ChristopherJ Regular member Location: Columbus, OH Last login: 01/01/10 RSS feed
My name's Christopher. I'm a single, 26 year old male, and have spent a lot of time in private study and thought.
I have somewhat of a difficulty personifying myself on paper, but I'll add a few things about what I do.
I am a musician. I am a programmer. I am an author. I am a counselor. I am a historian. I am a psychologist. I am a dancer. I am a scientist. I am a believer.
I believe in God, I believe in the Messiah (Jesus Christ, Yeshua), I am saved by the Messiah, and I believe that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate.
After spending some years in thought on the subject of "Where do we go from here?"... I believe I've found the answer. I've spoken with many great leaders in the movement of CFL, 9/11 movements, and others. None seemed to give me an answer that made sense when I asked the question. The answer finally came to me when I read a quote by John Q Adams. It reads:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
When I was young and my mom made me help her weed the garden, she always emphasized that I pull the weed out by the root. If I only ripped off the leaves or stem, it would quickly grow back and we would return to the garden the next day pulling them out again.
What is the cause for all this? Why are we losing our freedom? Why are we becoming slaves? Why are we being brainwashed so easily? Who defines freedom? Who defines what is right or wrong?
If you begin with these questions and follow the lines of reasoning, you will come to the same conclusions I did.
When asked once, if I was a libertarian or constitutionalist, I responded with a story I heard once. An angel appeared to Joshua during a time of war. Joshua, frightened, asked, "Are you for us, or our enemy?" The angel replied, "No."
Posted by ChristopherJ on 08/23/09 Last updated 08/23/09
I was skimming over forum topics on a Liberty-based website and saw one topic entitled, "Why are we arguing about Creation vs Evolution?" In fact, as I searched further, I found this to be the hottest topic in most every Liberty-forum I found. In the past, I've certainly enjoyed watching debates on the topic, but it got me to thinking about why it was being discussed in a forum discussing the restoration of US Constitutional values.
I did not see the point in it at first, but after taking time to read, study, and think carefully to find the truth of the issue, I discovered Liberty's 'best kept secrets', and it turned my original view on Liberty upside-down. So we'll begin with my first encounters on the road to find the truth.
Here are a few of the questions I repeatedly read when looking over Liberty-based websites: Why would anyone in a campaign for Liberty want to discuss Creation vs Evolution? Wouldn't that divide our cause? We don't need God for Liberty, so why discuss it at all?
To start at the beginning, I thought back about all the people at the rallies yelling for freedom, so I decided to look up the definition for freedom:
Freedom: the state of exemption from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
If we break it down, it simply means using one's own will to make a choice. Now we need to define 'choice'.
Choice: the act or instance of selection from a number of possibilities.
So, breaking down the definition of freedom once again, it means using one's own will to select from a number of possibilities.
From these definitions, we can see that freedom and choice form a symbiotic relationship. Because, in order to choose, we must have freedom. In order to have freedom, we must be able to choose.
Now that we have defined 'freedom', we must ask: Do we want freedom? I don't know of anyone that would say no to that question. Freedom would allow me to do what I wanted to do when I wanted to do it, if I desire to do so.
Now that I want freedom, how do I get it?
I was born and raised in the united States of America. So, as child growing up in the good 'ol US of A, I can say my freedom comes from the US Constitution, because that's what I was taught. Our founding fathers wrote it at the creation of our country.
But those of us who live in America must first stop and consider the following: Does a free society only exist with the US Constitution? Are others incapable of acheiving a free society because they do not live in our country?
The answers to those questions are, of course, no. Then what makes what we have in America different than other countries in the world?
To discover answers to these kinds of questions, we have to look back to the beginning. So let's find out why the founding fathers of our nation wrote the declaration that stated our independence from England:
The founding fathers, as all of the colonists, were under the oppression of British rule. They were not able to speak freely as we do today, and were forced to meet in secret. They were bullied into the whims and ideals of King George III. The founding fathers saw an opportunity to start a country of their own, and even though only a small percentage of the colonial population supported them, they decided to declare their independence in a document:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Before I broke down this first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, I wanted to first find out what was meant by "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," so I went digging. There were a lot misconceptions and opinions I had to go through before I found the true source of this term. It comes from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England, which, at the time, was the only published book on Law.
Blackstone states: As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature, being coeval (coexistent) with mankind and dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures...Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered permitted to contradict these.
With this understanding, let's break this first paragraph down into a more simplistic format so we can all understand what's being said: "When the people must eventually throw off binding political ties, and take up power granted to them by God (Laws of Nature and Nature's God), respect to others' opinions requires they give a reason for their act to seperate."
This really made me think about issue they dealt with at the time. I asked myself, "How many laws did the founders break by signing this declaration and acting upon it?" Most likely about all of them. Imagine today if we were going to declare independence from the government. How many laws would we have to break? Lots of them for sure. Therefore, just as the founders did, we would need to provide a reason and justification for our authority to overthrow them.
As I continued to read the Declaration of Independence, I realized that the founders did just that in the next paragraph: 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.
Ok, so in order to break this down, I needed to first get the definition of 'self-evident'.
Self-evident: evident in itself without proof or demonstration
Our founding fathers wrote boldly that a Creator is evident in itself, without proof or demonstration. Or in other words, upon bare presentation to the mind, it is obvious there is a God. However, 'in respect to the opinions of mankind', I wanted to take a look at the other side of the argument.
So in this 2nd paragraph, I see four major points being made: 1) All men are created equal. If men are not created equal, how can they be equal at all? After considering this, and for the sake of argument, let's look at the other side and assume there is no God, and assume that evolution is true. I thought, "If everything evolved, then some creatures would be superior to others. (one evolves, and then the others have to die off so the strongest survives) Therefore, some men are superior to other men. Therefore, they cannot be equal." The concept of equality among men requires an absolutes standard. Mankind, so far, has been unable to create an absolute standard unless with a Creator. The perspective without the Creator seems to hold a serious problem in relation to our founding documents.
2) All these equal men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. So I continued, "Assuming there is no God, does mankind have rights?" Let's first define a 'right':
Right: a just claim or title
It's a claim or title, but specifically a 'just' one. So let's define that:
Just: guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness; based on right; rightful
So assuming there is no God, is there such a thing as truth, reason, justice and fairness? These things are all based on 'right', which is the opposite of 'wrong'. Therefore, if there is no God, we need a standard of right vs wrong.
3) The Creator of these men, endowed rights to them that include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Let's take a simple example from this, and think about the concept of 'the right to life'. Let's assume, once again, there is no God: What gives us the right to life? Let's say a child is aborted (murdered) by the parents. Did the child have a right to life? If yes, then who gives the child that right? We could say it's against the law, but who's law? If we claim the government says no, then who's right? The government or the parents who got rid of their child?
Again, assuming there is no God, there is no standard of measurement to determine right and wrong, and therefore there is no standard of measurement to determine rights at all.
4) To secure the rights given to men by the Creator, Governments are instituted. The reason given for the seperation from England and the Revolution of the Colonies, was the Creator gave them rights King George had no authority to take away. (the remainder of the Declaration is a list of violations of the King of England) Since governments are instituted only to protect the rights from the Creator (according to the founders who signed the Declaration), King George was over stepping his bounds. Since King George is below the Creator on the scale of ranking, and the Creator has dictated that the actions of King George were wrong, the people had the authority and right to overthrow his rule.
So my misconception for many years was that the Consitution gave me my rights, and without that Constitution, I would be without rights. I was fascinated to learn, according to the founding fathers of this nation, that I had rights by the Creator that no man can take away, and our Constitution is the reflection of a government created on the basis of the words from the Creator. Therefore, no matter what happens, no man has any authority or justification to take my rights. As long as I stand on the side of the Creator, I will be in the right over anyone who chooses to oppress my Liberty.
But what happens if there is no God? What happens if evolution is true? Let's say a half-monkey, half-man cave dweller, millions of years ago, found himself a neighbor of his same species. Let's say this new neighbor happened upon a freshly killed mammoth and brought it back to his cave. The monkey-man watches his neighbor with the mammoth, and thinks, "I want that." So he walks up behind the new neighbor, and bashes him over the head and kills him, taking the mammoth meat for himself. Was it wrong? Or was it just part of the evolutionary process?
