Liberty Movement Is Returning Back To A Bunch Of Fiefdoms
Submitted by BurningsiriusΩ™ on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 07:21What was and continues to be inspiring about Ron Paul is his ability to build bridges between extremely different groups in order to realize their common need: liberty. Sadly after the Randocolypse, these groups have been causing a whirlwind of strife. This strife has been on low heat, but now, has been brought to the surface in recent weeks. There is also power to be had within the movement causing further tension. Our mainstream interface (Jack Hunter and others) have chastized the 'conspiracy wing' of the Ron Paul coalition. Likewise Randian purist Adam Kokesh sees that it is his duty to kick out those who stray from the Party line. Both of these individuals are wrong for the same reason. No one owns the Revolution. From day one, our ideological father Ron Paul has laid no claim to egg he hatched. Like Erasmus with Luther, the Internet Reformation's founder distances his self from his own creation. If Ron Paul lays no claim to our movement, how can Hunter or Kokesh determine who is apart of it?
To simply be put, I realized the wrong of government regulation when I found out that G1 Megatron and Masterpiece Megatron could not be sold in the US. Though this realization is simple, this example allowed me to realize why drugs should not be illegal. I also had read Mises, Lew Rockwell and watched Alex Jones before coming to Ron Paul. With this background coming from a Republican family, am I not allowed to be in the Ron Paul Revolution? My father is a vet who supports Ron. Is he not allowed to be in the Revolution? Clearly, I am, however, those who wish to cut their own fiefdoms of liberty, returning us back to the old Libertarian Party, wish to kick out all who stray from their perfect vision.
I am Christian, Lutheran of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to be exact. From the Lutheran Confessions comes my understanding of Christianity. Should I be intolerant of Catholics? Heavens no. They need liberty like me. Should I spout that the Vatican has Jesuit Ninjas everywhere? No, they do not exist. It is harmful having discourses with Catholics if they come on Ron Paul websites only to find their faith trashed. What of Christianity as a whole? Adam Kokesh maintains you cannot be in the Ron Paul Revolution and be Christian at the same time. He has not backed down from this stance. Should I be kicked out for being as one DPer put it a 'theoslave'? (note in Christian theology you are either a slave to God, thus liberating you from the world and its woes, or you are a slave to the world which case you are bound to its fate). Should Christians come across material that actively insults them, they should react in disgust and suspicion that you do not have their best interest at heart.
With good ole Jack Hunter while Intro to Liberty 101 should not have lessons on Bilderburg, later in Intermediate and Advanced Liberty, such cliches are expected by authors such as Murray Rothbard. These are the tropism of the monopoly of violence. So as Hunter tries to quell our discussions of the Power Elite, he shoots himself in the foot. Should we limit our discussions to what only Mark Levin talks about? Remember when the Fed was a dangerous and scary topic no one cared for? Hunter is trying to merge with evil. This is a fruitless mission. Rather than lash out with hate against him, we should pity him. He has seen the Ring of Power and has submitted rather than resisted. Jack and his Daily Caller buddies can go back to thinking that Chuck Norris attends Bilderburg while keeping their head deep in sand.
Ultimately, I am guided by Leviticus 19:18: Love your neighbor as yourself. This form of the NAP serves as my moral guide post on how to handle my social and civil discussions. The 'infighting' experienced is in spite of the movement's success. Because of the new found power we have, we are becoming the very things we hate. For sometime, I have seen no difference between the hate on the DP and the hate on Redstate. Where is the LOVE of the Revolution? The love returns when we come back to the table and realize our fight is not with ourselves and our petty egos, but against the power elite, the very ones who say we have to buy health insurance or go to jail.
Peace brothers.
- Login to post comments
I am heartened to see
everyone rallying together. What makes your movement great is our diversity. The left wishes they were like us. They say they like multi-culturalism, but in reality they like fascistic control over society and that includes culture. I view liberty as the best solution to this problem.
I have repeatedly said I love everyone. As I go down a certain road, I realize the more you are flawed, the more you should love your brothers and sisters. That is all of humanity. This is why I fight. I do not want the bad end repeated.
