See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: MAN FOR ALL SEASONS: CHUCK BALDWIN GARNERS NOD FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Source:
RepublicBroadcasting.org
URL Source: http://www.republicbroadcasting.org ... lumnists.article&articleID=233
Published: May 6, 2008
Author: Jim Kouri
Post Date: 2008-05-06 10:30:21 by FOH
Keywords: Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin, President
Views: 1080
Comments: 92
To some, Chuck Baldwin is the consummate Christian minister. To others, he's a one-man think-tank studying, researching and analyzing the human condition within today's American society. One minute he's leading a church service for one a large Christian congregation in Florida. Next minute, you'll hear Rev. Baldwin telling his audience why he's against killing innocent, newborn babies on his radio talk show. Or perhaps you'll hear him discussing the US Constitution's close relationship to the Christian Bible and Christian faith. As if preaching and teaching aren't enough to fill anyone's plate, Pastor Chuck is a prolific writer and columnist who's not afraid to mix "fire and brimstone" into one of his political montages. I hate using Cliches, but in Rev. Baldwin's case I hope you'll allow me at least one: As was Sir Thomas More -- the thorn in King Henry VIII's side -- Chuck Baldwin is a Man for All Seasons. And now Pastor Chuck Baldwin can add one more grand achievement to his already bulging list of accomplishments: He is the Constitution Party's candidate for the office of President of the United States. After what was expected to be a tough political battle for the nomination, Baldwin beat his stiffest competition -- the charismatic and brilliant former Ambassador and television news host Alan Keyes. In fact, many voters were surprised over the relative ease and finesse with which Baldwin captured the nomination. Afterall, Keyes had the name recognition, the political contacts, the Republican bonifides and the intelligence to mentally disarm the vast majority of Democrats and liberal Republicans. However, unlike Pastor Chuck Baldwin, Amb. Keyes could not remove his GOP garments that many conservatives -- out of necessity -- must shed in order to do battle with the forces of evil within America's body-politic. As a young man, Chuck, who is now 56 years-old, decided to pursue a career in law enforcement. His plan was to join the U.S. Marine Corps and afterward begin working as a Deputy Sheriff in La Porte County, Indiana. The Sheriff at that time was Cliff Arnold. (Arnold later became an Indiana State Representative.) Mr. Arnold had told Chuck that following his tour in the Marines, a position at the Sheriff's office was waiting for him. All that changed in the summer of 1970 when Chuck answered the divine call to the Christian minisitry. As a result, instead of joining the Marines, Chuck enrolled in Bible College. After graduating from La Porte High School in 1971 Chuck attended Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan, for two years. He then married and moved to Lynchburg, Virginia. He enrolled in the Thomas Road Bible Institute (now known as the Liberty Bible Institute at Liberty University) and graduated with his Bible Diploma. He then earned his Bachelor of Theology and Master of Theology degrees via external degree programs from Christian Bible College in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Chuck received his first honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Christian Bible College. He received his second honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Baldwin and his wife met with four others on June 22, 1975. It was first meeting of the Crossroad Baptist Church. The church was organized in September of that year. Six acres of prime property were purchased in 1978. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence. The church has gone through five building programs and has just move into its current 750-seat auditorium and office complex. The church plans to next construct a gymnasium/youth center. Some of the choice spiritual and political leaders of the nation have spoken in this pulpit including Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Reform Party Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, Evangelist Pete Rice, U.S.S. Pueblo Intellegence Officer Lt. Commander Steven Harris, Author Salem Kirban, Vietnam Veteran/Evangelist Tim Lee, Author & Liberty University Professor Harold Willmington, Rep. Joe Scarborough, Rep. Jeff Miller, Tortured For Christ Author Harlan Popov, Evangelist Chuck Millhuff, Pastor Walt Hanford, Author/Evangelist Don Boys, Author/Evangelist/ WW II Veteran Kenny McComas, Captain Eugene "Red" McDaniel, Businessman Stanley Tam, Dr. Reed Bell, "Top Gun" Pilot/Gulf War Veteran Commander Sandy Jones, Alabama Governor Fob James, Jr., Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, 2000 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Howard Phillips, Reform Party Vice Presidential Candidate Ezola Foster, D. James Kennedy Associate Janet Folger, 2004 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Michael Peroutka, Former Pastor of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, Dr. Greg