If I went to an atheist-based forum and said that monkey-men used fire and clubs to gain dominance over their other weaker species to survive and evolve, they would generally agree with this. But if I were to say that the New World Order wants to use chemical-warfare and guns to gain dominance over their other weaker species to survive and evolve, they seem to disagree with it.
This begs the question: "How do we determine right from wrong?"
To get specific to the fight for Liberty, many people call themselves 'patriots'. What is a patriot?
Patriot: a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion
Please keep in mind that the definition of a patriot has no mention or word of supporting the US Constitution.
I'm fairly certain that Obama honestly believes he's a person who loves, supports, and defends his country and its interests with devotion. So Obama honestly believes he's a patriot. People like Obama, label as 'terrorists' those who are seeking to fight for Liberty described in our Declaration of Independence. On the flip side, those fighting for Liberty label Obama as the terrorist, and claim themselves as patriots. Who's right?
Nobody wants to label themselves as a terrorist group or organization. Everyone thinks they are patriots, doing the right and best thing for the interests of their country and the world. But I want to find the truth, so to the self-proclaimed warriors of Liberty, I pose this question:
Assuming there is no God, on what authority do you justify that your cause is right, and Obama's cause is wrong?
Without an absolute standard of right and wrong, those claiming to fight on behalf of Liberty, could very well be fighting for something that's wrong, or bad for the world, and they don't even know it. Until this primary foundational question is answered, we'll be no better than a dog chasing cars.
I began to pose this question on a few different liberty-based websites. I got a wide variety of answers, but each answer I got imployed one's own authority. This is circular reasoning. Let's take a look at the definition, and then a few live examples:
Circular Reasoning: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this."
Circular reasoning is used when a person wants to convince himself what he is saying is true, when in reality, what he is saying is completely illogical. For example, someone makes the statement: "Jimmy Carter was the best president in US History." I then ask, "How do you know this?" He responds, "Because history proves it." I ask, "How does history prove it?" He responds, "Because he was the best president." And on and on and on. It quickly becomes an endless "debate" because the person refuses to see his circular argument.
Here are a few examples of the answers I've been given to the question: Assuming there is no God, on what authority do you justify that your cause is right, and the New World Order's (NWO) cause is wrong? (Keep in mind, these are actual live answers I've been given, verbetum)
1) "I know our natural rights do not depend on the existence of a creator, because I know that we possess natural rights." This is a primary example of circular reasoning. Allow me to translate that: "We don't need God to have rights." How do you know this? "Because we have rights."
2) "The study of humans proves that we need freedom in order to flourish." This is an example of circular reasoning inside of circular reasoning. Flourish: to be successful; prosper This doesn't answer the question at all. However, what is implied from it is that prosperity is right and freedom is the best way to acheive it. This person is trying to use right and wrong to define right and wrong. In order to explain why he is right and the NWO is wrong, he has already assumed that it is 'right' for people to prosper. Who determines that? Again, this goes back to circular reasoning claiming one's own authority.
3) "I am my own authority, which needs no justification because I am." This answer was obviously not thought out completely, because if he wants to claim his own authority, he can, but the NWO claims their own authority as well. And if they 'need no justification' then why are we fighting them? Which brings us back to the original question, who's right and who's wrong? He says: "I say I'm justified." How do you know this? "I am because I am." -- That's worse than circular reasoning... that's the reasoning of a 5 year old child.
4) "Because of my natural senses of empathy, fairness and reciprocity, my primary concern is for human beings." There are a long list of problems with this. First of all, it doesn't the question of why the NWO is wrong. Second, this heavily implies that empathy, fairness, and reciprocity are 'right'. This is similar to example #2 because it uses an assumption of 'right' to define right and wrong. Finally, having concern for mankind does not prove right and wrong, and does not define a person as 'good'. Whereas, a person with no concern for mankind does not prove right and wrong, and does not define that person as 'evil'. Again, the question still stands, what makes your cause right, and the NWO's cause wrong?
5) "It feels terrible to turn away a person who truly needs your help, and it feels good to help them." How you feel doesn't determine right and wrong. This is similar to answer #4. It probably felt very good to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to murder their school mates at Columbine. Does that mean it was right because it felt good? Trying to base right and wrong off of 'feeling' is one of the most flimsy arguments someone could make.
6) "You cannot prove/disprove metaphysical assertions of the sort contained in all these religions." Translation: "I don't have an answer." All of the answers I've been given are based mostly off of the first five, but in many cases, people will just make a comment like #6, and then disappear. (i.e. the person who gave me this response did just that, I never heard from him again)
7) The final answer says: "Might makes right." This could not be more circular. This says, "If I am the mightiest, therefore I'm right." This is extemely similar to 'survival of the fittest'. Why is it the fittest? "Because it survived." Why did it survive? "Because it's the fittest." Let's take a historical example: Hitler fought against many countries in Europe, and won. Therefore, by this logic, he was right because he was the most powerful. He slaughtered 6 million jews, and countless others, but he was the strongest, so he was right by this logic. The Allied Forces later came and defeated Nazi Germany, so was Hitler now wrong because he was over-powered? Or was he still right and just lost the battle? Apparently, by this 'might make right' logic, those who have more tanks and missles can create right and wrong. This has absolutely no logic, and cannot define right and wrong because it can change on a whim.
The only way to fit any of these seven points into the mind is to ignore any and all logic in its path.
I've spent a lot of time, considering this question while assuming there is no God, and I cannot find one single answer that bears any logical deduction. Therefore, the only logical conclusion, is the reliance on God, the Creator, for our rights; also known as a 'self-evident truth'.
So why does Creation vs Evolution present such an important discussion to the Liberty Campaign? Because without God, you cannot have one. Of course, the science of the issue is saved for another debate, but just from a logical standpoint, upon bare presentation to the mind, a Creator is obvious.
As a final note, I would like to quote from an article written by Chuck Baldwin in the New American magazine, Dec 24, 2007.
The article talks about Rene Descartes, who is considered the 'father of Rationalism', and came up with the phrase, "I think, therefore I am." Descartes, since he had doubted what he was seeing because his senses were only as reliable as they were perceived to be, wrote about what doubt and desire must be:
"How would it be possible for me to know that I doubt and that I desire -- that is, that I lack something and am not all perfect -- if I did not have in myself any idea of a being more perfect than my own, by comparison with which I might recognize the defects of my own nature? Finally, I understand very well that the objective existence of an idea can never be produced by a being that is merely potential and that, properly speaking, is nothing, but only by a formal or actual being. We must necessarily conclude from the mere fact that I exist and that I have an idea of a supremely perfect Being, or God, that the existence of God is very clearly demonstrated."
I encourage everyone to continue to seek the non-biased truth, no matter how scary it might be, and no matter how many people may hate you for it. Because Liberty is not a battle of might... it is a battle of right vs wrong.
Posted by ChristopherJ on 11/25/09 Last updated 11/25/09
As I've read, and written about, the principles of Liberty, I realized I had never looked up its meaning. I had used the words freedom and liberty interchangeably, assuming they meant the same thing.
After my first time speaking to an audience on this issue back in April, I had a gentleman approach me afterward and said he preferred to stick with the Biblical word, 'Liberty', and suggested I may want to do the same. I told him I'd need to do some research into that first.
Define (verb): to determine or identify the essential qualities of; to discover and set forth the meaning of
I've looked up the definition of 'liberty' from quite a few sources, and I discovered almost all of them were different. However, there was one definition in all the lists that struck my curiosity. This definition, once I looked deeper into it, was fascinating and is the only definition I could find that was not able to be interchangeably used with 'freedom'. Or in other words, it was the only definition that really separated the two.
Liberty (noun): free from arbitrary or despotic government or control
The two key adjectives in that definition are 'arbitrary' and 'despotic'. So what do they mean? Despotic describes a despot, or one who practices despotism, so let's begin there:
Despotism (noun): the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority; absolute power or control; tyranny
To break it down, it seems that despotism is the rule of a tyrannical person who exercises absolute power, control and authority. Let's take a look at 'tyranny'.
