Is Ron Paul Christian?
- Thread starter Katy-follower
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
That's the one.
Fair enough. I just re-read it, and it still says what it said the first several hundred times I read it. I'm guessing you're using the NIV or a similar paraphrase. I have read the passage in several different translations, and have noticed some phrase it differently. I did read it in Hebrew at one point, to find out which translations were best. If your version indicates that the woman does not miscarry, that would be one of those that does not follow the Hebrew correctly.
Hmmm. Well, according to the Old Testament, a father can kill his child for whatever reason he chooses. So that would be pro-abortion, up to the age of 16 or so. If you're going to claim the Word of God as your authority, at least be consistent about it.
It is. In this country, that is exactly what it is.
And both (the constitution and the Bible) pale in comparison to the Living Word. THAT is my authority.
And you're still missing the point. For your personal life, the Bible can be your guide. If you want to, for yourself, you can follow Scripture or Yahweh or The Yellow Brick Road if you like. But when it comes to U.S. law, NO religion receives any preference. Period. End of discussion.
If you or anyone else tries to enforce religious law on me or anyone else in the U.S., we're gonna have a problem. Not because we don't care about the Bible, or because we don't love God. It's a matter of following the law, rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. And again, if you don't like it, you're welcome to move to a country where the religious law is also the government's law. I wish you the best of luck there.
Fair enough. I just re-read it, and it still says what it said the first several hundred times I read it. I'm guessing you're using the NIV or a similar paraphrase. I have read the passage in several different translations, and have noticed some phrase it differently. I did read it in Hebrew at one point, to find out which translations were best. If your version indicates that the woman does not miscarry, that would be one of those that does not follow the Hebrew correctly.
Hmmm. Well, according to the Old Testament, a father can kill his child for whatever reason he chooses. So that would be pro-abortion, up to the age of 16 or so. If you're going to claim the Word of God as your authority, at least be consistent about it.
It is. In this country, that is exactly what it is.
And both (the constitution and the Bible) pale in comparison to the Living Word. THAT is my authority.
And you're still missing the point. For your personal life, the Bible can be your guide. If you want to, for yourself, you can follow Scripture or Yahweh or The Yellow Brick Road if you like. But when it comes to U.S. law, NO religion receives any preference. Period. End of discussion.
If you or anyone else tries to enforce religious law on me or anyone else in the U.S., we're gonna have a problem. Not because we don't care about the Bible, or because we don't love God. It's a matter of following the law, rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. And again, if you don't like it, you're welcome to move to a country where the religious law is also the government's law. I wish you the best of luck there.
Kinda. I don't pry too much out of respect. But he has told me that "1. You need to be a good man with good moral stature in order to be a mason and 2. You have to believe in God (one God)." From what I gather, you can be Christian, Muslim, Jew, or almost any monotheist so I highly doubt it has to do with religious beliefs as much as the positive values that come from religions. If I had to take a guess I would say the whole thing is about fraternity rather than religion. I'll probably find out at some point when I apply to become a mason myself haha
Last edited:
M
Sorry 
you are quite correct. I thought you were a bible believeing Christian and was proceeding with the discussion on that basis so yes....end of discussion. The OP asked if Ron Paul is a Christian and we got right off into a load of other stuff...Ron Paul claims to be a Christian and I have noreason to believe he is otherwise.
you are quite correct. I thought you were a bible believeing Christian and was proceeding with the discussion on that basis so yes....end of discussion. The OP asked if Ron Paul is a Christian and we got right off into a load of other stuff...Ron Paul claims to be a Christian and I have noreason to believe he is otherwise.
Last edited:
T
Just so that you know, for the record, I am a devout Christian who believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I put my faith in the Living Word, which is the Christ, Jesus, my Lord and Master. That is not to say the Bible is worthless -- far from it, the Bible is a wonderful collection of teachings, testaments, stories and songs documented by the people of our One True God, and how God has blessed us through the ages. I have learned to read Scripture in its original languages. Would someone who doesn't think the Bible is important bother to do that? I think not! Just because I interpret Scripture differently from you doesn't mean I don't accept it; it's just that I accept it in a different way. I will try not to tell you that your way is "wrong" for you; will you agree not to tell me my way is wrong for me?
