Ron Paul for President ? [Archive]

RileyDad

13th January 2007, 08:12

Rumor has it that Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee to seek the GOP nomination for President . . .

What do y'all think about this ?

Does he think he has any prospect of winning the nomination or is he trying to :
a) get a message out
b) lay the groundwork for an independant/ third party run ?

Would you support Dr. Paul ?

I'm not even sure what I think about this yet, just wanted to get your opinions.

Here's the e-mail that I got about this :

Friends, good news! Rep. Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee to seek the GOP nomination for President of the United States in 2008.

And although unconfirmed, there is a rumor floating around the net that he is going to tap Tom Tancredo to be his running mate.

This could be the "dream team." Both men have very large grassroots support and both oppose the third-world invasion of the United States.

*************

Ron Paul for President 2008

Rep. Ron Paul has been hailed by many as the "only true conservative" left in the U.S. Congress, and he perhaps has one of the largest grassroots followings of any U.S. Representative.

A paleolibertarian (and Libertarian Party presidential nominee, 1988), Ron Paul has recently become (according to some) more of a "paleoconservative" or "conservative Constitutionalist."

Ron Paul is a harsh critic of amnesty, and he outright opposes the third-world invasion of America. He is a member of Tom Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus.

Ron Paul was only one of six Republicans to vote against the neocon war in Iraq. He foresaw the disaster it would become, and was not afraid to say so, even though it was unpopular at the time. Ron Paul also has voted against the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2005, and strongly endorses American withdrawal from the United Nations.

Ron Paul has been unafraid to criticize the neocon (aka, liberal in disguise) Bush Administration, and has been highly critical of their excessive spending. Paul professes a limited government. His regular votes against almost all proposals for government spending, initiatives, or taxes, and his frequent dissents in otherwise unanimous votes have irritated some of his Republican colleagues and have earned him the nickname "Dr. No" (an example being his dissenting vote in the socialist No Child Left Behind Act where he was one of three Representatives voting against it).

Rep. Ron Paul has been highly critical of the NAFTA Superhighway, and has co-sponsored legislation to end its construction. Although previously in favor of free trade, Ron Paul has more recently become skeptical of it. (Historically, conservatives have opposed free trade, and they should. It is destroying our economy and eroding away our national sovereignty.)

Ron Paul for President 2008!

* Rep Paul also sponsored H.R. 776, The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill "to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception,"
And that "the term `person' shall include all human life as defined" as beginning at conception
And limiting the appealate jursidiction of the Supreme Court " to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'

Your Thoughts ?

www.lesriley.net
Leslie

Joe_Liberty

13th January 2007, 09:36

exmarine

13th January 2007, 02:38

Tancredo is a much more well-known commodity than Paul. Furthermore, Tancredo has much more pathos with Americans because of his righteous stance on illegal immigration.

Tancredo, if anything, will run on his own. He would never agree to play second fiddle to Paul when he is the premier figure on the illegal immigration issue. I believe this one issue alone could get Tancredo the nomination - if he runs.

Eaglet

13th January 2007, 02:47

I seriously doubt he will get the Republican nomination.

He offered 776, which only go so far as to repudiate the theory of a constitutional right to abortion, as a substitute for the Right To Life Act of 2005 because he doesn't believe that the Constitution addresses the matter or that the federal government has the power to do so. This is quite different from the position Michael Peroutka campaigned on in 2004 in which he promised to end all legal abortion in America on his first day in office if elected.

I would like to hear Michael and John interview him.

Agreed. Paul and Peroutka have differing views on the legal bases for protecting the right to life in civil government.

Paul has done much to promote the right to life given his understanding and should be commended for it.

I also would like to hear Lofton and/or Peroutka interview Paul.

Spurgeon Baptist

13th January 2007, 04:09

exmarine

13th January 2007, 04:21

I agree that a Tracedo-Paul ticket would be stronger then vice-versa, however what is Trancedo's position on sanctity of life? Outside of immigration, is he solid on other issues?

To add fuel, the CP National supposedly sent out a fundraising letter hinting about a presidential run of Alan Keyes-Roy Moore for the Constitution Party.

Meanwhile the religous right is cozying up to Romney and Queen Pelosi controls the purse strings of the federal treasury - as the Bush adminstration continues to beat the war drums louder and louder.

2007-2008 may prove to be the most fascinating two years in recent American political history.

At this point, I do not know Tancredo's position on abortion - that is important to know.

I am a big fan of both Keyes and Moore. I would vote for either of these fine men. Keyes is nothing short of brilliant and would make mincemeat out of any opponent in a debate. Moore is a principled leader who holds to biblical principle.

However, I seriously doubt either of these men would run under a CP banner -too much baggage and too little funding and recognition.

Eaglet

13th January 2007, 04:27

Meanwhile the religous right is cozying up to Romney and Queen Pelosi

Wouldn't that tbe the "religious wrong" ?

Joe_Liberty

13th January 2007, 04:36

You can get an idea of Tancredo's views on baby murder and other issues here: http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Tom_Tancredo.htm

Spurgeon Baptist

13th January 2007, 05:14

Wouldn't that tbe the "religious wrong" ?

Eaglet, I happily accept your correction! :)

Smallfry

13th January 2007, 11:33

You can get an idea of Tancredo's views on baby murder and other issues here: http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Tom_Tancredo.htm
Looks bad to me.

Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)I don't see anything in the Bible sanctioning a ban on flag-burning, or about spying on your citizens, etc. Federal Marriage Amendment's no good either.

lastdaystruth

14th January 2007, 12:24

I am with smallfry on this one. I would not support some one who voted to make the Patriot Act permenant. Neither would Ron Paul in my opinion.

As for Moore and Keyes, Keyes supported Moore during the Monument showdown but seems to me to be too 'establishment'. I will be eating lunch with the Chief next week- I'll ask him what he thinks.

Joe_Liberty

15th January 2007, 05:52

Darrell Dow has a posted an entry in his blog supportive of Ron Paul. He writes:

Peroutka got my vote this last time too, but really he could not, given our present form of government, have ended abortion his first day in office.

Post a comment here (http://dowblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/finally-someone-i-can-vote-for.html#comments).

Confed77

15th January 2007, 09:17

Well, maybe not. But it would've been nice to see it tried!
Too many have needlessly died, the first was one too many.

I certanly would like to see the good Doctor on ballet, but Moore would be better!

gorillarms

16th January 2007, 01:14

I could not nor would I support Keyes he has an inside aura that taints him. Besides that i question his association with Randall Terry who left his wife for another woman casting a pall over his character as well. Got to sit in the Mike Slattery show on xtreme talk radio 104.3 fm out of Dunnellon Florida and hear Ron Paul call in. Quite impressed favorably at this point. two of my children had the distinct honor and privilege of going to Montgomery to meet and stand with Roy Moore. His book So Help Me God is an excellent read. Deo Vindice, Gorillarms

Joe_Liberty

16th January 2007, 01:39

There is currently a discussion at Alan Keyes forum on Ron Paul's candidacy:
http://www.renewamerica.us/forum/ You have to register to post which I don't remember having to do before.

Joe_Liberty

17th January 2007, 07:38

At this point, I do not know Tancredo's position on abortion - that is important to know.

One of Tancredo's biggest financial backers has been Dr. John Tanton, one of the most prominent financiers of Planned Parenthood in the United States. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10880

Centurion

17th January 2007, 01:02

For a Libertarian perspective on Ron Paul vs. Hillary, see "The Great Unknown" by lawyer/pundit James Ostrowski at http://www.lewrockwell.com.

Question: Where will Dr. Paul find the minimum $100 million to get traction in the primaries of a party that hates his worldview?

pneumann@yahoo.com

17th January 2007, 01:34

He may not a Christian, but it goes back to the lesser of two evils.

I've listened to Ron Paul interviewed by Alex Jones and have seen him in videos such as America Feedom to Fascism, and other A.J. videos. Ron Paul seems to be better than the alternative. He seems to be against the New World Order, is outspoken about it, and is trying to protect the Constitution.

As Ken Ham from AnswersinGenesis.org says we are trying to fight the effect rather than the cause. The foundations have been destroyed, what can the righteous do? I've been doing my best to educate people and especially my children as to God's law and how we should live as Christians. If we don't witness and help get people saved and then Christianize them, then it's only a dream to get back to Constitutional government, in my opinion. Isn't that why our contry has gone downhill since it's beginning? Because we no longer fear the Lord?

I hate to be cynical, maybe I'm wrong, but if Christians would fulfill the Great Commision, things will start changing in this country. The church has seemed to have lost it's power and it seems that's why the people have lost their freedoms and are becoming slaves to the government.

I have only been a Christian since 2001, so I'm still learning and trying to understand the true history of what's going on. If I am correct in my understanding, it took many years and a few generations to get where we are today, so it may take as long to get back to a Constitutional government. I think part of the problem is that we are impatient. Look how long it takes to raise a child in the way they should go. If any of you have tried to talk to someone about what's happening to our country you know it can take a long time for them to come around to understanding and wake up.

Am I making sense to anyone? Anyone else feel this way?

And at this point I would probably vote for Ron Paul for President, even though he is not a Christian. I would vote for Michael Peroutka if he ran again. I may not vote until they get rid of the electronic voting machines.

Paul

Centurion

17th January 2007, 04:22

Paul, I am curious. Why do you assert that Ron Paul "is not a Christian?"

