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

[nate895]

Back, again, to whether you want to win the election. You aren't going to win an election by lecturing people. Maybe you'll lay the seeds for victory in another 20 years, but we don't have 20 years.

 

[doodle]

Sometimes it seems like RP is running as the wrong party's candidate but hopefully I'm wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html

 

[DisillusionedPatriot]

So, I'm tracking with most of this well-written post, but what about Romans 13? There is a Biblical mandate for an authority with a sword.

I believe that Romans 13 may be an easy chapter to misinterpret but does not provide even a flimsy justification for tyrants or dictators. There are many countries around the world where it is illegal to preach the Bible, and even to be found with a copy can mean a death sentence. Under your reading of Romans, these evangelists would be doing wrong by breaking the law to spread the good news. Clearly this cannot be, and thus the interpretation fails.

As elsewhere it is written, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, we are compelled only to turn over that which a ruler may rightfully request. When we are asked to sin, or to abandon God’s blessings and precious gifts, it is not moral or courageous to do so, but craven and evil. I wrote an entire post (here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?255193-Christian-Argument-in-Favor-of-Civil-Disobedience) about when it is and is not proper to obey one’s government.

It is clear throughout the Bible that God establishes earthly authorities. What is also clear is that does not mean they have His approval, and this is one of God’s mysteries. I have always felt vague discomfort over the description of Pharaoh, as it is so explicit that God himself intervened to harden his heart. I believe that God uses earthly rulers to teach a disobedient and fallen people that they may joyfully choose to follow and obey Him, or, without His protection, will suffer the dire consequences. When the people come to repent of their sins and walk again in a way pleasing to the Lord, they will rise up, become free, and overcome their oppressor, who at that time will be forced to pay for his injustices.

In short, I believe that God occasionally allows or proscribes tyranny as a punishment and lesson to sinful man. It shows us what the world is like without His grace. It need not be stated, however, that we should be both wary and skeptical or anyone who dares to frame his desire to control and dominate others as acceptable Biblically or morally. Though God may permit such behaviors, He does not condone them.

 

[bunklocoempire]

I have no doubt that whatever the relationship between Ron Paul's religion and his principles of economics and government might be, he has thought VERY long and hard about whether or not to make that relationship a campaign talking point and has chosen not to do so. I respect that decision. Others should also.

If the obvious fact that Ron Paul is a Christian of the truest sort, and the fact that his stated AND DEMONSTRATED policies and principles are consistent with Christian morals, are not enough, then screw 'em. What alternative do they have anyway? A bunch of phony Christians who use their religion to feed their lust for power? If Christians are so gullible and shallow as to choose the likes of Huckabee and Gingrich because they are willing to say ANYTHING to be elected and Ron Paul is not, then they deserve the drubbing they are going to get.

Another + 1.

It seems the Christian(?) "Federal laws against vice" crowd constantly gloss over the fact that Christ led by personal example ministering, helping, and hanging with the sinners/poor -prostitutes and otherwise -Christ did NOT call for Rome/government to "take care of it" and clean up the town.

'Fudging' that little fact goes directly against Christianity.

Going along with the 'fudging' should not be done.



Bunkloco

 

[guitarlifter]

Kludge,

I don't think that's quite correct. The indication here is that Wilson and the like are not so much turned off by a few 'surprising stands' in a mostly sound package. His problem is that Paul's libertarianism seems more to be "libertarianism is the standard" rather than "The Bible is my standard and it results in liberty." Trust me, this is a huge distinction for us Christians.

Wilson goes on to say that "Ron Paul's message resonates with many thoughtful Christians (even though he does not ground it on Scripture as he ought to)" and that "While many Christians are unsettled by Paul's idea of legalizing drugs, for example, I am far more concerned about the millions that have gotten themselves addicted to the crack cocaine of other people's money, and who need a daily fix of their power and privilege, paid for by beyond ridiculous economic policies."

So I think guys like Wilson really want to be able to support him and are having a hard time being able to justify it in good conscience. They want to be convinced that the root of his liberty are grounded in something other than the Constitution. I really don't think this is an ungettable vote, but some thinking needs to be done in this regard or Paul will simply lose.

Wilson is calling for a scripturally grounded explanation of Paul's support for libertarianism, but Wilson also does not seemingly support liberty in the way Paul does. I let the Bible speak truth rather than try to adapt my presumptions and previous beliefs to scripture, and I can say that liberty is a result of the Bible so much as to support legalization of drugs, prostitution, and the like. Wilson's exegesis of Luke 12:42-48 is fallacious on the grounds that he misrepresents the obvious within that text. Luke 12:42-48 is not referring to a government situation with ruler and citizen, but with master and servant within a single household. Secondly, this piece of scripture is taken out of context. Just by reading the whole chapter, one can easily see the true context of that passage. I'm not going to get into specifics, but, when interpreted correctly and within context, scripture will never support coercion or punishment for any sin that does not involve a crime against another person. That's the social conservative's only defense when using scripture, and this is to take it out of context to fit their previous beliefs.

Overly libertarian? Out of my studies of Christian theology, libertarianism in its full is pretty dang close to the political message of the Bible--more so than any other political ideology that I have studied. Social conservatism can only be applied to oneself, one's children, and those who have entered into a contract that requires to follow the laws of social conservatism such as through getting hired at a company and being required to follow their rules. Wilson speaks like the tyrant kings of past times who were granted divine power from God. Could Ron Paul base more of his teachings in scripture to grab a larger portion of the Christian crowd? Sure. But sorry, Wilson. Scripturally grounded or not (and they are), Paul's politics are very in line with Christian theology, and changing his politics to reach Christian libertarians is not going to happen because Paul's message is meant for libertarians of all walks, and the kind of politics that Wilson wants Ron Paul to have would not be applicable to libertarian Christians or libertarians at all.

Ok I read through that. It is early (or I am up late) and I haven't had an adequate amount of coffee yet.
It made little sense. Was convoluted and confused.
But then, anyone can blog.

I have had discussions on several of these issues with my pastor and elders of my church. Both around a table in the church basement and my own dining table.
Though I am rather irreligious the church I attend is rather conservative Baptist.

I have only seen a few that have difficulty grasping the concepts of liberty. And they tend toward authoritarianism.
I have found that Dr. Paul's message resonates well with most Christians I have discussed him with.

I would be interested in hearing what your pastor and elders had to say concerning the theological implications of a truly scrupturally based political ideology. Did they support liberty in its fullest, or did they support socialism to any extent?

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

If people want to smoke, inject, or orally take any drug / pill, that is their right. Intervention is the purview of close friends and family if they feel like it would be wise to give the person the option of choosing another way, knowing he or she has support. It isn't the job of prosleytizers to go around preaching their gospel to people you have never met, nor know anything about. Now, you can offer Church services for those who wish to seek remedies, but otherwise you alienate people you are trying to help if you prosleytize to them. This is the problem with most Christians. Instead of God being a personal-individualist undertaking, they seek to do as any other religion does -- become overbearing to the point of revulsion. Jesus never pushed his views on people -- he lived a life of example for others, just the same that America was founded on non-interventionist ideals -- that we were to live a life of example, but not push our views on everyone else. Christians need to remember this or else you will see your numbers continue to dwindle.

Besides, all rights are equal. No one right supercedes another.

+rep

 

[nate895]

Something good managed to come out of this thread, btw.

 

[Vessol]

Using violence is immoral in Christianity. Therefore it is immoral to use violence to stop immoral acts. Right?

Is that the gist of this whole thing? Ron Paul not wanting to use violence to stop immoral acts or just him not openly stating his religious beliefs more often(even though he already has?)

 

[Bman]

For crying out loud! This thread is ridiculous. It's a call by a group for someone to push their message that doesn't have a damn thing to do with Dr. Paul's ideas on how Government should be run.

Talk about people needing to get a life.

 

[Zap!]

I'm voting for Ron Paul, but I really wish he would speak out against the militant gay agenda. They are non stop, and word is Sesame Street is about to openly have Ernie and Bert come out of the closet. They are sick.

 

[Sola_Fide]

For crying out loud! This thread is ridiculous. It's a call by a group for someone to push their message that doesn't have a damn thing to do with Dr. Paul's ideas on how Government should be run.

Talk about people needing to get a life.

You still don't understand that many of Ron's ideas come from Christian Reconstructionism, do you?

I'd look into it if I were you.

 

[nate895]

I'm voting for Ron Paul, but I really wish he would speak out against the militant gay agenda. They are non stop, and word is Sesame Street is about to openly have Ernie and Bert come out of the closet. They are sick.

Shitstorm, proceed.

 

[nate895]

You still don't understand that many of Ron's ideas come from Christian Reconstructionism, do you?

I'd look into it if I were you.

Gary North was on his staff. And no one ever told Ron Paul to go off and change his philosophy anyway. We just wish he'd present it better to real voters.

 

[Bman]

You still don't understand that many of Ron's ideas come from Christian Reconstructionism, do you?

I'd look into it if I were you.

I have ideas that have nothing to do with how I perceive the operation of a government.

 

[Bman]

Gary North was on his staff. And no one ever told Ron Paul to go off and change his philosophy anyway. We just wish he'd present it better to real voters.

Is he forgetting to wear his Cross pin? It's ridiculous.

 

[parocks]

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[YumYum]

Does anybody here read the Bible? God is going to destroy this government. Look what it says at Daniel 2:44:

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a government that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those governments and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

 

[Maestro232]

That was a great article and reminds me of some of the libertarian writings from back in the 19th century that I have read. It is absolutely correct and staunchly defends Paul's stance. The one thing he said against Paul was that he didn't base it in scripture enough. While this may or may not be true (I'm not really sure how Paul reads the Bible), he is not here to teach people about what the Bible says. He is here to, as the article says, leave the man alone. I think Paul's attitude toward government is biblically based, and that's all that I really need to know. On another note, I think the Christian vote is very promising, since most Christians take the Bible seriously, and will care to listen if you explain to them why it is not the government's role to regulate your life or your neighbor's life.

Finally, someone who understands what Wilson is arguing. Wilson will almost certainly vote for Paul, but he will do so DESPITE his concern about if Paul is libertarian in the secular sense or the Biblical sense. But Wilson is also level-headed and a deep thinker. I think much of the evangelical population has been unable to evaluate Paul comprehensively. Hence, my suggestion that he speak directly to that voting bloc and say, "come, let us reason together...here's why you should vote for me. Here's why such and such position is in line with yours and my faith that we both hold so dear. etc..."

 

[Maestro232]

I believe that Romans 13 may be an easy chapter to misinterpret but does not provide even a flimsy justification for tyrants or dictators.

Sure it does. The Apostle Paul was writing this in the time of the Roman empire.

There are many countries around the world where it is illegal to preach the Bible, and even to be found with a copy can mean a death sentence. Under your reading of Romans, these evangelists would be doing wrong by breaking the law to spread the good news. Clearly this cannot be, and thus the interpretation fails.

I'm not quite sure why I gave the impression that I'm reading Romans in such a way. I was simply saying that a greater authority has been instituted by God and it carries the sword. I don't think I said any more than that.

As elsewhere it is written, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, we are compelled only to turn over that which a ruler may rightfully request. When we are asked to sin, or to abandon God’s blessings and precious gifts, it is not moral or courageous to do so, but craven and evil.

Yes. This. I'm in full agreement. I believe this too, but I think this is also an acknowledgement that God intends Caesar to exist.

It is clear throughout the Bible that God establishes earthly authorities. What is also clear is that does not mean they have His approval, and this is one of God’s mysteries.

Yes again.

I have always felt vague discomfort over the description of Pharaoh, as it is so explicit that God himself intervened to harden his heart. I believe that God uses earthly rulers to teach a disobedient and fallen people that they may joyfully choose to follow and obey Him, or, without His protection, will suffer the dire consequences. When the people come to repent of their sins and walk again in a way pleasing to the Lord, they will rise up, become free, and overcome their oppressor, who at that time will be forced to pay for his injustices.

Yes again. But might I direct you to Romans 9:17-18 ...
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

In short, I believe that God occasionally allows or proscribes tyranny as a punishment and lesson to sinful man. It shows us what the world is like without His grace. It need not be stated, however, that we should be both wary and skeptical or anyone who dares to frame his desire to control and dominate others as acceptable Biblically or morally. Though God may permit such behaviors, He does not condone them.

Quite so and Amen. I don't think we are in disagreement. I'm not sure why my invoking of Romans 13 was disagreeable. But perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[Maestro232]

For crying out loud! This thread is ridiculous. It's a call by a group for someone to push their message that doesn't have a damn thing to do with Dr. Paul's ideas on how Government should be run. Talk about people needing to get a life.

Well, my purpose in starting this thread was simply to say, "Dr. Paul, I want you to win, so reaching out to folks who think like Wilson would be a good idea since they are on the edge of supporting you. If you think this is a waste of time then, with thoughtful choice of my words, you are a fool.