If you want to understand why some Christian Libertarians might not vote for Paul, read...

[nate895]

Well personal liberty is having the right to do whatever you want with your own body, without hurting others or infringing on their property rights. It is that simple. It can't get any simpler. I don't want a Ron Paul presidency if it means I have to answer to the moral police. Fuck that. Not interested. If what I do in my own home bothers you to the point where you think I should be stopped, that is a huge problem.

Is your skull that thick? I said that we should take non-state social action to help those who are destroying themselves with drug addiction. It is not someone's right to destroy themselves, and you are never going to get conscious Christian conservatives to agree otherwise, and that's whose votes you need.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Is your skull that thick? I said that we should take non-state social action to help those who are destroying themselves with drug addiction. It is not someone's right to destroy themselves, and you are never going to get conscious Christian conservatives to agree otherwise, and that's whose votes you need.

If someone wants help, give it to them. But yes, not everyone believe's our bodies belong to God and His temple. You could always encourage people or not associate with people whom you think are destroying themselves, but who are you to judge? You aren't God's proxy. If someone wants to shoot heroin up 100 times a day in their basement and doesn't ask for help, it is none of your business.

I guess it is a shame. Even if we get Ron Paul to the White House, there will still be people that think they know what I want/how to please me better than myself. *Sigh* I'm not saying I use heroin or have ever or would ever, but in the end, it is my choice. Not yours. If you disagree, you are what you said you wish you weren't called, sorry.

 

[nate895]

If someone wants help, give it to them. But yes, not everyone believe's our bodies belong to God and His temple. You could always encourage people or not associate with people whom you think are destroying themselves, but who are you to judge? You aren't God's proxy. If someone wants to shoot heroin up 100 times a day in their basement and doesn't ask for help, it is none of your business.

I guess it is a shame. Even if we get Ron Paul to the White House, there will still be people that think they know what I want/how to please me better than myself. *Sigh* I'm not saying I use heroin or have ever or would ever, but in the end, it is my choice. Not yours. If you disagree, you are what you said you wish you weren't called, sorry.

Sorry if I'm not going to stand aside while others destroy themselves. I love the image of God that they still possess inside of them too much to do that.

 

[moostraks]

Sorry if I'm not going to stand aside while others destroy themselves. I love the image of God that they still possess inside of them too much to do that.

It is not your job to push your values upon others and you will find that blowback is the likely response. This belief is the reason why we have a culture of do good interventionists which is failing. A christian/christian community should provide for others but not force themselves upon others. If the Creator is wise enough to allow mankind the right to make choices and to suffer consequences while also providing that right choices result in positive consequences then man should abide by the same teachings.

I am curious by what means are you going to

take non-state social action to help those who are destroying themselves with drug addiction

How?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

It is not your job to push your values upon others and you will find that blowback is the likely response. This belief if the reason why we have a culture of do good interventionists which is failing. A christian/christian community should provide for others but not force themselves upon others. If the Creator is wise enough to allow mankind the right to make choices and to suffer consequences while also providing that right choices result in positive consequences then man should abide by the same teachings.

I am curious by what means are you going to How?

+rep

Thank you!

 

[Theocrat]

Yeah, Ron Should Project More of His Faith to Freedom

If you want to understand why Paul has struggled to gain a large portion of the Christian Libertarian-leaning vote, then this is worth your read. I offer it without comment, except to say that this blogger represents a large voting block that Ron Paul really needs to think about.

http://dougwils.com/index.php?optio...36:then-leave-the-man-alone&catid=87:politics

As a Christian who highly respects Douglas Wilson, I really think he has a great point about Congressman Paul, and it's been a concern of mine for quite some time. Many times, Dr. Paul comes off as being neutral about his libertarian views, and he does not connect them with his spiritual beliefs. From a presuppositional point of view, that only makes his views arbitrary because they lack an objective grounding for them to be valid.

Don't get me wrong. I love Congressman Paul a lot. I believe he is a man of principle and integrity, and I'm sure he loves Jesus. He has the best platform, by far, than any other candidate in the race. All I'm saying is he needs to be a better philosopher and connect the dots between his spiritual beliefs and his political views. Once he does that, he will gain more of the "Huckabee-types" on his side. I guarantee it.

 

[moostraks]

+rep

Thank you!

thanks...

 

[nate895]

It is not your job to push your values upon others and you will find that blowback is the likely response. This belief if the reason why we have a culture of do good interventionists which is failing. A christian/christian community should provide for others but not force themselves upon others. If the Creator is wise enough to allow mankind the right to make choices and to suffer consequences while also providing that right choices result in positive consequences then man should abide by the same teachings.

If telling people that they are destroying themselves and reaching out a helping hand in the name of faith in Christ is forcing your point-of-view on them, I don't what isn't forcing your view on people.

I am curious by what means are you going to

How?

I am talking about churches informing people of the sin of drunkenness, which is a form of substance abuse, and the principle can be applied across the drug abuse spectrum. The Bible teaches against substance abuse, but it does not say the government should lock people in jail for abusing substances. Churches need to preach against, and seek out those who have harmed themselves with it and bring them the light of the Gospel. Families should forbid substance abuse (yes, your father should be paternalist), and use family discipline.

 

[The Moravian]

Where the blogger makes the mistake is hes comparing how God treats those who rule over the church,which has nothing to do with those that rule over a nation.The difference is those at the church are there by free will and if they choose to go then hes laid out certain standards.While on earth God allows man to live his life by free will.

You cant force morality.

Now what you do with that free will God will judge in the end and only him.The only time man has a right to judge another mans actions are if they effect someone else,unless they have chosen to goto church and submit to there rules.The great thing is if you disagree you can leave the church.

I consider myself a strong christian but i have no issues with the legalization of drugs or prostitution.What another person does is there business .i only care to tend to those who desire to know Gods truth.As far as the great commission in the bible to spread the word.Ill let it be known of my faith but i wont force on someone that doesnt want to hear.If they desire to listen ill talk as much as theyd like too.

I think you get it right about where the blogger goes wrong. Jesus clearly said that his kingdom is not of this world, and that if it was of this world his servants would fight (literally with swords at the time). Much confusion comes in when we don't read the New Testament explanation of what the Old Testament scriptures were meant for. Romans is a good place to get at much of that, how the law of Moses and all of God's commands were meant to teach one group of people about how we are meant to behave, while preserving an ancestry for the Messiah. (Romans chapters 9-11, fully cross-referenced, contradict much of Christian Zionism, too, by the way)

Paul writes in Galatians about the law being a "tutor" that would lead us to Christ, and he also writes that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law for those who believe. Faith is very tough for people to accept, to not control other people when they are destroying themselves, to accept risks in life that are beyond our control and trust that God will provide for us through work and voluntary giving instead of devising a system of organized theft to "provide" for people in need. I also think it's a lot easier for people to try to copy and paste the Law of Moses into our legislation than to hold up the standard of godly behavior themselves, and model it in their own families and churches.

To hold people who voluntarily participate in the church to a standard of humility, honesty, love and faith is what the scripture calls for, but the church has consistently preferred to use marketing techniques and self-centered philosophies to attract people to come for all the wrong reasons, for several decades now. The leaders are so willing to pervert the gospel into something that makes everyone feel good, or they use psychological techniques to make people feel guilty or dependent on the leaders' approval or "counsel". And, then, because the church is not being salt and light in the world, the world is dark and corrupt, so the call for "law and order" comes to keep a check on evil, by imprisoning people instead of freeing them from their sinful nature.

The scripture is very clear that God will hold accountable those who call themselves Christians and especially Christian teachers, and it is us who will be held responsible for the destruction of the family, marriage and social relations in general. Those who don't know the truth won't be held accountable to it, only those who do. All the propaganda of the state schools, Hollywood and the media wouldn't be able to destroy so much of our society if there was a refuge of love, faith and hope in the church. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church that He builds. Why do social conservatives act as if hell has some unfair advantage over them and their massive Christian empires? It's really because their churches are not built by Jesus on the rock, but are built by mere men on the quicksand of personality, culture or some form of control....

OK, that's enough for now, I'm off the soap-box/pulpit.

 

[nate895]

BTW, I have been in an Evangelical church in a rural farming community where the war on drugs was attacked, and people clapped (it wasn't Presbyterian, lol). So, I don't think I'm out in left field as far as Evangelicals are concerned.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

If telling people that they are destroying themselves and reaching out a helping hand in the name of faith in Christ is forcing your point-of-view on them, I don't what isn't forcing your view on people.



I am talking about churches informing people of the sin of drunkenness, which is a form of substance abuse, and the principle can be applied across the drug abuse spectrum. The Bible teaches against substance abuse, but it does not say the government should lock people in jail for abusing substances. Churches need to preach against, and seek out those who have harmed themselves with it and bring them the light of the Gospel. Families should forbid substance abuse (yes, your father should be paternalist), and use family discipline.

But people have no interest in being preached at (most at least). And it's also very insulting to call someone a sinner for making themselves happy. It won't win you any friends, despite your good intentions.

 

[nate895]

But people have no interest in being preached at (most at least). And it's also very insulting to call someone a sinner for making themselves happy. It won't win you any friends, despite your good intentions.

Heroin doesn't make people happy. It destroys people's lives.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Ok I don't think Ron Paul is necessarily fighting for Drug legalization as vehemently as this guys thinks. It's just a position that he has that pundits and interviewers like to ask him about as it seems provocative. So he ends up having to talk about it more than maybe he would bring it up on his own. His main issue has always been the FED and reducing the government.

 

[moostraks]

If telling people that they are destroying themselves and reaching out a helping hand in the name of faith in Christ is forcing your point-of-view on them, I don't what isn't forcing your view on people.



I am talking about churches informing people of the sin of drunkenness, which is a form of substance abuse, and the principle can be applied across the drug abuse spectrum. The Bible teaches against substance abuse, but it does not say the government should lock people in jail for abusing substances. Churches need to preach against, and seek out those who have harmed themselves with it and bring them the light of the Gospel. Families should forbid substance abuse (yes, your father should be paternalist), and use family discipline.

It is your sanctimonious attitude that will turn people off. So which version of alcohol will you preach? The teetotaler version or the moderation is best version? Churches are not in agreement on this issue. Our society is not ignorant of the ramifications of substance abuse. By seeking out substance abusers and pushing the morality of the issue you are almost guaranteed to turn them completely away. For some people the relationship with their drug of choice will be more important to them, just like those who are obsessed with money. The church should be more involved with promoting (without seeking out and humiliating the individual) programs which surround those with an abuse issue with love and alternatives. Then it is the individual's choice to decide what means more to them and choose to join because they want to quit not because they were humiliated into the choice.

As for family discipline and paternalistic you need to be more specific about what you are referring to here so we are speaking on the same terms. When a person becomes an adult then families can make the hard decisions about how much to participate with those that make this choice for themselves. There is a fine line between enabling and abandoning and it is a very difficult position for the family to have to make. When it comes to children there is a huge problem with CPS that you will have to get past which shields the child from most consequences necessary until they turn 18 and learn the hard way about choices. From your answers I wonder if you have had real experience with addicts?

 

[steph3n]

Sorry if I'm not going to stand aside while others destroy themselves. I love the image of God that they still possess inside of them too much to do that.

I am not sure how your view is in any way compatible with Ron's, or even the Bible.

You can offer someone help, but they are not obligated to accept it as such. It is most important to be there for them when they decide it is time to change from that seed planted before, not through judgement, but through being that as a solid place to go.

Not everyone will stay on the right path once they have confided in you even, such is life, we must accept that some people don't make the 'right' choices in life.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Christian puritanism brought us untold violations of liberty. You are free to preach, and I am free to tell people the dangers of such thinking.

 

[steph3n]

Christian puritanism brought us untold violations of liberty. .

Not so sure about that really, I am sure some examples could be found but far more have nothing to do with Christianity at all, much moreso people's inflated egos, desires for more (everything), and their own willingness to put themselves above God himself(that they claim to worship) in most cases.

 

[nate895]

It is your sanctimonious attitude that will turn people off. So which version of alcohol will you preach? The teetotaler version or the moderation is best version? Churches are not in agreement on this issue. Our society is not ignorant of the ramifications of substance abuse. By seeking out substance abusers and pushing the morality of the issue you are almost guaranteed to turn them completely away. For some people the relationship with their drug of choice will be more important to them, just like those who are obsessed with money. The church should be more involved with promoting (without seeking out and humiliating the individual) programs which surround those with an abuse issue with love and alternatives. Then it is the individual's choice to decide what means more to them and choose to join because they want to quit not because they were humiliated into the choice.

For one, I preach on no subject since I am not properly authorized to do so by the proper authorities. As far as my view on substances (not just alcohol): I'm a moderationist, and that was the unquestioned position until the 1800s. People need to hear the Truth. If speaking the Truth is wrong, then so was our Lord when He said that He was the Light of the World, that He was the Bread of Life, and that we should live accordingly.

As for family discipline and paternalistic you need to be more specific about what you are referring to here so we are speaking on the same terms. When a person becomes an adult then families can make the hard decisions about how much to participate with those that make this choice for themselves. There is a fine line between enabling and abandoning and it is a very difficult position for the family to have to make. When it comes to children there is a huge problem with CPS that you will have to get past which shields the child from most consequences necessary until they turn 18 and learn the hard way about choices. From your answers I wonder if you have had real experience with addicts?

People do not leave the jurisdiction of their parents until they are married, except in unique circumstances, and then they are under someone else's headship. As for what to do in a particular situation, I am not a parent, and do not want to assert how a parent should discipline a child in particular circumstances, and have not studied the issue of particulars in that case at all.

 

[Maestro232]

Sorry to come off harsh, Maestro, I realize that part of my comment sounded condescending, but I didn't mean it to be. I've been very frustrated with people in every church I've attended, the contradictions are so blatantly obvious and I get pretty worked up over it. I realize that my comment seamed to infer that you weren't knowledgeable about the scripture. You were just making a small joke and I used it to make a different point, when you weren't being serious in the first place.

I'm sorry for using your short statement as a jumping off point for my frustration. It was thoughtless of me to not see how mean it sounded. Please forgive me.

No problem at all. I assumed you knew I was joking.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Heroin doesn't make people happy. It destroys people's lives.

We could say that about a number of "licit" drugs too. That's still no reason to outlaw things.