MAC

18th January 2007, 01:25

If I am correct in my understanding, it took many years and a few generations to get where we are today, so it may take as long to get back to a Constitutional government. I think part of the problem is that we are impatient. Look how long it takes to raise a child in the way they should go. If any of you have tried to talk to someone about what's happening to our country you know it can take a long time for them to come around to understanding and wake up.

Am I making sense to anyone? Anyone else feel this way?
Paul

Paul,

You are right and yes it makes sense. My cousin and I used to get together for lunch every few weeks or months and we would spend a couple hours talking about issues. I would bring them up. After a year or so, one day I made the comment, apologising for bringing politics and pro life up so much and the response was that my cousin basically had been pro choice but that through our conversations she was now pro life.

Another situation was I was taking art lessons and a high school boy in his senior year was also taking lessons. I can never keep my mouth shut and would make a comment on Constitution, pro life or 2nd Amendment, the Lord, etc. and then we would get into discussions and bantering --sometimes to the point that the art teacher was nervous and others got tired of us.

Well, he went off to college and I ended up not going back. But, about a year later, as I was coming out of the hospital from visiting my father he was there visiting his grandfather and he recognised me and we sat down and chatted for a while and one of the first things he said was that I would be glad to hear that he had gotten saved. I believe he made a statement regarding being pro life, too.

I cannot tell you the times I have presented something to others and was completely ignored. Then along comes someone else saying the same thing I did to that same person yet now they would agree and go with the person like I had never said anything! Sounding off to a friend, the response came back: I had planted seeds and when someone else came along 'watering' with the same, it simply grew.

We never know how the Lord is working with our message. Yes, it may take awhile and it may be a while before we know the 'seeds' we planted took root and grew! We just have to keep planting 'seeds' --both God's Word, and the political & social truth. The Lord will take care of its growth in His own timing and our reaping comes in His timing, also. Reaping comes by different time spans. Radishes take approximately 3-4 weeks. On the other hand corn and many other vegetables take 3-4 months till the harvest! :)

pneumann@yahoo.com

18th January 2007, 01:22

Thanks for the response. That is encouraging. Hoefully in the future I will see the results of my witnessing.

To answer the question of Ron Paul being a Christian or not. I have not heard him ever state that he was so it was an assumption.

Paul

Joe_Liberty

1st March 2007, 03:16

There is a new poll at http://conservativepresident2008.blogspot.com/ that includes both Michael Peroutka and Ron Paul.

Jaxon

1st March 2007, 07:10

I'm very curious: is Ron Paul a Christian?

From his speeches: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr032806.htm

"Making the World Safe for Christianity"

Although in one of his earlier speeches he honors the Pope John Paul II, but again on the other hand he was praising the dead Pope's stance on abortion. What more could we ask for? A pro-life super Constitutionalist Libertarian who wants to make the world safe for Christianity!

I love that guy.

Eaglet

2nd March 2007, 08:01

Thanks for that poll link.

I am getting an error when I vote for Peroutka or Paul. I did not try the others because I did not want to risk that they get tallied.

Joe_Liberty

3rd March 2007, 08:41

Thanks for that poll link.

I am getting an error when I vote for Peroutka or Paul. I did not try the others because I did not want to risk that they get tallied.

It appears to be working again this morning.

Eaglet

3rd March 2007, 11:23

It just worked for me now.

Thank you.

LDSpatriot

3rd March 2007, 05:26

There are no perfect canidodates in this world, the only true King is Jesus.

RRHeustisJr

3rd March 2007, 10:53

There are no perfect canidodates in this world, the only true King is Jesus.

Hold on a minute...

Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God like Christians do.

So this begs the question: If Jesus is not God, then how can Jesus be "the only true King?"

Isn't it true that if any "king" is subject to a higher power, then he cannot possibly be the "only true King?"

Only God can claim the title of "only true King," and since Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is the only true King!

The fact of the matter is that the "Jesus" of Mormonism is a completely different Jesus than that of Biblical Christianity.

Jaxon

4th March 2007, 06:30

Hold on a minute...

Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God like Christians do.

So this begs the question: If Jesus is not God, then how can Jesus be "the only true King?"

Isn't it true that if any "king" is subject to a higher power, then he cannot possibly be the "only true King?"

Only God can claim the title of "only true King," and since Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is the only true King!

The fact of the matter is that the "Jesus" of Mormonism is a completely different Jesus than that of Biblical Christianity.

Indeed, Amen! Don't forget that Joseph Smith said that he had done more for humanity than anyone but Jesus, and that they would be co-equals on judgment day. Also, Smith was a Free Mason, isn't that cute? God used a paganistic Luciferian for His main prophet to finally bring the true gospel to earth after 1800+ years of falseness after Jesus left earth. Yeah.

Is Ron Paul a Christian? I was under the impression that he is.

Jaime

10th March 2007, 12:57

Pay special attention to Part 4.

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rmXdXEHdNI
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOqG1YP38h0
part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTqFVWEPBOQ
part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iweQQ_EE458

BTW, I think that Dr. Paul does claim to be a Christian but he is one not to use the name of Jesus for personal gain.

Traitor2Tyranny

11th March 2007, 06:34

One of Tancredo's biggest financial backers has been Dr. John Tanton, one of the most prominent financiers of Planned Parenthood in the United States. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10880

Tancredo is off my list of candidates for whom I would vote. (http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/03/new-conservatism-chekists-and.html)

Mr. Peroutka has been mentioning Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/html/MessageFromRon_fs.html) as the person to vote for (at least in the primaries) in a couple of his radio interviews. Mr. Peroutka gets it right. Ron Paul has a perfect voting record.----not sure about Hunter.

Someone mentioned Roy Moore, one of my heros, I was somewhat frustrated with Moore's support for charter schools, something that was provided for in goals 2000. The Clinton's federal education bill.

I have settled on Ron Paul in the primarys. If Peroutka runs in the General Election I would vote for him as I would Bill Denman.

Eaglet

11th March 2007, 10:42

Thanks for the video links, Jaime.

I would like to see some interest in pro-activity in defending the right to life from Dr. Paul. However, it is clear that he would stop federal funding of abortion and also support legislation such as his proposal to identify personhood as beginning at conception.

These are pro-life positions and superior to those of the current "leadership" in the White House and Congress. I would prefer Peroutka or Baldwin, but Paul's positions are also commendable as he would stop the government from pro-actively killing innocent children.

Eaglet

12th March 2007, 08:41

Ron Paul is being interviewed on C-Span's Washington Journal now. (http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS)

Jeffrey Butler

12th March 2007, 03:45

WASHINGTON - Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, announced Monday on a C-SPAN call-in show that he is running for president.

More here. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0313/p01s02-uspo.html) Actually, not much more...just the first line, really. The article's more about discontent than RP.

Spurgeon Baptist

12th March 2007, 03:52

Is anyone familiar with Fred Thompson from Tennessee?

J. Glenn Ferrell

12th March 2007, 04:04

Is anyone familiar with Fred Thompson from Tennessee? Yes, I watch Law and Order.

Spurgeon Baptist

12th March 2007, 04:13

It looks he might throw his hat in the ring - here is an excerpt from an interview he did over the weekend:

On the issues, Thompson says he:

Opposes gun control. "You check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue."

Opposes same-sex marriage, but would let states decide on civil unions. "Marriage is between a man and a woman, and judges shouldn't be allowed to change that."

Opposes abortion. "I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years."

Supports President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. "Wars are full of mistakes. You rectify things. I think we're doing that now."

Supports an immediate pardon for former White House Aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby. "This is a trial that never would have been brought in any other part of the world. This is a miscarriage of justice. One man and his wife and 14-year-old and 10-year-old children are bearing the brunt of a political maelstrom here that produced something that never should have come about."
Regarding illegal immigration, Thompson said:

We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with. I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary.
I think most people feel disillusioned after 1986 when we had this deal offered to them before, and now we're insisting that, you know, we solve the security problem first, and then we'll talk about what to do with regard to other things – certainly no amnesty or nothing blanket like that.

But figure out some way to make some differentiation between the kind of people that we have here.

You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen.

Jaime

12th March 2007, 06:03

Here is Dr. Paul's CSPAN interview:

link to you tube view removed by jaime

Edit: 5/24/2007
I was informed that there is an ad for a porn site in at the end of the video.

My apologies to all who so that part of the video on my account. I did not see that part. I must have quit the video before the questionable section began.

Traitor2Tyranny

14th March 2007, 08:51

Jamie, The above video had an unseemly ad at the end of it and it looks like "you-tube" has taken it down.

Is Ron Paul the only anti-war candidate at this time? (http://www.rightsourceonline.com/welch/bnews2.cfm?rank_cho=3732)

James Niemela

16th March 2007, 01:14

Dear folks,

I wrote to Mr. Paul's campaign, and asked him if he allows exceptions for abortion. Here is the message I wrote.

Dear Mr. Paul,

I was recently visiting your exploratory website, and saw some of the issues you had listed. I appreciate your stands for freedom, our Constitution, and limiting the government. I didn't notice a stance on abortion. I was wondering where you stand on this issue. Do you allow for any exceptions for abortion? I have read elsewhere a statement that you hold to a "consistent life ethic", and was wondering if this was accurate. I look forward to learning where you stand on this matter. With kind regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

James Niemela
11301 Mattson Rd.
Pelkie, MI 49958

Here is the response.

