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
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
The Social War On Christmas
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
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
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
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Lessons in American History, Part II: America's UnCivil War
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
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
Monday, December 17, 2007
Lessons in American History, Part I: The Growth of the American Government
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
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
Friday, December 14, 2007
Lessons in Economics, Part II: The Hypocrisy of Minimun Wage
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
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
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Lessons in Economics, Part I: Good Currency
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
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
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Lessons in Character: The Character of Abraham
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
