Thursday, March 20, 2008

Ron Paul

I have had problems with Ron Paul for some time. For the sake of some of our internet friends, I will share some of these concerns.

1. If he is going to run he needs to run as a Libertarian and not a closet Republican. If some were willing to vote for him in the Republican primaries then why not accept who the nominee is once it has been determined. He disagrees with over half the Republican platform and still wants to use that platform to move up to the White House? Keep in mind that he ran as a Libertarian in 1998. What changed?

2. He wants to end all income tax http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr013003c.htm What is going to replace it to bring in money to support national defense, local and federal government, and our civil servants?

3. Mr. Paul’s views on homosexuality do not line up with orthodox Christianity.http://www.americablog.com/2007/08/ron-paul-on-homosexuality-sin-and-dont.html It appears that he supports the "Don’t ask don’t tell policy."

4.Why would Mr. Paul want to revise the repeal of the 17th amendment which would stop voters from choosing U.S. senators and allow members of the state legislature to choose them? Talk about keeping big government.

5. Mr. Paul wants to go back to using gold and silver as legal tender and abolishing the federal reserve. This would rock the U.S. economy.

6. He wants to eliminate the IRS but is in favor of Social Security. He still has not stated where tax revenue would come from.

7. He supports removing all troops from all foreign locations. He does not believe we should “police” other countries. Should we not stand up for other countries against wicked ones? Israel did. Should we defend Israel?

8. Someone sent this to me recently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVMRESs6Qw

9. There seems to be a plethora of racists/anti-Semitic remarks that follow Mr. Paul.

I think Mr. Paul strikes many as an extremist and an isolationist. He has plenty of hot air toward the current administration but has no real solutions.

Lastly, I don't remember hearing Mr. Paul condemn this adminstration or our military for its aggressive posture right after 9/11. And for him to insinuate that there is/was a cover-up with the 9/11 attack is treasonous

28 comments:

Chris said...

You must have some very dedicated friends if they got you to write this brief response. Your questions and statements are logical and necessary to be discussed. Good. I will respond to it.

My response replaces statements made in your post.

1. Paul's argument is that the Republican party has "lost its way." They went into powerful wanted to reform corrupt government and instead the party was corrupted. This was why he ran with the Libertarians in '88. Imagine having supported Ronald Regean since 1976 and seeing Regean not accomplish any of the goals which were agreed to. It would be a betrayal (how they remained close afterwards is a story for biographers). Paul has remarked that he will not run as an "L" again because he lost so badly. For him, the experience was so telling that 3rd parties cannot win office that he is not going to repeat the same mistake and have small government back to the roots movement reduced to an "also-ran."

2. The income tax pays less than 20% of the annual government budget. Removing the income tax would effectually reduce the size of the budget to that of the year 2000. Haven't conservatives been asking for something drastic like this?

3. Paul does supports the "Don’t ask don’t tell policy" in so much that it is working. However, I do not see how denouncing the "sin" of homosexuality or any other sexual perversion for that matter outside of the church congregation is biblical. We hold ourselves in the church account (as expected of those living in covenant and bonds of love). Those out of the church are of Satan and released to him for their just deserts.

4.Why would Mr. Paul want to revise the repeal of the 17th amendment which would stop voters from choosing U.S. senators and allow members of the state legislature to choose them? Talk about keeping big government.
This is political philosophy question. A good question though. The answer deals with the understanding of federalism. A senator (one of two) has to cover an enormous range of geography and population. As a result, the people very little representation in the Senate. As a result, the Senate was created as the legislative body most closest to the wishes of the legislative body of the state. As a result, the senators would follow the will of the state legislature. If you had a problem with the Senator than you spoke to your state legislator and dealt with it. Federalism leads to a very local form of politics not one far-flung in the marble corridors of the capitol building in Washington, D.C. but over at your neighbors house or at church meetings (and other public assemblies). We don't have this now and as a result we have less representation and our money therefore is spent on more things that we would never approve of if they were observed locally (through our state legislators).

5. Rock, yes! What would this "rocking" look like though. A stable currency. A currency that is no longer fluctuating in value but steady and interchangeable with gold. Gold and silver after all is the ONLY legal form of currency in this country. What you have in your wallet is a debt note (meaning that the government has backed the money's value against loans).

6. While there are many other forms of taxation that we can discuss besides an income tax Social Security is the question. Paul has spoken of ending Social Security by having current generations opt-out and closing the program to new payers. That means that one day when the last person receiving Social Security check meets their maker face to face the program will close.