Dixon, Ambassador Alan Keyes, and others. RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting radio talk show called, "Chuck Baldwin Live." This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. This program, which has been on the air for nearly seven years now, has been highly successful in helping to elect conservatives to local, state and national offices. "Chuck Baldwin Live" is regarded as perhaps the most influential voice in the Florida Panhandle for conservative, Christian principles. Thousands of concerned citizens are being informed and inspired to social and political activism as a direct result of this radio talk show. Chuck's guest list reads like a "Who's Who" from both the local and national scene. The program made its national debut in early May 2001 on the Genesis Communications Network. MORAL MAJORITY LEADER: From 1980-1984 Dr. Baldwin served as Pensacola Chairman, and then State Chairman of the Florida Moral Majority. Through these efforts many successful rallies and conferences were conducted. (One rally drew nearly 2,000 people during a driving rain storm.) Pro-family legislation was enacted, and Christians were educated as to moral-political information and involvement. Also, thousands of new conservative voters were generated. AUTHOR: Chuck has authored two books. The first is entitled "Subjects Seldom Spoken On" which contains eleven sermons not normally addressed. The second, "This Is The Life," is a verse-by-verse exposition of the Epistles of John. Numerous theological booklets have also been written by Dr. Baldwin, including the popular, "Let's Look at Legalism." Through his radio program Dr. Baldwin has edited and produced "The Freedom Documents." This volume contains over fifty of the most important and influential documents of American history. No where else that we know of can you find these great, historic documents under one title. Chuck also writes daily editorials that are sent to thousands of subscribers electronically. These editorial opinions are carried by several newspapers, newsletters, and Internet web sites around the country NEWSPAPER AND INTERNET COLUMNIST: Chuck Baldwin is a prolific writer/columnist whose articles and political commentaries are carried by a host of Internet sites, newspapers, and news magazines. His columns have appeared in such national publications as Insight magazine. His articles are featured regularly on Internet news sites such as World Net Daily, Covenant News, News With Views, Alan Keyes' Renew America, Gulf1, Web Today and a host of others. His columns also appear regularly in newspapers such as the Greenville, South Carolina Times Examiner and The Independent Florida Sun. MEDIA APPEARANCES: Chuck has appeared on virtually every local media outlet in the Pensacola, Florida area including television, radio, and newspaper. He has also appeared on national television networks, including CNN and MSNBC. ABC television news once filmed his radio broadcast for a feature story. He has appeared on prime time national news shows such as Scarborough Country on MSNBC and Anderson Cooper on CNN. He has also appeared on the German Radio Network, and the British Broadcasting Corporation's television network. Chuck has also been featured in national magazines and newspapers such as Esquire, The Miami Herald, and The Washington Times. DISTINCTIONS: Chuck Baldwin has preached in churches all over the United States and overseas. He has spoken at several notable events including being the keynote speaker at the 50th anniversary of D-Day celebration at the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Baldwin has been proclaimed an honorary member of both the Pensacola City Council and the Women for Responsible Legislation. He has appeared before the Tiger Bay Club as well as several civic organizations. He has also been the guest of honor at a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. He was also awarded the Bronze Medal of Patriotism by the Sons of the American Revolution.Twice, Dr. Baldwin was proclaimed "Minister Of The Day" in the Florida House of Representatives. Recently, this distinction was awarded to him by the Florida State Senate. Also, Pastor Baldwin has had audiences with former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. and Governors Bob Martinez, Fob James, Jr. and Jeb Bush. He has also been officially recognized by the Escambia County Florida Sheriffs Department as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff.Dr. Baldwin is a member of the Board of Directors for Gospel Radio Latin America (G.R.L.A.) in Ft. Worth, Texas, and on the Board of Regional Vice Presidents for Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida. He received the "National Medal of Patriotism" award from the American Police Hall of Fame and is a volunteer chaplain at the State Prison in Century, Florida. He is also listed in "Who's Who of the Gulf Coast." There is so much more American voters should know about Pastor Chuck Baldwin, and as his presidential campaign proceeds, rest assured you'll see my coverage of his White House race.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-52) not displayed.
