Dr. Paul's weak theological statement

[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.