7. Israel did? If you are referring to biblical Israel then you should also recognize that there often terrible consequences for those alliances. Paul is a critic of "police actions" because under our constitution they are illegal. If we want to deploy our military on foreign soil then congress must declare war. As for the defense of Israel - Israel is a wealthy and military strong country boasting the 2nd largest air force in the world. The US subsidizes Israel's military but also subsidizes her enemies with 3 times more funds. The situation is already not in Israel's favor. Also, consider that because Israel is mostly dependent on the US for its defense, Israel does not make a move with out consulting the US and has been forced by the US to give its territory and place itself in a weaker tactical position against its neighbors. Yes, the US forces Israel to give up its land, forces Israel to not make peace with its enemies by forcing them (by encouraging militancy on both sides) and forces Israel to betray faith in God and His word and trusting the almighty US instead. Shame really.

8.Curiously, I watched it and it did not seem to be a problem. If you have competent family members wouldn't they the first you would consider to work with you? Unfortunately, the article mentioned does not include the daughter's (hired on full-time) service. However, consider that the report covers six years of payouts with Lori Pyeatt being paid an average of $26,931 per year, for a total of $161,590 plus expenses.

9. Honestly, limited government ideas excite people of narrow precepts. Imagine white supremacists history. They exercised their free will and established their society. Then, strangers thousands of miles away order them to behave differently at the point of the gun. Their sovereignty was violated. Even if I don't agree with their beliefs I can see how these same federal policies govern what our pastors can and cannot say in the pulpit or how our politicians cannot invoke God in their capacity. I am sympathetic especially considering that what happened to them can happen to those called "Christians." Isn't this culture war, the war on Christmas, the gay agenda, etc. part of this concept that we often talk about in church and in public. Imagine if that were suddenly "hate speech" according to Federal law.

Much of what Paul has said deals with having government just "do less" as the solution. His thinking is that government intervention both foreign and domestic in the last few decades has made us less safe and less prosperous. It is not isolationism to trade and make friends with other countries as Paul has remarked. But Paul's words sound "extreme" because they are so far out of what is considered norm that those words are different to receive even if they are truth. Jesus faces the same problem of being the truth, being God and yet not being recognized. Our society does find itself in such a dilemma.

Lastly, I don't remember hearing Mr. Paul condemn this adminstration or our military for its aggressive posture right after 9/11. And for him to insinuate that there is/was a cover-up with the 9/11 attack is treasonous.

Right! Paul did not condemn our military actions following 9/11. In fact he supported the law authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan. As for a "cover up" of 9/11, Paul has stated that a thorough investigation of 9/11 events has never been completed and recommendations made by the 9/11 have mostly NOT been implemented. Government deals in "cover ups" according to Paul not to hide the "truth" but to hide their incompetence. Therefore, he supports a new 9/11 investigate but does NOT believe 9/11 was an inside job.

I enjoyed writing this response. I hope you will get to do some more research on the gold standard, the idea of commodity backed currency and the concept of writing contracts with different commodities serving as the store of wealth (trading two items with pork bellies as collateral for example).

I would enjoy reading more on what you said about Question 3 and Question 7. In dealing with Q3, how should Christians respond to sin outside the church as opposed to how we have been taught to deal with it inside the Church? In dealing with Q7, when has modern Israel stood up for other countries against "wicked" countries?

Incognito said...

Paul is a wacko, and needs to get a life.

dsstanfield said...

Wow! After reading your comments on Ron Paul, I thought, I am definitely going to need some time to respond. Then I clicked over here and found Chris' responses. They were great.

I would also like to add that out of all the candidates, Ron Paul seems to be the one who sticks to his principles. He has NEVER voted against the Constitution in 20 years as a Republican Congressman. That is virtually unheard of in politics today. I found it appalling that of the candidates vying for their party's nomination, four were found on the non-partisan judicial watch for being the most corrupt politicians:

Hillary, Obama, Giuliani.... none of which surprised me,

Huckabee... a professing Christian, and Baptist minister. I was a little taken aback by this.

I can not believe that Americans are so apathetic, they would even allow people to be considered for the nation's highest office who are immoral or dishonest.

Ron Paul is a Christian and not only believes that life begins at conception, but has authored a bill stating such. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years. The man has character and integrity, something the other candidates lack.

I would like to say that I do not agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul believes, however I do agree with most of it. I wish his stance on homosexuality was stronger, and I also wish that he acknowledged God's Law as supreme.