.
.
.
#53. To: FOH (#34)
Attaboy. As you have no doubt figured out he/she/it is trying to provoke you into making intemperate remarks. Excellent reply. You might also want to refer to: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I don't know much about Chuck Baldwin. But isn't he anti-war, he wants to roll back the Patriot Act and he does not support Israel's persecution of Palestine. or am I wrong on these things? sounds like a pretty good candidate to me. I don't think Obama can match that.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
Of course you were going to ping me, right pinhead?
Keep Jesus Off My Penis
sounds like a pretty good candidate to me. I don't think Obama can match that. The anti-Christian bigots are well on display. It is interesting to watch all the hissy fits from people who insist upon following their own path BUT who display a degree of bigotry and prejudice that they accuse others of differing beliefs of harboring. It is great fun because all you have to do is look at the, comments, the lack of a reasoned argument, and the obvious prejudice and the arguments, such as they are, fall apart like a cheap suit in a rain storm.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I wonder what the Religious Right thinks of him. Not only that, most of America's founders weren't exactly religious fundamentalists. Jefferson was a deist, Benjamin Franklin an agnostic, Adams and Maddison were secular Episcopalians. Not the sort of company John Hagee and his Bible Banging hordes would be comfortable around.
Now, if FOH and the rest would just accept this, and act accordingly, then I wouldn't have to waste all these posts pointing out what a hypocrite him and his candidate are. Baldwin doesn't want to impose his religion on us, but he does have strong views on abortion, women's rights, other people's religions, the content of the school science program, the display of Christian symbols on public property and other fundie issues that he seeks to cram down our throats by force of law. Got it. By the way, do you agree that FOH is correct in ripping and disparaging Ferret's religion behind Ferret's back? If so, who defines what a valid religion is?
.
Then don't display it in public. Sexual libertinism is not a path to happiness. It is just personal physical gratification, and your penis has no special powers. It's just a penis.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Too bad you can't point a gun at his head and kill him if he doesn't conform to your religious views on this subject. Huh? Is this what they call "Conservative Freedom"? The freedom to let guys like you decide what is right and wrong for all the other adults?
.
Baldwin is a Constitutionalist. No matter what his religious and social views (many of which I disagree with), he believes in limited government and knows that there's nothing in the Constitution to support Federally sponsored rule by any Church. Those who lump him in with Hagee and Falwell don't know what they're talking about.
To be honest, I would much prefer a world filled with practitioners of the "live and let live" religion of Ferret to having your superstitions imposed on me morality police such as yourself. The founding fathers were thinking of guys like you when they drafted the First Amendment. It's not so much to keep the state from persecuting religion, there wasn't a lot of this going on in the Colonies when the amendment was drafted. The amendment is designed to keep religion from taking over the government and persecuting the people. And that's why the fundie kooks are constantly at odds with it. Recall that Cotton Mather was a contemporary figure to Jefferson and Franklin.
.
No shit Sherlock. The video is primarily about the sort of religious intolerence FOH, the Christian Taliban Theocracy deals in. Of course any idiot can see that and you are baiting, but you do at least deserve this pro forma reponse.
