Just in case any of you have not heard, we received our CO (Certificate of Occupancy) yesterday afternoon, and will begin meeting weekly at our new building in Cahaba Heights, a suburb of Vestavia Hills, Alabama. This has been a while forth coming, yet it has also not been overly dragged. It did take a lot of work, but it does seem the Lord is rewarding our efforts.
The first thing we should do is give God glory and thanks for this opportunity to now own our own building. We have of course, owned our own building before, at 1401 Montgomery Highway in Vestavia. Overtime, we began to slowly descend into nothing. It was as if the Lord made us start over, almost, though certainly not entirely, from scratch.
Shortly after voting in favor of continuing the congregation instead of closing doors, several new families joined. Before we realized it, God gave us the gift/curse of outgrowing our facilities. Fortunately, the Lord gave us Berney Points Baptist Church to be a good and beneficial host to us. And not only did BPBC help us, but in certain ways, we probably helped them.
Now, after renting the facilities of BPBC for some four and a half years (give or take), we have worshipped for the last time at BPBC. We now have our own building once again. This is a gift for us. Many of the members of our congregation have never been able to worship at our church while having our own facilities.
We must ask what this means for us now. Because God has given us this blessing, we must use it to bless others. We must begin learning geography as well as Christology. In size, the building may be similar to that at 1401, but the location is vastly different. We are not off a major highway in a bustling Vestavia Hills. Nor are we a church with no sign that sits right off the interstate, but detached from a real city or community. Now, we have our sign, and we are a representative of a community. We do not represent CREC churches as much now. We are not as much of a global church known for its theology. We are a community church known for its love for that community.
It is easy, though maybe not as much now as used to be, to find Baptist churches that represented a community. It is not hard to find plenty of FBC’s around as you roam from city to city through the South. While we have a fun time naming our churches after Reformers or Reformed ideas, it is often hard to find a FPC, and even when we do, it is not the face of the community. My point is that often times churches like ours are known more for theology than community, and many Baptist churches, for example, are known more for community.
I am not trying to degrade the importance of theology, and I believe there are things we bring to the Kingdom that many other denominations do not. And since hiring Pastor Lusk, community has been a major theme of our church. And most people who visit our church can see that. Even before Pastor Lusk came, we had a form of community not many other churches had. I remember one of my first impressions upon our first visit to RHPC (former name of TPC) when I was ten was that the people were nice. Now, the Lord is giving us this building and this community, so that our love flows out from within just our congregation, to the wider community. It is time people like me use our hands and fingers for things other than posting theology on the internet. Instead of focusing on growing our minds by what we take in, it is time we focus on growing our hearts by what we give out.
It is easy for Presbyterian churches, through their form of church government, to be connected with another Presbyterian church five states away, yet hard to be really connected with the community. I even see this within our congregation. I hear so much about Jim Jordan’s church and Jeffrey Myers’ church, or about the works of Peter Leithardt and Douglas Wilson. I hear about CCB or about our sponsored church St. Marks in Tennessee. I’m sure with great reason, and I’m not by any means speaking against the Presbyterian form of church government. But are we known more just within our CREC Presbyterian group, or for being a blessing to the community we are in? I’m sure the same could be asked for many other churches like ours nationwide. Are we known for critiquing the other churches of this city because they don’t share our liturgy, or are we known for working with them to accomplish the same goals we have: to do the will of God and advance His Kingdom? Will we be known more for the blessing we are to Cahaba Heights, or for the blessing we are to CREC Presbyterian theology?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we need to take over the Cahaba Heights community and make a monopoly on the churches. There are other churches in the community as well, and they may doing a great job. But we need to take the community we have with each other, and share it with the wider community. Nor am I saying I think we have a lot to change if we are to do a good job at the goals listed above. I believe God has been preparing us for this, and would not give us this building if we were not ready. But I am saying we should not take this for granted, nor only look at the benefits it gives us (not paying rent, not having a time to be out, better acoustics, not having people fuss about our little children). Those are great, but we should look at this as a new and better way to spread the Kingdom, first to Cahaba Heights, and then to Birmingham, and throughout the entire earth. “Presbyterian” should become more of an adjective for the noun (and perhaps even verb?) “Church,” instead of a noun within itself. I’ve heard it was mentioned we could take out the word “Presbyterian” from our name and just be “Trinity Church.” While I don’t think this is completely necessary or helpful, I am glad we are seeming to focus more on what it means to be a church than what it means to be Presbyterian.
In all ways, we should thank God for this new building we will worship in tomorrow. We should also thank Him for giving us BPBC for a while. It has been helpful. I am also personally thankful for the men and women in the church who helped make this possible. I did very little helping compared to some people in the church. We should also expect some stress to come in the first several weeks or so, until we get fully moved in and situated. I will probably be at BPBC in the morning for the first fifteen minutes or so of service to direct any misguided members or visitors to our new building. I look forward to coming for the second half of the service at our new building tomorrow morning.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless the Church
May 16, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Worship Services
Many seeker-friendly church services give us a sermon that ends something like this: “If there is anyone here who has not accepted Christ, you may do so now. Every head bowed and every eye closed, raise your hand if you want to accept Christ.” There is a place for this language and it is great if it leads someone to Christ. But I’m not for sure this is what the purpose of a sermon is.
Many people get scared off by the word liturgy because it seems to replace the heart of Christian worship with text and empty recitations. Certainly, the heart of worship should not be seen as meaningless, and certainly a passionate charismatic worshipper worships God more truly than a Reformed worshipper going through the motions of worship with no real meaning or connection. But I also believe that nearly every church has some form of liturgy, in the sense of order to worship. The question becomes how deep, meaningful, relevant, and ultimately, Biblically sound the liturgy is.
While faithfully attending my church Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), I have been privileged to see other church services from other churches, primarily Church of the Highlands, where I go with some friends Sunday evenings. It is nice to see the worship services of other local churches who aim to lift high the cross. I don’t expect every church to have the same structure as ours, and that is okay even though I like our order and structure, which makes it both formal and personable. Church of the Highlands is seeker friendly and has done a lot for the Kingdom and I enjoy the sermons by Chris Hodges. But it seems that a lot of these churches end with the “every head bowed every eye closed” style, and despite being aggressive and seeker friendly, I am not sure they do as much for the Kingdom as a deeper liturgical service would.
Both Trinity Presbyterian and Church of the Highlands have an order to the service. Church of the Highlands has about twenty-five minutes of contemporary Christian music, followed by a sermon that always ends in the same seeker friendly way. After this there is offering and the service is pretty much over. Our service goes much deeper in its order and probably exemplifies the Church’s life more fully. We are called into worship. We confess our sins. We have the reading of Scripture and a sermon. We give our tithes and offerings. We confess our faith. We participate in the Lord’s Supper. We are called forth into the world to live out the Great Commission. This becomes more relevant to the Christian life. It is more consistent with God’s covenants He has made with His People. Sermons lead us into applications and ultimately into further communion with Christ by eating at His table. Each layer leads and flows into the next.
We go to Church to be the Church and renew covenant with God. We win the lost by being the Church everywhere else. When a non-believer steps into Church, they should see the Church in covenant with God, not be pressured into “making a decision.” Scripture does not give us much detail on worship services. But it seems the pattern is something like this: someone is converted, they are given the teaching of the Word, and then they eat and fellowship with other believers. Sometimes, yes, they are converted by the preaching of the Word, but once they enter the church, they are given Word and Sacrament (Sacrament follows the preaching).
There is a time to preach and offer salvation to others and it is good to see churches like Church of the Highlands have the heart to do that. And certainly going to church is a place where salvation should be offered. But I don’t think the modern approach and liturgy is always the best way. While these seeker friendly churches probably do a better job than we do at really reaching out to others on a personal level (which should certainly be commended), they often fail more at really keeping faithful Christians who keep covenant with God. Beyond this, non-believers are often more drawn into a deeper and richer liturgical service because they are able to see the richer side of the Christian faith. It grows on them. They don’t feel pressured into anything.
With all of this said, I wish the Church could ultimately become a Church that is seeker friendly and offers salvation to the lost and is good at keeping faithful Christians who mature in the faith. Often churches have one and not the other. But the point of our worship service is not to strategize how we will win the lost, nor is it a place where we even necessarily directly attempt to win the lost. It is where we keep covenant with God. I do think that more Reformed and deeper liturgical services could do better at having more mission trips and really reaching the lost in ways similar to many contemporary seeker-friendly churches. I wish seeker-friendly churches would broaden and deeper their worship services into a real place of covenant renewal service for God’s People, to train and equip Christians to be faithful to their King.
What do you think?
God bless the Church
God bless America
March 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Many people get scared off by the word liturgy because it seems to replace the heart of Christian worship with text and empty recitations. Certainly, the heart of worship should not be seen as meaningless, and certainly a passionate charismatic worshipper worships God more truly than a Reformed worshipper going through the motions of worship with no real meaning or connection. But I also believe that nearly every church has some form of liturgy, in the sense of order to worship. The question becomes how deep, meaningful, relevant, and ultimately, Biblically sound the liturgy is.
While faithfully attending my church Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), I have been privileged to see other church services from other churches, primarily Church of the Highlands, where I go with some friends Sunday evenings. It is nice to see the worship services of other local churches who aim to lift high the cross. I don’t expect every church to have the same structure as ours, and that is okay even though I like our order and structure, which makes it both formal and personable. Church of the Highlands is seeker friendly and has done a lot for the Kingdom and I enjoy the sermons by Chris Hodges. But it seems that a lot of these churches end with the “every head bowed every eye closed” style, and despite being aggressive and seeker friendly, I am not sure they do as much for the Kingdom as a deeper liturgical service would.
Both Trinity Presbyterian and Church of the Highlands have an order to the service. Church of the Highlands has about twenty-five minutes of contemporary Christian music, followed by a sermon that always ends in the same seeker friendly way. After this there is offering and the service is pretty much over. Our service goes much deeper in its order and probably exemplifies the Church’s life more fully. We are called into worship. We confess our sins. We have the reading of Scripture and a sermon. We give our tithes and offerings. We confess our faith. We participate in the Lord’s Supper. We are called forth into the world to live out the Great Commission. This becomes more relevant to the Christian life. It is more consistent with God’s covenants He has made with His People. Sermons lead us into applications and ultimately into further communion with Christ by eating at His table. Each layer leads and flows into the next.
We go to Church to be the Church and renew covenant with God. We win the lost by being the Church everywhere else. When a non-believer steps into Church, they should see the Church in covenant with God, not be pressured into “making a decision.” Scripture does not give us much detail on worship services. But it seems the pattern is something like this: someone is converted, they are given the teaching of the Word, and then they eat and fellowship with other believers. Sometimes, yes, they are converted by the preaching of the Word, but once they enter the church, they are given Word and Sacrament (Sacrament follows the preaching).
There is a time to preach and offer salvation to others and it is good to see churches like Church of the Highlands have the heart to do that. And certainly going to church is a place where salvation should be offered. But I don’t think the modern approach and liturgy is always the best way. While these seeker friendly churches probably do a better job than we do at really reaching out to others on a personal level (which should certainly be commended), they often fail more at really keeping faithful Christians who keep covenant with God. Beyond this, non-believers are often more drawn into a deeper and richer liturgical service because they are able to see the richer side of the Christian faith. It grows on them. They don’t feel pressured into anything.
With all of this said, I wish the Church could ultimately become a Church that is seeker friendly and offers salvation to the lost and is good at keeping faithful Christians who mature in the faith. Often churches have one and not the other. But the point of our worship service is not to strategize how we will win the lost, nor is it a place where we even necessarily directly attempt to win the lost. It is where we keep covenant with God. I do think that more Reformed and deeper liturgical services could do better at having more mission trips and really reaching the lost in ways similar to many contemporary seeker-friendly churches. I wish seeker-friendly churches would broaden and deeper their worship services into a real place of covenant renewal service for God’s People, to train and equip Christians to be faithful to their King.
What do you think?
God bless the Church
God bless America
March 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Monday, March 2, 2009
Why You Should Go to Church
I want to ask the simple question of why one should go to church. Can't you just be a good Christian without going to church every week? Isn't that legalistic? This could be asked from multiple vantage points or points of departure, so this look is just one of those. However I do believe all of the different points of departure I have used are related and build off each other. It doesn’t make this any less valid.
I will look at it from the perspective of the Church corporate being the Bride of Christ. Or perhaps you could say, we are currently engaged to Christ, awaiting the actual marriage that will happen in the last day as we enter into Final Resurrection glory. Each one of us are sons of God individually, but a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Bride of Christ.
Usually when people are planning on getting married, they go on dates. If they didn’t ever see each other, their relationship would be thin, and marriage may not be the best of ideas. In the same way, we who are to be married to Christ, should not cut off communion with each other and Christ. We must have our “dates” with Christ, which takes place each Lord’s Day in church.