DT, can you honestly say that you could cast a vote for John McCain? Did you know one of his spiritual advisers is the Word-Faith heretic Rod Parsley? Huckabee preached in heretic John Hagee's church... and there was no outcry from Christians, NOT EVEN REFORMED ONES. We have Obama and Hillary speaking at Rick Warren's "church." Hillary receiving a standing ovation. Christians voting and campaigning for the temple Mormon, Mitt Romney. And now we are hearing the types of things that Obama allows his children to learn in the church where his family's membership resides.

I continue to be sickened because NONE OF THIS MATTERS TO MOST PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. We think we can separate the politician from his faith or lack of faith.

I have to end with #7. DT, your Dispensationalism is shining through.... Should the U.S. defend Israel? Israel can defend herself. She has more nuclear capabilities than her Middle Eastern opponents.

I will say this as I have said it before, Israel is just a geographical location on the map. Are there elect Jews still to be converted? Yes, many. Just like there are still elect Africans, Asians, and Arabs, etc. However, God is going to judge every Israelite who does not bow a knee and kiss the Son's cheek.

Is there any place in the Bible where God commands the Israelites to make a covenant or to swear an allegiance to a pagan nation?

Is Israel today a pagan or a Christian nation?

Dead Theologians said...

Chris and dss,

I could go on and on an on with this one but I feel that it would not lead to anything productive.

Chris, your answers were very concise (though I firmly disagreed with many) and thought out well.

I think Mr. Paul's problem is that he is an idealist instead of a realist. Things need to change so much but laying an ax to the roots is not going to fix it. Sometimes it takes the "saw" approach to remedy things.

In reference to the "treasonous" comment I made. You need to look over the internet a little closer. It is replete with things by him insinuating something's not right.

dss, a Christian does not make a good leader or president. A good many of our founding fathers were free-thinkers and deists. If you really want to be totally honest the constitution is a humanist document making no reference to "The Lord." A "higher power" and "providence" without our great God getting the glory mean nothing to me.

dss, are you willing to put a democrat in office just because you do not like the republican nominee? I am sure you have voted for non-christians before, right?
Most conservatives admit that McCain does not represent us; does that mean that Hillary and Barak do?
Yes, sadly , I will vote for McCain.

dss, are you so quick to abandon Gen. 12.3?

DT

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul does not believe his personal convictions should be law for others.

Concerning homosexuality:

The founding documents of our nation do not give government the right (thank goodness) to legislate morality. Each of us is free to choose our path... to the point that it is harmful to others. This is why it's illegal when anyone but consenting adults are involved.

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionlist. Opening the door for government to rule our thoughts and beliefs would be very dangerous.

Whose role is it to spread what we believe to be Christian views, high morals, correct and healthy living? Individuals, churches, or other groups, but not government.

dsstanfield said...

DT... you know I enjoy a good debate. I can honestly say that I type this with a smile on my face. I have found your blog to be a place where Christians can genuinely disagree and remain on friendly terms. I think that is the way it should always be amongst believers.

Here is a quote from John Jay, who was the first Supreme Court Justice. He was appointed by Washington.

"Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

I refuse to align myself with anyone who is not a Christian. Casting a vote for a non-Christian is casting a vote for evil.

My mouth fell open when I read this from you:

"a Christian does not make a good leader or president. A good many of our founding fathers were free-thinkers and deists. If you really want to be totally honest the constitution is a humanist document making no reference to "The Lord." A "higher power" and "providence" without our great God getting the glory mean nothing to me."

I have never thought the Constitution to be infallible. Yes, there were freethinkers and deists among the founders, but the overwhelming majority of the founders were either Christians or heavily influenced by Christianity. The same can not be said of our rulers today.

Then this from you:

"Yes, sadly , I will vote for McCain."

DT, this is selling out. This is not voting according to your principles. What if the majority of Christians actually rose up and said, "Enough.... we won't allow godless people to rule over us any longer." We have sold out so long that we have rendered the church and Christians ineffectual in today's culture and politics.

I bet you anticipated my "rebuttal" verse :)

Galatians 3:29:

"And if you belong to Christ, then YOU ARE Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise."

dsstanfield said...

"A good many of our founding fathers were free-thinkers and deists."

This is pretty good.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7243716805363959903&q=America%27s+Godly+Heritage&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I hope that link will get you there, it looks awfully long.....

approvedworkman said...

