Tailoring Iran message to evangelicals

[SaulPaulinsky]

Obviously, for evangelicals it isn't really about Iran; they are concerned about Israel if they care about this issue at all. So if one is going to make any headway with people that believe America is a Christian nation and part of its mission should be to support the people of the Promised Land, one must start there.

-------------
The Bible references the land on which modern-day Israel currently sits being promised to Israelites in numerous locations, starting with Genesis 15 when it's promises to the "descendants of Abraham" and later being more specific in referring to Isaac, being promised expressly to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 1, then about the rough boundaries of the land in Exodus and Numbers. So they now have that land, so the question is how can the US best support Israel in defending it?

Well, God has blessed Israel with several generations of talented leaders that have taken it from barely being a country to being a legitimate economic and military power in the Middle East in less than 100 years, similar to how America was blessed with inspired founding fathers and a dedicated people that built a great nation in a short time. So we should trust those leaders in Israel to know what is best for their country, right?

Current Israel prime minister Netanyahu studied at MIT and Harvard, and has been PM before back in the 90s. So clearly a smart and competent guy to lead their country and God's chosen people. Well, he says Israel doesn't need defense from the US; "we defend ourselves." He said that in front of the US Congress and it was received with cheers and applause by the Congress.

Two former heads of the Israeli CIA, the Mossad, have said in the last couple of months that strikes on Iran would lead to a regional war and should be avoided. The current Mossad chief even said that a nuclear Iran is not necessarily a threat to Iran's existence.

So the leaders of Israel, those that God has blessed to keep the Promised Land in Christian hands, say attacking Iran is a bad idea. This is Ron Paul's position as well. So really, Paul's position is very strongly pro-Israel. He wants to do what Israel wants us to do -- let them handle their business their way.
-----------

With that out of the way, you can move to Paul being a Protestant, Baptist (whatever will help), pro-life and in fact so pro-life that he supports the rights of states to make their own laws to ban abortion if they so choose. That would at least allow some states (like South Carolina maybe?) to outlaw the practice and save some of God's unborn children. (Make the quite true statement that as long as the issue is a federal one, Roe v. Wade will force the issue to be considered settled unless challenged -- not likely anytime soon -- and it'll be legal in every state).

Paul best exemplifies Christian values of anyone in the race -- he's honest, he's consistent in his conservative views, he's a family man married for 50+ years, he believes in serving God by living an honest, humble, clean life, empowering people over government and in that way being a testimony to the principles God would have us uphold. He also served his country in the military for nearly six years in the 60s when we were ramping up the war in Vietnam. Family, God and country, right?

-------

I think this would go a long way toward converting evangelicals. Relating to God and the Bible can only help IMO.

[muh_roads]

#1 I'll repeat what someone else posted one time that I never forgot...The US dictates policy to Israel as a condition of foreign aid, if left to their own devices they could destroy Iran without breaking a sweat.

#2 Ron Paul wants to end the foreign aid that Israel's enemies get...which is 10x more than what Israel gets.

#3 Israel has 300 nukes and the best army/navy in the middle east. Iran is 3rd world compared to them.

#4 Paul was the only member of congress to defend Israel's sovereign decision to bomb Iraq's facilities in the 80's.

--------------------

Ron Paul is by far the best candidate for Israel's security. The corporatist media is spreading lots of disinfo. Glenn Beck is not a stupid guy and should be able to figure this out on his own, which tells me him and many others are in on the disinfo scheme.

[SaulPaulinsky]

Mostly true, but IMO not the best way to actually win over evangelicals. Show some familiarity with the Bible, paint Israeli leaders as having done an outstanding job as the chosen protectors of the Promised Land, then show what their very competent and educated leaders think of the direct approach people like Santorum and Gingrich support.

Your 3rd point is useful though from the standpoint of making the case that Israel actually could defend itself. And your 2nd point is great, but I don't think evangelicals are trying to hear that.

[muh_roads]

I know my points come across as a bit cavalier and neocon...but the message they want to hear can be tailored in a bloodthirsty manner they will like while still being 100% true. Evangelicals want to bomb the piss out of Iran more than you think...which is why they are getting behind Santorum. We of course don't want Iran harmed but if you want to win, the message needs to be spread by any means necessary.

[TER]

The protection of the modern day nation of Israel stems from a recent tradition found in some Christian churches which consider the modern day nation of Israel to be the New Jerusalem. This is an innovative dogma and is found nowhere in the history of Christian writing. This is not an attack, it is merely the historical truth.

We should be friends with Israel, but in reasonable and fair terms. Why should we be giving 2 billion dollars to Israel every year and 20 billion to their avowed enemies? What's going on here??? We are sending young soldiers to die in foreign deserts, most of them Christians, while the treasuries are being burned up and the next generation is further and further enslaved???

We are broke and some of our soldiers are turning into monsters because of the war games and murder they are being commanded to do. We are giving them a wretched inheritance with hate and mistrust and profane living. Leaders are calling for the assassination of Americans and the murdering of scientists in cold blood. We are heading towards a Fourth Reich unless we quickly change our ways.

The cause for liberty and the rewards of liberty benefits ALL people, irrespective of skin color or gender or religious beliefs.