M
Grunge, as a brother in Christ and as an act of love, No, I will not agree to accept a statement such as "the living word is superior to the written word" as if it is possible that Jesus ever contradicted the Bible. It would be a gross disservice to you. I will discuss the issue with you if you want but you were the one who declared the discussion over. YOu make careless statements and observations. You were careless in your discussion of Ex 21. YOu then went on to make this statement
there is so much wrong with this that it would take a page to correct. You are essentially throwing out mud and asking me to clean it up. Sorry ..but no go.... nowhere does the OT say that a father can kill his child for whatever he chooses....again please provide the evidence. It is comendable that you are trying to study the Bible in the original languages...you are doing way better than me.... so show me please how the Hebrew says a father can kill his son for whatever he chooses.
Jesus says His sheep hear His voice. Do you think His voice is somehow in contradiction to His Word?
I am very happy to discuss the issue of abortion/murder if you wish to start a new thread.
there is so much wrong with this that it would take a page to correct. You are essentially throwing out mud and asking me to clean it up. Sorry ..but no go.... nowhere does the OT say that a father can kill his child for whatever he chooses....again please provide the evidence. It is comendable that you are trying to study the Bible in the original languages...you are doing way better than me.... so show me please how the Hebrew says a father can kill his son for whatever he chooses.
Jesus says His sheep hear His voice. Do you think His voice is somehow in contradiction to His Word?
I am very happy to discuss the issue of abortion/murder if you wish to start a new thread.
C
After doing some research, I'm somewhat confident that Ron Paul's views are that of a Covenental Amillennial, which is commonly referred to as Replacement theology here in the western Church. This view / belief system is infamous for being be very racially discriminatory, including anti- Jewish & anti - Isreal. This was the dominant belief in the Lutheran Church during the rise of Hitler and his Nazi party in Germany and is widely blamed by many historians as the reason why the German people sat back and did nothing during the Holocaust.
I would not feel comfortable with Ron Paul as president.
I would not feel comfortable with Ron Paul as president.
Last edited:
Sorry if you did not know but the pope is the leader of the ecumenical movement. His sole purpose is to lead the world into peace by uniting everyone so there is no war among religions. However, this angers God because we are not to eat from the devil's table. We're not to have fellowship with those who do not worship God in spirit and in truth.
The Vatican is forming it's 2nd State in Jerusalem. The pope is trying to bring peace between the Muslims and Jews.
Do you not know about the plan for a New World Order? This Ecumenical movement is fitting in with the plan for a one world religion, trying to unite everyone under one leader. Benedict gathered with leaders of the world's major religions to pray for peace... these leaders included Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc....
Born again Christians will not be involved in that ecumenical order because we know it's wrong and we will not compromise truth for the sake of unity. Not all "protestants" are born again Christians though - many flock to this ecumenical movement, so many protestants have been wooed there for the sake of peace and showing love regardless of truth. Who will be left after these religions unite? Those of us born again Christians will be outside of this ecumenical circle. We are the few that are on that narrow road and not the many on the broad road (Matthew 7:13-14)
Rome has a longer history than you think. Their roots lead back to Babylon, so even further back than the US government. The Jesuits control the interests of the Vatican. If you're talking of Kennedy - yes, he was a Catholic but he was not part of the Jesuit order. He clearly did not agree with some of the things going on, as mentioned in one of his speeches.
The bible speaks greatly of Babylon in Revelations.
Have you looked at what past presidents felt about Rome? One for example:
President Lincoln
“I do not pretend to be a prophet. But though not a prophet, I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled with tears of blood. It will rise and increase till its flanks will be torn by a flash of lightning, followed by a fearful peal of thunder. Then a cyclone, such as the world has never seen, will pass over this country, spreading ruin and desolation from north to south. After it is over, there will be long days of peace and prosperity: for Popery, with its Jesuits and merciless Inquisition, will have been for ever swept away from our country. Neither I nor you, but our children, will see those things.”
The Vatican is forming it's 2nd State in Jerusalem. The pope is trying to bring peace between the Muslims and Jews.
Do you not know about the plan for a New World Order? This Ecumenical movement is fitting in with the plan for a one world religion, trying to unite everyone under one leader. Benedict gathered with leaders of the world's major religions to pray for peace... these leaders included Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc....
Born again Christians will not be involved in that ecumenical order because we know it's wrong and we will not compromise truth for the sake of unity. Not all "protestants" are born again Christians though - many flock to this ecumenical movement, so many protestants have been wooed there for the sake of peace and showing love regardless of truth. Who will be left after these religions unite? Those of us born again Christians will be outside of this ecumenical circle. We are the few that are on that narrow road and not the many on the broad road (Matthew 7:13-14)
Rome has a longer history than you think. Their roots lead back to Babylon, so even further back than the US government. The Jesuits control the interests of the Vatican. If you're talking of Kennedy - yes, he was a Catholic but he was not part of the Jesuit order. He clearly did not agree with some of the things going on, as mentioned in one of his speeches.
The bible speaks greatly of Babylon in Revelations.
Have you looked at what past presidents felt about Rome? One for example:
President Lincoln
“I do not pretend to be a prophet. But though not a prophet, I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled with tears of blood. It will rise and increase till its flanks will be torn by a flash of lightning, followed by a fearful peal of thunder. Then a cyclone, such as the world has never seen, will pass over this country, spreading ruin and desolation from north to south. After it is over, there will be long days of peace and prosperity: for Popery, with its Jesuits and merciless Inquisition, will have been for ever swept away from our country. Neither I nor you, but our children, will see those things.”
Last edited:
C
That's very interesting ....as a Covenental A Millenialist I was not aware of being "anti Jewish" and certainly not of having some sort of theological affinity with Hitler.
Please understand, I'm not condoning Christian Zionism however, historically speaking, Covenental Amillennialism has been the far more dangerous of the two extremes. Early on in the Protestant Church, these Amillennials have even so far as to execute other Christians in the past due to their intolerance of Christian doctrine other than their own.
Getting back to Ron Paul, you all should do some serious research. Apparently, he is no stranger to accusations of racism throughout his political career.
C
You can dream. However, I can assure you that the Evangelical Church won't sit idly and watch it happen.
I do find it very odd that Covental Amillennial "Christians"and Muslims seem to get along very well. So much so that certain outspoken Covenental Amillennials have been allowed to appear on Muslim TV & Radio because of their disdain for Jews and the nation of Israel.
However, I can assure you that the Evangelical Church won't sit idly and watch it happen.I do find it very odd that Covental Amillennial "Christians"and Muslims seem to get along very well. So much so that certain outspoken Covenental Amillennials have been allowed to appear on Muslim TV & Radio because of their disdain for Jews and the nation of Israel.
Last edited:
T
The only thing you have to be sorry about is being wrong.
First of all, you're wrong about the meaning of the word "ecumenical." What you are talking about is "inter-faith." "Ecumenism" is the sharing of ideas among different Christian denominations -- Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. Sometimes churches that are not always considered "Christian" -- such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians -- are included in "Ecumenicism," but more often an event that includes such organizations, and CERTAINLY one that includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Baha'i, etc. are called "inter-faith," NOT "ecumenical."
So, I'm sorry that YOU did not know the meaning of the words you're trying to use. Wikipedia can be your friend.
Secondly, there is no single movement of inter-faith, no single, unified attempt to bring all faiths together under one umbrella. There are individuals within various organized religions along a spectrum of "inter-faith." In my fair city, there's an inter-faith organization that gets together once a year for a joint Thanksgiving celebration. It includes several protestant churches, an LDS church, the local Baha'i temple, the local Muslim mosque, and I think two Jewish synagogues. Sometimes one of the Catholic parishes in town joins us, but not always, and they are rarely actively involved. There is no attempt to convert any group to any other group's thinking. We get together, have an exchange of prayers, each tradition offering prayer in its own style, which others are welcome to join along in or not as they wish, we sing some music, and then we join in a traditional American thanksgiving feast, which is not a particularly religious holiday. This is one example of "inter-faith." The Pope is not forcing things like this to happen. They are not evil. They are wonderful expressions of how God touches so many different people in different ways.
Finally, as I said before, the Pope could not care less. He has more important fish to fry. And if you want to argue otherwise, you'll have to come up with some evidence outside your own schizoid mind. Since you've already been proven wrong on two points, why should anyone believe you on the third?