James,
Thank you for your interest in Dr. Ron Paul. He is a consistent pro-life candidate and holds pro-life views personally.

Recently, he sponsored H.R. 1094 (To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception) and H.R. 1095 (To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.)

Here are some statements that he wrote in the past on this issue:

"LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS" (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr071300.htm )
"PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000"
(http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040500.htm)

Other resources you can look at are on his Congressional Office site: http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

And legislative information from the Library of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov
- Show quoted text -

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
www.RonPaul2008.com

I hope all the links work out.

James Niemela

Eaglet

17th March 2007, 12:07

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=208
"There was a link on the Yahoo home page to this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070312/pl_nm/usa_politics_paul_dc) about Ron Paul’s announcement."

Eaglet

19th March 2007, 12:26

I enjoy chatting in IRC and am glad to see Paul's supporters provide a resource in this medium.
I don't know how many of you have ever used IRC (Internet Relay Chat) but it is a great way to communicate in realtime with people from diverse corners of the world. It is standard for many Free Software / Open Source projects to use it to collaborate. In that spirit I have created an IRC channel on Freenode (http://freenode.net/) for us to use to discuss/promote Dr. Paul's candidacy: #RonPaul (irc://irc.freenode.net/#RonPaul).

(From http://dailypaul.com/node/48)

Joe_Liberty

20th March 2007, 04:32

Traitor2Tyranny

20th March 2007, 04:37

Thanks for the link. The part around the 27 minute 20 second mark is interesting and a good idea.

Eaglet

27th March 2007, 11:40

March 29, 1:30 PM Eastern
WNYM Internet Radio (http://wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2997#josc1085)

"You can listen to the stream here (http://wnymedia.net/audio/radioplayer.php?z=wmp&status=play)"

Hat Tip: The New Liberty (http://thenewliberty.com/?p=85)

JohnnyBeGood

14th May 2007, 04:19

By most impartial accounts Ron Paul was the overwhelming winner of the first debate for Republican candidates. A number of media sources have been slow to tell of his success (Yahoo, ABC, etc.) but here's to hoping that the word continues to spread. I hope that his funding is relatively substantial. The longer RP stays in this race & gets exposure to the American people, I think that more people will get on board with his message.

Traitor2Tyranny

14th May 2007, 06:10

Last month, Michael Peroutka was interviewed on the Mark Dankof's radio show and discussed the 2008 presidential race and Ron Paul for President:
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/20/2004-constitution-party-ticket-on-ron-paul-for-president-08/

Mr. Peroutka suggests that Ron Paul comes at questions from a "humanistic view” and that Ron Paul believes our rights are intrinsic to us as human beings because humans are sovereign.

I would have thought that Ron would believe that rights come from God as described in the Declaration of Independence. Has anyone heard a question in this regard that has been directed to Ron Paul?

Even though he ran in the libertarian party does not mean that he is in agreement with their humanistic views, just as he is running as a republican today and is not in agreement with many of their views.

James Niemela

14th May 2007, 06:31

This matter is a concern to me as well. If a person doesn't acknowledge that our rights come from God, as President Peroutka did in 2004, who or what defines which rights are intrinsic/inalienable? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...." If the Creator's endowing us with rights is not the foundation, who or what determines what our rights are? If we as humans have rights that are ours simply because we are humans, what are those rights, and from where or who do they come? I would be interested in learning more about Dr. Paul's stance on the issue of where rights come from as well. Thank you, T2T, for bringing up this important and valid point.

James

Joe_Liberty

14th May 2007, 11:51

Mr. Peroutka suggests that Ron Paul comes at questions from a "humanistic view” and that Ron Paul believes our rights are intrinsic to us as human beings because humans are sovereign.

I would have thought that Ron would believe that rights come from God as described in the Declaration of Independence. Has anyone heard a question in this regard that has been directed to Ron Paul?

At the Simi Valley cattle call, the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in the theory of evolution. The camera gave a wide angle shot that showed some of the candidates with their hands raised. I was interested in their answer, but I could not make out who among them had their hands up. I watched most of it again online, but due to limited eye sight and/or screen size I still couldn't tell for sure. I thought Ron Paul raised his hand, but I received an email from someone today claiming that "Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo indicated that they did not believe in the theory of evolution" but "Ron Paul did not raise his hand." Can anyone either confirm or refute this?

Traitor2Tyranny

16th May 2007, 02:45

I thought Ron Paul raised his hand, but I received an email from someone today claiming that "Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo indicated that they did not believe in the theory of evolution" but "Ron Paul did not raise his hand." Can anyone either confirm or refute this?

According to his campain office he did not raise his hand.

I think John needs to interview him.

I do like the job he did in last nights debate.

I have more confidence that Paul would would stand by principle than I would have in your average CP candidate.

J. Glenn Ferrell

16th May 2007, 03:29

I have more confidence that Paul would would stand by principle than I would have in your average CP candidate. Though I suspect Ron Paul's principles are limited by his libertarian perspective, I'd like to see him have an adequate opportunity to articulate his major differences with the Republican establishment's rest of the pack.

Spurgeon Baptist

16th May 2007, 04:28

Lord Limbaugh addressed the issue on his show today. He is accusing Ron Paul supporters of spamming the internet surveys to artificially inflate Paul's popularity.

Like most neocons, Rush is opposed to his anti-war stance and "unrealistic" libertarian views on foreign policy.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55724

TimV

16th May 2007, 08:23

Keep an eye on FAUX NEWS, National Review etc.. the neos are scared of this guy and are gunning for him. Did you all catch Rudy G's big, fat, lie about never having heard the theory that 9-11 happened because of our interventionist policies? Sure, Rudy. You've never heard of that one.

Traitor2Tyranny

16th May 2007, 08:50

Lord Limbaugh addressed the issue on his show today. He is accusing Ron Paul supporters of spamming the internet surveys to artificially inflate Paul's popularity.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55724

It would be interesting for Rush to describe exactly how this "spamming" took place.

If spamming is the reason for the inflated popularity then how did the Fox poll that only accepted "spam" from cell phone messaging show so much support for Paul?

I am sure they allowed only one vote per cell number. Maybe Rush thinks the Paul supporters out there were stealing phones to vote for Paul. The spamming theory is pretty far fetched conspiracy theory from Rush.

James Niemela

16th May 2007, 09:12

"The spamming theory is pretty far fetched conspiracy theory from Rush."

Hmmmm...... Isn't Rush the guy who loves to rip into conspiracy theorists? Help! Has he become what he once despised?

James

Jaime

16th May 2007, 10:19

Arrrrrrrrrrgh. Look in the Constitution. Where in it, or how does the jurisdiction delegated to the Central government apply to some of those, in context, stupid questions? If I was asked the creation question I would have not raised my hand either.

Jurisdiction and relevance at some point has to apply.

Jaime

16th May 2007, 10:21

Dang it. How many times does Dr. Paul has to say that the government grants no rights! That governments exists to protect alread existing rights!

James Niemela

16th May 2007, 10:49

Pro-Life of Idaho

17th May 2007, 01:56

The Ron Paul 2008 office told me, Ron has a church but he is very private

about it. I like Ron. I will vote for him in the Idaho primary in May 2008.

I am an independent for US Senate-2008. When you register to vote in

Idaho you do not declare a party, so in a primary you can take any party's

ballot, so I will take a Rep. primary ballot. 80% of Idaho is Rep., most of

them socialists. It would be better if Ron had the faith to talk about God,

but he is an honest guy, and he will not fake it.

Joe_Liberty

17th May 2007, 09:53

According to his campain office he did not raise his hand.

I think John needs to interview him.

I do like the job he did in last nights debate.

I have more confidence that Paul would would stand by principle than I would have in your average CP candidate.

Folks might be interested in this editorial:
http://www.covenantnews.com/schwiesow070516.htm

I did not know until I read it that Huckabee had repudiated his answer to the evolution question.

Traitor2Tyranny

17th May 2007, 11:38

Here is the video of Ron Paul's part of the debate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPaFWUaF-uA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles% 2Fus%2Fpaul%5Fron%5Fupsets%5Fcontrolled%5Fmedia%5F debate%5Fas%5Fclear%5Fwinner%2Ehtm)

I am glad that someone posted the press reaction to Ron Paul's lead in the post debate poll.

The media and both the democrat and republican party guys were clearly frustrated.

Here is video of the press reaction to Ron Paul Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles% 2Fus%2Fpaul%5Fron%5Fupsets%5Fcontrolled%5Fmedia%5F debate%5Fas%5Fclear%5Fwinner%2Ehtm)
No substance from the media but the frustration is worth watching for it's entertainment value. Some even felt the need to anounce that Ron Paul did not win this debate.

Wraith

17th May 2007, 11:43

It would be interesting for Rush to describe exactly how this "spamming" took place.

If spamming is the reason for the inflated popularity then how did the Fox poll that only accepted "spam" from cell phone messaging show so much support for Paul?

I am sure they allowed only one vote per cell number. Maybe Rush thinks the Paul supporters out there were stealing phones to vote for Paul. The spamming theory is pretty far fetched conspiracy theory from Rush.