Christ does it the traditional way. He picks us up. Now true, it seems like we are the one’s driving to His House. But it is He Who calls us into His presence, takes charge, and brings us into the throne room of Heaven upon our confession of sin and His declared forgiveness. He comes near to us, to draw us into His presence. He invites us to His house for dinner at His table in communion. We do things for Christ such as give our praises, but it is primarily Him who takes charge and works in us, bringing out the best in His Bride elect. If you reject these things Christ does for you on a corporate level, how can you expect to have a real personal relationship with Him, or take parts in the fruits of His Kingdom after this life?
If you are out of the Church, don’t get down on yourself. Look at it as going on a date with your Groom – the Groom Who loves you enough to lay down His own life for you in the cruelest of ways. Come into Church not hoping for an emotional experience, but expecting God’s work to give you strength in all you do. One day we will live with Christ in His presence. For now we must accept and love the community He has given us now, and await the Final Resurrection glory we are promised to obtain in the Last Day through Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
God bless you
March 1, 2009
Ryan Hampton
I will look at it from the perspective of the Church corporate being the Bride of Christ. Or perhaps you could say, we are currently engaged to Christ, awaiting the actual marriage that will happen in the last day as we enter into Final Resurrection glory. Each one of us are sons of God individually, but a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Bride of Christ.
Usually when people are planning on getting married, they go on dates. If they didn’t ever see each other, their relationship would be thin, and marriage may not be the best of ideas. In the same way, we who are to be married to Christ, should not cut off communion with each other and Christ. We must have our “dates” with Christ, which takes place each Lord’s Day in church.
Christ does it the traditional way. He picks us up. Now true, it seems like we are the one’s driving to His House. But it is He Who calls us into His presence, takes charge, and brings us into the throne room of Heaven upon our confession of sin and His declared forgiveness. He comes near to us, to draw us into His presence. He invites us to His house for dinner at His table in communion. We do things for Christ such as give our praises, but it is primarily Him who takes charge and works in us, bringing out the best in His Bride elect. If you reject these things Christ does for you on a corporate level, how can you expect to have a real personal relationship with Him, or take parts in the fruits of His Kingdom after this life?
If you are out of the Church, don’t get down on yourself. Look at it as going on a date with your Groom – the Groom Who loves you enough to lay down His own life for you in the cruelest of ways. Come into Church not hoping for an emotional experience, but expecting God’s work to give you strength in all you do. One day we will live with Christ in His presence. For now we must accept and love the community He has given us now, and await the Final Resurrection glory we are promised to obtain in the Last Day through Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
God bless you
March 1, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Great Paradox
With the recent election of Barack Obama, conservative Christians mostly responded with a two-fold voice. This two-fold voice was not something that separated the conservative Christians in two groups; rather, it was a voice that ran down the middle of most conservative Christian individually.
This two-fold voice that spoke loud after it was announced that Obama was our Commander-in-Chief elect. The voice was something like this: “How could America elect such a man to the nation’s highest office” and “We must trust God because it was He Who put this man in office, and He did so with a reason.”
Both replies, I believe, have truth in them. The second is definitely true, and I believe for various reasons not pertaining to this blog that the first is a valid question. But the two may seem contradicting: if God was the One Who put this man in office, then how can we blame the American mob for electing him? Was it not in God’s plan that He would lean the hearts of the majority of Americans to Barack Obama?
Christians who were against Obama believe both that this was an American mistake and a Sovereign plan, because they essentially recognize this as a paradox. The Bible is full of paradoxes. How is Jesus both God and man? How is Jesus both God and the Son of God? How are there three persons in one God? How is God all-knowing, yet Scripture shows us certain emotions God feels at a certain time as if He did not see what was coming (the best example is perhaps God feeling sorry for creating the man in Gen. 6:6)? How is Mary both virgin and mother (no, not step Mother, but the one who gave birth to Christ)? The list could go on, but these are just obvious examples from Scripture. We must realize that these questions are answered in the supernatural world, not the world that our sinful ignorant hearts and minds can fathom.
Therefore, Christians against Obama find no problem in accepting this paradox of the election of the “wrong yet right” man. But this again is only the most recent obvious example. The attacks of September 11, 2001 could be a similar example. We trust that God is in control, yet we grieve with the evil that has taken place, and we feel anger toward those who caused the evil. Perhaps orthodox Christians do not understand this relationship, but they nevertheless accept both God’s Will and the responsibility of man.
But for some strange reason, we argue about this where it matters the most: our salvation. We cannot accept this as a paradox. For some Christians, the word “predestined” that Paul uses simply means “God always knew,” and some Christians on the other end ignore or twist the parts of Scripture that tell us Christ died for all, or we should preach God’s Word to all, etc. Why can we not simply accept God’s absolute Sovereignty in our salvation, while also keeping the existence of human free will? The two do not have to be in disconnect. The Bible teaches both, so both should be taught and accepted.
There may be some disagreements in emphasis, but that should be it. This should not be something that splits a church or calls one’s salvation into question (unless they are completely one-sided beyond any real orthodox teaching). Christ’s death was completely in the Sovereignty of God, yet those who put the nails into his body are not held guiltless. Sure we don’t understand. That’s fine. God does. In the same way, we should not hold the ones who reject Christ guiltless just because we see their rejection as predestined. Both human responsibility and the Sovereignty of God exist. Sure, I can’t explain it. But I cannot fully fathom (or even almost fathom) the Trinity, yet I believe it.
We can deepen our minds and try to fathom these paradoxes. Some people call that a waste of time, but I honestly don’t mind. Perhaps God in knowing what decisions mankind would make when left to their own will, places certain decisions in front of them, knowing their results, to carry out His plan. Perhaps God put a predestined plan in motion at the beginning, knowing what would happen through human choice, and then engages in the world with emotion by hiding certain things from Him at the beginning as well (where God has a free will and a sense of vulnerability that was predestined by God before the world began). I am not saying either of those views are correct completely or even to any degree at all. We don’t know, we can only exercise our minds in the paradox. But nonetheless, we must accept both God’s Sovereign plan and our responsibilities in every facet of life, even our own salvation.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
February 6, 2009
Ryan Hampton
This two-fold voice that spoke loud after it was announced that Obama was our Commander-in-Chief elect. The voice was something like this: “How could America elect such a man to the nation’s highest office” and “We must trust God because it was He Who put this man in office, and He did so with a reason.”
Both replies, I believe, have truth in them. The second is definitely true, and I believe for various reasons not pertaining to this blog that the first is a valid question. But the two may seem contradicting: if God was the One Who put this man in office, then how can we blame the American mob for electing him? Was it not in God’s plan that He would lean the hearts of the majority of Americans to Barack Obama?
Christians who were against Obama believe both that this was an American mistake and a Sovereign plan, because they essentially recognize this as a paradox. The Bible is full of paradoxes. How is Jesus both God and man? How is Jesus both God and the Son of God? How are there three persons in one God? How is God all-knowing, yet Scripture shows us certain emotions God feels at a certain time as if He did not see what was coming (the best example is perhaps God feeling sorry for creating the man in Gen. 6:6)? How is Mary both virgin and mother (no, not step Mother, but the one who gave birth to Christ)? The list could go on, but these are just obvious examples from Scripture. We must realize that these questions are answered in the supernatural world, not the world that our sinful ignorant hearts and minds can fathom.
Therefore, Christians against Obama find no problem in accepting this paradox of the election of the “wrong yet right” man. But this again is only the most recent obvious example. The attacks of September 11, 2001 could be a similar example. We trust that God is in control, yet we grieve with the evil that has taken place, and we feel anger toward those who caused the evil. Perhaps orthodox Christians do not understand this relationship, but they nevertheless accept both God’s Will and the responsibility of man.
But for some strange reason, we argue about this where it matters the most: our salvation. We cannot accept this as a paradox. For some Christians, the word “predestined” that Paul uses simply means “God always knew,” and some Christians on the other end ignore or twist the parts of Scripture that tell us Christ died for all, or we should preach God’s Word to all, etc. Why can we not simply accept God’s absolute Sovereignty in our salvation, while also keeping the existence of human free will? The two do not have to be in disconnect. The Bible teaches both, so both should be taught and accepted.
There may be some disagreements in emphasis, but that should be it. This should not be something that splits a church or calls one’s salvation into question (unless they are completely one-sided beyond any real orthodox teaching). Christ’s death was completely in the Sovereignty of God, yet those who put the nails into his body are not held guiltless. Sure we don’t understand. That’s fine. God does. In the same way, we should not hold the ones who reject Christ guiltless just because we see their rejection as predestined. Both human responsibility and the Sovereignty of God exist. Sure, I can’t explain it. But I cannot fully fathom (or even almost fathom) the Trinity, yet I believe it.
We can deepen our minds and try to fathom these paradoxes. Some people call that a waste of time, but I honestly don’t mind. Perhaps God in knowing what decisions mankind would make when left to their own will, places certain decisions in front of them, knowing their results, to carry out His plan. Perhaps God put a predestined plan in motion at the beginning, knowing what would happen through human choice, and then engages in the world with emotion by hiding certain things from Him at the beginning as well (where God has a free will and a sense of vulnerability that was predestined by God before the world began). I am not saying either of those views are correct completely or even to any degree at all. We don’t know, we can only exercise our minds in the paradox. But nonetheless, we must accept both God’s Sovereign plan and our responsibilities in every facet of life, even our own salvation.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
February 6, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tough Economy May Be Good For The Church
Many people are worrying frantic over this tough economy in our nation today. Jobs are becoming less and less available, the value of the dollar is dropping worldwide, while we hold every penny in our pockets with precious value. The recent inauguration of Barack Obama has lead many to believe the economy is back on the rise, while leaving many others including myself worried that this is only the beginning.
But perhaps what we need is a tough economy. While we have been so blessed for so long (and while even this economic downturn is not yet disastrous), it is good to be reminded of our fortune. The love of money is the root of all evil, and America has lived through several generations that have adored money.
Having riches is a good thing, so long as they are earned and used wisely. But not everyone in America earns their money in the way they should. Some are given riches by the government, some by theft, and some from their rich old man. Moreover, not everyone is rightfully thankful and content for what they have; some beg the government, the banks, or their parents for more. Meanwhile, these people learn nothing about the value of work, honesty, and a free market.
With this said, I welcome any economic downturn with optimism, an optimism that when we wake up and grow up, we will turn it back around. Perhaps we need a few tough years – or decades – to wake consumers and spoiled kids up and let them realize what they have. Then we can put higher value in things like family, friendship, education, love, hobbies, God-given talents, church, etc., instead of material wealth. In short, we can be content with what we have, but not in what we have given. We cannot serve two masters. We can serve only God or money. And if the money is not readily available to us, it may leave us with just one choice. And if that is the case, then I welcome any economic woes with full heart.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
But perhaps what we need is a tough economy. While we have been so blessed for so long (and while even this economic downturn is not yet disastrous), it is good to be reminded of our fortune. The love of money is the root of all evil, and America has lived through several generations that have adored money.
Having riches is a good thing, so long as they are earned and used wisely. But not everyone in America earns their money in the way they should. Some are given riches by the government, some by theft, and some from their rich old man. Moreover, not everyone is rightfully thankful and content for what they have; some beg the government, the banks, or their parents for more. Meanwhile, these people learn nothing about the value of work, honesty, and a free market.
With this said, I welcome any economic downturn with optimism, an optimism that when we wake up and grow up, we will turn it back around. Perhaps we need a few tough years – or decades – to wake consumers and spoiled kids up and let them realize what they have. Then we can put higher value in things like family, friendship, education, love, hobbies, God-given talents, church, etc., instead of material wealth. In short, we can be content with what we have, but not in what we have given. We cannot serve two masters. We can serve only God or money. And if the money is not readily available to us, it may leave us with just one choice. And if that is the case, then I welcome any economic woes with full heart.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The War on Religion
The War On Religion
By Ron Paul
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
December 30, 2003
By Ron Paul
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
December 30, 2003
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Nature of Man
We have a messed up view of human nature in our world today. It seems like we cannot get it right. We may put man ahead of God. Or perhaps we believe in a relative morality ideology that in essence teaches us that man is not sinful, because there is no real right or wrong. Perhaps we believe that man can make it on his own, and that he does not need others to survive.
There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.
Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.
Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”
But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.
Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.
Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.
This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.
Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.
In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.
I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.
The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.
The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.
Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.
And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
November 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.
Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.
Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”
But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.
Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.
Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.
This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.
Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.
In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.
I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.
The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.
The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.
Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.
And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
November 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obamanation
**To all Obama lovers, forgive my harsh words. I do wish the man well, and I ask that you read this open-mindedly.**
I have to admit, there are different sides of me when it comes to the reality of Obama soon being our President. Part of me is worried to death, part of me is hopefull that this will be a brick wall for America to run into, and start over returning to the ways of the Founders. Part of me just has faith in God. I realize that even if Obama is President, no matter how much he abuses his power, Jesus is King. Of course, I also wonder if Obama's life has much time ahead of it. I would not be shocked if someone takes his life in the next eight years.
Overall, I think that, despite socialism and anti-Americanism, I can handle an Obama Presidency. I guess that if I had the slick rhetoric skills of Obama, his money, support, and power, I might be tempted to abuse my power too. God in His infinite plan, put Obama here to be elected as our President for a reason, and I must trust His Will.
