Ron Paul is an interesting character to say the least. In one of his papers he describes how there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State as it is viewed today. This is a view that is held by the likes of historian David Barton and me as well. I have written on that a few times. What is odd though is that he does not really put that viewpoint into practice as our founders did. In this video he talks about how he has never attended a prayer breakfast in Washington because they are just publicity stunts. That is a nice excuse, but I do not buy it. Prayer breakfasts occur all over the country at all levels and I believe the intentions are honest.
The founders obviously had no problem with publically praying for God’s blessing and guidance. They did it often. This is a personal thing however so I will not dwell on it. What is more troubling is that some of the policies he promotes contradict God’s law. This is something specifically addressed by Paul in the Bible. It was the one exception allowing a Christian to disobey civil authorities. The main issue that usually comes up here is his position on homosexuality.
There are numerous ways Christians address political issues…one being keep your religious beliefs out of politics completely. It is not one that is Biblically supported, but some people cling to it nonetheless. Another position people take, which Ron Paul uses, is that that the decision should be left up to the states. But matters with such strong Biblical implications and implications on the welfare of the nation deserve federal attention, especially when you have groups trying to redefine the very definition of marriage. In my opionion this is just avoiding the issue. The importance of this issue led founders such as George Washington to Court Martial continental soldiers who were caught in homosexual acts. (Example being his General Orders on March 14, 1778). This explanation on this issue from Ron Paul has never really done it for me though. I felt like he was using this rationale as a guise so I decided to look around a bit to see what I could find. What I found was this video.
Now everything makes a little more sense to me. The interviewer’s questions were very direct. Ron Paul does not believe that Homosexuality is a sin. The immediate red flag that something is not Biblically correct is when the person uses something other than the Bible to justify their position. In this case, Ron Paul uses his medical experience as the reason he is not as judgmental on this issue. Of course, saying that something is sinful and wrong is not judgmental, it is just stating a Biblical truth. It does not mean you do not treat the sinful person with respect. As I thought about other issues I know he has also used his experience as a doctor to support his opposition to abortion at the federal level. Then I started thinking about the way he and his organization treats others. This leads to the bigger problem. As a Christian, if he is not using the Bible to guide his decisions on some very basic social issues, then he probably will not look to the Bible for guidance on other issues either. Biblically, civil government is instituted by God to promote good and punish evil. A Christian who is in government leadership should work towards these aims. In some very important areas I feel Ron Paul would not do so.
Of course, those who know me or have read my posts on him during the last primary know that this is not the only reason I do not support his campaign. But I have seen a renewed interest on my site in people searching for information and I thought this was a key piece for Christians to know about when deciding who they should support. Personally, as a Christian, I cannot.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 45 comments }
Jesus didn’t walk about talking like John Loften. Ron Paul does not believe he is GOD. He is not the Judge and Jury. The biggest reason why the church as a whole is failing is because they want to institute what they believe GOD is saying. NO MAN KNOWS THE MIND OF GOD.
The Religious know it all’s killed Christ. Paul lives a good christian life. God will be his judge and yours for your misleading the public. The church’s mission is to spread the Gospel. No hate and damnation. Take care of the widows and the orphans. No where does the bible say get in bed with the politicians. Paul is the most moral man running and that is undisputed by those who truly watch his walk. As a bible reading Christian this site should be offensive to Christ Church.
A true CHRISTIAN does not judge his fellow man. It says in the BIBLE to fist remove the plank from your own eye, before trying to remove a splinter from your neighbors. It also says if you judge someone, than you will be judged for their sin. So I SUPPORT RON PAUL!
Ron Paul is a Christian and I believe he personally follows God’s judgement, but as a US politician, he swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and he does just that. He is the best and most honest politician out there and I don’t see why everyone nitpicks on every little issue. This revolution is about freedom and liberty most of all, let us not forget that.
Sir. In I Corinthians 8, there is talk about eating meats sacrificed to idols For some they think it is sin, for others it is not. Does Paul go on to tell the people, THIS IS WHAT GOD SAYS… LIVE WITH IT??!! I don’t think he did, at least that is not how I read it.
Can we effectively legislate morality?
I personally do not think so. Look at our current laws.
Laws against stealing, speeding, murder, child abuse, drugs, etc….. yet people still commit those crimes, and many do so, going unpunished.
While at the same time, there are people who in their OWN HOME, will smoke a joint… and be arrested, and become a felon for LIFE.
While I am 100% opposed to homosexual behavior, and I believe you and many (but certainly not ALL) church goers are as well….. we have sat idly by on our couches, allowing homosexual characters into our homes on a regular basis. We find them funny, neat, friendly and sometimes we feel sorry for them. But we continue to allow them into our homes… via the TV.
We hear about these groups demanding special rights…. and many of us do NOTHING. FAR TOO MANY OF US…. and the enemy knows that we are weak, and unwilling… and continues to win the fight.
Will we return to the days where Abortion is 100% illegal in the USA? No.
Is it possible that by getting the federal government OUT of the equation, that we might find some states where it IS illegal, and others where it is not? YES!
The same WILL be true with homosexual marriage. It is already legal in many states. What Dr. Paul would do as president, is ensure that states that vote to have marriage defined as one man/one woman, WILL BE RECOGNIZED, and they will not be forced to accept homosexual marriages in other states. Again, the Federal government will be out of the equation. Marriage will be relegated to the CHURCH… where once again, we will have some that will perform them, and others that will not.
If you think any of the other candidates running for president will do ANYTHING to help protect the freedoms of Christians in this country, you are sadly mistaken.
A question for the author. Will GOD avenge the taking of innocent blood? How about in Iraq? How about Iran? Afghanistan? How about Libya? Syria? Why does the church insist on supporter bombers? Ron Paul 2012 because church’s in America need to freedom to preach Christ Love to the world without bombs. God chooses our leaders according to what we deserve. What is it exactly that we deserve? There was not one perfect ruler in the bible and God himself allowed them or directed them. I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012. The contract we have with our government has been broken. Paul wants the Federal Government to get their hands off the people, off the businesses and off the church. We have local government. The Federal Government should focus on securing our nations borders and safety. No making as many enemies as possible.
Too many so-called Christians today are more similar to the Sadducees and Pharisees, which were in constant conflict with Jesus, than any apostle of Christ. Using your religion to gain political favor is wrong. Using your religion as a forced code of morals for others is wrong. Jesus was able to bring people to God because he showed them God’s love… just how are you doing that by holding your finger out to others in condemnation? And to the writer of this article… I’d like to know who exactly in Washington D.C., or in the race for president, is eligible and passes your biblical test of moral character? You may need to thoroughly think this one over. Is there any chance that they are an idolater by buying and selling their soul for money or power? Do the have the blood of innocent children on their hands from supporting any unjust wars? Are they a wolf is sheep’s clothing, quoting biblical verses in front of the camera but having a mistress waiting for them in a hotel room? Are they liars, changing their convictions with the shifting of the ever changing political winds? Are they thieves, taking money from their constituents without their consent? (Like dipping into Social Security, voting themselves pay raises, and taking the very lucrative retirement pension from the government?) I can most assuredly tell you that Dr. Ron Paul can not be found guilty of any of these charges. He is an honest man and I trust him. I pray for him often and as long as he’s fighting the good fight for this country, HE WILL ALWAYS HAVE MY VOTE. God bless him!
What is the purpose of this article??!! Ron Paul is not judging Homosexuals by saying whether or not it is a sin. He know’s the Bible says its a sin but he just isn’t judging them. You (the author) must care what a politicians stance on homosexuality is because you are worried about them getting married. Ron Paul gets to the root of the issue by having a plan to make gay marriage a non-issue. He wants to get rid of income tax whereby there will be no tax incentives for gays to get married anyway.