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, unless God sovereignly moves. Shouldn't we be praying His will rather than arguing political platforms?
This election plus the state of the post modern "church" should have us all looking up.

Anonymous said...

Paul has said elsewhere that he would replace the income tax with a 1% tax on everything in M1 (every time it exchanges hands).

Jonathan

Chris said...

I am so happy that this dialog is happening. I am concerned that dss' demagoguery has been the focus of attention from DT. Personal attacks are unacceptable in the realm of true debate because it demonstrates an inability to make a their case and show respect to their opponent. Let us give only good communication.

DT has only commented about Paul's idealism vs. DT's realism and the "laying an ax to the roots" approach vs. the "saw" approach to remedy things.

If you want to remedy any type of problem you need to clearly identify that problem. The "idealism" that you are speaking of is the "healthy state." In order to determine treatment, the illness must clearly be determined against the natural healthy state. This is necessary for curing the illness. Laying an ax at the root resolves the illness (problem) at its source while hacking away at the limbs only hides the problem and in many cases makes it stronger. Such is the case of masking a cough with medicine but never resting to recuperate from the flu. Eventually, the progression of the flu without rest causes the illness to take longer to cure than normal and the loss of time and the quality of life suffers.

DT I believe this is a simple case me being able to point out a blind spot in your argument. Please examine the logic of your case and ponder on it. Can we really accomplish our walk in life through "half-hearted" actions or do we accomplish everything by building on a strong firmament.

As for the last anonymous message, I have never seen Paul recommend a 1% tax on everything M1. M1 is defined as cash in circulation plus demand deposits at commercial banks. A tax of this nature is a direct tax that is in violation of the US constitution (it would be comparable to a sales tax of 1% on every transaction in the country).

dsstanfield said...

Chris...

I hope you didn't think that I was personally attacking DT. I have always enjoyed posting comments here and he has always been more than welcoming, a true gentleman even in the throes of heated discussion.

We differ on a few of our doctrines, but I consider him my brother in Christ....and hopefully he considers me his sister in Christ.

If you were referencing my calling Rod Parsley and John Hagee heretics, well.... I stand by those statements.

I am probably not much of a "true debater." Maybe I am more of an impassioned typist :) !

dss

Dead Theologians said...

Chris,

Let's get started with this.

You said..."DT I believe this is a simple case me being able to point out a blind spot in your argument."

What blind spot?

"Laying an ax at the root resolves the illness (problem) at its source while hacking away at the limbs only hides the problem and in many cases makes it stronger."

An ax will never be laid to it without the people of God or the sovereign hand of God doing it?
One Christian man cannot do much with a pagan congress.

The "saw" approach is one that attempts to fix something that is broken rather than throwing out the whole program.

"DT has only commented about Paul's idealism vs. DT's realism and the "laying an ax to the roots" approach vs. the "saw" approach to remedy things."

I have no interest in debating the philosophies of politics. Your mind is made up as is mine.

But I do not mind going over some of these problems that I orginally stated.

A lot of what we have is what DSS brought out. It is called presuppositions.

DT

Dead Theologians said...

DSS,

"I have to end with #7. DT, your Dispensationalism is shining through...."

Ah, smart lady you are. But I am more progressive in that vein than Scofield and others.

"Should the U.S. defend Israel?"

I think we should.
"The Jew first and then the Gentile."

John Jay-"...and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"

Prefer, yes.

"Is there any place in the Bible where God commands the Israelites to make a covenant or to swear an allegiance to a pagan nation?"

Jeremiah 27 might make us wonder.

dss, are you willing to put a Democrat in office just because you do not like the Republican nominee? I am sure you have voted for non-christians before, right?

Dead Theologians said...

approved,

I agree but until then, who do you vote for as a follower of Christ?

This is a troubling election coming upon us.

DT

dsstanfield said...

Why is it that when most Christians vote, they leave the Bible outside the voting booth, and think like pragmatists? Christians think that voting for the most likely person to “beat the Democrats” is their duty. However, they have to hold their noses while pushing that button. This is voting out of fear rather than out of faith in spite of the teaching of the New Testament that we are to determine our viewpoint and course of action, not by what we see, but by what God has spoken in His Word...by faith not by sight.

Have I voted for non-Christians? I have been voting since 1988 when I turned 18. I have ALWAYS voted Republican, no matter what. After all, I didn’t want those nasty Democrats in office. Last election, I held my nose and voted for George W. Bush, again. My husband, being the wise man that he is, voted Peroutka. I refused to do that because in my mind, a vote for Peroutka would have been a vote for John Kerry.