Tyranny (noun): arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority
It seems to be correct to say that a despot and a tyrant, by definition, can be used interchangeably. So it would be more properly stated that a despot is a tyrannical ruler, abusing absolute power, control and authority.
Isn't it interesting that tyranny and liberty seem to use the same descriptive words? Liberty seems to be freedom from tyranny. However, in order to define tyranny, we still need to define those two key adjectives. The second word we need to look at is 'arbitrary':
Arbitrary (adjective): subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion
Discretion (noun): the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment
Ok, so let's break this down again. Arbitrary means, basically, one's will based on one's own judgement.
Now isn't that confusing? On one hand, liberty is defined as being free from control of, or government enforced by, a tyrannical leader exercising abuse of authority. On the other hand, you have liberty defined as being free from control, or government enforced by, one's own judgement.
Law forms at the base of liberty because rules must be formed to protect the fruit of one's labor. Private property is essential to a free people, so laws are also essential to a free people. Laws are based on the determination of morality (right vs wrong). The definitions of right and wrong must come from some one's thoughts, or more accurately put, some one's opinion.
So to break this down further, on one hand, liberty is defined as being free from control of another man's opinion. On the other hand, it is defined as being free from control from one's own opinion. So if liberty isn't a man's own opinion, and it isn't some other man's opinion, where do we get the knowledge for law in liberty? That only leaves two options:
1) There is no opinion. We can automatically rule that out, because as we all know: Everyone has an opinion. Besides, without an opinion, there would be no law, and this is redundant because if there was no opinion, man would just end up using his own again, which would not define liberty.
There is only one logical choice left. Once we break down the definition of Liberty, we find that it is "freedom from man's opinion." Therefore, the only place left to go is to God's Word. Liberty is God's Word. This is why the first mention of the word 'liberty' in the Bible is engraved on our American Liberty Bell:
"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." -Leviticus 25:10
Though Liberty was given to man at the Creation in the Garden of Eden, after the worldwide flood, Liberty was given again to a specific people God chose to be a light and example to other nations. This liberty was given through the Law, designed by God to direct men on proper worship, protection of life, and protection of private property ownership.
For example, if you had a brother who was a lazy drunkard and had to end up selling his land, you, his direct family, were supposed to buy it from him, and every 50 years, even if your brother did not shape up and earn what he needed to buy his land back, his family would receive that land back (via your gift) by God's decree. That means your brother's wife/children/grandchildren would never permanently lose right to property because of his laziness. No man had any authority to permanently take away one's property. It almost seems like God knew what He was doing, doesn't it? (As always, people have the choice to follow God's Word or not, for more details on private property ownership and the year of jubile, read Leviticus 25)
This means that phrases like 'personal liberty' or 'individual liberty' are oxymorons. This leads to the thought that one person's 'individual liberty' is different from another person's. Those phrases lead back to arbitrary opinion, which, according to definition, liberty is freedom from. And that can lead to other implications that not all people have the same liberties, which can lead to one group of people being superior to another.
It is amazing to see how many people are satisfied to be rid of God, but still claim to fight for liberty. Liberty and God cannot be disconnected because it is one and the same. He is the source. Those that are fighting for liberty, but disconnect God from it, are not truly fighting for liberty. They're fighting for something else.
Those that do not want to believe that Liberty is God's Word or that God is the foundation of Law and Liberty, will argue (because I've seen this tried before) that God is a despot, and attempt to apply that definition to Him. This is completely illogical for a few reasons:
1) Tyranny is defined as an abuse of unlimited, unrestricted power and authority. The Creator is all-power and unbound by His creation. He is absolute power and authority. A tyrant is a man, whom was created, that claims more power and authority than he actually has. Tyranny accurately describes Satan, as he always tempts man with offers of riches he does not have the power to bestow. For example, when Satan tells men, "ye shall be as gods." It is a lie, and that lie still circulates today.
"The turning point in history will be the moment man becomes aware that the only god of man is man himself." -Henri de Lubec, Atheistic Humanist, p. 10
2) The watch does not tell the watchmaker how it will run. In all cases of design and creation on this earth, it's the creator who dictates the creation. And it is the mercy of God that we are even still here, in so many instances, and so many ways, it would be difficult to find room for them all in this article.
3) The arguments of God as a tyrant are based on His destroying, or orders of destroying, groups of people. However, it is very typical in most cases that the people scoffing at the Bible, do not read it. They'll read one or two verses, and take that out of context, and then claim God as 'evil' or 'bad', when they have no definition of what 'evil' or 'bad' is, besides the Word of God. Let's take a quick example from the story of the American Revolution. If I were to quote from a book about George Washington saying, "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!" I could say, "Look at how vicious he is! He wants his men to see the look on these guys' faces as he murders them ruthlessly and with no warning! How can you tell me he's a good man?" Well, as you can see, I got the wrong idea about what was happening because I didn't read the whole story. So most people, in my experience, who scoff at the Bible, do it in this same fashion, but refuse to correct it when presented with all the information. That is called willful ignorance. And when someone repeats that willful ignorance to others, that is called brainwashing. (See You've Been Brainwashed! Consult Your Doctor for more details)
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" -2 Peter 3:5
This same group of people, who scoff at God's word, will try to 'redefine' liberty (which is God's Word) by claiming they just don't see it that way. So in "modern wisdom," (homo sapien sapien = the wise, wise man) people 'claim' they are free to redefine a word however they see fit. Because of that, it's no wonder man has difficulty seeing any black and white issues because they have no defining absolutes.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," -Romans 1:22
Let's look at an example. The author of an article, called The Foodie Rebillion, on breakthematrix.com clearly stated that his definition of 'good' is his own desire for profit. His fight is for his own profit, also known as, 'the love of money' in 1 Timothy 6:10. Money is not evil because it does not have a conscience. Working hard and earning wages is not evil. However, when one attempts to justify 'good' via personal profit, that is where the roots of evil form. For that very same reason, we have things like the Military Industrial Complex, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Federal Reserve System, just to name a few examples.
Now a line is drawn in the sand. There are two sides to this battle. Which side are you on? There is one side defending Liberty, which is God's Word. The other side, is defending 'freedom'. Let's take a look at few common definitions of 'freedom':
Freedom (noun): -exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc (notice that could mean freedom from a lot of things, and can include law) -the power to determine action without restraint (no compass, we'll get to that shortly) -personal liberty (there's that oxymoron statement again) -exemption from the presence of anything specified (that could mean anything) -the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc (no ties to anything) -general exemption or immunity (exemption is implying rights from the state) -a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation (enjoyed via city or corp?) -a political right (looks like rights from the state doesn't it?) -civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government (that's the definition of liberty, which freedom is not, and some of the previous definitions are contradicting)
I couldn't tell which definitions to use at first, since many of the definitions between both words were similar, until I simply started eliminating the possibilities by comparing both lists, or in other words, eliminating the definitions from Liberty that are used elsewhere to describe Freedom. As you can see, 'freedom' has a much wider spectrum of definitions, which makes it more susceptible to bait-and-switch tactics when people refer to 'the principles of freedom'.
These same bait-and-switch tactics, using words interchangeably to confuse people, are found in the IRS, when they use the word 'Income', the US Government when they use the word 'Law', or atheists when they use the word 'Evolution'. These different words have many different meanings, so when they're used on paper, one must first define what they mean before anyone can fully understand what is being said. When someone doesn't understand what's being said, this is how people get tricked into believing falsehoods that are only assumed to be true.
For example, when I was looking up Merriam-Webster's dictionary online, at the bottom, it includes suggested synonym definitions. When I typed in Liberty, it gave me Freedom as a suggested synonym. When I clicked on Freedom, it gave me License as a suggested synonym. Wow! That was very surprising. License: permission to act; a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights.