But my problem is that the American people are so ignorant to elect someone like Obama. Can our people not see we need less government, not more? Can they not see that we need a sensible foreign policy, one that, whether pro-war or anti-war is at least pro-America? Can we not see that socialism and communism does not work? Do we not understand the Constitution? It seems we have not realized these things. If we did realize these things, I believe that our President elect would not be Obama.
I know that we can not all of a sudden return to the ways of our Founding Fathers without some sort of catastrophic blow to our nation. We have simply drifted too far. But I am dissapointed in my fellow American's that we, of all people, have fallen for socialism. I would think that surely America would be a place where her people would not fall for such tyrannical government as socialism. I have been hopefull that we can sooner or later elect someone into office who would at least start returning us to a more Constitutional form of government, with a federal relationship between the states and their common central government. I would think that maybe we would start educating ourselves to realize that we are a mixed government, not a pure Democracy. I thought that we would eventually realize that we are a Constitutional Federated Republic, not a Socialized Centralized Democracy. If electing Obama is any indication, then we have apparently not realized these basic truths that founded this nation, and give us many of the gifts we benefit from even today.
I know Obama may sound good, but look at his policies. Is socialized healthare (excuse, "universal" healthcare), allowed in the Constitution? Is redistributing wealth an idea that Adam Smith would have supported? Is being friendly with terrorists, and stating who you want to bomb on national television really pro-America? Maybe some of the rumors about Obama are a smear on him, but if just half of them are true, he seems very anti-American, and anti-Christian.
God is in control, and He is still King. He may want Obama to destroy America for all I know. I would hate for that to be the case, but God has His reasons. People did not expect or want to see the Roman Empire to fall from within, but that is what happened. And the fading away of Rome is what in large part, over the course of some thousand years, help set up America herself. Interestingly enough, it was the Church that is in large part accredited to overthrowing the empire. The Church, with no real political power, overtook the greatest empire the world had seen, without war.
Now, under an Obama Presidency, the Church more than ever should be the Church. If the Church wants to get involved in the political system, the best way to do it is to be the Church. The most political thing the Church can do is to be the Church. Whether this restores America, overthrows America with the Power of the Gospel, or something entirely different, is in God's Hands. But the Church should not complain about an Obama Presidency when She has not done Her job. The Church has failed to show us what proper Biblical government should look like, and has failed to teach Herself government from a Christian perspective. Thus, our culture is not going to recognize the dangers of socialism. Our culture is not going to see the anti-Americanism and anti-God in Obama's policies. Thus, our result will be Obama himself.
If the Church is simply the Church - helping others instead of asking the government to help us, cleaning homes instead of searching them for Harry Potter, fixing our own marriages before asking the government to fix others, etc., then one of two things will happen. The Power of the Gospel will save our culture because our culture repents and follows the Gospel, or the Power of the Gospel will be a sword that our unrepentent culture cannot handle, and thus our culture will fade away like Rome, but the Power of the Gospel will give greater benefits throughout the earth.
All in all, I am dissapointed in America. We elected a socialist. That is unnaceptable for a nation founded on such principles as America was founded on. But maybe what we need is a brick wall to run into, and maybe Obama is that brick wall. Maybe the Church will get woken up. Who knows. I'm not too worried about an Obama Presidency itself. I voted my conscience, and let God deal with the results. But it is a little frightening that our culture would be so ignorant as to vote for Obama. May we wake up and smell the coffee. While we can.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless President-elect Barack Obama
November 5, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I have to admit, there are different sides of me when it comes to the reality of Obama soon being our President. Part of me is worried to death, part of me is hopefull that this will be a brick wall for America to run into, and start over returning to the ways of the Founders. Part of me just has faith in God. I realize that even if Obama is President, no matter how much he abuses his power, Jesus is King. Of course, I also wonder if Obama's life has much time ahead of it. I would not be shocked if someone takes his life in the next eight years.
Overall, I think that, despite socialism and anti-Americanism, I can handle an Obama Presidency. I guess that if I had the slick rhetoric skills of Obama, his money, support, and power, I might be tempted to abuse my power too. God in His infinite plan, put Obama here to be elected as our President for a reason, and I must trust His Will.
But my problem is that the American people are so ignorant to elect someone like Obama. Can our people not see we need less government, not more? Can they not see that we need a sensible foreign policy, one that, whether pro-war or anti-war is at least pro-America? Can we not see that socialism and communism does not work? Do we not understand the Constitution? It seems we have not realized these things. If we did realize these things, I believe that our President elect would not be Obama.
I know that we can not all of a sudden return to the ways of our Founding Fathers without some sort of catastrophic blow to our nation. We have simply drifted too far. But I am dissapointed in my fellow American's that we, of all people, have fallen for socialism. I would think that surely America would be a place where her people would not fall for such tyrannical government as socialism. I have been hopefull that we can sooner or later elect someone into office who would at least start returning us to a more Constitutional form of government, with a federal relationship between the states and their common central government. I would think that maybe we would start educating ourselves to realize that we are a mixed government, not a pure Democracy. I thought that we would eventually realize that we are a Constitutional Federated Republic, not a Socialized Centralized Democracy. If electing Obama is any indication, then we have apparently not realized these basic truths that founded this nation, and give us many of the gifts we benefit from even today.
I know Obama may sound good, but look at his policies. Is socialized healthare (excuse, "universal" healthcare), allowed in the Constitution? Is redistributing wealth an idea that Adam Smith would have supported? Is being friendly with terrorists, and stating who you want to bomb on national television really pro-America? Maybe some of the rumors about Obama are a smear on him, but if just half of them are true, he seems very anti-American, and anti-Christian.
God is in control, and He is still King. He may want Obama to destroy America for all I know. I would hate for that to be the case, but God has His reasons. People did not expect or want to see the Roman Empire to fall from within, but that is what happened. And the fading away of Rome is what in large part, over the course of some thousand years, help set up America herself. Interestingly enough, it was the Church that is in large part accredited to overthrowing the empire. The Church, with no real political power, overtook the greatest empire the world had seen, without war.
Now, under an Obama Presidency, the Church more than ever should be the Church. If the Church wants to get involved in the political system, the best way to do it is to be the Church. The most political thing the Church can do is to be the Church. Whether this restores America, overthrows America with the Power of the Gospel, or something entirely different, is in God's Hands. But the Church should not complain about an Obama Presidency when She has not done Her job. The Church has failed to show us what proper Biblical government should look like, and has failed to teach Herself government from a Christian perspective. Thus, our culture is not going to recognize the dangers of socialism. Our culture is not going to see the anti-Americanism and anti-God in Obama's policies. Thus, our result will be Obama himself.
If the Church is simply the Church - helping others instead of asking the government to help us, cleaning homes instead of searching them for Harry Potter, fixing our own marriages before asking the government to fix others, etc., then one of two things will happen. The Power of the Gospel will save our culture because our culture repents and follows the Gospel, or the Power of the Gospel will be a sword that our unrepentent culture cannot handle, and thus our culture will fade away like Rome, but the Power of the Gospel will give greater benefits throughout the earth.
All in all, I am dissapointed in America. We elected a socialist. That is unnaceptable for a nation founded on such principles as America was founded on. But maybe what we need is a brick wall to run into, and maybe Obama is that brick wall. Maybe the Church will get woken up. Who knows. I'm not too worried about an Obama Presidency itself. I voted my conscience, and let God deal with the results. But it is a little frightening that our culture would be so ignorant as to vote for Obama. May we wake up and smell the coffee. While we can.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless President-elect Barack Obama
November 5, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, October 31, 2008
Happy Halloween: The Meaning of the Season
In a day filled with surprises, junk food, and many secular traditions, it is very easy to forget the meaning of the season. If you didn’t know any better, you would think I was referring to Christmas. But believe it or not, I am referring to Halloween. That’s right y’all, I am making the case that “The Devil’s Holiday” itself is actually a day filled with unique Christian tradition.
The origins of Halloween has secular and pagan roots. In the Celtic world of some 2,000 years ago, the New Year began on November 1. This day was the end of summer and the beginning of the dark and cold season. This time of year became associated with death, and it was soon believed that the night before November 1 the worlds of the living and dead became blurred. Such traditions of wearing costumes became prevalent. Thus, we have an early form of the Halloween tradition, and obviously,
this is very pagan.
But some few hundred years into the Middle Ages, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 as “All Saints’ Day.” This was a day set aside by the Christians to honor all Christian Saints, especially martyrs. This does not mean that the Christians worship the Saints themselves any more than Mother’s Day means we worship Mothers, or President’s Day means we worship the Presidents. This was a Christian holiday that was set aside to thank God for raising up men and women in the Church who would be willing to live and even die for the cause of Christ. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
Another term for Saints is “Hallowed ones.” Thus, another name for All Saints’ Day would be “All Hallows’ Day.” Hence, October 31 became known as “All Hallows’ Eve,” and eventually, “Halloween.”
So how did the Christian holiday of Halloween blur with the Celtic traditions of November 1 and the night before? Many people believe that the Pope had intentionally made November 1 All Hallows’ Day to replace the Celtic holiday. Christians have been known for doing this sort of activity over the years to mock pagan rituals that deny the Truth of the Gospel. Even such traditions of dressing up could have been used by the Christians to symbolically scare off demons from hampering the spread of the Gospel. It was a day in church history where the Christian could be proud of who he or she was, could mock the enemies of God, and be thankful for the rich Christian history he or she was apart of.
This does not mean that the Christian’s relied on pagan ritual for the support of their worldview. Rather it means that even prevalent pagan traditions fall short of the Gospel when the Gospel is spread. “Mocking” the enemies of God did not mean that we wage war on everyone who is not Christian; rather it means we show the non-believers just how sharp of a Sword the Gospel is, that it can pierce through anything that attempts to hinder the spread of the Gospel.
On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed (or perhaps mailed as some believe), his 95theses. The timing could have been intentional by Luther to make his 95 theses public on the eve of All Hallows’ Day. Thus right in the midst of All Hallows’ Day, we celebrate the Reformation and the brave Saints who gave their lives for the preservation and reforming of the Church.
So tonight as you go trick-or-treating, or walk around at your church’s Fall Festival, or whatever it is you do, I encourage you to think about God’s Church, the Bride of Christ. Think about the brave men and women who have pledge their lives for the Gospel. May we do the same. May we rise again as the lion hearted Saints of early Christendom. May we seek the unity of the Body of Christ, by tearing down denomination’s walls that keep us from piercing through our enemies with the Gospel, and worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth. May we remember the Saints of early Christianity who faced persecution in Rome, the Reformers Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and Martin Brucer, the brilliant Christian thinkers and writers who pledged their lives to studying God’s Word, i.e. C.S. Lewis, Peter Leithart, etc, and the Christian’s today who are facing persecution for spreading God’s Word, i.e. Roy Moore. May we stand together now as Saints and stand up for God. If it means giving up our lives, then may our blood become part of the seed of the Church.
Halloween may have origins in paganism. But when the Gospel took hold, the Pagan rituals did not stand scrutiny to the Sword of God. As Christian’s, we cannot let the Pagan’s take back the Holiday that we have won. This has unique Christian tradition. If you are an enemy to God, then you may enjoy Halloween tonight as you celebrate it with pagan intentions – that is, until the Gospel comes knocking on your door saying “Trick or Treat?!”
What do you think?
Trick or Treat?
God bless America
God bless His Church
Happy Halloween
October 31, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Why I Believe in God
Why do you believe in God? It is probably something that you have been asked, or at some time will be asked. It’s not always the easiest question to answer. The idea of there being a governing all-powerful force behind everything that happens is certainly no simple idea, and there is no perfect syllogism that would convince the most staunch of skeptics. Still for us Christians, it is an important question. It’s not important in that we question God or doubt our faith until we receive a sufficient physical or philosophical proof, but it is important because we as Christians are told to “always be ready to give an account for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15).
Reading 1 Peter 3 tells us to separate Christ in our hearts, living in accord to His ways, abstaining from anything sinful, etc. And in a sense, this should be our ultimate apologetic for the faith. Our works should be carried out in such a beautiful way that would make people think, “If man really is made in the Image of God, then I want to know this God.” However verse 15 tells us to give an account of our faith. The wording seems to indicate that we should be prepared to verbally defend the Hope in us. And so with this mindset, I have asked myself, “Why do I believe in God.”
Obviously there are many different angles to come into this. I could give the scientific argument that it would be frankly impossible for the world to come together the way it is all by chance. That would be a good and valid argument, but I would probably lose a debate with an unbelieving scientist. I could give historical evidence for Christ being the Son of God, and that too, but would be valid. But again, someone could simply dismiss it as something strange going on with “that man Jesus.” I could give a philosophical defense, by asking how we can have any sort of absolute Truth without an absolute God of Truth, and that is by all means a very valid way to defend the Faith, and in some ways ties into the argument that I will present in a moment. But again, the skeptic will always rebuttal by attributing the same questions you pose to the universe to God. “If God can be infinite, why not the universe?,” if God can have truth, why not the universe?,” if God is eternal, why not the universe?,” and the list goes on. Or perhaps they would argue that there was an outside force that was not God that caused the universe into existence, e.g. a multiverse system. No matter how persuasive you see these arguments as being, there is something radically missing.