Really bad article trying to make Dr. Paul look bad. You should really focus on issues such as Economics, War and Taxes. Social issues like Homosexuality and Abortion really won’t be changed by legislation. You can’t mandate Virtue.
It appears I have ruffled some feathers. I will try to address some of the things that a few of you brought up.
First Daniel. Your question is a legitimate one, and I wrote what I did for numerous reasons…some obvious and others not so obvious. I will try to explain both. I have been talking to some people on email about Ron Paul and how his organization operates. I grew up in his district so I have firsthand knowledge of the tactics they use. From what I have seen they do not act in a Christ like manner by any stretch of the imagination. Think Chicago. Think Saul Alinsky. I threw out this topic because I knew the kind of response I would get. The comments here are somewhat tame compared to other comments I have seen from those closer to the organization, but they are representative. I can now go back to these people on email and show them another example. It should be a point taken into consideration by all Conservatives. It matters how you discuss ideas, it matters how you treat people with a different point of view if you ever want to try to persuade them to change their perspective. Ron Paul’s ideas are not what have made him a loner with little influence in Congress. Many people share his positions on many issues, including me.
Another reason I brought up a more controversial topic was that I find it interesting to see what people ignore / twist when they get emotional instead of thinking logically of the issue being discussed. This happens a lot with Ron Paul followers in my experience because they are extremely attached to him and his movement and sometimes forget to actually look at the issue at hand. For instance you said I should write on more important issues such as economics, taxes, and war. But if you notice towards the end of my post I mentioned that I this is not the sole reason I do not support him and have written many articles on these other issues. But you ignored that and obviously did not read any of them. You said it was a poor attempt to make him look bad, but that was not my purpose. I stated what Ron Paul said with his own words and said this is something Christians need to take into consideration when deciding who to support. You also did not listen to the clip because in it Ron Paul gives his position that he does not consider homosexuality a sin, nor does he believe the Bible does so. I believe if someone is running for President, we should know as much about him or her as possible because the more you know the more you will understand what decisions they will make. For Christians it is important to know how they stand on the social issues because they should be important to us and everyone really. The founders certainly thought so. The following from George Washington’s farewell address (which John Jay and Alexander Hamilton helped write)
“Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?” And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ‘Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
This of course leads to another thing ignored in the article which was the historical reference. Ron Paul and his followers take pride in having positions rooted in the founding until they contradict what the founders believed. People forget that homosexuals were banned from the military for 200 years based upon the founders’ positions. Not until 1993 when the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was pushed through by Clinton were they allowed at all. Now policy is shifting further to the left on this issue as this policy was voted out. This is the same slow manner that other progressive policies have made it into the mainstream. One day people will look back and say what happened just as they are now. The founders understood that moral character was key to maintaining the republic and that is why it is still important today.
The same goes for Ron Paul’s non-interventionist policy. He says it is in line with the founders and their beliefs. Have you ever questioned this? I say this because that is not a historically accurate statement. It is also a position not supported by the Bible.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/americas-founders-and-the-principles-of-foreign-policy-sovereign-independence
It was not a total non-interventionist policy nor was it a police the world policy. He is misleading people by saying otherwise. He also makes untruthful statements about the views of others and gives them extremist labels just because they believe in the actions taken in Iraq. Just because someone supports the war in Iraq does not mean they “demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it”. His words. I am a two tour Iraq War veteran who supports the actions taken in Iraq. Do you really think I wanted to go to war? Do you think I want continual war?
Of course war was not even the issue of the post. Another thing I find interesting is how people will bring up completely unrelated topics to draw attention away from the issue at hand. Often this is because they do not want people to concentrate on the truth that was revealed. As I am sure all of you know, this is a favorite tactic of our current President. And I guess politicians in general. I have heard all of the Ron Paul arguments on unconstitutional war and his argument that the Iraq war was an unjust war. I have rebutted these arguments in another post (which I alluded to in this one). There is significant evidence that supports the Christian based Just War Theory in Iraq. I would encourage any of you to check out that quite lengthy post that I wrote and send me an email if you wish to discuss it further. Almost every Ron Paul supporter that I have debated the war with has never done their own research on the issue and simply taken his word for it. Even if they do not change their mind, which is fine, they have told me that they were really unaware of the issues I brought up. So I would be interested in yall’s thoughts.
To Jaye. I am glad you pray for Ron Paul as we should all pray for all of our leaders. You too have not read my other articles on why I do not support Ron Paul though. There are indeed no perfect people and I do not choose who I support solely on some Biblical test of moral code. But character is very important to me and as I stated before, what I have seen in his actions, and those of the organization that he runs are bad enough that it has impacted my decision. I would also like to point a few verses out based upon your comments on judging as well as a few other commenters.
“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:1-4)
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)
It is the duty of a Christian and of the church to stand up for Biblical truths and correct other Christians when we see something wrong. This is not judging. We are told to do this in the Bible out of love for others because we wish to follow Christ and for others to do the same. I in no way said that Ron Paul is not a Christian, nor did I even really address the issue personally to him, but rather I pointed out that this position is not Biblically correct and others should take that into consideration when voting. Specifically to Flo I mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16 because we do know what God says. He gave us the Bible for this very purpose. Your analogy is a little misplaced because the Jews of that period did not have the New Testament. While their religion was fake and used for their own purposes and not God’s, we have the benefit of knowing the end of the story. With regards to Jesus…he was loving and caring, but he was also very direct about the consequences of sin. He had toleration for sinners but not sin. If you listen to the audio clip I linked to a passage is actually mentioned by the interviewer, but there are many examples.
On to the legislation of morality. Here is a great quote from one of our founding fathers.
“Consider all morality in general as conformity to a law”- John Witherspoon
All laws are legislating morality. The only difference is what these laws are based upon. Are they based upon a Christian worldview or are they based upon a secular worldview. The ‘don’t legislate morality argument’ is actually a common atheist argument. Now laws will not stop everyone from committing crime…people will still murder, steal and sometimes they will not get caught, but does that mean we should just make all of these things legal. Of course not. Most rational people would consider that ridiculous. The fact is that people need rules, they need religion to maintain virtue just as Benjamin Franklin described in a letter to Thomas Paine.
“But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.”
A large part of that responsibility falls on the individual and parents but that does not relieve the government of all responsibility. The purpose of civil government according to the Bible is to promote good and punish evil (Romans and 1 Peter). I have written a post specifically on homosexuality, the Bible and our policy. You can search for it or I can send the link if you wish to read it. The essential point is that by a government putting homosexual marriage on the same level as God’s definition of marriage, the state is placing itself in the position of God and therefore violating one of the most elemental founding principles…that our government is beholden to a higher authority.
In a shameful plug you can check out some of my recommended books on the Christian heritage of our country that also support this notion.
One final thing…because I do have to sleep…is directed to radelster and I Corinthians 8. I read it similarly. Paul is addressing the issue of eating meats sacrificed to idols, but there is a little more to it than that. He directs them not to eat the meat in the pagan temples because doing so was idolatry but says that it is not necessarily sinful to eat it from the market but if doing so might lead to the destruction of a weaker brother or sister in Christ then you should abstain. It is a similar circumstance when certain denominations say we should not eat certain foods based upon the ritual laws in the Mosaic law. There is nothing wrong with eating it or not eating it as long as you are doing it to honor God. It is not really applicable for this issue since the Bible is very clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testament.
Well, I probably will be missing in action from the blog this weekend, but please feel free to read the posts I mentioned or drop me a line.
Many say that we live in a Christian nation. Yes, our founders (as far as I know… Product of public schools) were Christian. But take a step further back in time to when the original settlers came here. They came here for religious freedom, did they not?
