Dr. Paul's weak theological statement

[adpierce]

I'm a Christian and when I think of a statement of faith I don't think of what Dr. Paul has laid out as his statement of faith (http://www.scribd.com/doc/264398/Ron-Paul-Statement-Of-Faith). I think of something theologically substantive. I rarely criticize Dr. Paul, however as a Christian I like to think that I ought to have a theological basis laid out for myself which I can explain if called upon to explain. I understand the importance for a politician to avoid being "distasteful" by pandering and using the word Jesus every other word (ahem... Brownback) however I think it would be impressive to Christian voters (even if some might disagree with him on certain points) if he laid out his beliefs better.

For Example I believe:

There is one God with three persons ... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Sin is disobedience to God's Law, available through natural and specific revelation.
That Jesus Christ died as a propitiation for sins so that sinful man might receive freely by grace salvation and eternal life.
That the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in original form, and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.
That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.


....
This is just a little bit of what I believe. I think something that is this simplistic in form would be sufficient for many (especially evangelical) believers to find impressive. Most who call on the name of Christ haven't even thought this deeply about their theology, even if these statements are relatively simple theological statements. Dr. Paul isn't afraid to be criticized for what he believes, nor lose his voting base, or compromise in any way so I'm wondering why he has been so vague on what he means when he says he's a Christian. It is self-evident that he lives a life consistent with Christian values and votes accordingly. In a world where a Mormon can run for President under "Christian Values" this clearly shows that too many people don't really understand what it means when you claim the name of Christ. Dr. Paul attends a southern Baptist church in Texas, and the SBC has in one way or another affirmed the short statement of faith I have listed above so I'm guessing he does believe these things. I just wish he would publically affirm them.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Great topic, would read again, rated 10/10

[Daveforliberty]

As a Christian, I think Dr. Paul's statement of faith is just fine.

[jd603]

I agree, some mentioning of faith is fine, but no need to go crazy, I believe in the separation of church and state. I don't believe they need to go hand in hand.

[adpierce]

I agree, some mentioning of faith is fine, but no need to go crazy, I believe in the separation of church and state. I don't believe they need to go hand in hand.

I'm not calling for a merging of State and Church. I'm just asking him to explain with a little more detail what he means by what he believes being a Christian is and what he believes. It's an important to many people that if a candidate says they're a Christian that he's not a person who is a Sunday-only Christian without any real depth to his faith. It's not a political question, but more so a question which gives a clearer picture of that individuals personal life and to a degree their personal integrity. To state with some specificity what you actually believe goes a long way to allievate the fear that you're just trying to win votes by saying you're a Christian (which certainly I know Dr. Paul isn't trying to do).

[MsDoodahs]

You said yourself that it's evident that he lives a life consistent with Christian values and votes accordingly.

[theblatanttruth]

I don't have any faith in any theology, but I felt his statement of faith thing was alright.
As said previously... no need to take it to the extreme.

[zumajoe]

I'm not calling for a merging of State and Church. I'm just asking him to explain with a little more detail what he means by what he believes being a Christian is and what he believes. It's an important to many people that if a candidate says they're a Christian that he's not a person who is a Sunday-only Christian without any real depth to his faith. It's not a political question, but more so a question which gives a clearer picture of that individuals personal life and to a degree their personal integrity. To state with some specificity what you actually believe goes a long way to allievate the fear that you're just trying to win votes by saying you're a Christian (which certainly I know Dr. Paul isn't trying to do).

If you are a true Christian, wouldn't you be able to read his faith upon his good-doings? He doesn't need to go around explaining how many days a week he goes to church. His personal integrity is pretty obvious......

[hard@work]

I'm not calling for a merging of State and Church. I'm just asking him to explain with a little more detail what he means by what he believes being a Christian is and what he believes. It's an important to many people that if a candidate says they're a Christian that he's not a person who is a Sunday-only Christian without any real depth to his faith. It's not a political question, but more so a question which gives a clearer picture of that individuals personal life and to a degree their personal integrity. To state with some specificity what you actually believe goes a long way to allievate the fear that you're just trying to win votes by saying you're a Christian (which certainly I know Dr. Paul isn't trying to do).

We already had a lot of Christian's vote for Bush based on his "faith". They've continued to support him to this day based on the same. Dr. Paul practices what is preached, that should be the definition of a man's faith shouldn't it? While I respect your position I would argue against it based on the ability of those to deceive in their actions. The measure of a man is in his merits, no statement of faith can show this. This is why I believe that Ron Paul's faith is strong. He has shown his commitment to his faith in the faith he has placed in his actions.

:)

[adpierce]

If you are a true Christian, wouldn't you be able to read his faith upon his good-doings? He doesn't need to go around explaining how many days a week he goes to church. His personal integrity is pretty obvious......

He's already won me as a loyal follower, but I'm concerned that he might have a better chance at winning those "values" voters who are unfamiliar with his record and stances if he is a bit more specific with what he believes.

[zumajoe]

actions speak louder than words.

[MsDoodahs]

It is our job to get the word to those values voters.

[adpierce]

actions speak louder than words.

Again I agree actions do speak louder than words, however being a Christian is more than being a good person, it entails by necessity a certain doctrine and belief system.

[zumajoe]

I think God would be (is) pretty happy with his theological statement. :p

[mconder]

The specific doctrines of many people who consider themselves Christians differs. I don't think it's necessary for Dr. Paul to go into detail about his specific brand of Christianity. From his statement of faith, I can gather that he is a man of great personal faith, and that is good enough for me. Did you ever consider that Dr. Paul's relationship with his maker may be deeply personal and sacred to him? Personally, I think it would be great not having another Bill Clinton or George Bush fake in the White House. It was disgusting to see that when Clinton was finally cornered for the Monica thing, the very next day he is attending Church with a Bible in hand. Then there is Bush, always pandering to the Christians by quoting Old Testament versus. I find the behavior disgusting and I am quite happy with Ron's statement.

[constituent]

He's already won me as a loyal follower, but I'm concerned that he might have a better chance at winning those "values" voters who are unfamiliar with his record and stances if he is a bit more specific with what he believes.

or alienate them. different branches of christianity believe different things, individuals believe differently than one another.

one's statement of faith shouldn't be walking the plank and anyone
that would expect that is sorely misguided. his faith is his business.
if rep. paul was not genuine enough in the statement that exists,
what makes you think that one anymore elaborate would be any
better?

this whole thread reminds me of the kids who wrote a threatening
letter and circulated a petition against a teacher b/c the school
newspaper made up and printed (fake) horoscopes...

and for those who would need the whole bit read out loud to
them before making their decision (w/out the candidate first
receiving the offical LaHaye/Robertson seal of approval),
i recommend reading my signature line.

[nexalacer]

He's already won me as a loyal follower, but I'm concerned that he might have a better chance at winning those "values" voters who are unfamiliar with his record and stances if he is a bit more specific with what he believes.

If we take the time to educate those "values" voters on Dr. Paul's actions, I'm sure they will find him to be a worthy enough Christian to support. However, I think most so-called Christians in this country have not a clue what Christ taught, therefore won't give two flying shits about what Ron Paul says. They're the ones that are indoctrinated by the hate-filled speech of the TV evangelicals, such as Pat Robertson. I am not a Christian because I don't and WILL NEVER believe that a man is a god, BUT I think Christ's teachings are among the most important to ever be spoken in this world, and most Americans, I believe, don't follow these teachings at all. If more people who called themselves Christians ACTUALLY FOLLOWED Christ's teachings, like Ron Paul, we'd be living in a much better world.

[adpierce]

The specific doctrines of many people who consider themselves Christians differs. I don't think it's necessary for Dr. Paul to go into detail about his specific brand of Christianity. From his statement of faith, I can gather that he is a man of great personal faith, and that is good enough for me. Did you ever consider that Dr. Paul's relationship with his maker may be deeply personal and sacred to him? Personally, I think it would be great not having another Bill Clinton or George Bush fake in the White House. It was disgusting to see that when Clinton was finally cornered for the Monica thing, the very next day he is attending Church with a Bible in hand. Then there is Bush, always pandering to the Christians by quoting Old Testament versus. I find the behavior disgusting and I am quite happy with Ron's statement.

It was absolutely disgusting how Clinton did that, and I do like that Dr. Paul has the integrity not to pander politically to evangelicals by not letting his views and politics speak for themselves as to why a person ought to vote for him. With that being said, for those people on the fence about whether they should vote for Dr. Paul or not this one thing alone, that he knows what he believes and isn't afraid to be specific about what he believes may be an important deciding factor in voting for him.

[lucius]

My $0.02, I am actively requiting this demographic for Dr. Paul and in my experience his 'SOF' absolutely Rocks!, almost instant conversion! With all due respect and just my opinion, please give a modicum of reflection to how you word your threads, something like, "Dr. Paul's Statement of Faith, Could be stronger?", much of what we are overcoming is an image conflict within deeply ingrained prejudges. Good argument...

[ButchHowdy]

For Example I believe:

There is one God with three persons ... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. '

1.) The Trinity is a divisive doctrine. It is alluded to once in Matthew 28:19 and it is under great dispute as possibly being added by the Papacy to create a baptismal formula that is antithetical to Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5



Sin is disobedience to God's Law, available through natural and specific revelation. That Jesus Christ died as a propitiation for sins so that sinful man might receive freely by grace salvation and eternal life.

Sin is translated from the word 'Hamartia' which was an archery term that simply implied 'missing the mark'



That the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in original form, and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.

I know of NO bible that has been properly translated from its original form. There are 4 different Greek words for 'coming' and the worst offense is the HELL word where you imply:



That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.


That is the most vile, religious, gobbledegook ever spewed from the pulpits. Hear me out:

The lazy King James translators took the words Sheol, Gehenna, Tartaros, Hades, The Grave, The Unseen, and The Imperceptible and translated EACH ONE of these to the word "HELL"

The Catholics turned it into this fiery place to scare the Protestants back to the fold. HELL is simply the place where people go when they die period

Ron Paul is best served by keeping his Statement Of Faith as (I hate to say it) lukewarm as possible

(end rant!)

