Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin will be the main speakers at the 50th Anniversary celebration of the John Birch Society, according to the JBS website (http://www.jbs.org/50th). I found out about this event at the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/51453#comments). It will take place October 2-5, 2008 in Appleton, Wisconsin.
There is really no reason for Ron Paul supporters to reject supporting Chuck Baldwin. Dr. Baldwin is the only candidate who will be on the ballot in November with the exact principles of Ron Paul. Bob Barr (the Libertarian) takes a position on immigration which sounds deceptively similar to "open borders." And, Chuck Baldwin at least has a chance of winning the support of the Huckabee and Romney people due to his Christian emphasis. Bob Barr seems a completely secular candidate, which is my problem with the Libertarian Party to begin with.
Ron Paul I believe sees things the same way regarding the Libertarians, since he boldly noted on the Mike Gallagher show last summer that he is "a constititutionalist, not a Libertarian." Also, Mike Peroutka, the previous CP nominee for President, stated to me at his conference last July that Ron Paul was the only sitting Congressman to contribute to his campaign (on which Baldwin was the VP nominee) in 2004. So not only did Chuck Baldwin work very hard for Ron Paul, Dr. Paul gave funds to Chuck Baldwin's previous campaign!
Hopefully, Ron Paul will actually endorse Chuck Baldwin in the near future and then there will be very little debate on this subject. :-)
-Josiah
P.S. I found a map of current Constitution Party ballot access throughout the states. View it here!
Showing posts with label real revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label real revolution. Show all posts
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
We Did It!
Ron Paul's book The Revolution: A Manifesto is going to be #1 on the New York Times bestseller list this weekend! http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/316/ron-paul-1-on-new-york-times-best-seller-list It is already #1 on Amazon.com.
Let's keep it up! Buy some more now, to give (or sell) away. There will soon be a huge demand for this book in its' current first-edition form. Besides, it is probably one of the most powerful literary thrusts for constitutionalism since Barry Goldwater's book, or maybe since the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of the Founders.
From Josiah :-)
Let's keep it up! Buy some more now, to give (or sell) away. There will soon be a huge demand for this book in its' current first-edition form. Besides, it is probably one of the most powerful literary thrusts for constitutionalism since Barry Goldwater's book, or maybe since the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of the Founders.
From Josiah :-)
Monday, April 28, 2008
Chuck Baldwin for President
Well, folks, we now have a Constitution Party nominee for President, and he's not Alan Keyes. He is Chuck Baldwin! While I will personally be spending as little time as possible on supporting this candidacy, it still might be worthwhile to be able to say "I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin for Prez" so your friends can ask "Why?" and you can give them some education in the Biblical worldview.
Of course, with a pro-amnesty, pro-100-year-war, pro-gay marriage "Republican" as his opponent, Mr. Baldwin just might be able to change some people's minds on their ever-present allegiance to the Demopublican Party and its war games.
But this allegiance is part of why I do not intend to become dramatically involved in Chuck Baldwin's campaign. It simply is not profitable most of the time to try to convince people of their error in working for the "lesser" of two evils. People can always say (and always have), "but what if Obama et. al. gets in?"
Oh well. Hopefully, we as Americans will one day realize the real battle must be for righteousness and principle, not for "the better candidate."
From Josiah
Of course, with a pro-amnesty, pro-100-year-war, pro-gay marriage "Republican" as his opponent, Mr. Baldwin just might be able to change some people's minds on their ever-present allegiance to the Demopublican Party and its war games.
But this allegiance is part of why I do not intend to become dramatically involved in Chuck Baldwin's campaign. It simply is not profitable most of the time to try to convince people of their error in working for the "lesser" of two evils. People can always say (and always have), "but what if Obama et. al. gets in?"
Oh well. Hopefully, we as Americans will one day realize the real battle must be for righteousness and principle, not for "the better candidate."
From Josiah
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Buy Ron Paul's New Book!
I received in the mail today a package containing one of the most well-written and powerful books to date (so far in my reading) for constitutionalism and traditional conservatism. It is Congressman Paul's book, The Revolution: A Manifesto. Please buy it as soon as possible, so we can make sure it gets on the bestseller lists! I am happy to have pre-ordered it based upon my reading of the Preface, which is as follows:
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us “change,” and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, “change” always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.
Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear . . .
With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in — this is not a misprint — 130 countries around the world.
All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.
This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.
If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.
That is why I wrote this book.
Buy now at Amazon.com!
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us “change,” and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, “change” always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.
Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear . . .
With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in — this is not a misprint — 130 countries around the world.
All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.
This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.
If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.
That is why I wrote this book.
Buy now at Amazon.com!
Friday, December 07, 2007
Answers Magazine Sells Out in U.S.
The current issue of the extremely popular Answers magazine has sold out in the United States! No more copies are available except in Europe and other scattered locations. For this reason, Answers In Genesis is now putting the entire content of this issue up for free online!
Here is a link to an especially relevant article. It is entitled "Is It Time for a New Reformation?" The obvious answer is, Yes! The article explains:
Take one look around our world. A need for a new reformation is evident, both for our culture and for the church. We must return to the Bible as our absolute authority.
Another good yet succinct article is, "You Can Make a Difference." The author gives a nice punch in favor of being active for the LORD. We can all be "little Luthers!"
Please check it out!
Thanks From Josiah :-)
Here is a link to an especially relevant article. It is entitled "Is It Time for a New Reformation?" The obvious answer is, Yes! The article explains:
Take one look around our world. A need for a new reformation is evident, both for our culture and for the church. We must return to the Bible as our absolute authority.
Another good yet succinct article is, "You Can Make a Difference." The author gives a nice punch in favor of being active for the LORD. We can all be "little Luthers!"
Please check it out!
Thanks From Josiah :-)
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
The Democracy Problem (a re-post)
By R. Josiah Magnuson
The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” Why not democracy?
Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, Section II declared the climactic goal of Communist revolution to be “to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class; to win the battle of democracy.”
The Founding Fathers generally expressed distain for democracy. Benjamin Rush, for example, referred to democracy as “mob rule.” James Madison declared that “democracies have ever been found inconsistent with personal security or the rights of property” and noted that in a democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
Yet some leading "Christian conservatives" believe that the solution to the decline of morality in this nation is promotion of democracy!
Just what is democracy? It is the reign of the omnipotent Majority. It is government by changing public policy and demagoguery. It is actually THE RULE OF RELATIVISM, and as such, becomes merely popular dictatorship!
A republic, on the other hand, is a government created by the people (or someone truly acting in the interest of the people) for the protection of their rights. The word republic has of course been defined in various ways. However, it is apparent in true republics that although the opinion of the majority is respected, individual rights are supreme. For instance, the Founding Fathers often referred to republics as "the rule of laws and not men."
Rights are, by nature, enduring and absolute. Therefore, they must be granted by a source from outside man; that is, man’s Creator, God. Such rights are indeed implicit to His Law. The Law includes primarily the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, and then also the rest of the directives in the Bible.
A republic is therefore THE RULE OF THE LAW OF THE CREATOR. It is separation of powers, checks and balances, and perhaps most importantly, limited government. In a republic, no dictator or even Majority class can change the individual's unalienable rights as given in God's absolute Law!
Democracy has become a major problem in America. Because people have been taught to believe that everything must be decided by majority vote, they are led to believe that individuals' liberties and even the essence of Truth itself are subject to question based solely on popularity.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The people are inherently independent of all but moral law.” This fact is recognized in republics. The converse is true in democracies, where the people are “freed” from God's principles and moral law, only to be chained to the arbitrary whims of those in power (the majority).
Clearly, “republic” and “democracy” are not simply two forms of free government. They are the difference between a liberty in law and a liberty from law. America is a republic, and must regain its moral foundation and traditional understanding of limited, lawful government in order to be safeguarded from democracy and a tragic, chaotic end.
The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” Why not democracy?
Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, Section II declared the climactic goal of Communist revolution to be “to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class; to win the battle of democracy.”
The Founding Fathers generally expressed distain for democracy. Benjamin Rush, for example, referred to democracy as “mob rule.” James Madison declared that “democracies have ever been found inconsistent with personal security or the rights of property” and noted that in a democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
Yet some leading "Christian conservatives" believe that the solution to the decline of morality in this nation is promotion of democracy!
Just what is democracy? It is the reign of the omnipotent Majority. It is government by changing public policy and demagoguery. It is actually THE RULE OF RELATIVISM, and as such, becomes merely popular dictatorship!