Certainly the goal should not be that you in one hour convince the most raving of skeptics to pick up the Cross and follow Christ all his life. It is certainly a great thing if that happens. However the goal of apologetics is simply to keep those who reject God from using their schemes to pull those struggling in the faith or searching for faith away from Christianity. We should be able to come across as if the Christian worldview is not under-minded by the “rational” atheistic worldview (or any other worldview). The struggling Christian should have his faith reinforced when he sees Christianity offer a solution to all of the arguments posed against it. The person in search for some identity and faith should see that the Christian worldview holds scrutiny to anything posed against it.
With this in mind, the most basic and sometimes the most beneficial argument to use, is to say that we as Christians, and each one of us on a personal level, have been given the knowledge of the Grace of God. We know God because He revealed Himself to us, and that no matter what argument is used against Christianity, nothing can shake the foundation of someone’s faith. Obviously this does not go far in convincing many skeptics, but if we show integrity and our lives reflect that, then perhaps the truth of our arguments will be made known. However, there is still nothing wrong with going a little bit further.
So why do I believe in God, without just saying God has revealed Himself to me? I believe that the beauty of this universe reflects God. I believe that the questions we pose to the universe at large are only answered through a Christian worldview. Again we could use the example of truth. What is truth, and from where do we obtain it? Pilot asked Jesus this question during Jesus’ trial. Jesus answers it in John 14:6 by saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” This in a sense is Jesus saying that any philosophical question to the universe is answered in Him. We all long for a direction or purpose, and Jesus calls Himself the way. Perhaps we wonder where life originated. Jesus calls Himself the Life. It comes from the Word made flesh, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of the Father God.
Perhaps we wonder what love is. To an atheist, love is simply a human emotion, where if consistent with their thinking, only happens through random predestined chemical processes. The God of Christianity calls Himself love (1 John 4:8). Therefore, the God we know and love, is from whom we obtain any of our earthly love among one another.
What about the problem of evil. This has been used against Christianity, but I believe can be used in favor of Christianity. Christianity shows us what evil is (Satan, abominations to God). It shows us how it originated (Satan rebelling, and the Fall of Man in the Garden). It shows us a solution to evil (Jesus Christ). Atheists cannot answer any of those three questions, yet still believe in the existence of evil. Any other religions can makes stabs at the problem of evil, but there is always something missing. Christianity offers us the reason for morality at large. Where is there any form of absolute morality under a worldview that teaches we are all here by random chance? Yet even the most staunch atheist believes in some form of moral standard, often similar to that of the Christian’s.
People search for faith search for a community. They search for true love and grace among each other. They search for a personal community with God. Christianity offers both, and both only through Jesus Christ. It offers it so much through Christ, that He is God who came to us even when we were too sinful and fallen to come to Him.
The idea of death and resurrection that even Hollywood adores is given a radical example in Christianity. It is seen through Jesus, and from Him in each believer individually. You could argue that it is seen in God’s People universally by falling in the Garden, and ultimately being resurrected in Christ on the last day.
Imagine even the idea of marriage. Christianity shows us what marriage is. In fact, Christianity is the greatest love story of all. The Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve) and ends with a marriage (Christ and the Church). The story of the Gospel is about a Man dying to save His Bride. Again, we long for this story, and it is offered in the Gospel (keep in mind we are made in the Image of God).
I could go on all day about how each of our questions about the universe are answered in Jesus Christ. He becomes all we need. I have not even gone into detail about the beauty of such things as music, art, creation, etc., that we know could not have become so beautiful on their own. I hardly mentioned how the sciences show us that a Creator is the only way to view existence, or the history that shows that Christ really did rise from the dead. All I did was show that the Christian worldview holds more than scrutiny to any other worldview or any question we pose to the world. The skeptic may still say that this is made up because it is what we need. But this is too great to be made up. Beyond this, what else is there that would answer all the questions I had just mentioned? They are not just answered, but are only answered through Jesus Christ. May our lives and actions as Christians become even a greater defense than the words I have mentioned here.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
Pray for our church
October 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Reading 1 Peter 3 tells us to separate Christ in our hearts, living in accord to His ways, abstaining from anything sinful, etc. And in a sense, this should be our ultimate apologetic for the faith. Our works should be carried out in such a beautiful way that would make people think, “If man really is made in the Image of God, then I want to know this God.” However verse 15 tells us to give an account of our faith. The wording seems to indicate that we should be prepared to verbally defend the Hope in us. And so with this mindset, I have asked myself, “Why do I believe in God.”
Obviously there are many different angles to come into this. I could give the scientific argument that it would be frankly impossible for the world to come together the way it is all by chance. That would be a good and valid argument, but I would probably lose a debate with an unbelieving scientist. I could give historical evidence for Christ being the Son of God, and that too, but would be valid. But again, someone could simply dismiss it as something strange going on with “that man Jesus.” I could give a philosophical defense, by asking how we can have any sort of absolute Truth without an absolute God of Truth, and that is by all means a very valid way to defend the Faith, and in some ways ties into the argument that I will present in a moment. But again, the skeptic will always rebuttal by attributing the same questions you pose to the universe to God. “If God can be infinite, why not the universe?,” if God can have truth, why not the universe?,” if God is eternal, why not the universe?,” and the list goes on. Or perhaps they would argue that there was an outside force that was not God that caused the universe into existence, e.g. a multiverse system. No matter how persuasive you see these arguments as being, there is something radically missing.
Certainly the goal should not be that you in one hour convince the most raving of skeptics to pick up the Cross and follow Christ all his life. It is certainly a great thing if that happens. However the goal of apologetics is simply to keep those who reject God from using their schemes to pull those struggling in the faith or searching for faith away from Christianity. We should be able to come across as if the Christian worldview is not under-minded by the “rational” atheistic worldview (or any other worldview). The struggling Christian should have his faith reinforced when he sees Christianity offer a solution to all of the arguments posed against it. The person in search for some identity and faith should see that the Christian worldview holds scrutiny to anything posed against it.
With this in mind, the most basic and sometimes the most beneficial argument to use, is to say that we as Christians, and each one of us on a personal level, have been given the knowledge of the Grace of God. We know God because He revealed Himself to us, and that no matter what argument is used against Christianity, nothing can shake the foundation of someone’s faith. Obviously this does not go far in convincing many skeptics, but if we show integrity and our lives reflect that, then perhaps the truth of our arguments will be made known. However, there is still nothing wrong with going a little bit further.
So why do I believe in God, without just saying God has revealed Himself to me? I believe that the beauty of this universe reflects God. I believe that the questions we pose to the universe at large are only answered through a Christian worldview. Again we could use the example of truth. What is truth, and from where do we obtain it? Pilot asked Jesus this question during Jesus’ trial. Jesus answers it in John 14:6 by saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” This in a sense is Jesus saying that any philosophical question to the universe is answered in Him. We all long for a direction or purpose, and Jesus calls Himself the way. Perhaps we wonder where life originated. Jesus calls Himself the Life. It comes from the Word made flesh, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of the Father God.
Perhaps we wonder what love is. To an atheist, love is simply a human emotion, where if consistent with their thinking, only happens through random predestined chemical processes. The God of Christianity calls Himself love (1 John 4:8). Therefore, the God we know and love, is from whom we obtain any of our earthly love among one another.
What about the problem of evil. This has been used against Christianity, but I believe can be used in favor of Christianity. Christianity shows us what evil is (Satan, abominations to God). It shows us how it originated (Satan rebelling, and the Fall of Man in the Garden). It shows us a solution to evil (Jesus Christ). Atheists cannot answer any of those three questions, yet still believe in the existence of evil. Any other religions can makes stabs at the problem of evil, but there is always something missing. Christianity offers us the reason for morality at large. Where is there any form of absolute morality under a worldview that teaches we are all here by random chance? Yet even the most staunch atheist believes in some form of moral standard, often similar to that of the Christian’s.
People search for faith search for a community. They search for true love and grace among each other. They search for a personal community with God. Christianity offers both, and both only through Jesus Christ. It offers it so much through Christ, that He is God who came to us even when we were too sinful and fallen to come to Him.
The idea of death and resurrection that even Hollywood adores is given a radical example in Christianity. It is seen through Jesus, and from Him in each believer individually. You could argue that it is seen in God’s People universally by falling in the Garden, and ultimately being resurrected in Christ on the last day.
Imagine even the idea of marriage. Christianity shows us what marriage is. In fact, Christianity is the greatest love story of all. The Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve) and ends with a marriage (Christ and the Church). The story of the Gospel is about a Man dying to save His Bride. Again, we long for this story, and it is offered in the Gospel (keep in mind we are made in the Image of God).
I could go on all day about how each of our questions about the universe are answered in Jesus Christ. He becomes all we need. I have not even gone into detail about the beauty of such things as music, art, creation, etc., that we know could not have become so beautiful on their own. I hardly mentioned how the sciences show us that a Creator is the only way to view existence, or the history that shows that Christ really did rise from the dead. All I did was show that the Christian worldview holds more than scrutiny to any other worldview or any question we pose to the world. The skeptic may still say that this is made up because it is what we need. But this is too great to be made up. Beyond this, what else is there that would answer all the questions I had just mentioned? They are not just answered, but are only answered through Jesus Christ. May our lives and actions as Christians become even a greater defense than the words I have mentioned here.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
Pray for our church
October 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Waiting on God
**"Waiting on God," by Ryan Hampton, is inspired by the August 10, 2008 Trinity Presbyterian Church Youth Bible Study located in Branchville, Alabama, as taught by Pastoral Intern Jeremy Sexton.**
Patience is a virtue. It is so much of a virtue that the world’s problems stem from one man’s lack of patience, and the Redemption in the world come from one man’s patience.
Yes – I am referring to the Fall of man and the death and Resurrection of Christ. But what Christ faced – except in much greater amount – was very similar to what Adam and Eve faced when tempted by the Serpent in the Garden.
Let’s read Genesis 3:1-6:
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
And now let’s compare this to the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11:
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"
7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]"
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
There is great similarity in these passages. Both were tempted by Satan. Both involve food. Both deal with the three basic roots of sin. 1 John 2:16 says, “For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.” This is considered all that is in the world. These three sins – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – are essentially the roots to all of our sins in some form or fashion. Both Adam and Jesus were tempted in direct ways to each of these.
For instance, they were tempted by the lust of the eyes. The food looked good. Food was offered in both cases. So was the lust of the flesh – that they could have dominion. Adam and Eve already had dominion over the animals and Garden, and life was good for them – but they had still not reached full maturity. God was preparing them to multiply into future generations and be lord over creation. But they weren’t ready yet for everything.
Pride was also in both cases, especially in the case of Jesus being tempted. Satan told Christ that if He was really God, He should be able to jump off of the Temple, and save Himself, similarly to how many mocked Him on the cross. In the Garden, it was a bit more subtle and not quite as noticeable. But Satan questioned more of God’s identity to Eve. He wanted her to think that God was jealous of Adam and Eve and their life, and that the only way to keep them from becoming even greater would be from not eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Of course, Jesus’ temptations were probably harder for Him, because He was offered food while He was fasting. He was hungry. Adam and Eve had so much other food around them at the time anyway. Also, Jesus knew that He would have to undergo death, and what is perhaps even worse, His Father turning His back on Him. Adam and Eve were certainly in a maturing period, but they already had so much as it was. They were not expected to die for God.
So both of these temptations was actually more aimed at the patience level. Jesus had the patience to declare “It is finished!” at the right time – not a premature time. If Adam and Eve would not have eaten of the fruit when offered to them by the Serpent, I think there is a good chance God would have later given it to them. There was nothing sinful about the Tree in and of itself. In fact, Scripture says that they could eat of any tree. It almost seems to imply that eventually, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would be given to them.
But Adam and Eve ate prematurely. Jesus waited on God. He had His Father, God Almighty, turn his back on Him. Jesus suffered through fasting, rejection, and even a death much more painful than we can imagine. Yet He was patient. He waited on God. Adam and Eve on the other hand did not wait on God, and prematurely ate from the forbidden fruit.
So what applications can we take from this? I think we need to wait for God. Do not prematurely rush into anything. This could be true whether it’s work, relationship issues, marriage, leaving home, college, etc. How often do people rush into things, especially relationships? And how often do they work? A lot of people rush into going to a high-level university, and find themselves back home with no degree and a whole lot of debt two years later (I hope this does not happen to me!!). People often think they can wake up with a good job, instead of perhaps starting at minimum wage and then working up the line to have a good full time job. People often rush into thinking they should move away from their house. Home is not big enough. Their family is not good enough. But most eighteen year-olds are not mature enough to be all on their own. Many people rush into taking part in marital fruits prior to marriage, instead of waiting until real vows have been spoken. [I actually think this is very symbolic to the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden. They both deal with life, some sort of lust, something is good and moral but only after a certain waiting time, and in a sense, both deal with marriage – our marriages here on earth, and man’s relationship with God similarly to how the Church is the Bride of Christ.]