I am humbled to make it on the front page. It is an honor. To be honest, I work nights at a dead end job literally pushing papers. (I strap magazine and newspaper bundles) I go on the DP every break to see the latest news. Many comments have been disheartening, but I am happy to see all the positive ones here.
Thank you all very much.
May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius
Christians can't be a part of
Christians can't be a part of the Ron Paul Revolution??
Well, then that excludes Ron Paul himself.
Ron Paul is a Christian.
So how does Adam's statement make any sense at all.
And one more thing: In 2008, many of us said that the Republican party should welcome us and have a "big tent" and not exclude Ron Paul type newcomers.
... And now our own tent is getting microscopic??
Some in the Liberty movement are acting more like fascists than libertarians. Liberty and freedom is supposed to bring people together, but Rand Paul has got to do everything OUR way or he is a traitor?? That isn't freedom.
Ron Paul is a Christian
.....to some extent.
I hear him talking more about liberty than religion.
I would say he puts individual-authority above church or organzational authority, wouldn't you?
So it depends on what kind of religionist a person is -- dogmatic or indivualist.
Of course a Satanist can be part of the liberty movement and I'm sure there are some -- well a Satanist is going to Hell as all Christians would say and most denominations of Christianity are going to Hell because they are "not quite right" as each individual denomination says (of course the one your in "get's in" and the one I'm not in "means I go to hell").
Absolutism has few loopholes -- Satanists welcome everyone to Hell, every "form" of Satanist Church is "doing it right" -- Satan takes everyone; whereas God (depending on the religion) is very particular.
So Satan wins the numbers game.
I would imagine that then that Satanists have an easier time with the concept of individualism -- see they never "battle" other satanists; maybe there's a rewards program in Hell for "most evil" but that's for the over achievers.
The laziest working satanist gets into hell same as the hardest working; but maybe there's perks?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Ron Paul says: "My faith is a
Ron Paul says:
"My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.
It is God Who gave us life. As He is free, so are those He created in His image. Our rights to life and liberty are inalienable."
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/
Catholics for Ron Paul -- Do they pray for his conversion?
The Pope says all Protestants are going to Hell but I know Priests who are for Ron Paul -- many Catholics in fact.
I guess my point is that Individualism seems to trump Religious Conviction.
How many Catholics-for-Paul have listened to more RP speeches then speeches or words given by the Pope?
RP does not talk about religion or religious conviction because its been the basis for heavy personal attacks, he is wise. Look at poor Mitt on this issue; he's probably not a "deep" Mormon, or maybe he is -- regardless he's been raked for his "beleifs"
If the world were religious like RP -- imagine how much better it would be.
A non-prostylising world.
But some faiths say if you do not "spread the word" you go to hell.
So -- my grand point is that one cannot expect "respect" from people who hold to scripture (especially their version of it) -- they would not be pleased if their daughter married a Catholic (or vice versa married a protestant) because the conversion would mean "straight to hell"
I think for there to be Individualism (economic and social) we will need to drop most of scripture -- in a free-society there is not enough time to dive into non-entrepreneurial activities until old-age.
Religions seek Absolution (a guarantee against oblivion or hell) this leads people to seek Gov't based Absolutions (guarantees against failure or property theft).
If you remove "fear" from religion what's left -- kindness, giving, contribution, and innovation (in all areas). The latter is not compatible with rigidity of thought.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
OctoBox, you're doing a lot of proselytizing...
...for your religion of Individualism. *religio* is from the Latin for "bind." You have bound yourself to this belief with great "rigidity of thought." If you think that you or anyone doesn't have beliefs to which he or she will cling (beliefs which are "immune from revision") though all other beliefs fail, you are naive, indeed.
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Chuqfu: Wow -- That was brilliant
I agree -- The Ego is the only basis of perception; can you show me how you achieve perception separate from your awareness -- can you perceive things without Ego?
Individualism is Egoism and Egoism is what is.
Now "egotisical" is a value judgement and a term that was hijacked by the hyper-sensitives.
Same folks who hijacked the term "discrimination" as if there's a moment when we are NOT discriminating. In the 20's and 30's a young person would be castigated for NOT discriminating, but now that the ACLU (or some other hyper-sensitive group-think protaganists of liberty) have hijacked it we all cringe if someone calls us discriminatory.
