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
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Recapping the Debate
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
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
Recapping the Iron Bowl
I will try to post a few blogs on here at once today. I don't really have time for this, but have been behind on my blogs. First, I will recap the Iron Bowl of 2007.
It was rather boring in a lot of ways. No really great play. No incredible kick or TD run to win the game for either side. No great upset. No great comeback. It was rather boring.
But even yet, the game is still the Iron Bowl, and perhaps as time goes on, the game will stick out more. A few plays will stick out. All the hard-hitting will stick out. We will have to see. I think the game was really a battle between mediocre teams, but I do think that each team played hard for what it was worth. In the end, AU won the game 17-10, bringing home their sixth straight Iron Bowl win.
However three games into the season, many people thought that AU would not win. AU was 1-2. UAT was 3-0. But I still gave AU a chance. My Dad (see blog links) actually predicted AU to win when AU was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0 (You can find this on his blog at this point in the season). I never actually predicted AU until the end, but I did give them a chance. UAT was 3-0 but had not proven too much to me. AU looked like that had potential, and were just not quite clicking. In the end, AU finished not a great team, but did go 7-2 since the 1-2 start. This included games against UF, LSU, and UGA all on the road - a pretty tough route.
AU looked mediocre going into the UAT game due to their disgusting loss to UGA. But UGA is also, and was then, one of the hottest teams in college football. UAT looked bad after losses to MSU and LOUSIANA MONROE, but had also shown that they can play some ball in games such as UT, and even though they lost, LSU. UAT played a hard game against AU, but you could just tell that AU pretty much was not going to lose the game. UAT got their only touchdown on a drive that had a couple of contraversial calls (pass interference, and TD on fourth down). In the first half UAT got the breaks off of contraversial calls. In the second half, AU gave UAT a cheap 15 yards on a ruffing the kicker. But the UAT came up real big for AU by ruffing the quarterback Brandon Cox (BTW, Cox may can throw interceptions, but he gets an Emmy for falling on that play!). AU made the plays when they needed to. They had a long punt return. Jeraud Powers made a great interception when it appeared UAT would score and take the lead going into half time. AU went for it on fourth down at the end, and won, putting the game away. Simply put, AU was the better teams, made better plays, and may have wanted it just a big more than UAT.
This game may have been boring. But we will remember the Jeraud Powers interception, stipping the ball away from great Tide receiver D.J. Hall. He wanted it more than Hall did. We may remember the security dog bitting Jeraud Powers late in the game. We may remember AU going for it on fourth and one - converting and putting the game away. My prediction was close (AU 24 UAT 14). It was a typical AU win over UAT. AU held the lead most of the game, UAT comes back in the end, kicks an onsides kick that AU recovers and runs out the clock. AU won the last six. UAT scored last in five of the last six. UAT kicked an onside kick in four out of the last six. AU won by eight points or less four out of the last six, and the other two were only by ten points. A typical AU win over UAT. AU played better. AU won. That simple.
War Eagle!
What do you think?
November 29, 2007
Ryan Hampton
It was rather boring in a lot of ways. No really great play. No incredible kick or TD run to win the game for either side. No great upset. No great comeback. It was rather boring.
But even yet, the game is still the Iron Bowl, and perhaps as time goes on, the game will stick out more. A few plays will stick out. All the hard-hitting will stick out. We will have to see. I think the game was really a battle between mediocre teams, but I do think that each team played hard for what it was worth. In the end, AU won the game 17-10, bringing home their sixth straight Iron Bowl win.
However three games into the season, many people thought that AU would not win. AU was 1-2. UAT was 3-0. But I still gave AU a chance. My Dad (see blog links) actually predicted AU to win when AU was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0 (You can find this on his blog at this point in the season). I never actually predicted AU until the end, but I did give them a chance. UAT was 3-0 but had not proven too much to me. AU looked like that had potential, and were just not quite clicking. In the end, AU finished not a great team, but did go 7-2 since the 1-2 start. This included games against UF, LSU, and UGA all on the road - a pretty tough route.