Society teaches us to rush. It teaches us that we must find our own happiness. That we can tell ourselves what is right and wrong. It teaches us that we become our own gods. But our society is in many ways Adam’s Serpent. Jesus responded by giving Scripture to Satan. So when Satan in the disguise of society and her conventional wisdom tells us not to wait, tell us to be only our own, and all of the other popular rhetoric, shun it away with the Word of God, so that you may be equipped for every good work (II Timothy 3:16-17).
So I encourage you to wait on God. Wait on Him to give you what you need. He will take care of you. He takes care of the birds care-free, so He will take all the more care of you (Matthew 6:25-34). And ultimately, we will reach our greatest treasures in Heaven and the Final Resurrection (Matthew 6:19-21). And when you are patient, God will allow you to have true Dominion. We will then inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5 tells us that it is the meek of all people who will inherit the earth. So wait for God; do not prematurely take part in the pleasures of this world. Allow God to give you all the joy you need. Easier said than done, but certainly a nice goal.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
Pray for our Troops
August 17, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Patience is a virtue. It is so much of a virtue that the world’s problems stem from one man’s lack of patience, and the Redemption in the world come from one man’s patience.
Yes – I am referring to the Fall of man and the death and Resurrection of Christ. But what Christ faced – except in much greater amount – was very similar to what Adam and Eve faced when tempted by the Serpent in the Garden.
Let’s read Genesis 3:1-6:
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
And now let’s compare this to the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11:
1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"
7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]"
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
There is great similarity in these passages. Both were tempted by Satan. Both involve food. Both deal with the three basic roots of sin. 1 John 2:16 says, “For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.” This is considered all that is in the world. These three sins – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – are essentially the roots to all of our sins in some form or fashion. Both Adam and Jesus were tempted in direct ways to each of these.
For instance, they were tempted by the lust of the eyes. The food looked good. Food was offered in both cases. So was the lust of the flesh – that they could have dominion. Adam and Eve already had dominion over the animals and Garden, and life was good for them – but they had still not reached full maturity. God was preparing them to multiply into future generations and be lord over creation. But they weren’t ready yet for everything.
Pride was also in both cases, especially in the case of Jesus being tempted. Satan told Christ that if He was really God, He should be able to jump off of the Temple, and save Himself, similarly to how many mocked Him on the cross. In the Garden, it was a bit more subtle and not quite as noticeable. But Satan questioned more of God’s identity to Eve. He wanted her to think that God was jealous of Adam and Eve and their life, and that the only way to keep them from becoming even greater would be from not eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Of course, Jesus’ temptations were probably harder for Him, because He was offered food while He was fasting. He was hungry. Adam and Eve had so much other food around them at the time anyway. Also, Jesus knew that He would have to undergo death, and what is perhaps even worse, His Father turning His back on Him. Adam and Eve were certainly in a maturing period, but they already had so much as it was. They were not expected to die for God.
So both of these temptations was actually more aimed at the patience level. Jesus had the patience to declare “It is finished!” at the right time – not a premature time. If Adam and Eve would not have eaten of the fruit when offered to them by the Serpent, I think there is a good chance God would have later given it to them. There was nothing sinful about the Tree in and of itself. In fact, Scripture says that they could eat of any tree. It almost seems to imply that eventually, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would be given to them.
But Adam and Eve ate prematurely. Jesus waited on God. He had His Father, God Almighty, turn his back on Him. Jesus suffered through fasting, rejection, and even a death much more painful than we can imagine. Yet He was patient. He waited on God. Adam and Eve on the other hand did not wait on God, and prematurely ate from the forbidden fruit.
So what applications can we take from this? I think we need to wait for God. Do not prematurely rush into anything. This could be true whether it’s work, relationship issues, marriage, leaving home, college, etc. How often do people rush into things, especially relationships? And how often do they work? A lot of people rush into going to a high-level university, and find themselves back home with no degree and a whole lot of debt two years later (I hope this does not happen to me!!). People often think they can wake up with a good job, instead of perhaps starting at minimum wage and then working up the line to have a good full time job. People often rush into thinking they should move away from their house. Home is not big enough. Their family is not good enough. But most eighteen year-olds are not mature enough to be all on their own. Many people rush into taking part in marital fruits prior to marriage, instead of waiting until real vows have been spoken. [I actually think this is very symbolic to the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden. They both deal with life, some sort of lust, something is good and moral but only after a certain waiting time, and in a sense, both deal with marriage – our marriages here on earth, and man’s relationship with God similarly to how the Church is the Bride of Christ.]
Society teaches us to rush. It teaches us that we must find our own happiness. That we can tell ourselves what is right and wrong. It teaches us that we become our own gods. But our society is in many ways Adam’s Serpent. Jesus responded by giving Scripture to Satan. So when Satan in the disguise of society and her conventional wisdom tells us not to wait, tell us to be only our own, and all of the other popular rhetoric, shun it away with the Word of God, so that you may be equipped for every good work (II Timothy 3:16-17).
So I encourage you to wait on God. Wait on Him to give you what you need. He will take care of you. He takes care of the birds care-free, so He will take all the more care of you (Matthew 6:25-34). And ultimately, we will reach our greatest treasures in Heaven and the Final Resurrection (Matthew 6:19-21). And when you are patient, God will allow you to have true Dominion. We will then inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5 tells us that it is the meek of all people who will inherit the earth. So wait for God; do not prematurely take part in the pleasures of this world. Allow God to give you all the joy you need. Easier said than done, but certainly a nice goal.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
Pray for our Troops
August 17, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Politics of Racism
The Politics of Racism
This will probably a long in-depth blog and might bore you. But I do believe that if you have patience and try to follow this, then it should (hopefully!) be thought provoking, interesting, and possibly even worth your time.
Clifton Gardner did a similar piece on this (1) in which takes up much less of your time to read. I will try to expound upon Clifton's points, and go into deeper detail.
His point was that liberalism is actually filled with much more racism than conservatism, and that, conservatism at its truest is actually not racist at all, despite what the liberals and the media tell you about how conservatives are passionless, authoritarian, rich, white, idiots from the South.
But I will go into deeper points, discussing what worldview and religion have to do with this, and I will be fair. I will give criticism to conservatives when they need it, and I will not bash every liberal in this world as a racist. I will only blame the liberals worthy of being held a racist as a racist, and the rest; I will simply try to inform politely.
But let me explain my politics, which I consider to be more or less conservative, although I may not fit in exactly with every so-called conservative today. It begins with my Christian worldview.
I believe that God created this world and all that is in it. That includes me; that includes you. I can only trust Him for my life, and give thanks ultimately to Him for the blessings upon this life of liberty and property He has given to me. I believe that I, like all other people (except Jesus), am a sinner who deserves Hell, and can only be saved by the blood of Christ. In the New Covenant, this salvation is open to those of all races, both to men and women, from all cultures, ways of life, etc., and can be received simply through faith in Christ. The theology of predestination might could be argued (that is, God predestines His people from before all worlds, so salvation is in God's Hand), but even yet, since we would not know who the elect were, we must assume as if this salvation is offered to all, and must preach the Gospel to everyone as if they can receive it. Obviously, this is not racist.
Now to some, this Christian worldview supposedly leads to the conservative politics of forcing Christianity, hating those who may not believe exactly as they do, etc. But that is not where it leads me or many other Bible-believing conservatives. Here is where it leads me:
God created everyone, and He created him or her equally.
God created everyone good, but each man has responsibility for his sinful nature, and must call upon God to have it forgiven.
God gave us certain Rights under His Law. The core Rights He gave us are the Rights to life, liberty, and property.
The way each individual exercises these Rights is between him and God. He must make his decisions and take responsibility for his actions before God.
But we have a little problem: men being sinners, will want to naturally use force against others to achieve their ends, something they do not have the Right to do under God's Law. Taking the life of someone is murder. Taking their liberty is slavery. And finally, taking their property is theft. All of these things (murder, slavery, and theft) can be used to achieve one's ends at the expense of others. But God works in very subtle ways, and is not going to strike someone down the moment they kill someone. Before the Flood, God pretty much let it go. But when it got out of hand, God sent a flood to destroy the evil of the world. Afterwards, He promised not to destroy the world again like that, so He gave man the authority to set up government for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).
Therefore governments purpose is to secure everyone, of all races, their Rights to life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of their own happiness.
But we have a catch 22. Government is comprised of sinful men. Sinful men usurp one's Rights. Therefore there must be limits on government. In America, we have a Constitution that limits the Central government to their authorities. We have checks and balances. Also, as written in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow bad government (certainly as the Declaration says it is wise to suffer under sufferable, for no government is perfect, but there are times to overthrow a bad government). Not all governments do or should limit themselves in the exact way, but a limited government is important so that the government protects our Rights, and does not usurp them.
To sum all of this up, let's look at the Declaration of Independence itself:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Now within this Christian worldview that establishes this basic form of government, there are some questions that still linger and are harder to answer. What about war? Immigration? What about social issues, as today we have the homosexual marriage debates, debates over drug laws, abortion, etc.?
With war, we are killing people, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that destroy life and property, and we are sometimes withholding the liberty of our soldiers. Yet at the same time, it is the duty of the government to protect us at home, and sometimes war becomes the only rational way. Therefore, "war as a last resort" is generally the battle cry for foreign policy. Putting that in perspective in today's world is very hard to do.
Immigration is hard because we should want to offer liberty (although ultimately liberty comes only from God – 2 Corinthians 3: 17) to everyone. We certainly do not want to take it away from those who seek it – even foreigners. But at the same time we must be willing to guard our borders from any enemy we may have. If we have no border, we essentially have no nation or government, and that goes against the Christian worldview.
Social issues are hard as well. Homosexual marriage does not directly take away my life, liberty, or property, but it by no means is apart of the conservative Christian morals that come from the Christian faith, and this relativism can sometimes be enough to destroy a nation. (Abortion would be different, because it involves taking life, which should definitely be protected by government and law.)
And all of the civil rights battles, the civil war, and all of the other political turmoil that has gone on, particularly in the conservative South, does lead some in their right minds to assume that the South or that conservatives our racist. I had one person from Connecticut say that her Aunt, or someone or another told her that a lot of people in the South are racists. And although I find it a bit of a smudge on the South, and very untrue, to someone who does not understand the complicated issues and has had a one-sided education on the "Civil War," it may seem like a fair statement.
And while certainly I am no liberal on the issues I listed above (war, immigration, homosexual marriage), I do think it is possible that some conservatives are a bit too hard-nosed the other way. I would not consider it racist that they support the war, want real tough immigration laws, and are morally and legally against homosexual marriage, but perhaps some conservatives do border a small amount of bigotry, or if not, perhaps it can easily be seen that way to someone who grew up hearing liberal propaganda.
So I have been fair. I have, to the degree that I can without falling over dead, put myself in the shoes of a liberal, and seen how some conservatives may could border or appear to border being bullies, or being bigots of some sort. But now it is time to look at the liberal point of view, and show its racism. And I will begin with none other than an atheistic worldview.
How do liberalism and atheism go together? Liberals are all for giving, right? And isn't that what Christianity is largely about? Helping the poor, providing equality for everyone, etc.? And how would racism fit into this?
I am not going to say that all liberals are racist, or that all liberals are atheists, or even all atheists are racist, or any other combination of the three there is. But the platform of modern liberalism is very atheistic, and very racist in its essence. How so?
Well imagine that there is no God (atheism). We are all here by the chance of predestined molecules that arranged in the way they did to form us. There is no real standard of good and evil, we must make it for ourselves. Furthermore, Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" becomes supreme, where if one group of species can survive over another by force, then so be it. And if that worked for different kinds of fish, then it could work (though no one would admit it), for humans today, where one race can claim superiority over another. Consider what Darwin had to say: "Whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." (2).
And with no God, we have no destiny, nothing to live for other than today, etc. We live for ourselves; for today; that's it.
So what is the purpose of government, if it is not to punish wrongdoers as Paul spoke of in some of his writings? In an atheistic worldview, there is either no government (because there is no real "sin"), or there is an all-powerful government, because it is now the government's job to become god. This sounds like modern liberalism: moral relativism, yet the government controls wages and measures equality, and, to put radically, teaches racial superiority. Abortion is kind of the climax of it, because it teaches both moral relativism, and it teaches that the government can strip an unborn child of its Right to life. It teaches that we can by force take away the unwanted children of the world.
And government programs that liberals ask for fits right in with this atheistic racism. Equal opportunity becomes equal wages, or at least that's what it seems. It's not the government's job to control wages. Our property is between God and us. The government, at the very least, stands as the middleman between God and us in the world of modern liberalism. Think about it: liberals call conservatives racists, when it are the liberals themselves asking to distribute wealth by force from one group of people to another based on race and/or social status. That is the real racism!
Government control of education, as offered by the liberals, is atheistic, and in a sense, racist. It puts all of man into on common basket for the government to control. It strips poorer children the opportunity to receive better education because they are stuck in the bad sides of town with bad school zones. So much for the cultural diversity that liberals are supposedly for. So much for the freedom to choose our religion that liberals are supposedly for. We are stuck being taught what the government wants us to be taught – whether it is politics, religion, etc.