The best thing for the safety and security of the average Jew in America is BY FAR to stop the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the fleecing of ther wealth through currency debasement and elevating taxes, and these increasingly more frightening infringements on the individual, who does not need to be proven guilty but rather declared so and then killed. Just like the Nazis did.

[SaulPaulinsky]

I guess I tend to think most Christians are reasonable, just like most members of any other subgroup, including Persians.

I just think when you put the issue into a context of our proper Christian duty being to support the people of the land God promised to Isaac and his descendents, that their leaders' words and desires carry more weight than just saying "Ron Paul agrees with Netanyahu" or "Israel has a more powerful military (which implicitly concedes war as potentially unpreventable)."

As my screen name would imply, I definitely believe in your "by any means necessary" statement. I'm not even saying I believe this stuff I'm laying out...just that I think it's the best approach to use with the regular churchgoing crowd that's so prevalent in SC.

[TER]

We should have them understand that it benefits the long term security of Israel to find peace with her neighbors because at the rate this is going, their biggest supplier of military technology will be weakened, and other interests will gain greater power.

Ron Paul as President would benefit every nation, including Isreal.

[TER]

They need to put Christ's words above all things. Supporting murder and promoting war and the government take over of our God given liberties is NOT according to the teachings of Christ.

[SaulPaulinsky]

They need to put Christ's words above all things. Supporting murder and promoting war and the government take over of our God given liberties is NOT according to the teachings of Christ.

But Christianity is not incompatible with war. Some things are worth fighting for and some evils worth fighting against.

Christ didn't say "never fight against anyone" I don't think. So that's not really going to work if the person you're talking to has the position that to do right by God we must support Israel. What will work better I think is to show that person that non-interventionism in the Middle East DOES support Israel and is indeed Israel's desire.

[Created4]

I just think when you put the issue into a context of our proper Christian duty being to support the people of the land God promised to Isaac and his descendents,

Therein lies your problem. Just like those you want to convince, you make this mistake. Please show one single verse in the New Testament that states it is the "proper Christian duty to support the people of the land God promised to Isaac and his descendents."

The New Testament/New Covenant supersedes the old one (read Hebrews), and makes it clear that all the promises made to Israel in the OT were fulfilled in Christ. The Church is referred to as Israel in Paul's writings. So if you want to convince Evangelical Christians to a different view of Israel, you need to debate from the New Testament scriptures. Aquabuddah recently had a great link to a resource that outlined all of this. I will see if I can dig it up.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:28-29)

Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. (Galatians 3:6-9)

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)

[Created4]

Here is the link I mentioned above to "Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions" - http://www.sizers.org/articles/7answers.pdf

Great resource if you want to argue from the Bible.

[SaulPaulinsky]

How many people and how many times have people that go to church heard the term Promised Land? Hundreds? Quite possibly.

What other reason do Christians have for wanting the US to support Israel if not because it's the proper role of our "Christian nation" to support little Israel against all the people around them that hate them because they're Christians?

I'm not trying to correct the mistaken impressions of people I'm trying to convince to support Paul. IMO there are many, but people don't like to be told they're wrong; believe me, if I know anything, I know that.

I'm not really sure what your NT quotes really change as far as the larger message. OK so if you belong to Christ, you're one of Abraham's descendants ("Father Abraham, had many sons...I am one of them, and so are you..."), so the natural progression is that Israel is in the interest of all Christendom. So if Israel says "we got this, you're not helping us, you're hurting us", doesn't that give us even more of an imperative? Doesn't it then become the responsibility of a Christian to support non-interventionism in the Middle East so as to prevent rousing enemy sentiment against Israel?

[tbone717]

There are some interesting thoughts in this thread, but I think it is important to remember that Israel, and foreign policy in general, is not an issue that we need to lead with. Polls show that foreign policy is way down the list of things that are important to voters. Since it is an issue that causes much confusion, unless someone brings it up, there really is no reason for us to do so. Focus on the economy, cutting spending, and balancing the budget. These are the issues that most voters care about (even Evangelicals) and these are the issues where we truly can dominate.

[SaulPaulinsky]

Here is the link I mentioned above to "Seven Biblical Answers to Popular Zionist Assumptions" - http://www.sizers.org/articles/7answers.pdf

Great resource if you want to argue from the Bible.

True or not, definitely not trying to "argue" with people to win political support. If I win the argument, am I guaranteed that person will vote for Paul? Hardly. But if I work from their assumptions and (mis)conceptions but build a case that based on it their best interest is to vote for Paul, that would seem to be a much straighter path to making that person a Paul voter.

[Created4]

I'm not really sure what your NT quotes really change as far as the larger message. OK so if you belong to Christ, you're one of Abraham's descendants ("Father Abraham, had many sons...I am one of them, and so are you..."), so the natural progression is that Israel is in the interest of all Christendom.

How is that the "natural progression?" I fail to see your logic. What did Christ say about the physical descendants of Abraham (Israel) that did not believe in him? He said their father was "the devil." (Christ said it, NOT me!) What did John the Baptist say about the physical descendants of Abraham (Israel) that did not repent and follow his baptism? He said that God could raise up descendants from rocks.