Freedom seems to, at first glance, defend the idea of being "free from external control." Farther down the list, however, it really seems that the major difference between Liberty and Freedom is that Liberty is granted by God, and Freedom is granted by the State. Freedom granted by the State is the standard by which those separating from the Creator must follow since laws must require some form of moral absolute. Those moral standards created by the State, must have multitudes of enforcement behind them, and this creates many masters because the wicked are in need of them.
To have a master other than the Lord God, is to invoke the seeds of tyranny, and to be ignorant of the Supreme God of the Universe, is to be ignorant of the key that unlocks the chains binding mankind.
This means: Ignorance not just of one's rights, but also of where those rights originate.
There's a surprising number of people that believe in the concept that "No Rules = Freedom." (See The New World Order's Justification for more details) However, this gift from God (Liberty) is the tracks upon which the train travels. It's the steering wheel which commands the vehicle. It's the compass that guides the sailor:
This real freedom he's referring to is Liberty, as I demonstrated earlier, which requires moral absolutes. The only absolute man will ever determine, is that man can never determine an absolute. As time goes on, our need of reliance on our Lord and Creator grows.
Freedom, however, appears to be license given to you by the State, that allows you temporary arbitrary rights until otherwise decided by the leadership's discretion in the government. If you don't get rights from the State, then from where? If one says it comes from personal discretion, that leads right back to Democracy, or Anarchy, which are self-destructive.
The concept of the Creator being the foundation of Liberty brings with it the concept of mankind's free right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, until a person makes a choice to deny someone else of those rights. This Law of God (aka Common Law or Nature's Law according to William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law) is unchangeable by man.
But when man makes their own laws, it then becomes license rather than right, where as only specific men belonging to that society are given permission (license) to those rights, and license is retracted upon violation of whatever moral standards are arbitrarily attached as requirements for that privilege. Those parameters are always subject to change due to man's inability to create an absolute moral standard.
Here's a simple example of the different between Liberty and Freedom: your driver's license. Do you have the right to drive? If so, where do you get that right? If by Liberty and God, you have that right from the moment of your conception. If by Freedom and State, you do not have that right at your conception. You only have that right when the license, or privilege, is granted to you by the State (roughly at age 16). So which side are you on?
In fact, according to the State, you don't even have the right to LIFE at conception. You only have that right when the license, or privilege, is granted to you by the State upon exit of the birth canal. However, according to Liberty, God tells woman, "Behold, thou are with child," and the right to life granted upon conception. So which side are you on?
Whether you choose the side of Liberty or Freedom, both sides require a standard of morality. The moral determination of right and wrong are how laws are made. In a previous article, I covered the topic that a republic cannot exist without God because of the issues concerning Law and Morality. (See The Most Important Issue in the Freedom Campaign for more details)
For example, if one's moral standard of 'good' was income (profit or gain via corporate activity), as some have stated, then decision of morality would be made solely on whether or not a specific action would profit a business. If an employee was a hard worker, and his wife just had a baby, and he was in need of a raise, you could not give it to him. Because doing anything for him would be bad, and immoral according to the standard aforementioned. It would only be good and moral to pay that employee a minimal amount, to increase your own gain.
This kind of thinking is how evil and wicked governments, corporations, and organizations are originally formed. Some primary examples, off the top of my head, would be the formation of our Federal Reserve System, our Central Intelligence Agency, and our American Civil Liberties Union.
However, the Word of God (aka Liberty) is to love thy neighbor as thyself, stated first by God in Leviticus 19:18, and then again by His Son, Jesus Christ, in Matthew 22:36-40. Or in other words, treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated. Therefore, by the immovable Word of God, it would be moral and good to give the deserving, hard-working man a raise to help cover the costs of his child.
This example of morals I just presented, God vs Money, is only one of literally hundreds of examples. However, it does clearly demonstrate the difference between Liberty, which would stabilize a Republic under God, who promotes life and prosperity, versus Freedom, which would eventually break down into Oligarchy or Democracy under man, promoting his own death and destruction. Which side are you on?
There are those desperately fighting to find a common ground among the people wanting to fight for the principles of liberty. This comes from the hope that all will be united under a common goal to fight for a common cause. That desire for a unified cause is impossible with the corruptions of modern day society. Our country, and most specifically our people, have fallen far from the level of morality that a unified cause for real good has, and would, require. To understand the principles it would take to create such a united revolution, requires an understanding of the light that America once was.
Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville was a French historian who, in 1931, visited the united States to research what made our country so great. He was so amazed at what he found, he went back to his country to write a book called Democracy in America. The results of his study were very clearly spelled out in many different places in his book, but to end this article, allow me to quote Tocqueville's final analysis:
The defining line in the sand is drawn. Which side are you on?
As I'm reading the comments on this article, the two sides are becoming as clear as night and day. I would encourage everyone to read all the comments carefully, and notice how this is becoming an argument on 'right vs wrong'. Those that are arguing right and wrong 'standards'... are those that have none. This is exactly my point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Q&A These are actual questions I've been asked online or in person. Some have been edited for spelling, grammer, etc.r />---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
***Why would you want to force your beliefs on us?
I have done no such thing. Those that claimed I'm doing this have only claimed it, but never given specific examples. On top of that, how am I, in an article that anyone has the free right to read, or not to read, able to force someone to believe something? That's not possible. What they're really doing by asking this question, is telling everyone how they feel. They feel this way, only because what I'm saying makes a lot of logical sense. Their minds are automatically drawn to the wonderful concepts of Liberty, but they want to have all the benefits of it, but without moral disciplines of the Creator. So rather than take the difficult step to improving one's self to join the cause of Liberty, they instead try to redefine it. They want it to 'appear' that they're fighting for Liberty. This is very similar to how the evolutionists try to redine the word 'science'. Science is systematic knowledge derived through observation and experimentation. They're now trying to redefine it as "A way of knowing." That could mean anything. Knowing the definition of Liberty, as knowing the definition of science, clearly defines a line, where one can know which side they're on.
***Jefferson said: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." What's wrong with what I believe?
You can believe whatever you want. I tell people this all the time, though I wonder how many have actually listened to me when I've said it. And it amazes me how many people quote this from Jefferson, but don't even know where this comes from. This is from Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, which I quoted from in my article. Jefferson's talking about government restriction in this specific quote, but if you read Query 17 in the book, you'll see that he's talking about the goverment passing laws requiring a specific religion on the people. This was his reasoning why that should not be done. This Query 17, however, has nothing to do with the religious beliefs Liberty is founded upon. Reading the whole thing in context is drasitcally important, as aforementioned in my article. This quotation is taken out of context so many times, it's hard to believe. Jefferson continues in that same thought to talk about religion being a security for liberty and prosperity. The problem is, when a religious idea that does not promote liberty and prosperity presents itself, we're not keeping open lines of reason and debate. --Jefferson said in Query 17: "Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it." The problem is that religions like evolution hold a paradigm of beliefs that threaten liberty and prosperity when practically applied because of its lack of moral virtue. The only reason it has survived so long is because it is tax-supported. --Jefferson from Query 17: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Without government funding, this religion of evolution would die a quick death. It's how it gained popularity to begin with, and how it has maintained itself, even though the evidence of the foundation of our country is clearly from Bilblical Christian Principle: --"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other..." -Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, Democracy in America We've fallen from our roots, and we desperately need to fix this problem of morality in our country, else our efforts all be in vain.
***Should we have a collectivist society, or an individualist?
No. Liberty has nothing to do with collectivism or individualism. Both are concepts that have arisen to question after the people have rejected the Creator. The reason that many people are still arguing about those two viewpoints is because there's no balance that can be reached without an absolute moral standard. Collectivism puts the importance of the community, corporation, and/or state above the individual. Individualism puts the importance of one's self above all other external groups. Yet, both are as misleading as Republican and Democrat. The only way to truly live in harmony is to take care of one's self and one's family, and yet to remember that we do not live in this world alone. This is a problem that is clearly solved when one recognizes the Word of the Creator when He said: "Love they neighbor as thyself." The balance sought after can only be achieved with a focus on love and humility. Neither love, nor humility, will ever be achieved without an absolute moral standard. As time goes on, our need for reliance on God, the Creator, grows, and is, ultimately, indisputably nessecary.
