Dr. Paul's weak theological statement

[Ninja Homer]

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

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

Let's look at what Ron Paul wrote:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do.

He starts out by explaining why he might hesitate to fully explain his faith. Then he says the one thing that universally unites all Christians, despite any dogma. He is giving a statement of the source of his faith.

He continues:

I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

Here, he is explaining how his faith effects his actions as a politician. In the next 6 paragraphs, he gives examples that back up how his faith has effected his actions as a politician.

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

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

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

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

 

[Thunderbolt]

...

 

[eloquensanity]

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

EXACTLY

 

[adpierce]

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


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

 

[Phenom24]

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

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

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

 

[constituent]

OK- THREAD SUMMARY

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

 

[ButchHowdy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[erastus]

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

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

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

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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

 

[BarryDonegan]

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

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

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

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

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

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