The BASIS of our country is the right to worship whoever, however you wish. I am a Christian, but I worship in my own way. What I do in my bedroom is between me and God. I don’t expect everyone to like it or want it shoved down their throat the same way I don’t like having people of different faiths try to shove their beliefs down MY throat. I am me for a reason, and you are you for a reason. When everyone believes and does the same thing, we lose our individuality, which is something I personally believe God never intended.
So yes, I support Ron Paul full-heartedly. At least he has the guts to admit that he might not personally agree with your religious beliefs or your sexuality, but respects it, as that is YOUR decision and understands that we are all different. One size does not fit all.
Scott,
Thanks for stopping by. Yes, our founders were Christian and more importantly the nation they created was founded upon Biblical principles. The original settlers did come here for religious freedom (they were a part of the Christian reformation movement and were escaping persecution). But there is a big difference between religious freedom (good) and keeping religion out of government (bad). If this is the case then Christians have no right to influence government and its laws because all of our beliefs are based in a religion. Of course that is absurd…we do have that right. Your argument is a great example of the irony of Ron Paul’s (and your) position as I have mentioned before. Your position is one that was created by progressive courts, not the Constitution or the founders. It is a mis-interpretation of the 1st amendment.
All of our laws, even the principle of the rule of law, have their origins in the Bible. The same is the case here, except it is a very important one because the topic of discussion is about the foundation of society itself. The Bible is very clear on this topic and the consequences of using our free will in defiance of it. As Christians we have the Bible so we really should believe the same thing a lot of the time. Considering this you would have to agree that the Bible shows there are consequences for defying God’s laws, not only for individuals but for nations as well. Do you really think God will continue to bless a nation that openly acts in rebellion? Just the obvious question that is often overlooked.
Along these same lines…I mentioned before that (as a blogger) I hear the type of argument you gave mostly from atheists. We should all try to use the Bible as a guide for our lives and our decisions. I am curious about what you feel the Biblical justification is for your position based upon what the Bible says about this topic and the role of civil government.
Also interested in the other issues I have brought up about Ron Paul in my other posts and if you support the actions of his organization.
Many of our Founders were FREEMASONS, not Christian’s, although some pretended. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the bible taking away the diety of Jesus Christ, dd you know that?
That was one heck of a judgmental slander on Dr. Paul and quite the twisting of his words. On of the very things that I admire about him is that he doesn’t judge others and never attacks them personally, but will go after them on policies. Shame on you!
Very interesting remarks coming from a group of folks in a cult that demands the bloodthirsty ritual butchery of its God (oh yes, He resurrected, but an eternal God should never die at all), in return for forgiveness of their sins. And to celebrate this event – the cannabalistic ritual eucharist eating the body and drinking the blood. Lovely. I’ll stop short of going into detail on the miscellaneous horrors of the Holy Bible (no quotes here!). Yes, I would agree that this Christian nation of ours is getting what it deserves. We would do a lot better to remove that ancient book filled with its dreadful superstitions and flawed, harmful claptrap from the table during any reasonable discussion.
Lynette,
How exactly did I twist the words of Ron Paul? He was asked if he believed that homosexuality was a sin. He was then asked if he believed that the Bible said it was a sin. He answered negative to both. I have already addressed the judgmental argument both in the post (because that is the first argument I always see when I point out a Biblical truth) and in my previous comments. The verses I quoted again are the following.
“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:1-4)
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Do you believe these are not valid scripture? Do you believe that Biblical truths should be ignored in government? If you do, what is your rationale for such a position using the Bible and the Founders positions on that issue?
The first part of your comment is revisionist history. First, I should comment on the obvious fact that just because someone was a Freemason does not mean they were not a Christian. Freemasonary is not a religion. Secondly, I am aware that Thomas Jefferson wrote a book named “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”. What you left out was who he wrote the book for and why. Jefferson stated that his intent was not to re-write the Bible nor take away the diety of Jesus Christ as you said, but he wrote it as a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ. All Jefferson did was take the “red letter” portions (which we know are the words of Jesus) and printed those. He was attempting to introduce Christianity to the Indians. Jefferson himself said the following, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” For me to say otherwise would be judgmental according to the Bible. That is why you will notice that I did not question Ron Paul’s Christianity, but simply pointed out that his position was not Biblical. In addition to Jefferson’s statement, his actions indicated him being a Christian. As President Jefferson provided money to help the Kaskaskia tribe build a church and paid annually for a Catholic Priest (1803 treaty with the tribe). He attended Church in the Capital building and authorized the Treasury building and the War Office to be used for Christian services. He founded a Christian multi-denominational college (University of Virginia). He signed 3 acts setting aside government lands for the use of religious groups including land to assist Moravian missionaries.
As for some of the other founders. Here are some of their statements on Jesus Christ.
“I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.” – Samuel Adams
“On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.” – Charles Carroll
“Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.” – John Dickinson
“This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.” – Patrick Henry
“In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life . . .” – John Langdon
“When I consider that this instrument contemplates my departure from this life and all earthly enjoyments and my entrance on another state of existence, I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of his providential goodness and his forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state, acknowledging with grateful remembrance the happiness I have enjoyed in my passage through a long life. . . ” – Robert Treat Paine
“My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!” – Benjamin Rush
“I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.” – John Witherspoon
Of course this is just a very small sampling. To say they were pretending (which I do not believe) is in fact judgmental because you are casting judgment on their faith, not pointing out sin or Biblical truth for correction. As the others I would encourage you to read my other posts on Ron Paul. Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for calling sin sin. I enjoyed the article.
I’m always amazed at the people saying “don’t judge, don’t judge”.
The Bible is very clear on confronting sin.
A few words on homosexuality. If God created these people, and God doesn’t make mistakes, why are there so many born homosexual? There are many instances stated in the bible that we all know not to take literally….such as “an eye for an eye”. Having watched friends and family members struggle with their sexual preference, trying to hide or deny for most of their lives, I can not and will not criticize or crucify them. I don’t think it can be prayed away, just as certain birth defects and other abnormalities cannot be prayed away. I am a conservative Christian, but I just don’t see it as this horror that should be extinguished from the earth. I’ve seen people marry and try to live a “normal” life to deny to themselves and the world their genetic inclinations. They have my sympathy, not my scorn.
A few words on Ron Paul. I have know this man for MANY years. In fact, he was my doctor during my first, very short pregnancy. His treatment of me, my husband and the loss of our unborn child was so unprofessional, and quite literally blase’ that it has scarred me for life. You don’t leave the hospital when you know your scared, traumatized patient is 10 minutes away and losing her first child. You don’t show up the next day, after all the immediate trauma, pain and miscarriage have passed, and just say, “It’s no big deal; it happens all the time.” Someone who really values life and cares about their patient would wait that measly 10 minutes (and yes he KNEW I was almost to the hospital) just to reassure and comfort that patient. The inevitable was going to happen, but it would have been a few minutes that may have not left such a scar for 36 years. I have no use for this man, for I know his true character.
This blog is sick. Why do you make yourself God? You think you know this man, because he doesn’t believe that being gay is a sin. People who treat Christianity the way you do are the reason I was pushed away from Christianity. You should not call yourself a Christian. You are much too self righteous. A real Christian lets others have their own belief system, whatever it is. Real Christians do not point fingers, saying how sinful someone is. All you are supposed to do is praise God and spead the word, if people will listen. That does not mean shove information down others throats, saying that you are the only one with the right opinion. I’ve seen that too many times. Learn to be a better Christian or get out.
One more thing, America is not a church like youre making it out to be. And not all Americans are Christian. Let him feel how ever he wants to about his religion. Everyone has their own perspective. Hes running for president, hes not the pope.
And if Scott or the other kid are here. Not all of our founding fathers were Christian. Read a book, thanks.
Lori,
First, I am certainly sorry about the personal situation you described. I cannot even imagine what that would be like or how I would personally handle that.