Religares "to bind or bound"
There is no "religion" of Individualism -- that's absurd in the phrasing. A "religion" is group-think and organizationalism.
An individual can be spiritual (naturally and without training); but one must be indoctrinated and institutionalized into group-think.
Group-Think is anti-thesis to Individual-Think.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
If one "bind" himself to Individualism,...
...capital "I", as, for example, a competitor of "Religious Conviction" (as you have done), all he has done is substitute for it another religious conviction. "Individualism" is an "ism", after all.
Do you claim not to have any ultimate commitment? That would be hypocritical.
But aside from this and the hypocrisy of continuing to proselytize while condemning people for proselytizing, your big problem is that you continue to use induction without warrant.
Induction is all over your writing; even your use of language assumes that you can arrive at generalities from particulars. But you have no warrant for it; you do it arbitrarily.
You use and believe in the Inductive Principle. Now back up that belief, or, as Wittgenstein said, "Of what you cannot speak, keep silent."
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Chuqfu -- I like saying that name, hahaha
Ol' Wittgenstein
You premise is wrong -- flatly.
You cannot "bind" yourself (as if there was a moment when you weren't) to egoism or individualism; it is first-position.
Religion is adherence to culture and cultural edifications and pronouncements.
Individualism does not adhere (without self-interest, reason, or internal dialectic) -- it is the clarion call of the Entrepreneur -- self-expression, dare to be different, etc.
Religion = Ethical Altruism (as in one must act to benefit others)
Individualism = Ethical Egoism (one "may" act to benefit others)
Which is why Mises (an Ethical Egoist) came up with Consumer-Sovereignty.
Christ was an Ethical Egoist:
Example #1: When he said (Mathew 26.53)"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" He 'chose' to allow profecy to be fulfilled
Example #2: Judas said in John 12:5 "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" Jesus shot back "For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always."
An Ethical Atruist would of sold the money and gave it to the poor.
----Yes I know Judas was only playing at being an ethical altruist and wanted the money for himself.
Anyway.....
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Your entire post assumes Induction.
I have answers for all of your arguments, but the most fundamental issue--which you virtually ignored in your post--"your big problem" is again "that you continue to use induction without warrant.
Induction is all over your writing; even your use of language assumes that you can arrive at generalities from particulars. But you have no warrant for it; you do it arbitrarily.
You use and believe in the Inductive Principle. Now back up that belief, or, as Wittgenstein said, 'Of what you cannot speak, keep silent.'"
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
I'm sorry -- I'm making Mises' argument
Ron Paul's mentor (by his own admission)
I write in short-form because I'm assuming that people are either familiar with RP's quotes or sayings that go back to Mises himself or that they are familiar with free-market theory.
I do this to save space.
Why don't we start over -- based on what we are arguing why don't you build a few premise that result in a conclusion that is the essence of our arguments above.
Then I'll rip them apart and this time I will quote Mises and Ron Paul.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
lol toying with religious
lol toying with religious folk using Objectivisim/Praxology...
too easy.
You may (now) be making Mises' argument,...
...but whether it be Mises' argument, or an argument for Individualism, or one for non-proselytization (the response to which was my original post), you continue implicitly to claim the Inductive Principle, which is the foundation for all of your language use.
Now, make your language use i.e. your implicit claim that reasoning from particulars to generalities is warranted i.e. your use of Induction, intelligible to me.
I don't think you can do it with what is apparently a limited ontology (i.e. belief system about what is).
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Okay Chuq -- I'll take the time to go back to your original post
Here's what you said:
You are arguing that "individualism" is my "religion" and that I am "prostylising" (trying to convert) -- then go on to say I only use (or primarily use the Inductive Principle or Reasoning).