I agree with your comments in 57. this Chuck Baldwin fellow I think is a guy people should like. I bet if Ron Paul was on CNN and they asked him who he liked best, Obama or Baldwin, then Ron Paul would say Baldwin was a lot better than Obama. how vain we are when we even think that on a collective basis we even deserve to have good leadership in our country. the 2-party fraud is only able to work because the citizens are too stupid to think beyond their prejudices & grudges against the other party. Thus many will support Obama though Obama from a policy point of view is about the same as Bush. and I certainly would not say that your average Democrat voter is any more flawed than the average Republican voter.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
I don't believe in getting in pissing contests over other people's beliefs, while reserving the right to comment where I feel appropriate. Ferret can believe in the fuzz of his belly button if that is what thrills him. What I personally object to is deriding others beliefs without foundation. When someone points out valid roots and foundations that are both historically valid and documented then refute the points rather than attacking the poster. What about the Constitution do you find objectionable? There is a difference between upholding one's standards and beliefs and enforcing one's dogma upon others. The two are seperable and although one's religious beliefs may well influence one's public positions there is nothing wrong with that. It is my right, it is your right, to form your opinions and establish your public positions upon any criteria you wish. That is called freedom. The exact wording of the Constitution is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The mistaken belief that one must check one's beliefs at the door is just that - mistaken. The Constitution supports the FREEDOM to believe as one wishes and to act upon those beliefs so long as they do not infringe upon the liberty of others. It does not require that one create a seperation between one's religious beliefs and one's advocacy for public policy - it simply forbids the Feral Government from intruding into the sphere of any specific religion whether for or against. It does not require that people in the Public Square ignore their own personal beliefs, nor does it forbid them from acting upon them within the bounds of free discourse and Constitutionally allowed actions. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Wrong again Buzzard Breath. I am pointing out the fatuity of the anti-Christian bigotry exhibited by some. Of course I was somewhat ascerbic in doing so. So, sue me. I oppose intolerance in all its forms - including the intolerance exhibited by those who are being intolerant when trying to point out the perceived intolerance of others with whom they disagree.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I was in the U.S. Army. We didn't do any Naval exercises there.
Actually I planted trees and worked on wild land forest fires many years. I am against the destruction of what is left of the old growth forest and am for responsible logging in a world that also recognizes and exploits the value of food and fiber from industrial hemp to minimize the damage we do to out forests. My religion teaches the value of all life, not just that of large plants. Your post is amusing, but actually has zero value as a slap at me.
Exactly - the Obamaphiliacs, the DUh Crowd, the Dildoeheads, and the FReeptards are all the same in this respect. They mistake loyalty to their particular horn of the alleged Two Party Hegelian Dialectic as somehow being justified, without having the intellectual courage to realize they are being taken for suckers. I could put it with a bit more pith but I'll forego the fun of it for the moment as you make a good point. Anyone who thinks that there is any difference in who controls each wing of the Republicrat Party is not only mistaken, but an ignorant fool. They are aptly named as what they are: Sheeple.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I served on the Wooden Ships with Iron Men. Just call me a Riverboat Gambler.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I don't believe in getting in pissing contests over other people's beliefs, while reserving the right to comment where I feel appropriate. Ok, you dodged the question. So the answer is obviously YES, you do believe that it is perfectly proper to attack Ferret's religion, and to disparage Ferret for practicing it, behind his back. If you didn't believe this, you would not have needed to post your long black paragraph of tap dancing. You could have instead typed a single word in response to my question => NO.
.
USS Constitution's Navy website. We still have the best wooden frigate in the world. Here is my favorite Navy ship.
IMHO, preachers, rabbis, imams and other clothy men should stay out of politics. We have a rabbi running Homeland Security and we see how well that's worked out.
--- “The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows.” ---
I always thought that nature-worship is self-defeating. If you value nature at face value, the first thing you learn is that there are no "rights." A caterpillar doesn't think that the bush it chews on has any rights, nor does the bird that eats the caterpillar. And the cat that catches and eats the bird doesn't cry over the rights of birds either. So why should a person feel guilty about cutting down a tree, squashing a bug, or shooting a bird? Nature doesn't give any living thing "rights," that's all in your head, and completely inconsistent. If we're part of nature, we have the right to exploit and kill living things just as they exploit and kill each other.
