist Minister and a frequent candidate of the Constitutionalist Party. I don't know a great amount about either one, but both are pro-life and they have both been big supporters of Republican candidate Ron Paul, who I voted for in Februrary. I think both are good men with good values, who would bring lower taxes, lower spending, promote a sensible foreign policy, and at least to some degree restore the value of the Constitution.

Before leaving, let me briefly defend my decision to possibly vote for a third-party candidate with little hope of winning. Our two parties have become sort of a one party with two branches. They are both, for the most part, wrong on many areas. I look at voting like this: out of those running, you pick who you like the best. If it happens to be a third-party candidate then so be it! Vote your conscience! I know there may always be some strategy in voting. If out of the two mainline candidates, one I liked almost as much as a third-party candidate and needed my vote to win, then I may cast my vote for him. But McCain and I are out of line a bit, and Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin are both similar to my ideal candidates. And McCain is probably going to win Alabama anyway, so I might as well use my vote to promote a third-party candidate – especially if I like them anyway. I know that the third-party candidates may seem too “radical,” but maybe that’s what we need. We keep justifying our votes for the “lesser” of the two evil candidates. Maybe it’s time we vote for someone worth voting for or just not vote at all! Until we do that, we can expect to see our nation go downhill as both parties get worse. I won't tell you who to vote for, but I would encourage you to at least look into some third-party candidates. Just at thought.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

June 16, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Real Jesus

2008-06-08T16:33:00.001-05:00

People today have distorted who the Real Jesus is. Not hat I in any way have the perfect view of Jesus, but I would like to tak a time to share with you who I think Jesus is.

Most of the problem results from the fact that we fail to view Jesus as both God and Man. The church today has matured from Arianism and other false doctrines that in some form or fashion questions Jesus' double nature (of God and Man), but we still fail to really pull it together. Perhaps we fail to see Jesus as being the true God, to whom we pray to and through. It's so easy to see Jesus as a reference in prayer to the Father, but often we fail to actually see Him as the Mediator from us to the Father, to whom we are praying to. And at times, we fail to see that He was man, capable of many human errors (other than sin), and we fail to see the man Jesus as a real historical person who radically changed the world.

Jesus' message was something radically different than that of the Roman Empire, and was perhaps the main thing that faded Rome away. The message of Jesus was political. Repenting was not a nice word to make us feel better about a fault, but it was political and powerful. Repent meant to turn away from the idea that Caesar was absolute ruler, and turn to the fact that Jesus is the New and greater King.

The Romans were actually religiously tolerant contrary to much belief. But it is impossible to be completely tolerant. In order to be tolerant, there must be some things you do not tolerate. The Romans did not understand this, and as a result had the worst form of intolerance to Christianity because it did have moral standards, and it did say that there was a New King.

The Roman military was powerful, and Jesus's message was quite different. It was about love. Jesus died for His People, the greatest of all love. Jesus told us to love our enemies. When Jesus fulfilled the Law, He fulfilled it with love and grace. Consider the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) where Jesus turned the Commandments to the heart (you commit adultry in the heart, murder in the heart, etc.). As ironinc as it sounds, the sword that Jesus brought (Matt 10:34) was a sword of love. The love that Jesus brought was too poweful for the greedy and prideful Romans. It is interesting, because while Jesus came to save a fallen world, in a historical context He also killed a thriving world. Jesus stepped into the middle of the Pax Romona (Peace of Rome) and from Jesus' message the Roman Empire faded away. It was sort of an "out with the old in with the new" Baptism.

From a philisophical context, Jesus also cured many wounds. Up to this point there was a tension between the natural and the idea (or so in the mind of man). The deductive Platonic school of thought was in rival with the inductive Aristotilian school of thought. Jesus brought these into synthesis by being both God and man. As a result many other seemingly contradictory things have been were brought out of antithesis (the peace and the sword, grace and the Law, the mind and the heart, etc.).

America today is much like Rome. We have put the mind and the heart into antitesis, and only Jesus can cure that. We have a dominant military, but perhaps we don't always use it in the right way. We have a love for our nation as the Romans did, which is a great thing, but perhaps we use this love as defending government acts that should not be defended, and perhaps putting even our nation ahead of the true King Jesus. We live in an individualistic society that teaches that if someone harms you, you must harm them back.

But Jesus said to turn the other cheak. Jesus Himself was around the worst of sinners and ate and drank with them. Jesus was the life of the party often times.

So what can we do to start believing in Jesus as the real Jesus? Believe that Jesus is present when we pray, especially in the context of corporate worship. Start loving your enemies as Jesus did. And perhaps we can learn from Jonny Cash. After Jonny Cash redevoted his life for the Lord, he still played performances for those even in jail. I particularly like his song "Man in Black" where he sympathizes to those who may not be as blessed as us. He sympathized because he could. He had been on the wrong paths in life, and knew it was love that was the only cure.

So that is why I'm always goofing off, befriending the worst of sinners, etc. I wish I could more. Many people say I'm over my head, immature, and maybe I rightly am. And maybe some things are just too big for me. But I have nothing wrong with becoming weak for the weak, or all things to all people as the Apostle Paul said (1 Corinthians 9: 19-23). I don't want to spend my life just reading Scripture and writing deep thoughts, though they may be great things. I want to write a song about the sinner longing for acceptance; I want to bring laughter to those around me; I want to get dirty to help the less fortunate; I want to see a little child grow up and remaining young in heart, a rareity now days. It helps me become more aquaintenced with the REAL Jesus.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His Church

May 9, 2008

Ryan Hampton

2008-05-21T22:45:00.003-05:00

Interpreting Scripture

I was recently in a small and friendly online debate about the Genesis creation account. One group of people, including myself, argued for the traditional interpretation of Genesis, that God created the universe in six literal days, rested on the seventh, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans He created. However others argued that the story was not literally true, that Moses used this as a piece of literature or poetry, in order to explain why man is sinful, not how; why God created the world, not necessarily how, and so on.

Both sides brought up good points, but obviously I hold to my original viewpoint that God created the world in six literal days, and rested on the seventh, and that the Adam and Eve story is true.

But why? Why couldn’t this be a metaphor, or parable, or poem? Ultimately, it is about how you interpret the story, right? Jesus told parables, so why couldn’t this be a parable? How do we interpret Scripture? How do we apply hermeneutics?
Ultimately, if we had a perfect nature, we could understand this a little better. But I do believe that we can use certain ideas to help us. Therefore, I will present to you my tips on how to interpret Scripture.

1): Interpret and defend Scripture with Scripture. What I mean is this: don’t proof-text with random verses without attempting to understand what they may mean in reference to other parts of Scripture. Roman Catholics, I think, do this a bit with their theology on the Pope. Jesus told Peter he would build His church on this rock, speaking, and perhaps even referring to Peter. So doesn’t it follow that Peter is the head of the church, and when he dies, someone else should become the head? Well, I do not believe this, because I don’t think we can justify such a doctrine as this sort of church government on one verse. [I know that Roman Catholics would further their argument, and I do not want to oversimplify their points, but this is just how I see it.] Calvinists and Arminians are both guilty of "proof-texting." One verse says that our salvation was "predestined" while another one says that Christ "died for all." I would argue that it is good to compare similar passages of Scripture and see what the common ground or common understanding is before we "proof-text" our points.

2): Treat all of Scripture, and really all of history, as one story. We should not separate the Old Testament from the New Testament making them two different stories, two different peoples, or two different Gods. It is one story, and the New Testament is really the climatic point of the story. Even that which is to come is part of this one story. Me writing this is just a small part of the one great story God has. I believe that this helps us understand the creation story. When we treat the creation account as if it is poetic, we are left with two options. We could assume that all of Scripture is a metaphor or poem, used by God to explain something to us. And of course, when you reject the incarnation of Jesus, you are really preaching heresy. You may stay consistent in your thoughts, but your thoughts are heretical. The second option you have is to pick up somewhere and say "this is when the real history begins." This seemed to be the mindset of the particular people arguing for an alternative creation account. It seemed to be that the true history began with probably with Moses, since he wrote Genesis. This is not heresy, so long as it is believed that Jesus is our Savior for our sin. But this is self-contradicting and thus has much theological ramifications to it. What happens to the theology taught by Paul that "from one man came sin so from one man comes redemption" if our sin was not from one man. And if we are products of multiple evolutionary races, when was the first sin, and how did it affect all of humanity? What happens to the generations listed in Genesis. How does the seed of the woman crush the serpent? Although the stories of Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, and of course even Adam and Eve are all different stories to teach us different lessons, they are also part of one great story leading us to Christ in some form or fashion. If we disregard the first few chapters of Genesis, we have serious ramifications to deal with. How do we have a "happily ever after" without an "In the beginning?"

3): Consider the broader context of what you read in Scripture. When you read Scripture, it is easy to think "Okay so this is exactly what it’s telling me…I need to do this." At times this is okay, but I’d caution you against this in many regards. Consider the broader context of the Scripture. Who is the author, the receiver or audience, the time period the Scripture was written in, etc. Consider speaking in tounges. I have mixed feelings personally toward the role of toungs, but I do not find it right to say that since some of the early Christian's spoke in tounges then we should at any time today. Or even because Mark 16:17 seems to say taht we shall "speak in new toungs." We must consider the background to the writings, and then consider its relavence to us today. Of course I write this as much to myself as to any of yall, because it is easy to forget.

4): Constantly look for symbolisms and literary devices. Even if what you are reading in Scripture is factually and historically accurate, God could providentially preserve certain events to point as signs to other events. For instance, Abraham sacrificing Issaic is historically an event, but it is also a typology to Christ. It points us to God the Father sacrificing His only Son. This is just one of many examples. Consider Noah starting the whole world over, becoming a kind of Adam. Or Moses being saved in a basket (the original Hebrew is the same word used for Noah's ark, actually) through water (similar to the story of Noah). It would take a whole seperate blog to write these out, but they are interesting. Consider how the Tower of Babel brought many languages from one, and Pentacost brings many languages together. Consider how Adam ate from the forbidden food, and Satan tempted Jesus with food. Consider how Adam sinned eating from a tree, and Jesus saves dying on a tree. Consider how Moses (two times and Noah, were saved by water, and how we are saved by the waters of Baptism. Consider how the Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve) and ends with a marriage (Christ and the Church). These are all real things, historically even, and are great symbolisms for us. Of course symbolism is not the only literary device used in the Bible. We see chiasms, poetic language, etc.

That about covers it as far as my tips go. I believe the literal interpretation of Genesis. The way I look at it is this: sure, it may all seem like nice poetry and wonderful stuff. But why can't it be true? Why would the God of wonders beyond our galaxy tell us a make believe story. Jesus told parables that help us understand the story better. But the story is true, and it is our story. It is the best darn story on ever. Man tells stories such as "Narnia" and perhaps even the contraversial "Harry Potter" to help us better understand the Scriptures and who we really are. But we as humans long for these stories because it is in our nature. Even non-Christians long for these fairy tale type stories. We are made in the image of God, so it is His nature as well. We may not realize it, but we are in the middle of a great fairy tale. But this one has the greatest "happily ever after" any fairy tale has ever had. Just don't forget the beginning.

What do you think?

God bless His people

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

May 21, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Who Am I? A Paradox of Truth

2008-05-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

My life is a paradox.

I'm simple, yet one who is constantly searching for a deeper meaning to things, and constantly asking deeper questions.

I'm a loner and yet a people person. I am a rambling man, yet one who stays at home.

I'm do not get wrapped up in emotionalism, but I live the fullness of emotion. I'm not an intellectual, yet I strive to learn more everday.

I'm spiritual yet physical. I'm utopian yet realistic. I'm romantic, yet idealistic. I have a vision, but as much so I have a Heritage.

I am loud, yet quiet and soft-spoken. I'll be random, wild, and racaus one day, while the next day be very standard, polite, and presentable. I'll be a Southern Rock junkie one day and listen to Bach or Bethoven the next.

I am myself, yet I recognize that I do not belong only to myself. I am one person, yet all things to all people.

And I am not being contradicting in this, nor am I being a double-minded man. Nor am I failing to be true to who I am. In fact, this paradoxical thrift I see in my life is, though confusing at times, a reassurance that I am called to God's plan. Who is Jesus? He is the ultimate paradox of all, yet perfect, holy, and all righteous.

Jesus was both (and is both) God and man. Even His mother Mary was both mother and virgin. Jesus was natural and ideal; spiritual and physical; perfect and yet suffered from the imperfections of mankind. Jesus is everlasting, yet had a birth and a death. See the pattern? Jesus, even more so than Paul, was all things to all people, yet He did not stray from who He was.

Now there are some distinctives to people, even those called to follow Christ. Not all Christians think or act the same, and not all have the same personality, nor are they called to have the same personality. Some are more loners and some are more people oriented. Some are more classical and some more modern. Some more loud and some more quiet. But even this is paradoxical. We should all strive to bring these things out of antithesis to a common synthesis, while yet doing so in very different ways.

I encourage all of you and myself to not stop or start at being just yourself. In fact, don't make that your goal. You are not just your own, but you are God's. The world has perverted the Christian idea of tolerance and diversity into something that radically defends sin. Rather, begin by realizing that you are God's, not your own. The only way to find your life is to lose it, again a paradox we see in Scripture. This falls into the same line as the humble being exalted and the exalted being humbled. When you first focus on who you are in your core identity with God and others, that you have a common calling with God's People to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, you will begin to see your own God-given personality come up. However we must realize that we should aim at bringing things out of antithesis. Become old in mind yet young in heart. Become natural yet ideal. Become one yet many. Become one in full, yet only a part of the whole.

From this, we can see that you are one of God's personally, yet altogether we are one of God's corporately. We become full. Through this we have a destiny, yet only through our heritage. We are exalted only through our humility. We are all things, yet really and truly just ourselves.

Just some thoughts.

What do you think?

God bless you

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

May 8, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Immigration

2008-04-27T17:20:00.004-05:00

One of the most heated topics of debate in today's political arena is that of immigration. Someone is talking about how we should secure the border better, and some politician is making an empty promise about a border fence, simply to speak to the "heart" of the American.

And yet out of all the things I have found time to write about, I have not written much about immigration. So, I want this to be a blog where I post my views on immigration.

One reason I have not written much of it is because the issue is really complicated. I have a theoretical mind, and theories only go so far in the case of immigration. It's similar to the War in Iraq, in which I can have principled ideas on the matter, but it is just too hard to hold to one definite opinion. But I will speak of the libertarian and conservative viewpoints on immigration. Since we can't ever figure out what liberals believe, I'll leave their contradicting viewpoints to the side for most of this blog.

The general libertarian point of view on immigration is very loose and lenient to immigrants. Have a very open border - don't be authoritarian about your controls. Why assume any and every immigrant is a terrorist or criminal? Why not assume them as good until they prove otherwise, as is generally done for the born & bread Americans?

In some ways I see their points, but I do not hold completely to this libertarian principle. The libertarian idea of personal liberty, which I strongly believe in, is here, but I do believe a government should protect its people and their Rights. One of the chief ways to do this is to have a secure border, and have some sort of knowledge of who is coming into the country from abroad. Before starting wars, before "fixing" the economy, the government should have some sort of security on our borders.

However I do not completely hold the mainstream conservative point of view either. Although I do want some sort of security on the border, I get the idea that some conservatives take the issue too far. Most immigrants come here for a better lifestyle. They do not ruin the economy, but actually provide it with more competition, which is better for the economy. History has shown that nations despising immigrants do not last, and nations that are welcome to immigration and diverse culture have the most success and the greatest legacy.

Conservatives wouldn't admit it, but I believe that often they believe that loving America means having negative even racial feelings toward immigrants. Immigration is how we came here, and it is how the blacks came here a little while after.

I do want immigrants to respect our country and her laws. I certainly want them to abide by the laws, and if they do not, then they should be prosecuted like the rest of us. I want them to pay taxes. I would rather see them learn English well than for the rest of us to have to learn Spanish. But some things should be out of the government's hand. I understand that Mexicans who come here may still have some sort of Mexican pride. As long as they do not pledge loyalty to Mexico while living as an American citizen, I do not think it is the government's business or even my business if they own a Mexican flag, any more than it is the government's business that I own a Confederate flag. Sometimes conservatives take the issue a bit too far. While I am all for some sort of control on immigration, it may be better for the control to be smaller and the paper work easier, so that that way we would know who wants to come here and not pay the taxes, and who is willing to pay the taxes.