***What value is there in debating matters of faith? It causes fractures in the group.
First of all, you need to take a closer look at the definition for faith: Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing; belief that is not based on proof Do you have confidence or trust in the rights of the people? Do you have proof of those rights? If not, you therefore have faith in the rights of the people. Do you have confidence or trust in love? Or in virtue? Or in freedom? These are abstract words, and cannot be proven. They can only be described. Therefore, the only way to understand them is to discuss them. I would like to hear anyone's explanation on how understanding can cause fractures in a group. Cult: a particular system of religious worship; an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers I covered this in detail in Freedom of Religion has created a Religion of Freedom. We have a great number of people worshipping the ideas of freedom, and yet, when those principles are brought into question for a live, formatted debate, as is being worked on in Ohio, one must search outside the 'so-called' Liberty movement for a person willing to defend in public the idea of Law and Liberty without God. Though they claim God is not needed in terms of Law and Liberty, those same people are refusing to come forward. In secret, they know there would be requirements to provide standards of morality, which are the basis of Law and Liberty. Because of this, they hide/dodge/avoid questions/concerns/oppositions to matters of the Liberty's moral foundation. The silence on that issue speaks novels to the validity of the argument that Law and Liberty are not achieved without the blessings of the Creator. "Cults cannot stand opposition, or even discussion, much less questions." -Noah W Hutchings, The Dark Side of the Purpose Driven Church, p. 44 On the flip side, the founding fathers of our country debated issues continually, long before the birth of our nation, and long afterwards. In fact, many of them promoted keeping the channels of logic and reason open, as aforementioned quoted by Jefferson. And others that stated that debate was the way to determine truth: "No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." -Patrick Henry, Speech to the House of Burgessess, March 23, 1775 The true fear of the people is that they found themselves united at one point, but what they didn't realize is that they came into a 'movement' under the candy-type lure of the benefits of Liberty. This was introduced via the "Yes we can!" from Ron Paul's presidental campaign. As wonderful as the idea of Ron Paul for President was, the people were only united under Ron Paul's Presidential Banner, not on a unified principle. The evidence of that was shown once Ron Paul declared he was out of the running. The people then split apart on their own personal issues. This proves that the unification was not on the principle of Liberty, but rather all against a common enemy, whether it was Obama, McCain, or the Federal Reserve. True, fair, honest debate is the only rational way we can unify FOR a cause, instead of trying to lure the people in AGAINST a common enemy. Hiding from rational debate is like finding major cracks in the support pillar of a building, and simple painting over it. As we have seen results in the willful ignorance of our country's leadership in the last century: Ignoring problems won't make them disappear.
Do you feel that we have to have a Christian moral foundation for us to understand and respect liberty or just a general moral backbone?
A Christian moral foundation is not required to have an understanding and respect for Liberty, but a moral foundation is required to have any system of government that allows a free society. To accomplish that moral self-discipline without a Creator is not possible. Man always thinks he can come up with an answer, but never ends up learning from history. The point is: A) This country was founded on the principles of the Christian Bible, and it was that moral foundation that paved the way to the possibility of a government of free peoples. When de Tocqueville was researching the reason for the success of the united States, as aforementioned above, he wrote: "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other," B) Because of A, the people are free to believe whatever they want. All American nationalists have the free choice to worship or not, on the basis of the original principles in the Christian Bible. Benjamin Franklin pointed out the basic unifying principles upon which a comprimising agreement was reached to ratify the Consitution for the united States of America, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University: "I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion." C) When a people on the basis of B, the free choice to have unsound religious principles, push A out of the picture, we lose both A and B simontaneously. This is extremely dangerous ground to be walking on, and I agree with Jefferson when he says that we need to keep the channels of reason open to banish dangerous religious worldviews, like evolution for example, from dismembering the principles of Liberty we're barely holding on to.
***Concerning my question of right and wrong, this person says: "On what authority can I assert that 2+2=4? Even if 99% of people said that it equals 5, I would still be correct, no?"
First question through anyone's mind is probably "What the heck is this person talking about?" Good question. This person is trying reference that morals (aka, right vs wrong) is mathematical. I would love to see an explanation of that one. I agree on the second point that you can't argue from majority opinion. If 99% of people say that the answer is 5, it will still be four. That's correct. And there again, 99% of people can say that you don't need God for liberty, and God will still be required to even explain liberty, let alone to have it. And 99% of people can say the founders were not Christians, and did not base our government on the teachings of Christ, but a majority opinion won't make it true. And 99% of people can say that they can restore this country to the greatness it was without have any moral standards from a Creator, but a majority opinion won't make it true.
So... it kinda' makes me laugh a bit, that this person writing the question has claimed to have helped review and edit Tom Mullen's book before it was publish... yet Tom Mullen repeatedly argues from majority opinion. Even though she just states that you can't argue from majority opinion. It seems to be one of those situations that she's against arguing from majority opinion, until she comes to her own religious worldview of evolution, in which majority opinion is required. I think she's talkin' on both sides of her mouth there.
This person has asked other questions, but they were not formulated well enough to be understood what was being asked. Either she asked a bunch of sequential questions, or no questions at all. To anyone else, if you'd like to ask a question, formulate a solid question and ask it, and I'll be happy to add it to this list.
Posted by ChristopherJ on 01/14/09 Last updated 11/27/09
Let's begin by taking a look at excerpts from the Mission Statements of some popular freedom campaign websites:
Campaign for Liberty, Statement of Principles:
We believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. We believe that the free market... is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known. We believe... that central banking distorts economic decisionmaking and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution. We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.
Break the Matrix, Company Info:
We believe the message of freedom transcends political party, right vs. left, religion, race, and gender. We believe in America, and that Americans are desperate to hear a message of hope, optimism, and prosperity rather than the fear, negativity, and sensationalism that has taken over the mainstream media.
Freedom Force International, Creed of Freedom:
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty. I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority. I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law. I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage.
Restore the Republic and American Freedom Campaign did not even bother stating their purpose. They simply posted what they are doing, but give no reason for it. Here's another interesting one:
Barack Obama's Declaration of Service:
We believe in the ideals that define America: liberty, equality, and justice. We believe the idea of America is ennobled, and the future of America is strengthened, when Americans come together to serve their country. We believe there is no challenge that cannot be met with the energy, creativity, and determination of the American people. We believe all individuals can make a difference and anyone can be great because anyone can serve.
These websites make effort to provide a reason why they are doing what they are doing. When fighting a government entity, an authority for the cause must be stated. That authority and reasoning is what seperates patriots from terrorists. This is exactly what the Declaration of Independence did when they wrote: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Allow me to paraphrase that first paragraph: "When you have no choice but to oppose the government, and to take up equal authority given to you by God, if you respect the opinions of others, you should state what makes your cause different from their cause."
In a previous article, I had raised the question: Assuming there is no God, on what authority do you justify that your cause is right, and the New World Order's cause is wrong? The Declaration states that the Creator is the authority and justification for their actions. If there is no Creator, what authority can be claimed to resist government authority? I asked the viewing audience to try and provide a reason for their seperation without using the Creator as an answer. The answers I was given were based on circular reasoning, which they use to try and convince others they have logic in their thinking, when it actually only serves to convince themselves they have an answer. The bottom line is: It's all based on their own personal opinions. (See The Most Important Issue in the Freedom Campaign for more details)
I wrote to G Edward Griffin's office, and posed my question and concerns, and the email response I received from Mr Griffin led me to write this article. Mr Griffin's response: "...the essence of my thought on this is very simple. We can write proclamations all day long and we can claim God’s word as our authority, but that means nothing unless we are able to back our proclamations with physical force."
He's right. However, from the other perspective, you can have a large physical force, and no direction or cause without an authority on which to base the actions. This lack of direction has definately been noticed by many in the Liberty Campaign. He continues:
"Those with the most powerful armies behind them have rights. Those without armies do not."