[adpierce]

How about being specific about theological beliefs as a point of integrity? Yeah you've got different brands of Christianity with different bases of what they actually believe, and a theological statement with any doctrinal specificity might alienate some and cause others to follow him. I'm wagering the fact that he's willing to state definitively what he believes about Christianity will win more than he'll lose since it will say something about how he's not afraid to lose voters on this issue. It's the same perspective on how so many people look up to Dr. Paul for being a lone anti-war candidate in a field of warmongers. The fact that he's willing to do such a thing, regardless if he loses support in the GOP or gets ridiculed by his peers is incredibly telling about what kind of man he really is. In the same way being specific about your faith you might get people who disagree with you, but more people respect you for being willing to actually say what you believe rather than being afraid of losing support.

[adpierce]

1.) The Trinity is a divisive doctrine. It is alluded to once in Matthew 28:19 and it is under great dispute as possibly being added by the Papacy to create a baptismal formula that is antithetical to Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5



Sin is translated from the word 'Hamartia' which was an archery term that simply implied 'missing the mark'



I know of NO bible that has been properly translated from its original form. There are 4 different Greek words for 'coming' and the worst offense is the HELL word where you imply:



That is the most vile, religious, gobbledegook ever spewed from the pulpits. Hear me out:

The lazy King James translators took the words Sheol, Gehenna, Tartaros, Hades, The Grave, The Unseen, and The Imperceptible and translated EACH ONE of these to the word "HELL"

The Catholics turned it into this fiery place to scare the Protestants back to the fold. HELL is simply the place where people go when they die period

Ron Paul is best served by keeping his Statement Of Faith as (I hate to say it) lukewarm as possible

(end rant!)

That's my personal theological statement, you might disagree with it, but there it is I'm not afraid to state it, and I'm not afraid of you saying you disagree with it. In fact, I respect you all the more for saying why you disagree with it at least you have a reasoned opposition to my theological beliefs, which is better than most opponents to what I believe have to say.

[Green Mountain Boy]

I think it is good to remember that Ron Paul is not a theologian. He's a politician:eek:

[constituent]

"Heaven, heaven is a place,
a place where nothing, nothing
ever happens."

[theblatanttruth]

How about being specific about theological beliefs as a point of integrity? Yeah you've got different brands of Christianity with different bases of what they actually believe, and a theological statement with any doctrinal specificity might alienate some and cause others to follow him. I'm wagering the fact that he's willing to state definitively what he believes about Christianity will win more than he'll lose since it will say something about how he's not afraid to lose voters on this issue. It's the same perspective on how so many people look up to Dr. Paul for being a lone anti-war candidate in a field of warmongers. The fact that he's willing to do such a thing, regardless if he loses support in the GOP or gets ridiculed by his peers is incredibly telling about what kind of man he really is. In the same way being specific about your faith you might get people who disagree with you, but more people respect you for being willing to actually say what you believe rather than being afraid of losing support.

I'm sorry but I don't feel it's necessary.

[lucius]

Dr. Paul tells you, in his 'SOF', why he does not elaborate: "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena."

[adpierce]

I think it is good to remember that Ron Paul is not a theologian. He's a politician:eek:

I'm not a theologian either, I'm just a man. I am however a Christian, and for all that entails I have a set of beliefs that accompanies that, and as far as I understand it part of being a Christian means you can explain what you mean when you say you're a Christian. I'm not one to go street preaching or anything like that, but if I were running for office and somebody asked me what my statement of faith was I wouldn't do what Dr. Paul did which is focus mainly on political matters. He did mention how certain Christian principles he believes in are applied to those political matters, but he essentially skirts the issue which is "What do you really believe Dr. Paul?" I actually hate to be so critical on this issue, because I'm such a huge RP follower but it's been a really nagging issue for me.

[nexalacer]

I'm not a theologian either, I'm just a man. I am however a Christian, and for all that entails I have a set of beliefs that accompanies that, and as far as I understand it part of being a Christian means you can explain what you mean when you say you're a Christian. I'm not one to go street preaching or anything like that, but if I were running for office and somebody asked me what my statement of faith was I wouldn't do what Dr. Paul did which is focus mainly on political matters. He did mention how certain Christian principles he believes in are applied to those political matters, but he essentially skirts the issue which is "What do you really believe Dr. Paul?" I actually hate to be so critical on this issue, because I'm such a huge RP follower but it's been a really nagging issue for me.

Why does his beliefs outside of what he puts in his statement of faith bother you so much? He is a politician, therefore, he talks about the parts of his faith that directly effect his decision making process in politics: his constant desire to protect life, whether through pro-life actions or anti-war actions. What more do you want him to say? What more really matters when it comes to a politician's religious point of views? You're not electing a pastor. You're not electing a priest. You're not electing any sort of religious official, because if you were, a large portion of Americans would be outraged.

I am tired of Christians demanding every single part of a person's religious beliefs be on display in politics. Separation of Church and State is not about limiting religious belief, but it is about not forcing one set of beliefs onto your fellow citizens. By not flaunting every single aspect of his religious beliefs, Dr. Paul is able to respectfully inform us how his faith directs his beliefs, yet not appear to want to shove them down our throats. As a non-Christian, I really appreciate that. He becomes a uniter instead of a divider by not putting his entire faith on display. He keeps faith private, where it should be, as private matters are matters that cannot divide us.

Stop getting hitched on what words he says in regards to his faith... judge him on his actions... although, if you were a Christian, you wouldn't judge at all would you? Was it not in the bible it's written "judge not lest ye be judge yourself"?

[winston_blade]

The statement of faith is fine. Let's not argue.

[Cindy]

This posts scares me.:confused:

I don't want my daughter reading something by the man I am advocating to her to be the leader of our nation saying, " You will burn in hell eternally for sinning"

Like everyone here is saying, no need to over do it.

I thought our government was just suppose to protect our rights to religious freedoms and beliefs, not enforce their own on all of us.

Look at what the Christian fundamentals values elected TWICE, because they didn't look into the person, instead of his shallow words-

A man who has called for the murder of over 600,000 people.

A man who is stealing money from people to help the greedy Industrial War Complex and Oil companies profit.

A man that admittingly belongs to a secret devil worship society called Skull and Bones AKA the Death Order , which branched off from Hitlers Nazism ideals.

Nice values that come from God fearing Christians who voted for Bush twice these days.:rolleyes:

I can't believe anyone is requesting mere words from Paul, to prove himself to them, with the high morality and integrity of the personal and proffesional life he has lead behind him.

[jblosser]

He talks about Augustine's Just War theory and you consider it weak? It's a breath of fresh air to me to see a politician release a statement of faith that actually has depth like that instead of repeating the same basic points that anyone can say without a clue what they mean. Paul's statement shows his faith actually effects his view on government and law, and his voting record absolutely supports that claim.

[adpierce]

Why does his beliefs outside of what he puts in his statement of faith bother you so much? He is a politician, therefore, he talks about the parts of his faith that directly effect his decision making process in politics: his constant desire to protect life, whether through pro-life actions or anti-war actions. What more do you want him to say? What more really matters when it comes to a politician's religious point of views? You're not electing a pastor. You're not electing a priest. You're not electing any sort of religious official, because if you were, a large portion of Americans would be outraged.

I am tired of Christians demanding every single part of a person's religious beliefs be on display in politics. Separation of Church and State is not about limiting religious belief, but it is about not forcing one set of beliefs onto your fellow citizens. By not flaunting every single aspect of his religious beliefs, Dr. Paul is able to respectfully inform us how his faith directs his beliefs, yet not appear to want to shove them down our throats. As a non-Christian, I really appreciate that. He becomes a uniter instead of a divider by not putting his entire faith on display. He keeps faith private, where it should be, as private matters are matters that cannot divide us.

Stop getting hitched on what words he says in regards to his faith... judge him on his actions... although, if you were a Christian, you wouldn't judge at all would you? Was it not in the bible it's written "judge not lest ye be judge yourself"?

His actions are of the highest caliber, I'm not questioning his actions, and I'm not judging or impugning him for not being more specific. I'm just saying it would speak towards his integrity (for reasons previously stated) for him to not skirt the question of what he believes, but to be direct and specific. (Also just as a sidenote the bible says that those who are in the Church are to be judged by the members of the Church, only non-Christians get a pass on being judged - often seems like it's always the other way around doesn't it?)

[M.Bellmore]

As a Christian, it's all about works demonstrating the faith. His SoF is just fine for me if you look at his voting record and career history. I would watch the debate on the 19th that is geared toward Christians.

[Craig_R]

cant please everybody all the time

[nexalacer]

His actions are of the highest caliber, I'm not questioning his actions, and I'm not judging or impugning him for not being more specific. I'm just saying it would speak towards his integrity (for reasons previously stated) for him to not skirt the question of what he believes, but to be direct and specific. (Also just as a sidenote the bible says that those who are in the Church are to be judged by the members of the Church, only non-Christians get a pass on being judged - often seems like it's always the other way around doesn't it?)

Funny, the New-Testament was compiled by a council of politicians and theologians loyal to the Emperor of Rome, and it says that those are in the Emperor's sanctioned Church are to be judged by the Emperor-controlled Church's members.

[adpierce]

He talks about Augustine's Just War theory and you consider it weak? It's a breath of fresh air to me to see a politician release a statement of faith that actually has depth like that instead of repeating the same basic points that anyone can say without a clue what they mean. Paul's statement shows his faith actually effects his view on government and law, and his voting record absolutely supports that claim.

Actually you may have a point, I haven't checked out any other politician's statements of faith if they have them at all, Ron Paul's might be as good as it gets. I think he could go a little further than he does, but you make a really good point.

[catwoman]

The man is running for President of the United States, not head of the Christian Church. Personally, I believe that HIS personal religious beliefs have no bearing on what he is doing. It would not matter to me what religion he was or was not. What matters to me is how he is going to straighten our country out and get it back on track constitutionally. He is beholden to the constitution, not the bible.

[Lois]

The more he says about "faith" (Religion) - the worse it will be, because each and every person on earth has his/her own set of "rigid beliefs", so there will just be more "belief statements" for others to disagree with, because no two persons has the exact same set of 'beliefs' on Religion.

[Lois]

Gee - think of what a great world it would be if everone on earth totally eraced Religion from their monkey mind.

[nexalacer]

Gee - think of what a great world it would be if everone on earth totally eraced Religion from their monkey mind.

In the immortal words of John Lennon:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[adpierce]

The man is running for President of the United States, not head of the Christian Church. Personally, I believe that HIS personal religious beliefs have no bearing on what he is doing. It would not matter to me what religion he was or was not. What matters to me is how he is going to straighten our country out and get it back on track constitutionally. He is beholden to the constitution, not the bible.

Christianity is a private religion with public requirements, meaning Christians are supposed to be able to articulate what they believe and why they believe it. The ability to be able to do so is something to be respected all around, by non-believers and believers alike. Anything a person believes in regardless if it's religious or not ought to be able to be defendable by a rational response. I'm not trying to elect him to the head of the Christian Church... please don't put words in my mouth or presuppose what I mean by going into this inquiry. What I am inquiring is why RP didn't go the extra mile in his sof and state what he means when he says he's a Christian. When somebody asks him what do you mean you're the only "real Conservative" running for president he doesn't hold back specifics. I don't think he should in this matter either.

[jblosser]

I'll see your Lennon and raise you a Nietzsche. Ideas have consequences; you don't have to agree with Paul's, but even if you don't you might think about even taking some comfort that his beliefs about the need for small government are rooted in his beliefs about the very nature of reality and are thus very unlikely to change.



'Parable of the Madman'

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours,
ran to the market place, and cried incessantly:
"I seek God! I seek God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God
were standing around just then,
he provoked much laughter.
Has he got lost? asked one.
Did he lose his way like a child? asked another.
Or is he hiding?
Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?
Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes.
"Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you.
We have killed him---you and I.
All of us are his murderers.
But how did we do this?
How could we drink up the sea?
Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?
What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun?
Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?
Away from all suns?
Are we not plunging continually?
Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions?
Is there still any up or down?
Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?
Do we not feel the breath of empty space?
Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?
Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?
Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers
who are burying God?
Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?
Gods, too, decompose.
God is dead.
God remains dead.
And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?
What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?
What water is there for us to clean ourselves?
What festivals of atonement, what sacred gamesshall we have to invent?
Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?
Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -
For the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners;
and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment.
At last he threw his lantern on the ground,
and it broke into pieces and went out.
"I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet.
This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering;
it has not yet reached the ears of men.
Lightning and thunder require time;
the light of the stars requires time;
deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard.
This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -
and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day
the madman forced his way into several churches
and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo.
Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but:
"What after all are these churches now
if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

-- Friedrich Nietzsche


(Note that Nietzsche's primary argument here and elsewhere has little to do with the actual existence or non-existence of God and everything to do with the political and societal consequences when man declares God does not exist. Nietzsche predicted the 20th century would be the bloodiest in the earth's history and he was not wrong.)

[erastus]

I think it would be impressive to Christian voters (even if some might disagree with him on certain points) if he laid out his beliefs better.

For Example I believe:

There is one God with three persons ... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Sin is disobedience to God's Law, available through natural and specific revelation.
That Jesus Christ died as a propitiation for sins so that sinful man might receive freely by grace salvation and eternal life.
That the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in original form, and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.
That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.
....
This is just a little bit of what I believe. I think something that is this simplistic in form would be sufficient for many (especially evangelical) believers to find impressive. Most who call on the name of Christ haven't even thought this deeply about their theology, even if these statements are relatively simple theological statements.



Hi adpierce. I have a couple of comments:

1. The Founding Fathers did not insist on the above statements of belief, so why do you expect Ron Paul - of all people - to say these things?

2. You imply that to be a Christian you have to accept the theology of the trinity. Therefore Unitarians are not Christians?

3. You imply that to be a Christian you have to accept the theology of eternal punishment in hell. Therefore Seventh Day Adventists are not Christians?

4. People came here to escape religious persecution, and I am shocked that a Ron Paul supporter - a "champion of the Constitution" - would write the things you did.

Kind regards,
- e -

[Lois]

That Nietzsche was heavy :)

[adpierce]

Hi adpierce. I have a couple of comments:

1. The Founding Fathers did not insist on the above statements of belief, so why do you expect Ron Paul - of all people - to say these things?

2. You imply that to be a Christian you have to accept the theology of the trinity. Therefore Unitarians are not Christians?

3. You imply that to be a Christian you have to accept the theology of eternal punishment in hell. Therefore Seventh Day Adventists are not Christians?

4. People came here to escape religious persecution, and I am shocked that a Ron Paul supporter - a "champion of the Constitution" - would write the things you did.

Kind regards,
- e -

I'm not saying you've gotta believe the same thing I do, nor am I persecuting you. I'm simply saying that those are things that I believe in. I would think that of all the people who respect being direct and straightforward without skirting issues it would Ron Paul supporters. I didn't even say that you have to believe those things to be a Christian, please don't put words in my mouth. Showing you have integrity means you're not afraid to expose particularly vulnerable points of your personal life to show you're not afraid of what other people might think of you. I respect anybody who is willing to do that. If you're criticizing my personal theological beliefs you go to prove my point, and I"m perfectly fine with that. I was hoping that this tread wouldn't turn out to be a personal attack on what I personally believe, but maybe I was wrong.

[nexalacer]

Wow, that is quite powerful. Where is it from? I want more Nietzche after reading that.

I have great respect for the Early Christian Aesthetics... they understood that true faith is something that should be kept as a private matter. The downfall of the Religion of Christianity began when it was co-opted by a Roman Emperor in order to consolidate his power in a falling Empire and ended when the Catholic Church finally gained its stranglehold on Western Europe. Since then, it has been a mish-mash of attempted fixes and atrocities committed in the name of Christ.

God is not the problem. Christ is not even the problem. The problem is in the organization of faith into a Church. Once you organize faith into a Church, you get the same problems that come with government.... an entity that is completely reliant on other people's production is incapable of remaining uncorrupted.

I think Ron Paul does not want to force his beliefs on America through an explicit statement of faith because he too understands that no organization that produces nothing is capable of not abusing its position to gain more power... and the history of Christianity shows this very clearly.

[lucius]

Wow, that is quite powerful. Where is it from? I want more Nietzche after reading that.

I have great respect for the Early Christian Aesthetics... they understood that true faith is something that should be kept as a private matter. The downfall of the Religion of Christianity began when it was co-opted by a Roman Emperor in order to consolidate his power in a falling Empire and ended when the Catholic Church finally gained its stranglehold on Western Europe. Since then, it has been a mish-mash of attempted fixes and atrocities committed in the name of Christ.

God is not the problem. Christ is not even the problem. The problem is in the organization of faith into a Church. Once you organize faith into a Church, you get the same problems that come with government.... an entity that is completely reliant on other people's production is incapable of remaining uncorrupted.

I think Ron Paul does not want to force his beliefs on America through an explicit statement of faith because he too understands that no organization that produces nothing is capable of not abusing its position to gain more power... and the history of Christianity shows this very clearly.

You may like this book immensly: 'Leo Strauss and Nietzsche' by Laurence Lampert

Book Description

The influential political philosopher Leo Strauss has been credited by conservatives with the recovery of the great tradition of political philosophy stretching back to Plato. Among Strauss's most enduring legacies is a strongly negative assessment of Nietzsche as the modern philosopher most at odds with that tradition and most responsible for the sins of twentieth-century culture—relativism, godlessness, nihilism, and the breakdown of family values. In fact, this apparent denunciation has become so closely associated with Strauss that it is often seen as the very core of his thought.

In Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, the eminent Nietzsche scholar Laurence Lampert offers a controversial new assessment of the Strauss-Nietzsche connection. Lampert undertakes a searching examination of the key Straussian essay, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil." He shows that this essay, written toward the end of Strauss's life and placed at the center of his final work, reveals an affinity for and debt to Nietzsche greater than Strauss's followers allow. Lampert argues that the essay comprises the most important interpretation of Nietzsche ever published, one that clarifies Nietzsche's conception of nature and of human spiritual history and demonstrates the logical relationship between the essential themes in Nietzsche's thought—the will to power and the eternal return.

[BillyDkid]

As a non-Christian and a non-theist I would say that issues of faith should not part of a political campaign at all and this obsession with Dr. Paul's faith has little to do with whether he would be a good President. Faith or lack of it is a private issue - between you and whatever you happen to believe and this constant introduction of faith issues into politics is merely divisive. I respect people's right to believe whatever they will, but this litmus test BS we have to go through every campaign with candidates all spouting how much "faith" they have is tiresome and insulting. What concerns me is Dr. Paul's respect for civil liberties and self determination.

[Phenom24]

adpierce -

I've been a Christian since 1982. I think Dr. Paul's SoF is fine. If you want to hear more about it, I'm sure if you check out:

Mark the date! September 17 at 7:30 p.m. Eastern. The Values Voter Presidential Debate held in Fort Lauderdale will be streamed live by the American Family Association.

You will find out more about him.

But as much as part of me agrees with what you're saying, kind of "show everyone his real belief system".. To me it WOULDN'T MATTER ANYWAY. Because it seems to me that Christians (at least many that I know) are very closed-minded towards Dr. Paul because he differs with the President on the war, and anything said to the contrary makes Dr. P a "nut" or whatever else.

[Revolution9]

I'm not a theologian either, I'm just a man. I am however a Christian,.

Why are you insisting on a Theocracy?? You have stated you are a man. That is what your maker made of you. You are a Christian by choice or indoctrination. You seem to insist that Dr Paul just parrot your doctrine. The Orthodox Byzantine Church does not sport a trinity. The Trinity was put in place by Bishop Nicholas ( St, Nick) who punched Bishop Iraneaus in the eye to stop the doctrine of the One Source and create a paganic trinity. What of theChristian Churches who hold up Mary (Mother or Magdalene ala Gthic Cathedrals) as a part of their worship? Are these unworthy for bringing the Goddess side of the equation in?

Aha.. Into sticky territory now.

Randy

[jblosser]

Wow, that is quite powerful. Where is it from? I want more Nietzche after reading that.

It's from The Gay Science. At the time that phrase was used to refer to poetry, and this book contains a fair amount of poems and the like.

[JMann]

There is one God with three persons ... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Sin is disobedience to God's Law, available through natural and specific revelation.
That Jesus Christ died as a propitiation for sins so that sinful man might receive freely by grace salvation and eternal life.
That the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in original form, and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.
That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.

You really believe that? Oh and BTW I got some cheap land in Manhattan if you are interested send me a message.