Since you are providing no definitions allow me
From Wikipedia -- According to the philologist Max Müller, the root of the English word "religion", the Latin religio, was originally used to mean only "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety" (which Cicero further derived to mean "diligence").[7][8] Max Müller characterized many other cultures around the world, including Egypt, Persia, and India, as having a similar power structure at this point in history. What is called ancient religion today, they would have only called "law".[9]
So our two choices are "reverence for God or the gods" or "law"
Since I'm not making an argument for "reverence" of anykind (let alone "god or gods" nor am I suggesting my words be taken as "law" (and being that I'm against force-agency in virtually all markets "law" by its common useage would have little "weight" in my world-view)
Therefore my arguments are not "religious" as I'm advocating a non-binding (in the medium to long-run) economy.
I am arguing for "temporary unions" -- but that does not fit the absolutist nature of religion -- maybe "weakly teathered" hahahahahaha.
Next up, your argument that I am "Prostelyzing"
According to Wikipedia -- Historically in the Koine Greek Septuagint and New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a gentile who was considering conversion to Judaism. Though the word proselytism originally referred to Early Christianity (and earlier Gentiles), it also refers to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not.
Since I am not arguing for "religion" (by definition) I do not fit the modern useage of "prostelyzing" (as I am not a religion nor representative of one) and since I am not trying to convert people to Judaism, I do not fit the original definition either.
Smile *curtsy*
Lastly -- the Inductive Principle
Norman Herr Ph.D (Professor of Science Education CSU Northridge)
Herr goes on to say:
Guilty as charged -- Inductive reasoning is essential for scientific discovery.
My premises constitute "good reasons" for accepting the conclusion and my premises are based on "facts or observations"
Since I never argued that my "arguments" couldn't be wrong -- only that they have never been tried en masse or tried as an alternative to what has never-ever-worked, voting and lobbying (with the intent to beget a Misesian type Free-Society), that we might try something different.
[Insert Einstein's definition of Insanity]
From Wikipedia: Inductive reasoning is very useful for scientists, auto mechanics, system integrators, lawyers, network engineers, medical doctors, system administrators and members of all fields where substantial diagnostic or data interpretation work is needed.
From Wiki: . Inductive reasoning aptitude is often counter-productive in fields like sales where tolerance is very important, because highly inductive people tend to be good at seeing faults in others.
Maybe what you are arguing is that I'm not "selling" the idea very well? Fine.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Finally, a stab at Induction.
I reject your self-serving definitions (useful for propping up the Pretended Neutrality Fallacy), when I actually had implicitly defined “religion” as that to which one is bound in his or her beliefs. (Actually, the following definition of “proselytize” works: “attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not.”)
But all that is trivial, contrasted with the discussion of Induction, on which everything else depends.
Herr is only partially right about inductive reasoning, in which he says, “the premises constitute good reasons for accepting the conclusion.” Sometimes not. Sometimes the premises constitute terrible reasons for accepting the conclusion, but inductive reasoning is still being used. Really, any unaided finite human never knows whether the premises are constituting good reasons, since there are factors which are outside his or her perspective. That’s the problem. Warrant is lacking. Use of induction is arbitrary for such a person. Therefore, the use of the language necessary to talk down a selected kind of religion is arbitrary for such a person.
You can’t say anything and make it stick. Your ontology is just too limited. Anything you say is as unintelligible noise.
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Chuq: Herr the Ph.D (university professor) is only
"partially" correct?
And you have a problem with Egoism and Individualism?
Well I do not accept "your" definition -- I accept the ones that come from the experts that I chose -- from popular websites that anyone can use. I don't use yours because you do not site sources, you just say things flatly while arguing from authority.
"Anything you say is an unintelligible noise"
What a cute little absolutist statement -- *wait* (tugs lip / cocks hip) "was my ontology showing?"
Did you mean "say" or "argue" -- just to be (like you) a perfectionist.
Ron Paul is a Constituionalist and a Misesian Scholar.
---Was this statement "unintelligible noise"
---Are "all" of my statements and "everything" I say unintelligible or just the one's you say?
You are not "debating" you are quibbling like a Kardashian who's good at Scrabble or Boggle.
My "self-serving" definitions? Ummmmmm, "individualist" over here. There are ONLY ever self-serving definintions.
Wait -- do you believe in altruism -- in absolutist terms?
If you want to debate then give an opening thesis, state premises, and derive a conclusion.
I will use your "mode" of absolutism to rip it apart.