AU looked mediocre going into the UAT game due to their disgusting loss to UGA. But UGA is also, and was then, one of the hottest teams in college football. UAT looked bad after losses to MSU and LOUSIANA MONROE, but had also shown that they can play some ball in games such as UT, and even though they lost, LSU. UAT played a hard game against AU, but you could just tell that AU pretty much was not going to lose the game. UAT got their only touchdown on a drive that had a couple of contraversial calls (pass interference, and TD on fourth down). In the first half UAT got the breaks off of contraversial calls. In the second half, AU gave UAT a cheap 15 yards on a ruffing the kicker. But the UAT came up real big for AU by ruffing the quarterback Brandon Cox (BTW, Cox may can throw interceptions, but he gets an Emmy for falling on that play!). AU made the plays when they needed to. They had a long punt return. Jeraud Powers made a great interception when it appeared UAT would score and take the lead going into half time. AU went for it on fourth down at the end, and won, putting the game away. Simply put, AU was the better teams, made better plays, and may have wanted it just a big more than UAT.
This game may have been boring. But we will remember the Jeraud Powers interception, stipping the ball away from great Tide receiver D.J. Hall. He wanted it more than Hall did. We may remember the security dog bitting Jeraud Powers late in the game. We may remember AU going for it on fourth and one - converting and putting the game away. My prediction was close (AU 24 UAT 14). It was a typical AU win over UAT. AU held the lead most of the game, UAT comes back in the end, kicks an onsides kick that AU recovers and runs out the clock. AU won the last six. UAT scored last in five of the last six. UAT kicked an onside kick in four out of the last six. AU won by eight points or less four out of the last six, and the other two were only by ten points. A typical AU win over UAT. AU played better. AU won. That simple.
War Eagle!
What do you think?
November 29, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Saturday, November 24, 2007
War Eagle!!
Just to give you a quick War Eagle on here! It should be a great game, and we do not really know what will happen. (After all, that's why they play, right?!) But I'm picking AU over UAT, 24-14. Should be a good game!
The difference in the Iron Bowl and the other games is this: With a loss to any other team, you can find redemption the next week. Against your arch-rival in the Iron Bowl, you have to wait until the next year.
War Eagle!!
Ryan
The difference in the Iron Bowl and the other games is this: With a loss to any other team, you can find redemption the next week. Against your arch-rival in the Iron Bowl, you have to wait until the next year.
War Eagle!!
Ryan
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Forgotten Holiday
The Forgotten Holiday
Happy Thanksgiving! Or are you too sucked into the “Christmas spirit.” It is easy to. I am looking forward to Christmas myself. I enjoy the Christmas music, the presents, the tradition, the Christmas story of Jesus, and believe it or not, even the hectic Christmas shopping. But right as you are getting ready for Christmas, we have another holiday that seems ever so forgotten- Thanksgiving.
We don’t know the story of Thanksgiving that well – nor do we know how it applies to us today. We hear a little “Let’s be thankful” speech from our parents that lasts about five minutes, we eat a little turkey, and then….dream more about Christmas, and enjoy the few days off we have of school. But do we thank God for these few days off to give us just enough rest? Do we thank Him for the turkey? Do we thank Him for the upcoming holiday – Christmas – that is approaching us? Not often do we do these things.
But I encourage you not to forget about Thanksgiving this year. Maybe I’m writing this a little later than I should, but then again it is never too late to be thankful. Oh yeah, now we have another thing that will get in the way of our thanks (at least here in Alabama) – the Iron Bowl. And all over the nation there is a rivalry this weekend of some sort. But perhaps we should be thankful for football, and all of its rivalries.
