Dr. Paul's weak theological statement

[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. 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]

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]

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