Passing laws to mandate your religious practices is imposing your religion on other people. American citizens who are Hindus might not want their children exposed to a Christian symbol on the public school or court house grounds. Just as Christians would not want their children exposed to an indoctrination in the church of Scientology. By the same token, rational Americans might not want their children taught that the world was created in an instant by Xenon the Alien Clear or in a week by an old man how lives in the clouds. They might want current science taught instead to better enable the child to operate in the modern world.
.
I don't believe in getting in pissing contests over other people's beliefs, while reserving the right to comment where I feel appropriate. Ok, you dodged the question. So the answer is obviously YES, you do believe that it is perfectly proper to attack Ferret's religion, and to disparage Ferret for practicing it, behind his back. If you didn't believe this, you would not have needed to post your long black paragraph of tap dancing. You could have instead typed a single word in response to my question => NO. Nice try - no cigar. (Hmm - do I want to dig into the Humidor again?) It was not dodging it was making MY point. I chose NOT to respond as you were trying to trap me into doing. Oh, and don't presume to impute a position to me which I have not taken. You are much the worse for your antics and so far all you have indulged in is false logic and evasion of the key points - while having the ludicrous temerity to accuse me of doing what you yourself are self-evidently doing. It's good work if you can get it. Unfortunately for you it doesn't sell very well here. I am already wise to the rhetorical tricks you are attempting to, ineptly, engage in. For the record I do not believe in commenting upon someone else without pinging them, but I also do not believe that I have to ping someone to a general philosophic comment either. If you have a problem with FOH's comments then state so with a reasoned foundation rather than engaging in personal attacks.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
The nice thing is it is they who suffer from the disease of religious intolerance, not me. I've had worse discrimination thrown at me by intolerance theocracy advocates before anyway. I am secure in my faith and find the hypocrisy of support for First Amendment religious rights as long as they don't have to actually practice what they preach high comedy. They have the right to their religion, but when they try to take mine away to create a theocracy in their image, that's when the shooting war starts.
I believe in Deep Ecology, that all living things have a right to exist for the value their life and existence has unto themselves. The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part of the Earth and not separate from it. The above link is to the wiki's basic definition of Deep Ecology, if you want to understand my POV, it is a good place to start. I find the mindset that all life is there to just make some greedy hairless chimp a dollar myopic and pointless. Beyond that, we are our species' own worst enemy, not nature. Until we get our population level in check and stop consuming other life on this planet as if our species were one big cancerous tumor there is always going to be a problem.
Again you simply display your own intolerance by charicaturing the beliefs of others. Displaying your ignorance of others beliefs by distorting them does not make your point. Whose Science? By what definition of Science? Upon what philosophical foundation? One of the things I have noticed, over time, when someone tries to spin their own personal beliefs as founded upon "Holy Science" is that they: A. Do not understand that the Scientific Method is a means of learning new things and is not an absolute or a religious system, but a logical framework. B. Are Philosophical Materialists (believing that all life and existence arises from inanimate matter) who are intolerant of any contrary view. C. Are usually Atheists who reject all spiritual and non-materialist belief systems. So, I can infer, logically, from your comments that you are: A. A materialist. B. An Atheist. C. Someone who does not understand the Scientific Method and thus rotely regurgitates poorly understood arguments, while calling them "Holy Science", steeped in prejudice, distortion, and assumption. Is your subscription to the "Septical Enquirer" current? Welcome to Waterloo Mr. Bonaparte.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I think the boy is rattled by my posts to RickyJ here. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78872&Disp=35#C35
Old "Ironsides". It still brings a tear to my eye when I think of the brave men who manned her and made her live. Let us never forget them. I can hear the commands going out in my mind: "Rig the Foresheets." "Hoist the Foretop Gallants." "Steady as she goes!" There is an old legend about her that she will stand as long as the Republic stands. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Whose Science? By what definition of Science? There is only one accepted version - and you know that. So we can stop reading right here. And no, we're not talking about the pseudo science concocted by the rapture monkeys outside of the journaled and accepted world scientific community.