I could probably be more thankful than what I am. But I do try to remember what I have that I don’t have to have. My food. Food provides us meal, but also taste. God could have given us food that tasted nasty ain which we would only eat to fill us up. But instead He gave us macaroni & cheese, pizza, steak, fried chicken, juicy cheeseburgers, and of course, turkey! Are you hungry yet?! What else is there to be thankful for? How about churches open every Sunday morning where we can go to not only praise God, but enjoy the fellowship with others that He gives us. What about any friendship and fellowship we have. What about our work – the fact we can help others, and make money in the process! Our hands, feet, clothing, shelter, appliances (including the computer I write this on, and TV’s to watch the Iron Bowl on). What about salvation itself?!
So we have plenty to be thankful for. I too often complain. I have been trying to get some money in, but any work I try to do has been kind of dry lately. But I remember not to complain. God always does His part for me, and it would only be my own laziness that would prevent me from reaching my full potential. So don’t complain – especially this time of year – Thanksgiving. You have plenty more to be thankful for. Don’t forget Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving!
War Eagle!
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
November 21, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Happy Thanksgiving! Or are you too sucked into the “Christmas spirit.” It is easy to. I am looking forward to Christmas myself. I enjoy the Christmas music, the presents, the tradition, the Christmas story of Jesus, and believe it or not, even the hectic Christmas shopping. But right as you are getting ready for Christmas, we have another holiday that seems ever so forgotten- Thanksgiving.
We don’t know the story of Thanksgiving that well – nor do we know how it applies to us today. We hear a little “Let’s be thankful” speech from our parents that lasts about five minutes, we eat a little turkey, and then….dream more about Christmas, and enjoy the few days off we have of school. But do we thank God for these few days off to give us just enough rest? Do we thank Him for the turkey? Do we thank Him for the upcoming holiday – Christmas – that is approaching us? Not often do we do these things.
But I encourage you not to forget about Thanksgiving this year. Maybe I’m writing this a little later than I should, but then again it is never too late to be thankful. Oh yeah, now we have another thing that will get in the way of our thanks (at least here in Alabama) – the Iron Bowl. And all over the nation there is a rivalry this weekend of some sort. But perhaps we should be thankful for football, and all of its rivalries.
I could probably be more thankful than what I am. But I do try to remember what I have that I don’t have to have. My food. Food provides us meal, but also taste. God could have given us food that tasted nasty ain which we would only eat to fill us up. But instead He gave us macaroni & cheese, pizza, steak, fried chicken, juicy cheeseburgers, and of course, turkey! Are you hungry yet?! What else is there to be thankful for? How about churches open every Sunday morning where we can go to not only praise God, but enjoy the fellowship with others that He gives us. What about any friendship and fellowship we have. What about our work – the fact we can help others, and make money in the process! Our hands, feet, clothing, shelter, appliances (including the computer I write this on, and TV’s to watch the Iron Bowl on). What about salvation itself?!
So we have plenty to be thankful for. I too often complain. I have been trying to get some money in, but any work I try to do has been kind of dry lately. But I remember not to complain. God always does His part for me, and it would only be my own laziness that would prevent me from reaching my full potential. So don’t complain – especially this time of year – Thanksgiving. You have plenty more to be thankful for. Don’t forget Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving!
War Eagle!
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
November 21, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, November 18, 2007
America's Beginning Government
The following was a paper I wrote for school. It is about the early years of American government, and whether or not the early government worked.
America’s Beginning Government
Ryan Hampton
Did America’s Constitution work? Did the American Government operate according to plan? Did the American Government operate in a way similar to or worse than the government it got away from? These are some questions that we ponder in studying the early years of America’s history. Could it be that America fought a war, lost many lives and a lot of money, only to live in a worse condition than before? Or was their fight for liberty just, upheld, and worth it?
So often in a Revolution, the new government is quickly even worse than the government thrown off. In a revolution, there are many chances to take. Was the government worth throwing off? Are the people who are throwing off such government better people anyway? Perhaps they are just power hungry themselves. Perhaps the causes for this liberty were just and well meant, but the new people who came into office wind up falling into the temptations of power.