I highly respect G Edward Griffin, have studied much of his work, and would recommend his works to everyone, but I definately did not expect this answer. This is a 'Might makes Right' point of view. That is circular reasoning; it has no end. Unless one becomes mighty, they cannot have rights. Without rights, one cannot become mighty. This kind of thinking creates an endless cycle of war between parties trying to prove their might, so they can prove they're right.
Might certainly does NOT make right.
Obama's army of military miscreants are extremely mighty. Does that make world policing right?
Mr Griffin's second paragraph: "It wasn’t the words in the Declaration of Independence that carried the day. It was the Continental Army. Those who win on the battlefield will determine the laws and can use any justification they wish."
He's right again. However, without those words, what Continental Army would have been created? This would be a nation of England today, if not for the Declaration of Independence. (we'll skip over the fact that many of the church's pastors were leading the charge against the British) By this same standard presented by Mr. Griffin, the NWO is continuing to win battles, and have determined laws and justifications. Isn't the NWO right then, because they are the mightiest? And if Liberty-minded folks get together, fight the NWO, and lose... does that mean liberty is wrong?
He concludes: "Therefore, those of us who believe in freedom can cite our Creed of Freedom (written for that purpose) and that’s enough, provided we can direct the power of government to enforce it. That’s why the motto of Freedom Force is: Those without power cannot defend freedom."
I'll repeat this again for emphasis: "provided we can direct the power of government to enforce it." That lists the government, in the end, as the ultimate provider and decider. This seems a bit contradictory. Not to mention, if you're using the government to enforce a paradigm of "I believe, I believe"... that is called Socialism.
I listed G. Edward Griffin's FFI Creed of Freedom earlier. "I believe" was stated 8 times. Definition of Creed: 1) any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination 2) any system or codification of belief or of opinion
In order to have any cause, you must believe in something. Many people in the so-called "Liberty campaign" in general, have stated that this nation has become an Obamanation. It is filled with Obama's followers into the Obama religion. Above, I stated Obama's Declaration of Service, which is better defined as a Creed of Service, since he gives no authority for the justification that what he's doing is right. It is Obama's cause, of which he believes he's doing the right thing.
I have been demonized for bringing up that the so-named "Liberty campaign's" Creeds state EXACTLY the same things! The people are beginning to worship freedom like it's a god. They use people like Ron Paul, Aaron Russo, and Thomas Woods as the prophets for their religion. In order to have any cause, you must believe in something. If it is not in a Creator, then what is it?
To take this a few steps farther down the path of this new religion, the freedom campaign has preached the benefits and justice of the form of government known as a 'republic'. As the JBS video, Overview of America, stated, Republic means 'The Public Thing' or 'The Law'. So if the people are worshiping freedom, with no Creator involved, is it possible to have the ideal form of republican government?
Definition of Law: the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision
Who's authority? Let's look at the three possible scenarios available when excluding the Creator: 1) Law is established by one person. This obviously would not provide the public with true freedom, because any one person's opinion will not match the whole. Besides, that's a monarchy, not a republic. 2) Law is established by a small group of people. This is almost similar to establishment by one, because a group would gather under a common special interest, and therefore would not meet the standards of the whole. Besides, that's an oligarchy, not a republic. 3) Law is established by the majority of people. This creates a mob rule where the people can be convinced a particular action is right, and that decision will rule. Majority opinion proves nothing in any argument. Besides, that's a democracy, not a republic.
Under atheism/evolutionism values, all law is based on opinion. Under man's opinion, it is very clear, a republic is not possibly achieved. The atheists/evolutionists get quite upset at me for pointing this out, and try desperately to refute this point, but they can only refute it under their own opinion, and because that opinion is based on their circular reasoning... it will always be futile. (See The Spectacular World of Atheism for more details)
Directing the power of government to enforce a Creed of Religious Beliefs of one particular group of people defines an oligarchy, based on the opinion of a few, not a republic, based on the law. Therefore, this movement would either become the oligarchy they are fighting so hard against, or would give it back to the people, only to allow the majority to rule yet again. It will be doomed if left up to man alone.
There is only one way to have a true republic: You must have a Creator. The Creator is outside of, beyond, and above mankind. Therefore, He can dictate what's right, wrong, and what is law, because He knows man better than man knows himself.
The NWO has taken steps beyond the Creator, and have justified their means with their beliefs in their Creed and Commandments. How is the "Freedom Campaign" any different? They have justified their means with their beliefs in their Creed. Neither party has verified their justification. How can either party expect to gain support without brainwashing the public? (See You've Been Brainwashed! Consult Your Doctor for more details)
There is no doubt that the founding fathers created the principles of this country on the Christian Bible. That may not be something the majority are looking to today, but it is what American principles are based on. If one does not look to the Bible for answers, what do you base these principles on?
I'm starting to finally understand that we're losing our way to justify the US Constitution. Now I can see why the NWO has begun to take over. Will this new religion of freedom be enough to challenge the atheistic/evolutionary worldviews of the NWO?
As a final note, let's take a look at a proper example of declaration: The Declaration of Independence. Click this link, and it will take you to a text copy of the Declaration of the united States. On your keyboard, hit Ctrl+F. This will bring up a find window, and in the text box, type in the word 'believe'. You will come back with no results found.
Every word of the Declaration is part of a statement, not part of speculation. These wise men attributed their laws, rights, and liberty to the all-powerful Creator of the Universe. It seems that most people are attributing their laws, rights, and liberty to this vague, abstract word: Freedom. If people base it off this word, they really need to define their terms first because freedom has different meanings. (See Revealing Liberty: A Defining Line in the Sand for more details)
These wild definitions create a very slippery slope. It defines freedom by man's opinion, rather than absolute standards. I personally prefer to stick with the Biblical word: Liberty. The founding fathers also chose to do this with the understanding that an absolute standard of moral principle could only be determined by God. Therefore a people seeking a government bound by the law of liberty, which is God's law, can only be acheived by giving close heed to the Word of God that builds a foundational moral principle, which the founder's understood as a nessecity for a Constitutional, Liberty-based system.
These previously listed Creeds stated over and over: "We believe," "I believe," "We believe"... and you can believe whatever you want, but if you want to take up a cause to oppose our current government, and the force of the NWO behind it, and want to seperate yourself from a terrorist organization in the eyes of that government, then the real question is this: Assuming there is no God, on what authority do you justify that your cause is right and the NWO's cause is wrong?
Praying to the holy sacred cow of freedom (or for some, evolution) will earn you nothing and get you nowhere. Let's start working together to answer these basic questions so we can declare our independence and unify our efforts. /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ --------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Q&A Section: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
***Why does evolutionary desire to be free not stand as a valid reason?
Take a look at The Spectacular World of Atheism article I posted for more details on that. If you'll spend the time to listen to the discussion in the podcast, and then read the notes I put with it, it'll walk you through the basic fallacies in the atheistic/evolutionary arguments.
Posted by ChristopherJ on 12/26/08 Last updated 12/26/08
An atheist by the name of Josh had sent me a link to a podcast he had been involved in that debated christian vs athiest. I suppose he was kind enough to want to prepare me for a debate we had planned on having concerning creation/evolution. I have to thank him for sending it, because even though the manner in which he sent this implied that he was proud of this, as if he had 'shown those dumb Christians a thing or two'... but I am even more confident in God than ever before after listening to this debate. Here's the link:
I'm going to run through some of the points made in this podcast. I'm writing this assuming the reader has taken the time to listen to the one-hour debate I just posted. I've listened to this numerous times because I found it quite interesting, and have gone on to listen to more debates like this one, on this specific topic.
Josh had posted a comment on a series of youtube videos made by the owners of this podcast. From those comments (read aloud on the podcast), he was invited to come on the show. Here's a list of the speakers, click on the name to learn more about the person:
Gene: Pastor and host of 'The Narrow Mind' Jonathan: Co-host of 'The Narrow Mind' Sye: Owner of proofGodexists.org Josh: Atheist guest
This article is focused more for people who want to go down deep on this subject. Just compare and constrast what's being said and decide for yourself what's logical.
What is a debate?