So the bottom line to my "principled" approach would be that we should treat immigrants as American citizens, once they become citizens. We should make sure they abide by our laws, pay the appropriate taxes, and make sure in time of war they do not pledge loyalty elsewhere. In many ways, this side of the immigration battle is not being fought by our leaders who become so compassionate as to give out extra money for immigrants, on top of many who do not pay taxes. However at the same time, we should be loving, respectable, and honorable to them. We should grant any good-hearted immigrant citizenship, and not judge them by their skin. We should not scare them away with a big border fence or by putting too many people on the border (not to mentions spending a lot of money). We should not control their wages as if they hurt the economy, when in reality, the provide great help to a struggling economy. They should be treated as humans and Americans, nothing more, nothing less.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

April 27, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Do American's Exploit Foreigners Through Labor?

2008-04-18T09:58:00.002-05:00

The following is a paper I wrote for economics class this year.

Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton

Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”

Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.

The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.

It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.

People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.

Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.

Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.

The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.

Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.

Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.

So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.

Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.

In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.

Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.

However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

April 18, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Role of the Church

2008-04-01T11:32:00.004-05:00

In some ways I hate doing a blog like this - separating Christianity out by its specific denominations. I do desire the unity within the Church universal. But I do believe that there are some cases in which we can use this "legal" approach to ultimately try to bring unity.

I write this in dealing with the role of the church in part of salvation, relationship with God, and the worship of God. I will say that I believe, as a general rule, that Roman Catholics often over-emphasize the role of the church and under-emphasize the role of the personal relationship with God, while many Protestants undershoot the role of the church, focusing primarily on the personal aspect of salvation.

But both are very important, and asking which is more important or which comes first is like asking what comes first out of the chicken or the egg (except I believe that the chicken did!). The church is the Bride of Chris our heir, thus like the individual Christian's mother. We know that Mother's come before their offspring. However where would the church be without the individual Christian?

I do not believe that membership in a church assures salvation. I do not believe that a Baptism assures salvation. I do not believe that one must go to Mass to keep salvation, nor do I believe one must do what the church says to escape purgatory. I do not believe the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Pope or of Mary, although I do not judge them on such doctrines either. I do understand that there are plenty of Roman Catholics who look to a personal faith in Jesus as their only way of salvation, not Popes or the Virgin Mary.

I believe that often Protestants do not look highly enough of the church. While I do not believe we should have a Pope, I do believe there should be some form of church government. While I do not believe that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped or prayed to, I believe many Protestants shy away from anything to do with Mary, when she is a very important figure of Christianity. I also believe that Communion is often looked down upon in many Protestant churches. I believe that having real bread and real wine each week in worship service is very important. It is where we have a meal with God, where we are reminded of His grace, and where He is reminded (for lack of a better word) of His covenant with us.

Many Protestant's look at private prayer, personal piety, etc., as the chief end of their salvation. Church attendance, baptism, etc., only help show off or at best amplify the personal relationship. But once again, both the personal relationship with God, and the corporate relationship with God must go together. They should be ever flowing. A prayer closes should lead to corporate worship, which should lead back to a prayer closet.

Jesus is the only interceder in our salvation. We need no Priest, Pope, parent, Pastor, Mass, etc. to obtain salvation. Only Jesus' personal grace. But at the same time, we take part in the blessings of salvation through the church; we fully worship God through the church; we amplify our relationship with God through the church; we spread the Gospel through the church; and we renew our covenant with God through the church. I alone am not the Bride of Christ, but the church Catholic (in the sense of 'universal') is the Bride of Christ. The Church Catholic (again, universal, not strictly Roman) should be important to us. So I encourage Roman Catholic's and Protestant's to look at themselves, examine their view of the church and of a personal relationship with God, and see the two as ever-flowing. Perhaps then we can strive for union in the One Body of Christ.

What do you think?

God bless His Church

April 1, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Other Side of Feminism

2008-03-21T16:33:00.004-05:00

Forgive me for being a while getting back on here. I have been busy with work, school, and traveling to the lake.

The Other Side of Feminism

Feminism is a movement sweeping into the minds of many people across the globe, and it destroys the traditional and proper view of humanity. But there are many myths surrounding feminism. We have the general idea of what feminism is. Women are to blame - they want power and want to be equal or greater than man - that general sort of idea. But feminism is much more than a modern attempt at electing a woman as President. Feminism is a constant struggle throughout the race of mankind, and it is not merely the fault of women.

What feminism does is destroy the way we should view humanity. It takes us away from the traditional God-ordained way of viewing men and women, giving us a worldly alternative. This movement is not really modern - in fact, the very first sin man committed was feministic in nature. The "modern" side of feminism is just the different applications and rhetoric used.

When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, she was putting herself to the level of God, or so in her mind, and did so even without asking her husband. Perhaps it would be forgivable if, when Eve felt tempted, she asked her husband's permission, and he said no. But Eve did not do this.

However at the same time, Adam is blamed for this sin much more than Eve is. The Scriptures do not tell us about "Death through Eve" but rather "Death through Adam." Adam seemed to have been present watching Eve eat the fruit, and he failed to remind her of God's grace and His law that they should not eat of that tree. He failed to be the man! See, feminism is not so about women wanting too much power, but it is often about men not being men. If men are not the men, protecting their families, loving a wife with a passion unknown to the mind of mortal man, raising a family in a God-fearing way, being the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, etc., then it is very forgivable to the women to want to take over.

I do not agree with the women feminists of today, so do not get me wrong. But it seems the actions of the men speak as louder or louder as the words used by women. So often while working at Chick-Fil-A, I notice women paying for the food, telling me what they and their husband want, grabbing the food and taking it to the table, etc. These may not be great big deals, but there is something behind them. If men are not willing to make a living for the family, then who can blame the women for doing that?

Once again, I do not write this to condone the women leaders of modern feminism, because they, the voices, are at fault too. This blog is written to show 'the other side' of feminism, not the only side of feminism. But it is the side that does not get talked about much today.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

March 21, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Sin, Confession, and Lent

2008-03-12T19:07:00.004-05:00

Approaching Easter Day, it is easy for many people to overlook the season of Lent. Lent is the season leading up to Easter, in which we dwell on our sin and lowliness. The tradition of Mardi Gras actually arises from the season of Lent. Mardi Gras has become the day in which people party as if it is the last day before they really have to get serious about their sin.

And certainly this can be a wrong outlook to life and Lent, as if we should sin as much as we can to make up for a sinless Lent. But there is nothing wrong with a season to help us better understand our sins. It helps us better look forward to Easter. It makes us all the more joyous when Easter comes, and we realize that despite our sin and lowliness, there is Someone who covers up our sin, and has resurrected with glory so that we may resurrect with glory at the Final Resurrection.

It seems just like yesterday Lent just began, and now it is about over. I remember feeling bad that I missed our church's Ash Wednesday Service -- a service that is really humbling. I know I have not dwelt on my sin enough, but it is never to late for me, nor you, to see our sins.

We have all sinned, and we should not forget that. In lives in which we so often forget about our sin, it is good to humbly look over our lives. Whenever we think we have it all together, that other people should learn from us, we should be humbled to see our sin and our misery apart from the grace of God. We have all failed in all of the Commandments. We have all put something ahead of God; we have all made and constructed things that we in some spirit worshiped; we have all used God's name in a manner that did not go to give Him full praise and adoration; we have all forgotten that the Sabbath Day is the Day of the Lord, and we have opted to work for our own personal benefits instead of worshipping God corporately each week; we have failed to honor our parents, not that we even honor those below us either; we have all taken something that was not rightfully ours; we have all looked to some other person with some sort of lustful immoral thought; we have all had unrighteous anger toward a fellow man; we have all spoken falsely against our fellow man for only our own personal immediate sake; we have all desired for and even complained about something else someone else had that we did not. This covers each Commandment. We are all sinners, of whom I am of the worst.

Of course, I do not write this to scare you into thinking that there is no hope; rather, I write this to show you just how great the Hope is, and how desperately we all need it -- everyone of us. So I encourage you to look at your sin, and perhaps instead of complaining about that person you know who is weird, that person who is acting unwise in any sort of relationship right now, that person who is always late to everything when you are always on time, that person who cheats on tests, has excessive foul language, who seems to have no respect for his parents, seek forgiveness for yourself, and then humbly share it with others. Confess your sin to God -- even specific sins. Feel free to confess many of your sins to others around you. If you have held a grudge against someone, get rid of it, and lead by example in recognizing your own faults even to them. Build each other up in the Lord as Paul spoke of -- even people you have perhaps been angry at or looked down upon for a while.

Didn't Jesus tell us to consider the plank in our eye before looking at the speck in someone else's eye? Didn't Paul tell us that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God? Perhaps we should all personalize these issues, and stop complaining about other people.

Just a thought.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

March 12, 2008

Ryan Hampton

I Thought Evolutionists Did Not Look For Their Conclusions

2008-03-07T20:49:00.005-06:00

If you hear a debate between a conservative Creationist Christian and an evolutionist/atheist, the evolutionist will most likely mention that we should "study facts and then reach a conclusion." Supposedly, Christians assume a conclusion, and then find random facts to back it up. But watching this video, this seems different. I find the evolutionist reaching a conclusion and then looking for the facts. No, I am not posting this as a Ron Paul video. Of course, I do find it odd that small clips are used to try to show Paul's "flip-flop" on evolution, when the majority of the video is supposedly scientific and not political. But that is not what I post this for. For the point I am trying to make, you really only need to watch is the last two and a half minutes or so.

I find it odd that the evolutionist, forced with his problem of the missing chromosome, looks for a conclusion and just happens to find it. He found his conclusion, and then looked for the facts. Of course, his "finding," even if is true, does not prove anything, and only leads us to the question of "why were the two chromosomes 'taped?'" Just something I happened to notice.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

March 7, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Politics of the Church

2008-03-01T19:31:00.003-06:00

One of the problems the church has always had has been knowing how to approach
politics. The church has been in political troubles all throughout her history. We should not treat this generation or time period as an exception, but neither should we treat it as the only time this has been a problem either.

Many tell us that the church has become too political. A few would argue that the church has not been political enough. But the problem is not that the church has been too political or not political enough, but the problem is that the church has not been the church.

There was a time when there was argument whether the King or the Pope had complete authority. Was the church being the church at this time? No, they were too obsessed with civil power that they forgot about the Great Commission. The church has forgotten about the Great Commission today, and has instead has become legalistic about books and movies such as "Harry Potter" and "The Golden Compass." These things may be issues that the church can deal with, but only after it has first focused on its main roles: to love others as ourselves, to spread the Word to all nations, to reunite the many denominations that have divided Christians for so long, to worship God corporately each Sunday, and to all around return to the basic principles of Jesus.

The point is we should first focus on ourselves before we really worry about politics. But at the very same time, we should not resist politics. The politics of the church will come when we focus on the teachings of Jesus, and they will come in a profound way. Dr. George Grant said that "We must think of politics some of the time, so that we do not think of politics all the of the time." This quote seems to hold up; many of those today who complain that the church is too political are the most legalistic of Christians out there.

So what should the politics of the church look like? Well, as I said before, let us first focus on our basic task. The politics will then begin to take care of themselves. We should long for a day when the entire world bows on their knees and confesses with their tongues that Jesus is Lord; we should long for the day when earthly rulers bow to the ultimate rule of God; we should long for the day our governments are orchestrated by a Christian worldview that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights, and that governments are set up by God to protect our Rights; we should long for a day when the life of an innocent baby, born or unborn, would not be threatened; we should long for a day when our government punishes those who threaten our life, liberty, and property. This is extremely political, but it comes from the mission of the church.

And what has happened today? Today, we start with politics, and then we try to separate Christianity and make it something to the side. If we see religion and politics crossing paths, we make a political issue about it. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, should we not vote for him? Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister, does this make him more or less prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong - I want a firm Christian who can confess Jesus as Lord while speaking to the entire nation to be our President as much as most anyone, but the way we make political issues out of it all today is quite distasteful to me. One reason I would be skeptical of voting for Mitt Romney is because of his Mormonism. But I don't want to go around making a political issue about it. Perhaps today what we need is someone with a quiet driving faith, if a political fuss will be made of anything else.

The difference between the ideal way the church should handle politics and the way it has, is that the ideal way of handling politics is to first be a Christian. Because our Christianity covers (or should cover) all of our life, politics will be taken care of in the boldest of ways. Today, Christians seem to first be political, and then try to separate Christianity out of it. When the two intermingle, as they inevitably do, we have a giant mess on our hands.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His church

Pray for our Troops

March 1, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part IV - Worship

2008-02-24T17:07:00.007-06:00

Each blog in this series I have used to hint to the upcoming blog. Last blog was no different, although all the previous blogs in this series really built up to this. What has the church done to pervert our ideas of corporate worship? We have replaced covenant theology with the idea of individualism.

Corporate worship is corporate, and it is based on the covenant. We do not go to church on Sunday morning because it seems fitting with the previous week. The theology the church has today seems to put worship at the last day of the week; after God has blessed us throughout the week, we come together to recap and share our experiences and increase our personal relationship with Jesus.

Although there may be a certain amount of this that in its proper context can be good, this theology is very problematic when it comes to worship. We do not go to look back at the previous week, and then play songs that relate merely to the personal aspect of our faith; we should come to remember God's covenant and look ahead at the week in light of God's covenant.

So what is corporate worship? Is it worship itself? Is it evangelism? Is it education? Is it what we do for God or what God does for us? Ultimately, it is all of these things, but none of these things specifically. We do not go merely to give basic worship to God, but a service with no worship would be wrong. We do not go simply to evangelize the world - that is what we do throughout the week. But our church service should equip us for evangelizing, and that is what the church universal functions for. We do not go to church just to learn about the Bible, but that should certainly happen through our church attendance. When we go to service, we go to give to God, and for God to work in us. Corporate Lord's Day worship is a full experience.

In light of our relationship with God, there are some definite things we should do. There is a certain amount of creativity as well, and it is not right to create a certain "standard" worship service. But the church today focuses more on the creativity than the definite. To give you an idea of a service that I believe would be appropriate, I will give a run through of our church service (I do not claim this to be perfect, nor other styles of worship as something God does not hear; this is just my opinion).

After announcements, we have a call to worship. The Pastor quotes phrases in Scripture dealing with a group of God's Covenant People coming toward Him. The people respond to this calling by saying "Our feet our standing within Your gates, O Jerusalem" or something to that affect. In this call of worship, we come forward into the real presence of God, and can only worship in praise at His glorious throne. We have a hymn that resembles this mentality.

But as we approach God's throne, it is obvious to us and to God that we are sinners. We must "wipe our feet on the welcome mat" so to speak, before fully entering God's presence. We kneel for corporate confession of sin, where after this we are given the full assurance of God's forgiveness. It is here that we ascend into the real presence of Heaven, lifting our hands and looking up toward God in our ascension hymn.

After this, we have Scripture readings, from the Torah, the Psalms, and the Epistles (or sometimes the prophets instead of the Torah?). After each Scripture reading, the speaker says, "The Word of the Lord" where the rest of the congregation responds "Thanks be to God." After these readings, we have a hymn of celebration. Then the Gospel is preached, where the Pastor walks amongst the Congregation during the reading, symbolizing how the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, as is recorded for us in the Gospels.

After this, we have our sermon, where we learn and take personal application to God's Word.

After the Sermon, we take our tithes and offerings. After this, we have corporate prayer for the specific needs of the congregation and of the world. We sing hymns, confess the common basic Christian faith as expressed in the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed (we do one or the other). Finally, we come for the Lord's Supper, each week. Real bread, real wine. Being strengthened and nourished, we sing a hymn of dismissal, and then receive the Benediction to go in the peace and favor of the Lord, fulfilling the Great Commission.

This is much different than most typical Christian churches today. In most churches, you will see something like this: the congregation sings a bunch of contemporary Christian songs with personalized lyrics, followed by the choir singing their songs. After this, you may see a video presentation, telling us perhaps the problems with evolution, or a motivational "Tell your co-worker about Jesus" spin. Then, we have a motivational sermon, perhaps a "Seven steps to being a closer to your family, step one, take a vacation" sort of deal. After the sermon, a guess speaker may come and give a motivational speech and just as the people are caught up in their emotions, the tithes and offerings are collected. If you are really lucky, you may get a bread-flavored cracker and grape juice. After this, there will be a dismissing prayer.

Now many of these things are good, at least in some context, but how many mainstream evangelicals know why they do what they do in corporate Lord's Day worship? What does each aspect of the service mean?