Please explain to me why Israel today should be favored over other nations based on anything in the New Testament? I have no problem dealing with them on a political level like any other nation, and obviously there were some good intentions to help them after the tragedies of WWII, but was their becoming a nation in 1948 really the fulfillment of any prophecy? No! How can you kill and take away private property from Christians (yes about 30% of the Palestinians were NOT Muslims but Christians) because one feels the Bible teaches we should "stand up for Israel?" Where is the logic in this? There is none, not if you are using the New Testament.

[Created4]

There are some interesting thoughts in this thread, but I think it is important to remember that Israel, and foreign policy in general, is not an issue that we need to lead with. Polls show that foreign policy is way down the list of things that are important to voters. Since it is an issue that causes much confusion, unless someone brings it up, there really is no reason for us to do so. Focus on the economy, cutting spending, and balancing the budget. These are the issues that most voters care about (even Evangelicals) and these are the issues where we truly can dominate.

This is true but I think the thread started with dealing with Iran and Israel. Can't ignore it. The media doesn't...

[SaulPaulinsky]

There are some interesting thoughts in this thread, but I think it is important to remember that Israel, and foreign policy in general, is not an issue that we need to lead with. Polls show that foreign policy is way down the list of things that are important to voters. Since it is an issue that causes much confusion, unless someone brings it up, there really is no reason for us to do so. Focus on the economy, cutting spending, and balancing the budget. These are the issues that most voters care about (even Evangelicals) and these are the issues where we truly can dominate.

But his stance on Iran is what leads some -- particularly older evangelicals -- to see Paul as dangerous, extreme, scary, reckless, unrealistic, whatever. And I think that does matter, even if people say they don't care about foreign policy. But the reason they care at all about that part of the world and would ever advocate yet another war there is because of Israel.

[SaulPaulinsky]

How is that the "natural progression?" I fail to see your logic. What did Christ say about the physical descendants of Abraham (Israel) that did not believe in him? He said their father was "the devil." (Christ said it, NOT me!) What did John the Baptist say about the physical descendants of Abraham (Israel) that did not repent and follow his baptism? He said that God could raise up descendants from rocks.

Please explain to me why Israel today should be favored over other nations based on anything in the New Testament? I have no problem dealing with them on a political level like any other nation, and obviously there were some good intentions to help them after the tragedies of WWII, but was their becoming a nation in 1948 really the fulfillment of any prophecy? No! How can you kill and take away private property from Christians (yes about 30% of the Palestinians were NOT Muslims but Christians) because one feels the Bible teaches we should "stand up for Israel?" Where is the logic in this? There is none, not if you are using the New Testament.

Just as I don't wish to get into arguments with people I'm trying to convince to vote for Paul, I don't wish to argue with you about this. You're advocating an approach wherein you try to right every misconception about Israel. Best of luck with your lifelong project there...lifetime may not be long enough.

I will say that I imagine very few evangelical Christians believe they're among the descendents of Abraham whose father is the Devil. Just a hunch.

Simple question: why do you believe Christians place so much importance on American relations/support of Israel? Enough that some would support conflict with Iran if they feel it protects and supports Israel.

[Revolution9]

paint Israeli leaders as having done an outstanding job as the chosen protectors of the Promised Land,

Why lie?? This is an American election and this is just smoke and mirrors lobbying. The avengelical clowns need to get a grip on reality for facts in reality determine truth.

Rev9

[tbone717]

But his stance on Iran is what leads some -- particularly older evangelicals -- to see Paul as dangerous, extreme, scary, reckless, unrealistic, whatever. And I think that does matter, even if people say they don't care about foreign policy. But the reason they care at all about that part of the world and would ever advocate yet another war there is because of Israel.

True, but my point is the win them over with the other issues that are far more important to them. Few voters agree 100% with their candidate of choice, but it is those big issues in any election that make them decide to who pull the lever for. So while these older evangelicals might be wary of Paul's foreign policy stance they may very well support him because of his economic stance.

I have no problem with someone who wants to bomb Iran for Israel's sake voting for Paul if they agree with him on his economic position. The task at hand right now is to get them to vote for our guy regardless of the reasons they do so.

[tbone717]

Why lie?? This is an American election and this is just smoke and mirrors lobbying. The avengelical clowns need to get a grip on reality for facts in reality determine truth.

Rev9

Please try not to characterize the people we are tying to persuade to vote for our candidate as "clowns", it really isn't helpful. Particularly for those that may be coming into these forums for the first time to learn more about Ron Paul. He doesn't refer to them as "clowns", so why should we.

[Created4]

Just as I don't wish to get into arguments with people I'm trying to convince to vote for Paul, I don't wish to argue with you about this. You're advocating an approach wherein you try to right every misconception about Israel. Best of luck with your lifelong project there...lifetime may not be long enough.

I am not advocating anything new. It is the more historical understanding of the Church throughout church history. Dispensationalism and premil thinking is what is new.


I will say that I imagine very few evangelical Christians believe they're among the descendents of Abraham whose father is the Devil. Just a hunch.

I think you misunderstood. These are quotes from the book of John, directed towards ethnic Jews, not "evangelical Christians."