For your comments on homosexuality. As a Christian I would simply ask if you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I imagine you would say yes as this is one of the key Christian beliefs. I alluded to it in an earlier comment with reference to 2 Timothy 3:16. If you believe this then you will have to agree that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible clearly calls it a sin. To say otherwise would be to disbelieve God’s own words. If I may I would like to point out a piece of scripture that has been helpful for me when looking at this issue.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-12)
These are good verses because it clearly identifies homosexuality (and other actions) as sin. Homosexuality is not something you are born with as compared to something like physical abnormalities. It is a sinful action. Just like we natuarally have inclinations for all other types of sins. It is the battle of the flesh against the Spirit described in Galations 5:13-15. It is one of the many results of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden (as an explanation of why it exists). Paul explains the reasoning in Romans 1 as “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”. It is also good because it answers your other comment that it cannt be prayed away. It can in fact. Just like any other sin you can ask God through prayer to forgive you and help you turn away from it. That does not mean it will be easy. Clearly the members of the Church in Corinth included people who were guilty of these sins, but were no longer walking in that sin. That does not mean you treat the person with scorn, but it also does not mean that we should trivialize or rationalize the sin. As a side note most of the confusion with the literally folllowing laws comes from either with the ritual/ceremonial law in the Mosaic Law or misinterpretation of the scripture. This particular item is part of the moral law of God so it should be taken literaly when God calls it a sin. Hope you find that helpful.
Molly-
Clearly you did not read the post carefully nor any of my subsequent comments. If you re-read them I will think you will see the fallacy of your comments. I simply called a sin what God already calls a sin. Where in scripture does it say that is inappropriate? If that upsets you then I think the issue is not me, but with the confronting of sin itself as the Bible tells us we should. Calling a sin a sin is in no way calling myself more righteous than another, judging anyone else, or shoving information down anyone’s throat. At least no more than you shoving your ideas down my throat by commenting here. Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy in that statement you made. I do not consider you shoving information down my throat by simply commenting and neither should you. It just happens that you disagree with me so suddenly I am doing that?? I think I have thoroughly driven that point into the ground.
As for your comments on the founders. You might find it surprising that I am a somewhat of an avid reader when I can. I am currently reading a collection of letters from John Quincy Adams to his son called “The Bible Lessons of John Quincy Adams for His Son”. I am interested what book(s) you have read that have led you to make the comments you did. There were a few founders that you could consider agnostic/atheist but they were in the extreme minority and their views certainly did not dominate the principles the country was founded upon. We are talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 men when we casually say founding fathers. Perhaps a better question would be who were these few founders out of these 250 that would fall into this category? Interested in your response. I might list a few of them later if you do not.
Henry Dearborne…Charles Lee…Ethan Allen
Ron Paul is a true conservative. Here again you contiue to demonize the most conservative candidate. His positions should make any self described conservstive energized. Do you even know what a conservative is? I really dont think you do.
Nicholas-
Actually, Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a right leaning Libertarian running as a Republican. Because he is right leaning he does share many conservative views, but he strays from conservative stances on some major issues as well. One of them being this issue.
I simply stated his stance on this issue and expressed that it is something Christians should consider when voting because his position is not Biblical. I believe I have made that point clear with some of my other comments, but if you have any further questions please send them my way.
See my comment here–
http://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2011/08/24/are-you-a-victim-of-the-propaganda/comment-page-1/#comment-10863
It applies to this article even more so than that….
Mystylplx,
My response on the same post.
Most likely Ron Paul wont attend those pray breakfasts because they are filled with pro Israel Christians ..whom I believe are in apostacy..
God never gave any land to a disobedient people..I dont see the Israeli gov doing much that is Godly…
I dont go to alot of churches either that preach Jew Worship…It makes my skin crawl..Its as if they replaced God and Christ with Jews and Judaism…They are spoken of more that Christ..
This is the Judaization of the Christian religion..just as happened in the days of Jesus with the Judaization of the MOsaic Hebrew religion.
The Jews asked Jesus why he transgresses the TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS…
Why did Jesus say to the Jews “Why do ye transgress the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD by YOUR TRADITIONS? ((The traditions of the Elders aka Babylon Talmud))
Showing us that the Jews replaced the Teachings of Moses with their own Traditions..thus…they are a cult.
Just read the scriptures..both old and new….and you can see that were being deluded today in our churches…politics…media…all over ..
Read Jeremiah 24 about the bad figs..
and Read about King of Judah John Hyrcanus and how he allowed the circumcision of the Edomites into the tribe of Judah..
THen the world will make much more sense…in regards to the wars..and much of history..
I first want to commend you for your Biblical-based arguments that you have shared as well as your kindness and care with which you have shared them. Thank You! Some people don’t seem to realize that one can stand for the right thing the wrong way! May God help us all not to do that!!!
I have tried to wrestle with these things quite a bit in the last few months and here are just a couple of thoughts. 1) It is true that Biblicaly, the government’s role is clearly to punish the “evildoer” and “praise them that do well”. The question I have had is how far the government should go. Maybe you can give me some light on this subject from scripture. My present position is this. “Evildoer” cannot simply mean a “sinner” because, “all have sinned”. It doesn’t seem logical or Biblical that God would want all people to go to jail or be punished by the government. Second, I do believe one can stop rebelling against the known law of God (a Wesleyan-Armenian Theological definition of “sin”) but I find no place in the Bible that it seems to indicate the government ought to be trying to determine what is sin and set up some sort of theocracy! This has happened in history especially in some portions of Catholic history and sadly with even protestants like John Calvin. They tried to fuse government and the church into one and they killed and imprisoned the “heretics”. Many atrocities took place that were clearly unBiblical simply because they must not have realized or weren’t willing to admit that humans don’t have a perfect understanding of all parts of the Bible. I do see clearly that the Bible teaches that some things are clearly sin but there are other things are not so clear. So who is an “evildoer”? At this point I see the liberterian position make a lot of sense which states that an evildoer would be one who hurts someone else. There is a balance here I believe. If you go too far to say an evildoer is a sinner you end up with trying to be God and jailing people of other theological positions. If you go too far the other way to say an evildoer is one who just does what you personally think is wrong you can end up with anarchy and chaos (everyone doing what is right in his own eyes)!!! It seems that the church is to pick up where the government stops! Christians ought to be the vehicle through which morality is promoted and produced. The great spiritual revivals of the 1700′s and 1800′s in America are a good example. The point at which the government stops and the church starts is hard to find though. Though this is where I’ve come to doesn’t mean I won’t modify my position if I see sufficient evidence! Once again, if you can shed some light here I would appreciate it!!!
As far as what Dr. Paul said about homosexuality I would say this. I do believe that the practice of homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible (Romans 1) but, we cannot forget as Christians that it is NOT sinful to be tempted. Ravi Zacharius gave an illustration once about a prominent Christian leader who struggled deeply with the disposition of homosexuality. He had a tendency that way but never fulfilled the desires of that disposition for the sake of Christ. He could not change the fact that something went wrong in his physical body and/or mind but he could choose whether or not to obey the command of Christ. I’m trying to be very understanding to homosexuals here because first I have not had to struggle deeply with that temptation but to some I’m sure it does feel they were born that way. I want to be gracious enough to understand that since sin came into the world the whole creation has suffered and that our bodies are not like God originally intended. I don’t believe God made homosexuals but I do believe that because of the fall there is sickness and diseases and not everything in the body is perfect. This could lead to someone having some strange feelings or tendencies at an early age and becoming confused. Therefore, I would like to ask Dr. Paul if he was referring to whether it was a sin to experience those temptations or that disposition or whether it was a sin to fulfill those tendencies or that disposition. I know this may sound like I’m trying to cover for him but I’m not. I will always stand by the Bible no matter how much I like a politician!!! I’ve watched Ron Paul in videos speak in many different settings to many different types of people and one thing I have noticed is that he doesn’t like to be put into a corner and forced to say what he doesn’t believe (and I don’t think anyone would like that either). Also, I believe he sincerely does not like to hurt or injure people. So in answering a question he can sometimes seem like he’s not strong on something when in reality he has an argument that he would prefer to give in his own words. I would need to talk to him in person to really understand what he thinks on this issue because this interview isn’t quite conclusive enough for me. Maybe it should be, but I’m hesitant to simply make a judgement on such an important issue to me as a Christian before I can get all the facts. I do know that even if he was wrong on this issue, in regards to the issue of gay marriage, his idea of removing the sacred marriage vow from government and giving it back to the church I don’t believe would be a threatening or damaging policy to Christians. I’m not sure what to completely think yet of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I need to study it more of how one would go about dealing that issue Biblicaly.
In conclusion, I know this has been a long post for which I apologize but I hope I can start a dialogue that will help me come closer to the truth. Thanks for your time. Tear it apart. I want to know if I’m wrong. If my positions are right they must stand up to close, Biblical, scrutiny, which I believe you will do your best to give me. Thanks!!!
Pastor Ken, those are nearly my thoughts exactly. Thanks for voicing this perspective.
Pastor Ken
First, thanks for the kind words. I always try to present things the right way, but I am not always perfect in that…but I try. Onto my position on government and marriage.
One thing that caught my attention right way was when you said “but I find no place in the Bible that it seems to indicate the government ought to be trying to determine what is sin and set up some sort of theocracy!” First, I would argue (and I am sure you would agree) that no government determines what is a sin and what is not sin. God determines what is sin is and that of course is revealed to us in the Bible. Using this moral law to guide our civic laws is certainly not determining what is sin and what is not sin, nor is it creating a theocracy. There is a great quote from John Witherspoon, “Consider all morality in general as conformity to a law”. The question is are we going to use a Christian worldview or a secular worldview to guide our laws? Given the freedom of religion that we enjoy in this country, we can use Christians principles to guide our laws and policies while still allowing people to practice whatever religion they wish. This is something the founders practiced and is based in the underlying principle voiced in the declaration of independence that we are all subject to the Laws of Nature…a phrase the founders often used to describe God’s laws.
I saw you commented on the following post
http://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2011/10/27/a-scary-line/
My comments on that post gave a few Biblical reasons behind supporting traditional marriage. Those include Biblical responsibility of civic government for the general welfare of the people. I listed some of those verses. I also gave the Biblical argument that God’s design for marriage is the very basis for society which once again ties into the general welfare of a society. Studies have shown that traditional marriage is crucial for a society’s survival, which should come as no surprise to Christians because God puts these things into place for a reason. I also covered in previous comments and posts how the government is actually doing what you argued they should not do…defining what is sin and what is not sin. Politicians are trying to elevate homosexual marriage to the same status as traditional marriage. This leads to the Bible’s direct teaching on government. In Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 it gives the purpose to promote good and punish evil. In this case there is certainly nothing wrong with policies that promote God’s design for marriage. Romans 13:1 tells us that we should follow the laws of our governing bodies as well, which adds to the Biblical principle of the rule of law (You can check out my Bible in real life page for other verse references to rule of law), but we cannot forget the example given in Acts 4:19-20 as well. Those verses tell us that we should follow the laws of the authorities except when they are in conflict with God’s laws. Implementing policies that would promote gay marriage violates the principle of promoting good and punishing evil and it also directly contradicts God’s moral law. As a Christian I cannot support the efforts of those to do so or attempt to do so. There is probably more that I can write but I do have to sleep sometime.
But before I go I make a few comments on Ron Paul and his organization. First, the questions in the interview were very direct. Does he believe homosexuality is a sin? Does he believe the Bible says it is a sin? The discussion was not on the temptation of the sin so I don’t know his opinion on that. But even if I believe he has wrongly applied Biblical principles to his role as a representative in government, he should be able to give a personal opinion that is Biblically correct as a Christian. I believe this is a very important issue for America, but that is not the only reason I do not support him. You can do a search for Ron Paul on my site and see my other posts (mostly written during the last primary) for my other reasons. I will say that I have heard his organization described as dangerous, ugly, and ruthless. I have grown up in his district and after what I, my family and my friends have seen I would not disagree. If you are in lock-step with his libertarian beliefs you will be treated well. If you do not, get ready to be treated in a very un-Christ like way (a reason many of my sources have asked me to not give their names). I will just leave it at that before I start getting more hate mail. Hope you can find something I wrote helpful.
You know, just being honest, I think you’re holding Dr. Paul to a standard that you don’t hold other candidates to. I’m pretty sure that Romney, Perry, Cain, Gringrich, Hunstman, would have all said they do not believe homosexuality is a sin. I think the only ones who would have given the exact answer you want are Bachmann and Santorum. Yet you are okay with supporting those other candidates.
On temptation, vs. sin. There is a big important difference between homosexuality and homosexual actions, and for the most part, the church is shamefully oblivious to this distinction. But to address this issue in our society, we have got to understand this. Homosexual attraction (homosexuality) and homosexual actions are two different things–as different as heterosexual attraction and heterosexual sex! We don’t call heterosexual people wicked sinners simply because they are attracted to the opposite sex! This is obviously ludicrous. Yet that is exactly what we do to homosexuals. I think this is what Pastor Ken was trying to get at above.
I don’t think you realize it, but there are many Christian people who are homosexual but choose to be celibate because they believe homosexual actions are sin. There are also many Christians who begin having homosexual desires as teenagers and try to get help from the Christian community and are treated abominably–just because they are homosexuals–even if they are virgins and have never committed a sexual sin!
This is shameful. Christians have got to start doing a better job with this issue. The sin is extramarital sex. Homosexual sex is no worse (or better) a sin than any other kind of extramarital sex.
Obviously the man who interviewed Dr. Paul was also clueless about these distinctions. He didn’t ask Dr. Paul about homosexual sex. He asked him about homosexuality. Essentially, is same-sex attraction sin? Dr. Paul said no. Dr. Paul, went farther than I suspect the pandering Romney would have gone, however, when he called homosexuality a “problem” and “something gone wrong” with a person. If Dr. Paul were trying to please the homosexual activist camp, he would never had said that.
The interviewer, of course, claimed that Dr. Paul’s statements contradict the Bible. The interviewer is wrong. The Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality itself. The Bible condemns homosexual actions. (The Bible also condemns lust–however, I’m pretty sure that is both a heterosexual and homosexual problem.)
As a fellow Christian, I am proud of Dr. Paul’s response to this interviewer. As always, Dr. Paul was thoughtful, principled, pointed out the bigger picture, and refused to pander to either side–homosexual activists as well as the religious right. (As a result, he pleases neither–and gets blacklisted by both.) This is exactly why he has my vote.
Emily
I am not holding Ron Paul to a higher standard. I haven’t talked too much about the race yet. I grew up in his district so I am more familiar with them so have the ability to give some insight. Ron Paul and his organization have had such a negative impact on me by their words, and actions that I feel I have an obligation to not be quiet about it. If you have videos of other candidates opening saying that homosexuality is not a sin, then feel free to link to them. My viewpoint will not change…I am not linked to some candidate. I pointed this out to shed some light on his position on this issue. He is the only candidate who has actively fought for gay rights that I know of. Candidates such as Perry support traditional marriage at the federal level through statements at least. Remember he was bashed pretty good during the prayer rally for that very reason. I had always wondered why Mr. Paul held the position that he did. I thought for the longest time it was a state’s rights issue or something to that effect, but based upon what I have now heard I think there is more to it. If he said what he did for political reasons that really doesn’t make it better. There are respectful ways to say that it is a sin, but hold a different position politically. When he begins to use his experience as a doctor to explain his position instead of the Bible, I believe that is telling. Especially when the backdrop of the interview is obviously from a religious perspective and the question was not a political one, but also from a strictly Biblical standpoint.
