Dr. Paul's weak theological statement

[Revolution9]

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

OK..Cool

Best
Randy

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wonder if an atheist could win the presidency lol

 

[ButchHowdy]

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

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

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

 

[adpierce]

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

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

Best Regards
Randy

Randy,

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

 

[billm317]

I wonder if an atheist could win the presidency lol

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

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

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

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

 

[adpierce]

so sad... logic loses to stupidity

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

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

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

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

 

[adpierce]

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

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

 

[Superfreak91]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

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

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

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

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

 

[adpierce]

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

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

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

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

I can't support institutionalized murder.

 

[SeanEdwards]

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

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

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

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

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

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

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

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

 

[Marceline88]

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

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

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

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The earth is flat, rights guys?

 

[JMann]

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

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

 

[Thunderbolt]

...