Actually I sent in two text messages and they sent two back to me saying thanks for voting. So I dont think this one was a very scientific approach. The msn one on the other hand was much clearer (not to mention longer lasting).
Did anybody else notice that they were all talking about how bad he was going to lose, then said only the front runners would remain, then showed the vote and the dude talking when they did that gasped. Ha ha ha :p It was awsome! The thing was he said we have the front runners in front then we have Ron Paul up here who is not a front runner (even though at the time he was winning).
I hope he win's the nomination just becouse I want to see him debate hillery. Even if he loses that will be so worth it.
Finnally I will tell the whole world why he is winning. He does not sound like bush. All the other canidates were using bushes speech material on every little issue. Not Ron. He sound's different so he stands out even though the media refuse to report him (in good light).

Traitor2Tyranny

17th May 2007, 11:55

Actually I sent in two text messages and they sent two back to me saying thanks for voting. So I dont think this one was a very scientific approach.

I am surprised they accepted more than one vote from the same phone. If I would have only known….

If they have a software system that counts the votes, I would think that it would still not account multiple votes from the same phone.

I think the dude you are referring to is Sean Hannity. I suppose he likes to think that everyone watching him is “hanitized”.

I kind of enjoy seeing him disappointed and frustrated. He is supposedly pro-life but I don’t think he is quite as upset to see a baby murderer win.

Wraith

17th May 2007, 12:01

I think the dude you are referring to is Sean Hannity. I suppose he likes to think that everyone watching him is “hanitized”.

.

It was not hannity. It was not colmes either. It was the guy they went to every time the went between canidates

Traitor2Tyranny

17th May 2007, 12:01

Spurgeon Baptist

17th May 2007, 01:27

Traitor2Tyranny

17th May 2007, 01:53

I know I'm going to stoke some fires here, but Ron Paul is not doing himself any favors by being interviewed on the Alex Jones show. He also has openly called for the impeachment of Bush.

If Paul's candidacy starts to seriously gain steam, the neocon war machine will have plenty of ammo against him.

The sad truth is, politics is about perception and not truth.

Since in our socalist selfish society perception in politics is not about truth.....Ron Paul will do himself any favor by speaking the truth in any forum.

He may do better in the eyes of men to become like the JBS (http://www.jbsrip.blogspot.com/)

Paul

17th May 2007, 01:55

Dr. Paul should continue on the road that he's always been on. He doesn't need to start acting like a politician.

I think it's great that they want to ban him. It shows that they are afraid.

Spurgeon Baptist

17th May 2007, 02:10

Dr. Paul should continue on the road that he's always been on. He doesn't need to start acting like a politician.

It depends on what his purpose is. Does he seriously want to get elected or just propogate his views?

Centurion

17th May 2007, 02:50

Considering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how they started and what has happened, and what is bound to happen, Ron Paul's (and others') call for impeachment is not as far-fetched as some might surmise. What transpires in both theaters over the next six to nine months should tell the story. I suspect the principals in the Bush administration are increasingly eager to transfer this travesty of governance and global mayhem over to the Democrats in 2009.

And, as usual, the military and innocent civilians will be left holding the bag -- body bags, that is.

Impeachment? It's all in the timing and, of course, God's sovereign will. One clear impediment: the complicity of Congress throughout. It is perhaps unlikely that the other perps in the crime will indict and prosecute their primary collaborartor.

Anecdote to support Paul's anti-war position, among hundreds of others:

Last Sunday morning, Mother's Day, I listened to NPR foreign correspondent, Ann Garrels broadcasting from Baghdad. She was interviewing one of 10,000 military mothers serving in the war zones. Most are single, some are married to GI husbands, and all, of course, have abandoned their children to represent this great nation -- light of righteousness and liberty -- whose men -- all of us -- are cowards enough to send our women to fight our unjust and unconstitutional wars.

One personal lesson: Don't listen to news programs on the Lord's Day.

Subsequently, I was ashamed and troubled during much of the Sunday worship that morning, especially as a retired senior Air Force officer and covenant brother of so many Christians who support current war policy.

I remain convicted.

And now we have a War Czar, General Lute, to "manage" this unwinnable mess for the emperor and commander-in-chief, and his wimp Congressional enablers. Keep breeding the Leviathan!

Why not a woman, a Czarina with lots of children and no husband?

Impeachment?

Too light an outcome, as history will record.

Jaime

18th May 2007, 01:10

Dear Jaime,

I don't think the question is so much about whether gov't should protect all-ready existing rights, but is more about where do those rights come from? Because that, my friend, is foundational.

James Niemela

It is foundational but look at the crop of "creationists" and tell me what difference does it make in their public policies or personal lifes? The "creationists" are also the militiarists Warlords.

J. Glenn Ferrell

18th May 2007, 01:33

A Chiristian may be entirely "orthodox," a "fundamentalist" or even "Reformed" in his beliefs and still not advocate biblical principles in public policy. We have lots of examples.

James Niemela

18th May 2007, 01:50

"It is foundational but look at the crop of "creationists" and tell me what difference does it make in their public policies or personal lifes? The "creationists" are also the militiarists Warlords." [Jaime]

Dear Jaime,

I agree that simply because a person is a "creationist" doesn't meant he will advocate for God's principles in government. I agree with you regarding our warlord leaders. I believe that if a person has the fortitude to say publicly that he believes in creation, we need to look more closely and seek out more of his views. However, if a person denies God and creation from the onset, I believe we should not give that person our vote. Period. If a candidate denies God from the beginning, I don't need to look any further. The question is, did Mr. Paul do this (deny God and creation)? Or did he simply choose not to answer because he doesn't believe it is applicable to the political sphere? Or what? The foundational issue is where do rights come from? Do they come from God? Do they come from the State? Are they simply inherent to the human race? If so, why don't animals have the same rights? If God/Jesus Christ didn't grant us our rights, why don't animals have the same rights?

So to recap, a person can say they believe in creation. Great! Let's seek to learn more about his beliefs and how he will govern. If a person denies creation and God/Jesus Christ from the beginning of the game so to speak, I believe Christians should deny him their votes. Period. Thanks!

James

James Niemela

18th May 2007, 01:53

"A Chiristian may be entirely "orthodox," a "fundamentalist" or even "Reformed" in his beliefs and still not advocate biblical principles in public policy. We have lots of examples." [J. Glenn Ferrell

Dear Mr. Ferrell,

I couldn't agree with you more on this point. That is why we must seek out where a candidate stands on issues of government; but more importantly, we need to ask him what he will do once elected to advance the issues he says he believes in. If he lies, and does not do what he promises, we need to seek to unseat him and elect a Christian in his place.

James

West Michigan

18th May 2007, 02:38

Wow is Jim Clymer in the Michigan Republican Party? Sounds like they want to treat Ron Paul like the CP treated Michael Peroutka.

Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates. (http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan)

He states that Paul’s views are not those of the so-called Republican base.

Paul’s views are apparently distracting the “base” from serious candidates like pro-baby murder, pro-sodomy, pro-adultery, pro-gun control, pro-preemptive war, 9/11 criminal Rudy Goulianni.

Or devil-worshipping mormon Mitt.

Or Kennedy’s buddy McCain….

Jaxon

19th May 2007, 02:22

Know what? Without revival in the body of Christ in this cursed land, we don't even deserve a Tancredo or Hunter, as bad as they are, let alone a principaled man like Paul or Peroutka. Our churches are so full of fools and demons it'd be a miracle if the physical, apocalyptic judgment of God doesn't hammer this nation back to 1492 within the next five-ten years. I'll vote Ron Paul as a write in or lever pull in November 2008, but with friends like Jay Sekulow, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and all the other mind rapists directed at the deceived right of our nation, who needs enemies?:mad: :mad: :mad:

loupoumakis

19th May 2007, 11:47

If a person denies creation and God/Jesus Christ from the beginning of the game so to speak, I believe Christians should deny him their votes. Period.

Do you extend this to the point of not voting at all? If Ron Paul gets the nomination and says he will continue to work towards what we would consider Biblical principles of government but also says he's not a Christian, would you not vote for him? It seems to me we should not base our vote on the man's profession of faith or lack or even denial thereof. Rather, we should vote for whatever candidate we believe will perform in accordance with God-given principles. Now, I will admit that most men that deny the faith are not likely to so act. But in Ron Paul's case, he has an excellent track record that speaks strongly in his favor. I'm not saying that faith is unimportant; it is a very significant factor. But just that voting for Godly rule is primary and the person's faith or character is a secondary factor.

James Niemela

19th May 2007, 01:29

"But just that voting for Godly rule is primary and the person's faith or character is a secondary factor." [loupoumakis]

Dear loupoumakis,

Are you a Christian? If so, how can a non-Christian represent you? How can a non-Christian advocate for "Godly rule?" We have plenty of "Christians" who, once elected, certainly do not rule like they are Christians. Why then should I trust my vote to someone who will not acknowledge God/Jesus Christ, when most "Christian" candidates/officials will not even advocate for Godly rule? I am not saying Mr. Paul is not an honorable man. Far from it. I do get concerned when a candidate will not publicly acknowledge God/Jesus Christ as the author of our liberty.
As far as my extending this to the point of not voting at all, yes, I do believe that if there is not a Christian candidate running, we must not vote for an ungodly man to rule. Far better to write in a Godly person, than to waste a vote on a person who cannot represent me, because he does not share my worldview. In the election in 2006, I wrote in candidates in all the offices that I voted in, with 3 exceptions. I voted for myself for State Representative, a guy running for Michigan Supreme Court, and wrote in a declared write-in candidate for US Senate. The rest of the people I wrote in were not declared candidate, so none of those counted. (As it was, I have the feeling that the election workers chucked out my whole ballot, since the guy who was a declared write-in didn't get any votes in our county. And I know at least my wife and I voted for him. Maybe I should sign up to be an election worker next time?:) ) Many people would say I wasted my vote. They would consider it a waste of my time that I even went to the polls. I don't. I was able to cast my vote with a free conscience, and send a statement to the election workers at the same time. When I stand before my God in the voting booth, I don't want to cast my vote for evil. May He always give me the will and knowledge to vote as He desires me to vote!