It is interesting that the first of the two liturgies resembles the covenant structure we see in the Bible. We have a call to worship, where God calls us into His presence, taking hold of us, in order to do something with us. After this, God separates us, individually acknowledging our sin, and cutting it off. We are separate, and then our sin is separated from us, so that God may make something new out of us. After this, God speaks to us through His Word and the sermon. Then, soon after this, we partake in the Lord's Supper - the sign and seal of our covenant. Then we are prepared for the future with the benediction, so that we may go forth in the world, proclaiming the Good News (The Great Commission). All throughout we have education, worship, and are prepared for evangelism. We make our bodies one living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). We worship as sacrifice, not the sacrifice of blood, but as one living sacrifice for God, where all our other sacrifices come from our corporate worship. In a sense, the Lord's Day worship is the most important thing of the week. We do not come to remember God in the past week, but to remember and renew our covenant with Him, looking ahead to the blessings that are assured for us in the future.

I know some Christians who do not attend church. But church is not just icing on the cake. It is where our salvation is found. What if a husband and a wife never saw each other? Are they married? Maybe on paper, but they are not in spirit. I think that the spirit of our salvation outweighs the legality of our salvation. Salvation comes from God, but He offers it to us through the church - it is our identity as apart of the Body of Christ. People who do not attend church should realize two things about church life: how we need the church, and how the church needs us. We all need the communion of the Saints to carry on in a personal relationship with Jesus. We all need to be reminded of our corporate covenant that joins us with Christ. This is what, in a real way, secures our salvation. We must be faithful until death (Rev. 2:10), and we can not just assume an easy feeling for our salvation. We stay faithful through the church. We all need the church. At the same time, the church is filled up with people like you! So if you need them, then they need you! Your work for the church, both maturing those within, and witnessing to those without, is drastically important. No "Seven steps to being a better family man" message by Joel Osteen on TV does justice to the real gathering of the Saints (Heb. 10: 26-27, Acts 20:7).

UPCOMING BLOGS: I will try to post a blog on the politics of the church. Is the church too political? Is it not political enough? What role should the church play in shaping our politics? I also want to post a blog on the 'other side' of feminism. Is feminism a threat, and if so, who is to blame? I am also wanting to post a blog on rethinking perfection. How have we fallen from the real idea of perfection in our society, and how does this false ideology affect Christianity worldwide? My answers to these questions may surprise you. I have a few other ideas as well, and they will come in time.

What do you think?

God bless His Church

God bless you

February 24, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part III: The Sacraments

2008-02-19T12:06:00.005-06:00

Forgive me for taking a while to get back on these posts. I have been busy with school, work, trying to keep the house clean, and all that good stuff. But nonetheless, I will try to cover my thoughts on the sacraments here.

When a couple get married, there are certain signs that remind them of their covenant in marriage. Some signs are created by the couple. These may be bound by certain regulations of morality or society, or it could be completely up to the couple. But there are some signs that are generally universal. The wedding ring is perhaps the one that sticks out the most. It reminds the husband and the wife of their unity. Not just this, but it shows all others that they are married. The wedding ring is like their identity together. It shows that they are one. After this, there are certain signs they do to constantly remind themselves of their covenant. Perhaps the one that would strike the most is the sexual union of the couple.

This is similar to covenants made in the Bible. There is always a five-step covenant, and the signs of the covenant stick out the most. They are the faces of the covenant. When God made Adam, He spoke out the existence of the dust of which would become Adam, and took hold of the dust. Then God took the dust and separated it from the rest of dust. After this God spoke to Adam telling him of his duties to keep and protect the Garden. Then God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God also showed Adam that there is a Tree of Life to eat from. Finally God prepared Adam for the future by giving him a bride, Eve.

So the five-step pattern goes something like this:

God takes hold.
God separates in order to make something new.
God speaks to the new creation.
God gives signs and seals of the covenant.
God prepares for the future.

So when God forms the first marriage covenant, it should look similar.

God took hold of Adam causing him to go into a deep sleep.
God separated Adam's rib from the rest of his body, in order to make something new.
God speaks to Adam and Eve, now telling them their respective roles with each other.
God created Eve as woman, showing that they are two but yet one.
God prepares for the future by allowing them to reproduce and glorify God.

When man sinned, God still offered covenants to His people, perhaps even in a greater sense. Now, God must deal with His special grace to His people. The signs of the covenant deal with God promising to remember His grace to His people, and His people faithfully trusting in God's promises. We see this in the doctrine of death and resurrection. The doctrine was not non-existent before the Fall, but it existed in a much simpler sort of way. Notice how God takes hold of His people and separates them in order to make something new. When Adam slept, he must have been dead asleep in order for God to take a rib out of his body! He basically died and rose again now with something even better - a companion. Now this death and resurrection involves real pain, and even the real death and resurrection of Jesus for our sins.

After the Fall, God continued to show covenants with His people as a reminder of His promise to send a Son, Jesus. God does this with Noah. God took hold of Noah. God separated Noah and his family from the world in order to make something new (the new world). The world died, but through this death arose Noah and his family to begin a new world. God spoke to Noah telling him of his duties to punish wrongdoers and to be fruitful and multiply. God gave Noah a sign of His covenant for both God and man to remember - the rainbow. Finally, God prepares for the future in promising never to flood the earth.

We can see this pattern with the Abrahamic covenant, and the Davidic covenant. But how does God's covenants work now when Jesus has already come?

God does not have to give us animals to kill. Jesus' blood has already been poured. God does not have to give us covenant after covenant, or play remnant favoritism. Now God's covenant is offered for all of mankind. But at the same time, He does ask for us to remember our covenant with God. He does ask that we remember our identity as God's people.

In the Old Testament, God used circumcision as the identity of God's people. But now God offers Baptism to God's people. Circumcision was given when the child was just eight days old. So by the same token, Baptism is offered to those who are born into a Christian home, and to those who come from a non-Christian home and are converted to the Faith sometime in their life. After Baptism, members of God's covenant people may take part in His table to remind them of God's grace. When God sees His supper being done, He dwells amongst His people and remembers His covenant with His people. Because Jesus has come, we may now be in Heaven, and in a sense that is where we are when we partake in the Lord's Supper.

So the sacraments are perhaps the most influential part of our life. They remind us of God's grace. Baptism is our identity. The Lord's Supper is a constant reminder of God's grace, and it strengthens and renews us. The Last Supper became like the first supper for the new Covenant - the Covenant of Grace. We should not exclude children from the Table, because after all, they are God's children. Children can come to God and have a personal relationship with God, and it does not have to be through us. At the same time, through the faith of the child's parents, the child is connected with the covenant. The child's Baptism reminds him of his identity, and the Lord's Supper constantly strengthens the child. In a real sense, the Lord's Supper is the most important meal of each week.

So we should not reject the child's faith. In Scripture, we see David speak of his faith since his infancy, even since he was in his mother's womb (Psalm 22: 9-11). John the Baptist knew God from infancy as well. Furthermore, children have identities when they are born. American-born children are simply born American's. How much more should a child's identity be in God, if they are born in a Christian home? How much more should be reminded of this identity through the Lord's Supper, even from infancy? After all, Jesus said that we must think as the children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Why should we not give our children the joy of Christ's resurrection for them?!

So I encourage all of you to be joyful whenever you do the Lord's Supper, and if you are Baptized, to treat it as the sign and seal of your Christian identity. At the Lord's Supper, treat it as the best and most important meal of the week. Get a big piece of bread!! Remember God's grace. God will remember His covenant with you. And for all children, be joyful that God's covenant of grace extends to you, directly, not through your parents, nor only to your parents. It is for you!

And I preach to myself as much as anyone here!

What do you think?

God bless His church.

February 19, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part II: Salvation

2008-02-11T18:02:00.000-06:00

The idea of salvation is right at the core of Christianity, and is seen as the greatest gift of God. And all of this is rightfully so. The greatest showing of love in the history of history itself, is God becoming man, pouring out His blood even to death (a very painful death, I might add), in order to save sinful man.

Essentially, the doctrine of salvation is what defines Christianity. I say this because it is really logical. What is Christianity? Christianity is the religion based on the Trinity, where the second person of that Trinity becomes man and saves us. Furthermore, who are the Christians? It is those who are saved by Jesus' death. From this standpoint, it could be argued that all Christians, because all Christians are saved, have the same idea of salvation. So then why study it?

I do not write this because I believe that salvation is reached by something other than grace through faith, as is taught in our churches. I believe it is completely. But I write this because I believe many Christians, though they have a general understanding of their own salvation, do not really grasp the full picture, and how salvation fits in with God's covenant. And along the same paths, Christians may disagree on the specifics of the deeper questions of salvation (can you loose your salvation?, is salvation a choice by us, or God's eternal decree and predestined plan?, etc.). These are all fair questions, and to the best of my ability (granted, this is a bit of a mystery to mortal and finite man), I will give you my reasoning to these questions.

The last blog dealt with how God works in this world. Is all of history a predestined plan, to which we are merely robots of, as hyper-Calvinists would say? Or perhaps is history the complete opposite, as Deists would believe, that God created the world with its laws, to allow it to control its own destiny? Or could it be that we are all products of chemical reactions, to which all of eternity is predestined by the wills of evolution, as consistent atheists would say? Assuming the presupposition of God's existence, we rule out the third possibility. And assuming Christianity as our worldview, we ask how our salvation fits into this question.

Most Christians believe that the answer lies somewhere between the first two possibilities I presented below. Not even many Calvinists really believe that there is no free agency of some sort of man in God's creation and providence. However most "free will" Christians (forgive me for such blanketing and polarizing terms), believe in God's providence, and that God is in control of all things that happen, at least to some degree or another. The disagreements between Calvinists Christians and Christians who are not Calvinist is more a disagreement of emphasis, over disagreement in letter, word, or perhaps even ideology.

But the issue of our salvation in this plan is really a sticky issue, and is really a mystery. I touched on this some in my previous blog. How can I really "control" my salvation (salvation is more than a mere every-day choice). It must be at some level a revelation. But at the same time, why would God pick and choose His church? Even moreover, if God can do anything (as He can), could He not give us even a choice in the matter of our eternity? Once we are Christians, and apart of His Kingdom, is it up to us to keep our salvation, or do we leave it to God? The modern day individual viewpoint goes something like this:

God is good and allows us salvation.
We choose, on our own, whether or not we obtain this salvation.
God may be especially gracious to those incapable of reaching this mature decision, by granting them the benefit of the doubt in sending them to Heaven if they die early. After about twelve, we should all be able to make our own choice.
After we for sure have this salvation, we can rest assure, because there is no way we can loose our salvation. Once saved always saved.

Maybe that is a bit of a stretch and a stereotype to modern Christianity, but there is a lot of truth in it. Some of the ideas may be good, and these are only technical matters of the greater matter of the salvation itself. But I do believe that this viewpoint can be problematic. Let us analyze this.

God is good and allows us salvation. This, of course, is true, in that God is good, and that He offers salvation. Whether or not we say He offers it across the board or to His select only is still up for grabs (as I hope to get into this more throughout this blog and series).

>We freely choose our salvation.< Although I do not want to take away any human responsibility in our salvation, I fear that many Christians over-exaggerate this idea. Ultimately, salvation is given by God. Even if we do "choose" it in a sense, perhaps we should better look at it as accepting God's free gift, not pursuing salvation by our own good works.

>God automatically gives salvation to anyone who dies early.< I believe that God gives salvation to those who are born in a Christian home and then die in infancy (more on this later). But whether or not He gives salvation to just any infant who dies early, is really out of our knowledge (again more on this later). This idea leads parents to think along the lines of "They automatically have salvation now. We will pose to them the idea of salvation, and let them freely choose it as they are old enough to." This sort of parenting, I believe, can be naive and dangerous.

>After our salvation, God ensures it to us through all of our life.< Even if this was true, many Christians pervert this idea. Although Paul spoke of his knowledge of his salvation, he never really believed he could just "rest assure."

But even with all of this said, we need Scriptural defense for any point we make. I do no want to point you to a couple of passages regarding salvation that seems good, to try to prove any point. This is proof texting, and it too can be dangerous. What I want to do really is give you an overall picture of what salvation looks like through a Biblical worldview. Giving you a lot of specific verses, and showing how they all fit together, would require a book, not just a blog.

I like looking at looking at Biblical analogies in applying theology. In terms of salvation, I like looking at the analogies of Jesus being our Shepherd, or of a marriage. It is interesting that the Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve), and ends with an even greater marriage (Jesus and the Church). The story of the Bible is like a wedding story, or a love story. It is like a Cinderella story where a sick woman is resurrected by her groom. Or perhaps a romantic view of the groom laying down his life for his bride. It is a store of God's People: things started good in the garden, then things went really bad with the Fall of man, and in the end, things will be better than before the Fall. We begin with "Once upon a time..." end with a "Live happily ever after..." The store line is about the restoration time of death to life.

So how does this systematic symbolic theology fit into our personal salvation. The Christian story beats all other stories because it is about community, and because it reaches to us personally. A real physical body is different parts working together, but it is not as if the body is constructed piece by piece. In Christianity, we are all one Body, but each member is added over time on a personal note. With this in mind, our salvation is very personal and very corporate.

But today, we focus too much on the private salvation. While it is possible to look too much to the corporate side of salvation and too little to the private aspect, that is not what we see in today's Christianity. Salvation comes from God, ultimately, but how does He offer it to us? Where is our defining moment of our salvation? The modern answer is that He offers it to us by simply laying it out on a platter for us to take (albeit it special revelation, or simply allowing us to hear of it in general). Then the moment of our acceptance is our defining moment.

But in a marriage, the marriage is offered over time. The groom does not just all of a sudden "pop the question." There were probably many hints along the way. The defining moment is the wedding. The symbol is the ring. In our salvation, God often (though maybe not always), offers salvation in normal ways, not just all of a sudden. Our defining moment is our Baptism. Our symbol is also our Baptism, like a wedding ring is the symbol of the marriage. A salvation with no Baptism is like a wedding with no ceremony. But the individual and modern idea of salvation presents Baptism as just "icing on the cake." It's like a honeymoon. It's a nice thing to do by tradition, but nothing really required in it (according to the modern view).

So how does salvation work for infants? And can we loose salvation? These are tough questions (after all its a mystery!). I believe that we are a Body, and this idea helps us better understand salvation on the infant level. But lets use the analogy of a shepherd and his sheep (as we are with Jesus).

If a shepherd has a flock of sheep, and one has a baby sheep (or would this be a lamb?), the shepherd does not reject the baby sheep, send it away, and make it come back. He would take the baby sheep, give it a mark to declare it His, and keep it, and treating it as his own. The sheep may wander, but hopefully with the help of the parents, it will stay and not wander. If it does wander, the shepherd may go out and try to find sheep (or lamb).

By the same token, I was born an American. I did not have to grow so old to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and write a paper on why the colonies broke off from Great Britain. Otherwise we are born an American. Our parents give us our name, and we get a birth certificate.

So in Christianity, if two Christian parents, or even one, have a baby, God does not reject the baby, making it come to salvation by his own merits. But he accepts the baby. He calls it His own. Then Baptism marks the child's identity. Then the family, and the church around them, seek to raise the child in the right way. God will always do His part in His relationship with the child. As the child grows, he has more responsibility not to wander from God's people. The church is like the gates of the pasture. That is why going to church each or most weeks is important. By not going to church it is as if we are wandering away from God's flock.

Christianity is deeper than these analogies, but I would make the argument that this only strengthens my points. Jesus is the good shepherd, so why should He reject His children? Jesus is the King of Kings, so why should He deny our citizenship in His Kingdom if we are born into it? We may wander, granted, but God will always do His part.

So God offers salvation, but He mostly offers it through the church. In a sense, the church is salvation. We are God's People. Our identity is Baptism. Those born into the church should be Baptized as infants (I know that many people do not agree with me on this, and that's fine, but I am speaking from my perspective). Those who come in from outside the church into the church, should be baptized soon after their conversion. In spirit, the defining moment for this person would be the conversion. But even a conversion may not be so supernatural, because God works even great things in ordinary means. His identity is marked in the Baptism. (Also the doctrine of infant Baptism could be expounded upon by showing how Baptism is the new Covenant fulfillment of circumcision, which was to boys eight days old. Since there is nothing against infant Baptism from this standpoint in Scripture, we assume it applies to infants as well. But this would be a different angle and could require a different blog).

Does God predestine salvation? Once again, this is a sticky issue, and I feel I have answered to the best of my ability already. Perhaps even if He does, He does it with the foreknowledge of who would strengthen His Kingdom best anyway, by the free choices He creates for us.