.
..... have an objective view of the world, as does the world scientific community. You are the one that objects to an examination of the facts uncontrolled by your superstitions. And channeling the examination of objective facts into the dictates of your superstitions and expectations isn't science. If the sun was not the center of the solar system, science would readily admit it. And if evolution were not the most likely explanation for the species we observe, then science would admit that too. What science will not do is all you to impose your superstitions on their work. So if you object to the sun being at the center of the solar system, then you should confine your discussion of it to church. It isn't science.
.
Translation: I pegged you dead on in my last post to you. You are: A. A Philosophical Materialist (one who religiously believes that all life arose from inanimate matter and is hostile to any spiritual beliefs). B. An Atheist - who is intolerant of anyone not sharing your "non-belief" religious belief. C. Do not understand the Scientific Method is a logical framework, not a religion, by which one can learn new knowledge. Your rabid intolerance (as displayed by your insistence upon using distortion of others beliefs as a rhetorical tool) of any other belief system, and the freedom of conscience, is now clearly displayed to all. Like most rabid atheists your intolerance of contrary beliefs gets the best of you and leads you to excess - along with your pathological inability to engage in an honest debate without stooping to personal invective or distortion. No need to thank me for the lesson. I do this as a public service just because I'm a nice guy.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Nope, wrong on all counts. I simply believe that you don't have the right to cram your religious beliefs down our craws with the force of law. You respond that using the law to force your religion on us isn't forcing your religion on us. You then have to spin like a top - like you just did above - in order not to get ripped to shreds on this statement. There isn't a shred of support for creationism outside the religious community. Nowhere does the mainline scientific community push this theory. Your wish to force this superstition on us by force of law is simply a way of mandating your religion as the state religion. No different than forcing the stories of the Scientologists on us by force of law. The founding fathers suspected you might try this so the put the First Amendment in place to stop you and your kind.
.
Good point and well said. I would guess that the majority of americans dont realize or understand this, and would vehemently disagree with you if presented with this idea. Ha ha. that's an interesting quote. do you remember the letter jefferson wrote on his deathbed where he derides what he refers to as 'monkish superstition'?
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." Given jefferson's religious views it might make one wonder exactly what 'god' and 'altar' he was referring to? MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." Don't feel slighted. I feel the same about religion in general. Starwind once told me I was going to spend eternity in a lake of fire while maintaining my same flesh and blood form. Whatever works.