Simple question: why do you believe Christians place so much importance on American relations/support of Israel? Enough that some would support conflict with Iran if they feel it protects and supports Israel.

There are many answers to this question. One answer is simply that the pro-Israel lobby is very well-funded in America, and owns much of the media. Another answer is that people deliberately distort the scriptures using OT passages to support their political cause. This gets passed off to the Ev crowd as "biblical." As to the church leaders who would honestly agree with just about everything I have written here, because they have truly studied the scriptures, it is their view of eschatology and their belief that Israel has a future in the "promised land" that leads them to support Israel. This is today the dominant view, and because evangelicals are already a minority in our culture, and view themselves as being persecuted, it is hard to take a minority view on eschatology and be an outcast within the evangelical community, even though historically this view was not the dominant view of eschatology.

[Revolution9]

Simple question: why do you believe Christians place so much importance on American relations/support of Israel?

Memetic virus planting over several decades till the internet put a stop to the encroachment on peoples mental real estate via continual lobbying, social blackmail and falsehoods rippling through the churches of dubious origin coupled to a synchronized media blitz wherein all questions appeared via illusion and manipulation of real world events to resolve around this... This support is now in decline at an exponential rate. I am Christian and a student of Jesus' words and teachings. I place no importance on the geography of the occurrence of his walking on the Earth. He may have walked in other geographic areas of the Earth as well if other accounts are to be believed. This would be faulty like declaring a finger pointing at the Moon is the Moon. It was what he did with his hands and his teachings which were always oral or written in sand that are of importance for within them lies the salvation of a Man. The rest of the garment, in symbolic harmonic with his _rent_ garment being divided and the veil in the temple being rent, and was sewn after the Crucifixion and has been bought and sold. The remnant remains and is not seen as valuable by those who have ornamented the original garment with their doctrine and law.


In short ... Universe is coming and all masks fall away and people see things as they really are. The question is can Israel survive the scrutiny and maintain support.

Rev9

[SaulPaulinsky]

Sigh...

Never mind. Everyone just carry on being ineffective and let other candidates get the evangelical vote.

Jeez...do some people really require such an elementary level of training in how to advocate for a candidate? You don't get into arguments, you don't try to completely change their worldview. You tailor your candidate's views and positions to their worldview insofar as it's possible (and with Paul it almost always is unless they're an authoritarian fascist). You appeal to what they know or think they know and show how your candidate supports it.

It's not lying. I don't think I've told one lie in this thread, about Paul or anyone. But it is definitely tailoring the message. If you're telling everyone you meet the same thing regardless of what you know about their hot buttons, you're doing it wrong.

[SaulPaulinsky]

Why lie?? This is an American election and this is just smoke and mirrors lobbying. The avengelical clowns need to get a grip on reality for facts in reality determine truth.

Rev9

I really hope that's not the stance you take if you knock on doors or make phone calls for Paul.

And from the standpoint of building and developing Israel's ability to provide and defend for itself, it's pretty impossible to say that Israel's leaders have not done an outstanding job of that.

[bluesc]

I really hope that's not the stance you take if you knock on doors or make phone calls for Paul.

And from the standpoint of building and developing Israel's ability to provide and defend for itself, it's pretty impossible to say that Israel's leaders have not done an outstanding job of that.

Without unqualified support from the US, Israel would be acting much differently in the Middle East right now. They are punching way above their weight.

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but if you're suggesting a change in rhetoric on foreign policy, I agree. If you're talking about speaking of Israel as if they are somehow equal to the interests of the American people, I do not.

[James Madison]

With all due respect to the OP, saving the misguided man's soul is infinitely more important than winning an election. If you change the theology, you not only change the politics but you also lead them away from damnation and to Christ.

[SisCyn]

OK so if you belong to Christ, you're one of Abraham's descendants ("Father Abraham, had many sons...I am one of them, and so are you..."), so the natural progression is that Israel is in the interest of all Christendom. So if Israel says "we got this, you're not helping us, you're hurting us", doesn't that give us even more of an imperative? Doesn't it then become the responsibility of a Christian to support non-interventionism in the Middle East so as to prevent rousing enemy sentiment against Israel?

Remember the story of Abraham and the slave girl Hagar? The first born of Abraham was Ishmael, who is the father of the Islamic nations.

Therefore, Iran is also of the seed of Abraham.

[SaulPaulinsky]

There are many answers to this question. One answer is simply that the pro-Israel lobby is very well-funded in America, and owns much of the media. Another answer is that people deliberately distort the scriptures using OT passages to support their political cause. This gets passed off to the Ev crowd as "biblical." As to the church leaders who would honestly agree with just about everything I have written here, because they have truly studied the scriptures, it is their view of eschatology and their belief that Israel has a future in the "promised land" that leads them to support Israel. This is today the dominant view, and because evangelicals are already a minority in our culture, and view themselves as being persecuted, it is hard to take a minority view on eschatology and be an outcast within the evangelical community, even though historically this view was not the dominant view of eschatology.

Perhaps my question was a bit untidy, though regardless I feel your answer is a copout. I wasn't asking why they think what they think.

