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

[Zachary]

His religion and religious is confusing. He was baptized a Lutheran. He planned to enter the Lutheran ministry as two of his brothers did. He married Carol in a Presbyterian church. All five children wer baptized in the Episcopal Church. He sent Rand to Baylor, the Harvard of the Southern Baptists. He and Carol currently attend a Southern Baptist Convention church, although neither has been baptized in that faith. Why would Southern Baptists hava five children baptized as infants in the Episcopal Church? Rand currently attends a Presbyterian church. Have they deliberately made this tangled and confusing?

 

[EWM]

Then, you probably shouldn't include it. Others may have a different opinion.

They sure do. And they're free to have those opinions, as I'm free to have mine.

 

[EWM]

That's nice. That's a moral position. It's fine for you to have your own moral position. It's hypocritical for you to force your morality on others in the name of secularism. You have not espoused a single reason why not to include religion in a political campaign. And the fact that you can't see a good reason to include it shows your being willfully blind. Winning is always a good reason. Someone could say "I think TV should be free of political ads". That's a nice moral position. It's not a reasonable one. To make a reasoned position you have to go beyond "I just don't like political ads on TV". Political ads on TV help candidates win whether you like them or not. Robocalls help candidates win whether you like them or not. Ron Paul being able to engage people he agrees with religiously in a way they feel comfortable helped him have a strong showing in Iowa whether you like that or not. And it's true that "winning isn't everything", but so far you haven't articulated any reason why what Ron is doing is bad except that you just don't like it. The reason you tried to give that "It doesn't help reach out to non Christians and atheists" is weaksauce. That type of thinking will not win the primary. If you were making an argument that "non Christians will find this deeply offensive", while that would still be a weak argument, it would at least make some sense.

I have made that point. Perhaps you simply haven't understood or accepted my points. Overall, I feel one-sided religious talk is off-putting to many people who don't follow that particular religion. I believe candidates should do the best to attract as many people to them without using personal issues as marketing strategies. But I'm not even accusing Ron Paul of anything. As I've stated many times, I hold individuals and the media responsible for pushing the issue.

 

[EWM]

Buddha was Hindu. That doesn't mean Buddha would now approve the caste system. Jesus made it clear in His talk with the woman of Samaria that He was moving passed Jewish tradition.

John 4:19-26
19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

In fact some would say that Christianity is merely the fulfillment of Judaism and opening it up to all people.

First off, Jews were referred to as Israelites in those times. Second, the Bible (in all its versions) is nothing more than a book, written by very creative men.

 

[jmdrake]

I have made that point. Perhaps you simply haven't understood or accepted my points. Overall, I feel one-sided religious talk is off-putting to many people who don't follow that particular religion.

And I explained numerically why that's a stupid argument. 75% of Americans are Christians. A much larger percentage of GOP voters are Christians. And the proof in Ames cannot be ignored. I have understood your point. IT'S JUST AN INCREDIBLY STUPID POINT LOOKING AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF AMERICA IN GENERAL AND THE GOP IN PARTICULAR! Maybe you're point would be relevant if Ron Paul was running for the socialist party nomination in France.

 

[EWM]

His religion and religious is confusing. He was baptized a Lutheran. He planned to enter the Lutheran ministry as two of his brothers did. He married Carol in a Presbyterian church. All five children wer baptized in the Episcopal Church. He sent Rand to Baylor, the Harvard of the Southern Baptists. He and Carol currently attend a Southern Baptist Convention church, although neither has been baptized in that faith. Why would Southern Baptists hava five children baptized as infants in the Episcopal Church? Rand currently attends a Presbyterian church. Have they deliberately made this tangled and confusing?

My point is that no one should care. It's a silly issue be consumed by.

 

[EWM]

And I explained numerically why that's a stupid argument. 75% of Americans are Christians. A much larger percentage of GOP voters are Christians. And the proof in Ames cannot be ignored. I have understood your point. IT'S JUST AN INCREDIBLY STUPID POINT LOOKING AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF AMERICA IN GENERAL AND THE GOP IN PARTICULAR! Maybe you're point would be relevant if Ron Paul was running for the socialist party nomination in France.