Modern liberalism took hold in the mid nineteenth century, mostly in the North. Interestingly enough, they were called Republicans. Northern intellectuals were the one's who founded government schools. Darwin, someone of the middle of this century, brought evolution to a whole new perspective. Even Abraham Lincoln, America's "hero" and the one who supposedly saved the blacks, was swept into the idea of racial superiority. Consider his words:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (3)
Strong words for the man who "united" America. Of course, Lincoln was also the person who waged the bloodiest war in American history.
This Republican Party stayed strong in the North until the Democrats in the South lost touch with reality and taught the things this new liberalism began to teach. Republicanism began to change into what it is today: a moderate change from oppressive liberalism. The ideas of liberalism then spread to people such as Karl Marx among others who took the ideas into a more radical approach. These liberal extremist ideas were coined with terms such as "communism," "socialism" and "fascism," although even many Republicans today are fascists. It becomes easier to see how atheism and communism fit together, but modern liberalism is really not far from communism or socialism. Consider the song "Imagine" by John Lennon:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
It's easy to see the atheism in this, but Lennon was a communist as well, a strong supporter of Karl Marx. And the idea of the world being one is the same utopian propaganda we hear from modern liberalism. The idea that the government can take away hunger and greed is part of modern liberal propaganda. John Lennon would not be far from modern liberalism.
To be fair, I understand that many liberals are simply misguided by the attractive propaganda taught by modern liberal leaders. It sounds good to think that the government can solve our problems; it sounds nice and fair that we'd all make the same amount of money; and it seems to be only descent not to judge homosexuals, people who put drugs in their body, etc. (And for the record, I have not judged any of these people in this blog or even mentioned government control in the matter anyway, simply that I do disagree with their choices by a real moral standard). And it's easy for me being brought up a white Southerner to be conservative, as I'm sure it is easy for someone of the Northeast to be liberal. For some, liberalism teaches we're all one, so we must all live as one, which would include wages, etc. Even some who borrow from atheism only do so thinking it makes us one and equal, not realizing that atheism teaches more racism than Christianity which is offered to all groups and races of people. I think this is the reason for much tension in liberalism. Liberalism teaches some sort of racial superiority that the government can control; yet it teaches some sort of moral relativism in which you can be whoever you want to be. And atheism is the cornerstone to both of these ideas. So it makes me wonder, inasmuch as liberals justify homosexuality, a woman's "right" to choose, "equal opportunity" for minorities, if liberals really have a hypocritical motivation, being to destroy these things. Perhaps conservatives are the better friends to the homosexual, minorities, and a struggling soon-to-be mother, because they offer a true and real alternative that is much better than a hypocritical liberal answer.
These issues are confusing, and can sometimes be taken both ways, so I understand some liberals are simply mistaken and misguided (as are some conservatives on tough issues as well). But I have done a great deal to show that liberalism is founded much in atheism, which can in the long run be the most racist worldview there is. The politics I believe in, however, based on my Christian worldview, is by no means racist. I look at people as people, not classes or groups; majorities and minorities; whites and blacks; etc. People are people created in the image of God – from conception, I believe – with unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and property, or perhaps more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. You can call this conservative, libertarian, Constitutional, or for all I care, liberal. There was a time when these beliefs were considered liberal or Democratic (but if you called me one of those, please put "classical" before it). But I am unable to stand on the platform of modern liberalism because it goes against who I am, my core beliefs, etc. I am forced to believe in small government, free markets, and a meaningful Constitution, none of which are racist.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless you
Pray for our Troops
August 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Works Cited:
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=20692146491&subj=518112463&index=1
(2) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
(3) http://home.att.net/~howingtons/abe.html
More suggested articles:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/justice
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
This will probably a long in-depth blog and might bore you. But I do believe that if you have patience and try to follow this, then it should (hopefully!) be thought provoking, interesting, and possibly even worth your time.
Clifton Gardner did a similar piece on this (1) in which takes up much less of your time to read. I will try to expound upon Clifton's points, and go into deeper detail.
His point was that liberalism is actually filled with much more racism than conservatism, and that, conservatism at its truest is actually not racist at all, despite what the liberals and the media tell you about how conservatives are passionless, authoritarian, rich, white, idiots from the South.
But I will go into deeper points, discussing what worldview and religion have to do with this, and I will be fair. I will give criticism to conservatives when they need it, and I will not bash every liberal in this world as a racist. I will only blame the liberals worthy of being held a racist as a racist, and the rest; I will simply try to inform politely.
But let me explain my politics, which I consider to be more or less conservative, although I may not fit in exactly with every so-called conservative today. It begins with my Christian worldview.
I believe that God created this world and all that is in it. That includes me; that includes you. I can only trust Him for my life, and give thanks ultimately to Him for the blessings upon this life of liberty and property He has given to me. I believe that I, like all other people (except Jesus), am a sinner who deserves Hell, and can only be saved by the blood of Christ. In the New Covenant, this salvation is open to those of all races, both to men and women, from all cultures, ways of life, etc., and can be received simply through faith in Christ. The theology of predestination might could be argued (that is, God predestines His people from before all worlds, so salvation is in God's Hand), but even yet, since we would not know who the elect were, we must assume as if this salvation is offered to all, and must preach the Gospel to everyone as if they can receive it. Obviously, this is not racist.
Now to some, this Christian worldview supposedly leads to the conservative politics of forcing Christianity, hating those who may not believe exactly as they do, etc. But that is not where it leads me or many other Bible-believing conservatives. Here is where it leads me:
God created everyone, and He created him or her equally.
God created everyone good, but each man has responsibility for his sinful nature, and must call upon God to have it forgiven.
God gave us certain Rights under His Law. The core Rights He gave us are the Rights to life, liberty, and property.
The way each individual exercises these Rights is between him and God. He must make his decisions and take responsibility for his actions before God.
But we have a little problem: men being sinners, will want to naturally use force against others to achieve their ends, something they do not have the Right to do under God's Law. Taking the life of someone is murder. Taking their liberty is slavery. And finally, taking their property is theft. All of these things (murder, slavery, and theft) can be used to achieve one's ends at the expense of others. But God works in very subtle ways, and is not going to strike someone down the moment they kill someone. Before the Flood, God pretty much let it go. But when it got out of hand, God sent a flood to destroy the evil of the world. Afterwards, He promised not to destroy the world again like that, so He gave man the authority to set up government for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).
Therefore governments purpose is to secure everyone, of all races, their Rights to life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of their own happiness.
But we have a catch 22. Government is comprised of sinful men. Sinful men usurp one's Rights. Therefore there must be limits on government. In America, we have a Constitution that limits the Central government to their authorities. We have checks and balances. Also, as written in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow bad government (certainly as the Declaration says it is wise to suffer under sufferable, for no government is perfect, but there are times to overthrow a bad government). Not all governments do or should limit themselves in the exact way, but a limited government is important so that the government protects our Rights, and does not usurp them.
To sum all of this up, let's look at the Declaration of Independence itself:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Now within this Christian worldview that establishes this basic form of government, there are some questions that still linger and are harder to answer. What about war? Immigration? What about social issues, as today we have the homosexual marriage debates, debates over drug laws, abortion, etc.?
With war, we are killing people, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that destroy life and property, and we are sometimes withholding the liberty of our soldiers. Yet at the same time, it is the duty of the government to protect us at home, and sometimes war becomes the only rational way. Therefore, "war as a last resort" is generally the battle cry for foreign policy. Putting that in perspective in today's world is very hard to do.
Immigration is hard because we should want to offer liberty (although ultimately liberty comes only from God – 2 Corinthians 3: 17) to everyone. We certainly do not want to take it away from those who seek it – even foreigners. But at the same time we must be willing to guard our borders from any enemy we may have. If we have no border, we essentially have no nation or government, and that goes against the Christian worldview.
Social issues are hard as well. Homosexual marriage does not directly take away my life, liberty, or property, but it by no means is apart of the conservative Christian morals that come from the Christian faith, and this relativism can sometimes be enough to destroy a nation. (Abortion would be different, because it involves taking life, which should definitely be protected by government and law.)
And all of the civil rights battles, the civil war, and all of the other political turmoil that has gone on, particularly in the conservative South, does lead some in their right minds to assume that the South or that conservatives our racist. I had one person from Connecticut say that her Aunt, or someone or another told her that a lot of people in the South are racists. And although I find it a bit of a smudge on the South, and very untrue, to someone who does not understand the complicated issues and has had a one-sided education on the "Civil War," it may seem like a fair statement.
And while certainly I am no liberal on the issues I listed above (war, immigration, homosexual marriage), I do think it is possible that some conservatives are a bit too hard-nosed the other way. I would not consider it racist that they support the war, want real tough immigration laws, and are morally and legally against homosexual marriage, but perhaps some conservatives do border a small amount of bigotry, or if not, perhaps it can easily be seen that way to someone who grew up hearing liberal propaganda.
So I have been fair. I have, to the degree that I can without falling over dead, put myself in the shoes of a liberal, and seen how some conservatives may could border or appear to border being bullies, or being bigots of some sort. But now it is time to look at the liberal point of view, and show its racism. And I will begin with none other than an atheistic worldview.
How do liberalism and atheism go together? Liberals are all for giving, right? And isn't that what Christianity is largely about? Helping the poor, providing equality for everyone, etc.? And how would racism fit into this?
I am not going to say that all liberals are racist, or that all liberals are atheists, or even all atheists are racist, or any other combination of the three there is. But the platform of modern liberalism is very atheistic, and very racist in its essence. How so?
Well imagine that there is no God (atheism). We are all here by the chance of predestined molecules that arranged in the way they did to form us. There is no real standard of good and evil, we must make it for ourselves. Furthermore, Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" becomes supreme, where if one group of species can survive over another by force, then so be it. And if that worked for different kinds of fish, then it could work (though no one would admit it), for humans today, where one race can claim superiority over another. Consider what Darwin had to say: "Whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." (2).
And with no God, we have no destiny, nothing to live for other than today, etc. We live for ourselves; for today; that's it.
So what is the purpose of government, if it is not to punish wrongdoers as Paul spoke of in some of his writings? In an atheistic worldview, there is either no government (because there is no real "sin"), or there is an all-powerful government, because it is now the government's job to become god. This sounds like modern liberalism: moral relativism, yet the government controls wages and measures equality, and, to put radically, teaches racial superiority. Abortion is kind of the climax of it, because it teaches both moral relativism, and it teaches that the government can strip an unborn child of its Right to life. It teaches that we can by force take away the unwanted children of the world.
And government programs that liberals ask for fits right in with this atheistic racism. Equal opportunity becomes equal wages, or at least that's what it seems. It's not the government's job to control wages. Our property is between God and us. The government, at the very least, stands as the middleman between God and us in the world of modern liberalism. Think about it: liberals call conservatives racists, when it are the liberals themselves asking to distribute wealth by force from one group of people to another based on race and/or social status. That is the real racism!
Government control of education, as offered by the liberals, is atheistic, and in a sense, racist. It puts all of man into on common basket for the government to control. It strips poorer children the opportunity to receive better education because they are stuck in the bad sides of town with bad school zones. So much for the cultural diversity that liberals are supposedly for. So much for the freedom to choose our religion that liberals are supposedly for. We are stuck being taught what the government wants us to be taught – whether it is politics, religion, etc.
Modern liberalism took hold in the mid nineteenth century, mostly in the North. Interestingly enough, they were called Republicans. Northern intellectuals were the one's who founded government schools. Darwin, someone of the middle of this century, brought evolution to a whole new perspective. Even Abraham Lincoln, America's "hero" and the one who supposedly saved the blacks, was swept into the idea of racial superiority. Consider his words:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (3)
Strong words for the man who "united" America. Of course, Lincoln was also the person who waged the bloodiest war in American history.
This Republican Party stayed strong in the North until the Democrats in the South lost touch with reality and taught the things this new liberalism began to teach. Republicanism began to change into what it is today: a moderate change from oppressive liberalism. The ideas of liberalism then spread to people such as Karl Marx among others who took the ideas into a more radical approach. These liberal extremist ideas were coined with terms such as "communism," "socialism" and "fascism," although even many Republicans today are fascists. It becomes easier to see how atheism and communism fit together, but modern liberalism is really not far from communism or socialism. Consider the song "Imagine" by John Lennon:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
It's easy to see the atheism in this, but Lennon was a communist as well, a strong supporter of Karl Marx. And the idea of the world being one is the same utopian propaganda we hear from modern liberalism. The idea that the government can take away hunger and greed is part of modern liberal propaganda. John Lennon would not be far from modern liberalism.