A republic, on the other hand, is a government created by the people (or someone truly acting in the interest of the people) for the protection of their rights. The word republic has of course been defined in various ways. However, it is apparent in true republics that although the opinion of the majority is respected, individual rights are supreme. For instance, the Founding Fathers often referred to republics as "the rule of laws and not men."
Rights are, by nature, enduring and absolute. Therefore, they must be granted by a source from outside man; that is, man’s Creator, God. Such rights are indeed implicit to His Law. The Law includes primarily the Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, and then also the rest of the directives in the Bible.
A republic is therefore THE RULE OF THE LAW OF THE CREATOR. It is separation of powers, checks and balances, and perhaps most importantly, limited government. In a republic, no dictator or even Majority class can change the individual's unalienable rights as given in God's absolute Law!
Democracy has become a major problem in America. Because people have been taught to believe that everything must be decided by majority vote, they are led to believe that individuals' liberties and even the essence of Truth itself are subject to question based solely on popularity.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The people are inherently independent of all but moral law.” This fact is recognized in republics. The converse is true in democracies, where the people are “freed” from God's principles and moral law, only to be chained to the arbitrary whims of those in power (the majority).
Clearly, “republic” and “democracy” are not simply two forms of free government. They are the difference between a liberty in law and a liberty from law. America is a republic, and must regain its moral foundation and traditional understanding of limited, lawful government in order to be safeguarded from democracy and a tragic, chaotic end.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Theme Quote Explained
Somebody asked me today what the theme quote to the top-left on this site is really supposed to mean - and what exactly John Adams believed needed "revolving" as a precursor to American Independence.
The answer is that Adams was referring to the fact that the people had to realize the dichotomy which existed between the unlimited power the king of Great Britain believed he possessed, and their natural rights as given by God.
Without the understanding that God was supreme, even over the national powers of the world, what would the Americans have had to stand for? They would just have been fighting to seize control. However, our forebears believed in the Law of the Creator. As they stated in the Declaration of Independence, "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..."
The revolution in the hearts and minds of the people is as intrinsic to liberty as it was in 1776. This revolution is one of worldviews.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
The answer is that Adams was referring to the fact that the people had to realize the dichotomy which existed between the unlimited power the king of Great Britain believed he possessed, and their natural rights as given by God.
Without the understanding that God was supreme, even over the national powers of the world, what would the Americans have had to stand for? They would just have been fighting to seize control. However, our forebears believed in the Law of the Creator. As they stated in the Declaration of Independence, "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..."
The revolution in the hearts and minds of the people is as intrinsic to liberty as it was in 1776. This revolution is one of worldviews.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Mission: Church
As we revolve our culture to the Biblical worldview, the idea is more than anything to revolve the Church and Christianity. It seems there are an increasing array of folks who tend to believe in the ecumenical free-for-all position, and another group which is so legalistic they will not tolerate other ideas.
Neither of these are really the best attitude. It is my opinion that we must agree on the foundational principles. In doing so, we must also allow for disagreement on issues which are not foundational.
The YCLA, the LIL Coalition and all our visions and ideas pretty much come down to finding the people who truly have this spirit of Christ and educating them in Biblical supremacy. There are many of them around; and one does not have to believe in the correct Bible version or the Sabbath or musical standards to be such. In other words, these beliefs are not in fact foundational. However, God will eventually present these issues to those who have a heart for Truth.
Because Truth is what makes one Different.
John 8:31-32 If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Neither of these are really the best attitude. It is my opinion that we must agree on the foundational principles. In doing so, we must also allow for disagreement on issues which are not foundational.
The YCLA, the LIL Coalition and all our visions and ideas pretty much come down to finding the people who truly have this spirit of Christ and educating them in Biblical supremacy. There are many of them around; and one does not have to believe in the correct Bible version or the Sabbath or musical standards to be such. In other words, these beliefs are not in fact foundational. However, God will eventually present these issues to those who have a heart for Truth.
Because Truth is what makes one Different.