..... have an objective view of the world, as does the world scientific community. You are the one that objects to an examination of the facts uncontrolled by your superstitions. And channeling the examination of objective facts into the dictates of your superstitions and expectations isn't science. If the sun was not the center of the solar system, science would readily admit it. And if evolution were not the most likely explanation for the species we observe, then science would admit that too. What science will not do is all you to impose your superstitions on their work. So if you object to the sun being at the center of the solar system, then you should confine your discussion of it to church. It isn't science. Ever read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? Ever read "Forbidden Archaeology"? Because someone claims the mantle of Science as their foundation is not proof that their beliefs are either correct or valid. It is nothing more than an appeal to authority, one of the Logical Fallacies, to support an argument. Rejection of non-matierialist viewpoints while claiming the religion of Science as an authority is, as well, contrary to the Scientific Method of which one of the bedrock precepts is that a call to authority is proof of nothing. Some day you must read the late John W. Campbell's fine essay "The Scientific Method". It is the best short summation with which I am familiar. Science is NOT an absolute, it is a means of establishing new knowledge. It is a system of thought and a means of exploring the validity of new thought. Science has changed repeatedly throughout the centuries. Once it was accepted "Science" that the Greek Physician Galen was inerrant and the blood flowed as a tide. Harvey proved that wrong and established a new theory which was proven correct - but was NOT accepted by the Scientific Community for quite some time. Alfred Wegner proposed the theory of Continental Drift in the 1920's and was laughed at by the, ha, Scientific Community. Plate Tectonics is now accepted as valid science - but continues to be refined over time. Darwinian Evolution and Materialism do not share such validation. Darwin has, over time, been found to have many defects and anyone who insists upon religiously following a flawed theory in the face of contradictory evidence is following Dogma NOT Science. Your astronomical references are as well logically flawed as the organization of the Physical Solar System has been established over time and is supported by the available evidence. Your reference to it is nothing more than a Red Herring which does nothing to support your non-argument. However, the evolution of the organization of the matter has not been so and it continues to evolve, based on the evidence, from the Bohr Atom, to Quantum Theory, to greater and more abstract theories. The indivisible Atom of 40 years ago is now found to be divisible. Religion, and its precepts, regardless of religion, all have a Philosophical core of exploring the fundamental questions of existence, and this is independent of specific dogma. Regardless of which one a person adopts at their core all of the great religions view man as first a spiritual being with existence independent of the material universe. That you reject this is your prerogative as a free being, but as Galileo is reported to have said soto voce at his heresy trial and recanting: "Nevertheless it still moves." Your belief, or non-belief, and its ultimate validity does not change regardless of any number of insults or calls to authority you might make. You may choose to believe the materialist fairy tale that you arose from mud and are little better than a stimulus response mechanism but several thousand years of philosophical thought and endeavor would seem to suggest otherwise. However, if you wish to think that you are nothing more than mobile meat you are welcome to do so, but include me out.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Yes, by Thomas Kuhn. And he maintains that there is a world scientific community on the first page of the book. That is the first step in his argument on the structure of scientific revolution. So your shuck and jive about "which science are we going to believe" is shown to be hokum by your own source. The world scientific community does not accept your creationism. Period. Your argument that the rapture monkey alternate science community does accept it is silly. So what if they do? There is also a flat earth society that believes the world is flat. Accepted scientific theory is what the world scientific community says it is. Not what some rapture monkey needs it to be to keep the hole out of his belief system. And a science class should teach accepted scientific theory. It should not be used impose your religion, and your religious fables, on other people who don't want it.
.
My apologies, 3 dots, I thought you were also a wiccan. I knew that Corn Flake Girl was. I see you're just your garden variety atheist...
Beautiful day outside, lots of pretty people out and about...
#54. To: FOH (#0)
#55. To: FOH (#3)
"Beats having a wiccan in there..."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#56. To: FOH (#15)
--
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#57. To: Red Jones (#54)
I don't know much about Chuck Baldwin. But isn't he anti-war, he wants to roll back the Patriot Act and he does not support Israel's persecution of Palestine. or am I wrong on these things?
#58. To: aristeides (#39)
We've already had one clearly non-Christian president, the Republican Unitarian William Howard Taft -- whom principled conservatives have long admired.
#59. To: Original_Intent (#51)
Pastor Baldwin is strictly in favor of supporting the Constitution and your freedom to follow beliefs with which he disagrees - as long as you don't try to force them on others.
#60. To: Ferret Mike, FOH (#56)
Keep Jesus Off My Penis
#61. To: Original_Intent (#60)
Sexual libertinism is not a path to happiness.
#62. To: Red Jones (#54)
#63. To: Original_Intent (#60)
(Edited)
Sexual libertinism is not a path to happiness.
#64. To: Original_Intent (#60)
"Sexual libertinism is not a path to happiness. It is just personal physical gratification, and your penis has no special powers. It's just a penis."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#65. To: Original_Intent (#57)
#66. To: ..., FOH, Ferret Mike, all (#59)
By the way, do you agree that FOH is correct in ripping and disparaging Ferret's religion behind Ferret's back? If so, who defines what a valid religion is?