We can defend the definition of marriage politically, call homosexuality what it is (a sin), and still treat people with respect. I am aware of the struggles of some Christians with the sin…just like other sin. I am also aware that members of the church do not always handle it well, but that is a complete separate issue. That does not change the reality of what it is. Just as a point of clarification. In Matthew 5:27-28 Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. Here Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders’ interpretation of the OT Law. This shows that sin is indeed more than just a physical act and also the unreachable high standards of God. That is why we need grace. Of course this is not temptation itself, but the mind and heart’s reaction to it. I think we are on the same page there, but I was really confused by your conclusion… in that light the interviewer is not necessarily wrong, he was correct.
In the end you seem to be going to great strides to defend Mr. Paul…even to the point of attacking the interviewer. I am not really sure why. As a Christian I was not proud of his answer in any way and I did not feel he showed any of the attributes you described. He gave a secular worldview answer backed up with medical experience. That is fine if you want to support him despite of his personal views, but personally I would not defend him on the issue. Of course this issue alone is not the reason I do not support him. You can search my other posts if you like. I would encourage you to do so.
*Sigh*
My criticism of the interviewer is not about Dr. Paul. The interviewer is Exhibit A of the church’s bad response to the homosexuality issue. I was ashamed of his ugly, self-righteous attitude. As I wrote before:
“Obviously the man who interviewed Dr. Paul was also clueless about [the distinction between homosexual actions and homosexual desire]. He didn’t ask Dr. Paul about homosexual sex. He asked him about homosexuality. Essentially, is same-sex attraction sin? Dr. Paul said no.”
I believe Dr. Paul is correct. I don’t believe same-sex attraction is sin. (Same-sex attraction is homosexuality.) If you can show me from the Bible the same-sex attraction is sin, I will change my view. I don’t think you can.
You are absolutely right that sin is much deeper than actions. I said above that lust is sin. But heterosexual lust is no less sinful than homosexual lust. And we are all guilty of one or the other.
Before frustration sets in I am in agreement with you that same sex attraction in itself as temptation is not a sin, but the heart’s response as well as action is. Somebody can come set us both straight if that is not the case. I think we are just reading the interviewer’s question in a different way. I do not believe the interviewer is digging into the issue as much as you are. I believe he is asking the question from a general perspective…keeping in mind the viewpoint of non-Christians who are pushing for the gay rights agenda. Those people are not trying to differentiate between the sinfulness of temptation vs. action. They do not believe that there is any moral problem with any of it. In a general political setting this is how I have seen the term used most often, even if it is not an entirely accurate way to say it. I also do not think Ron Paul was thinking of it in any way other than this general use based on the answer he gave, otherwise, I think he would have clarified it as you have. Maybe not, but I think he would have. Ron Paul is mostly an economics guy, which is why I think he should be an economic adviser, not the President. He is principled to a fault with those topics, but not on this one.
What you have written up their definitely shows that Ron Paul’s beliefs on That subject are wrong.
I have a few questions for you. first off I will say this. I have recently been researching Ron Paul and I like a lot of things about him. But there are some things that bother me. Most of which were pointed out by you. You seem to be very educated on how a good Christian Conservative should be. So I was wondering, who do you think people should support? I realize Ron Paul has some problems that should not be acceptable. But I was wondering if there was someone who has less of them than him. And if so who? I think Herman cain may be the man but I have not really done much research on him. Some things I really like about Ron Paul are that he supports homeschooling and that he claims to be 100% against abortion also that he supports the right to work and gun rights. I’m not so sure about his foreign policy and honestly I don’t think I’m educated enough on the subject to judge it right or wrong. There were some other thing about him I’m a little undecided on. If you have already written some things that may be helpful to me please give me links to them.
I look forward to hearing your opinion on the subject and until then thank you for the helpful information.
Joshua,
Sorry for the delay in my response. I have not really looked into all of the candidates fully. Like I mentioned before I am just more familiar with Ron Paul since I grew up in his district and followed that last congressional primaries. The things you mentioned about Ron Paul that you support I also support, but I think you find most of those views with the other candidates as well. In addition to the stuff I mentioned, I certainly split with Ron Paul on many of his foreign policy stances, which is big considering that is the main responsibility of the federal government, constitutionally speaking. If you do a search for Ron Paul on my site I have some older posts that discuss these things in more detail. My Bible in real life page is also a good primer…certainly would suggest Wayne Grudem’s book as well.
As far as the other candidates. Herman Cain has some good ideas, but I do not think he will win the nomination, especially with all the accusations going around. Probably have no basis considering they all seem to have ties to David Axelrod, but it still hurts him. I like Rick Perry. He has had some classic gaffes, but his positions are mostly solid…he being a state’s rights guy. Newt has started to come along. I think by far he would be the smartest person on stage and could stand toe to toe with Obama in debates. The last few years he has been running an organization developing solutions to many of the problems we face. He has a history of changing Washington (albeit for a short while). He does have baggage though. Not sure if I trust Romney considering some of the things he has enacted as governor and his response to those things. He would be low on my list. So Newt and Perry would be higher on my list right now. If you have any more specific questions on something please feel free to shoot me an email.
Except that the bible DOESN’T say that homosexuality is a sin.
Ron Paul is right here – and you are wrong.
http://www.paulonhomosexuality.com/
If that site’s findings are incorrect, please address how and let me know.
As it stands, condemning homosexuality is the sin, homosexuality itself is acceptable by Paul the apostle, and Paul the politician.
The condemnation of another person – considering them “less than equal” or “less than human” is something that is abhorrent to both Ron Paul (his opposition to the Civil Rights Act – and act which seeks to elevate black people to an equal status by providing them special protections, because they are not considered persons – with rights inherent from birth) and the bible.
I’ll challenge that Ron Paul is the smartest person on the stage.
He not only maintains his positions despite strong opposition, he can explain them.
In a simple FOR/AGAINST comparison, it is easy to pick apart Ron Paul’s positions.
When you follow through his reasoning – when he’s given time to explain his positions, he not only comes across as intelligent, he acts like a fan blowing away the fog of misinformation we’ve been fed for years.
Gingrich and Romney profit from corporatism – shamelessly so.
Ron Paul speaks against it.
For that reason alone, Paul is worth another serious look.
tsc,
I enjoy your thoughtful, educated, and humble responses. I just happened upon this article and its comments, and I was immediately interested. I would like to add to the discussion that Pastor Ken brought up (regarding how far government should go in punishing the “evildoer”) because I think this is the most critical point of disagreement I have with your statements.
I will attempt to reiterate Pastor Ken’s concerns, and show the practical results from following his caution:
I think you have misjudged the interplay between “freedom of religion” and the religious basis of our nation’s laws.
You stated…
“Given the freedom of religion that we enjoy in this country, we can use Christian principles to guide our laws and policies while still allowing people to practice whatever religion they wish.”
Note that, what you are advocating is not simply using limited Christian principles as a philosophical foundation for secular laws.
As you said…
“All laws are legislating morality. The only difference is what these laws are based upon. Are they based upon a Christian worldview or are they based upon a secular worldview. The ‘don’t legislate morality argument’ is actually a common atheist argument. Now laws will not stop everyone from committing crime…people will still murder, steal and sometimes they will not get caught, but does that mean we should just make all of these things legal. Of course not. Most rational people would consider that ridiculous. The fact is that people need rules, they need religion to maintain virtue…”
What you are advocating is legislating Christian morality. In this case, you have argued that since the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, our public government must reflect it. I agree with you on the biblical stance of homosexuality, but I disagree with the conclusion that this necessitates legislation by our government. I will attempt to show that if your reasoning is truly the most biblical view on government authority, then it is inconsistent with ideas of religious freedom.
