We shouldn't even know what Paul's religion is!

[EWM]

Considering that he went through 8+ years of scientific study, including medical school, he has to be a religious skeptic at best. If you dug down, I think that Ron Paul would consider himself agnostic, or not attributing himself to any denomination. I think he'd be a deist at most.

Agnostics are generally more open minded that both the heavily religious and atheists. It's a healthy middle.

 

[acptulsa]

Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He vaguely described god as "order", but without exact definition, and was not of any religious denomination.

Ron Paul also does not believe in a 'personal' God, and if he has a particular religious denomination he doesn't say much about it except that he's a Christian and believes wholeheartedly in Matthew Chapter Six. Now, care to try again as to how a person cannot be educated and believe this way?

But I should warn you--I can and will take a personal interest in whether you're insulting in the process...

 

[EWM]

Can you zealot atheists go take a hike and find another place to let off your anti-christian steam. Pretty please ?

You do nothing but harm RP's chances of winning.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Who in the thread said they were atheists or anti-Christian?

 

[EWM]

Ron Paul is a Christian.

The vast majority of voting Republicans are Christian.

Ron Paul is vying for the nomination of the Republican Party.

Esoteric, you are a smart dude. Put 2 and 2 together.

So he's using his Christianity as a marketing tool?

 

[Brandon2012]

Well, if Ron Paul, or any candidate for that matter kept their religious beliefs to themselves, how would that be harmful to the country?

The question assumes neutrality. That a man can be neutral on this subject. But a Chrstian's worldview isn't like yours. And practically neither are yours. You don't operate in neutrality based on your very own question. I don't know your beliefs. But let's say you're an athiest or whatever. Your worldview says to operate one way, that religion should be left at home. But that's not neutrality. That's your worldview. It's antithetical to the Christians.

How would it be harmful? I think we can point to some Marxist countries that have committed atrocious acts based on their worldviews. There was no neutrality there either. While I know some atrocious acts committed in the name of Christ, I'd argue that many of them may have been contrary to the doctrines of Christ. I won't say every act because Israel committed acts that were sanctioned by GOD that I'd argue were just and right to do.

But take Paul's stance against preemptive war. He declares that it's unChristian. And he's right to do so. So, it appears to me that one's religious understanding has much to to with how one governs. Let's say though that you were to run for president as an athiest (not saying you are one) and you came to the same conclusions. I'd argue that you were operating (without basis) on Christian principles.

 

[Deborah K]

So he's using his Christianity as a marketing tool?

Have you ever read or seen or heard him do that????? His faith is part of who he is. Don't expect him to box it up and put it in the closet. When someone approaches him about it, he responds accordingly. What the hell else do you expect him to do?

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

oh, here we go.. i have the right to post my beliefs, and my inferences. There are threads titled "would Jesus vote for Ron Paul", yet you think I should be banned for inferring that Ron Paul may be skeptical about organized religion?

You're damn right. Jesus is dead. Has been for a long time. I don't give a rats ass who speculates what about a dead guy. Ron Paul is alive and kicking. He can speak for himself. He doesn't need you to.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So he's using his Christianity as a marketing tool?

No.

I guess you failed basic Arithmetic.

 

[Brandon2012]

+1

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

I'm sorry. I don't know what +1 means. I'm new to the board.

And I don't know what it means to give out too much Reputation.

 

[Brandon2012]

You're damn right. Jesus is dead. Has been for a long time. I don't give a rats ass who speculates what about a dead guy. Ron Paul is alive and kicking. He can speak for himself. He doesn't need you to.

I think of the old Hymnal, "Jesus is Alive"!.

 

[EWM]

The question assumes neutrality. That a man can be neutral on this subject. But a Chrstian's worldview isn't like yours. And practically neither are yours. You don't operate in neutrality based on your very own question. I don't know your beliefs. But let's say you're an athiest or whatever. Your worldview says to operate one way, that religion should be left at home. But that's not neutrality. That's your worldview. It's antithetical to the Christians.