Or if you want to have a dialectic where we do not hold each other to lingua-perfecto then maybe we can just "get the gist" and keep it moving.
You chose.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Speaking of appealing to authority, Octobox,…
…what does Herr’s degree or position have with it? Such people write from their religious convictions, too. This statement by him is problematic on the face of it: “The premises constitute good reasons for accepting the conclusion. The premises in inductive reasoning are usually based on facts or observations. There is always a possibility, though, that the premises may be true while the conclusion is false.”
If the conclusion were false, but the premises true, the premises didn’t really constitute good reasons for accepting the conclusion, did they? They may have seemed to be good reasons to the inductive reasoner, but they actually weren’t.
Person A meets his first American, Person B who has red hair. Person A then meets his second American, Person C, and he has red hair. The next five Americans Person A meets have red hair. Person A concludes that all or most Americans have red hair. Person A has used inductive reasoning.
You mentioned Individualism. All I said about Individualism is that it apparently is a belief or system of beliefs to which you are “bound” (i.e. hold religiously.) Individualism seems to be a matter of “ultimate concern” (using Tillich’s definition of religion) to you. I was just exposing the use of the Pretended Neutrality Fallacy.
Finally, my remark “Anything you say is as unintelligible noise.” You missed the crucial little preposition “as” in there. In principle, anything you say *would be* unintelligible on your worldview. On any worldview which cannot account for Induction, language is impossible, and meaning cannot be conveyed, hence “unintelligible noise.”
Of course the utterances of a smart guy such as you carry meaning. But it’s only because you are borrowing my worldview. My worldview can deal with the problem of language (as I once said in a Philosophy of Science class to a professor who was quick to change the subject, if you have a God who knows everything, controls everything, and reveals Himself, you have a basis for Induction); yours can’t. The Bible says that you, as a non-Christian, believe in God, but you don’t believe that you believe in God. You are only able to make intelligible statements because you believe in God, even as you espouse with your mouth your disbelief.
On your worldview, you are not able even to get to the point of squabbling over definitions of “religion” because you have not established the rationality of your language use in the first place. To do that, you would need a change in your most basic beliefs i.e. presuppositions. A change so radical is a total conversion.
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Chuq: You are not going to "get it" because your record is stuck
I wasn't pointing out that you were arguing from authority because I'm "hung up" on the fact that you were -- I was just trying to show you that "this game" (this lingua-perfecto -- if you take my meaning) requires too much perfection of language and stricture to logical rules to be a "conversation"
See a conversation or "dialectic" (which I cannot get you to participate in) requires that we "allow" for generalizations if we get the "gist" and not hem-and-haw over each and ever syllable uttered.
Also, since I "risked the bisquit" (meaning I braved an assertion, offered premises, and drove a conclusion) and you have-not using "your style" of exactitude makes it a one-sided harpooning -- it would be easy for me to do the same to you.
When did I "borrow" your world view?
I really do not know what your worldview is and I challenge you to define "my world view" -- because that is the basis of your argument, "that your world view can account for language and mine can not" -- that statement was "unintellible noise"
Ron Paul, Mises, and the Founding Father's have used Induction to make points -- Ron does it all the time in fact; his "short-hand" commentary requires a "leap of logic" that will serve posterity better then most modern "listeners" who will be lost on the far reaching dots he connects in rapid fire fashion -- often ending in a conclusion that is not necessarily logically (if one cannot "leap").
It would seem then that I am in good company.
But I'm sure that "I" (a bloke having a bit of convo) on a blog have a "special kind" of induction (one of "terrible premises") and should not consider myself in the company of such men, right?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
This isn’t about formality of language.
You attacked “religions”, particularly Catholicism and Protestantism, and in doing so, you bit the hand that feeds all of us, because all of us—you, I, Ron Paul, Mises--use and assume Induction. It is all-pervasive in our lives; you can’t use memory or go about any of your daily tasks or use language without assuming Induction. The thing is, my worldview Christian Theism with its infinite, personal, all-knowing, all-controlling and self-revelatory God can account for Induction. Philosophers of language consider our participation in the language experience a “miracle.” For them, it’s a Problem to be solved. Without this God, they can’t do it. Language shouldn’t happen.
You have the same problem with your worldview, whatever it is, since you lack this God. And so you go on assuming Induction as if there’s a God there who can make e.g. language work. As you do, you borrow my worldview.
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
So you are "literally" arguing that Christians
(Protestants and Catholics) "created" Induction?
Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Wow -- I've now "seen" the "terrible" premises you spoke of coming out of inductive reasoning, hahahahaha.
By-the-By -- I never said I was an Atheist. I try to use "value-free" analysis as much as possible, unless I'm speaking to religious people who have to have "individualism" couched in semi-religious terms; which I have no problem quoting the Bible.
Also - When did I say I was an "atheist"
To Catholics you are an Atheist -- To you Catholics are Atheists (since Martin Luther declared them so -- for follwoing the Pope "anti-christ").
Since you can't untie those knots there's no point in offering my spiritual views -- you two philosophical love birds have your hands full, hahahaha.
Or do you believe the Jews created Induction?
What about Ancient East Indians -- did they use Inductive Reasoning?
Or are you saying that inductive reasoning comes out of religion (any religion)?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Please don’t put words into my mouth.
I never said you were an atheist. I said that you lack i.e. don’t believe in the “infinite, personal, all-knowing, all-controlling and self-revelatory God.” (The Catholics’ worldview is wrong also. Their god is not all-controlling.) OctoBox, you may have some kind of god (I wrote of “your worldview, whatever it is”), but not this God, which is the kind of God needed.
No human being ever “created” Induction, but all of us use and believe in the Inductive Principle. But this belief is arbitrary for most people. Their philosophies can’t account for it. The Christian one can.
But everyone, all day long, acts on his belief in Induction. Any time he uses memory, uses language, etc. etc. etc., he acts on generalities drawn from particulars.
Every time he opens his mouth, he claims the Inductive Principle implicitly. He should be able to back up that claim.
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Chuq: You most certainly ARE calling me an atheist
An atheist is also anyone who does not believe in the "right" God.
You just said I had "...you may have somekind of god" (little "g") but not this "God" (big "g").
How rude to "speculate" -- you are using the same induction you accuse me of using; where could you possibly draw such a conclusion, based on what my username has written?
Something about casting stones and without sin (fit that in).
Catholics called Martin Luther an "athiests" -- Several (probably all) Pope's said this.
Lutherans said the Pope was the anti-christ therefore the followers are "atheists"
Pagans called early Christians "atheists"
Martin Luther is the Father of Prostetantism so ispo fact you are calling me an atheist. In your mind I deny the existence of the one-true-God.
When Jesus said "I do not know what my father knows" -- my ancestors said "we do not know what Christ knows" and that ended any and all self-righteous pontificating.
My ancestors KISS (kept it simple stupid).
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
There are more people in the world than atheists and believers i
There are more people in the world than atheists and believers in the One True God, in my book.
So I would say that, apparently, you are not an atheist.
If, according to your definitional scheme, you are an atheist, that’s your business. If, according to someone else’s definitional scheme, I’m an atheist, that’s fine.
“In your mind I deny the existence of the one-true-God.” True. You wouldn’t have written the things you have if you believed in the “infinite, personal, all-knowing, all-controlling and self-revelatory God.”
Jesus (a human name for the God-man) inasmuch as he is a man, does not know what his Father knows. Christ (a divine name for the God-man) inasmuch as He is God, knows what we don’t. But *God has revealed Himself in the Bible.* It’s not “self-righteous pontificating” if in sincerity and faith I repeat what God has revealed.
You continue implicitly to claim the Inductive Principle. It’s time you backed it up.
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Catholics being "wrong" means they go to Hell
and burn there forever and ever -- that's EXACTLY what you are saying.
"Wrong" (being off) in an Absolutist Culture/Religion is a serious issue.
Billions of Catholic Souls burning forever and ever; according to your "world view"
Let alone all the non-Christians (I'm calling Catholics Christians too here): Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, Muslims who never read the Bible or the Torah -- according to your "world view" are all in hell burning forever and ever.
The Protestant worldview (unlike the Catholic purgatory) offers no escape from Hell.
The Catholics believe something nearly as awful about Protestants.