John 8:31-32 If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Forum archiving for future days
Liberty In Law
Evolution and relativism
« on: June 12, 2007, 04:58:39 pm »
A fundamental error in society is the unfounded belief in Evolution. This belief underlies many of the attacks on our freedoms, because it denies the existence of a Creator to which an individual is responsible. There can be no future state of rewards and punishments if Evolution is correct; nor can there be any absolute or certain standard of Law or rights. The highest good becomes winning the universal contest for supremacy.
It should not be surprising that some of the greatest tyrannies in history were formed under this logic. Adolf Hitler was an Evolutionist; and so were Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussollini, and Mao Tse-Tung.
With the introduction of the teaching of Evolution as fact in schools (which it certainly is not; see for instance http://www.answersingenesis.org) our culture and government began to plummet as well.For more info, please visit my website, http://worldviewsrevolution.blogspot.com
Thanks! -R. Josiah Magnuson
_________________________________________________________________
Curmudgeon
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2007, 09:26:24 pm »
Quote
Quote from: Liberty In Law on June 12, 2007, 04:58:39 pm
There can be no future state of rewards and punishments if Evolution is correct; nor can there be any absolute or certain standard of Law or rights. The highest good becomes winning the universal contest for supremacy.
While I don't disagree, one could argue that the many faces of religion, each defending their own ideals of Creator, don't lend themselves too well to absolute or certain standard of Law or rights any more than evolution.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps the argument isn't so much about evolution being taught in schools as it is about the institution of public school.
___________________________________________________________________
Conte
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2007, 10:06:35 pm »
Quote
Although I find the Evolution v. Creation debate somewhat of a mute point, and not the most pressing issue when it comes to restoring our republic, it is rather fascinating. I believe in God, and that there is strong evidence for intelligent design of our world and universe.
Still, I also believe in evolution and the evolutionary process (yet with intelligence behind it). Really, evolution is a theory, that has not been completely proven, and creation is a faith based theory, that doesn't necessarily or typically have a scientific foundation. Yet, many Christians, or faiths, say that since all truth is God's truth, and scientific truth is in that realm, then faith and science should not be in conflict, but rather agreement.
There are creation approaches that I cannot agree with (like the literal seven 24hr day idea - and that the Earth is at best only 7,000 years old). That is why I could hold a stance that evolution could very well be the correct scientific theory for how our universe and earth were formed, but that it was directed with intelligent design.
Still, that is not the real debate here. The debate is that neither theory or approach gives any moral backing for social conduct in the world we find ourselves in. This could be a long debate.
Still, I find that there is significant difference on the significance of social moral conduct. Believing that everything just happened by chance and without intelligent design leaves a moral void which then relies on man's individual creation of a moral code, which seems to become rather relative. Yet, if we believe that there is intelligent design that created (through evolution) where and who we are, ingrained with a social moral code (that seems to have been greatly perverted and made relative by man), then there is a basis that does not change, that is not relative, and that gives a foundation for humanity and how we should treat one another and our world.
I see it as not just affecting a need for a relationship with the creator, but also our relationship with each other and places a sense of accountability, calling, and responsibility. If what is happening to our country and the world, with the NWO, the powerful taking control of the "weak", etc., then why fight it? Maybe it's just a part of the evolutionary process, etc.
Do you get my point? Anyway, I'm sure I could say a lot more, but I think I've said plenty, and again, it's not really an essential issue for fighting evil, bringing justice, and restoring our republic. What do you think?
__________________________________________________________________
Curmudgeon
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2007, 01:01:01 am »
Quote
Quote from: Conte on June 12, 2007, 10:06:35 pm
If what is happening to our country and the world, with the NWO, the powerful taking control of the "weak", etc., then why fight it? Maybe it's just a part of the evolutionary process, etc.
Part of an evolutionary process? Probably. But a NWO? led by who? Quis custodiate ipsos custodus?
I'll accept a one world government ...... as long as it's not run by humans.
___________________________________________________________________
Liberty In Law
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2007, 08:42:13 am »
Quote Modify Remove
If what is happening to our country and the world, with the NWO, the powerful taking control of the "weak", etc., then why fight it? Maybe it's just a part of the evolutionary process, etc.
Thanks, Conte. You just wrapped up my whole comment!
However, you still say that Evolution vs. Creation is a mute point. This I don't understand. You are taking two positions at once.