Let's try again. "What do evangelical Christians think is the reason that American relations/support of Israel is of enough importance that some would support conflict with Iran because they feel it best protects and supports Israel? What would they say is the source of that vital interest?"

Again, I am uninterested, and so too should everyone trying to win evangelical support for Ron Paul be uninterested, in unraveling every misconception of every subgroup of the Christian religion. If that is your aim, I wish you luck on writing the book larger than the Bible itself that would be required to cover the topic.

Or, as I was once told as a kind way of saying "wrap it up and get out of here", "You're not gonna solve that mystery in one night."

[thoughtomator]

IMO this is the message that should be getting out to conservatives of all stripes with "but for foreign policy" hangups


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Every person I show this to says one word: "Wow!"

[Created4]

Sigh...

Never mind. Everyone just carry on being ineffective and let other candidates get the evangelical vote.

Jeez...do some people really require such an elementary level of training in how to advocate for a candidate? You don't get into arguments, you don't try to completely change their worldview. You tailor your candidate's views and positions to their worldview insofar as it's possible (and with Paul it almost always is unless they're an authoritarian fascist). You appeal to what they know or think they know and show how your candidate supports it.

It's not lying. I don't think I've told one lie in this thread, about Paul or anyone. But it is definitely tailoring the message. If you're telling everyone you meet the same thing regardless of what you know about their hot buttons, you're doing it wrong.

Wow, what a condescending comment. How is using the scriptures to teach the truth about modern day Israel an attempt to change one's "world view?" It is an issue, ONE issue, and certainly not a "world view." The one issue Ron Paul gets hammered on the most even here among his supporters, is the issue of Iran and Israel. Everyone seems to think they have a better approach to get people to change their minds. But the fact is that Dr. Paul has been saying the same thing for 30 years. He gives speeches without teleprompters, because he is saying the same thing he always says. He is not going to water down his message to make it more palatable. And that is why people like him. If you feel you have a better approach, have at it. But you can keep your condescending attitude to yourself. My writings have a readership in the tens of thousands, and I didn't get to where I am today by watering down the message, or trying to make it more agreeable. I did it by telling the truth.

[SaulPaulinsky]

Without unqualified support from the US, Israel would be acting much differently in the Middle East right now. They are punching way above their weight.

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but if you're suggesting a change in rhetoric on foreign policy, I agree. If you're talking about speaking of Israel as if they are somehow equal to the interests of the American people, I do not.

I'm suggesting making evangelical Christians see that the best thing a Christian can do for Israel is support non-interventionism as it relates to Iran. No more, no less.

Tailor the message. It's painfully obvious most of the contributors to this thread don't have the first clue what that is about, and that's really the only reason I've decided to even entertain them; it keeps the thread bumped so hopefully more people that don't care so much about the theological esoterica will see it and it will help them win support for Ron Paul.

Politics is not about winning souls to Christ.

[TER]

Perhaps my question was a bit untidy, though regardless I feel your answer is a copout. I wasn't asking why they think what they think.

Let's try again. "What do evangelical Christians think is the reason that American relations/support of Israel is of enough importance that some would support conflict with Iran because they feel it best protects and supports Israel? What would they say is the source of that vital interest?"

What are you not understanding? The reason has already been explained to you. It is part of their theology, as innovative and historically unsupported as it is. It's like you are trying to avoid the main reason why.

[Created4]

What are you not understanding? The reason has already been explained to you. It is part of their theology, as innovative and historically unsupported as it is. It's like you are trying to avoid the main reason why.

It is obvious now that the OP just wants to get people to support his opinion, and is not interested in learning anything here from anyone else. Hence he has now resorted to ad hominum attacks against other Ron Paul supporters since he cannot debate the real issues.

[jolynna]

I'm an atheist and don't want to lead anybody's soul to Christ although I've read the Bible cover to cover many times, read Karen Armstrong's History of God, and find the subject of theology fascinating--I think my mission as a Ron Paul supporter is to explain that Ron Paul's foreign policy does not endanger either the U.S. OR Israel.

Realistically, Israel doesn't need U.S.A. help. They have the situation covered. As many posters have pointed out, THEIR CHOSEN LEADERS have done an outstanding job pf protecting Israeli. Their military is superior, their weaponry, state-of-the-art. And they have 300 nukes.

[TER]

I'm suggesting making evangelical Christians see that the best thing a Christian can do for Israel is support non-interventionism as it relates to Iran. No more, no less.

Tailor the message. It's painfully obvious most of the contributors to this thread don't have the first clue what that is about, and that's really the only reason I've decided to even entertain them; it keeps the thread bumped so hopefully more people that don't care so much about the theological esoterica will see it and it will help them win support for Ron Paul.

Politics is not about winning souls to Christ.

It has already been answered above. We should prove to them that the less Israel is beholden to the US government, the better they can defend themselves and determine their own destiny, without us supplying their enemies with 10 times the amount of money.

[SaulPaulinsky]

My writings have a readership in the tens of thousands, and I didn't get to where I am today by watering down the message, or trying to make it more agreeable. I did it by telling the truth.

I could have claimed the same thing when I was 20. Big deal.