To be fair, I understand that many liberals are simply misguided by the attractive propaganda taught by modern liberal leaders. It sounds good to think that the government can solve our problems; it sounds nice and fair that we'd all make the same amount of money; and it seems to be only descent not to judge homosexuals, people who put drugs in their body, etc. (And for the record, I have not judged any of these people in this blog or even mentioned government control in the matter anyway, simply that I do disagree with their choices by a real moral standard). And it's easy for me being brought up a white Southerner to be conservative, as I'm sure it is easy for someone of the Northeast to be liberal. For some, liberalism teaches we're all one, so we must all live as one, which would include wages, etc. Even some who borrow from atheism only do so thinking it makes us one and equal, not realizing that atheism teaches more racism than Christianity which is offered to all groups and races of people. I think this is the reason for much tension in liberalism. Liberalism teaches some sort of racial superiority that the government can control; yet it teaches some sort of moral relativism in which you can be whoever you want to be. And atheism is the cornerstone to both of these ideas. So it makes me wonder, inasmuch as liberals justify homosexuality, a woman's "right" to choose, "equal opportunity" for minorities, if liberals really have a hypocritical motivation, being to destroy these things. Perhaps conservatives are the better friends to the homosexual, minorities, and a struggling soon-to-be mother, because they offer a true and real alternative that is much better than a hypocritical liberal answer.
These issues are confusing, and can sometimes be taken both ways, so I understand some liberals are simply mistaken and misguided (as are some conservatives on tough issues as well). But I have done a great deal to show that liberalism is founded much in atheism, which can in the long run be the most racist worldview there is. The politics I believe in, however, based on my Christian worldview, is by no means racist. I look at people as people, not classes or groups; majorities and minorities; whites and blacks; etc. People are people created in the image of God – from conception, I believe – with unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and property, or perhaps more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. You can call this conservative, libertarian, Constitutional, or for all I care, liberal. There was a time when these beliefs were considered liberal or Democratic (but if you called me one of those, please put "classical" before it). But I am unable to stand on the platform of modern liberalism because it goes against who I am, my core beliefs, etc. I am forced to believe in small government, free markets, and a meaningful Constitution, none of which are racist.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless you
Pray for our Troops
August 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Works Cited:
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=20692146491&subj=518112463&index=1
(2) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
(3) http://home.att.net/~howingtons/abe.html
More suggested articles:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/justice
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Top 11 Ways To Destroy America
Top 11 Ways to Destroy America.
I don’t know about you, but I love America. But if you do want to see America destroy or fade away, then rest assure because I have given you 11 ways to successfully destroy America. And if you are one of those like me who love America, as I’m sure you are, then do not support any of these 11 ways. I wanted to keep this to ten, but when I came up with the eleventh way, I did not know which one to take out. So we’ll just have 11. I am trying to order this so that as you get closer to # 1, the more important it is. But this is hard because these are all so important. So may the countdown begin.
#11: Teach political correctness. One thing that can cause America to fade away is being politically correct. It’s hard to say exactly what political correctness is, but it generally has to do with teaching a relative moral or philosophical thought, that is, that there is no real standard of truth. This can destroy our country from within when we justify homosexual relations, abortion, or the like. Now this is not to say that anything not politically correct is good. Some people make outlandish statements that are really wrong. But we should stop forcing ourselves to avoid the truth in our words in the name of not offending anybody. If the truth offends somebody, I think it can also set them free.
#10: Have a weak border policy. I am by no means an anti-immigrant, or one who blames them for economic downfall and disregard for Patriotism. In fact I have blamed some conservatives for treating the border issue to seriously. I really do not see why we should make English our official language. I see no Constitutional jurisdiction for this, nor do I find it securing that the government should control the way we speak. But we do need some real border philosophy that we can manage, that keeps criminals out of our nation. I don’t think we need a fence, and I do not claim to know exactly how we do it, but we need something better than what we have now. Perhaps even less paper work, because those who avoid easy paperwork are probably coming here for illegal purposes, so that way we will have an idea of who should and should not be here.
For several administrations now, we have failed to get a grip on the border issue. Government hands our money to our immigrants, while citizens turn too far the other way sometimes, bordering (no pun intended) resentment to our immigrants. How about we treat them as human beings, and once they legally become an American, we treat them as Americans like you and I. They have all our privileges, and yet also their own personal responsibility. Until then, this will become a dividing issue at home and abroad, and the legals will be punished for the illegals crime, and the illegals will be rewarded for the legals work.
#9: Elect Barack Obama as President. If you want Hitler as our President, your sadly out of luck. But the good news for you is you just might get the next best thing. Barack Obama is basically a socialist. Think about it: universal healthcare, gun controls, government control of eduction, etc. were some of the same things that people like Karl Marx, John Lennon, et al pushed for.
If you were to take these tips on how to destroy our nation, Barack Obama would be guilty of about all of them. He is already politically correct, although if you analyze his (may I say important meaningful) words, then you will realize he is, in a politically correct way saying, “I AM A SOCIALIST.” Obama would hand out money to immigrants, which is certainly not the best way to handle the issue. And as you follow our future American-destroying tips, you will realize that he is guilty of about all of them as well. I don’t have time to fully explain everything, because I’m limiting each “tip” to just a couple paragraphs or so. But Obama would not be a saviour to our nation. He’s not even sure what his foreign policy is. He’s already flipping on that now. Even if he gets us out of Iraq in a couple years or less, he’ll have us somewhere else we definitely don’t need to be. I don’t think that Obama is the anti-Christ or anything like that, but he’s certainly not America’s saviour.
But the sad thing is, his opponent fascist John McCain is not much better.
#8: Keep the same two-party system monopoly we currently have in politics. Monopolies are never thought of as good things. Especially government controlled monopolies. One of the worst monopolies is when it comes to who will be our leaders. Washington D.C. is filled up with the same air heads year after year only in slightly different order. And our two party system has turned into a one-party system with two branches: the fascists and the socialists.
I think it is time we as American’s stand up and stop voting for the “best” of the two evils. McCain may not be as bad as Obama, and may not destroy the nation as much as quick, but do you really want someone as President who thinks that man can control the weather, and will therefore pass laws regulating your every action in the name of environmentalism? That is crazy, hypocritical, and politically correct all at the same time! Do you want someone who hangs on both sides of the fence as much as McCain? “I want the government to make healthcare more affordable to everyone, so we must give our economy choice” (not exact wording). That is like saying, “I think I should be a communist, but I’ll be fair and let there be some capitalism.” If you read on his website, he speaks of some of the same things Obama would: the government doing stuff for us. He’s no capitalist. He thinks we must sacrifice liberty for security. And while he may, today, claim that he’s pro-life, do you see him really making strides to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
And this is from the best of the two main people running. But fortunately, I have the freedom to vote for someone else, someone better, so that maybe in the long run, we can make a move to overturning this two party monopoly. And I just might exercise that freedom. I recommend that you at least check into that as well, otherwise, us and our posterity will endure the same mess we’ve had for years.
#7: Have the government “fix” our “climate crisis.” One thing I mentioned about McCain is his environmental movements. It scares me to think that the person who may become our next President actually believes that mankind can control the weather. It scares me to think that the government would pass laws about what we can and can not do in the name of environmentalism.
Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t really think that is the case. I see little evidence that we are attributing to warmer weather, much less, that the government should fix it. And I see a lot of circular reasoning in the save-the-climate-freaks. Samford University, which is where I will attend school at in the Fall, gave us summer reading at orientation. The book was about global warming, and is entitled “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” and is written by Elizabeth Kolbert. On page 17, the writer says, “As the climate warms, there is a good chance that these gases will be released into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming.” Think about it, the cause and the result are the same. She is basically saying, “As the earth gets warmer, the earth gets warmer.”
I don’t have a problem with believing that the earth is getting warmer. It seems to be, but then again, some people called the 1800’s the “Little Ice Age.” The earth’s temperatures have varied over the centuries. There are so many questions to answer before assuming that the government should get involved: if the earth is really warming we must ask, “Is it temporary or will it probably continue to warm?” “Is it a bad thing that the earth is warming, or are there some good effects as well?” “Is this man made?” “Can the government really fix the problem?” “If the government can fix the problem, do the good results outweigh our sacrifice?” Just because the earth is warming, there is no reason to assume that the government should be involved. I’ll let God control the weather, not Congress or the President.
#6: Continue to inflate the economy with fiat money and abandon the gold standard. Have you seen the commercials telling you to buy gold? Probably so. There is actually probably some truth in them. The value of the dollar has gone down so low, meaning you could get so much money for gold, which never really looses its value. Unfortunately, legal tender laws and the federal reserve hinder gold from really being used in circulation. We are left with the meaningless inflated paper that we call money. And, of course, its value has dropped.
Think about the Great Depression. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson created the federal reserve. All of a sudden we had a lot of money, which was good for most of the 1920’s. They were the “roaring twenties.” But in 1929 the dollar had lost so much value, that all the success of the economy now came back to haunt them. It’s like buying everything on a credit card with no limits. It’s all great, until the credit card bill comes in!
Abandoning gold is a common mistake of nations, and America has been no different. It started early on, one of the few mistakes our Founding Fathers made. The Confederates made this mistake fighting for their independence, and it weakened their economy. The problem was worsened in 1913. Finally in 1965 quarters, once made of silver (at least some form of precious metal), were no longer made of silver. Look at a $20 bill from say, 1950. It basically says it is redeemable for real money, gold. Now, $20 bills no longer say that, because we don’t have the gold to back up our money! This leads to high gas prices, just to name one of the many affects.
If we have a solid monetary money system, we would earn what we get. If anything, money will gain value as more and more people are fighting for the same dollar. The dollar has more credit at home and around the world. Saving money would be good. Under an inflated economy, we’re always one step under the current. It’s basically a hidden tax – perhaps the worst form of tax there is.
#5: Have a lolly-gagging foreign policy. Our name around the world is important, and we don’t help our case by having a weak military. And we certainly don’t help when we think we’re invincible.
We don’t have a weak military, but it seems to be weakening. What happened to Ronald Reagan’s strategy of “we win they lose?” What happened to winning a war without firing a shot? What happened to going to war, taking care of business, and then leave and send our troops home to safety? Now we go to the Middle East to build nations. Going over there to protect ourselves may not be a bad thing. I was for that on 9/11/01. But we have no moral right to build nations. We don’t need to make enemies overseas. I’m not sure we’re much safer now than we were on 9/12/01. “Gentle Giant” is not the best description of American right now, although it probably should be where we want to head. Feared and respected; yet respectable.
If we bring everyone home now, then there will probably be a lot of chaos. But building nations over there makes the chaos worse. And certainly while there is a time for war, our ultimate goal should be that we have little war. But whatever the case, when we are in war, it should not be lolly-gagging. We need to be the strong nation America is.
#4: Practice Socialist Economics. One way to destroy America, which comes from within, is to practice socialist economic policy. It’s the policy of Barack Obama. It’s about government control over the economy. But this is not good. Free markets work better. In a free market, we make our own choices, and since we make them for our own benefit, we will probably make beneficial choices. The government will not make choices better than us.
Besides this, isn’t it stealing to take from one person and give it to the other? And that is the philosophy of socialists and communists. We take the money (supposedly from the rich), and give it to the poor. Now it sounds good, but I’d rather this be charity than government forced taxation. No matter who you are, who you take from, and who you give it to in return, stealing is stealing. Even if 51% of the vote said it wasn’t!
The “common storehouse” did not work in the days of John Smith. It taught laziness. The same is today. If you know you’ll get something from the government, then why work?
But even things like minimum wage and price caps are socialistic, and they don’t work. Prices will go up with minimum wage. The worker not worth the new minimum wage will be out of a job. And companies will go out of business with price caps. If you want lower gas prices, stop inflating the economy, and allow us to drill where there is oil, increasing supply, lowering demand, lowering prices.
#3: Have the government continue to control education, education our children. One of the scariest things ever is to think that the government controls the education of children. But you know what? That’s how it is in America today!
Think about it. The government takes your money, supposedly gives it to education, forces children to attend one certain school (monopoly) unless they pay extra for a private school, and then hires teachers who then teach children. But I don’t want to be educated by the government. One person, I can’t remember who it was, said that “Man is better not educated than to be educated by his rulers.” And we worry about God in schools; prayer in schools; what side of history you teach in schools, etc. But if we let individual schools decide these things, and not the government, and let you decide where you go to school, then we wouldn’t have near as many of these problems. The free market would handle it.
Education is too important to be left to a free market, you say. Well I say that the education of our children is too important to be left in the hands of a few greedy politicians.
#2: Abandon the Constitution. This is being done today. Our leaders take Oaths of Office with their hand on the Word of God, swearing to uphold the Constitution. But I’m not sure how much they mean it. Their actions don’t seem to show that they mean it much. The Federal government controlling education is unconstitutional. Roe vs. Wade was (and is) unconstitutional. There are prescribed ways to pass laws and go to war, and we have done much of that in an unconstitutional way.
And how many voters really take time to think about who the most Constitutional candidate is? We have abandoned one of the most important documents ever in our history. And being an American without caring about the Constitution is like being a Christian without caring about the Bible.
I know that the Constitutional is fallible. It was written by men, not divinely inspired per se. But it is important. And when we abandon this document, we really abandon a large amount of what America is. This leads to our socialist economic policy, our inflated fiat money system (which is unconstitutional, since government can only “coin” money constitutionally), our bad education system, etc. Let’s restore the Constitution.
Fortunately there was one candidate who wanted to restore the Constitution. It was Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he only received little votes.