Can we loose our salvation? I believe asking this is like asking a couple on good standings if they would ever consider getting a divorce. Of course they wouldn't! But they must also always be guarding their hearts, keeping them close to their spouse. They remind each other of their marriage in ways that are simple and profound. A simple kiss could be a reminder. A nice anniversary gift. A vacation. Or in bed. All of these ways renews the mind and reminds them of the covenant they made on their wedding day. Some of the symbolism and reminders are set in stone ways, and others require their personal imagination.

This spirit is what will carry us through the next two blogs, to complete the four-part series.

What do you think?

God bless America.

Pray for our Troops.

God bless His People.

God bless you.

February 11, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part I: Freedestination

2008-02-07T11:09:00.000-06:00

My plan is for this to be a four-part series on theology, ultimately leading up to weekly Christian worship, such as its purposes, reasons, what we should do, and why we should do what we should do. To begin, though, I don't want to dive right on in to worship. Along the way, I will speak of salvation, the sacraments, God's Sovereignty, and Its connection with the work of man.

I will begin by speaking of how God's Sovereignty fits in with man's will, or perhaps better put, how man's will fits in under God's Sovereingty. I will begin by stating that I am a Presbyterian, and yes, we are considered Calvinists. But I do not want a misunderstanding here. Although I have full belief in God's Sovereignty, I do believe in some sort of human choice and responsibility, and I do believe that the two can go together.

I believe that all of history is God's eternal plan, but I believe within this plan there are men who do great things by a certain amount of their choice (of course with God's grace in them), and men who do bad things on their own choice. But yet all of this is in God's plan, even though God may reward the good men as if they did something good, and punish the bad men as if they did evil.

Exactly how it works may be a mystery. I know that some non-Calvinist Christians it hits a brick wall. But nonetheless I use the term here. I believe calling it an excuse is much like considering it an excuse to call the incarnation of Jesus, how He was both God and man, a mystery. It is not as if calling it a mystery is an excuse for Christianity when it hits a brick wall, because God can do anything!

But I do not think that we should just stop with the term "mystery." There are often examples in which we see a mystery, but also firmly believe each side of the mystery. I like using Jesus' death as an illustration for how God's Sovereign plan and man's free choice/will/agency (or whatever else you may call it) go together.

It could be argued that for all time God has planned and perhaps predestined for Jesus to come and save sinners. Certainly He knew throughout all time that there should be a time in which Jesus would do this. He knew the time it would happen, and He specifically planned it to happen. Certainly since the Fall of man was it in His eternal plan (although it could be argued that the Fall was in His plan, therefore Jesus' death and ressurection was in His plan even before the Fall). Nonetheless, it was in God's plan for Jesus to come and save sinners even by His death.

But at the same time, the people who nailed Jesus to the cross were still guilty. Do you see the irony? God's plan involved evil people doing evil things, but through which one of the greatest things in mankind has ever happened - Jesus' death and ressurection. Still, those who crucified Jesus are held accountable for their actions next to God. I do not think that God would say, "Well what you did was bad, but I predestined it to happen, so its not your fault." They crucified Jesus by choice, but it was still God's sovereign plan.

Perhaps even salvation is the same general way. Ultimately, salvation is more than just a general "choice." It is not as if someone just says, "Well Heaven sounds better than Hell, so I think I'll be a Christian." Salvation is much more profound than that. Choices are made on general or strict probability. Salvation is an assurance of faith. But even by the same token, because God can do anything, He may allow us a certain amount of special choice in the matter as well. Assuming salvation merely as a typical choice is wrong, but it is sadly a part of typical church doctrine today.

How often do you hear of so many people just getting saved suddenly? It is as if the church's goal is to go to the lost, and then convert them in one night. All the glory to God if this happens, but often salvation does not work this way. One friend of mine put this as if someone said that they were in love with their wife from the moment they saw her. It is not that simple, and for most people salvation is not either. Along the way in a relationship, there are instances in which two people feel real love in an emotional experience, but it is not as if each one of those instances stands alone in their love. Their love is a long road over much time. I remember as a kid being told to "ask Jesus into my heart." It is true that He must come into your heart and save you, but by this watered-down approach, I had several "conversions experiences" because I was always worried I had not sincerely meant the last ones. Finally I realized I must stop saying the simple prayer and just live a Christian life.

C.S. Lewis (perhaps I am wrong on who this person is, but I believe it is Lewis - correct me if you know I'm wrong) once spoke of his salvation in a way unusual to today's theology. He said he got on a train, and sometime by the time he got off the train, he was a Christian. But he could not point to exactly where at on that train. But nonetheless, there was a mysterious time in there in which his whole worldview just radically changed.

So with this said, I believe our salvation is something that is in God's complete control. However He may in His infinite grace and power give us the choice of accepting Him and give us some choice of perserverence. Today Christians see perseverence as God's predestined gift one's we accept Jesus on our own. Yet it is our choice in many of our trials. But I take a somewhat different approach. God's gift of salvation may be given to us by our choice in some mysterious way, but there is also the sense in which God's grace is irresistable and only given by God. Our perseverence certainly includes God's gifts to us in our trials, and Him not pushing us past what we can stand, but there is never a time in which we can just "relax" and not care. Yet even yet we can have full assurance. It really is a mystery, but certainly a mystery of grace. This is really why I called this "Freedestination." It is both free (at least to a point), and destine by God. Again, it is a mystery.

I have said enough for now, as I feel I am hinting on the next three blogs. But one more point, kind of to the side: I believe that this mystery gives more evidence for God than it does against it. It is self-evident that we have a conscience, and some sort of choice in our salvation, whether the acceptance or the perserverence (with God's grace abounding all the way, of course). But with no God, where is our conscience? After all, aren't we (to still Dr. George Grant's words) "predestined to evolve" with no God? Are we not chemical reactions in a universe that is fit to whatever it forces itself to do, wherein no conscience really exists? Are we not bound to the chemicals in our brains, the taste buds in our toungs, and the movements in nature, which is not bound to the science? What would science be bound to anyway, if anything? In a Christian worldview, all things are bound on God. But because God can do anything, perhaps even His creation can have a certain choice in their life and perhaps even eternity. God created us with conscience to give Him full glory and honor and praise and adoration. May that be what we do.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

God bless His Church

God bless you

Februrary 7, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Final Thoughts Before the Primaries

2008-02-01T15:39:00.000-06:00

I figured before I get back into my "lessons" series, I would give a final blog about the upcoming Presidential Primary elections here in Alabama. I want to make this a quick (hopefully!) defense for my support of Congressman Ron Paul, Texas. I understand that he has little chance of winning, and many consider his views too radical, but I do believe he would be the best man for the job.

For one, Congressman Paul is the most convicted man running I do believe. He has convictions that do not depend on the latest surveys or polls. Congressman Paul is a Christian, and incorporates this worldview into his political ideology. Even if you may have disagreements with some of his applications, it is fairly obvious that he is at least convicted in his thoughts, and has come to what he sees as the best conclusion.

In saying this, he has the most consistent record of anyone running, and in Congress is known as "Dr. No." If the proposed bill is unconstitutional, then you can almost bank all of your money that Congressman Paul will vote against it, if he does indeed vote on the matter. And I believe with little question that one of the key missing elements in today's political society is the Supremecy view of the Constitution, and the main reason we have a Constitution. The Constitution was formed to limit the role of the Central government, not the people of the nation.

But even in saying this, I agree with most of what Dr. Paul has to say about the applications of this philosophy. We have a big monstrous government that spends way too much. Not many politicians would speak against our dangerous system of fiat money as I believe it is, but Dr. Paul does. Not many politicians want to get the Central Government out of education (something that is unconstitutional) while I do, but Dr. Paul does. This list that seems all too "radical" can go on longer, but these are the more obvious issues that come to my mind.

On the more dominant issues we see, Dr. Paul is pro-life, and for tougher border security, wanting no amnesty for those who come here illegally. After all, should they come here and not pay the taxes legal citizens pay, only to take part in our government programs (which are unconstitutional often times anyway)? Dr. Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax (which was also originally unconstitutional). We are all over taxed, and perhaps Dr. Paul stresses that the most. Consider how much more the government takes from you against your will, compared to the ten percent you should freely tithe at church.

I write this, and have written little on the issue of foreign policy, which is perhaps the biggest issue that drive Congressman Paul apart from the conservatives. I wrote of this in the last blog, and briefly defended Paul. I do not deny the possibility that Dr. Paul is perhaps a bit naive, but at least he knows where he stands and why he stands there. Congressman Paul has been the most consistent in foreign policy, showing me that he is not just making this a political issues as many Democrats and Republicans do. Even if you disagree with his foreign policy, I would rather disagree with a principled man, than agree with a man (or woman) of no principles, who will probably change their mind when the time shows them benefits of doing so. I would rather be in no war than a war for merely political reasons.

And the issue of foreign policy is really very complicated anyway. While I do agree that we should go after our enemy (as Dr. Paul agrees with as well), we should be careful. And one thing I wonder: If there are terrorists who camp out in Iraq, then perhaps they are there because we are there. If they want to kill us, wouldn't they go where we go? And if getting out of Iraq means they would follow us here, then does it follow that going to Iraq or staying in Iraq means that they would follow us to or stay in Iraq? Maybe this logic can be explained away, but I do think they are at least a decent question to be asked.

I should probably mention the others who are running for President as well. I appreciate Mike Huckabee's Christian values, but he wants a big Central government (and he scares me be a slick Christian from Arkansas, as Clinton was). Giuliani is a bit liberal on social issues and does not have the best personal life either. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has changed his political views over time, and does not have the best right now anyway. John McCain is just John McCain, and has been moderate-at-best on many issues. When it is said and done, Congressman Paul is the most principled man, the best Constitutionalist, and closest to my specific points of view.

So when it is said and done, I give support for Congressman Paul for these reasons: I believe he is the most principled man running for President; I believe that he will better secure the borders; I believe he will lower taxes accross the board; I believe his foreign policy, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, will be acted upon in principles, not for political purposes; he is pro-life and has spoken in favor of over-turning Roe vs. Wade; and finally, because he is the best Constitutionalist running for President, a principle much forgotten about today.

And one last quote about war that I just found yesterday...Warriors fight, not because they hate those in front of them, but because they love those who are behind them. -G.K. Chesterton

And one more...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

And to close it up, here is a link to Dr. Ron Paul's statement of faith:

http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

Foreign Policy

2008-01-27T18:43:00.000-06:00

One of the most heated topics of debate in this year's Presidential Election is that of what our foreign policy should be. Should we have a humble foreign policy? Should we try to spread the American way of life? Do the two go together? How does our overall foreign policy philosophy fit into our foreign affairs of today?

Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.

As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:

It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!

When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.

I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.

But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have

A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.

We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.

But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.

Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.

I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.

Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.

And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.

And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.

UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

January 27, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Bronner Burgess

2008-01-21T23:35:00.000-06:00

Maybe it seems a bit cliche` to publically mourn the death of someone famous, or would at any rate make the news, but I still can not help but to write a blog mourning for the Burgess family, and offering out my thoughts and prayers to the family, in light of the Saturday evening drowing of two-year-old Bronner Burgess.

In case you do not know, Rick Burgess is a popular co-host of the radio program Rick and Bubba, which airs on many different radio stations throughout different parts of the country. Rick has spent much time going out of his way to present and defend his Christian faith over the airwaves. He has also spent much time with Bill "Bubba" Bussy talking about his hectic family life. Now his two-year-old son, nicknamed "Cornbread," has died from an accidental drowing. Rick was speaking in Tennessee at the time, away from his Birmingham, Alabama home.

We should be sad hearing of any death, whether it pertains to someone famous or not. But given that Rick has been a proclaimed Christian, this really can affect the way many view Christianity. If Rick gets through this situation with even a stronger faith, then perhaps the world will see it and believe the Gospel. If he doubts the validity of his faith and doubts the power and will of God, then perhaps many people will simply see Christianity as a feel-good myth.

So we should keep the camily in our prayers. For Rick and his wife that no blame will be placed on each other from each other. For the entire immediate and extended family, that they will cope well with this tragic loss. And also for Rick especially, that he will continue to share his faith over the air, and perhaps even with greater strength.

In all ways, may God have all Glory, even when we do not understand why.

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

January 21, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Look What Just Hit Me!

2008-01-18T15:00:00.000-06:00

Now that post-highschool life is approaching for me, I have spent the past year or so trying to decide what I will do, where I will go to college (or if I'll go to college), and the other questions that inevitabely arise. I have spent time sending in my application to Samford University, as well as applying for scholarships, etc.

And although I am looking foward to this side of life, it comes with much fear. Not so much the fear that I feel uncomfortable with what is to come, but moreover the fear of losing that to which I have become accustomed to.

So with this comes a couple of emotions into play. For one, I desire the good of humanity, and the family and friends around me. For two, I do want to live life to the fullest - not in a bad sort of way that justifies evil in the name of "personal freedom," but live it to the fullest in a God-fearing way. I try telling younger people not to underestimate these times in their life, and their happiness is at the chief of my concerns.

I realize that there are people not much at all older than me who are in the Middle East fighting in war. I have just recently registered to vote, and it seems odd that now I have a vote in determing who would be the President, among other things, of this nation. I am doing this all while I am stuck to the older days of my life, albeit elementary school or middle school. My how the times change, and my how they probably will in just a few (or so) months from now.

So I write this for a few basic reasons. I want to relate to those who feel the same way, and encourage them not to underestimate these times. I also encourage all of you to remember the memories that God has given you, and appreciate the future memories that are the realities of today. I encourage you all to have a firm foundation in what you believe. Remembering who you are - your core identity - is the chief foundation to knowing where you are going. For a Christian, it is to remember your Christian worldview and foundation.

People say I'm turning into an old man, and maybe to a degree I am. But old men are often the one's who act the most like children. So that's what I'll do while I can, but all the while be prepared for when reality comes. All of these emotions are really starting to hit me (now that I'm in the final semester of high school). But I would rather this than rather the realities of these emotions and inevitable facts to hit me in life. That is much more dangerous.

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

January 18, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Origin of Economics

2008-01-13T22:20:00.000-06:00

The following is an excerpt from a greater piece I am working on. This deals with looking at economics philisophically, and with a Christian worldview. May you enjoy.

The Origin of Economics

We have talked greatly about what economics is in relativity to the world today, but we have not really failed to grasp where the origin of economics comes from. To follow the logical coherence, we force ourselves to ask where the origin of life as we know it comes from, or the origin of the basic principles of human action, inaction, and relationships comes from, given that this is essentially what economics is the study of.

I remember once my younger sister asking the question to my Father, "Why do we have money?" She argued, "Why can't we have stores where people just go get what they want?" My Father answered her asking back, "How much is too much for the people? What if I get something I do not earn?" She answered back, "I guess that the they can make you get only a certain amount." When my Father asked her who "they" would be, my sister said, "I guess the government."

Although the economics my sister brought forth and proposed to my Father were full of fallacies, and was essentially communism, I do not wish for this little section to merely criticize her. She was young, and at least she was thinking about economics. Furthermore, her basic question really spawns us into the entire origin of economics altogether. The basic principles my Father argued against her answered her question, and the question of the origin of modern-day economics altogether (economics as the course of human nature, not the modern economic thought).

A (The Fall of Man)

The origin of modern-day economics, at least according to a Christian perspective, comes in the Garden of Eden. This is where the origin of human relations and actions and inaction as we know it began. But it did not begin at creation. After creation, there was another level that came to humanity, that changed our economic laws altogether. This was the Fall of man. The Fall in a way was almost an altering of the Natural Law that existed. Due to the Fall of man, our principles on government, justice, and economics have changed.

It is interesting that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order to become "like God." They ate the fruit to increase dominion and liberty. Even though there was an abundance of fruit, animals, and many other blessings of the world as they knew it, they wanted to increase their liberty the little more that they could. As a result, they fell into a world of pain and sorrow. The world essentially went from ever living to ever dying. Only by super human action to remodel creation could the world return to the stages of that it was in before the Fall. Even though man was in the world to remodel creation before the Fall as well, there was now much more work needed to be done. The world, in a way, needed resurrecting.

Because the world was ever dying, we entered a world of scarcity. That which Adam and Eve had was now scarce. Furthermore, it would be by the "sweat of [their] brow" that they would enjoy the fruits of the trees and all the other blessings. Now they must not only work, but they must work at the expense of giving up that which they want so that the world would be a better place, and they would be better people.

B (Our Economic Purpose)

All of this is consistent with the New Testament teachings of Paul and Jesus. Our liberty comes from our bondage to God. I have quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 much before, stating, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Furthermore, the act of giving up something for something greater in return in also Scriptural. Christians are supposed to give their all for the sake of God's Kingdom, to enjoy in His righteousness and glory.