Now, if FOH and the rest would just accept this, and act accordingly, then I wouldn't have to waste all these posts pointing out what a hypocrite him and his candidate are.
Baldwin doesn't want to impose his religion on us, but he does have strong views on abortion, women's rights, other people's religions, the content of the school science program, the display of Christian symbols on public property and other fundie issues that he seeks to cram down our throats by force of law. Got it.
"I swear before the altar of almighty God eternal enmity over any form of tyranny over the mind of man." ~ Thomas Jefferson
#67. To: Ferret Mike, FOH (#64)
(Edited)
Of course any idiot can see that and you are baiting, but you do at least deserve this pro forma reponse.
#68. To: Original_Intent (#66)
"I don't believe in getting in pissing contests over other people's beliefs, while reserving the right to comment where I feel appropriate. Ferret can believe in the fuzz of his belly button if that is what thrills him."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#69. To: Jethro Tull (#44)
"Since when is the adoration of trees a religion? I'd call that a form of psychosis."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#70. To: Red Jones (#65)
the 2-party fraud is only able to work because the citizens are too stupid to think beyond their prejudices & grudges against the other party. Thus many will support Obama though Obama from a policy point of view is about the same as Bush. and I certainly would not say that your average Democrat voter is any more flawed than the average Republican voter.
#71. To: Ferret Mike (#68)
I was in the U.S. Army. We didn't do any Naval exercises there.
#72. To: Original_Intent (#66)
By the way, do you agree that FOH is correct in ripping and disparaging Ferret's religion behind Ferret's back? If so, who defines what a valid religion is?
#73. To: Original_Intent (#71)
"I served on the Wooden Ships with Iron Men. Just call me a Riverboat Gambler."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#74. To: FOH (#0)
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
(Edited)
My religion teaches the value of all life, not just that of large plants
#76. To: Original_Intent (#66)
There is a difference between upholding one's standards and beliefs and enforcing one's dogma upon others.
#77. To: ..., FOH, Ferret Mike, all (#72)
(Edited)
By the way, do you agree that FOH is correct in ripping and disparaging Ferret's religion behind Ferret's back? If so, who defines what a valid religion is?
#78. To: ... (#72)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#79. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#75)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#80. To: ..., FOH, Ferret Mike, all (#76)
(Edited)
#81. To: ..., FOD, RickyJ (#40)
"What gives you the right to rip Ferret's religion behind his back? When he is not here to defend it?"
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#82. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
#83. To: Original_Intent (#80)
Again you simply display your own intolerance by charicaturing the beliefs of others. Displaying your ignorance of others beliefs by distorting them does not make your point.
#84. To: Original_Intent (#80)
One of the things I have noticed, over time, when someone tries to spin their own personal beliefs as founded upon "Holy Science" is that they:
#85. To: ..., FOH, Ferret Mike, all (#83)
#86. To: Original_Intent (#85)
(Edited)
#87. To: Original_Intent (#66)
It does not require that one create a seperation between one's religious beliefs and one's advocacy for public policy - it simply forbids the Feral Government from intruding into the sphere of any specific religion whether for or against. It does not require that people in the Public Square ignore their own personal beliefs, nor does it forbid them from acting upon them within the bounds of free discourse and Constitutionally allowed actions.
"I swear before the altar of almighty God eternal enmity over any form of tyranny over the mind of man." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#88. To: All (#87)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#89. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
Your post is amusing, but actually has zero value as a slap at me.
#90. To: ..., FOH, Ferret Mike, all (#84)
One of the things I have noticed, over time, when someone tries to spin their own personal beliefs as founded upon "Holy Science" is that they:
#91. To: Original_Intent (#90)
(Edited)
Ever read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"?
#92. To: ..., Ferret Mike (#3)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest