Ron Paul's Anti-Fed Crusade is Rooted in a Theocratic Reading of the Bible

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

YouTube - True News 5: The Truth About Voting

 

[libertybrewcity]

Dear God!

This is utterly ridiculous. I don't know what Ron Paul is thinking, but I highly doubt he is supporting sound money and ending the fed because of the bible or religion.

 

[Kotin]

Dear God!

This is utterly ridiculous. I don't know what Ron Paul is thinking, but I highly doubt he is supporting sound money and ending the fed because of the bible or religion.

Maybe, maybe not.. But what's going on here is someone trying to attatch this to Ron Paul to legitimize their own beliefs.


9/11 truthers do it, so do christians..

 

[Yieu]

Why doesn't Christianity have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking???

What non-arbitrary standard from an atheistic worldview is going to tell us that debasement and theft is wrong?

Christianity does not have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking.

However, the options are not Christianity on one side, and Atheism on the other.

It is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism on one side.

It was stated that it is Biblical to be against central banking and for sound monetary policy. That would cover Judaism and Christianity. A recent thread pointed out that Sharia has sound monetary policy just the same. In Hinduism, under the system of karma which God has made implicit in nature as a system of rules and laws to govern our moral behavior, everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor. In order to have the fruits of your labor, you need to have a sound monetary policy of valued commodity-backed exchange and not have a central bank which debases the currency.

So in conclusion, it is not only a Christian moral value to have a sound monetary policy with no central bankers debasing the currency -- it is a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu moral value.

It is more easily summed up by saying that it is a religious moral value to have a sound monetary policy with no central bankers debasing the currency.

There is no need for artificial divisions of people of one religion claiming divisive superiority over their brothers who share the sacred value of worship towards God, when our goals and morals are largely the same. We are religious moral people and we all wish to please God, to the best of our understanding.

 

[fisharmor]

However others want to rationalize the immorality of the fed is up to them as far as i am concerned. I hate it too.

This has got to be the most respectful atheist response to a religious topic I have ever seen on the internet. I shall strive to reciprocate.

There is no need for artificial divisions of people of one religion claiming divisive superiority over their brothers who share the sacred value of worship towards God, when our goals and morals are largely the same. We are religious moral people and we all wish to please God, to the best of our understanding.

Well, I hope to be as respectful when responding to this.

Historical Christian thought doesn't have any room for these sentiments. This isn't meant to be divisive or superior or in your face. It simply is.

It's a gigantic machine with a thousand cogwheels that all work together. Part of Christian growth is recognizing the gears when you see them, and how they interlock.

Relativism is a gear that doesn't fit in the machine, no matter how much you try. Moreover, when you try to fit it into the machine, one of the first things that happens is the huge, obvious Christ cogwheel gets thrown out of the machine. And without that Christ gear, nothing turns right. The machine doesn't make any sense. It's just a pile of old, worn out junk.

When a non-Christian sees one of the gears and recognizes it as the same moral or goal as one of his, that's wonderful. We'd probably rejoice. But we wouldn't be drawing a lot of other ties. A lot of us would then quote some scripture, maybe getting into Romans 2, which states that God has written His law on the hearts of unbelievers, and that their consciences bear witness to it.

The point is, Christianity makes an exclusive truth claim. Without that exclusive truth claim, it falls apart. So it has to do it.

The reason why libertarian Christians react positively to this story is because it introduces the immorality of the Fed into that same exclusive truth claim. So here we have a bunch of people who have no problem telling other religions that they're wrong, and not just factually wrong, but going-to-hell wrong.
And the thing they're basing that apparently dickish attitude on is generally a single book, which contains the nuts-and-bolts of the exclusive truth claim.
And here we have an argument that that same book, that same truth claim, decries the Fed.
Forget Ron Paul for a second, and think about all those jerk Christians who might be persuaded to seek this and other liberty minded goals based only on this.

Christianity is what it is, and attempts to soften some of its harder elements only serve to destroy it, so it tends to defend itself against those attempts. But hopefully atheists can see also a friendly approach toward Christians which might have some effect - one that makes appeals from inside, and not just in opposition.

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

Ahh the Bible, the Socialist paradise... If Jesus existed today he would be called a Socialist and a communist that is a fact. Here are some quotes from the Bible...

I am going to start with Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

Acts 2:42-47
"They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved".

The Believers Share Their Possessions

Acts 4:32-35

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

James 1:27

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world".

Hebrews 13}5

"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you".

Matthew 23:25

""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence".

Luke 12:15

"Then he said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions' ".

I mean literally, all over the bible is straight up Socialism. Then my favorite, I cant find the quote, but it says something about planting crops for six years and keeping for yourself and then the seventh year give your food to the poor, or something like that...... Jesus was not a capitalist....

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Maybe, maybe not.. But what's going on here is someone trying to attatch this to Ron Paul to legitimize their own beliefs.


9/11 truthers do it, so do christians..

Paul got no where last time from disassociating himself from important issues or views widely held by the liberty movement. 9/11 truth and Christianity does not need Paul to be legitimized. It's the opposite---opponents of getting the truth out keep associating Paul with their demeaning approach to those issues, in order to legitimize their non-belief.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I mean literally, all over the bible is straight up Socialism. Then my favorite, I cant find the quote, but it says something about planting crops for six years and keeping for yourself and then the seventh year give your food to the poor, or something like that...... Jesus was not a capitalist....

Here is a more persuasive antidote, a case that Jesus was an anarchist:

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

Jesus Is an Anarchist
(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is--otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)

by James Redford
The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can't be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

But you read correctly, and I will demonstrate exactly that. At this point you may be incredulous, but I assure you that I am quite serious. If you are a Christian and find the above title at all hard to believe then you of all people owe it to yourself to find out what the basis of this charge is, for if the above comes as news to you then you still have much to learn about Jesus and about the most vitally important struggle which has plagued mankind since the dawn of history: mankind's continuing struggle between freedom and slavery, between value producers and the violent parasitical elite, between peace and war, between truth and deception. This is the central struggle which defines mankind's history and, sadly, continues to do so. As Christians and as people in general, what we choose to believe and accept as the truth is equally as vitally important, for ultimately it is people's beliefs about the world that will shape and determine what outcomes transpire in the world. If the mass of people believe in political falsehoods and deceptions then mankind will continue to repeat the same gruesome mistakes, as it does presently, and the aforementioned struggle will continue to be no closer to a desirable resolution. Genuine change must first come by changing one's mind, and if what one had believed before was in error then one cannot expect good results to proceed forth from it. And all change starts with the individual. You can help change the world by simply changing your mind. All I ask of you is to believe in the truth--know the truth and the truth will make you free (John 8:32).

It is the purpose of this document to demonstrate the above claim, and if you are a Christian then I submit that it should be your task to honestly consider what is presented here, for if the above claim comes as a surprise then I will show that what you thought you knew about Jesus was not the whole story: Jesus is far more radical than many would have you believe, and for good reason--it threatens the status quo. For the consequence of this truth becoming understood and accepted by even one-tenth of the population would be quite dramatic indeed: governments would topple like so many dominoes. For as the 16th century Frenchman Étienne de la Boétie observed in The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (http://www.blancmange.net/ tmh/articles/laboetie.html), all governments ultimately rest on the consent of the governed, even totalitarian dictatorships. Now this "consent" does not have to be in the form of active promotion and support of the State, it could simply be in the form of hopeless resignation, such as accepting the canard "nothing's as sure as death and taxes." All governments can only exist because the majority--in one form or another--accept them as at least being inevitable. They believe in the deception that even though government may be evil that it is nevertheless a necessary evil, and therefore cannot conceive of a better alternative. But if such were true then Jesus Christ's whole message is a fallacy. But such is not the truth, there is an alternative: liberty. And I will show that Jesus has called us to liberty, and that liberty and Christ's message are incompatible with government....

 

[Deborah K]

Ahh the Bible, the Socialist paradise... If Jesus existed today he would be called a Socialist and a communist that is a fact. Here are some quotes from the Bible...
I mean literally, all over the bible is straight up Socialism. Then my favorite, I cant find the quote, but it says something about planting crops for six years and keeping for yourself and then the seventh year give your food to the poor, or something like that...... Jesus was not a capitalist....

It's actually in the eyes of the beholder. For example your first quote. Christ was not of this earth. His message in this verse is in teaching those around him to detach themselves of earthly goods. He knew the man valued his possessions and wealth more than he did in serving God.

In the second verse, Christ is teaching about being charitable. Socialism is a state governed practice. Charity is done on an individual basis.

The third verse is something families do all the time. They pull their resources and share everything. Again, there's nothing that involves statism in anything Christ taught. He never advocated that the state should disperse everything equally. He was preaching to individuals.

 

[rich34]

Ahh the Bible, the Socialist paradise... If Jesus existed today he would be called a Socialist and a communist that is a fact. Here are some quotes from the Bible...









I mean literally, all over the bible is straight up Socialism. Then my favorite, I cant find the quote, but it says something about planting crops for six years and keeping for yourself and then the seventh year give your food to the poor, or something like that...... Jesus was not a capitalist....

socialism:
# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Christ didn't advocate for either of these. Christ advocated charity which is what he was teaching in those passages. I'd agree with the poster above, it could be argued that Christ was in fact a libertarian. Show me anywhere in the New Testament where Christ "forces" anyone to take from 1 and give to another. He teaches that spiritually, we ought to do good by doing good works such as giving to the poor etc..