Are you writings designed to win evangelical votes for Ron Paul? Because that was my intention...to give people one perspective on how to do that and if they can add more on their own that would also help, so much the better. Many people don't support him on this issue because they don't follow and understand the progression by which it makes sense (generally unpopular Iranian regime maintains power and stability with use of anti-American rhetoric to play on feelings about American interventionism in Iran dating back nearly 60 years, destabilizing the region and fanning flames of hate toward America's 51st state; sanctions harm Iran economically and force them to seek ways to mitigate or extricate themselves from them, and provoking Iran into a war would balloon in a major world conflict that would imperil Israel more than Iran could ever do on its own). Rather than try to convince people of it, it is easier to simply build the case for why Israel should be trusted to know what is best for them, and play into their belief that it is the role of their Christian nation to support them.

Again, you don't win votes by ramming your views down people's throats and trying to argue with them and change their mind on everything they thought they knew.

[SaulPaulinsky]

What are you not understanding? The reason has already been explained to you. It is part of their theology, as innovative and historically unsupported as it is. It's like you are trying to avoid the main reason why.

No, actually, that is the exact response I wanted and expected from someone that's being honest.

OK next question. Is it realistic to think one has much chance of undoing all of that teaching, over a lifetime in many cases, with a conversation or two with someone that obviously has an agenda (to get them to vote for Paul)? I don't think it is. I think you've got a much better shot taking their view and using it to show why Paul's stance is the correct one that supports their view, even if that's not how the media or even some of their fellow Christians are seeing it.

[jolynna]

Why can't the message just be one that doesn't conflict with ANY belief?

Jews, Christians, (even Prophecy believing Christians that think the end is near) and atheists like me, can all agree that Israel is militarily capable of protecting Israel. If there is an almighty power that has predestined the fate of the world, what will be will be. Regardless of U.S.A. intervention (that just so happens to be where the OIL is).

[SaulPaulinsky]

I'm an atheist and don't want to lead anybody's soul to Christ although I've read the Bible cover to cover many times, read Karen Armstrong's History of God, and find the subject of theology fascinating--I think my mission as a Ron Paul supporter is to explain that Ron Paul's foreign policy does not endanger either the U.S. OR Israel.

Realistically, Israel doesn't need U.S.A. help. They have the situation covered. As many posters have pointed out, THEIR CHOSEN LEADERS have done an outstanding job pf protecting Israeli. Their military is superior, their weaponry, state-of-the-art. And they have 300 nukes.

Boom. Perfect.

And what's the best way to do that with an evangelical? IMO, it's to use what they've been taught and their view of why Israel matters so much to the US, and use it to make the case.

That's all. Going further than that, bringing all of these "misconceptions" in and trying to change thei rmind on everything about their faith is WAY overselling and stands a chance to turn off someone even if they do support your initial argument. They may hear you say something else that they don't agree with, ascribe that to Paul, and you've just lost a voter.

Say everything you need to say to make your point and make them a Paul supporter, and no more than.

[tbone717]

Why can't the message just be one that doesn't conflict with ANY belief?

Jews, Christians, (even Prophecy believing Christians that think the end is near) and atheists like me, can all agree that Israel is militarily capable of protecting Israel. If there is an almighty power that has predestined the fate of the world, what will be will be. Regardless of U.S.A. intervention (that just so happens to be where the OIL is).

Stated well, except for the last part about the oil. We need to be careful not to use the language of the left when presenting Paul's positions. Whether it is true or not, when we co-opt the talking points that the left used when it was "Bush's war" we run the risk of people closing their ears to what we have to say. Remember now is not the time for education, it is the time to get votes.

[SaulPaulinsky]

Stated well, except for the last part about the oil. We need to be careful not to use the language of the left when presenting Paul's positions. Whether it is true or not, when we co-opt the talking points that the left used when it was "Bush's war" we run the risk of people closing their ears to what we have to say. Remember now is not the time for education, it is the time to get votes.

Excellent point. I intentionally avoided the oil/pipelineistan/Balfour Declaration/British mandate/any number of other episodes over the past 100 years I could have brought in, for that very reason.

A lot of these people supported Bush's decision to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't want to be told they were wrong, even if they know they were. It's different for Paul to make a speech saying it than for someone to sit/stand 3 feet from them and tell them to their face they were wrong.

[tbone717]

Excellent point. I intentionally avoided the oil/pipelineistan/Balfour Declaration/British mandate/any number of other episodes over the past 100 years I could have brought in, for that very reason.

A lot of these people supported Bush's decision to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't want to be told they were wrong, even if they know they were. It's different for Paul to make a speech saying it than for someone to sit/stand 3 feet from them and tell them to their face they were wrong.

Correct. It is all in how you sell the message. Take the Fed for example. If we talk about the money supply manipulation, how there is no oversight, etc - we sound logical, reasonable and sensible. If we start talking about the Rothschild and the Bildebergers we sound like conspiracy freaks.

[jolynna]

Boom. Perfect.

And what's the best way to do that with an evangelical? IMO, it's to use what they've been taught and their view of why Israel matters so much to the US, and use it to make the case.