By this same token, the only way to decrease the scarcity of that which is on earth is to give up a portion of that which we have, in order to get it all back and more. Without sin, our economics would be different. The sinless descendents of Adam and Eve would not take the property of others. It would be immoral, and man would not be immoral creatures. But also, there would be abundance in the world, so why should we steal property in the first place? We would claim what we have, and give up much less for our rewards. Having real "money," though perhaps not being non-existent, would have less reasons for its existence.

In the grand scheme of things, we are equal partakers of the world with certain unalienable Rights (Natural Rights). This is something that did carry through over the Fall. Among these Rights is the Right to property. My sister was actually (even in her very flawed economics) getting to a good point. We are equal partakers of this world. Therefore, that which we earned, we went and got ourselves. But we did not go get it from a store. We got it from the world and claimed it.

But if it is claimed by someone else already, it is not ours. Not unless we trade. This is why we have money. We work hard for something, only to give it up to another person. But we do this to have something even better for us. We do this privately, helping ourselves, with only us as the attention. But in the grand scheme of things, we each help society in this. Ultimately, Christian economics is really the study of reclaiming what we had before the Fall of man. It is restoring the Christian way. Through this, we give up what we want, in order to have something even better. This is both personal and public.

C (The Purpose of Government)

Along with the Fall of man, we required a necessity for government. Now, government exists to protect our natural Rights, including the Right to property. This is why we punish those guilty of theft. The government, at some level, has the Right to stop of us from totally destroying the planet and defeating the purpose of restoring that which we had before the Fall. Government is force, and even my sister realized this in saying that the government would tell us when too much stuff from the store was "too much" (even though this is an unnecessary use of force, so that part of her logic is flawed). But far too often today, the government in the politically correct name of "environmentalism" defeats the purpose. They fail to understand that in order to have that which we want, we must give up that we have - even if it is scarce. Cutting down trees gives us a use for our natural recourses. Through this use, we may perhaps find something that accomplishes the same goals as cutting down trees, but does it more efficiently and economically. This enables us to restore ourselves to that day in which our economics is full of abundance and pleasure.

Fortunately, we see some of the blessings of good economic policy today (even with a big government). This is called technology. We are constantly coming up with new ways and better ways to do things, making the world less and less scarce. These things are essentially a great aspect of the American Dream, and are done mostly without government.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

January 13, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Rethinking Ethics

2008-01-10T15:46:00.000-06:00

The following is a piece on ethics, as apart of a greater piece I am working on:

ETHICS

Albeit abortion, homosexual marriage, drugs, prostitution, gun rights, etc., the government has failed in the proper handling of ethics. The notion of state's rights is obscured, and the basic means of government protecting our freedom is largely done away with.

i. Abortion

Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision in 1973 which ruled that abortion was a natural right for all women. No state could even take it away, except on a few precise measures that were spelled out by the Supreme Court. Many conservative pro-lifers consider this ruling as one in which the government fails to do what it should do, that it, the government is allowing for abortion, when it should be keeping abortions from being done. Although this is the case in many respects, we should also look at this in light of the greater cultural war that has been going on from quite some time. This cultural war, which brings forth much problem in the Central Government today, is the diminishing of state's rights, and the degrading view of the Constitution.

Let us go back to the way Jefferson viewed the Constitution. Jefferson wanted to build schools and roads, but did not see these things permitted in the Constitution. He therefore did not carry through these things. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, leaving us to believe it is up to the states. If the Central Government did rule in the case of abortion, it should be done by an amendment. Furthermore, it would make since to make abortion illegal, if they did indeed rule in the case, given that it is the government's job to protect our liberties, which include life.

The question does become a question of "where does sacred life begin?" This question is scientific, religious, moral, and philosophical. Science can give us reason to believe in some sort of real human life, and when it begins. Consider this logical analysis:

Matter can not be created or destroyed.
I am matter.
I am human.
I have not always been human.
Therefore, there was a time in which my physical substance became human.

Science can answer this question, but only to a point. Science might could tell us that the right cells and DNA joined together in a place suitable for survival, making a real living being - in the case of human reproduction, a human. But as far as science is concerned, there is no real basis to defy human life as any more sacred than the life of a dog, for instance. This is where philosophy, religion, and morality come into play, all under the notion of natural law.

Some would argue that the government should not rule in deciding where sacred life begins. Supposedly, since this is a sacred question, in one respect, it would join government and religion together to have the government answer the question. But ultimately, government can not answer the question. Either life is sacred or it is not. The government is here to protect that which is sacred. If we reach a conclusion by science and natural law that sacred life begins in a human womb, then it should follow that abortion, at some level, should be illegal, so that the sanctity of human life may be preserved. Still, they do not answer the question - natural law does. Arguing that the government should not decide what life is sacred or not, is like arguing that the government should not decide if pigs could fly.

If it is concluded that abortion should be illegal, the next question is, "what level of government should make it illegal?" County government, state government, Central Government, the United Nations? The best possible solution would be that it come from the state government, as they have their own laws on murder, theft, etc. However if the Central Government did rule in the case, it should be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution to outlaw abortion. Now let us consider how Roe Vs. Wade was done. Did it pass the test?

The Central Government should be silent on the issue of abortion (Fail).
If the Central Government does rule in the case, it should make abortion illegal (Fail).
If the Central Government declares abortion a natural right, it should at least be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution (Fail).

The Supreme Court failed on all of these issues. This shows great ignorance for the Constitution and natural law on apart of the Judges in Roe Vs. Wade. This was a bad form of government.

ii. (Homosexual Marriage)
Homosexual marriage is a much heated topic in today's world, though there are little rulings to show for it. There is not infamous ruling on the issue as there is for abortion. Still the handling of the issue and the interpretation of the issue, shows great ignorance again for our Constitution and for natural law.

Fortunately, any ruling on the issue shows support for an amendment to the Constitution. The question becomes whether or not there should be that amendment. Like abortion, the Constitution is silent on the issue, leading us to believe it should be left up to the states.

Some would argue that ruling against homosexual marriages, basically outlawing them, would join the government more and more in with the church. But what we should really consider is if the government has a hand in marriage at all. Currently, the state issues marriage license for people getting married. If marriage is defined as a sacred covenental union between one man and one woman, then the government contradicts itself by issuing a legal documentation of marriage between two people of the same sex. However if the state was out of the issue entirely, not even to issue a marriage license, then two people of the same sex could live together, sleep together, and call it marriage, when in reality, it may not be marriage at all, given that it contradicts the definition of marriage. Marriage itself is sacred, and if two people have a partnership that defies the sacred definition of marriage, then it is no marriage at all.

With this said, Americans, including their politicians, seem to have a hard time understanding how government fits in to the issue of homosexual marriage, or if it even does at all. We forget that states have their rights to make the laws regarding these issues, and we forget the very nature of marriage itself. If two men want to sleep together, I would rather see the dollars I freely tithe go to help these men repent, than see my tax dollars go to having the FBI police their bedroom.

iii. The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is another issue that is misunderstood. Many people see drugs as something that should be stopped, and they want it stopped by the Central Government. This can essentially invite the government into your home to see if you have drugs.

Do not misunderstand this to presume I make any point to morally justify drugs, or even to take away the right of a state to issue a war on drugs, although on state issues, it could even be argued that the state should be out of the drug issue.

Some illegal drugs can actually, in rare but existing circumstances, be used for beneficial medical purposes. But so long as these drugs are outlawed, law-abiding doctors and nurses will not obtain the beneficial illegal drug for the patient.

On the other hand, however, the drug-addicts will still go after drugs. They will get them from Mexico, from robbery, even from murder. A war on drugs actually increases crime. Prohibition led to more crime, so it can easily follow that prohibiting drugs, especially at the level of the Central Government, can lead to more crime. Results has shown that it has.

In saying this, an employer has every right to ask an employee or potential employee for a drug test, and deny them a job or fire them if they fail. If I was an owner of some sort of business, I would probably not want drug dealers working for me. But I would also not want the government telling me that they can't.

The drug war is like the gun war in many respects. Outlawing drugs reducing crime is about as likely (or unlikely) as outlawing guns would reduce crime. There will still be drugs out there, and the criminal will even go to the point of murder to get them.

It could be argued, and I would strongly support it, that there should be laws (at a local or state level), against the selling of drugs to minors. A six-year old may not really understand the effects of drugs, and anyone who causes this person to try the drug, except for medical purposes, shall be punished. At the same time, if drugs become rampant in one community, then it could be argued that drugs should become illegal at that local level. But they should never be outlawed on the level of the Central Government.

iv. Gun Control

Although there is no law against the possession of guns, the movement for it has become rampant. Gun control is perhaps one of the sillier of ideas. At least in Roe Vs. Wade the Judges claimed some honor for the Constitution, and even defended their ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment (although it is a lame defense). The right to keep and bear arms is listed in (out of all places!) the Bill of Rights - even the Second Amendment. Out of all the things our Founding Fathers wanted to secure most, the right to keep and bear arms was listed just behind the freedom of the press, and denying a national religion or church. Owning guns not only protects the people against other citizens who take away life and property, but even against government that tries to take away their right to life and property, et al.

Beyond this, gun control laws do not help reduce crime. In fact, cities with the toughest gun control laws actually have higher crime. When people are free to own guns, criminals are scared. Many criminals actually say that they are scared of the people owning guns more than the government.

It could even be argued that no state shall pass a law against the owning of guns, and that the Central Government should secure this, given that it is deemed as a natural right. But at any rate, outlawing guns should certainly not come from the Central Government.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Pray for our Troops

God Bless You

January 10, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Greatest War of All

2008-01-02T19:55:00.000-06:00

Whether you are pro-war, anti-war, liberal, conservative, etc., there is always one war that will be going on. It will go on in your personally, through you corporately, and will always be the ultimate World War.

What is it? This war is the war between the City of God and the City of Man. Every single person is a member of either of the two cities. If we were to divide every single person in the world into one of two groups, it would be those of the City of God and those of the City of Man.

What are the differences? We should not believe that the difference between the two cities is that the City of God is of good people and that the City of Man has bad people. The difference is that the people of the City of God understand that they are sinners, and seek the forgiveness of God. Those in the City of Man look to the mind of man to free them of any problems in the world, but would never blame it on the sin of man - or at least not their own.

What are the effects? The effects of this war affect you personally and corporately; spritual, emotionally, mentally, and even physically; it affects you in almost every way. We should not believe that if you are a member of the City of God then you will never think like a member of the City of Man. But in the end, all of God's people will call upon His name. Consider the following personal and worldly aspects of this war (can especially be very personal):

Lust vs. Love
Popular before man vs. Humble before God
Individualistic Inward piety vs. Corporate worship
Theft and Murder vs. A respect for the property of others
Natural Selection vs. Natural rights, and, above all,
The love of money vs. The Love of God.

What is best for man in the long run? Lust does not forgive the imperfections of that being lusted after. Love, true, love, would forgive imperfections. Popularity comes with many prices and can easily be lost. God accepts us for walking humbly (Man's fluctuating acceptance compared to God's eternal acceptance). Individualism (some forms of it) often will not forgive one's mistakes, and is apart from the forgiveness and love God shows through others. Corporate worship strengthens even the worst of sinners, and through it God can enable us true acceptance even among men. Theft and Murder against someone can result in someone else robbing or murdering you. Natural selection accepts and deny's people by standards one can not help. Natural rights affirms everyone certain God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The love of money is never satisfied, and always wants more money. The Love of God enables us to rest in confidence for the greatest treasure of all.

But even yet, the glories of the City of Man seem so great at first. Money, popularity, and the like seem so attractive. But how many people in Hollywood, with so much money, so much fame, and seemingly perfect bodies really seem happy in the end? Not many.

Ultimately, money, acceptance among men, and happiness, will come by faith in God, and participation in the City of God. Matt. 7:13 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."

And in the end, it will be the City of God who wins. We are told that the gates of Hell can not even prevail against the Rock on which God builds His Church. Matt. 16:18 says, "...on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Hells gates, the guard of the City of Man, will not be able to offend the City of God, nor be able to defend against the offense of the City of God. Ultimately, it's a blow-out. Hell has no chance, and the winner of the war is predestined.

So as a New Year's Resolution, I encourage you to examine your life, and see how you are living. Are you living as someone who understands that you are a sinner, and one who seeks the forgiveness of God? Or, are you living as someone who does not care about the way you live your life, or the only care you do have is popularity, fortune, fornication, and many other things or sins that seem to have so much glory, but who's path only leads to destruction? Do you even realize that there is this war, that affects you personally, corporately, and in every way of your life? Or do you ignore this war? If you do understand this war, if you do seek the forgiveness of God and seek to live better, then you can rest assure that the City of God will win, the City of Man only leads to destruction, and you will be apart of eternal glory.

God bless His Church

For all the Saints

God bless you

Lift High the cross

Janurary 2, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Elections...

2007-12-26T19:54:00.001-06:00

First off, let me wish you all a very Merry Christmas. Ultimately, as we are reminded in Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad, the real meaning of this season is the real meaning of Christmas, namely, Christ's birth - not political agenda and the like. I do want to make one point very clear before exploring the current standings of the election: REAL and GOOD change does not begin at the voting booths, but in the heart of anyone of fears the One God.

However with that said, our faith in God should influence all we do, including the elections, and the elections should not be overlooked, being that they are a major part of our society. They do not make change, but show us the results of our change.

When I had wrote of the elections a while back, I made the point that it would be hard for McCain to beat Giuliani. Even if Giuliani gets beat by someone else, it would be hard for McCain to outdebate him, and win the American people over. I brought out the same point with Obama and Clinton, although I did recognize the slick rhetoric of Barack Obama, and showed the possibility of the Democratic race turing into a three-way race if Edwards stays in a strong third place and finds a couple of breaks along the way. But I made the point that Clinton can get away with acting like a jerk, whereas Obama can not. He may knock Clinton down some, but he would not beat out Clinton, unless Clinton made bad campain choices. If her and Obama got into a feud, it would be possible for Edwards to gain momentum just in time for the primaries. On the Republican side, McCain could not beat out Giuliani, but might knock him down some giving rise to the slick Mitt Romney, the (then) upcoming Fred Thompson, or one of the (then) back-pack crew such as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee.

And as it turned out, the race for 2008 has been every bit as interesting as this and all the more. It was Huckabee, who by wise political moves and a faith-based campain, was the back-pack man who turned into a front runner. Now Mike Huckabee, despite having little money, has as much of a chance as any Republican at winning the nomination. My predictions on McCain seemed true for a while. He slipped dramatically in the polls. Meanwhile, with the help of good speeches and an endorsement by none other than Democratic Senator Joseph Liberman, he has made a comeback. He could gain much ground by winning the votes of the independent moderates. According to some polls, he actually leads Rudy Giuliani, who has fallen behind a good bit in the polls.

What happens is when people get into the lead, they are the subject of talk and debate. People play closer attention to them. When two people get into feuds, it often becomes too nasty for many voters. Giuliani struggled when asked about his religious views. Huckabee always came through with good speeches and powerful rhetoric. He was endorsed by Chuck Norris, and seemed confident and sincere when asked about his faith. Giuliani and Clinton began making unwise political moves - especially the Christmas political ads. Giuliani's ad is known for wanting fruitcake, and Hillary Clinton's ad was known for a confused woman who temporarily misplaced the "universal pre-k" gift. Barack Obama and John Edward's each made videos of emotional appeals wishing us a Merry Christmas. Edwards' ad got to the heart of his campaign with the "Two America's" slogan. In this he did not bring up specific issues, but did wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Obama's was simpler. He and his family simply wished us a Merry Christmas. The much contraversial Mike Huckabee "Bookcase or cross" ad was probably the most beneficial. It struck to the heart of his campain in a politically incorrect way. The lesser heard of Ron Paul Christmas ad was also good, but did not gain enough attentian to matter much anyway.

I thought that Giuliani and Clinton had commited political suicide, but now Clinton has a great lead over Obama. Only someone such as Clinton could get away with an ad like hers. Meanwhile Edwards is rivaling Obama, and the two may try to gang up on the leader Clinton.