# 1: Take God away from public life. The best way to destroy America, is to force God out of our public life. This hurts us individually, but also as a nation as a whole, by abandoning much of our worldview in fighting for independence. The ideas of limited government and liberty which we cherish come from a Christian worldview. God gives us liberties, and governments protect them, not usurp them. And there is nothing unconstitutional about this. Congress shall not pass a law regarding religion, but that does not mean that there can be no religion, or that Congress shall force religion out, or even that states can have their own establishments of religion (although it would not be wise at this time and place for any state to establish a religion). But if we remove “In God We Trust” from coins, we may start trusting in men, which will give us a big utalitarian government. Let God control the weather, have final vengance, and let us in the name of God individually give to the poor, not the government who is comprised of foolish sinful men. To save America, we must trust in God, and keep Him in public life – not by force, but certainly not by force shall we remove Him, and His blessings, who has truly shed His grace on thee, America. God bless America.
So there you go. Hope you enjoyed that. Let me know what you think, agree or disagree. I’ll be happy to listen to what you have to say.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
July 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I don’t know about you, but I love America. But if you do want to see America destroy or fade away, then rest assure because I have given you 11 ways to successfully destroy America. And if you are one of those like me who love America, as I’m sure you are, then do not support any of these 11 ways. I wanted to keep this to ten, but when I came up with the eleventh way, I did not know which one to take out. So we’ll just have 11. I am trying to order this so that as you get closer to # 1, the more important it is. But this is hard because these are all so important. So may the countdown begin.
#11: Teach political correctness. One thing that can cause America to fade away is being politically correct. It’s hard to say exactly what political correctness is, but it generally has to do with teaching a relative moral or philosophical thought, that is, that there is no real standard of truth. This can destroy our country from within when we justify homosexual relations, abortion, or the like. Now this is not to say that anything not politically correct is good. Some people make outlandish statements that are really wrong. But we should stop forcing ourselves to avoid the truth in our words in the name of not offending anybody. If the truth offends somebody, I think it can also set them free.
#10: Have a weak border policy. I am by no means an anti-immigrant, or one who blames them for economic downfall and disregard for Patriotism. In fact I have blamed some conservatives for treating the border issue to seriously. I really do not see why we should make English our official language. I see no Constitutional jurisdiction for this, nor do I find it securing that the government should control the way we speak. But we do need some real border philosophy that we can manage, that keeps criminals out of our nation. I don’t think we need a fence, and I do not claim to know exactly how we do it, but we need something better than what we have now. Perhaps even less paper work, because those who avoid easy paperwork are probably coming here for illegal purposes, so that way we will have an idea of who should and should not be here.
For several administrations now, we have failed to get a grip on the border issue. Government hands our money to our immigrants, while citizens turn too far the other way sometimes, bordering (no pun intended) resentment to our immigrants. How about we treat them as human beings, and once they legally become an American, we treat them as Americans like you and I. They have all our privileges, and yet also their own personal responsibility. Until then, this will become a dividing issue at home and abroad, and the legals will be punished for the illegals crime, and the illegals will be rewarded for the legals work.
#9: Elect Barack Obama as President. If you want Hitler as our President, your sadly out of luck. But the good news for you is you just might get the next best thing. Barack Obama is basically a socialist. Think about it: universal healthcare, gun controls, government control of eduction, etc. were some of the same things that people like Karl Marx, John Lennon, et al pushed for.
If you were to take these tips on how to destroy our nation, Barack Obama would be guilty of about all of them. He is already politically correct, although if you analyze his (may I say important meaningful) words, then you will realize he is, in a politically correct way saying, “I AM A SOCIALIST.” Obama would hand out money to immigrants, which is certainly not the best way to handle the issue. And as you follow our future American-destroying tips, you will realize that he is guilty of about all of them as well. I don’t have time to fully explain everything, because I’m limiting each “tip” to just a couple paragraphs or so. But Obama would not be a saviour to our nation. He’s not even sure what his foreign policy is. He’s already flipping on that now. Even if he gets us out of Iraq in a couple years or less, he’ll have us somewhere else we definitely don’t need to be. I don’t think that Obama is the anti-Christ or anything like that, but he’s certainly not America’s saviour.
But the sad thing is, his opponent fascist John McCain is not much better.
#8: Keep the same two-party system monopoly we currently have in politics. Monopolies are never thought of as good things. Especially government controlled monopolies. One of the worst monopolies is when it comes to who will be our leaders. Washington D.C. is filled up with the same air heads year after year only in slightly different order. And our two party system has turned into a one-party system with two branches: the fascists and the socialists.
I think it is time we as American’s stand up and stop voting for the “best” of the two evils. McCain may not be as bad as Obama, and may not destroy the nation as much as quick, but do you really want someone as President who thinks that man can control the weather, and will therefore pass laws regulating your every action in the name of environmentalism? That is crazy, hypocritical, and politically correct all at the same time! Do you want someone who hangs on both sides of the fence as much as McCain? “I want the government to make healthcare more affordable to everyone, so we must give our economy choice” (not exact wording). That is like saying, “I think I should be a communist, but I’ll be fair and let there be some capitalism.” If you read on his website, he speaks of some of the same things Obama would: the government doing stuff for us. He’s no capitalist. He thinks we must sacrifice liberty for security. And while he may, today, claim that he’s pro-life, do you see him really making strides to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
And this is from the best of the two main people running. But fortunately, I have the freedom to vote for someone else, someone better, so that maybe in the long run, we can make a move to overturning this two party monopoly. And I just might exercise that freedom. I recommend that you at least check into that as well, otherwise, us and our posterity will endure the same mess we’ve had for years.
#7: Have the government “fix” our “climate crisis.” One thing I mentioned about McCain is his environmental movements. It scares me to think that the person who may become our next President actually believes that mankind can control the weather. It scares me to think that the government would pass laws about what we can and can not do in the name of environmentalism.
Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t really think that is the case. I see little evidence that we are attributing to warmer weather, much less, that the government should fix it. And I see a lot of circular reasoning in the save-the-climate-freaks. Samford University, which is where I will attend school at in the Fall, gave us summer reading at orientation. The book was about global warming, and is entitled “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” and is written by Elizabeth Kolbert. On page 17, the writer says, “As the climate warms, there is a good chance that these gases will be released into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming.” Think about it, the cause and the result are the same. She is basically saying, “As the earth gets warmer, the earth gets warmer.”
I don’t have a problem with believing that the earth is getting warmer. It seems to be, but then again, some people called the 1800’s the “Little Ice Age.” The earth’s temperatures have varied over the centuries. There are so many questions to answer before assuming that the government should get involved: if the earth is really warming we must ask, “Is it temporary or will it probably continue to warm?” “Is it a bad thing that the earth is warming, or are there some good effects as well?” “Is this man made?” “Can the government really fix the problem?” “If the government can fix the problem, do the good results outweigh our sacrifice?” Just because the earth is warming, there is no reason to assume that the government should be involved. I’ll let God control the weather, not Congress or the President.
#6: Continue to inflate the economy with fiat money and abandon the gold standard. Have you seen the commercials telling you to buy gold? Probably so. There is actually probably some truth in them. The value of the dollar has gone down so low, meaning you could get so much money for gold, which never really looses its value. Unfortunately, legal tender laws and the federal reserve hinder gold from really being used in circulation. We are left with the meaningless inflated paper that we call money. And, of course, its value has dropped.
Think about the Great Depression. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson created the federal reserve. All of a sudden we had a lot of money, which was good for most of the 1920’s. They were the “roaring twenties.” But in 1929 the dollar had lost so much value, that all the success of the economy now came back to haunt them. It’s like buying everything on a credit card with no limits. It’s all great, until the credit card bill comes in!
Abandoning gold is a common mistake of nations, and America has been no different. It started early on, one of the few mistakes our Founding Fathers made. The Confederates made this mistake fighting for their independence, and it weakened their economy. The problem was worsened in 1913. Finally in 1965 quarters, once made of silver (at least some form of precious metal), were no longer made of silver. Look at a $20 bill from say, 1950. It basically says it is redeemable for real money, gold. Now, $20 bills no longer say that, because we don’t have the gold to back up our money! This leads to high gas prices, just to name one of the many affects.
If we have a solid monetary money system, we would earn what we get. If anything, money will gain value as more and more people are fighting for the same dollar. The dollar has more credit at home and around the world. Saving money would be good. Under an inflated economy, we’re always one step under the current. It’s basically a hidden tax – perhaps the worst form of tax there is.
#5: Have a lolly-gagging foreign policy. Our name around the world is important, and we don’t help our case by having a weak military. And we certainly don’t help when we think we’re invincible.
We don’t have a weak military, but it seems to be weakening. What happened to Ronald Reagan’s strategy of “we win they lose?” What happened to winning a war without firing a shot? What happened to going to war, taking care of business, and then leave and send our troops home to safety? Now we go to the Middle East to build nations. Going over there to protect ourselves may not be a bad thing. I was for that on 9/11/01. But we have no moral right to build nations. We don’t need to make enemies overseas. I’m not sure we’re much safer now than we were on 9/12/01. “Gentle Giant” is not the best description of American right now, although it probably should be where we want to head. Feared and respected; yet respectable.
If we bring everyone home now, then there will probably be a lot of chaos. But building nations over there makes the chaos worse. And certainly while there is a time for war, our ultimate goal should be that we have little war. But whatever the case, when we are in war, it should not be lolly-gagging. We need to be the strong nation America is.
#4: Practice Socialist Economics. One way to destroy America, which comes from within, is to practice socialist economic policy. It’s the policy of Barack Obama. It’s about government control over the economy. But this is not good. Free markets work better. In a free market, we make our own choices, and since we make them for our own benefit, we will probably make beneficial choices. The government will not make choices better than us.
Besides this, isn’t it stealing to take from one person and give it to the other? And that is the philosophy of socialists and communists. We take the money (supposedly from the rich), and give it to the poor. Now it sounds good, but I’d rather this be charity than government forced taxation. No matter who you are, who you take from, and who you give it to in return, stealing is stealing. Even if 51% of the vote said it wasn’t!
The “common storehouse” did not work in the days of John Smith. It taught laziness. The same is today. If you know you’ll get something from the government, then why work?
But even things like minimum wage and price caps are socialistic, and they don’t work. Prices will go up with minimum wage. The worker not worth the new minimum wage will be out of a job. And companies will go out of business with price caps. If you want lower gas prices, stop inflating the economy, and allow us to drill where there is oil, increasing supply, lowering demand, lowering prices.
#3: Have the government continue to control education, education our children. One of the scariest things ever is to think that the government controls the education of children. But you know what? That’s how it is in America today!
Think about it. The government takes your money, supposedly gives it to education, forces children to attend one certain school (monopoly) unless they pay extra for a private school, and then hires teachers who then teach children. But I don’t want to be educated by the government. One person, I can’t remember who it was, said that “Man is better not educated than to be educated by his rulers.” And we worry about God in schools; prayer in schools; what side of history you teach in schools, etc. But if we let individual schools decide these things, and not the government, and let you decide where you go to school, then we wouldn’t have near as many of these problems. The free market would handle it.
Education is too important to be left to a free market, you say. Well I say that the education of our children is too important to be left in the hands of a few greedy politicians.
#2: Abandon the Constitution. This is being done today. Our leaders take Oaths of Office with their hand on the Word of God, swearing to uphold the Constitution. But I’m not sure how much they mean it. Their actions don’t seem to show that they mean it much. The Federal government controlling education is unconstitutional. Roe vs. Wade was (and is) unconstitutional. There are prescribed ways to pass laws and go to war, and we have done much of that in an unconstitutional way.
And how many voters really take time to think about who the most Constitutional candidate is? We have abandoned one of the most important documents ever in our history. And being an American without caring about the Constitution is like being a Christian without caring about the Bible.
I know that the Constitutional is fallible. It was written by men, not divinely inspired per se. But it is important. And when we abandon this document, we really abandon a large amount of what America is. This leads to our socialist economic policy, our inflated fiat money system (which is unconstitutional, since government can only “coin” money constitutionally), our bad education system, etc. Let’s restore the Constitution.
Fortunately there was one candidate who wanted to restore the Constitution. It was Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he only received little votes.
# 1: Take God away from public life. The best way to destroy America, is to force God out of our public life. This hurts us individually, but also as a nation as a whole, by abandoning much of our worldview in fighting for independence. The ideas of limited government and liberty which we cherish come from a Christian worldview. God gives us liberties, and governments protect them, not usurp them. And there is nothing unconstitutional about this. Congress shall not pass a law regarding religion, but that does not mean that there can be no religion, or that Congress shall force religion out, or even that states can have their own establishments of religion (although it would not be wise at this time and place for any state to establish a religion). But if we remove “In God We Trust” from coins, we may start trusting in men, which will give us a big utalitarian government. Let God control the weather, have final vengance, and let us in the name of God individually give to the poor, not the government who is comprised of foolish sinful men. To save America, we must trust in God, and keep Him in public life – not by force, but certainly not by force shall we remove Him, and His blessings, who has truly shed His grace on thee, America. God bless America.
So there you go. Hope you enjoyed that. Let me know what you think, agree or disagree. I’ll be happy to listen to what you have to say.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
July 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