Now, it is no longer about having a Democrat or a Republican in office. It is about ONLY casting my vote for a professing Christian, one who’s life, albeit not perfectly, has been lived from conviction. I am finished voting pragmatically, and for the lesser of two evils. Again, I say, a vote for the lesser of two evils is STILL A VOTE FOR EVIL, Republican or Democrat.

What if your candidates were Dahmer or Manson? Would you vote for the one who killed the least amount of people? Maybe a vote could be cast for Manson, after all, he didn’t eat his victims. Absurd, yes, then again... evil is evil.

The last four years have really been an eye opener for me. I have come to discover that essentially there is not much difference between the Republicans and Democrats. My understanding of the War in Iraq has changed as I have watched it drag on and on with no end in sight, while our brave soldiers are killed and the Iraqi’s suffer with the after effects of war. As a Bible-believing Christian who also believes that the Constitution is to be followed, I can not support this war by casting a vote for someone who seeks to prolong it. The Iraq War is un-Constitutional because President Bush did not seek a declaration of war, nor did Congress give him one, as the Constitution requires. It is un-Biblical because it is not truly a war of self-defense. It also seeks to spread “democracy,” which is un-Biblical. It is un-Biblical in that it allies us with unbelieving, non-Christian nations. All alliances which set aside Biblical premises are unholy alliances, and they incur the judgment of God. Is Iran next? Then who??? This is nothing short of Empire Building, and we all know what history says about Empires.

You said we should defend: "The Jew first and then the Gentile." Does that really have anything to do with defending Israel? Would you propose that the U.S. should defend Israel even if it meant leaving our national security weakened? What if it caused our country to collapse economically? Is Israel to be defended at ALL costs, no matter what? Again, Israel can take care of herself.

Is modern Israel a Christian nation? Do they exalt Christ as King? Do they worship Him as such?

Jeremiah 27: Isn’t that judgment for the Israelites?

DT, are you going to place a McCain bumper sticker on your car? How about a McCain yard sign up in front of your home ? Are you willing to donate money to his campaign?

He is a godless man. His adulterous affairs have been proven and admitted. His infamous temper and lack of self-control characterize him. His selling out of our POW's turns my stomach, as does his stance on illegal immigration.... the list could go on.

Are you willing to align yourself with such a man as this?

dsstanfield said...

Is there really any difference?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/374489576_392aa3e96a_o.jpg

Dead Theologians said...

DS,

The pic funny but I don't think they are the same.

"Last election, I held my nose and voted for George W. Bush, again. My husband, being the wise man that he is, voted Peroutka. I refused to do that because in my mind, a vote for Peroutka would have been a vote for John Kerry."

If your husband wants you to vote for Ron Paul, then please do. I cannot and will not attempt to change your mind.

"I have come to discover that essentially there is not much difference between the Republicans and Democrats. My understanding of the War in Iraq has changed as I have watched it drag on and on with no end in sight, while our brave soldiers are killed and the Iraqi’s suffer with the after effects of war. As a Bible-believing Christian who also believes that the Constitution is to be followed, I can not support this war by casting a vote for someone who seeks to prolong it. The Iraq War is un-Constitutional because President Bush did not seek a declaration of war, nor did Congress give him one, as the Constitution requires. It is un-Biblical because it is not truly a war of self-defense. It also seeks to spread “democracy,” which is un-Biblical. It is un-Biblical in that it allies us with unbelieving, non-Christian nations. All alliances which set aside Biblical premises are unholy alliances, and they incur the judgment of God. Is Iran next? Then who??? This is nothing short of Empire Building, and we all know what history says about Empires."

I can't believe what I am reading. Does the word Pacifism mean anything here? You have bought into Paul's ideology. Since you are voting for him that is a good thing.

No, I will not support McCain in ways that you mentioned.

What about Hillary or Barak? Let's talk about this when he/she is running this country in the ground. A little time came make a lot of things clearer.

Ronald Reagan's approval rating during his second term was bad. People were singing the blues and wanted change. Wow! Now, many say "What a good president he was."

I do wish you were more open to discussion on this but your mind is made.

DT

dsstanfield said...

DT,

That picture illustrated my point. I also found one of John McCain hugging George W. and even Fidel Castro.... but I won't subject you to them.

I am no pacifist.

I believe in the JUST war theory. However, I don't agree with preemptive war. I think it is unbiblical and violates the sixth commandment.