That's all. Going further than that, bringing all of these "misconceptions" in and trying to change thei rmind on everything about their faith is WAY overselling and stands a chance to turn off someone even if they do support your initial argument. They may hear you say something else that they don't agree with, ascribe that to Paul, and you've just lost a voter.

Say everything you need to say to make your point and make them a Paul supporter, and no more than.

Exactly. Yes. I don't think we should be trying to change anyone's faith in any way.

I sure don't want anyone ramming their beliefs down my throat.

If Israel is safe and doesn't NEED (their military strength is superior) or even WANT (according to their own chosen leader) our intervention, nobody's religious views need challenging. I, personally, RUN from anybody trying to "enlighten" me because I've put a lot of thought and heart into choosing where I stand of this issue. I think most evangelicals have put equal thought into coming to the conclusions they have come to and that their right to those conclusions should be respected.

What I want, and I think people of every belief want is reassurance that Ron Paul's foreign policy stance will not leave the U.S. OR Israel vulnerable. So all of us can be safe & continue to worship as we have chosen.

My own opinion.

[jolynna]

Stated well, except for the last part about the oil. We need to be careful not to use the language of the left when presenting Paul's positions. Whether it is true or not, when we co-opt the talking points that the left used when it was "Bush's war" we run the risk of people closing their ears to what we have to say. Remember now is not the time for education, it is the time to get votes.

<blush> You are right. I'll leave the oil part needs to come out. Why bring something into the conversation that might turn a potential supporter OFF and that isn't part of their real concern (Israel & United State's safety)?

[Captain Shays]

Let's get down to basics. Why do Evangelicals really support Israel? Because they are hung up on Gen 12 "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. I used to never question that as my reason for supporting Israel with $$$ and military might and a commitment to always come to their defense if attacked. How many times have we heard "I will not allow our friends Israel to be destroyed by their enemies"? We hear it from the Evangelical endorsers of Santorum and Santorum himself. We hear it from Gingrich, Perry, Bush, Clinton, Obama and every other so called leader.
But the FACT Is, NOWHERE in the bible does it EVER say or imply that once Israel comes back into their country will they EVER AGAIN be destroyed. NOWHERE. That NEEDS to get out to Christians because it's how Christians today are being deceived into buying into militarism and interventionism.

Some tools that I would use would be VERY graphic and hard hitting. Don't worry Christians can take it.

From Ron Paul's book "A Foreign Policy Of Freedom" he points out that twice Israel had the PLO on the ropes while Arafat was still called "the King of Terror". He was just a terrorist thug heading up an army of terrorist thugs. Leaders from our country stopped Israel from wiping them out once and for all. Most if not all of those terrorist thugs went on to murder more innocent Jews in the following years. WHY isn't this common knowledge among Christians and conservatives who say they love Israel and want to support them?

Also from that same book Ron Paul outlines that we give $7.5 Billion per year to Israel's enemies who on three separate occasions surrounded and attacked Israel yet we give Israel only $3.5 Billion per year. This clearly shows as others have pointed out that ending ALL foreign aid to ALL countries would leave Israel much better off.

Also from that book and this is a killer for the interventionist philosophy-during the Oslo Accords there was an impasse during the negotiations when Arafat demanded that Israel release 1,000 Palestinian prisoners ALL who had Israeli blood on their hands. Clinton pressed Barak and Israel capitulated and released those prisoners. ALL went on to murder more innocent Jews during the infitada and among those released? Mohammad Atta one of the hijackers who flew a plane into the World Trade Center on 911

GET THESE TRUTHS OUT

We should be making videos of the dead Iranians and Kurds when some so called conservative interventionist scum bag from our government thought it wise to transfer chemical weapons to a nut case like Saddam Hussein which he then used to kill over 100,000 men women and children. SHOW them the graphic pictures of those dead mothers holding their babies complete with the contorted faces as they died in agony so they will KNOW that it was their tax dollars and the interventionist antichristian scum who did that to those poor people in our names. What shall we do now elect Rick Santorum or one of the other progressive interventionist so called Christians so they can nuke more Iranians? We NEED to hit them HARD with the truth

[SaulPaulinsky]

Good add-ons to what I was saying. Maybe add something like "so why does Israel think we do more harm than good? Well maybe because..." Clinton's intervention with the prisoner release is particularly damning, because many people both Israeli and Palestinian have seen harm done since that action and the intifada (spelled correctly, not to nitpick just to clarify for those that might not know how to spell it and use it incorrectly somewhere else; might hurt credibility with some though you clearly know what you're talking about). And then to tie it back to a 9/11 hijacker? Hard to argue at that point that we weren't worse off for Clinton's intervention.

I like your "inconvenient truth" approach as well. I'm pretty bad at video production though.

[Captain Shays]

Good add-ons to what I was saying. Maybe add something like "so why does Israel think we do more harm than good? Well maybe because..." Clinton's intervention with the prisoner release is particularly damning, because many people both Israeli and Palestinian have seen harm done since that action and the intifada (spelled correctly, not to nitpick just to clarify for those that might not know how to spell it and use it incorrectly somewhere else; might hurt credibility with some though you clearly know what you're talking about). And then to tie it back to a 9/11 hijacker? Hard to argue at that point that we weren't worse off for Clinton's intervention.