Consider this instance against your previous statements:
If we were to use all Christian law to guide our public law, then shouldn’t the greatest commandment of all be included, if not made the center?
Mark 12:28-30:
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
By your previous statement, the commandment to love God should also be included as a basis for our laws since this is a crucial Christian principle and command. (Note that this is a command to love the one true God as revealed in the Bible and not the pluralistic ‘god.’)
Consistent with this, your reasoning would conclude that this should be legislated for the general public. Then religious freedom, and the first amendment, would be negated since it would restrict people to loving God as defined in the Bible.
If instead you agree that the command to love the true, biblical God should not be used as the basis of our government and realized through various laws, then you must concede that not all Christian principles should be legislated.
This is the most extreme case (still, it is the GREATEST commandment), but the same can be said of other biblical sins that we do not legislate: worshipping other gods, idolatry, adultery, divorce for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness, etc.
So then, you must be able to determine what laws the public government should enforce. How can religious freedom and a true God-fearing society coexist?
I believe the correct viewpoint is this:
I contend that all laws are not, and should not be, legislating morality. That is between the individual and God. The public government should instead legislate only what responsibilities we have to those around us. Laws that go beyond this infringe upon the role of the church.
We as Christians have an obligation to bring Christian principles into society through our actions and discourse, but Christians should not legislate all biblical law for the public. The Christian principles we support should be spread by our lives and our churches, not our government.
We should not coerce or incentivize obedience to biblical commandments with imprisonment, fines, or special treatment. Our law should only deal judgment on those who harm others, or in other words, infringe upon other people’s freedom. This then provides the freedom and ability for us to discuss and compel each other on what God truly desires.
That being said, the argument that homosexuality causes such harm to individuals that it must be legislated against is valid, since you can argue society as a whole depends on the family unit. You ought not, however, argue as you have that homosexuality should be defined by government solely on the basis that it is a Christian command. The same reasoning applied to all Christian commands would contradict the principles of religious freedom.
I believe the viewpoint I propose is the most biblical way to shape our government, and it provides a great advantage. It provides the freedom for Christians to extend God’s principles to the full extent of society’s ills–much further than the “do not” commands alone–and it avoids coercing the entire population to buy into a set of legislations that lead to a false sense of righteousness.
Colossians 3:21-23
21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
If Christians do not punish people for not following every biblical command through public law, we are free to show that the basis for righteousness is faith in Jesus Christ–not the law. This faith is what really frees us, and society, from the bondage of sin.
Mike,
From Paul in 2 Timothy
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
I believe this is what you have delved into, false teaching. I will go into more detail about the Biblical fallacy of Michael Wood’s argument, but first some verses that hopefully will guide you on what the Bible says on Homosexuality and its sinfulness.
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:24-27)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8-10)
These verses tie into the plan of the relationship between a man and a woman in Genesis. Now to more specifics of the link you provided. Here are a couple of passages I took from the link that will illustrate my point.
“Paul excluded idolatrous, homosexual orgies from his list of sins worthy of spiritual death. Even though Paul includes what we call homosexual behavior within his list of symptoms of human rebellion, it is evident that he hardly regards it as the most serious even of those. The climax of his discussion of the results of human rebellion against God is, as we have noted, the list of “cold” sins, sins of “strength,” in 1.28-31–“murder, strife, deceit, malignity, vicious gossips, public slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boasters, inventors of evil…faithless, heartless, ruthless.” These he sees as the most destructive sins, and it is only of these that he says those who commit them are “worthy of death” (1.32).2—Christopher Bryan (C. K. Benedict Professor of New Testament at The University of the South”
“This historical meaning of the passage has finally been recovered, and the historical meaning shows the Apostle Paul accepted homosexual Christians. Paul did not consider homosexuality to be an impediment to heaven. Paul on Homosexuality gives a detailed explanation of this historical fact.”
All the videos, reference sheets have not even been released yet, but I do not see the need to watch them because there are some major Biblical fallacies just in these two passages I have listed. The first line says that Paul excluded homosexual activity from a list of sins worthy of spiritual death. So your argument that the Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin goes out the window right away because even this documentation says that Paul listed it as a sin, but just one not worthy of spiritual death. But there is no such thing as sin that is worthy of spiritual death and sin that is not:
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)
“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:9-12)
Here is a video by John Piper on the question of the equality of sin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ3CN1p86Kw
I think he gives a good explanation of explaining how while some sins have different consequences/effects on others, they are all still sins against God. And as the Bible teaches, no one is good, all fall short…we all need God’s grace through his son Jesus Christ. Even after someone becomes a Christian, they will still fail at times, but when they do they should be repentant of these sins, ask for forgiveness, and try to not sin again. The idea is that if someone continues to sin over and over and are not repentant (perhaps make excuses or say something is not a sin for justification) then perhaps they do not truly have Jesus in them. Because we should all strive to live by the word. I think the passage by Paul in Corinthians that I gave above also contradicts the conclusions by Mr. Wood from the Romans passage ( his conclusion that Paul accepted homosexuality as ok)
I will leave you with this additional link from John Piper on why homosexuality is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=_n078cvLw8I
You did make one odd comment that I had a question about. You said that condemning homosexuality is the actual sin. What is your Biblical justification for saying that calling something sinful is a sin?
Hopefully you find my comments helpful. If you want more information why I do not think Ron Paul should be President, you can search my site for my other articles. I have written quite a bit, especially on the actions of his organization and his misguided (IMO) foreign policy stances. I have lived in Brazoria County almost all my life and have had to endure with him and his people for quite some time.
Clay,
Thanks for finding us here.
The freedom of religion as expressed in the first amendment is a pretty simple concept that has been manipulated over the years. There are two items of interest if I can call them that. One is that the federal government cannot create a national religion (Church of England example). If you read the supporting documents of those who wrote it, it only applied to the federal government and did not prevent the individual states from doing so, but most of the original states eventually created their own similar laws. The second is that the federal government cannot infringe on someone’s right to worship any God, or the way they worship that God (as long as it is does not cause detriment to society).
So the question is, can a government and its laws be based upon Christianity and still not infringe upon the rights of someone to worship any God they wish (or no God). I think the answer is obviously yes…we have been doing it since the founding of the country. The very form of government that was created was based upon Christian principles. The Bible was referenced more than any other document in the founding era, followed by John Locke, who was a theologian. His works on government were Bible based. Congress even bought 20,000 Bibles once for distribution in the country. Ban on pornography was upheld by the courts. The list of examples could go on for just about forever.
To expand on my previous points because I certainly think they are still valid. Legislatures at various levels write the laws. These legislatures are elected by the people to represent the will of the people. The will of the people is influenced by one of two major things (with reference to the laws they want to live under). Either Christian truths or relative norms/values decided on by society based on the times. To keep the conversation on topic, let’s use gay marriage. By your logic it is ok for a non-Christian to promote laws legalizing gay marriage because it is not based in religion, but it is not ok for a Christian to promote laws that protect traditional marriage because its origination is religious (the Bible). What rights do Christians then have in government? While I agree (as you stated) that we have a responsibility to bring Christian principles into society through our words and actions; that does not mean we do not have the responsibility to stand up for Biblical truth in other areas to include government. And I do think Biblically it is a responsibility. Talking about the origin of laws did get me thinking a bit…what laws do you believe do not have a Christian foundation? Just curious. I think most laws do have their origin from Biblical principles…even the second greatest commandment that follows the passage you mentioned in Mark 12 (verse 31) to love your neighbor as yourself.