Then I guess he should just use it as a marketing strategy as you seem to be indicating.

 

[jmdrake]

First off, Jews were referred to as Israelites in those times. Second, the Bible (in all its versions) is nothing more than a book, written by very creative men.

The Jews were not referred to as "Israelites" during the time of Christ. Israel referred to 10 times that went with the northern kingdom. As in Ahab king of Israel teaming up with Jehosaphat king of Judah. The Jews were the ones that stuck with Judah and Levi. And its laughable that you want to claim what Jesus would have believed and then claim the book that talks about Him is just "made up". If that's the case then how can you make any argument about what Jesus would or would not have believed?

 

[jmdrake]

Then I guess he should just use it as a marketing strategy as you seem to be indicating.

Well you seem to be indicating that Ron Paul talking about Christianity hurts his marketing with non-Christians (and I've seen no empirical evidence of that. Gillette Penn supports Ron Paul for example). If you are concerned with losing non-Christian voters, then why are you not concerned with gaining more Christian voters? Either this is a numbers game or it isn't. If it is then the numbers clearly indicate Ron should stick to being open about his Christianity in his politics. If Ron started being a theocrat (saying we must bring this country's laws in line with the Bible) then I'd be concerned regardless of the numbers. But I've seen no evidence of that and you certainly have provided none.

 

[reillym]

I don't understand why people are so bothered by the idea of a loving God! Ron Paul is pretty humble in his beliefs, but when you ask him about liberty, abortion, taxation you are going to hear the moral argument. You might say, it's irrelevant to bring up Christianity though. Well, it really isn't. If you believe in the objectivity of morals like myself and many other Christians then you have to accept the notion of God. No one doubts that an Atheist can have moral values, but we tread very dangerous territory when we say things like rape and torture aren't objectively wrong in all cases or we believe that to be the case. I'm not so sure where Atheists get their moral values, it seems to me like they borrow what seems preferable or fair to them. If you want to say that our morals are shaped so that we can live and function well in society, then you have to ask yourself why is that important? Why should we value life on an Atheistic worldview? What is fairness? Indeed, with the majority of Americans being Christians it is definitely relevant that Paul talk somewhat about his religious affiliation. I do understand that people can make hasty decisions voting for someone like Perry because he "proclaims his faith" alot lol. Paul clearly doesn't use it for political gain, only when he deems it necessary.

Where do Christians get their morals from? God? What, does he sit next to you all day and tell you what to do? No, you read the bible (written by a bunch of random people, edited by even more, translated and retranslated over and over again), get info from preachers, and listen to your family. None of this is "from god". It is derived from humans who *attempt* to translate what they think god wants.

No Christian ever reads the bible and gleans from it something that they already don't do. Most Christians use their faith to provide support for things they already believe in from their family and friends. The Bible says rape and torture are ok for certain circumstances (Old Testament). If you disagree with that, you are using MORALITY from this world to justify said choice. Thus, your entire faith in the morality of the Bible/Jesus unwinds completely. It is all filtered through a modern mindset that warps and changes it so it is compatible with society. If you reject one part of the Christian "morality", then you really don't accept Christian morality at all. Morals isn't a buffet, you can't pick and choose.

Christians use their religion to justify everything, from slavery to war. There is no Christian morality whatsoever. There is, however, an arrogance that comes from it because they *think* god told them to do it. In many ways, this becomes more dangerous than non-theists, because we are humbled in the reality of our moral situation.

 

[EWM]

Does the word "probably" have no meaning to you?

Besides, there's almost no historical evidence to support any of the outlandish stories of the Bible. It's a great work of fiction, based on maybe a few pieces of real history.

 

[EWM]

Well you seem to be indicating that Ron Paul talking about Christianity hurts his marketing with non-Christians (and I've seen no empirical evidence of that. Gillette Penn supports Ron Paul for example). If you are concerned with losing non-Christian voters, then why are you not concerned with gaining more Christian voters? Either this is a numbers game or it isn't. If it is then the numbers clearly indicate Ron should stick to being open about his Christianity in his politics. If Ron started being a theocrat (saying we must bring this country's laws in line with the Bible) then I'd be concerned regardless of the numbers. But I've seen no evidence of that and you certainly have provided none.

Who's Gillette Penn?

 

[EWM]

Where do Christians get their morals from? God? What, does he sit next to you all day and tell you what to do? No, you read the bible (written by a bunch of random people, edited by even more, translated and retranslated over and over again), get info from preachers, and listen to your family. None of this is "from god". It is derived from humans who *attempt* to translate what they think god wants.

No Christian ever reads the bible and gleans from it something that they already don't do. Most Christians use their faith to provide support for things they already believe in from their family and friends. The Bible says rape and torture are ok for certain circumstances (Old Testament). If you disagree with that, you are using MORALITY from this world to justify said choice. Thus, your entire faith in the morality of the Bible/Jesus unwinds completely. It is all filtered through a modern mindset that warps and changes it so it is compatible with society. If you reject one part of the Christian "morality", then you really don't accept Christian morality at all. Morals isn't a buffet, you can't pick and choose.

Christians use their religion to justify everything, from slavery to war. There is no Christian morality whatsoever. There is, however, an arrogance that comes from it because they *think* god told them to do it. In many ways, this becomes more dangerous than non-theists, because we are humbled in the reality of our moral situation.

Great points. The religious like to cherry pick which lessons to live by based on what they find convenient. No one sticks to the book, and it would be foolish if they did. They should understand it as a matter of interpretation.

 

[jmdrake]

..

 

[jmdrake]

Does the word "probably" have no meaning to you?

Yes. As in "Based on the number of Christians in American and in the GOP, Ron Paul will probably win more Christians with his current strategy than the number of non Christians he might lose". Apparently probability has no meaning to you though.

Besides, there's almost no historical evidence to support any of the outlandish stories of the Bible. It's a great work of fiction, based on maybe a few pieces of real history.

Irrelevant. You were trying to make a point about what Jesus would believe. You can't do that outside the book that describes him. This shows the abject ridiculous logic of the average militant atheist. If I wanted to make some point about Hercules and then you refuted me based on the writings of Greek Mythology it would be stupid of me to say "Well that's just a myth".

 

[EWM]

Yes. As in "Based on the number of Christians in American and in the GOP, Ron Paul will probably win more Christians with his current strategy than the number of non Christians he might lose". Apparently probability has no meaning to you though.



Irrelevant. You were trying to make a point about what Jesus would believe. You can't do that outside the book that describes him. This shows the abject ridiculous logic of the average militant atheist. If I wanted to make some point about Hercules and then you refuted me based on the writings of Greek Mythology it would be stupid of me to say "Well that's just a myth".

Are you calling me a militant atheist?

 

[jmdrake]

Are you calling me a militant atheist?

You're using that "logic" whether you are one or not. The point is you can't honestly make a claim about what Jesus would do or believe and then when that claim is shot done from the Bible turn around and say "well the Bible is just a made up book". If I said "Peter Parker got his powers from a radioactive spider" and you said "No he didn't. He got it from the ancient Mayan spider spirit" and I said "Wrong. See here it is right in Spider-Man #1." and you said "That's just made up" that wouldn't make any sense either.

 

[EWM]

You're using that "logic" whether you are one or not. The point is you can't honestly make a claim about what Jesus would do or believe and then when that claim is shot done from the Bible turn around and say "well the Bible is just a made up book". If I said "Peter Parker got his powers from a radioactive spider" and you said "No he didn't. He got it from the ancient Mayan spider spirit" and I said "Wrong. See here it is right in Spider-Man #1." and you said "That's just made up" that wouldn't make any sense either.

The Bible, Spiderman.... all great works of fiction.

 

[jmdrake]

The Bible, Spiderman.... all great works of fiction.

Fine. Whatever. Believe what you want. But you are proving the fallacy of your earlier fake arguments of what Jesus would or would not believe.

 

[EWM]

Fine. Whatever. Believe what you want. But you are proving the fallacy of your earlier fake arguments of what Jesus would or would not believe.

Wow. You're still dwelling on that? Wouldn't you rather address the main point I've been trying to make in this thread?