Giuliani stays within a shot of the nomination and should not be ruled out. However it is Huckabee and Mitt Romney who are the two front runners now just eight days before the Iowa caucuses. McCain and Giuliani are battling out third and fourth place, while Thompson is in fifth place with a Ron Paul who is slowly creeping up staying in sixth place. The Republican race is up for grabs more than ever. It is hard to tell if Tancredo's drop out is helping his endorsement Mitt Romney, although I think it may be more than we expected given the hole Romney fell in trying to explain how his Father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Although Tancredo was one of the least likely to win the nomination, his few percent may be all it takes to swing the election. If most of his supporters turned to Romney, it may be just enough to pull Romney ahead of Huckabee. It is really hard to tell.

Huckabee offers what I call "Big Government Conservatism." Even though he said education is a state's issue, he called for more education to the left side of the brain using courses such as arts and music. He may be right, but he sounds contradictory in wanting the Federal Government to do such a thing, while calling education a state's issue. He wanted more government spending in space explorations. Despite the polls do not show it, Tom Tancredo would often get Huckabee in these corners during debates. It is only Huckabee's strong basis and slick rhetoric that has kept him alive. Only time will tell if it brings him through or not.

The top five candidates are really a flip-flop for voters. I have heard several people who have changed their support from one of these candidates to another. If these lost their support to someone such as Duncan Hunter, it could open the door for him or Ron Paul, who has a strong support basis - especially over the internet. Ron Paul is also perhaps a little underated in that he is rasing a lot of money, has a strong appeal to young voters who are not polled much, as well as to third-party affiliates and possibly even independents. If these people pulled together in favor of Ron Paul, then he could have a chance. However as of now, the top five candidates are only switching places. But as Ron Paul continues to gain support slowly while the other candidates switch or lose support, he may have a chance. Iraq, the main but certainly not only difference Ron Paul has with the other candidates, is becoming less of an issue to many of the domestic issues that America is facing. One friend of mine actually said that he disagree's with Ron Paul on foreign policy, but would support him because America needs a Constitutionalist, and that is the exact kind of philosophy Ron Paul offers to his politics. If Ron Paul can appeal to the Christians, then he may have a chance. Although Ron Paul does not talk of his faith as much as Huckabee does, he is as firm as Huckabee when questioned about it.

So all of this is to say that we really do not know who will win. The Democratic race is still uncertain, although my prediction that Hillary Clinton will win seems to be very possibly. It is also possible that it could turn into a three-way race. As I have said before, John Edward's may not be in as bad of a position as some may think. The Republican side is up for grabs as well. I had originally picked Giuliani to win, but that was a hypothetical guess, and it does not seem as likely now, although it is still quite possible. My prediction now would that it would come down to Hillary Clinton against Mike Huckabee, but we really do not know. Each side is coming more and more down to the wire, and more and more a toss-up. We really do not know, but that is perhaps the rare beauty we find in politics.

And in case your wondering, I plan to vote for Ron Paul. I will explain reasons why later on closer to the Alabama caucuses.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless our Troops

Merry Christmas

December 26, 2007

Ryan Hampton

The Social War On Christmas

2007-12-21T22:11:00.000-06:00

This is an interesting article I found by Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. It sums up much of my views on the War on Religion and the War on Christmas. Thanks to Brian McClain (see links) for the post, and to Congressman Ron Paul (click on title of this blog).

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

December 30, 2003

Here is Ron Paul's Christmas ad:

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

December 21, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in American History, Part II: America's UnCivil War

2007-12-20T14:10:00.000-06:00

One of the most misunderstood events in American history is the American "Civil War." In fact, the "Civil War" was no civil war. The classic textbook story of the case goes something like this: The South had slaves, and the North wanted to end slavery. The South rebelled and waged war with the North. But they did not really secede because secession is illegal. Abraham Lincoln saved the Union without unnecessary violence. But that is VERY far from the way the story actually goes.

We should ask ourselves what caused the war, how the war went and how it was carried through, and what the effects of the war were, or are. There is little doubt that slavery was an issue, and in fairness, it must be addressed to a degree. But let us remember that the victorious North wrote the historical accounts, making our "history" very bias.

The war was largely a cultural war. It was not a war fought only over slavery, but a war fought between two different cultures. The cultures were different in terms of religion, politics, economics, custom, philosophy, etc. Essentially, they were different in almost every way imaginable. The North and South are different today, but not nearly as much as they were then.

Slavery was an issue that had been going on for a long time. The slave trade in Africa had been going on for perhaps thousands of years. It made eventually made its way to England, and eventually to Western Civilization. It was an issue that the founders pondered on. We would think that because our founders thought so highly of natural law theory, and liberty, that they would have outlawed such an act in the nation. But we must remember that is was considered the norm at the time, and many early Americans wanted to take slaves and treat them right, perhaps even showing them the Christian Gospel.

American slavery acutally began in the North. But as the two cultures grew more and more different, slavery became more indigenous in the South. The South was largely agriculturous, and needed slaves much more than the largely industrious North. Slavery was an issue that separated the North and the South.

But it was not the only issue. New Orleans was shaping out to be a powerful American city. I was close to the Gulf of Mexico and close to the Mississippi River. It was central to both the East and West of the country. But it was a southern city. The North did not like the South becoming more geographically dominant to the once dominant North.

The South was good for producing cotton and the like. A good economic trade system was going on between England and North and South United States. But a disproportionate tariff was placed on imported goods. This hurt the South's economy because they would be forced to buy at a more expensive price, and because it forced others to buy from somewhere other than the South, given that the South would raise their prices to drown out the tax. The South saw this as unkind, unconstitutional, and unfair. They saw it as Central Aggression that benefited the North at the expense of the South.

The South was largely ridiculed due to growing in line with the romantic movement and becoming much more religious oriented. The North was more intellectually oriented as opposed to the South's emotionalism. The South was sensitive to their pride and to any outer aggression or intolerance. The South wanted a smaller government, particular the Central Government. They saw the Central Government as drifting from the Constitution.

The South could not stand Abraham Lincoln. He did not even receive a single vote in the South when he ran for President. Yet he one the election. The South saw him as a tyrant, and a hater of the South. Lincoln probably did not hate the South as much as other Northerners did, or as much as the South thought he did. But Lincoln was not quite the Saint or martyr we make him out to be.

Lincoln once supported secession, but changed his mind when the South seceded. Lincoln was not quite the saviour to the slaves as we think. Lincoln did not want the slaves in America, but he wanted the slaves sent back to Africa. Lincoln was a political flip-flopper (like politicians today perhaps!). When Lincoln was elected President, the South immediately seceded.

Secession is legal. The Constitution never addresses the matter, at least not directly, leading us to believe that the Central Government may not interfere on the issue. But the Central Government did interfere. The Central Government, under Lincoln, waged war on the seceding South.

Therefore, this was a war against two nations - the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. If this was one nation, as Lincoln often suggested, then this war would be unconstitutional, being that the Central Government of the United States waged war on a particular section of its very country! This is not only unconstitutional, but is flat out absurd! And why would or should Lincoln want to wage war on the South if he loved them so much and just wanted them happily ever after in the Union?

But Lincoln waged war on the South. Not only to punish those who own slaves, but to completely demolish the South. The North Burnt churches, houses, and killed innocent people. Slavery was used as an emotional argument to Northern Abolitionists to justify the war. But slavery was not as rampant in the South as we think. Most Southerners did not own slaves, and most of who did owned very little. Very few people in the South owned over ten slaves. And there were still some people in the North who owned slaves anyway.

A point can be made that the South should not have seceded. But it is absurd to think that the South was the "bad guys" in this war, and the North was the heroes. This was no "Civil War." This was a war for Southern Independence fought against Northern Aggression. A Civil War is a war fought between two different parts of one nation seeking the same government. But this was for Southern Independence. The South had - and wanted to keep - their own nation. They drafted a Constitution as did the founders of the United States. It was very similar, simply leading out the "general welfare" clause, and interestingly enough, outlawing the slave trade. After secession, the South should have been left alone, or mildly encouraged to join the Union.

But the North won the war, and in doing so, was able to show dominance and write history. The North began winning many votes by the emotional argument used on the slaves. The North with the help of the Central Government, made the South submit to many of their ways. Reconstruction was not just cleaning up the economy after the war, but reconstructing the South. Much terror against the South still continued. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he knew that the South would have been treated the way they were after the war, he would not have surrendered, but would have fought to the last man.

I do not attempt to claim perfection to the South. They probably should not have seceded, at least not at the time that they did. Slavery, except for rare exceptions, is wrong, and contradicts the founders view of natural law and natural rights. There were good people in the North, and good people who fought for the North, and some people in the South with bad intent. But there were many things that the South stood for that were good, and many things that the North stood for and did that were absolutely immoral. In the least, I hope this provides balance to a largely unbalanced issue.

But don't just take my word. Here are some interesting links:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x0nCil3D1ZU

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/vorenberg.html

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.C318

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/civlwar.html?200720

Lessons in American History, Part I: The Growth of the American Government

2007-12-17T12:10:00.001-06:00

The Growth of the American Government

Written for December 14, 2007

Ryan Hampton

The American Government has grown emmensly from its original intentions. The early American way of free choice, a strong defense, the right to bear arms, a free market, etc., has been replaced by government programs and government laws that destroy the dignity of this nation. Perhaps the worst part of this is that it comes from the Federal Government – not state governments. The Federal Government has forgotten its Constitutional purpose and has in effect deteriorated what should be the American way – and the people do not even realize it.

The early American government worked generally according to plan. There were not many government programs to help different people, nor were there many government laws taking away free choice. The government had its problems but the general tone of the early years of American government was good and Constitutional. But somehow this good government has deteriorated. When did the American government begin to deteriorate? When did the government grow past its Constitutional authority?

Most historians at some level or another, credit the War Between the States as the growth or changing point for American government. These United States became known as The United States. The Federal, or perhaps better put, Central Government, was no longer a covenantal body of government to protect the rights of the states and the people therein, and provide a strong national defense. It was now a massive body of government used to take away states right’s, and the rights of the people therein. It became the one government of America for all Americans. It was the supplier of goods and services to Americans. The government took the place of business, trade, and freedom.

What caused this growth of government right here at the War Between the States? The two are related. There were many differences politically, economically, geographically, etc., between the North and the South, which led to much conflict. The Central Government then became the government to “fix” these problems. They did so through aggression, and disproportionate tariffs against the South. An unnecessary war was raged against the seceded South. Lincoln, then President, set the tone for big government, and it has not let up since.

After the War Between the States, the Central Government continued to increase its power. “Reconstruction” was a government force against the citizens to make the nation the way the government wanted it. Free choice was limited. The South was no longer a section of the nation with its own ways, values, and pride. It was a section for the Central Government to oppress.

As time wore on, the government continued to expand its jurisdiction. In ten years, roughly from 1859-1869, the government had grown substantially. The government started having more and more control over schools. Eventually the Central Government created a government controlled monopoly in the school system. The government continued on its path of big government leading into the twentieth century. Early in the twentieth century, more political turmoil turned the government to grow even more, and it has not let up since.

In the early twentieth century, women started complaining about their lack of rights. In theory, their fight was just. They wanted their liberty to vote and carry out their rights as citizens. But this was yet part of the political turmoil of the day. Women used much rhetoric similar to feminists today, and turned to the government for help. Regulations in what would otherwise be free trade were mandated by the government due to the fuss of women and minorities. Many other social movements came into play, such as the “social gospel,” a movement which suggested that the medium to success and a Godly environment was through government – even the Central Government. The idea of a social gospel without the government is good. This spawns new technology, new ideas, freedom, etc. But a government trying to force this gospel is dangerous.

In 1913, the government amended the Constitution to collect income taxes. Ever since this time, income taxes has been driven off the wall. Originally the founders were against income taxes. Now, the government seeks to collect them, and the income taxes are consistently growing.

Also in 1913 the Central Government passed a law regulating shooting migratory birds. The general idea to protect wildlife is good, but this kind of law is permitted no where in the Constitution.

Also in the year of 1913, the seventeenth amendment came to the United States Constitution. This amendment changed the election of the Senators to a direct vote from the people. This again sounds good on the surface, but it distracts us from the mixed government concept our founders envisioned.

Finally in 1913, President Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve. This again is an example of unconstitutional, monstrous Central Government. However few people then, much less today, recognize this.

Prohibition came about in the 1920’s. This outlawed the consumption and buying of alcohol. This may seem like a good idea, but it is just another example of government growth. No where does the Constitution permit the government to do such a thing, nor at any place hint around at it to give any just notion to amend the Constitution on the matter. Prohibition led to more crime, and most people even today believe it was a bad use of government.

After these events, it seemed as if the economy was booming. The 1920’s are actually
known as the “roaring 20’s.” The economy was filled with money and many more government – seemingly at the price of no one. But this would not last. It seemed too good to be true. It was. The Great Depression hit in 1929.

It is interesting to consider that the Great Depression hit right after an economic “boom.” This economic “boom” came soon after the creation of the Federal Reserve. This points us to the danger of fiat money. Fiat money is government controlled money, and is unconstitutional.

During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt advanced the size of government all the more. He created many laws and regulations on the economy. He created social security – something once again that is unconstitutional. He sponsored the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which limited agricultural supplies! This is a silly, childish, and unconstitutional attempt to help the economy. Roosevelt is sometimes considered the President who drove America out of the depression. However he is actually a major reason it was prolonged.

In the 1940’s America became engaged in World War II. Previously, America had not been engaged in much international conflict. But since the two World War’s, especially the second one, America has been engaged in many foreign affairs – even those that are not of a direct threat to the homeland security and peace of the nation. This again is government growth.

In 1964, any hope of possibly returning to the gold standard seemed abolished. Quarters, once made of real silver, were now no longer made of silver. The real value of the quarter then decreased.

The government increased its growth by creating programs of exploration, such as exploration into space. It is a good thing to study space, but it is dangerous to do so at the Central Government level. Free markets always work better than government control.

But the government did not stop there either. The government acted unconstitutional judicially. The philosophy of John Marshall was obsolete in the minds of many judges. Many cases that the United States Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in in the first place, were ruled by the Supreme Court in perhaps the worst way possible. In 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that government schools could not permit prayer. The government, especially the Central Government, has no Constitutional authority in education in the first place. They made this worse by controlling it.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court overturned any federal or state laws regarding abortion. Abortion was deemed by the Central Government as a natural right. Now, not even states had the authority to pass their own laws on the issue. This ruling increased the Central Government by taking away states right’s.
The United States meanwhile was engaged in all sorts of foreign affairs, some of which are not even resolved today. The government continued to grow in all these ways. In the 1990’s, government spending grew all the more. The minimum wage was increased. More and more programs for the poor and minors were established. More foreign aid was given. Government has grown all the more even in this decade as well. The Federal Debt is higher than it has ever been, and it keeps increasing. More government programs have been in place as well. In 2001, President George W. Bush issued the No Child Left Behind Act. Just after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, he issued the Patriot Act.

America has forgotten its purpose and ways of free choice, free trade, and a federal system of government. The Constitution is now seen as a way to limit the rights of the people, not the rights of the Central Government as it was supposed to. The few things that the government is supposed to do seem to be the things ignored most by politicians. Namely, these would be the protecting of our rights, state’s rights, and securing the peace at home. Only time will tell if America reverses this trend and gets back to the way its founders wanted it to be. But as for now, the Constitution is a forgotten document, and a limited government is a nearly forgotten concept.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

December 17, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Economics, Part II: The Hypocrisy of Minimun Wage

2007-12-14T12:25:00.000-06:00

After much talk of it, the minimum wage has recently gone up. This "Fair Minimum Wage Act," as they call it, has increased the minimum wage to $5.85 per hour (p/h), and it will continue to rise to $7.25 p/h through 2009. Most people assume this is a fair way to help the lower and middle class by allowing them to make more money for their job. The previous minimum wage of $5.15 p/h, is pretty low in terms of raising a family.

But one great lesson to be learned in economics is this: What sounds good on the surface is not always the best thing. So before assuming that this minimum wage increase is actually helpful to the poor and the economy as it may so appear, let's take a deeper look at this. As always in studying economics, we should begin by understanding the basic principles of what economics is.

As was mentioned in my last blog, economics is a form of trade. One person trades off something they own (money, time, material, etc), in order for something else, that they see is better for them. When a person goes really fast down the interstate, they are taking the chance at having a wreck or getting a speeding ticket for the sake of saving a few minutes of time. By the same token, when a person sells an automobile, they would rather have the money than the automobile.

But let us now turn this to the work field. If someone works thirty hours a week for $200, they have made an economics choice, as has the person who hired them. The worker wants to do something with those thirty hours of the week besides sitting at home and...well...probably writing blogs like me! The worker figures that he might as well make money in those thirty hours. He sees $200 as worth it for him (averaging about $6.67 p/h). The employee highering this person would rather have this worker for thirty hours a week, than the extra $200 a week. Or on a different scale, this worker for one hour than the $6.67 p/h. Both have made an economics choice.