I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that I thought Rome's history was short. I am well aware that Rome has had influence in politics since long before the western world was even aware of the continents now called the Americas. I was referring to Rome's influence in the United States because you made a claim that "the Pope" has controlled "all of the U.S. Presidents." Well, going back to Rome's influence in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, or England may be very interesting, but does absolutely nothing to support or deny the claim that the pope controls any U.S. President. So, if you wanted to talk about Rome's influence in the Dark Ages, or in the Renaissance, or in the Edwardian Period, or any other period of history, I would be happy to discuss those periods of history. I admit I'm not an expert historian, but I have studied Church History, so I know a thing or two about this.
Um, yes, that is exactly what I said: the ONE Catholic president we've had was not particularly ... how should I say ... "obedient" to the Pope. Not sure how you're going to support a claim of Catholic influence in U.S. politics when the only connection we've had was a rebellious son.
So, now you are quoting presidents who hate Rome. How does this support your previous implication that Rome controls the U.S?
Here's a quick hint for future debates: once you start arguing a point, if you change sides, you'll have to admit that you were wrong.
First of all, you're wrong about the meaning of the word "ecumenical." What you are talking about is "inter-faith." "Ecumenism" is the sharing of ideas among different Christian denominations -- Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. Sometimes churches that are not always considered "Christian" -- such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians -- are included in "Ecumenicism," but more often an event that includes such organizations, and CERTAINLY one that includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Baha'i, etc. are called "inter-faith," NOT "ecumenical."
So, I'm sorry that YOU did not know the meaning of the words you're trying to use. Wikipedia can be your friend.
Secondly, there is no single movement of inter-faith, no single, unified attempt to bring all faiths together under one umbrella. There are individuals within various organized religions along a spectrum of "inter-faith." In my fair city, there's an inter-faith organization that gets together once a year for a joint Thanksgiving celebration. It includes several protestant churches, an LDS church, the local Baha'i temple, the local Muslim mosque, and I think two Jewish synagogues. Sometimes one of the Catholic parishes in town joins us, but not always, and they are rarely actively involved. There is no attempt to convert any group to any other group's thinking. We get together, have an exchange of prayers, each tradition offering prayer in its own style, which others are welcome to join along in or not as they wish, we sing some music, and then we join in a traditional American thanksgiving feast, which is not a particularly religious holiday. This is one example of "inter-faith." The Pope is not forcing things like this to happen. They are not evil. They are wonderful expressions of how God touches so many different people in different ways.
Finally, as I said before, the Pope could not care less. He has more important fish to fry. And if you want to argue otherwise, you'll have to come up with some evidence outside your own schizoid mind. Since you've already been proven wrong on two points, why should anyone believe you on the third?
I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that I thought Rome's history was short. I am well aware that Rome has had influence in politics since long before the western world was even aware of the continents now called the Americas. I was referring to Rome's influence in the United States because you made a claim that "the Pope" has controlled "all of the U.S. Presidents." Well, going back to Rome's influence in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, or England may be very interesting, but does absolutely nothing to support or deny the claim that the pope controls any U.S. President. So, if you wanted to talk about Rome's influence in the Dark Ages, or in the Renaissance, or in the Edwardian Period, or any other period of history, I would be happy to discuss those periods of history. I admit I'm not an expert historian, but I have studied Church History, so I know a thing or two about this.
Um, yes, that is exactly what I said: the ONE Catholic president we've had was not particularly ... how should I say ... "obedient" to the Pope. Not sure how you're going to support a claim of Catholic influence in U.S. politics when the only connection we've had was a rebellious son.
So, now you are quoting presidents who hate Rome. How does this support your previous implication that Rome controls the U.S?
Here's a quick hint for future debates: once you start arguing a point, if you change sides, you'll have to admit that you were wrong.
E
You can dream. However, I can assure you that the Evangelical Church won't sit idly and watch it happen.
However, I can assure you that the Evangelical Church won't sit idly and watch it happen.
Oh I know.
That's why everybody's killing each other right now.
The green light and support from your group.
Because you don't believe Jesus:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
You've been co-opted to fight for the synagogue of satan.
You've become one with it. Setting up "the kingdom", don't you know.
You don't even know Who Israel is.
LOL
It's going swimmingly for you.
Last edited:
J
"My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate."
Statement of Faith*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
The statement doesn't tell us a whole lot, but it does tell us that he is more likely to be born-again, than Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.
Statement of Faith*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
The statement doesn't tell us a whole lot, but it does tell us that he is more likely to be born-again, than Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.