I guess I understand why you believe your world view can account for Induction -- because your world view is the most hell-casting: with Muslims ranked number two.
So -- the Religion with the most Hell-Casting authority (the most absolutist) is the one who can "account" for Inductive Reasoning the best, hmmmm?
Okay - kidding aside.
Why can Evangelicals or Baptists (whichever one you are) better account for Inductive Reasoning.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
There will be plenty of Catholics in heaven.
They are better than their worldview.
You seem to think that the idea of Hell is unjust. I would like to know the ethical standard by which you judge.
Why can the Christian worldview “better account for Inductive Reasoning.”? Not “better” but “only.” The Christian God is able to sustain the world in such an orderly way that belief in induction is inescapable (essential to human experience) for those who are made in His image and believe in Him, which all humans do (even though many deny that they do). He also assures us that the world He created is of the sort that this belief in Induction (e.g. that language works, that the future will be like the past, that we can speak of “probability”, that there is cause and effect) is warranted (again, when He is presupposed)
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
Chuqfu: That was not "logical" at all
The "Christian" God -- Well there's the problem right there.
Martin Luther (father of Protestantism) said the Pope is the anti-christ -- Catholics believe that one must go "through" the Church to get into Heaven.
Catholics believe BECAUSE Protestants are not going through the Church and because Martin Luther was the "anti-christ" they are following a false prophet and thus not following "the God" and are atheists.
People like me are thought to be "atheists" because we do not follow a decendent branch of Martin Luther or Catholicism.
Catholics believe that Reformation Christianity and its fundamental sola scriptura principle itself nowhere appears in Scripture and so is self-referentially contradictory.
Reformists believe that Scripture condemns all human traditions because of man’s sinful heart, which is drawn to human autonomy and consequently makes human traditions more important than the Bible itself. Thus Romanists (according to Protestantism) are guilty of letting traditions supplant the Word of God and said traiditons become the ultimate standard by which the Scriptures are interpreted and judged; thus Roman Catholic Church is ultimately founded upon human doctrinal relativism.
Never before have two organizations been more mutually exclusive -- if you believe in one you must believe the other to be atheistical (in essense).
Since we cannot determine "which" God is the one of Inductive Reasoning how do we know it's a Christian one -- since the Romanist and the Protestant can thouroughly refute the legitimacy of the other and the hell-bound assurity of all Messiah-Denying Jews would it be TOTALLY impausible that a non-Christian God created Induction?
You have left the realm of observable logic and have not entered the theater of the absurd.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
So, you’re saying,...
So, you’re saying, “Yes, I have no foundation for Induction, cannot account for the language required to raise one more syllable of protest against what you’re saying, and concede the debate, but this thing still bothers me about your worldview…”?
Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/
You must be new to liberty
You must be new to liberty and constitutional government? It does not matter what Ron Paul believes or does not believe. This is why this is a wedge issue and you are doing so well at playing into it.
Why does Alex Jones insert a "submit to fear" subliminal message in his movies?
Forever Liberty: "Oh no you didn't"
;-)
If you mean "you are new to the 'concept' or the 'philosophy' of liberty" then the answer is no.
If you meant that "you" are living in liberty and I am not, then I'd say "fool me once, shame on you...."
We live under Corporatism my friend and until you understand Mises' concept of Consumer-Sovereignty and as long as you are into Hero-Worship or Demon-Seeking you will never be able to rest the problem of corporatism on the correct group of individuals -- the consumer.
There's no need to look for boogeymen -- it's "us"
We provide the "evil-they" their revenue stream.
We purchase their products
We purchase their religious dogma
---religion is NOT spirituality
---Jesus was not selling religion (by-the-by)
We purchace their security
We purchase their ballots
----We lobby and vote (or bribe and abdicate self-rule)
We bank at their banks
We buy their insurance
We use their currency
We use their fuel and energy
It's "theirs" until we learn that we are nearly 100% of their revenue-base -- then it becomes "ours" (as the "collective" consumer body to which "they" are members).
Until then we are Side-Picking Blame-Shifters
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Clearly the only answer...
is ponies for all.
Strength through friendship (which is magic).
@WeMckay