How would it be harmful? I think we can point to some Marxist countries that have committed atrocious acts based on their worldviews. There was no neutrality there either. While I know some atrocious acts committed in the name of Christ, I'd argue that many of them may have been contrary to the doctrines of Christ. I won't say every act because Israel committed acts that were sanctioned by GOD that I'd argue were just and right to do.

But take Paul's stance against preemptive war. He declares that it's unChristian. And he's right to do so. So, it appears to me that one's religious understanding has much to to with how one governs. Let's say though that you were to run for president as an athiest (not saying you are one) and you came to the same conclusions. I'd argue that you were operating (without basis) on Christian principles.

But someone can say it's wrong to steal without saying it's the Christian motto. If Ron Paul never uttered the word, "Christian," would he suddenly choose to govern differently? Would his foreign policy change or economic policy not be the same or as valid? I agree with a lot of the morality put into the Bible, but that's just because there is a basic level of behavior necessary for a society to function with civility. I feel I have morals that most people would consider to be quite high, but I don't need Christianity to be that way. I respect Paul's beliefs, but I would prefer he didn't make religion an issue.

 

[EWM]

Have you ever read or seen or heard him do that????? His faith is part of who he is. Don't expect him to box it up and put it in the closet. When someone approaches him about it, he responds accordingly. What the hell else do you expect him to do?

If someone asks him, then it's fine for him to open up about it. What I'm talking about is preaching Christianity in a political campaign.

 

[Deborah K]

But someone can say it's wrong to steal without saying it's the Christian motto. If Ron Paul never uttered the word, "Christian," would he suddenly choose to govern differently? Would his foreign policy change or economic policy not be the same or as valid? I agree with a lot of the morality put into the Bible, but that's just because there is a basic level of behavior necessary for a society to function with civility. I feel I have morals that most people would consider to be quite high, but I don't need Christianity to be that way. I respect Paul's beliefs, but I would prefer he didn't make religion an issue.

Why do inferences to Christianity bother you so much? Have you become so secularized that mentioning one's faith is now politically incorrect to you? You need a history lesson on the founding of this nation.

 

[EWM]

No.

I guess you failed basic Arithmetic.

Are you making this debate personal? Sounds like baiting to me.

 

[Deborah K]

If someone asks him, then it's fine for him to open up about it. What I'm talking about is preaching Christianity in a political campaign.

Again, cite sources where he has done that.

 

[Brandon2012]

But none of this requires it. And just because 8/10 may accept the current flavor doesn't make it right. But let's extrapolate this over the course of history and include all scientist from the beginning of time until now, what would those numbers look like then? It would probably be in the Christians favor. Now, I'm not an empiricist so that would prove nothing to me, but it would be quite damaging to yours.

If you accept evolution, as science knows it to have occured, you cannot simultaneously believe that human life was planned for, or COULD be planned for; never mind the biblical creation story. The percentage of biological scientists who do not accept evolution is lower than Jon Huntsman's vote total at the straw poll. 80% of medical doctors believe that evolution occurred, with no divine guidance. The numbers are on my side.

via Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

 

[EWM]

Why do inferences to Christianity bother you so much? Have you become so secularized that mentioning one's faith is now politically incorrect to you? You need a history lesson on the founding of this nation.

And you need to not get so defensive. I believe many politicians compete to prove who the biggest Christian is, and I don't want Ron Paul to get mixed up in that.

 

[EWM]

Again, cite sources where he has done that.

I'm not saying he's doing that. More than anything, voters and the media are pushing his religion.

 

[Brandon2012]

And you need to not get so defensive. I believe many politicians compete to prove who the biggest Christian is, and I don't want Ron Paul to get mixed up in that.

I agree with you! I'm not arguing that he do that. Nor do I think it's in his character.

 

[EWM]

I agree with you! I'm not arguing that he do that. Nor do I think it's in his character.

Well okay then.