[Revolution9]

His actions are of the highest caliber, I'm not questioning his actions,

No.. You just want hm spouting propaganda. Why the Theocratic insistence? He will lose this entire neighborhood who will see through such a charade and place him squarely in the Bush camp of evangelical frauds.

Randy

[American]

Actions speak louder then any words. I'm sure those Catholic priests talked a good game while they were molesting those kids. Obviously it didnt mean to much now did it.

[nexalacer]

I am noticing this is becoming an attack, and I have been a part of it, but we should avoid attacking adpierce. However, adpierce, it is imperative that you realize that this campaign... this movement.... is far more diverse, in terms of religious (more importantly spiritual) beliefs than any presidential campaign in my lifetime (27 years), and likely the history of the United States. We must not focus on religious statements of faith in a campaign that has a goal of INCREASING personal freedom for every American. This would lead to reduced governmental interference in religion, thus religion itself would be removed from the political process. This is better in the long run, as America was never meant to be a Theocracy, as evident by the 1st amendment.

[adpierce]

There is one God with three persons ... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Sin is disobedience to God's Law, available through natural and specific revelation.
That Jesus Christ died as a propitiation for sins so that sinful man might receive freely by grace salvation and eternal life.
That the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in original form, and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.
That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.

You really believe that? Oh and BTW I got some cheap land in Manhattan if you are interested send me a message.

It's not my intent to promote any kind of apologetics debate, I simply laid out what I believe for you to agree with or disagree with. I however thought that people were respectful enough to not ridicule a person's beliefs which were simply provided as an example of a theological statement. You don't hear me ridiculing alternative theological (or lack thereof) viewpoints. I simply want politicians to be transparent about what they believe. I would want that even if I wasn't a Christian, admittedly probably for different reasons. As a note, I don't expect Ron Paul's doctrine to mirror mine, and he wouldn't lose my support if it didn't. I do however think it might be similar due to the church that he attends.

[catwoman]

Christianity is a private religion with public requirements, meaning Christians are supposed to be able to articulate what they believe and why they believe it. The ability to be able to do so is something to be respected all around, by non-believers and believers alike. Anything a person believes in regardless if it's religious or not ought to be able to be defendable by a rational response. I'm not trying to elect him to the head of the Christian Church... please don't put words in my mouth or presuppose what I mean by going into this inquiry. What I am inquiring is why RP didn't go the extra mile in his sof and state what he means when he says he's a Christian. When somebody asks him what do you mean you're the only "real Conservative" running for president he doesn't hold back specifics. I don't think he should in this matter either.


He holds back specifics because one's faith is a private matter. It is just that simple.

[FrankRep]

You're allowed to disagree with his religious beliefs. Beliefs are personal.

[American]

Ron Paul doesnt visit this forum himself personally, maybe you should shoot him an email with your request?

[zumajoe]

based upon the reponses to this, don't you think these would be the same responses around the nation? not to discredit you, but i think this topic is done.

[ButchHowdy]

With all due respect to my fellow believers, if Ron Paul believed in the Catholic Trinity, The Evangelical Hell, and the Fundy Inerrancy of the bible, not only would I leave politics for good but I would leave the country as well cause we've got one of these in the White House and look at the mess we're in.

As the Republican party has been hijacked, so has the church. It happened immediately after Jesus' ascension and surprisingly, the first recorded argument was between Paul and Peter over circumcision.

Then the Judaisers started mixing the old with the new which Paul wrote about in Galatians. and today there are thousands of religions and sects. Which one are we to believe?

[adpierce]

This question is specifically directed toward those who have been criticizing me for my beliefs and I hope you answer negatively. You're not afraid that if he did say what he really means by saying he's a Christian that he'll say something you won't like or disagree with is it? What if he did affirm those things I affirm in my personal belief system, would you criticize him as you did me? Take a step back and think about that question. Then think about what kind of guts it would take for a politician to risk that kind of thing happening just to be transparent about what he believes. I think it would take pure guts, and that's the truth. I don't even necessarily want you to reply to that on the forum but to seriously think about it.

[afloridian]

It may impress some Christian voters for a political candidate to make a theological statement such as yours, but to others, like me, such a statement would drive them away from the candidate. Theological beliefs, being rooted in a faith so expansive as to judge the moral righteousness of most human conduct and to declare in which metaphysical state the unobservable universe exists (e.g., whether there is one "god" (however defined) with three "persons", or whether there is some other imaginable alternative), are antithetical to reason, logic, the scientific method, and the subjectivity of morality --- things which the man of reason cannot but hold in the highest regard.

Nevertheless, I do agree with you that it is important for the voter to know how a candidate's faith fits into his process of thought. For, it is the quest of the voter to predict how the various candidates will think. And, because faith, in its expansive forms, can displace reason in the process of thought, a transparency of faith, achieved through specific statements of faith such as yours, simplifies the voter's quest.

Of course, there are other ways to detect a candidate's faith. For instance, past actions; speech or writing not in the form of an official statement of faith. As others have mentioned, these can be even better indicators of how a candidate's faith fits with his reason to compose his overall process of thought.

Thus, with Paul, I am much more satisfied than not with his faith as declared in his statement of faith. He mentions the "ideal of liberty" and the virtue of "freedom, self-government, and self-control." He seeks not to impose his anti-abortion beliefs on individuals. Nor would he fight imperialistic "moral" wars of the Wilsonian tradition; instead, he speaks highly of the Augustinian notion of the "just war," i.e., one of last resort. He does "confess" (Is his subconscious trying to tell him/us something by this verb choice?) that Jesus Christ is his personal Savior. He also speaks of "God" and our "Creator." But who knows what he meant by these? The word "God" may mean different things to different people. Some define it as a "big boss in the sky"; others define it more scientifically as "the totality of the universe." Paul mentioned these terms in the context of natural rights, suggesting, because one natural right is a great deference for individual liberty, a definiton that does not overextend faith.

But Paul's statement of faith only tells so much. His actions speak louder than words. And his actions unwaiveringly show a great respect for individual liberty and a thought process dominated by reason (The doctor is a great theoretician.). In sum, in my quest as a voter to determine the various candidates' thought processes, I am convinced that Paul has an almost-perfect blend of faith and reason, certainly one superior to the other candidates'.

[catwoman]

This question is specifically directed toward those who have been criticizing me for my beliefs and I hope you answer negatively. You're not afraid that if he did say what he really means by saying he's a Christian that he'll say something you won't like or disagree with is it? What if he did affirm those things I affirm in my personal belief system, would you criticize him as you did me? Take a step back and think about that question. Then think about what kind of guts it would take for a politician to risk that kind of thing happening just to be transparent about what he believes. I think it would take pure guts, and that's the truth. I don't even necessarily want you to reply to that on the forum but to seriously think about it.


It matters not to me what he believes as far as religion or spirituality is concerned. I am only concerned that he follow the constitution.

[ButchHowdy]

AFloridian Awesome first post! Welcome to the forum!

[adpierce]

AFloridian, I just wanted to say that I respect that you presented a reasoned response. Much better than some of the responses I was getting. Blind faith that isn't informed by reason is a blight on society, and it is altogether common. We both start from a basis of reason being the way we must by necessity understand the world and so even though we have reached different conclusions I deeply respect you. I wish more people took logic and reason more seriously.

[Revolution9]

I wish more people took logic and reason more seriously.

How do you reconcile that stance with one that declares illogically that all the invisible and the fate of the soul is known to you?

Ya know what I have noticed. You are real good at spouting dogmatic statements but are not so good with answering pertinent questions, seemingly relegating them to those of non-believers and worthy of scornful comment. Being of The Source templated as a Christ child I take offense at such characterisation.

Best
Randy

[billm317]

I wish more people took logic and reason more seriously.

I do too! I'm an atheist though. Ron Paul's "weak" theological statement is just fine with me. I have no problem with him believing whatever it is that he wants and I appreciate the fact that he doesn't shove his beliefs down my throat, unlike our current president.

Also, how do you think GWB's strong theological statement has affected our relationship with other countries?

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." - GWB
Good going George! The word "crusade" won't piss anyone off!

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state." - GWB
Do you mean "wall", sir?

“God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." - GWB

[leipo]

What if he did affirm those things I affirm in my personal belief system, would you criticize him as you did me?


He won't. He thinks his belief is personal like any true christian would. Why did you share your doctrine? It makes you look foolish.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I dont want any politicians mentioning their religion AT ALL.

It has nothing to do with their policies. If the government starts making policy based on what their religion tells them, we are in a whole lot of trouble.

Remember kids, George Bush says he reads the Bible every day.

[Kuldebar]

Strong theological statements, is that what it means to be a Christian now days?

By deeds not words seems to be far more in line with honest faith.

The scriptures read: "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Sounds a little strange today, but I think they are still fairly clear. The tree is known by the fruit it bears.

Must we point out George Bush's "strong theological" statements? Do these in any way represent his actions as a Christian? If you answer yes, then why would any American wish to have a another Christian in the White House? I would suggest that Bush uses religion as a political tool and his actions are not in line with Christ's teachings.



21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.". Matt 7:21-23

[adpierce]

How do you reconcile that stance with one that declares illogically that all the invisible and the fate of the soul is known to you?

Ya know what I have noticed. You are real good at spouting dogmatic statements but are not so good with answering pertinent questions, seemingly relegating them to those of non-believers and worthy of scornful comment. Being of The Source templated as a Christ child I take offense at such characterisation.

Best
Randy

Because, as much as you want to make this a theological debate I am however framing this not as a theological debate, but more so that Dr. Paul is being somewhat evasive when confronted about his religious beliefs. If you want to debate theology I know of a good forum to do so... theologyweb.net. I however am not expounding on my defense of Christianity here, it's not the right place. Furthermore, I concede that after trying to look up other candidates statements of faith I have found nothing except for Ron's statement of faith. He among all the candidates is being the most forthcoming about what he actually does believe. Therefore, I am relatively content with his statement of faith now. I still have one reservation however and that it is that he is being somewhat evasive about what he believes about doctrine.

[adpierce]

Strong theological statements, is that what it means to be a Christian now days?

By deeds not words seems to be far more in line with honest faith.

The scriptures read: "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Sounds a little strange today, but I think they are still fairly clear. The tree is known by the fruit it bears.

Must we point out George Bush's "strong theological" statements? Do these in any way represent his actions as a Christian? If you answer yes, then why would any American wish to have a another Christian in the White House? I would suggest that Bush uses religion as a political tool and his actions are not in line with Christ's teachings.

Matt 7:21-23

You can't separate faith (a.k.a. belief system) and works (deeds), Catholics and Protestants agree on that, how that particularly gets worked out whether faith compels works or they're both necessary for salvation is an inside debate within Christendom.

As to the whole Bush thing... he is abhorrent in how he uses his "faith." He uses it only as a political tool, I understand Dr. Paul's avoiding using faith that manner, but think there's a balance between being clear about what your faith actually is and being a pharisee. I respect how he doesn't want to play his faith off and manipulate people like Bush did, at the same time it's not that much to say well as to doctrine this is what I believe... That's not being prideful in yourself that's just saying what you believe.

[eloquensanity]

As a Christian, I think Dr. Paul's statement of faith is just fine.


I agree. I think its very distasteful when politicians use the name of Jesus to decieve the masses into voting for them, as GW did.
I don't believe that REAL Christians need to keep telling people, because it shows They walk the walk not just talk the talk

JMO as a Christian

[adpierce]

I do too! I'm an atheist though. Ron Paul's "weak" theological statement is just fine with me. I have no problem with him believing whatever it is that he wants and I appreciate the fact that he doesn't shove his beliefs down my throat, unlike our current president.

Also, how do you think GWB's strong theological statement has affected our relationship with other countries?

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." - GWB
Good going George! The word "crusade" won't piss anyone off!

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state." - GWB
Do you mean "wall", sir?

“God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." - GWB

GWB is a statist, plain and simple. I totally reject faith-based initiatives, and using religious justification for wars unless you can prove you're a prophet and speak directly to God (ot prophets were killed if their prophecies turned out false). Plus his approach to this war isn't consistent with the Just War theory of St. Augustine which I affirm along with Dr. Paul.

[adpierce]

I agree. I think its very distasteful when politicians use the name of Jesus to decieve the masses into voting for them, as GW did.
I don't believe that REAL Christians need to keep telling people, because it shows They walk the walk not just talk the talk

JMO as a Christian

I totally agree that's not what I'm advocating Dr. Paul do I'm simply saying I have only one reservation about his statement of faith and that he didn't include what he actually believes about what his faith entails doctrinally. Otherwise I think it's perfect.

[Revolution9]

Gee - think of what a great world it would be if everone on earth totally eraced Religion from their monkey mind.

Religion means to link back ..to re ligament with your ancestors.. Another jewel of the tongue, battered beyond recognition and removed from its setting. That is the trick being played on the monkey mind through the reptilian medula oblogata by the magian theocrats/masons through the priests of medea associating symbologies n their daily printings and programmings..

Now..if ya want to discuss messianic doctrines and dogmas and their ill effects on societies and historical periods then I agree.:D The learned and in depth works of Michael Tsarion would be as good a place as any to begin the plunge down the rabbit hole.

Best
Randy

[Superfreak91]

I'm a Christian and when I think of a statement of faith I don't think of what Dr. Paul has laid out as his statement of faith. I think of something theologically substantive. I rarely criticize Dr. Paul, however as a Christian I like to think that I ought to have a theological basis laid out for myself which I can explain if called upon to explain. I understand the importance for a politician to avoid being "distasteful" by pandering and using the word Jesus every other word (ahem... Brownback) however I think it would be impressive to Christian voters (even if some might disagree with him on certain points) if he laid out his beliefs better.[\QUOTE]

[QUOTE=adpierce;184431]You can't separate faith (a.k.a. belief system) and works (deeds), Catholics and Protestants agree on that, how that particularly gets worked out whether faith compels works or they're both necessary for salvation is an inside debate within Christendom.

As to the whole Bush thing... he is abhorrent in how he uses his "faith." He uses it only as a political tool, I understand Dr. Paul's avoiding using faith that manner, but think there's a balance between being clear about what your faith actually is and being a pharisee. I respect how he doesn't want to play his faith off and manipulate people like Bush did, at the same time it's not that much to say well as to doctrine this is what I believe... That's not being prideful in yourself that's just saying what you believe.

I am usually just a forum lurker here but this thread has made me decide to start posting. These two quotes seem to be contradictory to each other. On one hand you state that it would be impressive to Values voters for Dr. Paul to outline his theological doctrines in his statement of faith. On the other hand you smash Bush for his pandering of faith in his political career. Your own statement implies that outlining Dr. Paul's theological doctrines would act to further recruitment to his cause and therefore could be labeled a "political tool". That is why many of the posters here disagree with you. They do not want Dr. Paul seen thrown in with the rest of the lot that use faith as a tool to gain votes. Dr. Paul's stance has always been on the issues, and that is exactly where I think it needs to stay.

At what point do we cross the line when a statement of faith is only something to give you insight to the character of a candidate, to the point at which it becomes a political recruiting tool?

As for my own opinion, I believe the current statement is a perfect representation of what I would want from a candidate as I also believe that faith is a very personal relationship between myself and God and that I need not justify my beliefs to any other person.

[adpierce]

[QUOTE]I'm a Christian and when I think of a statement of faith I don't think of what Dr. Paul has laid out as his statement of faith. I think of something theologically substantive. I rarely criticize Dr. Paul, however as a Christian I like to think that I ought to have a theological basis laid out for myself which I can explain if called upon to explain. I understand the importance for a politician to avoid being "distasteful" by pandering and using the word Jesus every other word (ahem... Brownback) however I think it would be impressive to Christian voters (even if some might disagree with him on certain points) if he laid out his beliefs better.[\QUOTE]



I am usually just a forum lurker here but this thread has made me decide to start posting. These two quotes seem to be contradictory to each other. On one hand you state that it would be impressive to Values voters for Dr. Paul to outline his theological doctrines in his statement of faith. On the other hand you smash Bush for his pandering of faith in his political career. Your own statement implies that outlining Dr. Paul's theological doctrines would act to further recruitment to his cause and therefore could be labeled a "political tool". That is why many of the posters here disagree with you. They do not want Dr. Paul seen thrown in with the rest of the lot that use faith as a tool to gain votes. Dr. Paul's stance has always been on the issues, and that is exactly where I think it needs to stay.

At what point do we cross the line when a statement of faith is only something to give you insight to the character of a candidate, to the point at which it becomes a political recruiting tool?

As for my own opinion, I believe the current statement is a perfect representation of what I would want from a candidate as I also believe that faith is a very personal relationship between myself and God and that I need not justify my beliefs to any other person.

Yeah you're right they are contradictory statements at some point I got converted to the idea that even though he (Ron Paul) may win votes from one side (Christians) he'll lose votes from another side (agnostics, atheists, etc.). So first off yeah I dropped that line of thinking, secondly there's nothing wrong with winning votes for accurately stating what you believe. Ron's done that with his position on 9/11, the Iraq War, and the Federal Reserve. It's not being manipulative, and it's not misrepresenting yourself only to win votes as Bush did. If Ron was being "reactionary" and only opposing the Iraq war because it was popular to oppose it that would be a similar analogy to what Bush did with the faith issue.

[Revolution9]

Because, as much as you want to make this a theological debate I am however framing this not as a theological debate, but more so that Dr. Paul is being somewhat evasive when confronted about his religious beliefs. If you want to debate theology I know of a good forum to do so... theologyweb.net. I however am not expounding on my defense of Christianity here, it's not the right place. Furthermore, I concede that after trying to look up other candidates statements of faith I have found nothing except for Ron's statement of faith. He among all the candidates is being the most forthcoming about what he actually does believe. Therefore, I am relatively content with his statement of faith now. I still have one reservation however and that it is that he is being somewhat evasive about what he believes about doctrine.

It is a theocratical debate actually and you keep ducking for cover, reverting to dogmatics and remain quite evasive. In essence they amount to you making silent proclamation that yours is the one true way. Yet, if we go back to the words of many a learned man throughout history and in particular the Founding Fathers they gave us Freedom and Liberty precisely because they did not know what the future wrought for each individual nor the lessons and bridges that person may have to acquire or pass over to attain the full learning his soul set foot on Earth to obtain in essence fulfulling the role his Maker gave hm.

You ask that we not require you to expound upon your particular brand of faith yet you require it seems for The Good Doctor to lay out dogmatcs and doctrine. Why? Have ye little or no faith. Are you blinded to the contracts and symbols of the priests of medea and the theocrats and not see the works that are of Gods hand delivered to this realm through Dr Paul? Your "innocent" demand for a full disclosure of doctrine smells of sulfur and sabotage. For you ask that an organic being state a matriculated structure he can possibly not have in essence the reality of that fully coalesced in their mortal mind. You mistake your mortal mind and its yearnings for certainty for your soul which, if not a counterfeit of the Archons, is from The Source and will go to it upon your projection into the 3D laboratory Universe having been done with.

Best Regards
Randy

[Revolution9]

[QUOTE=Superfreak91;184480]

Yeah you're right they are contradictory statements at some point I got converted to the idea that even though he (Ron Paul) may win votes from one side (Christians) he'll lose votes from another side (agnostics, atheists, etc.). So first off yeah I dropped that line of thinking, secondly there's nothing wrong with winning votes for accurately stating what you believe. Ron's done that with his position on 9/11, the Iraq War, and the Federal Reserve. It's not being manipulative, and it's not misrepresenting yourself only to win votes as Bush did. If Ron was being "reactionary" and only opposing the Iraq war because it was popular to oppose it that would be a similar analogy to what Bush did with the faith issue.

OK..Cool:D

Best
Randy

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wonder if an atheist could win the presidency lol

[ButchHowdy]

. . . though he (Ron Paul) may win votes from one side (Christians) he'll lose votes from another side (agnostics, atheists, etc.).

Billy Graham is an expert at pleasing all 'religious' people and it stems from exhibiting a 'lukewarm' version of Christianity. The Asheville blogs offer great evidence of this.

Yes, Jesus said the 'lukewarm church' made Him want to vomit (Gr. emeo) but Ron Paul needs to be an uniter (emeo!) at this time.

[adpierce]

It is a theocratical debate actually and you keep ducking for cover, reverting to dogmatics and remain quite evasive. In essence they amount to you making silent proclamation that yours is the one true way. Yet, if we go back to the words of many a learned man throughout history and in particular the Founding Fathers they gave us Freedom and Liberty precisely because they did not know what the future wrought for each individual nor the lessons and bridges that person may have to acquire or pass over to attain the full learning his soul set foot on Earth to obtain in essence fulfulling the role his Maker gave hm.

You ask that we not require you to expound upon your particular brand of faith yet you require it seems for The Good Doctor to lay out dogmatcs and doctrine. Why? Have ye little or no faith. Are you blinded to the contracts and symbols of the priests of medea and the theocrats and not see the works that are of Gods hand delivered to this realm through Dr Paul? Your "innocent" demand for a full disclosure of doctrine smells of sulfur and sabotage. For you ask that an organic being state a matriculated structure he can possibly not have in essence the reality of that fully coalesced in their mortal mind. You mistake your mortal mind and its yearnings for certainty for your soul which, if not a counterfeit of the Archons, is from The Source and will go to it upon your projection into the 3D laboratory Universe having been done with.

Best Regards
Randy

Randy,

I only posted my doctrinal statement as an example of the sort of thing I was hoping Dr. Paul would provide. In fact, generally when somebody has a statement of faith these sorts of things are part and parcel of what makes up a statement of faith. That's why I was surprised not to see it. If I was an agnostic, and I was once upon a time, I would expect the same sort of thing. It would have seemed somewhat suspicious to me that he hadn't provided what he believed doctrinally. If hadn't known what kind of character Ron Paul has I might even have thought Ron was just claiming to be a Christian to get votes (the same despicable thing Bush did). He however has the most integrity of anybody in Washington. I hope you see now how what I was framing was not a theological debate, but rather an inquiry and as to why he seemed to be evading the issue as to what the substance of his faith is.

[billm317]

I wonder if an atheist could win the presidency lol

Sadly, no. In my opinion, that will one day change.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Sadly, no. In my opinion, that will one day change.

so sad... logic loses to stupidity. It's pretty self-explanatory. Do you see a god? No. Who wrote the bible? man. I think it's wishful thinking. It's easy to say "everything just happened" without ever explaining anything. It was all just created.. evolutionists have to actually explain how things came to be. And now the believers want to hijack evolution? lol I believe Darwin was a deist because saying you're atheist during his years wasn't actually popular.

[adpierce]

so sad... logic loses to stupidity

Ouch! Did you just call all Christian Ron Paul supporters stupid?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ouch! Did you just call all Christian Ron Paul supporters stupid?

no, all theology.. no one in specific. Would you be a christian if you weren't raised to be one? My family tried to make me a catholic, I dropped it like a bad habit :p They're more of hypocritical catholics though.

[adpierce]

no, all theology.. no one in specific. Would you be a christian if you weren't raised to be one?

In fact I wasn't raised to be a Christian. I was an agnostic for some time and was subsequently converted to Christianity.

[Superfreak91]

so sad... logic loses to stupidity. It's pretty self-explanatory. Do you see a god? No. Who wrote the bible? man. I think it's wishful thinking. It's easy to say "everything just happened" without ever explaining anything. It was all just created.. evolutionists have to actually explain how things came to be. And now the believers want to hijack evolution? lol I believe Darwin was a deist because saying you're atheist during his years wasn't actually popular.

Its obvious by the tone of your posts that you are just as ignorant and close-minded about your own beliefs as those you tout as following stupidity.

I kindly bid this thread goodbye...i've made my points to the original topic and have no inclination to get into this kind of debate.

somebody find me the "arguing on the internet = running in the special olympics" picture.

Edit: I am not iterating that all christians are ignorant and close minded. I myself am a christian, but I know plenty of people of all walks of life who behave in this manner and arguing with them is a lost cause....they refuse to see anyone's point of view besides their own. This is one of those cases where people need to "agree to disagree".

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Its obvious by the tone of your posts that you are just as ignorant and close-minded about your own beliefs as those you tout as following stupidity.

I kindly bid this thread goodbye...i've made my points to the original topic and have no inclination to get into this kind of debate.

somebody find me the "arguing on the internet = running in the special olympics" picture.

Nice personal attack. If you can't prove something, why have faith in it? it defies rational judgment. I looked into christianity.. I stopped when it began advocating stoning people. It has held back scientific research for long enough. It's like a thorn at the side of humanity.

[adpierce]

Nice personal attack. If you can't prove something, why have faith in it? it defies rational judgment. I looked into christianity.. I stopped when it began advocating stoning people. It has held back science long enough. Its' like a thorn at the side of humanity.

You disqualified a whole system of beliefs off of capital punishment being involved in a nation's laws? Come on, I could have come up with a better one, how about how when Jesus returned from the resurrection... nobody recognized him. Tougher issues than capital punishment must be bridged in order for people to become Christians .... says the Christian.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You disqualified a whole system of beliefs off of capital punishment being involved in a nation's laws?

I can't support institutionalized murder.

[SeanEdwards]

As an atheist, I think you're off your nut. ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

As an atheist, I think you're off your nut. ;)

As an agnostic, I don't care what you think. ;)

[1000-points-of-fright]

Nevertheless, I do agree with you that it is important for the voter to know how a candidate's faith fits into his process of thought. For, it is the quest of the voter to predict how the various candidates will think. And, because faith, in its expansive forms, can displace reason in the process of thought, a transparency of faith, achieved through specific statements of faith such as yours, simplifies the voter's quest.

I'm an agnostic so I really don't care about anyones religion. What I do care about is how it is applied. RP seems to be the kind of person who will apply his beliefs in a logical and secular way. If he ever had to put it in a religious context (which he wouldn't) he won't say "That's wrong because God says so." He'll say "That's wrong because it infringes on personal liberty and creates social conflict which is the reason why God told us not to do it in the first place."

But to answer the original question, maybe the most important part of his faith is that it's nobody's business but his and God's.

[Marceline88]

Ron Paul's faith is evident......Ye shall know them by their fruits. His heart and where it is centered is plain as day in his works. Nuff' Said.

I really don't understand why the OP needs him to go into his specific theological beliefs. I am sure the OP would disqualify me as his ideal view of a Christian based on his list of beliefs. I don't believe in hell as a place, hell is a state of mind, and I don't believe in sin as anything more than the wrong thought that you are ever separate from God. I believe that Christ is within and the bible is a metaphysical allegory. Faith is personal, faith is sacred, Ron Paul doesn't need to lay his beliefs out for you, he's not a theologian, he's a statesman.

Nuff' said......again......for real this time. LOL

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The earth is flat, rights guys? ;)

[JMann]

It's not my intent to promote any kind of apologetics debate, I simply laid out what I believe for you to agree with or disagree with. I however thought that people were respectful enough to not ridicule a person's beliefs which were simply provided as an example of a theological statement. You don't hear me ridiculing alternative theological (or lack thereof) viewpoints. I simply want politicians to be transparent about what they believe. I would want that even if I wasn't a Christian, admittedly probably for different reasons. As a note, I don't expect Ron Paul's doctrine to mirror mine, and he wouldn't lose my support if it didn't. I do however think it might be similar due to the church that he attends.

You state some beliefs in gods in flesh and in spirit, you say people that sin are going to spend eternity in hell and advocate that Ron Paul should make a similar statement in faith and expect people to be respectful. You are telling people that if they don't think like you they will spend eternity in hell. How the hell is that being respectful?

[Thunderbolt]

...

[Lois]

I told my neighbor about Ron Paul, and she checked him out somewhere or other, and said to me --

"There's no way I'm voting for a "Christian Conservative Texas Republican". So I think Ron Paul should not be spouting off Religious stuff, because that'll only make him seem even more like Bush to those who hate everything Bush stands for.

[Kregener]

That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell.

Enjoy hell brother. Send us a post card...

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The earth is flat, rights guys? ;)

On top of a stack of turtles

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You state some beliefs in gods in flesh and in spirit, you say people that sin are going to spend eternity in hell and advocate that Ron Paul should make a similar statement in faith and expect people to be respectful. You are telling people that if they don't think like you they will spend eternity in hell. How the hell is that being respectful?

EXACTLY. I'm agnostic, I look into many different religions, so that maybe I'll find one that fits me. Why do they take one over the other? What makes one belief system more true than the other? All of theology has a story, so why take one over the other? There is only one evolution, wouldn't that be attractive to you? I look into religion in a "do I like this?" point of view. I read in the old testament that it's ok to stone people... turned me off. I'm on the new testament now. I could always convert to a religion... trying to find one that I can take LITERALLY and feel comfortable with it. No stonings, no sexism, no slavery...

I would still believe in evolution though.

Right now, I don't believe there are any "gods" or "goddesses," but I don't leave out the possibility...

[adpierce]

Enjoy hell brother. Send us a post card...

I would be going there but for... another one of my points that you forgot to mention.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

No offense to anyone, but I feel a belief in God is like believing the terrorists attacked us for our freedoms.

[Original_Intent]

To the OP: Do you want someone who can write the most amazing theological statement (but may not live accordingly) or a man who believes his faithi s between him and God and issued a brief statement, reluctantly, because supporters were asking for it?

I think the idea that someone sit down and stake out their religious beliefs in the pursuit of public office is an abomination. And like I said before, you will just get people who are best able to WRITE what they think people want to hear, it won't tell you anything about the man (or woman).

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No offense to anyone, but I feel a belief in God is like believing the terrorists attacked us for our freedoms.

lol. funny. I think of religion as more of a structure thing. A structure and morality type of deal.

[adpierce]

No offense to anyone, but I feel a belief in God is like believing the terrorists attacked us for our freedoms.

How so? OBL actually said he attacked us for our meddling in the Middle East, Where's the analogy unless you're simply going to write off all religion as a de facto matter as stupid?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How so? OBL actually said he attacked us for our meddling in the Middle East, Where's the analogy unless you're simply going to write off all religion as a de facto matter as stupid?

I'm surprised you didn't tell me to read the new testament, that's usually the christian defense to attacks on the old testament

[JMann]

There are far smarter people than I that believe in God or a religion. I'm not sure why other than they have a strong faith in what someone told them. I honestly feel (at least hope) they don't really believe in what they are saying but really use the belief for a sense of well being and to share something in common with people that are around them.

I can't imagine that people actually think some guy walking around the Middle East 2000 years ago was the son of God and that he is living up in the clouds looking down trying to figure out if you are cheating on your wife so he can send you to hell. Unless you have the courage to declare him your personal savior. Talk about some balls, going around telling people you will spend eternity in hell unless you declare me to be your God.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I do not hate religion.... I just am sometimes shocked at how religious people are so POSITIVE that they can't be wrong and most never give another belef system another thought... they believe with confidence that what they're believing is correct. It reminds me of... cults

[billm317]

Maybe someone should start a religion thread in Hot Topics, because this discussion doesn't really belong here. I'd probably chime in.

But back to Ron Paul. He is the way he is. He's not going to create a "strong" theological statement just to gain votes. Keep in mind, this is the reason we (or at least a lot of us) like him. He doesn't do things to cause others to view him more favorably. He's a very principled man, which I think is his #1 strongest trait.

To the OP, your opinion is certainly valid, but you should know RP isn't going to change just to get a vote.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Maybe someone should start a religion thread in Hot Topics, because this discussion doesn't really belong here. I'd probably chime in.

But back to Ron Paul. He is the way he is. He's not going to create a "strong" theological statement just to gain votes. Keep in mind, this is the reason we (or at least a lot of us) like him. He doesn't do things to cause others to view him more favorably. He's a very principled man, which I think is his #1 strongest trait.

To the OP, your opinion is certainly valid, but you should know RP isn't going to change just to get a vote.

yup.. god isn't running for president, Ron Paul is.

[adpierce]

How about being specific about theological beliefs as a point of integrity? Yeah you've got different brands of Christianity with different bases of what they actually believe, and a theological statement with any doctrinal specificity might alienate some and cause others to follow him. I'm wagering the fact that he's willing to state definitively what he believes about Christianity will win more than he'll lose since it will say something about how he's not afraid to lose voters on this issue. It's the same perspective on how so many people look up to Dr. Paul for being a lone anti-war candidate in a field of warmongers. The fact that he's willing to do such a thing, regardless if he loses support in the GOP or gets ridiculed by his peers is incredibly telling about what kind of man he really is. In the same way being specific about your faith you might get people who disagree with you, but more people respect you for being willing to actually say what you believe rather than being afraid of losing support.

I did say this earlier as to the point about him having integrity...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs? Actually, no religion mentions the dinosaurs lol

[Revolution9]

I'm surprised you didn't tell me to read the new testament, that's usually the christian defense to attacks on the old testament

The Elders in my church as a youth told me to ignore the old testament and that the part of The Bible to pay attention in The New Testament to was the good works amongst humans and the words Jesus spoke that had wisdom in them. Seemed like a decent fellow to me.. Then I get t the US and lo and behold, a Messianic fever is taken hold coupling the war god of the old with the teacher who came to abrogate the rule of the old ghwadz and place the one Universal Source as the true fount. The rest is an overlay of The Pharisean cults of Aton.

"It's been a hard day's night
And I've been working like a dog
It''s been a hard day's nght night
I should be sleeping like a log"

Those tricky theocrats and their symbols.. A backwards god asleep on a cross, eyes closed and unseeing, fashioned of wood.

What ~is~ alive?

Best
Randy

[jjschless]

I disagree. His statement of faith gives a good solid foundation of his belief. One's personal beliefs are just that personal and should be respected as such.

We already have what some consider the most "faith-based" President ever in G. W. Bush. Clearly that did not workout so well.

[ButchHowdy]

Why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs? Actually, no religion mentions the dinosaurs lol
You asked for it!

Job 40:15-24
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

The entire description given in these verses fit certain types of dinosaurs very well. But we're going to zero in on one particular verse. It's in verse 17 it says, "He moveth his tail like a cedar"

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The Elders in my church as a youth told me to ignore the old testament and that the part of The Bible to pay attention in The New Testament to was the good works amongst humans and the words Jesus spoke that had wisdom in them. Seemed like a decent fellow to me.. Then I get t the US and lo and behold, a Messianic fever is taken hold coupling the war god of the old with the teacher who came to abrogate the rule of the old ghwadz and place the one Universal Source as the true fount. The rest is an overlay of The Pharisean cults of Aton.

"It's been a hard day's night
And I've been working like a dog
It''s been a hard day's nght night
I should be sleeping like a log"

Those tricky theocrats and their symbols.. A backwards god asleep on a cross, eyes closed and unseeing, fashioned of wood.

What ~is~ alive?

Best
Randy

THE NEW TESTAMENT is looking better than THE OLD TESTAMENT. Sorry, I HATE the death penalty, so I could never advocate the stoning of people. I have the "Recovery Version" of THE NEW TESTAMENT, I'm not sure what that means. I'm not a christian.. I'm just reading it right now. I was baptized catholic, but I don't practice that at all.

[LibertyBelle]

EXACTLY. I'm agnostic, I look into many different religions, so that maybe I'll find one that fits me. Why do they take one over the other? What makes one belief system more true than the other? All of theology has a story, so why take one over the other? There is only one evolution, wouldn't that be attractive to you? I look into religion in a "do I like this?" point of view. I read in the old testament that it's ok to stone people... turned me off. I'm on the new testament now. I could always convert to a religion... trying to find one that I can take LITERALLY and feel comfortable with it. No stonings, no sexism, no slavery...

I would still believe in evolution though.Right now, I don't believe there are any "gods" or "goddesses," but I don't leave out the possibility...

There is not only one 'evolution', but evolution THEORY. It's not a fact, there are tons of holes in the THEORY. Yet, you say you will still believe in evolution. That takes faith (belief without absolute proof) my dear Watson. Fine, but that's still faith! Just some food for thought! ;) As for maybe finding a religion that fits you, many other people have found what fits them....but you are asking why they take one religion over the other? ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There is not only one 'evolution', but evolution THEORY. It's not a fact, there are tons of holes in the THEORY. Yet, you say you will still believe in evolution. That takes faith (belief without absolute proof) my dear Watson. Fine, but that's still faith! Just some food for thought! ;) As for maybe finding a religion that fits you, many other people have found what fits them....but you are asking why they take one religion over the other? ;)

No, what holes? It explains life hell of a lot better than theology does... "god creates life" so easy, huh? Wow... why even talk about it anymore? He just DID IT!

[McDermit]

I was raised catholic and went to catholic school. (We're Hispanic. My parents are REALLLLLLY into their religion.) But a statement like the OP wants would have turned me off to RP in a heartbeat. I can't stand when politicians bring religion into things. RP has the perfect stance. He votes Christian, he is Christian, but he doesn't shove it down your throat on a regular basis.

[max]

There is not only one 'evolution', but evolution THEORY. It's not a fact, there are tons of holes in the THEORY. Yet, you say you will still believe in evolution. That takes faith (belief without absolute proof) my dear Watson. Fine, but that's still faith! Just some food for thought! ;) As for maybe finding a religion that fits you, many other people have found what fits them....but you are asking why they take one religion over the other? ;)

You mean...we didnt come from amoebas?...who morphed into fish...who sprouted limbs...crawled onto the beach...up a tree..then down again..and became humans?

Gee...I always thought our journey from bacterial scum to human was a proven fact. You're not suggesting that our intellectual elite and the mass media has misled us about our origins are you?

next you'll be telling me that we were lied to about The Iraq War

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You mean...we didnt come from amoebas?...who morphed into fish...who sprouted limbs...crawled onto the beach...up a tree..then down again..and became humans?

Gee...I always thought our journey from bacterial scum to human was a proven fact. You're not suggesting that our intellectual elite and the mass media has misled us about our origins are you?

next you'll be telling me that we were lied to about The Iraq War

lol... actually, we were not monkeys. Humans developed as land dwellers, but yes, we are of the primate order.

animalia kingdom>chordata phylum>mammalia class>primate order>hominidae family>**** genus>>>

[undergroundrr]

I'm a non-theist. I'm happily convinced I will never hear President Paul say he took a political action because God told him to. This is a very good thing.

Our sort are woefully under-represented in the capitol. Last I checked, the only "out" atheist was obnoxious socialist demo-dork Pete Stark.

An atheist government isn't likely to happen soon. In Dr. Paul, at least we have a man who evidently applies reason to every other aspect of his thought.

I'm glad he latched onto Augustine's "just war" concept. There are myriad less attractive Christian war positions he could have chosen.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

There is not only one 'evolution', but evolution THEORY. It's not a fact, there are tons of holes in the THEORY. Yet, you say you will still believe in evolution. That takes faith (belief without absolute proof) my dear Watson. Fine, but that's still faith! Just some food for thought! ;) As for maybe finding a religion that fits you, many other people have found what fits them....but you are asking why they take one religion over the other? ;)

There are still holes in our understanding of Gravitation. Newton's theories where proven wrong by Einstein. Einstein's theories are not compatible with quantum mechanics.

We still have an incomplete theory of gravitation. So I guess it should be replaced in schools with intelligent falling.

[billm317]

can we get back on topic?

[literatim]

No, what holes? It explains life hell of a lot better than theology does... "god creates life" so easy, huh? Wow... why even talk about it anymore? He just DID IT!

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters.htm

[constituent]

alright.... i stopped after page 7.... but, since the OP was a Christian or whatever, and his statement of faith sounded awfully familiar...

i'd like to point out that the good dr. is a Confessed

SOUTHERN BAPTIST

so what does that mean? i reckon that he's been saved as they
call it. does that answer the question of the OP?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

alright.... i stopped after page 7.... but, since the OP was a Christian or whatever, and his statement of faith sounded awfully familiar...

i'd like to point out that the good dr. is a Confessed

SOUTHERN BAPTIST

so what does that mean? i reckon that he's been saved as they
call it. does that answer the question of the OP?

it says protestant in the debates

[adpierce]

it says protestant in the debates

Yeah, but he does attend a Southern Baptist church. Many people who attend Southern Baptist churches see themselves as non-denominational or simply as Protestant however and don't necessarily agree with all their viewpoints. However Ron's gotta at least tolerate and agree with some if not most of their viewpoints or I'd be surprised that he would attend Church there. What I'm saying is he probably does have a doctrinal viewpoint and did censor himself when writing his SOF therefore I was wondering why he wouldn't just come out with it.

[wgadget]

I read somewhere that he was Episcopalian, but then I saw that he attended a Baptist church.

[Kregener]

He comes from a Lutheran background, but I tend to think of him as just a Christian, and not any of the man-made "religions".