This person working thirty hours for $200 could very possibly be an eighteen year old working a summer job, who has already had a little past experience working. The full time working man trying to support a family will probably be making more money and working more hours. But the fifteen or sixteen year old, the hard working legal (at least hopefully legal!) immigrant, or perhaps the sweet widowed lady, will perhaps have fewer hours, and most likely less pay for the hour. They may not be as experienced or equipped for the job. They may have less hard of jobs. The employee may not be willing to pay a sixteen year old almost $7 p/h, but may be willing to pay the eighteen year old that much. This is not sinful, this is just economics 101. Either end of the deal can walk out on the deal. Anybody can be fired for any reason without the reason even making sense. Anybody can leave the job just because they are lazy. But more times than not, a good worker at a reasonable pay will not be fired, and a worker will not walk out of a job with good pay and good benefits.

So what does a minimum wage do? It hurts the poor more than it helps them! The sixteen year old high school student, perhaps making $5.00 p/h, will be out of a job when the minimum wage increases to $7.00 p/h. The employer will higher someone of more experience and more qualifications to fulfill that $7.00 p/h. It will be much harder for a poor person, a young person, a widow, or a hard-working immigrant to find a job. People complain about how immigrants take away our jobs because they have low wages. If this was the case, then so would poor people, widowes, young high schoolers, etc - but we want the minimum wage to help these poor people, widowes, and young people, and hurt the immigrants. Something has to give! A free market would allow immigrants, young people, and widows, to be hired at low pay, so that the business can higher more people and/or increase their business to higher standards offering more jobs in the long run (i.e. Wal-Mart). A free market does not include a minimum wage. A minimum wage is a government institution in the market world. It is unconstitutional, and there is a reason why. The market sets the wage better than the government. The government has to guess. The market's competion forces the right medium. The argument for a minimum wage is hypocritical, and self-refuting. However many Americans do not see things this way. Americans look only to the seen effects, namely in minimum wage, a person receiving a higher pay. The unseen effects, however, are worse. In the case of a higher minimum wage, it would be these people losing their jobs six weeks later, and less jobs for sixteen year-olds in the future. The right solution would be to abolish the minimum wage. More jobs will be created, and the market will be fair, simple, balanced, and best of all, free.

What do you think?

God Bless America

God bless our Troops

December 14, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Economics, Part I: Good Currency

2007-12-11T15:07:00.001-06:00

I am going to be doing a "Lessons in" series (as perhaps you have started noticing). This lesson is a lesson in economics, relating to the degrading of our dollar due to increasing fiat money, and of a hope of returning to the gold standard. This issue is not dealt with much among politicians or the American people. I hope that this may inform you a bit more about what money is, and perhaps allow you to dig into the issue deeper.

First off, let us ask the questions, "What is economics?" and "What is money?" We will begin with economics. Economics is the practice of trade. An economics choice is one made of giving up something for something seen more valuable. Pretty much anything you do, at some rate or another, is an economics choice. If you help someone for free, you believe that the joy of helping that person outweighs the price it costs to offer the work. If you fly down the interstate real fast, you are willing to take a chance at getting pulled over and receiving a ticket for the benefit of getting to your destination a little quicker (if you do not receive a ticket). By the same token, if you buy an automobile, you are saying that you would rather have the automobile than the cash. The seller of the automobile is saying that they would rather have the cash than the automobile.

This is a pretty simple concept. You give up something for the hopes of getting something better in return. But many Americans just do not get this concept of economics. When studying any issue relating to economics, we should start off with this basic understanding of what economics is.

Now let us ask what money is. Money is the medium of exchange for the trade. The example of flying down the interstate is not directly related to money, unless of course, you do receive the speeding ticket! But what about the automobile? What could you give to the owner of the automobile in order to make the automobile yours? You should give something that the original owner of the automobile would want - more so than the automobile itself. In the very old days, people may trade chickens and cows. If someone had a whole lot of chickens but very little cows, then they may trade with someone who had a lot of cows but not many chickens. The person with many chickens may give five chickens per cow, given that you get more out of a cow, and that you can not cut a cow in fifths! But what if the person with a lot of chickens only wanted to give up one chicken? A trade of chicken for chicken would be useless, and, of course, you can not cut a cow in fifths. So they may trade for something else small like the chicken, or for several things smaller than the chicken. But what if this person's goal was to get a cow? They would eventually have to trade off enough stuff to have enough to trade for the cow. Perhaps this cow-man made a slip of paper saying it could be returned for one chicken, some fraction of a cow, or some other trade. If the chicken person saves up five pieces of paper each worth one-fifth of a cow, then they have saved up enough to buy a cow. What did they save up? In some form or fashion, they saved up money.

This, too, is not a very hard concept. Yet once again, many Americans forget about this basic economic thought. Of course, we do not live in the days of trading chickens and cows with everyone, but we can use the same principle.

Today, nations are established, and nations trade with other nations. There is so much to offer, so many people moving from point A to point B, and not enough trust to take a slip of paper so that you may go back to that same person and claim your claimed possessions. But the same principle can still apply - it is only used as national currency. This is where the government labels something as a form of trade. People are then free to ask however much they want for exchange of this national currency. A good currency is distinguished by certain characteristics: it is valuable in itself, it is scarce, its value will not change dramatically over time, it can not be counterfitted, and it can be divided up into different amounts. Cows can not be divided up. You will not just cut a cow in half. But what would make a good currency based on these basic principle and distinctions?

Precious metals i.e. gold and silver. They are excellent. They are valuable in and of themselves. They are scarce. They can be divided up into different amounts. Precious metals will not change much in value over time. They may some, but not much. Originally, the founders of this country sought to make gold the national currency.

But that didn't last long. When a nation goes into debt, it may be hard to pay the debt off in gold, being that is scarce. Paper money was used. The idea in and of itself, originally, was not bad. It was to issue a slip of paper saying as a promise that it is redeemable for real gold. A given amount of gold, that would not change. Perhaps the paper could be traded until someone turned it in for gold. Perhaps the paper would be issued just to make sure that the gold can be given. America may deal with this nation in a similar way to the way someone tells someone to "Hold that check until Friday to make sure it doesn't bounce."

It would, in theory, be okay to allow this paper into market circulation. The only problem with this is its chance to be counterfitted. But either way, the national currency of today is far from this. If you look at a 1950 $20 bill, it says that you can turn it in for gold (in round-about terms). Not many people would do that, but it does say that you could turn the money in for real gold. $20 bills of today do not say that. A quarter from 1964 is made out of silver. Quarters today are not made from silver. What happened? The currency has been slowly changing.

The American government created more paper bills promising gold, then there was gold available. Not just a little bit more that was sure to come in, but a lot more that would not come in. The gold standard became obsolete. That is how it is today.

What are the effects of this? This fiat money (government issued 'fake' money), is a hidden tax. The newly created money goes first to the politicians and the beureaucrats. Next it goes to the big businessmen. It takes it a long time for it to make its way to the middle class and to the poor people. But it does not take long for the prices to go up. As soon as the money is in circulation, the value of the dollar decreases. The businessmen working for the government raise their prices seeing this inflation. The men working for the big businessmen then raise their prices immediately. This quickly goes down to the small business owner being forced to raise his prices. Finally when the newly created money comes in to the middle class and poor, more money has been created. You pay extra money. You are always just behind the dollar. The government gets to spend their newly created money first. So much for saving up your money! At least in cow and chicken world, you could save up paper promising some amount of real value! The paper money money is easily counterfitted. Nor is not scarce at all. Money might as well grow on trees after all! About the only thing our national currency is good for now is that it can be easily divided into different amounts (e.g. $20 bills, $5 bills, $1 bills, etc.). This currency is also bad in foreign trade, because the nations do not want our money! Our trade with them is hindered. This is also dishonest. When you are in debt, you simply pay it off with a money machine! Of course, dishonesty always catches up with you. This form of currency leads to depression. It is as if you buy everything on a credit card. You get your material, but as soon as the credit card bill comes in - well, your out of luck! This was the case of the Great Depression. The 1920's were great, it seemed. A great economy. New government buildings. It seemed too good to be true - and it was. The Great Depression hit in 1929. The bubble bursted, and the value of teh dollar was too low to be wanted.

So what do I propose? It would be hard to all of a sudden go to using gold for trade. But perhaps we could at least reduce inflation, and make a gold basis for our money. The only Presidential candidate to my knowledge who seems willing to do this is Republican Congressman Ron Paul. I hope this informs you, at least to some degree, of economics and currency. If we continue to buy things on artificial fiat money, then we need all the help from Heaven when the next generation is faced with its bill - a depression.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

December 11, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Character: The Character of Abraham

2007-12-02T20:05:00.000-06:00

This is for a school paper in Ancient Civilizations & Literature. It is on the true faith and character of Abraham.

The Character of Abraham

Ryan Hampton

December 2, 2007

Throughout history, God has always preserved His people, and He does so through ordinary, faithful men and women. God’s people are those who fear His name, who trust in Him, and call upon His name. The City of God are comprised not of those who are good in and of themselves, but those who realize they are sinful, and wait upon eternal glory, a new creation, and everlasting community with God and others. This principle sets God’s Kingdom apart from other false kingdoms.

One such faithful member of God’s covenant people is a man by the name of Abraham, or originally, Abram. Abram was an ordinary man, but a faithful man. Abram trusted in God. Abram has been considered one of the heroes of the faith. God made a covenant with Abram that has lasting effects even to this day. Abram was one of the patriarchs of Genesis. To support the case for this man’s character toward God, let facts be submitted to a candid world, outlying his faith, love, and commitment to God.

The story of Abram is recorded for us in the book of Genesis in chapters 12-25. The story begins with God just telling Abram to “leave.” Leave! Leave everything he had. His land, the place where he was raised, and his possessions. But God wanted to make something new in Abram. “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great…” said the Lord to Abram. He promised to curse those who curse him, and bless those who bless him. God entered into covenant with Abram, and Abram followed God. The Bible says that Abram simply followed God. He left his land at the age of seventy-five.

God had told Abram to move West, which is actually more significant than many people may realize. Throughout the Bible, we see “going West” as a sign of goodness, or Holy progression. “Going East” is a sign of sinfulness or moving away from God. This is a sign already that Abram is a man of God. Abram was moving West, and moving closer to God. God wanted to make something new out of Abram. Would Abram continue to respond with the love and fear of the Lord, or would his faith and patience wear thin?

Being that the story of Abram is recorded in fourteen straight chapters in the Bible, and is mentioned in many other places in the Scriptures, we should know that this is a long story, requiring much faith and patience from Abram. God gave Abram great promise. He told Abram that he would find a land, and his descendents would inherit the land. Those who blessed Abram’s name would be blessed, and those who cursed his name would be cursed. On one hand, it would seem good for Abram to do what God said.

But many crises came into Abram’s journey. As Abram was wandering toward his promised land, he passed through the land of Egypt. At this time, there was a famine in the land, so Abram dwelt in Egypt, while the famine was severe. This must have been another problem and crises for Abram, and yet another chance for him to lose his faith.

And according to some Christian scholars, it was about this time that Abram did lose his faith – or at least part of it. Abram saw that Sarai was still beatiful. He knew based on the custom of the day, that the Egyptians would see Sarai, want to take her, and kill Abram, assuming Abram was her husband. It seemed as if Abram could not stay out of trouble. Isn’t God too gracious to allow Abram to go through this? Abram must have thought these things. Abram then asked Sarai if they could deceive the Egyptians, to tell them that Abram and Sarai were brother and sister. This would save Abram’s life, and Sarai could remain his wife. “I do not want to die, with all my promised possessions, and I also do not want anyone to take my wife,” Abram must have thought. Abram and Sarai did fool the Egyptians, and even despite further frustration, Abram and Sarai were saved. Many fault Abram for this, but one that does not fault Abram is the Bible. The Bible never faults Abram. Abram consulted first with his wife (12:13), and saved himself and his relationship with Sarai. Abram handled this in a God-fearing way, especially given all the troubles he was going through.

But as Abram continued on his journey, he and Sarai grew old. This seemed odd. God already promised them descendents (12:7). How could they have descendents? What could the Lord mean? They were too old. Abram must have wondered these things.

But then God came to Abram and reassured him that he would have a son. “A son, for me and Sarai, even in our old age. How could that be?” That must have been Abram’s reaction. But even in his questions, Abram still continued on in faith and patience. After each question, Abram always answered it in light of the grace and power of God. But as time wore on, Abram must have lost patience. God had entered into covenant with Abram, and already promised him a son and land to his inheritance. But God’s time schedule was a lot different than Abram’s. Would Abram continue to follow God?

Abram did give in one time. After Abram had been in the land of promise, Canaan, for ten years, Sarai had arranged for Hagar, Abram and Sarai’s maidservant, to sleep with Abram and conceive a child. Abram in hearing of this did not object. He followed and he failed. Hagar conceived and had Ishmael. This reminds of the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve committed the first sin. Both the husband and wife each sinned. Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden, but Adam did not teach Eve well enough not to eat of the fruit. Then, he ate the fruit himself. Adam failed as a leader, teacher, and husband. Eve failed as a follower, a listener, and as a wife. She ate the fruit, and she did not give thanks to God. If she was in question, she should have at least consulted with her husband, Adam. Adam was present watching Eve eat the fruit, and failed to intervene and prevent what God forbid.

This is similar to the case of Abram and Sarai. Sarai failed to consult with her husband and reassure him to have faith and patience in the Lord. Abram failed to teach Sarai to have faith and patience in God. Sarai went on her own initiative to bring Hagar to Abram to have the child of promise. In reality, this was not the child of promise. Abram after failing as a leader, agreed, and slept with Hagar, and she conceived. Then she had Ishmael. Adam and Abram both followed something, but did not follow God.

This makes Abram like another Adam. Once again, this Adam sins. This shows us that we still need a much greater Adam. But this does not mean that God can not still use Abram. God desires to work through his sin, making him new. God still wants to send the promised son, and to elevate Abram as a Father, and his promised son, to once again, point us to the ultimate New Adam.

With this in mind, we see that Abram sinning does not cancel out God’s plan. In some respects, it fulfills it even the more. But we still must hold Abram accountable, and we still must remember that continuous sins by Abram may prevent the covenant from being fulfilled – not by God’s unrighteousness, but by Abram’s. Once again, we are faced with the question – how will Abram respond? Will it be in the fear of the Lord, or in rebellion?

We saw at the beginning that God’s people – the City of God – are not those who are good in and of themselves, but those who seek God in recognizing their sin. Abram recognized his sin, and sought after the forgiveness of the Lord. Abram was righteous, and perhaps learned from his sin. The effects of his sin still exists today, but so does his faithfulness.

God continued to lead Abram to the Land of Promise, and Abram continued to follow God. Abram submitted to God’s time and plan, and not to his own. Abram did not say he would worship God only if God followed Abram’s time plan. Rather Abram followed God’s time plan, and worshipped Him no matter what it was. Living this way always works good. We are reminded of this in the book of Romans. Romans 8:28 says, “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” Abram followed God, and as we shall see, “All things work together for good.”

These things worked together for good in a two-fold relationship. This two-fold relationship was centered around God’s love and mercy toward Abram, and Abram’s love and fear of God. God first loved Abram, and Abram loved God because of God’s love. 1 John 4:19 says that “We love Him [God] because He first loved us.” Abram’s love for God only came by first the Love of God. Without God’s Love, Abram would not have loved God or other people. But this relationship goes further than this. God’s continued mercy comes from Abram’s faith in the Lord. God does not forget His end of the covenant, but a covenant is incomplete without man’s responsibilities upheld. Abram responded to God’s Love with faithful obedience and patience. God continued to show mercy to Abram.

So after many years of suffering, God led Abram to the promised land and gave Abram the promised son, Isaac. This was the sign of the covenant. The descendents of Isaac and the descendents of Ishmael are enemies to this day. This reminds us that good and evil are always enemies. Then we read in chapter seventeen that God changed the name of Abram to Abraham. The name Abraham means “A Father of many nations.” Abram was no longer. For now Abraham, a Father of many nations, had come in. God also changed Sarai’s name to Sarah. This shows us more of God’s covenant. A covenant is shown by five steps. God first presents Himself. God then separates, in order to make something new. God then speaks, giving a new order, making new what was to be made new. Fourth, God gives a sign and seal of the covenant. Fifth, God prepares for the future. In the story, we see this played out with Abraham. God made Himself known to Abraham, then Abram. God told Abram to leave. This is the second step. In leaving, Abram was divided from his home, all in order for God to make something new. Then God spoke to Abram, telling Him the new respective roles. Abram would be a Father of many nations. By the same token, God gives a sign to Abram by changing his name to Abraham, which means “Father of many nations.” All that is left now is for God to prepare for the future. God does so by sending the promised son, Isaac. Now, Abraham is not so much an Adam, but something newer. He now must be a Father. The covenant is fulfilled it seems, but there is still something missing. Abraham faithful by sojourning through lands to find the promise land. But he must have a real “Fatherhood” test. Will he once again follow God under the new order, or would he go to childish and selfish ways. Would he love his son, Isaac, to the point of selfishness and idolatry, or would he love him only in light of the grace of God, remembering he is God’s gift, and placing God even before his pride possession of his son Isaac?

As God put Abraham in tests while he was yet Abram, so he would put him in a test now as a Father. God told Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham was most certainly confused, but still followed God, as did Isaac. Abraham took Isaac to a mountain to offer him up to the Lord. But the Lord intervened, and saved Isaac but sending an angel. This points us to Jesus again. Abraham was not perfect, nor was Isaac. This would not be worthy to save God’s people. But God gave us a sign of the faith it takes to follow God, and Abraham proved matured and faithful. Perhaps Isaac’s death shows Abraham’s maturity and forgiveness for sleeping with Hagar, as if points us to Christ dying for our sins in Adam. Only Jesus could fulfill the new covenant, but Isaac was now a picture and typology of the promised Son to come. Isaac would later be put through more tests, and would have to prove himself as a Father to his sons. But that is a different story.

Abraham lived faithful until his death. There is plenty we can learn from the story of Abraham. We learn about a faithful man, who placed his moral character rooted in God. We see a man who loved God, and walked according to His ways against insurmountable odds. Hebrews 11, known as the “hall of fame of faith,” mentions Abraham and his faith. It reads “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (vv 8-10). God is good by giving us a model for which we are to live by. He gives us the ultimate model in Jesus, but He also gives us models of sinners, who continued to live in faith. We can learn that God’s people, even the greatest and most recognized of Saints, are still imperfect humans and sinners. This separates Christianity from other religions. Abraham was a sinner, but he is a prime example of the Christian faith. We also see that good and evil are enemies. Moreover, we see that good always wins. Both the descendents of Isaac and Ishmael exist well in this world today, but Ishmael has no original stories. Isaac’s line is a story of God’s blessing. It has a name, and will continue crush the serpent’s head. We can learn a lot of theology of covenants and typologies from the story of Abraham. But this theology is not separate from the moral character we see in Abraham. If Abraham had not followed God, and if he would not have had patience in the Lord, then the covenant would not have been fulfilled. The typology to Christ would have been inadequate, except to see how not to react to God’s callings. We see these stories in the Scripture as well, but the story of Abraham is about a faithful man who put his trust in God, and is a great example to Christians everywhere today. Abraham put his trust in God, and may we do the same.

What do you think?

God bless the church

December 2, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Lessons in Apologetics - Atheism vs. Christianity

2007-11-29T14:39:00.000-06:00

Lessons in Apologetics - Atheism vs. Christianity
By Ryan Hampton

This is the third of the three blogs I am posting today (I don't have much time for this!). I will use the classic Professor vs. Student scenario to show the invalidity of atheism and the truth of Christianity. "...Be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you..." 1 Peter 3:15.

An atheist professor came into class and began introducing himself, being the first class period of the semester. He introduced himself and said it would be important to begin by telling why he does not believe that there is a God. He asked his students if they believed in God.

One student quickly raised his hand and then about two-thirds of the rest of the class began slowly raising their hands. The professor said, "Now I respect your opinions but I believe I can disprove you. Who is willing to answer my questions about your religion?"

The student who first raised his hand raised his hand this time again and said, "I will." The professor said, "Well okay. What religion do you officially hold to?" The student responded, "Christianity - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who reveals Himself through the Bible, and Who sent His only son to die for our sins."

"Can you explain further about your God please?" asked the professor. "Yes sir," responded the student. "He exists as a Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is good, and the creator of all things. He is all-powerful. He was not created, but existed eternally. Belief in Him is the way in which I perceive everything that ever happens. He reveals Himself in the Bible, and sent His Son, the second person of the Trinity to die for my sins. One day the Son will return with glory to judge the quick and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end."

"Wow," said the professor. "You sound enthusiastic about your God. Now please allow me to show you logical errors." The following is the dialogue of the professor and the student:

Professor: You believe that God is good, by your own admission in defining Who your God is. But you also made mention to your sin. God also, according to you, created all things. How come we see a good God create sin, which is evil - the opposite of good.

Student: For one, you have no absolute standard of good and evil yourself, so long as you stay consistent within your worldview of atheism. For two, to answer your question more directly, God may allow evil to carry on His eternal plan. God's glory is shown more by defeating an enemy, than by working with all things only on His side. For three, although evil exists, it exists only to the standard of good, and not unto its own self. As darkness is the absent of light, so evil is the absence of God's immediate glory."

Professor: But God is everywhere, right? How can it be the absence of God's glory?

Student: God is everywhere in His infinite realm. This is saying that God is at work everywhere - consistent with me saying that God can use evil. But using this evil may be Him using that which does not contain something attesting to, or attempting to attest to His ultimate glory in the immediate sense. Satan was cut off from God after being jealous of Him - not because evil aside from good destroyed him. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit after forgetting about God and His covenant. They forgot to thank God, and went their own way - apart from God. Obeying God is good; disobeying God is evil.

Professor: A modest argument from you, but let me ask further questions. I do not see God. Nor feel Him. Nor do I taste Him, smell Him, or hear Him. I can not sense Him. How can I believe in Him?

Student: God is transcendental to this physical universe. But so are many other things which you believe in. You use 'logic' to make your points. But I can not see, feel, touch, smell, or taste logic, or any form of intelligence for that matter, whether math, science, time, or logic. How do we know they exist? Our own interpretation of logic tells us not to prove something by using itself. If I 'prove' God by quoting the Bible, you would call my logic circular reasoning. How can you prove logic by logic? You can't, but yet it exists transcendental to the physical universe.

Professor: I see logic in action. I believe in logic because it is self-evident.

Student: I see God in action. I believe in Him because He is self-evident in the universe, and he revealed Himself to me.

Professor: But why assume another transcendental entity. We know intelligence exists, but we don't know God does exist.

Student: Because the metaphysical, that is, intelligence, seems to indicate something beyond it. It is self-contradicting to assume the physical universe was created out of only the metaphysical universe. But this universe did not always exist either. Science tells us it had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and the metaphysical universe could not have caused this universe. What caused this universe? Besides, all my original point was, was that you can not deny the existence of God just because He is transcendent.

Professor: But I look at truth from a non-biased position. I see no God, and thus I believe in no God. If you show me God, then I will believe in Him. Why did God have to cause this universe? Why not another universe?

Student: You are self-contradicting yourself. For one you say you are not biased, but you really are. In fact, you come into class to start off "proving" no God. It is your current worldview. When you are put in a position to assume an entity outside of the physical and metaphysical universe, you assume a second universe. You will do whatever to say that there is no God. You are biased. Besides, if this other universe interacted with our universe to cause our universe and its laws, then there is some common logic, unless this other universe is infinite so that it can on its own initiative create this universe and its laws with authority over it. Either there is a God, or some other common intelligence, where we would probably be right back where we started in the first place.

Professor: But I am not biased, and you can not prove that I am biased. You are not me. You are biased by assuming that there is a God.

Student: You are right, I am biased. But it is by my own admission. Now let me show you your bias. Let me ask you first - Are you bias?

Professor: No! I already said that! How many times do I have to tell you?!

Student: But who told you to be bias? Did you research the issue to tell you not to be bias? Who is to say that being bias is wrong? Do you accept every worldview?

Professor: I say that being bias is wrong, and no, I do not accept just any worldview. Besides, you have the burden of proof by believing in God.

Student: I am bias. If you are not bias, then you reject my bias worldview. Your lack of bias becomes your own special kind of bias. It is the myth of neutrality. You 'set out' to be biased. Therefore, you had some presupposition to be bias, defeating your purpose because presuppositions are not bias. And can you prove that I have the burden of proof? Should you have the burden of proof to prove that I have the burden of proof?

Professor: Well what does this prove anyway?

Student: That we all have a worldview. You want to deny God. You will do whatever you can to deny Him. Where does intelligence come from? Where does the physical universe come from? You will assume another universe to deny God.

Professor: I do not deny God. Maybe He does exist. I don't know. Nothing is really absolute.

Student: Is that statement absolute, that there are no absolutes?

Professor: Let us please move on.

Student: Moving on is a good idea. Let us move on to our next universal level. Professor, do you believe in evil?

Professor: Yes. It is inhumane behavior.

Student: So you believe in a standard for this evil. I presume you believe in good. This standard between the two is called morality. Do you agree with me so far? Do you believe these things?

Professor: Yes. I believe in right and wrong, and for lack of better terms, morality.

Student: What is good?

Professor: It is humane action to others. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Student: So you believe in love as well. What about compassion? Character? Virtues? And the ability to decide for ourselves what is wrong and right, and so forth?

Professor: Yes, I pretty much believe in those things.

Student: Where do they come from?

Professor: Our hearts. They are self-evident within us.

Student: They are self-evident. But where do they come from?

Professor: Once again, our hearts.

Student: Maybe so. But our hearts in the material sense are physical. We must go beyond the physical universe. Our hearts physically do not determine morality or love any more than the grass in my back yard does. But the metaphysical does not support these either. Can we prove morality using logic?

Professor: Morality is logical.

Student: Maybe so, but who enforces the logical morality? Who is to say for certain that they are related? What if I disagree? How can you prove me wrong. And what about love? Wherein is it here?

Professor: I do not know. I guess it is in our hearts as well, as I pretty much said above.

Student: But I already showed it is not in our physical hearts. Nor is it in the metaphysical. It is only in our moral conscious hearts. These things are the supermetaphysical, if you will. They go even further. They exist only through the supernatural realm. They are reliant upon it.

Professor: Well, if it is 'written' on our hearts, someone must have wrote it. Therefore, God pretty much predestines our thoughts anyway. How can I go to Heaven unless God personally saves me, apart from my choice. And why should you be here evangelizing to me anyway. Am I not predestined?

Student: Human choice, and any choice, is only consistent in a theistic worldview. It was part of what I listed as the supermetaphysical. Without God, we are predestined to evolve. We can not control ourselves anyway. We are a dillusion, so to speak. You hear of atheists talking about the God dillusion, but in reality, there is an atheist dillusion. With God, all things are possible. He can carry out His sovereign plan through human choice. Human choice is given by God. Otherwise we are just chemical processes, like robots, with no free will.

Professor: I must admit, that you made good points about your faith. But please, tell me how it all fits into your 'worldview' of Christianity.

Student: God is self-existent. He is limited to nothing, but there are things about Him that is eternal. The only way for this to change is for God Himself to change, which He chooses not to. God is logical. God is love. God is good. God is compassionate. God cares about time and the past - although He will not dwell on a past forgiven sin. But this love, time, logic, and moral goodness in God is existent in the infinite realm - a realm we can not fully understand. He expresses Himself in His overall creation, especially in humanity. Morality is logical, but God is the enforcer of morality. It is a Christian worldview that has influenced natural law thought that influenced our nations founding. It is also a Christian worldview from which we get our methods of measuring time. Pagans would either fail to measure time, or would measure time in false, inaccurate, or relatively outdated ways. God's people kept track of time, and it was when the Israelites forgot about the past that they were in the most trouble with God - as is today for humanity in general. The Bible tells us that God is love. The Bible tells us that God is eternal, and that He is unchanging. This is why God told Moses, "I am that I am." What I have said previously has been consistent in a Christian worldview. But you have not shown consistency in your atheistic worldview.

Professor: You made good points and silenced many of my arguments. But just remember, you may silence my arguments, but that does not mean that you convinced me.

Student: Well I am glad that I silenced your arguments, but I did not intent to convert you. That is up to God. I silence arguments, but God converts hearts. I pray that He will do that for you.

Professor: We will have to see. Class dismissed.

"Separate Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you. But do so in gentleness and fear." I Peter 3:15

Recapping the Debate

2007-11-29T13:45:00.001-06:00

This is the second of the three blogs I will be posting today (hopefully!)

I finally got around to watching one of the Republican debates last night. Eight of the candidates running were present. I will give you a breif take on each candidate, and how I feel the race is shaping out. (The order I present here is ordered according to who I think is in the lead at the moment. It is not ordered based on who I like the most, or how I predict it to turnout, becuase it could change.)

Rudy Giuliani: He is considered one of the more liberal Republicans, but he actually did not do all that bad last night. He had probably the funniest campaign add. He took a pledge not to raise taxes (although this is only a pledge, and he is a politician). He actually mentioned the word "Constitution" a few times. The only candidate who actually seemed to talk much about the Constitution was Congressman Ron Paul. He was attacked for his stance on gun control, and worded it fairly well for what it was worth. I am not saying I agree with all the issues he spoked on, but his rhetoric was pretty well. He answered the questions fairly well. However he did not do so well when asked his views on the Bible. He was asked if he believed every word. His answer was something like this: "Yes, but it is not always exactly right, but yes I do in the way that it is a good book. It helped me during 9/11 and other crises. It is true, but sometimes allegorical, but yes, I believe it for the most part." The answer is pretty much a yes or no question. If expounded upon, Huckabee's answer probably would have been best. To this exception, though, Giuliani had a pretty good debate.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney made a cheesy comment about his son owning a gun. He got in a little bit of a feud with John McCain. His rhetoric was relatively good, but somewhat dull. He was asked about how he changed views on abortion. He said he had a change of heart, and it had nothing to do with a political move. He sounded relatively convincing, but just remember, he is a politician!

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee answered most his questions well. He showed supported a fair flat tax. He was able to talk of his faith without over emphasizing the matter. He did fairly well. He was put in a bind when a campaign add questioned his tax history - that he had supported higher taxes before. He answered it fairly well for what it worth, and for the position he was in. Huckabee seems to support a bit of the religious conservatism of the Republican Party, but this does not always mean less spending. He talked of more spending for Space programs. He also called America a Democracy. The word Democracy is overused. I would rather hear "Constitutional" or "Republic." Or better yet, Constitutional Federated Republic. How many candidates talk like that? Still, not too bad a night for Huckabee. He will continue to climb in the polls. He may could be the cinderella candidate.

Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson had trouble answering a few questions. He would ramble on about irrelevent issues. Thompson never had a really bright moment, but never had too much of a bad moment either. His campaign has not been as good as some may have thought. He will probably slowly decline or stay about the same. His chances of winning is for the candidates above him to cancel each other out. A mediocre night for Fred Thompson.

John McCain: John McCain looks like a 1970's President last night. That is how he has always seemed to look. He looks like an okay President, but a bit outdated. He does not look like he has the charisma. This has little to do whether I like him as a person or as President, but it was the image he gave last night. He was dull and seemed a bit unsure of himself. He then rambled on about waterboarding to Mitt Romney, getting the two in a bit of a feud. He was not bad, but he did not have anything to remember.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul had trouble answering a few questions. He was not asked many questions either. But the questions he was asked were fairly tough questions, and for the most part, he did well. He showed consistency throughout. He made good points. He had more memorable moments than many other candidates did. His campaign has very slowly risen, but it was Huckabee who seemed to have made a nice cinderella move. Still, if he continues to have good debates, and if McCain and Thompson continue to decline, Ron Paul might could get into the mix with the top guys. But with only a couple months or so unti the first primaries, that will be hard.

Duncan Hunter: Duncan Hunter does not seem to have the charisma that some of the politicians had. He tried winning emotional appeal by telling family gun stories. His politics are pretty much conservative, but he has not made much headway into the election. Last night was a general reflection of him. He was dull, simple, and more or less conservative. I do not think he proved much and will probably not make much headway in the future.

Tom Tancredo: Tancredo had a decent night. He is one of the "back-pack" of the Republicans. But I think that he may make a small run in the polls. He has been a bit one sided with his approach to illegal immigration. Most Americans want more done about stopping illegals, but this seems his only main issue. But last night, he seemed to balance this more. He made a nice rebuttle to Huckabee when Huckabee was talking about spending for space programs. Tancredo said he wants very little spending. A decent night for Tancredo.

Well there is that. We will have to see how it goes. To see parts of the debates, go to the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

November 29, 2007

Ryan Hampton