James Niemela

loupoumakis

19th May 2007, 02:34

When I stand before my God in the voting booth, I don't want to cast my vote for evil. May He always give me the will and knowledge to vote as He desires me to vote!

James,

I agree in general with your sentiments here and did my own write-in votes in the last election. I don't think we should vote for the lesser of two evils. But in Ron Paul's case (even the hypothetical one), we would not be voting for evil. He has proven that stands for the kinds of things I want to see accomplished. To vote for another candidate that lacks Ron's track record just becaue he says he is a Christian, would be voting for evil. As would a write-in vote for someone we know cannot be elected.

Regards, Lou

J. Glenn Ferrell

19th May 2007, 03:05

Know what? Without revival in the body of Christ in this cursed land, we don't even deserve a Tancredo or Hunter, as bad as they are, let alone a principaled man like Paul or Peroutka.
Which is why I keep saying all of us should make more effort to insure we are part of and support churches which are biblically faithful in preaching, doctrine, worship, government, and discipline, than we put into good candidates and an uncompromised party. We have complete freedom in our choice of a local congregation and far more opportunity to influence that congregation than to elect our preferred candidate to civil office. If our congregations influence revival and reformation, we may eventually get better civil magistrates. Trusting in our political efforts over the gospel is a form of humanism.

Centurion

19th May 2007, 03:08

Lou, you posed a premise that Ron Paul is not a believer.

Evidence?

Thanks.

Also, a general observation on recent posts by others:

"Creationism" requires definition to be useful in evaluating candidates and leaders in the public square and elsewhere. For example, are we speaking of six-day (literal 24-hr. days) creation in Genesis, the Big Bang theory, the deist clockmaker, Old Earth/New Earth, or what?

I know of a "conservative" PCA seminary which finds no fault with "theistic evolution," and they consider themselves "Creationist."

Does all of the above make any difference in choosing candidates for civil and ecclesiastical authority?

Why?

James Niemela

19th May 2007, 03:51

"To vote for another candidate that lacks Ron's track record just becaue he says he is a Christian, would be voting for evil. As would a write-in vote for someone we know cannot be elected." [Lou]

Dear Lou,

How is writing in "someone we know cannot be elected" evil? I thought our vote is a reflection of our values. Are you referring to only "undeclared" write-in candidates? Or are you referring to voting for any candidate (write-in or otherwise) who does not have a "chance" (to use the ungodly term) of winning? If the latter, then, according to that line of reasoning, I did wrong by voting for President Peroutka in 2004. I knew without a doubt that he would not "win", as in get elected to the office or President. However, in my books, he won big, because he stood on truth and for God's principles, and provided a Godly, Christian alternative to the "lesser of the evils." For that reason, I was so honored and blessed to vote for him. So could you clarify what you mean by your statement that "To vote for another candidate that lacks Ron's track record just becaue he says he is a Christian, would be voting for evil. As would a write-in vote for someone we know cannot be elected." (Especially the part which equates writing in a candidate who "cannot win" with voting for an evil candidate.) Thank you!

Kind regards,

James Niemela

James Niemela

19th May 2007, 03:55

"For example, are we speaking of six-day (literal 24-hr. days) creation in Genesis,..." [Centurion]

Dear Centurion,

When I referr to Creation, I am speaking of the Genesis account of Creation. 6 days, (24 hr. days), etc. I don't believe any other "interpretation" can be considered Creationism.

King regards,

James Niemela

Centurion

19th May 2007, 08:21

We agree, brother James, but my point was that many people with different definitions will use the same term, which is obvioulsy misleading. That is why I prefer not to use the word; same with "intelligent design." Both are pop jargon, of little use in orthodoxy, including law and politics, unless definitions have been agreed upon in advance.

J. Glenn Ferrell

19th May 2007, 08:37

I know of a "conservative" PCA seminary which finds no fault with "theistic evolution," and they consider themselves "Creationist."
I'm curious as to what "conservative" PCA seminary you write about?

Anyone or any seminary that believes or teaches "theistic evolution" is not a "Creationist," though they could claim to adhere to creation by "Intelligent Design."

However, one can be a "Creationist" and give a different interpretation to the days of Creation. For example, 1) a Genesis day is equal to an age; 2) a Genesis day is of indeterminate length; or 3) Genesis days are a literary device used to provide a theological framework for the Creation account.

J. Glenn Ferrell

19th May 2007, 08:43

When I referr to Creation, I am speaking of the Genesis account of Creation. 6 days, (24 hr. days), etc. I don't believe any other "interpretation" can be considered Creationism. James: The earth spins slower each year. In terms of our measure of time, how long do you think it took the earth to rotate at creation? Likely, it was at least a little longer than it is now. So, though you may define a day as the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis, one can not be sure how long that was during the first six days of its existence. Thus, one must permit some flexibility in definition.

James Niemela

19th May 2007, 09:14

manofconviction

19th May 2007, 11:46

To that, James, a hearty AMEN!

J. Glenn Ferrell

20th May 2007, 01:02

OK. I will concede that maybe they were 24 hr. and 30. min days way back then. :) I do not believe that a Genesis day was equal to an age, or other (what I would consider to be ) nonsense. Once we start saying it was 6 ages, indeterminate length, etc. we play into the athiests/evolutionists hands, who deny that God can make the whole earth in 6 literal 24 hr. (or 24 hr. 30 min.) days. (Or He could have made it all instantaneously, if He would have desired to do so.) Far better to put our trust in our Almighty Heavenly Father, who was able to create the world in 6 days, then join with the athiests/evolutionists who try to explain how He couldn't have. My belief is that it is far better to simply accept what the Bible clearly says, and if I don't understand it, the reason is my own finite mind, not the Bible contradicting itself. If something is not written in the Book, it is really none of my business to try to figure it out.

James: I don't know how much the earth's rotation has slowed since creation, but if it was originally 24 hours and 30 minutes, or possibly 24 hours and 25 minutes, we may refer to a day of creation as being of indeterminate length, since we don’t know the exact answer. Scripture tells us God created in six days. The word used seems to refer to a normal day and not an age. A day was a sunset, a sun rise and another sunset.

We must stand with the truth, the reliability of Scripture, and the fact of God's creation of the heavens and earth, all life and man directly as factual and historical events. However, Scripture means here what God intended to say through Moses, nothing more and nothing less. It is legitimate to ponder God's intent in those inerrant words.

Centurion

20th May 2007, 02:18

See Post 84: "That is why I prefer not to use the word ('Creationist'); same with 'intelligent design.' Both are pop jargon ..."

Just check the direction of this thread.

Genesis in the Word sufficient. And it is clear and exciting!

Why complicate it?

James Niemela

20th May 2007, 09:47

Amen, Mr. Centurion! Thank you, Mr. Ferrell! The Genesis account is sufficient. And beautiful! May I not taint it with my reasoning and wonderings. Enough said from me.

James Niemela

loupoumakis

20th May 2007, 05:01

How is writing in "someone we know cannot be elected" evil?

James,

Sorry, I was a little rushed in my last response and didn't take the time to explain myself properly. I wasn't thinking of a candidate like Peroutka but rather just someone I know or just putting my own name down. Voting for Peroutka, even if we acknowledge he didn't have a chance of winning is a very different thing. Our votes are a declaration to the public at large (especially to Christians) of what kinds of persons we should support. They are meaningful in that they could stimulate others to vote accordingly in future elections. In the Ron Paul case, assuming he is what his record shows him to be, a no vote or an idle write-in vote would constitute voting for evil. This is so because we know that his opponents would promote evil policies that he would oppose.

My whole point is that we shouldn't vote for the man. We should vote for what we believe he will accomplish while in office. After all, God did use evil governments and evil men to fulfil His purposes in history. And I don't think we are presumptively infringing on His incommunicable attributes by attempting to emulate Him in so doing. I think Scripture tells us to put Godly men in office to rule over us. But what constitutes a Godly man? I would say it's anyone who would rule by God's word, that would apply Biblical principles in the decisions he will be making. It seems quite clear from our own recent history that such a person is not necessarily a regenerate Christian. Most of today's Christians do not have a good understanding of how God's law applies to government or even that it should be applied.

We should be careful to avoid falling into the moralist's trap, that of attempting to oversimplify life situations. Voting only for professing Christians would seem to be one instance of such an error.

In Christian love,

Lou

loupoumakis

20th May 2007, 05:08

Lou, you posed a premise that Ron Paul is not a believer.

Evidence?

I don't know his faith. It was simply a hypothetical premise to address the question of whether or not we could ever vote for an unbeliever.

Centurion

20th May 2007, 05:32

Thanks for clarifying. -- Frank

Jeremy D. McCann

20th May 2007, 11:51

angelawittman

20th May 2007, 11:56

Voting only for professing Christians would seem to be one instance of such an error.