[sunghoko]

You can listen to his interview with the Constitution party radio show the American View.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916

Some may be turned off by the ultra conservative hardcore christian slant of the interview but Ron expounds on his faith.

I think his SoF is good enough

[Magsec]

Sorry if this might be a possible repost since this is a large topic and I'm not readin every single comment to make sure but:

Wasn't RP's statement about pre-emptive nuclear strike saying that it was a violation of the Just War theory of Christianity? Did Christians catch that?

[Corydoras]

Wasn't RP's statement about pre-emptive nuclear strike saying that it was a violation of the Just War theory of Christianity? Did Christians catch that?

Yes. There was a mention of that, with a link to a very classic text, here:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=16442

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I read somewhere that he was Episcopalian, but then I saw that he attended a Baptist church.

I don't even know what the differences are lol

[jimmyjamsslo]

...if his theological statement was in this vein:

"and the sets out a model for the way human beings ought to live their lives.
That the punishment of sin is to spend eternity in Hell."

As a spiritual decidedly non-Christian, this would be repellent to me, even if he was the same person. It's like when I read his statement about how he felt about homosexuality, I was very relieved to find that he's not a judgmental sort of Christian, which renewed my enthusiasm for the good doctor:



John Lofton: Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?

Dr. Paul: I'm not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”

John Lofton: Do you believe God says homosexuality is a sin?

Dr. Paul: Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.

John Lofton: Biblically-speaking, all human beings are made in God’s image but not all are God’s children; some people are children of the devil...
(http://theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916)

I'd also add that Ron Paul has swayed my opinion about abortion somewhat. As a peace-loving person who advocates nonviolence, I found it hard to reconcile abortion with such a philosophy, also in tandem with the idea of self-responsibility for one's individual actions. I even tried to have a discussion with my liberal landlady, who has switched parties to vote for RP, but she doesn't like his stance on abortion. I have no problem with contraception and morning-after style emergency contraception, or abortion up to the point when the heart starts beating. I have come to realize, though that 'abortion on demand', encourages a culture of licentiousness and laxness about sexual responsibility. As a rabid pro-choicer, my ex-girlfriend had an abortion, but I had no say in the matter, and I was depressed about the incident for several years. Also, RP's illumination of the double standard present in his practice as an OB/GYN is the most sensible pro-life argument I've ever heard. This resembles civics more than morality, which is an easier way to get the message across. In Dr. Paul's tome 'A republic, if you can keep it', he poignantly and tersely shows abortion to be a form of class warfare, another unique approach to the issue that I was heretofore unfamiliar with. Obviously there are a lot aspects to this issue; it can be quite divisive.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Does not like his stance on abortion? What stance? Of leaving it to the states? That's the law lol

[Ninja Homer]

Adpierce, I understand what you're getting at. However, I think that Ron Paul's Statement of Faith is more of a Statement of Faith than yours is.

What you gave is a list of beliefs, most of which I would call dogma that for the most part separates Christians into different groups so they can fight amongst each other.

Let's look at what Ron Paul wrote:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do.
He starts out by explaining why he might hesitate to fully explain his faith. Then he says the one thing that universally unites all Christians, despite any dogma. He is giving a statement of the source of his faith.

He continues:

I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
Here, he is explaining how his faith effects his actions as a politician. In the next 6 paragraphs, he gives examples that back up how his faith has effected his actions as a politician.

I'm including his conclusion just because I love it:

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

I think Ron Paul's Statement of Faith is perfect. He stated where his faith comes from, and how it would affect him as President. He will stick to the restrictions of the Constitution, and the actions he takes will be based on his values.

[Thunderbolt]

...

[eloquensanity]

He is not running for Pope. He is running for President.

EXACTLY :)

[adpierce]

How have I implied that I want him to be a theocrat? I'm serious. I keep getting that contention, that I want a theocracy or something like that, or that I want Ron to be just like GWB. I vigorously believe in a separation of church and state. This is a secular nation by design and I'm content keeping it that way. I however advocate if you're going to release a statement of faith (which no other candidate has) in the first place you shouldn't avoid the topic of what you actually believe. Generally whenever organizations release statements of faith this sort of doctrinal statement is part and parcel of their statement of faith. In fact, it's hard to call anything a statement of faith if it doesn't actually contain any substance as to what the faith pertains to. Take my personal beliefs totally aside... forget I ever said I was a Christian it's absolutely and completely irrelevant to my point. I only used it as an example of what a doctrinal statement is. Then, understand what I mean by putting it into the context of what GWB did in 2000 by presenting himself as a Christian... and yet not actually saying what he meant by being a Christian... now we see he doesn't live in line with Christian principles at all (shouldn't surprise us since he was just trying to win votes by being vocal on his supposed Christianity). If you didn't know much about Ron Paul and you heard he was off issuing statements of faith that actually didn't say much substantively about what he actually believed don't you think that would make people think of GWB. I'm not looking to see if RP is in my "club", stop trying to discredit me by attacking me instead of my argument. I'm tired of the ad hominem attacks. Even if I were not a Christian I would want to know why Ron has been purposely vague about what he actually believes, it can come off suspicious to people who aren't familiar with him... which is still the majority of people.


Maybe there is an underlying issue here... an unwillingness to criticize Ron about anything at all. We want him to win ... badly because we recognize him to be the best man for the job. We want to provide a unified front, but are we being just like the neocons? Are we getting so dead set on Ron that nothing he says or does can sway us at all. Doesn't that sound like O'Reilly and his bunch? Let's always keep some objectivity, it is after all what I'm guessing drew most of us to Ron Paul in the first place... the ability to see that he was telling truth despite all the propaganda being thrown about in the media. There's gotta be some of you atheists and agnostics who don't like the fact that Ron issued a statement of faith at all. There's gotta be more people like me (or maybe not) that think if he was to issue a sof then he should have been more direct. It's not wrong to stand up and say well I really didn't like this one thing RP supports very much. I'm not here to rip on RP on the contrary he's the only one out of all the candidates who has written up a statement of faith... which actually says a lot about his faith. Additionally, he's the only candidate I have ever gotten this fired up about, the only one I have ever given money to, and the only one where I have actually felt that compelled me by the force of his ideas to participate in this wonderful republican system we have. I think that's why even more than ever before we need to be vigilant in maintaining objectivity, because I think Ron solicits such powerful emotions from each of us that it could cloud the objectivity that drew us to him in the first place. Maybe I'm absolutely wrong, but maybe not.

[Phenom24]

Why has this thread continued? AD, we know he's a Christian. His voting record as well as his testimony in fierce opposition shows that. Having this thread atop the page everyday (I'm sure) makes people think that we as Ron Paul supporters can't get along - we have to bicker over this.

Just look at it this way: If you voted for "W" in 2004 who also said he was a Christian, voting for Dr. Paul should be a layup.

(please let this thread die or continue it with Private Messages already)

[constituent]

OK- THREAD SUMMARY

OP thinks RP's statement of faith was not strong enough in short,


I however advocate if you're going to release a statement of faith (which no other candidate has) in the first place you shouldn't avoid the topic of what you actually believe. Generally whenever organizations release statements of faith this sort of doctrinal statement. it is part and parcel of their statement of faith. In fact, it's hard to call anything a statement of faith if it doesn't actually contain any substance


After 13 pages of you're w/ me, you're against me drivel, still no one agrees with the OP.

Many people disagree, stating that it is not the OP's business or anyone else's business for that matter how he feels. the OP has yet to explain what the true relevancy of this post is (since the SOF is tried, tested and true, surefire for 95% of the non-snake kissing, obortion clinic protesting/bombing, homosexual damning, evangelicals ...and when did they hijack that word exactly? i was raised in an "evangelical lutheran church" that had nothing to do w/ anything these people espouse), other than attempting to say, or perhaps imply, that RP is weak with his faith and is falling short of the behvioral standard "evangelicals" have tried to peicemeal together out Acts/Revelations/and a few other patchwork passages.


YET STILL, no answer is good enough... the OP insists on making the point that RP's statement of faith is weak due to a lack of doctrinal specificity. according to the OP, RP risks looking like W for this lack of vital information.

no one else agrees. so, you've won... congratulations on your whole, persecute me b/c i'm a christian, feed me to the lions, everyone's attacking me for professing my beliefs, acts of the apostles apologetics bit (theocracy, theocracy... i've never said that, but you have yet to substantively address anything i've brought up... and should you like to, at this point, move it to the PMs)....


So there... for anyone not wanting to read 13 pages of nonsensical back and forthing.... this about says it.


now, to all the my faith is stronger than yours trolls out there, move back to the 700 club forums and allow us to continue our discussions that focus on elevating the good dr. rather than nit-picking his campaign releases apart....


enjoy your coffee this morning, now i'll go enjoy mine.

[ButchHowdy]

Jesus didn't require a statement of faith from his apostles and disciples.

Jesus came to ABOLISH the bondage of religion. He took 613 laws and 10 commandments and reduced them to 3:

1.) Love God
2.) Love your neighbor
3.) Elect Ron Paul

(well maybe the 3rd one was added a little later!)

It doesn't get any simpler - Thank You Jesus!

[erastus]

I think Ron Paul's Statement of Faith is perfect. He stated where his faith comes from, and how it would affect him as President. He will stick to the restrictions of the Constitution, and the actions he takes will be based on his values.

Ninja Homer, your words about Ron Paul's statement are right on. His statement of faith is indeed perfect, and I hope adpierce now understands why.

I will just add that all Christians I know say our government is divinely given. Like no one else, Ron Paul promises to defend the Constitution. What more does one need?

[Brian4Liberty]

And then Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin post the next reply to this endless thread."

[BarryDonegan]

i like ron pauls position on this. he states his religion is personal, hes not ashamed of it, and it is influential on his ethics.

saying stuff to clarify it further is just divisive, for example, the belief in the trinity, which i dont believe in, is not listed in the bible, and is one of the main things seperating christianity, islam, and judaism unneccessarily.

that is a divisive issue, and for what? it totally clouds the message of all three religions as many wars have been fought over that distinction.

killing done in the name of clarifying syntax in books that have been translated like 10 times.(how "jesusy" is that?)

im a unitarian myself, so i believe that all religions essentially promote a similar message and have universal truths that thread them all.

very religious people sometimes fail to realize that their vernacular sometimes kills people, and that because of that, other people are very sensitive to it.