Thomas Jefferson, America’s third President, pondered on these issues himself. He said that it is the natural tendency of things, especially government, to gain power. More and more actions become justified, and people become polarized to the extremes of big government. In governments, the government seeks to expand its jurisdiction, justify more of their actions, and ask for more money to fun these actions. Thomas Jefferson, and many of the others who recognized and feared these things, sought after a government that would last a long time under its conditions, without falling into these problems. The government they proposed promoted small government.
We are now nearly two and a half centuries after the American Revolution, and Jefferson seems right. But what about the early years? Even if the American Government today seems much like the British Government that the founders sought to either reform, abolish, or separate themselves from, perhaps the Revolution was still worth it based on the initial years. Were America’s early years good, or was it a quick strike to typical ways of the government America’s founders got away from?
When we explore the early years of the American government and whether or not it worked, we should ask two questions. First, we should ask ourselves if the government lived up to its purpose and theory, or if the founders defeated their purpose? There were some documents that the American founders drafted that did not seem to work to them, i.e. the Articles of Confederation. But the American founders properly cut off the wrong parts of this bad form of government, and sought after a better government that would stay – the Constitution. Did our founders draft a Constitution, speak so highly of it, only to forget about it? Or did they take their verbal word and written word to heart, and abide by the Constitution? The answer seems to be a resounding yes. There is no question that our founders made mistakes, but as a whole, they did abide by their word. But now we must ask the second question: was this form of government good and worth abiding by? For the dominance of America’s early years, it seems as if the Constitution worked well. The people abided by it, and it kept the government in check. The government stayed out of debt and out of trouble. The American people were free. The economy began booming, and America never in her early years experienced a depression due to inflation and fiat money – although they did exist to a degree. The Constitution worked. Therefore, unlike many Revolutions, America’s Revolution actually did make a better government. The founders of America proposed a Constitution that would in writing, limit the government to its just powers. The American founders initiated checks and balances to government. The people and founders gave much thought, fear, and study to different ideas about government, ranging from the Judeo-Christian thought to the thought of the great Greek philosophers. To support this claim that the American government originally worked well, let’s consider the facts and historical events that attest to this.
But beyond this, the many of the early leaders were fearful of God. One reason many newly established governments become worse than the abolished government, is because the people put so much trust into one of the heroes, that he can essentially become a monarch. When a leader gives into the temptation of power, he and his office are corrupted.
But such was not the case in the early years of American Government. George Washington was given an opportunity to become sole leader. The American people loved him. They would have been willing to give him full control. But Washington set the precedent. He took office, followed the Constitution, and took advice from his advisors and fellow politicians. After this, he only served two terms. He could have served longer. Everyone loved him. But he said that his time was up after two terms. He set the precedent. It would have been much harder for future Presidents to take full monarchial power.
One example of the early American way sticking to the Constitution is seen in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. George Washington shaped the role of the executive branch of government, but in this case, John Marshall set the tone for the judicial branch of government. William Marbury rightfully had the right to hold an office as a judge, but John Madison never gave him his commission as Justice of the Peace. Marbury instinctively turned to the Supreme Court. But Chief Justice John Marshall would not rule on the case one way or the other. He did believe that Marbury had the right to the office. However he also that that Marbury had turned to the wrong place. Rightly or wrongly, the Constitution did not permit jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to rule in such a case. Therefore, he did not rule in this case, setting the tone to view the Constitution as a “higher law.”
Another important figure in the early years of American government is Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was for very limited and small government. However when he came into office as President, he wanted to do more things than he previously let on to, such as building schools, roads, and the like. But Thomas Jefferson did provide a higher view of the Constitution even in this. Although he may have wanted more things to be done with the Central Government when he became President, he only would allow such things done by an amending the Constitution. Because the Constitution was not amended to his desires, his desires did not come – at least not under his term in office.
Most of the founding fathers of America talked about small government and natural law and lived up to their rhetoric in office. Not many of the early founders pushed for an extremely intrusive Central Government. Not many founders pushed for overbearing taxes. Most of the founders placed a high regard to the Constitution. The American debt was low, and most of the people lived in peace. America was not constantly engaging in international affairs. Most of the founders practiced what they preached.
It is important to remember, however, that the government did have its problems. Fiat money came quickly. The government began to get involved in building and manufacturing things. The government was not perfect. There were political rivals. There was controversy. There were some people who pushed for some policies very much like mercantilism – a method of government our founders wanted to get rid of. Some people falsely justified government action by the Constitution. But even beyond all of this, the government worked fairly well under the early years of its Constitution. The founders never expected a perfect government. They realized that government is comprised of sinful people. This is why government is held in check. And the checks and balances fit well in the American system of government. The founders were morally minded enough to keep themselves from totally abusing power. The Constitution was written well enough to clearly define what roles the Central Government had. Despite some of the early problems, government worked reasonably well in the early years.
Perhaps the biggest controversy the early government faced was in interpreting the Constitution. Most all of the founders agreed to follow the Constitution, and did so as it fit to their terms. But some people viewed the Constitution very strictly, while others viewed it very loosely. Perhaps the most debatable phrase used in the Constitution was the “general welfare” clause. Some saw promoting the general welfare as meaning to provide government action to help the majority of people- a rather democratic idea. Others viewed it as a clause that meant for the government to show support for whatever would help everyone at the expense of no one. When one takes a straight-forward approach to looking at the Constitution, it seems as if there is no good evidence that “general welfare” could mean a general government program to help the to general mob. It rather seems most like the second of the views above – to promote that which helps everyone fairly at the expense of no one.
The early American government did embrace a small government and drafted their thoughts in the Constitution. Not everyone had the exact same beliefs on interpreting the Constitution, but as a whole, it seemed to work. And there is no reason to think that the Constitution will not work today, if we let it. The problem with America’s government today is not that we abide by a false Constitution, but that we forget about it. If we return to the basic policies held by our founders, there is no reason to think that we should see anything but an incline in sound government.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless our troops
November 18, 2007
Ryan Hampton
America’s Beginning Government
Ryan Hampton
Did America’s Constitution work? Did the American Government operate according to plan? Did the American Government operate in a way similar to or worse than the government it got away from? These are some questions that we ponder in studying the early years of America’s history. Could it be that America fought a war, lost many lives and a lot of money, only to live in a worse condition than before? Or was their fight for liberty just, upheld, and worth it?
So often in a Revolution, the new government is quickly even worse than the government thrown off. In a revolution, there are many chances to take. Was the government worth throwing off? Are the people who are throwing off such government better people anyway? Perhaps they are just power hungry themselves. Perhaps the causes for this liberty were just and well meant, but the new people who came into office wind up falling into the temptations of power.
Thomas Jefferson, America’s third President, pondered on these issues himself. He said that it is the natural tendency of things, especially government, to gain power. More and more actions become justified, and people become polarized to the extremes of big government. In governments, the government seeks to expand its jurisdiction, justify more of their actions, and ask for more money to fun these actions. Thomas Jefferson, and many of the others who recognized and feared these things, sought after a government that would last a long time under its conditions, without falling into these problems. The government they proposed promoted small government.
We are now nearly two and a half centuries after the American Revolution, and Jefferson seems right. But what about the early years? Even if the American Government today seems much like the British Government that the founders sought to either reform, abolish, or separate themselves from, perhaps the Revolution was still worth it based on the initial years. Were America’s early years good, or was it a quick strike to typical ways of the government America’s founders got away from?
When we explore the early years of the American government and whether or not it worked, we should ask two questions. First, we should ask ourselves if the government lived up to its purpose and theory, or if the founders defeated their purpose? There were some documents that the American founders drafted that did not seem to work to them, i.e. the Articles of Confederation. But the American founders properly cut off the wrong parts of this bad form of government, and sought after a better government that would stay – the Constitution. Did our founders draft a Constitution, speak so highly of it, only to forget about it? Or did they take their verbal word and written word to heart, and abide by the Constitution? The answer seems to be a resounding yes. There is no question that our founders made mistakes, but as a whole, they did abide by their word. But now we must ask the second question: was this form of government good and worth abiding by? For the dominance of America’s early years, it seems as if the Constitution worked well. The people abided by it, and it kept the government in check. The government stayed out of debt and out of trouble. The American people were free. The economy began booming, and America never in her early years experienced a depression due to inflation and fiat money – although they did exist to a degree. The Constitution worked. Therefore, unlike many Revolutions, America’s Revolution actually did make a better government. The founders of America proposed a Constitution that would in writing, limit the government to its just powers. The American founders initiated checks and balances to government. The people and founders gave much thought, fear, and study to different ideas about government, ranging from the Judeo-Christian thought to the thought of the great Greek philosophers. To support this claim that the American government originally worked well, let’s consider the facts and historical events that attest to this.
But beyond this, the many of the early leaders were fearful of God. One reason many newly established governments become worse than the abolished government, is because the people put so much trust into one of the heroes, that he can essentially become a monarch. When a leader gives into the temptation of power, he and his office are corrupted.
But such was not the case in the early years of American Government. George Washington was given an opportunity to become sole leader. The American people loved him. They would have been willing to give him full control. But Washington set the precedent. He took office, followed the Constitution, and took advice from his advisors and fellow politicians. After this, he only served two terms. He could have served longer. Everyone loved him. But he said that his time was up after two terms. He set the precedent. It would have been much harder for future Presidents to take full monarchial power.
One example of the early American way sticking to the Constitution is seen in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. George Washington shaped the role of the executive branch of government, but in this case, John Marshall set the tone for the judicial branch of government. William Marbury rightfully had the right to hold an office as a judge, but John Madison never gave him his commission as Justice of the Peace. Marbury instinctively turned to the Supreme Court. But Chief Justice John Marshall would not rule on the case one way or the other. He did believe that Marbury had the right to the office. However he also that that Marbury had turned to the wrong place. Rightly or wrongly, the Constitution did not permit jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to rule in such a case. Therefore, he did not rule in this case, setting the tone to view the Constitution as a “higher law.”
Another important figure in the early years of American government is Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was for very limited and small government. However when he came into office as President, he wanted to do more things than he previously let on to, such as building schools, roads, and the like. But Thomas Jefferson did provide a higher view of the Constitution even in this. Although he may have wanted more things to be done with the Central Government when he became President, he only would allow such things done by an amending the Constitution. Because the Constitution was not amended to his desires, his desires did not come – at least not under his term in office.
Most of the founding fathers of America talked about small government and natural law and lived up to their rhetoric in office. Not many of the early founders pushed for an extremely intrusive Central Government. Not many founders pushed for overbearing taxes. Most of the founders placed a high regard to the Constitution. The American debt was low, and most of the people lived in peace. America was not constantly engaging in international affairs. Most of the founders practiced what they preached.
It is important to remember, however, that the government did have its problems. Fiat money came quickly. The government began to get involved in building and manufacturing things. The government was not perfect. There were political rivals. There was controversy. There were some people who pushed for some policies very much like mercantilism – a method of government our founders wanted to get rid of. Some people falsely justified government action by the Constitution. But even beyond all of this, the government worked fairly well under the early years of its Constitution. The founders never expected a perfect government. They realized that government is comprised of sinful people. This is why government is held in check. And the checks and balances fit well in the American system of government. The founders were morally minded enough to keep themselves from totally abusing power. The Constitution was written well enough to clearly define what roles the Central Government had. Despite some of the early problems, government worked reasonably well in the early years.
Perhaps the biggest controversy the early government faced was in interpreting the Constitution. Most all of the founders agreed to follow the Constitution, and did so as it fit to their terms. But some people viewed the Constitution very strictly, while others viewed it very loosely. Perhaps the most debatable phrase used in the Constitution was the “general welfare” clause. Some saw promoting the general welfare as meaning to provide government action to help the majority of people- a rather democratic idea. Others viewed it as a clause that meant for the government to show support for whatever would help everyone at the expense of no one. When one takes a straight-forward approach to looking at the Constitution, it seems as if there is no good evidence that “general welfare” could mean a general government program to help the to general mob. It rather seems most like the second of the views above – to promote that which helps everyone fairly at the expense of no one.
The early American government did embrace a small government and drafted their thoughts in the Constitution. Not everyone had the exact same beliefs on interpreting the Constitution, but as a whole, it seemed to work. And there is no reason to think that the Constitution will not work today, if we let it. The problem with America’s government today is not that we abide by a false Constitution, but that we forget about it. If we return to the basic policies held by our founders, there is no reason to think that we should see anything but an incline in sound government.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless our troops
November 18, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Interpreting Scripture
Once a conversation got brought up at a family gathering that I could not help but listen in on. It was brought up with a simple statement about a show that talked about the end-times, and all the different views, Chrstian and non-Christian, about how the world will some day end. Of course, like most conversations, we got a little off of the original point or question.
But something that my cousin-in-law, Brandon, who is a local Youth Pastor, kept coming back to, was about holding Scripture in its proper context. "Proof-texting" is done all too often today. We have our own bias when we begin to read Scripture, which determines our conclusions. We search for Scripture to support our conclusions, instead of reading Scripture to reach a conclusion. Often we should simply sit down with an open mind and study the Scripture texts in their proper contexts.
Granted, we do have presuppositions- or perhaps better put, one presupposition. Everyone has one. It is simply a worldview- the way one views the world. Essentially, it is religion. An atheist may claim neutrality to religion, but that is only their own presupositional bias. Neutrality rejects inneutrality, and is thus not neutral. When we as Christians read Scripture, we should read them in regards to our faith. We do not read them with the mindset that they may possibly be flawed. It is a key feature to the Christian faith that we read them in light of the fact of Jesus' ressurrection. Paul tells us that if the ressurrection is not true, then our whole faith loses its ground. The ressurrection is a fact, not just a mere idea.
So there is a sense in which we have a presupposition. Every word written in the Bible is 100% true. But it is only 100% true in its proper context. Some portions of the Bible may be history (such as Genises and all the Torah). Others may be poetry (i.e. Psalms and Proverbs). The Gospels are accounts from a certain period of time, centered largely on One Man- Jesus. The chronology in the Gospels may not be as exact as it would be in the Torah. Of course, this itself defends Scripture to many arguments against it about the inconsistencies in the Gospels. There is also the Epistles. We read Epistle's differently than we read the Gospels, poetry, or the history books of the Torah. They would be generally one man's writing to a local church. Moreover, we must put ourselves in the shoes, so to speek, of the writer and receiver of the letter.
It is hard to use one Scripture verse to prove a whole theological case, or to prove what the right moral approach should be in a given situation. But Scripture and God's Law is not always black and white- at least not to sinners. For example, we seem to think that any lie is wrong. We condemn the midwives in Exodus 1 for lying to save the male children from the Egyptians. We condemn Abram for being deceptive when claiming that Sarai was his sister. But in both of these cases, Scripture defends the "liar." According to Exodus 1, the midwives feared the Lord.
If we were perfect in mind and body, we may be able to make clearer distinctions. We would understand the Bible much more clearly. But now, we do not understand about taking God's Word in its proper context. We look for our conclusions, not reach them. I notice this when reading from different theologians. A theologian may say in a book something along the lines of "This verse is misinterpreated and mistranslated." In the same book they may say, "Many theologians think that this verse is misinterpreted or mistranslated...but we know that God will preserve His Word, so we must take Scripture for what it is." This is done by many theologians of many different denominations simply to support their theological affiliations with a particular church or denomination. I do think that God's Word is perfect. I do also think that the translation of God's Word is largely up to man, so in theory, we could see a mistranslation. But at the same time, God does always providentially preserve His Word, so that we can see our mistranslations and correct them.
Once we have our presuppositional faith, we should interpret Scripture much more open-mindedly, taking what is said in its proper context. This, I believe, will promote unity in the church, both in Spirit and in theology, and will enable us to think more and more like Christ. Questions such as the End Times could be answered in better terms. Today there are some nomical Christians who predict a date for Christ's return, while others dismiss the second coming as a joke. If we read each passage about the end times in its proper context, we could probably reach a satisfying conclusion. Whatever you read from Scripture, take heed that you interpret it in its proper context.
What Do You Think?
God bless America
God bless our Troops
God bless His Church
November 8, 20007
Ryan Hampton
But something that my cousin-in-law, Brandon, who is a local Youth Pastor, kept coming back to, was about holding Scripture in its proper context. "Proof-texting" is done all too often today. We have our own bias when we begin to read Scripture, which determines our conclusions. We search for Scripture to support our conclusions, instead of reading Scripture to reach a conclusion. Often we should simply sit down with an open mind and study the Scripture texts in their proper contexts.
Granted, we do have presuppositions- or perhaps better put, one presupposition. Everyone has one. It is simply a worldview- the way one views the world. Essentially, it is religion. An atheist may claim neutrality to religion, but that is only their own presupositional bias. Neutrality rejects inneutrality, and is thus not neutral. When we as Christians read Scripture, we should read them in regards to our faith. We do not read them with the mindset that they may possibly be flawed. It is a key feature to the Christian faith that we read them in light of the fact of Jesus' ressurrection. Paul tells us that if the ressurrection is not true, then our whole faith loses its ground. The ressurrection is a fact, not just a mere idea.
So there is a sense in which we have a presupposition. Every word written in the Bible is 100% true. But it is only 100% true in its proper context. Some portions of the Bible may be history (such as Genises and all the Torah). Others may be poetry (i.e. Psalms and Proverbs). The Gospels are accounts from a certain period of time, centered largely on One Man- Jesus. The chronology in the Gospels may not be as exact as it would be in the Torah. Of course, this itself defends Scripture to many arguments against it about the inconsistencies in the Gospels. There is also the Epistles. We read Epistle's differently than we read the Gospels, poetry, or the history books of the Torah. They would be generally one man's writing to a local church. Moreover, we must put ourselves in the shoes, so to speek, of the writer and receiver of the letter.
It is hard to use one Scripture verse to prove a whole theological case, or to prove what the right moral approach should be in a given situation. But Scripture and God's Law is not always black and white- at least not to sinners. For example, we seem to think that any lie is wrong. We condemn the midwives in Exodus 1 for lying to save the male children from the Egyptians. We condemn Abram for being deceptive when claiming that Sarai was his sister. But in both of these cases, Scripture defends the "liar." According to Exodus 1, the midwives feared the Lord.
If we were perfect in mind and body, we may be able to make clearer distinctions. We would understand the Bible much more clearly. But now, we do not understand about taking God's Word in its proper context. We look for our conclusions, not reach them. I notice this when reading from different theologians. A theologian may say in a book something along the lines of "This verse is misinterpreated and mistranslated." In the same book they may say, "Many theologians think that this verse is misinterpreted or mistranslated...but we know that God will preserve His Word, so we must take Scripture for what it is." This is done by many theologians of many different denominations simply to support their theological affiliations with a particular church or denomination. I do think that God's Word is perfect. I do also think that the translation of God's Word is largely up to man, so in theory, we could see a mistranslation. But at the same time, God does always providentially preserve His Word, so that we can see our mistranslations and correct them.
Once we have our presuppositional faith, we should interpret Scripture much more open-mindedly, taking what is said in its proper context. This, I believe, will promote unity in the church, both in Spirit and in theology, and will enable us to think more and more like Christ. Questions such as the End Times could be answered in better terms. Today there are some nomical Christians who predict a date for Christ's return, while others dismiss the second coming as a joke. If we read each passage about the end times in its proper context, we could probably reach a satisfying conclusion. Whatever you read from Scripture, take heed that you interpret it in its proper context.
What Do You Think?
God bless America
God bless our Troops
God bless His Church
November 8, 20007
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