By saying Christ is a socialist it gives those Christians on the left the impression that it is ok for the government to steal money from people and give to another group. That's stealing, something I believe Christ spoke against...

 

[jclay2]

Do we really need religion to tell us the Fed isn't serving us economically?

No, but it helps to convince Christians of the immorality of the institution and bring them into the movement.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Do people even know how Ron Paul came to his Anti-Fed stance? It wasn't because of the bible. In the 60s Ron read Murray, and other Austrian works (von Mises, et. al.) and was convinced of the merit of the position. He talks about this all the time on why he ran for office, and how he started on his ideological path. Why are the bible-thumpers trying to claim this? Ron keeps his religion private. Anyways, just clearing the air with the facts. (I think if the Bible does support Hayekian competing currencies, all the better, but don't try and put words where non-existed (E.g. Where Ron got his beliefs))

 

[fisharmor]

Ahh the Bible, the Socialist paradise... If Jesus existed today he would be called a Socialist and a communist that is a fact. Here are some quotes from the Bible...

Actually, if you look deeper into one of the named names in the OP, Gary North, you'd find that this man has written 10,000 pages of exposition of Scripture arguing quite the opposite.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

But I'll leave you with just my favorite rebuttal - the fact that having a state was, according to Scripture, originally against God's wishes.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations." But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them."

So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, "No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Obey their voice and make them a king."

If only we could reduce the size of our current government to this "Curse from God" level, we'd be far better off.

Notice, also, that God prior to this asked his people to give a tenth of their belongings as a tithe, some of it to be used for the aforementioned "socialist" ventures. Note that he didn't stop asking his people to give that tithe at this point. God assumed from the beginning that the welfare of His people was not the point of the state, but that the point of the state was only what the people originally asked for: to make them a great nation in the eyes of other nations.
Nothing more.

 

[LibertyMage]

I agree with that article. Many of the principles underlying the criticisms of the Federal Reserve come from Scripture, such as:

• "Thou shalt not steal... Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exodus 20:15, 17)
• "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt." (Leviticus 19:35, 36)
• "A false balance is abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight." (Proverbs 11:1)
• "And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live. Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards." (Nehemiah 5:1-5)

Religious texts are treatises on life in general. They will ultimately contain commentary on every aspect of life that was relevant at the time of the writing. With the amount of grief caused by inflation throughout the history of the planet, why should we not expect religious texts to speak about it?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Perhaps certain bible-phobic or secularist people here should be reminded that Ron Paul has made a public confession of his Christian faith, in which he does attribute several of his political views to biblical principles or theologians:

http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Perhaps certain bible-phobic or secularist people here should be reminded that Ron Paul has made a public confession of his Christian faith, in which he does attribute several of his political views to biblical principles or theologians:

http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

Nobody is arguing against that. You are creating a strawman, when the issue is this (quoted from Austrian Econ Disciple):

"Do people even know how Ron Paul came to his Anti-Fed stance? It wasn't because of the bible. In the 60s Ron read Murray, and other Austrian works (von Mises, et. al.) and was convinced of the merit of the position. He talks about this all the time on why he ran for office, and how he started on his ideological path. Why are the bible-thumpers trying to claim this? Ron keeps his religion private. Anyways, just clearing the air with the facts. (I think if the Bible does support Hayekian competing currencies, all the better, but don't try and put words where non-existed (E.g. Where Ron got his beliefs))"

This is irrefutable, and should not be tainted by claims that he gets his economic views from the Bible, rather than Austrian econ.

 

[zade]

RPFs: Making good arguments stupid since 2007

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Nobody is arguing against that. You are creating a strawman, when the issue is this (quoted from Austrian Econ Disciple):

"Do people even know how Ron Paul came to his Anti-Fed stance? It wasn't because of the bible. In the 60s Ron read Murray, and other Austrian works (von Mises, et. al.) and was convinced of the merit of the position. He talks about this all the time on why he ran for office, and how he started on his ideological path. Why are the bible-thumpers trying to claim this? Ron keeps his religion private. Anyways, just clearing the air with the facts. (I think if the Bible does support Hayekian competing currencies, all the better, but don't try and put words where non-existed (E.g. Where Ron got his beliefs))"

This is irrefutable, and should not be tainted by claims that he gets his economic views from the Bible, rather than Austrian econ.

"Should not be tainted" LOL, you are putting an exclamation on my point about biblephobia, and it's you who are using a strawman. It's one thing to point out the direct source of Paul's positions, it's another to take constant digs at theologic or biblically based thinking, and paint it always in opposition to Paul's thinking, as the secularists on this thread are doing.

If you are familiar with Rothbard's thought, you should know in his History of Economic Thought to Adam Smith he forcefully articulates that the major influence in developing capitalistic thinking came from the Dominican and other Christian philosophers and theologians from the Middle Ages and onward. That is, what we call the Austrian school is ultimately rooted in Christian theology, which basically is consistent with the main point of the thread. A Christian politician like Paul is obviously going to be attracted to ideas that have theological roots.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

"Should not be tainted" LOL, you are putting an exclamation on my point about biblephobia, and it's you who are using a strawman. It's one thing to point out the direct source of Paul's positions, it's another to take constant digs at theologic or biblically based thinking, and paint it always in opposition to Paul's thinking. which the secularists on this thread are doing.

If you are familiar with Rothbard's thought, you should know in his History of Economic Thought to Adam Smith he forcefully articulates that the major influence in developing capitalistic thinking came from the Dominican and other Christian philosophers and theologians from the Middle Ages and onward. That is, what we call the Austrian school is ultimately rooted in Christian theology, which basically is consistent with the main point of the thread. A Christian politician like Paul is obviously going to be attracted to ideas that have theological roots.

You could replace "Bible" with anything, and it would be tainting the source of Paul's economic views. In this instance, this particular group is trying to paint his views as coming from the Bible, when they are informed by a series of works by philosophers and authors. An incorrect attribution of lineage is the taint, not the Bible. You are overly defensive when it comes to your faith.

Additionally, you are conflating Biblical ideas for those of philosophers from the Middle Ages onward. You even said it yourself:

"If you are familiar with Rothbard's thought, you should know in his History of Economic Thought to Adam Smith he forcefully articulates that the major influence in developing capitalistic thinking came from the Dominican and other Christian philosophers and theologians from the Middle Ages and onward."

Nowhere in the Bible is there detailed thought on monetary policy. A few verses about usury or inflation is not the equivalent of volumes of books on economic theory.

 

[Theocrat]

By What Standard Should We End the Fed?

What an utter pile of horse shit. Absolutely outrageous.

Arguments for sound money have absolutely zero to do with god or religion. It is about the right to own private property without it being debased (stolen from). This is a legal contention. Plain and simple.

Even Huerta de Soto, pious as any modern Austrian economist, rarely if ever evokes religion in his treatise on sound money, "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles."

Seriously folks, I am warning you: if you give any credence to free market ideology being "faith based" rather than rooted in a careful scientific understanding of human action (which it is), you will destroy its legitimacy in the minds of millions of potential converts.

I am completely okay with sharing the movement toward individual liberty with those of faith. And I will always defend the rights of people to say and believe as they wish. But shall individual liberty become conflated with religion in a manner that is anything but secular, it will surely whither and die.

Invoking religion in place of Hayek's capital structure, or Mises' calculation argument completely de-emphasizes the latter, which undoes the work modern day Austrians have been doing to bring these ideas to the forefront of academia.

Can we please keep these ideas separate?

It is comments like the one above which show how little of history some people know. Some of you act like there would be no outcry against a system that devalues money if Hayek or Mises had never been born. I see that as intellectual idolatry. The Bible existed way before any Austrian economist, and there have always been people in history (mainly Christians) who spoke out against the manipulation and devaluation of money in a society. John Calvin was one such person, and his theology spawned a capitalist structure in economies all over Western Civilization. Even liberal sociologists like Max Weber wrote about that.

Foregoing the philosophical absurdities which come from a secular justification of ending the Fed, the true issue is by whose authority should a system that manipulates the value of money be measured as immoral. It is not Hayek nor Mises who holds that authority. It is God by the revelation He has given to mankind in relation to how real currency (gold and silver which He created) should be used in a moral society.

Otherwise, the whole issue of ending the Fed is arbitrary nonsense. If one refuses to use the Bible as the final standard for explaining the corrupt nature of what the Fed does, then whose authority should we heed? For instance, it's not like humanists have a consensus that the Fed should be abolished. There are some humanists who believe the Fed is good, and there are other humanists who believe the Fed is evil. So where do the humanists go as the final standard of truth about the "goodness" or "evilness" of the Fed?

The basis for sound money must originate from God because it is a moral issue, not a mathematical one. I suspect many of you disagree with the OP because you have a preconceived bias that any use of the Bible to justify an economic policy is bad, no matter if its principles are moral and sound. By doing so, I believe you are belittling Congressman Paul's faith by calling it evil of him to allow the Bible to be the basis of his economic philosophy.

I met him once in his office in D.C., and when he asked me who I was reading for my political/economic beliefs, I told him R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North (among other Christian philosophers), and he was excited about it. It was exciting just being in the same room with him talking about it. He knew where both of them were coming from in using the Bible to justify their economics, and he agreed with their approach. Many of you just need to check your own religious biases because Congressman Paul has no problem with his influencing his economic stances, including his call to end the Fed. After all, religion cannot be separated from one's political or economic beliefs. Neutrality is a myth.