In this debate, the athiest begins by asking if the Christians are open to the possibility that they could be wrong, in order to have a debate. He stated that unless they are open to that possiblity, and could be convinced the athiest was right, then there was no point in having a debate at all.
This same person was refusing to debate me for this same reason. He gave me a similar argument all around. That got me curious about what the definition of 'debate' is:
1. To think carefully about something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
Ever since I saw my first debate in any subject, I walked away with a good idea of the purpose of live, formal debates. The audience, though they may have their own opinion, comes to listen to both sides give their viewpoints on a topic. After considering the information and evidence presented, the audience members can make a logical decision about the issue.
That idea matches up with the definition of debate: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. A debate would allow two opposing ideas to be lined up next to each other so they could compared and contrasted. By saying, "if you don't answer this, the discussion is over" is first of all, denying any kind of debate format, and secondly, denying anyone else the chance to listen to the atheist's viewpoint in the debate.
Even though Josh stated this, later on, if you listen to the whole podcast:
Jonathan: "God exists, and that is our presupposition." Josh: "Yes, that's your presupposition, and I would NEVER agree to that."
I'm confused. He just said that if the Christian would not be open, they were no better than a child that just wants things his own way. And yet, he would NEVER agree to God being the Creator. He just stated that he would not be open to the possibility that he could be wrong, which contradicts what he said earlier, that he was open to being wrong. That doesn't seem very consistant.
For Josh to state: "you wouldn't waste a minute talking to someone that cannot even consider the possibility that he can be wrong..." obviously shows his ignorance to what a debate is and the purpose behind it.
Sye: "What we have to do is examine our presupposition that God exists and the Bible is true, and his, that God does not exist and the Bible is not true, and to see which one of those gives us logic." Josh: "That's really... starting off on the wrong foot."
He never does say why it is starting off on the wrong foot. Why would an athiest be unwilling to line up both sides and see which one gives us logic?
How do we know something for certain?
Jonathan: "What do you know with certainty?" Gene: "If he's going to be honest he has to say that he can know nothing for certain." Josh: "I trust my senses. If I don't trust my senses, then you are right, I don't know anything for sure." Gene: "Are you senses 100% reliable?" Josh: "For 99.99% of the time, yes."
In direct words, "No." If you really read that last sentence, he says, "For 99.99% of the time, my senses are 100% reliable." You'll notice he almost always avoids answering anything directly. This is a subconscious defense mechanism used by politicians to try to avoid being called out on contradicting themselves during questioning. Most of us have watched our last president do the same thing. They can later claim 'I never said that'. You'll see this later when Sye says:
Sye: "I see how this argument goes. As soon as we back you into a corner, you say 'well if I have to answer that, then there's no discussion'." Gene: "That's about the third time you've done that Josh." Josh: "It is. But that's the way you guys talk."
Yes, that's the way they talk. They use logic and reasoning. Both of those work in lines, not in circles. It's very difficult for an atheist to work in lines because they have arbitrary standards for everything they believe. Continuing on the senses being reliable:
Sye: "I'd like to ask Josh how he knows that." Josh: "I know that I can trust my senses because it's helped me survive." Sye: "Do you use your senses to tell you that your senses are reliable?" Josh: "If you have something better, I'm listening." (in direct words, "Yes"... this is the defense mechanism again; and he doesn't really want to listen, you'll notice at least twice that Gene tries to explain something better and Josh interupts him both times)
On what basis does the atheist trust their senses?
Each example they will give to answer this question, ties back to something they sense. This is hopelessly circular. The true statement hidden in their 'defense-mechanism' responses, which you will also hear in the podcast, is: "I sense that my senses are valid."
Let's say you have a tape measure. You want to see if the inches of the tape measure are accurate to standard inches. So you fold half of the tape measure across itself and measure one half to the other, or, in other words, you're using the tape measure to measure the accuracy of the tape measure. The average child could see the logical flaw in that, but the average atheist cannot.
Josh: "All knowledge... is gained through the senses." A few moments later, Sye: "Josh, is all knowledge gained via the senses?" Josh: "No..." Sye: "How else can you know things if not through your senses?" Josh: "*stutters* Well, I didn't name you, but you told me your name, so I know your name. I heard your name. I wasn't born during the 2nd World War, but I know what happened by stories."
He just said that all knowledge is gained through senses, then said not all knowledge is gained through senses. This is a prime example of circular reasoning. Then when asked how else is knowledge gained, he gave examples of hearing (with ears) and/or reading (with eyes)... both from the senses. He never does answer the question, how else can you know things?
Gene: "Which sense told you that all knowledge is gained through the senses?" Josh: "If I answer that, I would be circular reasoning... that is not a question I'd waste a minute on."
At least he was honest, right? Here's the big moment, watch this:
Gene: "Is all circular reasoning bad?" Josh: "No." Gene: "Then what's the problem in engaging in circular reasoning? Josh: "It can kill a discussion."
What he's trying very hard NOT to say is, "Circular reasoning would prove I'm not thinking logically or consistantly, and therefore I would lose the argument."
The believer in God, knows for certain that our senses are reliable. Because the Creator of the universe, who created time, space, and matter, designed our senses to be reliable. Thus, we have an outside basis for epistimalogical certainty.
Without God involved, it is not possible to account for things like:
How do you determine what is right and what is wrong with evolution? There is a great question in this podcast that was posed, and Josh skipped past it. I wanted to hear an answer. Everyone in the podcast seemed to be big Ron Paul supporters. Sye said that Ron Paul had a libertarian viewpoint, that believes in more freedom and less government. If the democrats decided to get together and kill all Ron Paul supporters because that would be in the best interest of the people, who is right? The Ron Paul supporters? Or the Democrats? And how would you justify who's right?
Sye: "Is it a valid argument to say 'God exists because He exists'? Josh: "For someone who doesn't want a better one, yeah." (defense mechanism = No) Sye: "Ok, so is it a valid argument to say 'I sense my senses are valid'? Josh: "For a person who doesn't want a better one, yes." (defense mechanism = No) Sye: "So that is your argument? 'I sense my senses are valid.' You don't see a problem with that?" Josh: "No."
Josh is then trying to validate his senses through experiences... which he doesn't seem to understand the requirement of his senses to determine. He's using his senses to gain experiences, and then turning around and using that information to say his senses work. And yet, does not see a problem with that circular reasoning, but, as said earlier, tries to avoid circular reasoning. So basically, he'll run in circles, and if anyone stops to tell him he's running in circles, he'll just ignore them. I see how this works now.
What values does the evolutionary religion teach?
Sye: "Is human dignity right?" Josh: "As long as I'm a human, I'll say yes." Sye: "How do you know this?" Josh: "Because I'm a selfish asshole that thinks I deserve dignity, and I want all my fellow human beings to deserve the same. Sye: "If someone else was to say that he doesn't care about human dignity, who's right? You or that other person?" Josh: "Throughout history, it doesn't matter who has the bible, or who believes in the right religion. It's who has the bigger fist and who has the more guns. It doesn't matter who's right. It matters who has the greater might... the might make the right."
That about sums it up. I do appreciate Josh's honesty in the matter, even though this is a horrific worldview that was also held by world leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, and Adolf Hitler. This believe system led to the genocide of millions. However, this was brought up a few moments later.
Gene: "Do you realize that, the theory you're setting forth, is no different than the theory of the third reich? That they said we will determine-" Josh: "Yes, I understand that. And I'm not gonna' take guilt by association. I don't believe that racism and hatred and violence is always wrong." Gene: "You don't believe it's always wrong?" Josh: "I don't believe it's always wrong. I don't believe it's always right." Gene: "So sometimes racism can be justified?" Josh: "Yes."
How is he supposed to determine when it can and cannot be justified? And by who's standard comes that justification? For that matter, what would be the point of having the 13th amendment by that arbitrary standard? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to us to, instead of killing blacks or indians, make them slaves to work for a 'higher' race?
He doesn't want to take guilt by association, but he doesn't have to. He's stated his beliefs EXACTLY to those of the world leaders I previously mentioned.