Please post some scriptural references or examples of the LORD telling His people to elect ungodly leaders so He can use them for good. Are we so dumbed-down Scripturally that we are at the point where the God-haters will make better civil magistrates than an uninformed Christian? Do you think God is impotent and He cannot raise up Christian Statesmen to govern over us? If so, perhaps we should all start praying for the LORD to give us a ticket for the next rapture out. Or could it be you are trying to justify some bad votes you have made? Why not just repent and then don't do it anymore? :)

ru4liberty

21st May 2007, 04:24

As often is the case in our forum, we veered off course at one point, and at the risk of continuing the discussion, I would like to comment on the concept of a Genesis day:

"Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

I have not read commentaries on the Bible, and know I need to. However, we are given the first description of what a day was before the creation of the firmament in the midst of the waters, and before the creation of the earth. My feeble mind cannot grasp the concept of that day and night without referencing the Earth and it's rotation. How can we understand the seperation of light and darkness without any intervening material substance? We cannot. As always, God condescends out of His abundant mercy to give us His pattern; for creation in this case.

I will not try to explain to an un-believer HOW the earth could be created in seven days, because I don't fully understand it myself and I really don't think it's important. What is important is faith in Jesus Christ and God's Word as God's Truth. God is beyond explanation to the natural mind. Granted we must be ready to give a defense for the Gospel, but that is also based on faith.
Paul states that he did not use eloquent words or give a moving power-point presentation when spreading the Gospel of Christ. Faith is a gift from God. If a non-believer is not given faith by God, it will be impossible to convince him of his folly anyway, but we should continue to speak God's word regardless. :D

James Niemela

21st May 2007, 07:10

"I will not try to explain to an un-believer HOW the earth could be created in seven days, because I don't fully understand it myself and I really don't think it's important. What is important is faith in Jesus Christ and God's Word as God's Truth. God is beyond explanation to the natural mind. Granted we must be ready to give a defense for the Gospel, but that is also based on faith.
Paul states that he did not use eloquent words or give a moving power-point presentation when spreading the Gospel of Christ. Faith is a gift from God. If a non-believer is not given faith by God, it will be impossible to convince him of his folly anyway, but we should continue to speak God's word regardless." [ru4liberty]

May I re-enter the discussion to say a loud "AMEN!" to ru4liberty. Thank you!

James Niemela

TimV

21st May 2007, 10:04

How can we understand the seperation of light and darkness without any intervening material substance?

Sorry, didn't understand that. What material substance? I personally can't understand light without a source. Light being created on the first day, and the sun on the fourth. And I don't understand how plants, which were created on the third day could have survived if days were much longer than 24 hours. Take a small board and lay it on your lawn for a week and see what happens.

There was light, and it didn't have a source like the sun. And there was a rest period, which many plants need, when the light wasn't there.

loupoumakis

21st May 2007, 12:59

Please post some scriptural references or examples of the LORD telling His people to elect ungodly leaders so He can use them for good. Are we so dumbed-down Scripturally that we are at the point where the God-haters will make better civil magistrates than an uninformed Christian? Do you think God is impotent and He cannot raise up Christian Statesmen to govern over us? If so, perhaps we should all start praying for the LORD to give us a ticket for the next rapture out. Or could it be you are trying to justify some bad votes you have made? Why not just repent and then don't do it anymore? :)

Angela,

I didn't say we should elect ungodly leaders. On the contrary, we desperately need godly leaders. The question I raised was how do you define what is meant by godly leadership. I submit that what the leader does in office is the primary criteria and his profession of faith is secondary.

I do think experience should teach us that so-called Christian leaders can be extremely poor examples of godly leadership. One that comes to mind is Jimmy Carter. Because of the gullibility, complacency and laziness of the general public (Christians included) and their tendency to go back to sleep as soon as they have elected a "real Christian" to office, ignorant Christian leaders can be far more dangerous and do more damage than outright unbelievers. I would cite George Bush as a prime example in this case.

God certainly can raise up godly leaders but our responsibility is godly voting, which, like it or not, in some cases may mean voting for a non-Christian candidate.

As to "a ticket for the next rapture out," I don't believe God is going to rescue us from our own sinful foolishness. We need to get with Christ's program and start taking dominion in His name. There's a world out there waiting to be converted. Every knee must bow to Him and, while He sits at God's right hand, all His enemies made a footstool for His feet (Acts 2:32-35).

Regarding your rash attack on my voting record, I'm not trying to justify anything and I do attempt to repent of my mistakes and learn from them. You should do likewise and consider what I'm saying here. We all have much to learn and a dogmatic attachment to old ideas is not generally conducive to growth and progress.

Regards,

Lou

Centurion

21st May 2007, 03:20

In His absolute sovereignty (see Job 38-42 for review), God will ordain leaders of whatever character He so decides in every sphere, whether men have voted for them or not.

Similarly, if His created creatures choose to ignore or amend His infallible Word on creation, law, self-governance, the consequences of sin, potential redemption, etc., then He obviously may let us have our way for a few seasons or centuries -- and endure His appropriate judgment.

Challenge: What is the role of His elect, filled with His Holy Spirit, abiding in His Word, not just in politics, but in all segments of society?

Has our Creator enabled us to reach unity on these fundamental questions?

And what does that last question have to do with how we vote, or which teachers we employ to train our children (e.g., science), among other discipling issues (e.g., see Deut. 29: 9-15; Matt. 28:18-20)?

What do current candidates have to say, especially Ron Paul?

angelawittman

21st May 2007, 03:29

loupoumakis

22nd May 2007, 01:01

Dear Lou,

First of all, I refuse to go back to electing ungodly candidates, meaning those who are unbelievers. I spent quite a few years doing this and then I would have to threaten and shame them in hopes they would vote with a Biblical worldview on issues...(?) I now make public apology to all those pagan legislators I spent years browbeating in hopes they would begin thinking like a Christian. Sorry to have frustrated you and myself... Please remember me for also sharing the Gospel with many of you; I hope it took.

I now intend to push forward and continue promoting Christian Statesmen and explicitly Christian politics.

You can just call me "Dogmatic in Illinois." :)

Angela,

I can appreciate your reluctance to support unbelievers, especially considering your experience with them. I too would prefer to see only true believers in office but the appalling ignorance of God's law I see among Christians in and out of government seriously dampens my enthusiasm. I don't know whether Ron Paul is a Christian or not but either way I think he would do us a lot more good than any of the other contenders.

God's blessing on your work in Illinois,

Lou

angelawittman

22nd May 2007, 02:15

Dear Lou,

Are you familiar with Buddy Hanson's ministry: http://graceandlaw.com/ ? He sends out a weekly email to legislators and others called "TGIM" - Thank God It's Monday. Each segment is condensed and easy to read for those who are in a hurry (such as our legislators), but the messages are directed to help form a Christian worldview, and Mr. Hanson hopes to help other Christians to "connect the dots."

I think Mr. Hanson has the right idea, and perhaps we should spend more time and effort in helping to educate the Christians we do have in political office.

In fact, when Gary Antonacci was the chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois in 2001, he and I began sending out a "Morning Study" to our members and elist. The study was reformed and much of it was from the National Reform Association. I still send out a daily series to selected members of my elist, and now call it "Reformed Christian Studies" http://reformedchristianstudies.blogspot.com/.

My point is, hopefully we are growing and learning about the LORD each day, so let's extend a little grace to others and if they are open to truth, help them "connect the dots" in their Biblical worldview... Who knows but that the LORD may bless our efforts and gives us righteous leaders.

One more thought: I believe Mr. Paul is a Christian, but I am concerned about his libertarian leanings. I think he is a man open to truth and one whom we could help "connect the dots."

Thank you.

loupoumakis

22nd May 2007, 02:33

Angela,

I'm not familiar with Buddy Hanson but I'll look at his website.

I hope you're right about Ron Paul.

Regards,

Lou

Traitor2Tyranny

23rd May 2007, 09:34

Fox news uses the "tin foil hat wearers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_qUvgfzuPM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Farticles%2F may2007%2F170507smearjob%2Ehtm)" comment while trying to explain why Ron Paul should be banned from the debates.

Centurion

23rd May 2007, 12:36

The Malkin/Gibson exchange is one of the more blatant "guilt-by-assocation" propaganda capsules in recent political journalism. One doesn't have to hold any "conspiracy theories" to predict what Rupert Mudoch, Fox News and other globalists would stand to lose if Ron Paul's philosophy of civil government were to attract a major grassroots constituency. The latter may be unlikely, but not impossible. I was a kamikaze precinct captain, almost 24/7 it seemed, when we took down the GOP establishment in 1963-64 to nominate Barry Goldwater. John Lofton remembers, and maybe a few others still in the fight.

Maybe if we had trusted more in God than ourselves in those days, things would be different today.

NEVER too late! (Matt. 19:26).

angelawittman

23rd May 2007, 01:30

I watched the Fox News clip and I am astounded at the "tribe" mentality of the so-called conservatives like Malkin and Coulter who like to make splashy headlines... It reminds me of the television series "Survivor" which is a good lesson on how the humanists plot and scheme; and who then eventually devour each other for a million dollars...

J. Glenn Ferrell

23rd May 2007, 01:44

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UydCZJeQPPQ

angelawittman

23rd May 2007, 05:42

Dear Pastor Ferrell,

Thank you so much for the link to "Bad Foreign Policy Started with Woodrow Wilson" at YouTube.

I am still uneasy with Mr. Paul's libertarian leanings.

Jaime

23rd May 2007, 06:49

I am familiar with Dr. Paul's record and his record shows nothing that would contradict a Christian worldview.

