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

[Brandon2012]

I think he has said before that he is a baptist. But, don't quote me on it. If it matters that much to you, Brandon, contact the campaign and ask them.

In case you haven't seen it, here is his Statement of Faith. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/

I already knew he was baptist.

 

[Brandon2012]

He doesn't have to hide his Christianity, but he doesn't have to promote it either. Religion should be purely personal. Besides, when anyone pushes elements of the Bible, they're basically pushing Judaism anyway cuz that's the foundation of Christianity.

But who says that Religion should be personal? But Christians don't believe that. That it should soley be personal. For us, there is no neutrality. At least there shouldn't be. Christianity's roots are indeed Hebraic, but as a nation they lived and operated by the letter of the law, we live and operate by the Spirit. And let's say we did operate by the letter, on what grounds should they continue to be "personal" only? Israel was the be a beacon of light to the nations. That's not just personal, that's public.

 

[Esoteric]

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.

 

[Deborah K]

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.

You need to believe this, because you're an atheist, and you're struggling with cognitive dissonance. There are plenty in the scientific community who believe in a Creator.

 

[Brandon2012]

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.

Based on what? Why does 8+ years require him to be a skeptic? Which it clearly didn't because he is a believer. What would he study to come to such a conclusion?

 

[Brandon2012]

One does not need religion to be of high morals. Not all Americans are Christians or religious. How would adding more Christianity to the dialogue attract people of other faiths or no faiths?

Well what are high morals? In fact what are morals? Are there levels to morals? If there is a high, is there a low or medium?
I know not all Americans are Christians, or "religious". But an overwhelming majority of people in this country claim to be of the Christian faith. And right now the Neo-cons have a monopoly on that. And those who have no clue assume that they must be right on all Christian ideals. That we need the state to intervene in the affairs of immorality. They don't believe one could speak about letting people do drugs and be a Christian at the same time. So they assume he's not Christian, because he doesn't push it as much as the other candidates. A dialogue needs to happen in my opinion on what it means to be free. Free to make good and bad decisions. That unless one is causing some harm to another, then it's really none of our business. This isn't antithetical to the Christian message. These issues as Dr. Paul has continuously stated are matters of the heart. You can't stop that with money and legislation. Only the gospel.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Well what are high morals? In fact what are morals? Are there levels to morals? If there is a high, is there a low or medium?
I know not all Americans are Christians, or "religious". But an overwhelming majority of people in this country claim to be of the Christian faith. And right now the Neo-cons have a monopoly on that. And those who have no clue assume that they must be right on all Christian ideals. That we need the state to intervene in the affairs of immorality. They don't believe one could speak about letting people do drugs and be a Christian at the same time. So they assume he's not Christian, because he doesn't push it as much as the other candidates. A dialogue needs to happen in my opinion on what it means to be free. Free to make good and bad decisions. That unless one is causing some harm to another, then it's really none of our business. This isn't antithetical to the Christian message. These issues as Dr. Paul has continuously stated are matters of the heart. You can't stop that with money and legislation. Only the gospel.

+1

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

 

[Echoes]

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.

 

[Esoteric]

Based on what? Why does 8+ years require him to be a skeptic? Which it clearly didn't because he is a believer. What would he study to come to such a conclusion?

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

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."

 

[speciallyblend]

Ron Paul gives me faith their is a God!

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

 

[Yieu]

If you accept evolution, you cannot simultaneously believe that human life was planned for, or COULD be planned for;

Actually, yes I can. Evolution and design are not mutually exclusive. But that's a bit off topic.

 

[Daniel 9 5]

Ron Paul seems to me to be a true Christian, not the phony-glitterbug type that are getting behind another candidate from Texas.

Does this matter? to me it does

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Does the world hate Ron Paul? Pretty much seems to be the case from where i'm sittin.

Does the world love the other other candidate from Texas? He was named frontrunner as soon as he announced...

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

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

I'm an atheist. Ron Paul has been a Christian his whole life. He has said he believes Jesus Christ is his personal savior. Now get the hell over it.

Stop breaking forum guidelines by speculating that Ron Paul is lying when he calls himself a Christian. That's ban worthy activity to me.

 

[acptulsa]

Considering that he went through 8+ years of scientific study, including medical school, he has to be a religious skeptic at best...

'...has to...'? Are you serious?

Tell it to Einstein, Einstein.

He says he's a devout Christian. And since I've never heard him lie about anything else, I'm going to assume you're talking out your ass. Especially when you say that an omnipotent Creator cannot give evolution direction.

Have a nice day.

 

[Esoteric]

I'm an atheist. Ron Paul has been a Christian his whole life. He has said he believes Jesus Christ is his personal savior. Now get the hell over it.

Stop breaking forum guidelines by speculating that Ron Paul is lying when he calls himself a Christian. That's ban worthy activity to me.

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?

'...has to...'? Are you serious?

Tell it to Einstein, Einstein.

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.

 

[acptulsa]

oh, here we go.. i have the right to post my beliefs, and my inferences.

But calling the most honest man in Washington a liar in front of a couple of thousand people who are committed to him because of his honesty is going to buy you a virtual lynching. And with good reason. So, as long as you've stuck your red neck out, we're going to stretch it. Enjoy.

 

[EWM]

Yep. You also have a right to vote for and support someone else. But as someone who's trying to help Ron Paul get elected you should (if that's your main goal) look at the facts. Most GOP voters disagree with you. Maybe you're the one that needs to evolve your thinking? You certainly should evolve your politics. If you want the politician who's the best at denegrating Christianity in the public discourse there's always Obama. "Evolved thinking" indeed.

So religion and politics go hand in hand?

 

[EWM]

Indeed, voters have every right to criticize what a candidate does. However, voters also have a right to choose their candidate(s) based on their religious beliefs, especially if that is what matters the most to them. Just as you would not look at a candidate's religion, others have chosen to consider it otherwise.

Why should they go by your standard and exclude the religious beliefs of the candidates, anyway? You have to realize that even the notion of excluding the religious belief of a candidate is itself based on a religious belief, highlighting a secular humanistic outlook on how to vote (the belief that religious beliefs aren't important to a candidate). Yet, you would enforce that religious criterion upon Christian voters, and that's just not right, if we go by your standard.

Obviously, people are allowed to vote for reason they have. But I think anyone who puts a candidate's religion over their political issues is just as dangerous as someone who votes for the candidate with the best type of underwear. It's all based on stupidity and selfishness.

 

[EWM]

But who says that Religion should be personal? But Christians don't believe that. That it should soley be personal. For us, there is no neutrality. At least there shouldn't be. Christianity's roots are indeed Hebraic, but as a nation they lived and operated by the letter of the law, we live and operate by the Spirit. And let's say we did operate by the letter, on what grounds should they continue to be "personal" only? Israel was the be a beacon of light to the nations. That's not just personal, that's public.

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