I like your "inconvenient truth" approach as well. I'm pretty bad at video production though.

I went back and corrected my spelling (which is NOT my strong suit) and thank you for pointing that out and please do so in the future.

If you can't make a video then we NEED to find people who can. If they aren't Christians then maybe we can provide or help with some of the content that pertains to Christians. I mean, I know how to speak the language of a Christian and so do you and others. It's really up to us at this point to take over to reach the SC Christians who might be lead astray by the recent endorsement for Santorum or taken in by Newt's split tongue. Something else. Even if we don't win South Carolina or the nomination I feel it incumbent upon us to enlighten ( I hate to use that term because it seems arrogant) the Christians who have been taken in by the neocon lies over the years.

Another tactic that I have used somewhat successfully in debate forums is to capitalize in Glenn Beck making people aware of the progressive movement by pointing out that it was progressives like Woodrow Wilson who started us on an interventionist foreign policy and it was always (and I use this term) the "old style conservatives" who opposed that interventionism and they were labeled "isolationists" for that position. But that position was originally the foreign policy that our founding fathers designed for this country and that was based in the Christian Just War Principles and modeled after Switzerland who also based their neutrality on the CJWP.
That the (I use this term as well effectively) new style conservatives otherwise known as neoconservatives who fully embrace the Wilsonian progressive style of foreign policy that runs directly counter to that of the founders and has resulted in countless wars, death and destruction which is the antithesis of what Jesus the Prince of Peace would advise.

I can't' see how any Christian who has compassion, and love for fellow humans and claims to follow Jesus could possibly want to continue in Wilson's foreign policy and reject that of the founders and Jesus Himself.

[thoughtomator]

IMO the message to evangelicals shouldn't be about Iran. Explain if they ask but don't bring it up - too many End Times adherents among them.

The message to evangelicals should be about the Jubilee and debt.

[SaulPaulinsky]

Another tactic that I have used somewhat successfully in debate forums is to capitalize in Glenn Beck making people aware of the progressive movement by pointing out that it was progressives like Woodrow Wilson who started us on an interventionist foreign policy

Actually I made the argument on another forum today that it was Teddy Roosevelt.

Someone said "I wish we had another Teddy Roosevelt" then later saying that he liked his domestic politics more than foreign.

Well, Teddy begat Wilson, ironically, since he ran against him. But Teddy left the Republican Party because of his progressive and interventionist beliefs and started the Progressive Party, then Wilson ran and the progressives decided they'd vote for him rather than the Progressive Party candidate. Once Roosevelt and Wilson were both in the race, the progressives and the imperialists had already won. I find it entirely possible that Roosevelt would have been the same kind of executive that Wilson was. Roosevelt pushed for war and increased militarization and interventionism as the 2nd in charge in the War department, even as the president (McKinley, who also put the currency on the gold standard and I'm surprised Paul hasn't tossed out his name in these "who's your favorite president" discussions) fought against involvement in Cuba before the NYC elite (Roosevelt, yellow journalists, etc) shoved the country into it ending with the mysterious Maine sinking.

So this also goes to show that just because someone has an R by their name doesn't mean it's a good idea to vote for them. Roosevelt had an R by his name and was Patient Zero of the progressive movement.

It started with a NYC elite named Roosevelt. What a surprise.

[Captain Shays]

Actually I made the argument on another forum today that it was Teddy Roosevelt.

Someone said "I wish we had another Teddy Roosevelt" then later saying that he liked his domestic politics more than foreign.

Well, Teddy begat Wilson, ironically, since he ran against him. But Teddy left the Republican Party because of his progressive and interventionist beliefs and started the Progressive Party, then Wilson ran and the progressives decided they'd vote for him rather than the Progressive Party candidate. Once Roosevelt and Wilson were both in the race, the progressives and the imperialists had already won. I find it entirely possible that Roosevelt would have been the same kind of executive that Wilson was. Roosevelt pushed for war and increased militarization and interventionism as the 2nd in charge in the War department, even as the president (McKinley, who also put the currency on the gold standard and I'm surprised Paul hasn't tossed out his name in these "who's your favorite president" discussions) fought against involvement in Cuba before the NYC elite (Roosevelt, yellow journalists, etc) shoved the country into it ending with the mysterious Maine sinking.

So this also goes to show that just because someone has an R by their name doesn't mean it's a good idea to vote for them. Roosevelt had an R by his name and was Patient Zero of the progressive movement.

It started with a NYC elite named Roosevelt. What a surprise.

I know what you're saying and you're absolutely right but I use Wilson because he was the one who said we need to "use our military to make the world safe for democracy" plus he' s Democrat and Democrats were the party in power during the start of most of our major wars. I do this to point out to christians, conservatives, republicans and democrats tha,t this notion that Republicans are the war party is false. Democrats are. They were also the ones who started the League of Nations and the United Nations. The UN was set up to some day become a one world government which in my opinion should be especially worrisome to Christians. NO Christian should EVER support a candidate who wants to keep us in the UN let alone fight kill or die for them. The one world government in scripture isn't God's plan it's Satans plan even though God makes His plan come about in the end.