As to being uneasy with his "libertarian leanings." Do you feel better with socialist/fascists leanings of the others?

Understand this about Dr. Paul. The context of his attempts to roll back the Leviathan is the Federal government. Just like the head (or whatever his title is) of NATO has no legal jurisdiction over internal uS affairs, the Feds have no legal authority over the States except that which is expressely delegated to the Feds by the Constitution.

The problem is that too many people are Hamiltonians and Lincolnians and erroneously believe that these uS are a consolidated government; that the States are merely political/administrative subdivisions of the Central government, like the Mexican estados."

Give me a Libertarian government over the tyranny of those who know and rule like they know what is good for me.

angelawittman

23rd May 2007, 07:05

Dear Jaime,

I am opposed to marijuana use for any reason, including medical as there is a drug available for patients to use which is legal and provides the same effects. I wrote a paper on it for college, and can dig up the facts if you are interested.

I also share this concern by Bret McAtee and will join him in going slow on jumping on the Paul bandwagon:

Monday, May 21 2007
Going Slow On Paul
Bret McAtee @ 2:42 pm
I like Ron Paul. In my mind he is the only Republican presidential candidate, with the possible exception of Tom Tancredo (only because of his adamant opposition to immigration) who I could conscientiously vote for President. Still for all my esteem for Dr. Paul sometimes his unchecked Libertarianism gives me pause. Congressman Paul’s response to the question on whether or not embryonic stem cell research will continue during a Paul administration, asked by the Moderator during the first Republican debate, explains why Libertarians sometimes leave me cold.

Dr. Paul answered by saying,

“Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution.
The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.”

Now, Congressman Paul was correct to say that the Federal funding of these programs are unconstitutional. But Dr. Paul was seriously incorrect to suggest that this particular program should not be prohibited. Dr. Paul was seriously incorrect to suggest that it would be acceptable for the Market and States to deal with embryonic research. Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of human life and a Libertarian approach to human life taking is not acceptable for a Christian. Embryonic stem cell research is something that should be constitutionally forbidden for the same reasons that abortion should be constitutionally forbidden. Embryonic stem cell research, since it takes human life, is not something that we handle in a Libertarian fashion by allowing the marketplace or the States to decide. When we fail to protect life we are failing the US Constitution with its explicit intent to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Another thing that concerns me about Dr. Paul is his response to a question asked in the second debate regarding evolution. Apparently Dr. Paul communicated that he does believe in evolution. If this is true this possibly communicates that Paul’s opposition to the State taking up God like authority is rooted in something else besides a conviction that only God should have God like authority. Is Dr. Paul’s resistance to Big State Government anchored by his Libertarian notion that individuals should have God like authority?

Biblical Christians should realize that those who oppose Big State Government are not always doing it for the same sound reasons that Biblical Christians oppose Big State Government. For that reason I’m going slow on Paul.

http://backwaterreport.com/?p=753

James Niemela

23rd May 2007, 07:31

Dear Mrs. Wittman,

Thank you for the article by Mr. McAtee. I have great respect for him. (He ran as a write-in candidate for US Senate in Michigan in 2006.) All of these issues are of concern- marijuana use, embryonic sten cell use, etc. However, I think there is a bigger question, and by this I am not trying to trivialize either of the afore mentioned questions/concerns. Where does Mr. Paul believe our views come from? God? Or do we have them simply because we are humans, and .....well......we've always had them, and....
In my opinion, if we simply have them because we are humans, etc. etc., where is the foundation? What is to make me believe that they (my rights) will not somehow changed or be "rewritten", if they are based on human experience, years of it's always been that way, or any other foundation for my rights? If they come from God, which we believe they do, they cannot be changed, because GOD CANNOT BE CHANGED!!!! They are sure and unchangeable, because God has given them to me. I am open to criticism- AM I NUTS? AM I TOO DEMANDING? AM I EXPECTING TOO MUCH TO REQUIRE A CANDIDATE WHO BELIEVES GOD IS THE SOURCE AND AUTHOR OF LIBERTY? I hope not. I shall wait to hear what some of you folks think. Thanks!!

James Niemela

angelawittman

23rd May 2007, 08:41

Dear James,

On page 10 of this thread this link was posted:

The good Dr. seems to believe that rights do indeed come from our Creator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmwDH-Ynung Part 1

Unfortunately part 2 has not yet been posted.

Jeremy

I watched the video and Mr. Paul does say he personally believes our rights come from our Creator... But will Mr. Paul press the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ is another question.

James Niemela

23rd May 2007, 08:53

For some reason I am not able to get youtube videos. It says they are playing, but nothing shows. Probably lack of computer brains, but I am learning! :) Nevertheless, that is good news. Hopefully I'm all wet about Mr. Paul.
(Now if I don't get outside and get things wrapped up for the night, I may be all wet literally, "cause its cloudin' up. So I better go.) :)

James

J. Glenn Ferrell

23rd May 2007, 11:46

But will Mr. Paul press the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ is another question.
I seriously doubt Dr. Paul knows what the "Crown Rights of Jesus Christ" means. Then, almost no American politician would; and probably a minority of posters on this forum.

Jaime

23rd May 2007, 11:57

Marijuana is an issue? Am I to take it that none here would take a drug, for medicinal purposes?

angelawittman, you will not take an opiate to ease post-surgery pain because it is a drug? Do you also think that prohibition was a good idea? And that took a Constitutional amendment.

At any rate, it is NOT the Federal government's authority to ban the use of marijuana, alcohol, or laughing gas. That is for the individual States in their sovereignty to deal with.

Can y'all please keep jurisdiction and delegated authorities straight!

James Niemela

24th May 2007, 12:09

"Do you also think that prohibition was a good idea? And that took a Constitutional amendment." [Jaime]

As a person who believes the consumption of alcohol in any amount is unnecessary, risky (leads further and further, you know, give the devil the tip of the finger, next thing he has the whole finger, then the hand, etc.), and certainly is not needful for a Christian, what would be wrong about banning it? IMO, the less, the better. The court reports in our paper are probably comprised of 3/4 or more percent of crimes committed in which alcohol is a factor. As our preachers teach, if you never take the first drink, you'll never be a drunk. And I say a hearty AMEN! There! Now that I've stirred the pot, I'll go to bed. (And get ready for the barrage of answers as to why it is OK to drink a little bit, even Jesus drank wine, etc.) It will be interesting to see if there are any answers I haven't heard from sober soaks as to why they can drink what I tell my kids is the "devil's urine." Good night, folks! Sweet dreams! :)

James

angelawittman

24th May 2007, 12:33

Pastor Ferrell is probably right in his statement that:

I seriously doubt Dr. Paul knows what the "Crown Rights of Jesus Christ" means. Then, almost no American politician would; and probably a minority of posters on this forum.

So, I will more than likely save my support and vote for a man who does comprehend the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

Also, I agree with James Niemela in reference to alcohol and other drugs.

Good night.

J. Glenn Ferrell

24th May 2007, 12:43

As our preachers teach, if you never take the first drink, you'll never be a drunk. And I say a hearty AMEN! ...It will be interesting to see if there are any answers I haven't heard from sober soaks as to why they can drink what I tell my kids is the "devil's urine."
As a preacher, this preacher has no warrant to tell anyone anything but what is in the Bible:

Prov. 23:21- For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

But:

Ps. 104:14-15- He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

And, I agree with Dr. Paul; the Feds don't need to be regulating marijuana any more than they should have passed the 18th Amendment. One of the things which got J. Gresham Machen into trouble with his old denomination was his lack of enthusiasm for Prohibition.

angelawittman

24th May 2007, 12:55

Dear Pastor Ferrell,

Please take this in good humor, but you OPC fellows do tend to think alike on the subject of alcohol. I am not sure about the marijuana though...

Centurion

24th May 2007, 12:59

A lot of opinions here on what the feds should and should not be legislating: pot use, booze, medical research, etc., etc., plus some nebulous anxiety about the general term, "libertarian."

What is wrong with Christian libertarianism as a biblical wordlview?

Any ideas? ... and please avoid the Libertarian Party in the comments.

Isn't it better to use scripture and the Constitution (federal and your state), along with Ron Paul's words on Ron Paul, as opposed to speculative or irrelevant generalities and second-hand opinions which might not be based on facts ?

Agree with him or not, Ron Paul is a man of principled convictions as opposed to convenient or expedient preferences.

And he's consistently dependable!

Any others running with that attribute, for righteousness in the office of the civil magistrate?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html.

Troyg19

24th May 2007, 02:09

Ron Paul, regardless of what you think of him, is serveing a devin purpose. He is informing millions upon millions of Americans of the DIRE situation in our country today. That alone will make me support him and donate to his campaign. He would have been allowed on that stage and countless media interviews unless God so desired.

Just look at his recent speech in Congress from !YESTERDAY!

James Niemela

24th May 2007, 08:04

"What is wrong with Christian libertarianism as a biblical wordlview?" [Centurion]

This is an interesting concept. Could you clarify what you mean by Christian libertarianism, so I am on the same page?

Thanks!

James

James Niemela

24th May 2007, 08:09

angelawittman

24th May 2007, 11:41

Dear All,

Let me throw this out:

All the Ron Paul's in America cannot save us from God's Judgement unless they bring us forward to repentance and submission to His Law.

The argument is made that Ron Paul is getting a message out to many... Is the message REPENTANCE and SUBMISSION to God Almighty? If not, then just what exactly is he accomplishing?