The greatest commandment though is a good point and is one that I am in total agreement with. That is where the line is drawn with freedom of religion (a Biblical principle in itself). You cannot force people to worship a certain God in a certain way. It is Biblical and also adheres to the first amendment. There is a line to be drawn between this kind of doctrine and Biblically based moral law. What if society decides thou shall not steal or thou shall not kill is a little too religious? I know it is an outrageous example, but keep in mind there are many people who do not think there is anything wrong with abortion. It’s all moral law…all has its origins in the Bible.
Hi everybody
It is interesting that some of you pointed about the Jews in negative ways. Raised up, I was a Christian but have always felt somehow hypocritical because I was celebrating what were supposed to be “Christianity Holidays” until I began to follow the Torah (still at a baby stage) and rediscovered that our Messiah’s name was always Yeshuahua (Jesus was a paganism named for Zeus, god of all gods). First, the letter, “J” was not even introduced until much later after his existence. I also learned that Christmas was a paganism holiday celebrating around the Winter Solistce (if one must know, the birth of our Messiah occurred in fall). There is a great book written about Christmas and its original intentions. Now, we all seemingly are arguing on a topic, “What defines a good Christianity.” There are lots more to discuss but these are only examples of what I have learned. Should we be shooting on Ron Paul? Who decides on what to define a “Good Christianity?” I love our Messiah wholeheartedly and will always follow his orders yet still see too many different perspectives here. Instead of pointing finger at anyone, I think we should set a strong relationship with our Messiah and let him take care of those. We are at the point where words now harm one other instead of help one other. For sure, I know our Messiah chooses our President, not us.
Well I have been researching Ron Paul and Rick Perry, they are my two top people, and this situation with Paul is what is making me worry. As a president he should make this disgrace illegal again. My personal oppinion. Now, I have friends that are homosexuals because Jesus says to love your enimies. But I strongly belive it is a sin. BUT so is stealing, murdering, and having lust. Which everyone does so we cannot judge. (And yes I said everyone is a murdere because in the Bible it says if you have even thought of harming someone you are a murderer.) Anyway..I just wish Paul would be more bold with bringing God back to the Government and make the gay marriage illegal. Because making it legal just lets people fall deeper into sin. God bless!
Just read through a few of your posts. I am not American, but have been advised at our AGM to keep a close eye or current events and especially American. I have a slight knowledge of history regarding who the true chosen people of God are. BI teaching. This is of course very controversial and I in NO way endorse anything in this teaching that would make any difference to the teachings of the New Testament and the love of God and Salvation. However I wonder what you understanding is on this with connection to the founding fathers. I see it as a key to understanding the world and how God positioned people, yet I do not understand it all. But of course his word says we won´t. I have watched David Barton and I am on a learning curve in my walk with regards to these matters at the moment. The meat so to speak. But don’t want to get caught up in vain babblings either. I saw a youtube clip of Mel Gibson’s father endorsing Ron Paul and wearing a T-shirt promoting his campaign from 2008. I got interested because of the history of Israel. I was captivated by Ron Paul, emotional and very encouraged by his words. Really uplifted almost. Then I heard the recording about his views on homosexuality and was deflated. My second thought was one that you mentioned with regards to Ron Paul having his own standard and not using the Bible as his guide. Humbly put of course. This scared me. Imagine. I pray every morning for my day and my children. I get it wrong of course, but search the bible for the answer. I also thought his Abortion policy rather strange and contradictory so I looked in to it all further. I appreciate your patience in answering the same questions over again. I was there once and needed to hear things many times. However I am very grateful to the Pastors and Assembly group leaders I have that have passed on history and good reading material over the years. I will read more on this page to gain more understanding, yet not blindly. Prayer is the only individual way we can know and the peace of God will be our guide. My husband always tells me that. When we have true peace, we know we are in His will. My last comment or rather question would have to be. What of the other candidates that are running for the Republican vote? I fear none are of any biblical level or real understanding or am I wrong? I pray for America. 2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. A knowledge of the Old Testament would help so many people.
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will forget thy children.
I pray for sinners not because we judge them, but because Christ died for them. He died and rose again for a reason. I just wanted to remind those who think we judge wrongfully.
God bless and we keep Ron Paul in prayer and he election as a whole.
Susie
Hi again, I read your comments on the other candidates. Rick Perry would need prayer of course. I “heard” could be wrong something about Bilder Berger? How would it work with a Mormon as a president?mmm
I pray God intervenes.
It’s like this…. I am deff a democrat , However I like the way Ron Paul’s views are. WORRY ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AND ITS ECONOMIC TROUBLES FIRST. I come from a family of all southern pentecostal holy rolling bible fanatics 5 th generation pentecost and they don’t care one ioda about the way I am living, all they say is you need to answer to god one day. You can read romans 1:25-29 or any of the other verses in there, please read the whole chapter and dont be a one verse charlie and take 2 verse and make your own little religion out of it. The problem is that the churches take 1 verse and then build a doctorine based on that one verse. HOMOSEXUALITY is not anything new people , it has been going on for hundreds of years. These conservative animals can try what ever they want to stop it , but it has come far too along to stop now. I am all for giving the gay people their own state and not funded by the govt, I promise you there will be no poverty, unemployment and no food stamps, we are all very educated in life. I am 30 years old and make over 100,000 a year, because I dont keep breeding childre and using the govt for handouts. I still go to church 3 days a week for 4 hours each service and you would think the pentecostals would have the worst problem with it ….. If it comes down to it , I am ALL FOR DR. RON PAUL. “LET THE STATES DECIDE”
Justin,
I certainly agree with Ron Paul’s economic philosophy and some of his other stances as well. But there are other state’s rights advocates running that believe many of the same things. And that I believe have much more character and better leadership abilities than Ron Paul. This post tackles a specific issue, but there are many other to consider. Many of which I have written about before. I did have a couple of questions for you though just for curiosity sake.
If you believe in state’s rights, why would you call yourself a Democrat or vote for Democratic candidates? The democratic platform and their current stances completely contradict the idea of state rights. Federalism is incompatible with the progressive philosophy their platform is based upon.
Secondly, if you vote for Democratic candidates, how do you reconcile your faith and how you vote?
Thank you for this article. It helped me decide whom to support for the 2012 GOP Candidacy. His stance on gay marriage is nothing other than bad Doctrine. It truly is a shame. After careful analysis, research, prayer, observation and discussion I believe that Senator Rick Santorum is the best choice for Evangelical Christians and Catholics. Go to http://www.ricksantorum.com and check out where he stands and what his plans are as the President.
God bless America!
All I have to say is that if you’re a Christian and believe what Gd said, you believe homosexuality is wrong-an ‘abomination in God’s eye’. ‘Man shall not lie with man as with woman’, and many more references to God not liking these actions. Now, if you’re a heathen and don’t believe in God and want to be bubba’s butt buddy, you go right ahead-it isn’t going to do anything to me except pray that you open your eyes some day. If you’re just a RuP,oops, RON Paul follower, that’s also you’re problem. But if you do vote for him, and he is elected, DON’T ACT LIKE SO MANY OBAMITES DID! They acted surprised that he’s a heathen who’s trying to turn the USA into a Socialist country with Islamic Sharia openly committing their atrocities. But to those of you who seem to think it’s fun and good and cool to make fun of serious people, folks who take the time and effort to actually LEARN what they’re talking about, not just spewing trash because there idol does. I do agree with Paul that we need to get back to the COnstitution, but not with him at the helm. You can bet we’d all be screaming for Obama to come back in 15 months.
I’ve said mine, so ya’ll enjoy your games. I’m going to go read. No names, but I think a couple of you folks would really gain a lot if you’d read a book called ‘The Federalist Papers’.
Comments on this entry are closed.