Adolf Hitler had an extermination hitlist. He thought the Jews were pure ape. He thought the africans were mostly ape, and they were next on his list. He thought the Germans were mostly decendant of the pure aryan race, more evolved than the others. He honestly thought he was doing the world a favor by getting rid of the inferiors. He thought the Nordics and Germans were at the top, and should live and prosper... and he thought the Jews and Blacks were at the bottom, and should die off.
So did Adolf Hitler think racism could sometimes be justified?
Gene: "So you personally believe that humans are different than animals? Because I always assumed that atheists believed that humans-" Josh: "We are not entirely one way or the other." Gene: "Are human beings animals?" Josh: "In many respects, yes." Gene: "In which respects are they not?" Josh: "We are smarter than animals." Gene: "So animal or non-animal is based on intelligence?" Josh: "In human terms, yes, absolutely." Jonathan: "So what about the retard?" Josh: "Retards are no better than animals."
By whose definition?
In 1936, the Olympics were held in Berlin, Germany. Who won the most gold medals? It was Jesse Owens, the BLACK-American athelete. After winning, Adolf Hitler refused to put the gold medal around Owens' neck. Hitler complained that it was unfair to allow Blacks to compete in the Olympics -- "They aren't human. It is like making a man race against a horse." Hitler stomped out of the Olympics in anger.
So did Adolf Hitler think the 'smart' Germans were better than the 'lowly' black animal, like Jesse Owens? Who is defining what is human, and what is not?
I, once again, have to thank Josh for his honesty. I believe Sye was right in this podcast when he said, "You're showing us what your worldview amounts to."
What is freedom of choice?
Freedom: the power to determine action without restraint. Choice: the right, power, or opportunity to select from a number of possibilities.
Sye: "Are you interested at all in the free will of man?" Josh: "Absolutely." Sye: "Can you tell me how you get free will from evolution?" Josh: "What's your idea of free will? I don't think you understand evolution if you're going to ask me a stupid question." Sye: "Your ability to make choices. How do you get that? Is it dependent on your biology? Or do you actually get to think and reason and make choices? I'm wondering, if that's the case, how you get that from evolution?"
The evolutionist believes that all life was originally a soup of chemicals. These chemicals got together by random chance to form life. Even though there is no evidence of life evolving from non-living material, it's what they believe. If that were true, and the make-up of your brain is just a bunch of chemicals that got together by random chance, how can you trust your own senses or reasoning processes? If you claim to trust them because they help you survive, how do you know you didn't survive by random chance?
Sye: "You're not an atheist by choice. You're an atheist based on the physiology of your brain. Is that what you're telling us?" Josh: "You don't have a proper understanding of what is free will-" Sye: "Are you an atheist by choice Josh?" Josh: "As far as I know, yes, maybe I'm wrong." Sye: "How do you get choice from evolution?" Josh: "Choice is the lack of forcing you to make a choice." Sye: "How do you get that from evolution?"
Apparently, he doesn't understand the question. It's something the average atheist has never even considered because it's hopeless circular. I wouldn't want to defend that notion either.
Sye: "Isn't your own physiology forcing you to make the decision?" Josh: "In some ways, yes. In some ways, no." (take out the 'in some ways' and read that again) It's forcing me in... *stutters* it's not as black and white as that. When you ask me if I have free will, and then I tell you yeah, and then you ask well, how do you get it? You don't get free will when free will simply exists." Sye: "You see how all of your arguments go 'it simply exists'? You wouldn't put up with that from us: 'God simply exists. That's it.'" Josh: "Uh, yeah I would. I just think- I'd just ignore you." Gene: "You didn't ignore us Josh. You posted a comment. You said you were up for a lively discussion. And now you've come on our show."
Didn't the chemicals of evolution force him to leave the comment? Did the random physiology in his brain force him to say everything he's said? It really leads one to wonder if any evolutionist can trust the reasoning processes in his mind?
I hope that anyone, believer or non-believer, will listen to this debate and get something from it. It's really worth a listen.
Unfortunately, because I know there will be so many comments on this article after I post it, I will not be able to respond to the comments. I honestly wish I had the time to address every concern, but I have a full life of things to do, and I write these articles in the time I can spare. If anyone would like to debate these issues in a live format, I will be happy to do so if I can make it, but I cannot get into email debates as they take up FAR too much time.
Poll: After listening to this debate, which do you think provides better logic?
You should read the following: Christopher Hitchens, Ludwig Feuerbach, Charles Dawkins, David Hume, Victor J. Stenger, David Mills, Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, Guy Harrison, Michael Martin, along with numerous of other authors.
Actually, I would recommend the debate between Dr. Thomas Warren and Dr. Antony Flew on the existence of God. Book available on Amazon. The renowned atheist Dr. Flew lost that debate in my opinion. He must have thought so also, since in his later years he has now decided that there really is a God.
Note:Richard Dawkins, not Charles. Woke up and had to change that.
Then he never was an atheist. Watch Hitchens debate, he's fairly good. The one with Al Sharpton was funny, poor Al made uneducated comments on his book. Need I say more, he didn't even read it or read the full title. The theist always have to take a personal refuge, thus their argument fails. How can one argue the existence of a personal god...you can't. However, you can argue that in which the person received his god concept from, i.e. religion.
Interesting subject to say the least. I'm even in school for it. Comparative religious studies is truly fascinating.
Pretty neat escape clause. You don't need religion to deduce a first cause. Why not give truth a chance and make "Apologetics Press" a part of your studies? Begin with the June issue of "Reason and Revelation" and the article "The Problem of Evil". Good luck.
No escape clause. Religion is the biggest escape clause..Please, it can't contend with science, so they just add "god" in front of it. Religion is like a chameleon, always blending in with the newest theories and thought. I read C Lewis, apologetics is a joke, but I do applaud for people to try. Religions have been debunked, why do you think in debates they talk about their "personal" experiences. They only do it since one cannot argue it. Their views are flawed and it is time for some real change. Atheist are growing in numbers for a reason my friend, it's because they realize the truth. Stop living in your adult fairytale. I study religions. I read the Qur’an, read the Bible, read the analytics, read the Tao, and many more. I advise you to step out of the cavern you’re in and read some top Atheist authors. Debate with them, chat with them, find out why they are leaving their beliefs.
Don't trip over your ego, Adam. If you scream science long enough and hard enough perhaps it will be like shazam and you will turn into Captain Marvel. Last time I checked it just meant knowledge.
I have a couple of questions for you; in the human circulatory system the arterial subsystem is clear bore and elastic for delivering blood to the extremities. However, the veinous subsystem is non-elastic and contains one way valves to assure that the blood returns to the heart. Tell us, how did natural selection account for that?
The alpha particle contains two protons and two neutrons. Yet these components weigh more separately than the alpha particle. This mass decrement is accounted for by the binding energy equation that states that a certain quantity of mass was converted into energy necessary to hold the two protons together in the nucleus. Since the two protons are like charged such that they repel each other; why did they come together in the first place?
Once you have earned your Ph.D get back to me and I will arrange an oral or written debate with you and one of your credentialed peers of the opposite persuasion.
And, if I were you I wouldn't waste my time studying religions.
Science is amazing. Why are our adrenalin glands to large and are teeth primitive? We as a species barley scratched the surface of it, but our progress is significant. why do we have an appendix? we share similarities with our fellow species on this earth. Is this from god? think not. Your belief stems from religion, that's why I study it. Without it then you will not be arguing the possibilities of a divine being. Read Neil Shubin. This topic is for another site.
I feel as if this turned into a topic of it's own. Though perhaps we have our differences, which can account from the gap between generations, we shall return to our common goal of liberty. I appreciate our discussion, in which I would like to add I'd like take you on your Ph.D offer.
Religion, History, Anthropology, Economics, Languages, Political Science, and a hint of philosophy makes up my degree of International Studies. So no worries, It's not wasting my time.
Adam, when you are ready just let me know. I will provide a Ph.D in Microbiology. My belief does not come from religion in spite of your assertion to the contrary. It comes from simple deduction based on evidence. You did not answer the questions, but be prepared to do so when the discussions begin. Hurry. Looking forward.
Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