There, I have said it. Now, let's start pleading with Michael Peroutka to once more throw his hat in the ring. Thank you.

Here is a link to some good FREE material for you all to read:

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/s36p93.htm#Message3600

Thank you.

TimV

24th May 2007, 12:19

The argument is made that Ron Paul is getting a message out to many... Is the message REPENTANCE and SUBMISSION to God Almighty? If not, then just what exactly is he accomplishing?

I'd for sure like to learn more about his personal theology. Angela, I think one could make a case for the submission aspect, if his views on government mirror Biblical law.

But surely there are some people out there that have dug around and found out more about his religious leanings?

angelawittman

24th May 2007, 01:44

Dear Tim,

Thank you for bringing up theology... I truly want to support those men with whom I am on the same page when it comes to just who Jesus Christ is and what they believe His offices are NOW.

Yes, if anyone has additional information of Ron Paul's religious beliefs, please share it.

Jaime

24th May 2007, 02:29

I am shaking my head. Jusrisdiction people!

Some of you are reminding me of the old joke about the guy who drowned in the flood while waiting on God's help. God sent him a jeep, a truck, a boat, a helicopter, ....

Whatever Dr. Paul is (and I do think that he is a Christian) and what he has been about all along is rolling back the Central government to, within, the constraints of the law; ie the Constitution of these united States of America.

Dr. Paul is not seeking to become your Pastor or spiritual guide (whatever that is). Dr. Paul has been saying and behaving for years consistently: the Central government cannot do this and thus because it does not have the authority to do this and thus.

Do I think that Dr. Paul is a/the savior. No! But he is definitely correct in his analysis, conclusion and remedy with regards to the Federal government.

J. Glenn Ferrell

24th May 2007, 03:44

Dear Pastor Ferrell,

Please take this in good humor, but you OPC fellows do tend to think alike on the subject of alcohol. I am not sure about the marijuana though...
I do take your comment in good humor.

The issue of abstinence from alcohol became a matter of dispute in the very early OPC, resulting in a group leaving to form the Bible Presbyterian Church. I'm glad the OPC has attempted to say no more than the Bible says rather than following culture, even pious Christian culture.

Though I'm a great admirer of your denomination, the RPCNA, I disagree with their historical positions advocating abolition and abstinence from alcohol. I realize the first issue is moot and they have allowed some flexibility on the second in recent years.

I find nothing in the US Constitution or Bible giving the federal government authority over the regulation of marijuana. The “War on Drugs” was the former excuse for robbing us of our civil liberties before the Feds came up with the “War on Terror.” “War” may justify most any abuse in the minds of people.

J. Glenn Ferrell

24th May 2007, 03:56

What is wrong with Christian libertarianism as a biblical wordlview?
I applaud Ron Paul and pray he will continue to be a thorn in the butt of the other Republican candidates. God can and will use him in this.

However, I'm not sure there is such a thing as "Christian libertarianism," though Christians may agree with the libertarian ideas of limited constitutional government.

The essences of libertarianism concerns itself with the rights of the individual.

The Christian must be concerned first with the rights of God and the crown rights of His Son, King Jesus, Messiah and Prince.

Not many libertarians would know what to do with Scott Whiteman's signature quote from Calvin:

Let us also learn that nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated.

Until we understand that distinction, we’ll have little in terms of a Christian worldview in politics.

J. Glenn Ferrell

24th May 2007, 04:16

Sheesh! I must have missed something. I guess the drunk who runs someone over, the tyrant at home who beats and screams at his wife and kids, and the guy stumbling and falling on the sidewalk in front of the bar are all doing it because they have a merry heart. Because sinful man perverts God's intended use of creation does not make the right use of it a thing to be avoided or prohibited.

Because men rape, fornicate, commit adultery, practice sodomy, and sexually molest children does not mean you should abstain from the joys of the sex within the sanctity of the marriage bed.

All God created he called very good, including grapes filled with sugar with yeast on their skins ready to do their work as soon as the fruit is crushed. God commanded His people to gather for a party once a year (Feast of Tabernacles) in Deut. 14:23-27:

And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.

God commanded: Go to Jerusalem, buy food, wine and beer ("strong drink"), have a party for a week with your family, and don't forget to invite the poor man and poor preacher (Levite).

Then, Christ instructs us to drink wine in his Supper.

God does not command us to sin.

We can not be more pious than God.

angelawittman

24th May 2007, 05:03

Dear Pastor Ferrell,

I make a point to abstain from alcohol for several reasons, the most important is that I do not want to cause anyone to stumble, and as I am fairly well known in my community, it probably would cause a weaker sister or brother some consternation if they saw me drinking alcohol. I probably agree more with you OPC men than I do most others. :)

Please know I am blessed by your postings and appreciate your acknowledgement of the Crown Rights of our risen LORD.

angelawittman

24th May 2007, 05:14

"The essences of libertarianism concerns itself with the rights of the individual."

Amen! This is my concern with any libertarian candidates, or one who leans heavily in that direction as was made evident within the Constitution Party; please do not forget that one of the arguments against disciplining or disaffiliating parties, candidates and officers who were non-compliant with the sanctity of human life plank was "state party rights," which has it's roots in libertarian philosophy and/or belief.

Jaime

24th May 2007, 06:56

I am not a libertarian but would prefer to live under libertarianism that under any other human instituted rule. Upto 1865, that how it was pretty much.

May I remind people that the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is the non-initiation of violence." Also, believe it or not, libertarians are divided on the issue of abortion. Many libertarians are pro-life because they acknolwdge that the baby is a separate being from the mother and that under the non-aggression principle the baby is deserving of protection. That is good reasoning and if a person is not a Christian (not that being a libertarian means non-Christian) but believes that the baby is human and deserving of protection, I can deal with that. It sure is better that claim to be pro-life and then do nothing of substance about it.

Ferrell: Right on the money. Sex is not moral or immoral. Sex outside the God ordained constraints of marriage is immoral. Abuse of, in this case drugs, is not a reason for not use. Glutony comes to mind as an example against non-use due to abuse.

James Niemela

24th May 2007, 07:48

Mr. Ferrell,

Obviously we have a disagreement about this issue, and will not come to agreement. I stand by my statements, as you do by yours. I will go on teaching my kids it is the devil's urine, and that if you never take the first drink, you will never be a drunk. I will continue to believe that "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Proverbs 20:1). And if the OPC and RPCNA allow "social drunkeness", shame on them.

James

angelawittman

24th May 2007, 08:46

RPCNA Constitution and Testimony, Chapter 26

http://www.reformed.com/rpcna-constitution/ct.htm

4. For preservation of life and because of respect for our bodies as God's creation, we are to be careful in the use of drugs. Christians should avoid enslavement to alcohol, tobacco or any habit-forming drug. The Scripture strongly condemns drunkenness as a sin.
Gen. 1:27 with 9:6; 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

5. Because drunkenness is so common, and because the intemperate use of alcohol is constantly being promoted by advertising, business practices, and social pressure, Christians must be careful not to conform to the attitudes and the practices of the world with regard to alcoholic beverages. To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages.
Prov. 20:1; Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Cor. 8:13.

Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 139:

http://www.reformed.com/rpcna-constitution/index.html

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks; impudent or light behavior; immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life; undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time, unjust divorce or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancing, stage plays; all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

Prov. 5:7; Heb. 13:4; Gal. 5:19; 2 Sam. 13:14; 1 Cor. 5:1; Rom. 1:24, 26-27; Lev. 20:15-16; Matt. 5:28; Matt. 15:19; Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:3-4; Prov. 7:5, 21-22; Isa. 3:16; 2 Pet. 2:14; Prov. 7:10, 13; 1 Tim. 4:3; Lev. 18:1-21; Mark 6:18; Mal. 2:11-12; 1 Kings 15:12; 2 Kings 23:7; Deut. 23:17-18; Lev. 19:29; Jer. 5:7; Prov. 7:24-27; Matt. 19:10-11; 1 Cor. 7:7-9; Gen. 38:26; Mal. 2:14-15; Matt. 19:5; Mal. 2:16; Matt. 5:32; 1 Cor. 7:12-13; Ezek. 16:49; Prov. 23:30-33; Gen. 39:10; Prov. 5:8; Eph. 5:4; Ezek. 23:14-16; Isa. 23:15-17; Isa. 3:16; Mark 6:22; Rom. 13:13; 1 Pet. 4:3; 2 Kings 9:30; Jer. 4:30; Ezek.. 23:40.

Batman "The Dark Knight"

24th May 2007, 08:59

Id accept that and want more of them two!

The Country couldn't go wrong with them in office.

I have a question, and I have looked around here for the answer.

When is our Primary for President?

Ive been asked that question and I can't come up with an answer.

Any help would be nice.

Thanks
Batman "The Dark Knight"
C.P. member for many a year now.
Neoga Il.

James Niemela

24th May 2007, 09:23

"Because drunkenness is so common, and because the intemperate use of alcohol is constantly being promoted by advertising, business practices, and social pressure, Christians must be careful not to conform to the attitudes and the practices of the world with regard to alcoholic beverages. To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages." [Angela Wittman]

Dear Mrs. Wittman,

Thank you for posting this. It is apparent that the RPCNA opposes even "recreational use" of alcohol. Obviously, with that I totally agree. Accordingly, I withdraw my shaming of them for this matter from the earlier post. :) Thanks again.

James