One either believes in God, His Words, and His moral standard, or one does not. There is no middle ground, since what is at stake is the existence of absolutes. One cannot believe absolutes are both important and unimportant, correct? And so if absolutes in fact exist and there is a true right and wrong, those who attempt to discredit those absolutes are committing a serious offense indeed. It is my opinion that the struggle against Evolution (and every other system which teaches naturalism and relativism) is the most important of them all; for without a Creator we have no rights and no moral cause for liberty.
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson
Thanks! From R. Josiah Magnuson
www.WorldviewsRevolution.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________________________
Conte
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2007, 09:37:48 pm »
Quote
Point taken, Liberty In Law. I agree with you, but at this juncture in the most pressing issues for even beginning to defeat the NWO, the Evolution / Creation debate is not going to go far for a while. There has to be a major shift in thinking that is not going to happen overnight (not that anything happens overnight anyway).
With the growing number of people who do not believe in God, or have no understanding of how the Creation / Evolution debate affects everything else (because it really is an issue of Theism vs. Atheism), then I feel the best we can do right now, with things so dire and happening so fast, is to try to plead to peoples' sense of goodness, rights, freedom, etc. We can't necessarily expect everyone to connect those things as being grounded in the existence of God.
Our culture and society is jsut so screwed up, and it takes baby steps. I do not mean to say that this issue is not important or essential, but I don't think that arguing this issue is going to get us very far right now. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say...
__________________________________________________________________
Liberty In Law
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2007, 10:29:29 pm »
Yes, Comte, I understand your position. I agree that there are still many people in our nation who believe in God, and thus we should work with what we've got, and so forth. However, the deal is that many of these people have been lulled into a subdued existence where nothing matters anyway, due to the Evolutionary relativism which is constantly in the back of their minds. If we could show them that Evolution is actually wrong and they and their friends do actually have absolute rights to fight for, we would be getting much further along in our fight for freedom.
Evolution not only takes away the moral standard, it takes away the people's desire to work for this ("non-existent") standard.
We do not only need justice, we need courage. We do not only need freedom, we need awakening from apathy. For these, we need a renewed trust in our Creator; and we need to remember our heritage and grand Providential beginnings. As our U.S. Congress declared fifty years ago, the real identity of America may be summed up in four simple words:
IN GOD WE TRUST.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
www.WorldviewsRevolution.blogspot.com
Evolution and relativism
« on: June 12, 2007, 04:58:39 pm »
A fundamental error in society is the unfounded belief in Evolution. This belief underlies many of the attacks on our freedoms, because it denies the existence of a Creator to which an individual is responsible. There can be no future state of rewards and punishments if Evolution is correct; nor can there be any absolute or certain standard of Law or rights. The highest good becomes winning the universal contest for supremacy.
It should not be surprising that some of the greatest tyrannies in history were formed under this logic. Adolf Hitler was an Evolutionist; and so were Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussollini, and Mao Tse-Tung.
With the introduction of the teaching of Evolution as fact in schools (which it certainly is not; see for instance http://www.answersingenesis.org) our culture and government began to plummet as well.For more info, please visit my website, http://worldviewsrevolution.blogspot.com
Thanks! -R. Josiah Magnuson
_________________________________________________________________
Curmudgeon
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2007, 09:26:24 pm »
Quote
Quote from: Liberty In Law on June 12, 2007, 04:58:39 pm
There can be no future state of rewards and punishments if Evolution is correct; nor can there be any absolute or certain standard of Law or rights. The highest good becomes winning the universal contest for supremacy.
While I don't disagree, one could argue that the many faces of religion, each defending their own ideals of Creator, don't lend themselves too well to absolute or certain standard of Law or rights any more than evolution.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps the argument isn't so much about evolution being taught in schools as it is about the institution of public school.
___________________________________________________________________
Conte
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2007, 10:06:35 pm »
Quote
Although I find the Evolution v. Creation debate somewhat of a mute point, and not the most pressing issue when it comes to restoring our republic, it is rather fascinating. I believe in God, and that there is strong evidence for intelligent design of our world and universe.
Still, I also believe in evolution and the evolutionary process (yet with intelligence behind it). Really, evolution is a theory, that has not been completely proven, and creation is a faith based theory, that doesn't necessarily or typically have a scientific foundation. Yet, many Christians, or faiths, say that since all truth is God's truth, and scientific truth is in that realm, then faith and science should not be in conflict, but rather agreement.
There are creation approaches that I cannot agree with (like the literal seven 24hr day idea - and that the Earth is at best only 7,000 years old). That is why I could hold a stance that evolution could very well be the correct scientific theory for how our universe and earth were formed, but that it was directed with intelligent design.
Still, that is not the real debate here. The debate is that neither theory or approach gives any moral backing for social conduct in the world we find ourselves in. This could be a long debate.
Still, I find that there is significant difference on the significance of social moral conduct. Believing that everything just happened by chance and without intelligent design leaves a moral void which then relies on man's individual creation of a moral code, which seems to become rather relative. Yet, if we believe that there is intelligent design that created (through evolution) where and who we are, ingrained with a social moral code (that seems to have been greatly perverted and made relative by man), then there is a basis that does not change, that is not relative, and that gives a foundation for humanity and how we should treat one another and our world.
I see it as not just affecting a need for a relationship with the creator, but also our relationship with each other and places a sense of accountability, calling, and responsibility. If what is happening to our country and the world, with the NWO, the powerful taking control of the "weak", etc., then why fight it? Maybe it's just a part of the evolutionary process, etc.
Do you get my point? Anyway, I'm sure I could say a lot more, but I think I've said plenty, and again, it's not really an essential issue for fighting evil, bringing justice, and restoring our republic. What do you think?
__________________________________________________________________
Curmudgeon
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2007, 01:01:01 am »
Quote
Quote from: Conte on June 12, 2007, 10:06:35 pm
If what is happening to our country and the world, with the NWO, the powerful taking control of the "weak", etc., then why fight it? Maybe it's just a part of the evolutionary process, etc.
Part of an evolutionary process? Probably. But a NWO? led by who? Quis custodiate ipsos custodus?
I'll accept a one world government ...... as long as it's not run by humans.
___________________________________________________________________
Liberty In Law
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2007, 08:42:13 am »
Quote Modify Remove
If what is happening to our country and the world, with the NWO, the powerful taking control of the "weak", etc., then why fight it? Maybe it's just a part of the evolutionary process, etc.
Thanks, Conte. You just wrapped up my whole comment!
However, you still say that Evolution vs. Creation is a mute point. This I don't understand. You are taking two positions at once.
One either believes in God, His Words, and His moral standard, or one does not. There is no middle ground, since what is at stake is the existence of absolutes. One cannot believe absolutes are both important and unimportant, correct? And so if absolutes in fact exist and there is a true right and wrong, those who attempt to discredit those absolutes are committing a serious offense indeed. It is my opinion that the struggle against Evolution (and every other system which teaches naturalism and relativism) is the most important of them all; for without a Creator we have no rights and no moral cause for liberty.
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson
Thanks! From R. Josiah Magnuson
www.WorldviewsRevolution.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________________________
Conte
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2007, 09:37:48 pm »
Quote
Point taken, Liberty In Law. I agree with you, but at this juncture in the most pressing issues for even beginning to defeat the NWO, the Evolution / Creation debate is not going to go far for a while. There has to be a major shift in thinking that is not going to happen overnight (not that anything happens overnight anyway).
With the growing number of people who do not believe in God, or have no understanding of how the Creation / Evolution debate affects everything else (because it really is an issue of Theism vs. Atheism), then I feel the best we can do right now, with things so dire and happening so fast, is to try to plead to peoples' sense of goodness, rights, freedom, etc. We can't necessarily expect everyone to connect those things as being grounded in the existence of God.
Our culture and society is jsut so screwed up, and it takes baby steps. I do not mean to say that this issue is not important or essential, but I don't think that arguing this issue is going to get us very far right now. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say...
__________________________________________________________________
Liberty In Law
Re: Evolution and relativism
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2007, 10:29:29 pm »
Yes, Comte, I understand your position. I agree that there are still many people in our nation who believe in God, and thus we should work with what we've got, and so forth. However, the deal is that many of these people have been lulled into a subdued existence where nothing matters anyway, due to the Evolutionary relativism which is constantly in the back of their minds. If we could show them that Evolution is actually wrong and they and their friends do actually have absolute rights to fight for, we would be getting much further along in our fight for freedom.
Evolution not only takes away the moral standard, it takes away the people's desire to work for this ("non-existent") standard.
We do not only need justice, we need courage. We do not only need freedom, we need awakening from apathy. For these, we need a renewed trust in our Creator; and we need to remember our heritage and grand Providential beginnings. As our U.S. Congress declared fifty years ago, the real identity of America may be summed up in four simple words:
IN GOD WE TRUST.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
www.WorldviewsRevolution.blogspot.com
Friday, June 22, 2007
More Chuck Baldwin comments
Chuck Baldwin has a number of wonderful ideas. Tonight he seemed to be more like his old self of anti-sin and pro-righteousness. That is good.
However, at the root of my still-intact discomfort with him may essentially be traced to his belief that we have a Biblical mandate to "preserve" the culture as "salt." We almost certainly do not have a Biblical mandate to preserve the culture and so on. We have a mandate to "season" and "enlighten" the culture. This is because cultures are naturally corrupt. Why would God tell us to preserve something that was already rotted?
No, salt is used in the context of flavoring or spicing, and in the context of light as enlightening. The saltifying and enlightening clearly refer to the same thing.
Discussing this idea with someone last night, it was asked me if I had given up hope.
Of course I could not give up hope; rather, my fleeting vision in the American Empire (not real hope anyway) becomes a complete trust and firm reliance on God. Does anyone realize the promise of God in Proverbs 3?
In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.
Is there anyone who really thinks that God will not do what is best for us?
All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.
We may as well do what God says. We may as well work with renewed courage to enlighten and spice the culture, rather than fight a losing battle to preserve and hold down the culture!
In any event, I am glad that Chuck Baldwin did not refer to the battle of America vs. Globalism as fundamental again tonight.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
However, at the root of my still-intact discomfort with him may essentially be traced to his belief that we have a Biblical mandate to "preserve" the culture as "salt." We almost certainly do not have a Biblical mandate to preserve the culture and so on. We have a mandate to "season" and "enlighten" the culture. This is because cultures are naturally corrupt. Why would God tell us to preserve something that was already rotted?
No, salt is used in the context of flavoring or spicing, and in the context of light as enlightening. The saltifying and enlightening clearly refer to the same thing.
Discussing this idea with someone last night, it was asked me if I had given up hope.
Of course I could not give up hope; rather, my fleeting vision in the American Empire (not real hope anyway) becomes a complete trust and firm reliance on God. Does anyone realize the promise of God in Proverbs 3?
In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.
Is there anyone who really thinks that God will not do what is best for us?
All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.
We may as well do what God says. We may as well work with renewed courage to enlighten and spice the culture, rather than fight a losing battle to preserve and hold down the culture!
In any event, I am glad that Chuck Baldwin did not refer to the battle of America vs. Globalism as fundamental again tonight.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Chuck Baldwin conference review
Chuck Baldwin, a Pensacola-area pastor and radio talk-show host, and 2004 Constitution Party candidate for Vice-President, is speaking at the Greenville Hilton this week, from Wednesday to today.
Baldwin did OK the first night, but last night his speech was sadly similar to the general "Patriot" lines: "The fight is between America and globalism," "Guns are for protection against the government," "The American experiment must be sustained at all costs," and so on.
Baldwin we thought had traditionally been the one to say the opposite: "Fighting for America will do nothing," "The problem is in the pulpits," etc. So is he flip-flopping now? I don't know.
The battle for us as Biblicists is doubtless not for "America." It is for God and His Words. Everything else which we may fight for is only a by-product of this battle.
It is one thing to participate as a Christian in the fields of government or science or education. It is quite another to make any field your supreme Hope.
The real battle is something we often term here "The Worldview Wars." On one side is the worldview of trust in one's self and one's own ideas, and on the other is the worldview of trust in God alone. It is the difference between Creation and Evolution, between republics and democracies, and between Christianity and every other religion.
It is also the difference between freedom and tyranny.
It is thus my opinion that the only thing which will save America is to quit fighting for America, and start fighting for the God of America. What is the difference? The difference is "IN GOD WE TRUST" versus "Heil Hitler." That is the difference.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Baldwin did OK the first night, but last night his speech was sadly similar to the general "Patriot" lines: "The fight is between America and globalism," "Guns are for protection against the government," "The American experiment must be sustained at all costs," and so on.
Baldwin we thought had traditionally been the one to say the opposite: "Fighting for America will do nothing," "The problem is in the pulpits," etc. So is he flip-flopping now? I don't know.
The battle for us as Biblicists is doubtless not for "America." It is for God and His Words. Everything else which we may fight for is only a by-product of this battle.
It is one thing to participate as a Christian in the fields of government or science or education. It is quite another to make any field your supreme Hope.
The real battle is something we often term here "The Worldview Wars." On one side is the worldview of trust in one's self and one's own ideas, and on the other is the worldview of trust in God alone. It is the difference between Creation and Evolution, between republics and democracies, and between Christianity and every other religion.
It is also the difference between freedom and tyranny.
It is thus my opinion that the only thing which will save America is to quit fighting for America, and start fighting for the God of America. What is the difference? The difference is "IN GOD WE TRUST" versus "Heil Hitler." That is the difference.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Living In A Bubble
Q: How has the Bible been disconnected?
A: The majority of Christians today look at the Bible as a book of religion only — a book about salvation, but not a book of history that connects to every area of reality.
Christianity, unlike many other religions, is based in real history. If the events of Jesus Christ’s birth, death and resurrection didn’t happen in real history, then how can we be saved? If all people aren’t descended from the real first man in history, Adam, then why are we all accountable for sin?
We need to read the Bible as a history book. When we do, we also find the Bible touches on geology, astronomy, biology and so on. This means we need to make sure that our children understand that the Bible connects to dinosaurs, rocks, trees, dirt, stars, people—in fact, everything.
Because of the influence of evolution and old ages, many Christians have relegated the Bible to just a book of religion—thus disconnecting it from the real world. That’s why so many Christians lack answers to the world’s false teachings.
Most of the church teaches biblical history as just a group of “Bible stories” disconnected from this history. But the majority of students from church homes attend government-run schools where they are taught a history (involving geology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.) that blatantly contradicts biblical history.
What is the consequence? See Living in a bubble.
(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)
A: The majority of Christians today look at the Bible as a book of religion only — a book about salvation, but not a book of history that connects to every area of reality.
Christianity, unlike many other religions, is based in real history. If the events of Jesus Christ’s birth, death and resurrection didn’t happen in real history, then how can we be saved? If all people aren’t descended from the real first man in history, Adam, then why are we all accountable for sin?
We need to read the Bible as a history book. When we do, we also find the Bible touches on geology, astronomy, biology and so on. This means we need to make sure that our children understand that the Bible connects to dinosaurs, rocks, trees, dirt, stars, people—in fact, everything.
Because of the influence of evolution and old ages, many Christians have relegated the Bible to just a book of religion—thus disconnecting it from the real world. That’s why so many Christians lack answers to the world’s false teachings.
Most of the church teaches biblical history as just a group of “Bible stories” disconnected from this history. But the majority of students from church homes attend government-run schools where they are taught a history (involving geology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.) that blatantly contradicts biblical history.
What is the consequence? See Living in a bubble.
(Taken from the Answers In Genesis Weekly Update)
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Why "Revolution?"
A revolution is seen by many today as a large-scale overwhelming revolt against conservative libertarian policies. What is a real revolution, and why is its name included in the name of this site?
A real revolution is a return to the old principles. It occurs when a society veers away from its heritage, only to return or "revolve." This term has been hijacked by Communists or socialists in the last century, and has begun to mean a fight for completely new ideas. A revolution does not mean an evolution. It means a turn-around.
Worldviews Revolution uses the word "revolution" in the same sense as the Founding Fathers did for theirs: a return to freedom and the rule of Law.
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
A real revolution is a return to the old principles. It occurs when a society veers away from its heritage, only to return or "revolve." This term has been hijacked by Communists or socialists in the last century, and has begun to mean a fight for completely new ideas. A revolution does not mean an evolution. It means a turn-around.
Worldviews Revolution uses the word "revolution" in the same sense as the Founding Fathers did for theirs: a return to freedom and the rule of Law.
-R. Josiah Magnuson, Managing Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uZPUwFsE2i-aspLcftlzdP4nUY2mb39_4_9nwP9RR_JhZ5nsMytM3RAZ82xyLq_7Dx-FqGLjjfAnyQJWzXVwUvCX7PpYntRAnlC9MyAg=s0-d)