"No, I will not support McCain in ways that you mentioned."

But you will cast a vote for him so that he can rule over you and your familly in the highest office of the land.... I don't get it.

I find Hillary and Barack just as offensive as McCain. However, Hillary gets the prize for being the most offensive of all.

Would you be willing to admit that casting a vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil...

Dead Theologians said...

ds,

"Would you be willing to admit that casting a vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil..."

Let me guess, you are going to send the sticker on the top right to me.
http://www.libertystickers.com/lesser_of_two_evils_is_still_evil__vote_libertarian_the.htm

ds, I did not call you a pacifist. I said "Does the word Pacifism mean anything here?" This is a pacifist viewpoint.

Also, look at this video and pay close attention to the last part of what he says.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/ron_paul_on_evo.html

Our differences in politics and Israel (replacement theology) have come to the top. Neither will budge.

I am sorry you do not see my point. In the end, the sovereignty of God will prevail.

DT

dsstanfield said...

hehehehehe.... I laughed at the sticker. Please rest assured; I am no Libertarian. I may vote third party though, depending upon who the Constitution Party puts forth.

Now this is a statement that we can both, "Amen!"

"In the end, the sovereignty of God will prevail."

One way the Lord judges nations is by giving them wicked leaders. It does make you wonder if the Lord's longsuffering with America is coming to an end.

DT,

I do see and understand your point. I lived by that principle for the almost 20 years that I have voted. In our lifetime, we can see what that principle has put in the White House. I won't do it anymore.

I am ready to fight. If it means supporting a third party, and teaching my children to only vote for Christians...so be it. I may never see the fruits of this, but my children's children may.

After all, I am an optimist in my eschatology. I believe in Victory....as Postmillenialism teaches. One day righteousness will cover the earth as the water covers the sea. Men will beat their weapons in to pruning hooks and remember war no more.

dss

Dead Theologians said...

ds,

"After all, I am an optimist in my eschatology. I believe in Victory....as Postmillenialism teaches. One day righteousness will cover the earth as the water covers the sea. Men will beat their weapons in to pruning hooks and remember war no more."

Ahhh, the point of contention comes up again. :)

He has risen.
DT

Anonymous said...

Also, don't forget Ron Paul's pope praise: Ron Paul: “I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace [John Paul II].” (more @ the source:http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html)

Dead Theologians said...

dss,

I was wondering if you got a chance to watch this
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/ron_paul_on_evo.html

Please tell me what you think about his ending comments.

DT

Dead Theologians said...

Anonymous,

I know. Thanks for your comments.

DT

dsstanfield said...

Hey DT,

I have been out of the loop for a while. Our family went tent camping in Central Florida. We like to go to Arcadia and dig for fossils in the Peace River every year. It took me a week to recover from sleeping in a tent, using the public restrooms, and removing the dirt lodged under my finger and toenails. I think that I am now back and running at 100%.

I just happened to notice your comment asking if I had seen the Ron Paul on evolution. Yes, I have already seen his answers concerning it. Of course, I don't agree.

I am a young earth Creationist. I hold to the literal interpretation of Genesis. God created all that we see in 6, 24 hour days.

I don't know of any candidate running who shares this view. Even the Baptist minister Huckabee was little more than a theistic evolutionist.

You can see his response to the evolution question here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

He says, he doesn't know how God created everything...what process He used... or how long it took.

This is a huge problem. One that really opens up a whole can of worms. After all, if Genesis isn't to be interpreted literally, what other texts in the Bible are up for speculation?

d.

Dead Theologians said...

ds,

"if Genesis isn't to be interpreted literally, what other texts in the Bible are up for speculation?"

I agree. Sproul and James Dobson were having problems with the 6 day 24 hour thing also if I'm not mistaken.

DT

dsstanfield said...

DT....

It is called: compromise.

Dobson doesn't surprise me since he has compromised in other ways i.e. his mixing psychology with the Bible in counseling.

I am a little surprised at Sproul. You did mean Sproul, Sr????

I have wondered why men, who held in their hands the infallible revelation of the Creator, would bow to modern science and her cronies. They fail to see that Evolution is just as much about "religion" as Creationism is, and takes as much (or more) faith to believe.

Have a wonderful Lord's Day today! He is risen!

dss

Dead Theologians said...

ds,

He has risen indeed!!

Yes, I mean Sproul Sr. Jr. has his own problems that he needs to settle.

I suppose some feel they need to find the "happy medium."
And yes, it is total compromise.

DT

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin