Why Christians Shouldn’t Vote for Ron Paul
by Joseph Weathers
In an election year when it is not easy for Christians to find candidates worthy of our votes, I think the case can easily be made that Ron Paul is definitely not the candidate Christians should be supporting for President. Before I begin, let me say that I do agree with Ron Paul on many issues concerning big government; more specifically, on eliminating unnecessary and unconstitutional federal bureaucracies, such as the Department of Education, the IRS, Social Security, welfare, etc. But when it comes to abortion, marriage, foreign policy and the death penalty, his positions are unbiblical and unconstitutional, and are not supported by reason or logic. All of these issues are vitally important things to consider when choosing a president.
My father and brother (Isaac) have written excellent articles on Ron Paul, dealing with a variety of Ron Paul’s positions; but in this article I would like to focus on Ron Paul’s position on the issue of life. Life is the most basic and fundamental of all the rights that we possess as citizens of this country. Shouldn’t we select a man for President who will defend this right for every citizen, born and unborn? After all, one of the reasons stated by the founders for writing the Constitution was “to secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity.” How can a man fulfill his oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” if he is unwilling to defend life and liberty for our posterity?
I think that some of the conservative Christians who support Ron Paul don’t fully understand his position on the issue of abortion. Ron Paul’s position is that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, and then the issue should be left for the states to decide. He claims that “abortion simply is not a Constitutional issue”[1]. Isn’t it? Is murder a Constitutional issue? Because abortion is simply one form of murder, and as such, it should be a crime in every state. Our founding fathers thought it to be self-evident that life is an unalienable right. The 5th Amendment states that “no person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Aren’t unborn babies included in this provision?
Dr. Paul also refuses to call abortion what it is – murder. He says, “I don’t use that term. I say it is a tragic set of circumstances.”[2] Sound familiar? That’s very similar to what Jimmy Carter said in his book, Our Endangered Values: “I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought on by a combination of human errors.”[3]
In an article written by Dr. Paul in January 2006, he states that while Roe vs. Wade was invalid, “a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”[4] If he is going to be consistent, he would have to say that federal laws against murder are also unconstitutional. Abortion is murder, so why prohibit some forms of murder on a federal level, while allowing another form (abortion) to be decided on by the states?
In the same article, he states, “Our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It’s a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level.”[5] Social policy? Since when was murder considered “social policy”, not to be decided at the federal level? This twisted view of federalism, if followed consistently, ultimately leads to the view that all forms of murder are “social issues”, and are to be decided at the local or state level. The point here is that he can’t be consistent, and if his policies were followed consistently, they would lead to anarchy and chaos.
Now, getting to the issue of the death penalty… in addition to being against a federal ban on abortion, he also rejects God’s law concerning the penalty for murderers. Here’s what Dr. Paul says in an article from April, 2005: “The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.”[6] So, Dr. Paul is, in effect, saying that the teachings of Christ are in contradiction to God’s command in Numbers 35:30-31, which says, “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses…” In selecting a President, we should be looking for the type of men described in Exodus 18:21: “men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe”. Would someone who truly fears God reject this commandment, given by God as evidence of the supreme importance that He places on justice and the sanctity of human life?
Obviously we can’t find a perfect candidate to vote for, but we must select a man who will defend our most basic, and most important, right – our right to life. The issue of abortion is not merely a disagreement over whether the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax is a better system of taxation, or something of that sort. It is an issue that is at the heart of all of our freedoms and liberties.
Scott Brown does an excellent job of summarizing the whole issue of abortion: “Abortion is an attack on the entire Bible. In the Law, the Prophets, the Poetic books, the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels, we find evidence of the sacredness of life in the womb and the sovereignty of God at work in conception. There should be equal protection under the law for life in the womb.”[7]
In light of Ron Paul’s positions on abortion and the death penalty, should Christians support a man who is unwilling to defend the unalienable right of life, at the federal level … and is unwilling to obey God’s just law concerning the penalty for murderers?
The endorsements and “Acclaim for Ron Paul” that Dr. Paul promotes on his website are also worth noting. Included in the list of endorsements are professional poker player Derick Tex Barch, pop/rock singer Aimee Allen, actress Emma Caulfield from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, actress Donna E’rrico, …. On “Acclaim for Ron Paul”, he lists TV/Radio personality Howard Stern and singer John Lydon, the “Lead Singer ‘Johnny Rotten’ of the Sex Pistols”. What kind of man would take pride in not only accepting, but promoting on his website, endorsements from such sleazy people, even linking to some of their websites. This should be a big red flag to Christians concerning Dr. Paul’s personal character. While Dr. Paul can’t control who supports him, he can control the character and content on his campaign website. “Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves” (Romans 14:22).
It should be asked why these dregs of society are supporting Ron Paul for President. I believe the answer is self evident. As President, Ron Paul would refuse to make legal distinctions between the holy and the profane, as God declares that His people must.
In 1 Kings 3:9, King Solomon prayed for wisdom: “So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”
I believe that the 21st century answer to this question is … not Ron Paul.
______________________________________
Malachi 3:18
And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.
Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Hebrews 5:14
But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
______________________________________
[1] Federalizing Social Policy, by Ron Paul -- January 30, 2006
[2] Live and Let Live, an interview with Ron Paul, by John Stossel – January 9, 2008
[3] Our Endangered Values, by Jimmy Carter – Page 72
[4] Federalizing Social Policy, by Ron Paul – January 30, 2006
[5] Federalizing Social Policy, by Ron Paul – January 30, 2006
[6] Theology, Not Politics, by Ron Paul – April 11, 2005
[7] How to Defend the Sanctity of Life From Scripture, by Scott Brown – January 25, 2008
Why Christians Shouldn’t Vote for Ron Paul
Saturday, February 2Posted by Joseph at 2/02/2008 10:38:00 PM
Labels: 2008 Election, Abortion, Politics, Ron Paul
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
"But when it comes to abortion, marriage, foreign policy and the death penalty, his positions are unbiblical and unconstitutional, and are not supported by reason or logic."
So, you think that it is not biblical to believe that abortion and homosexuality are wrong?
You believe that the Death penalty is not biblical?
You believe that it is biblical to break our laws in order to go into another country? And then propose multiple times to draft young men and WOMEN to fight in that war? Do you really think these things are Biblical and Constitutional? Ron Paul does not and that's why he's running for President.
I'll try to write up a more complete reply later when I get a chance.
I wonder if Dr. Paul's supporters -- or Dr. Paul himself -- realize the contradiction here:
"Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, and then the issue should be left for the states to decide."
BUT:
He proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."
Would such a law then negate any state law that allows the killing of humans in the womb, under the 5th and 14th Amendments?
Also, Dr. Paul states that "abortion simply is not a Constitutional issue," but he introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down. Would a Constitutional Amendment granting personhood to unborn children make abortion a Constitutional issue?
Don't get me wrong. I like Dr. Paul. If Alan Keyes weren't running, I would probably vote for him (especially considering the alternatives). But I honestly don't think people in his campaign have thought this issue through completely - not with these kinds of contradictions.
Renee,
I think I answered most of your questions about my positions on abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty, and foreign policy, in my article and through the articles written by my brother and father that I linked to.
But, to reiterate, my position on the death penalty is that it is commanded by God and is totally Biblical and Constitutional. Dr. Paul holds the position that the death penalty is contrary to the teachings of Christ. So Ron Paul is the one who doesn’t believe that the death penalty is Biblical. As President, he would refuse to carry out what, according to the Bible, is one of the main duties of government – punishing those who do evil. See the following passage: I Peter 2:13-14, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.”
Just because Dr. Paul believes that abortion and homosexuality are wrong, doesn’t mean his proposed policies are Biblical and Constitutional. Jimmy Carter believes that abortion is wrong, but his position on it is not Biblical. Ron Paul says that abortion should not be banned on the federal level. If you want to be consistent, you will have to say that murder, euthanasia, and theft shouldn’t be banned federally either. As I said in my article, how can he “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, if he is unwilling to secure the blessings of liberty to our prosperity? He can’t, if he will not protect innocent life at the federal level.
When our very own leaders are promoting the casting off of all restraints on a national level, evil will thrive, but “When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning …” (2 Samuel 23:3-4). “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).
No wonder Ron Paul came in second in the Nevada primary, where all manner of wickedness is “legal” under state law. If we cast off all restraint on the federal level, we open up the flood gates for wickedness to overflow into the whole country. In Ron Paul’s thinking, this is OK, but not according to the truth of God’s Word.
Whether you believe that we should have gone into Iraq to begin with or not, that doesn’t change whether we should stay and win the war. How Biblical would it be to pull out and watch thousands of Iraqis be massacred and the Iraqi government be taken back over by a totalitarian dictator? And Iraq isn’t the only major problem with Dr. Paul’s foreign policy. He says that we shouldn’t support Israel (militarily or otherwise), and that we should pull out all of our troops from every single nation in the world, including South Korea. He seems to be incredibly naïve when it comes to the threat of communism and Islamic extremists. He is typical of the blame America first crowd, saying “Even the South Koreans, whose very lives our soldiers protect, have grown weary of American demonization of the North…” As if America was the communist dictator spreading propaganda about peace-loving Kim Jong Ill.
Dr. Paul also obviously doesn’t understand the threat of Islamic terrorism to America. In John Stossel’s interview with him, referring to Islamic extremists’, Stossel asks, “Is this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.” Dr. Paul replied, “I don’t think that’s true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.” The entire Qur’an is filled with commands to ‘kill the infidel’, and history is overflowing with examples of Islamic aggression and terrorism. Islam is not rational, and Muslim fanatics cannot be negotiated with.
I think that most of this is just restating what I wrote in my article, so I’m not quite sure how you thought I believe that the death penalty is unbiblical. And the main point of my entire article was that there should be a federal ban on abortion, so obviously I think that abortion is unbiblical. Please go back and read the entire articles posted on our blog (and the associated sources) … I think you will find that Ron Paul’s positions are not what you might think they are. When he advocates allowing all manner of evil behavior to be considered “legal” on the federal level, he shirks his responsibilities as President to “punish those who do evil”, which is certainly not Biblical.
Joseph
Joseph said,
Ron Paul says that abortion should not be banned on the federal level. If you want to be consistent, you will have to say that murder, euthanasia, and theft shouldn’t be banned federally either. As I said in my article, how can he “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, if he is unwilling to secure the blessings of liberty to our prosperity? He can’t, if he will not protect innocent life at the federal level.
The Constitution does not provide for the Federal Government to enact laws regarding abortion, murder, euthenasia, theft, and so forth. Those particular laws and all their nuances are for states to determine. However, the laws of the states must be in accord with the Constitution, which recognizes and enforces the rights to life, liberty, property, etc. Any state that does not prosecute murder, theft, or any of those other things is in non-compliance with the Constitution.
For Paul to say that abortion is not a Federal issue and then propose a Constitutional amendment recognizing the fact that life begins at conception is not a contradiction. Laws regarding abortion are not in the realm of the Federal government; however, the recognition of the rights that must direct those laws is a fundamental basis of the Constitution itself.
Hello:
Greetings in the LORD !
A friend told me of your post & topic here, and I read your remarks with interest. I thought to reply by pasting a letter to the editor at WND.com that I wrote on this topic, clarifying Ron Paul's stand & strategy to end Abortion.
Here:
I've been an anti-abortion activist and constitutional law student teacher for almost a decade now. In fact, I joined the Ron Paul campaign as a volunteer because I was impressed with Dr. Paul's thorough constitutional approach to ending the national disgrace of abortion.
ALR's letter to the editor [Feb. 1] shows a common misunderstanding of Dr. Ron Paul's abortion position.
His "Sanctity of Life" legislation is pending, needing sponsors and votes, in the House of Representatives.
ALR says he's read no plan. Here's the plan:
Ron Paul's opposition to the Human Life Amendment is simple: It is absolutely unnecessary. The U.S. Constitution already protects, via the Fifth Amendment, any citizen from being denied "life or liberty, without the due process of Law." There is simply no need to amend the Constitution when it already protects life.
All that remains is for those protections to be applied to the unborn American citizen.
When Congress passes a law officially recognizing the status of the unborn American citizen as human, not as a fetus, then their Fifth Amendment protections will apply, and abortion will become, de facto, illegal immediately. (If Congress refuses, state legislatures could pass a similar bill, thus making abortion illegal in those states.)
Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, even admitted that the only way abortion could be permitted was if the entity in the mother's womb was a fetus, not a person. He went on to state that if it were, in fact, a human person, it's constitutional rights would apply, and abortion would be impermissible.
Right there in the Roe v Wade opinion is the key to making abortion illegal. Why it's taken 35 years to discover an effective strategy to win is, indeed, perplexing.
So, support for an effort like the Human Life Amendment is not only cumbersome, requiring two-thirds of the states to ratify it, it is totally unnecessary!
David Bazley
So, that, hopefully, will answer some of what you've written. Best Regards, DB
My point in my first comment wasn't that I didn't understand what you believe, but that you contradict yourself in saying that you and Ron Paul are at odds. He believes very much like you do, but he also believes in the Golden Rule and strictly obeying the Constitution. Because of this belief he approaches it differently that you do and therefore you misunderstand him.
Please see my comment on the other post as far as the death penalty.
Ron Paul's policies are based on Matt. 7:12 To say that the idea that we should show love to homosexuals, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc.(the modern day equivalent to tax collectors and sinners) is wrong is to argue with Christ Himself.
On the Iraqi War, you might find this interview: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609
and this movie: http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/america_freedom_to_fascism.
very interesting.
Yes, it is the government's job to punish evil and because we are a Christian nation we still have standards of right and wrong. But just like we have to obey the law, the government also has to obey the law. That law is the Constitution. If you don't like the way the Founders set up our government to work then you change the Constitution. You don't just ignore it, even if the laws you propose are good and right.
This country was built on the idea that every man has the right to think, act and believe as he thinks best. If an atheist thinks it is best for him to be homosexual then as long as he does not interfere with someone else's freedom he is free to do that. He will answer to God on Judgment Day. On the same day we will answer to whether we forced him to obey God's laws without trying to change his heart or whether WE obeyed God's law to love him like Christ loved us.
Hello! Let me commend you on your skill in writing! You write very well.:)
However, let me explain a few things.
First, it is not that Mr. Paul does not believe we should support Israel. He says that we should support them if they ask us. And, if we do give monetary support, we should not (As we have in the past) give the same support to the contries surrounding her. In doing that, we are supporting her enemies as well. Mr. Paul says that we as a people should support Israel.
Also, we are not the world's babysitters!!! YES we should pull our troops out of all the places we have them. S. Korea is WELL able to protect itself! Yes, we are doing "Good Things" in Iraq. But, we could be doing "Good Things" in Africa also. Africa is in far worse shape then Iraq. They are having all kinds of civil wars. Do you think that we should go in and "make peace" there? (Which is impossible either in Iraq, or Africa)
You speak of Terrorist threats? With our military spread out across the world, our homeland is so weakly protected. Besides the fact that this standing army is totally unconstitutional. We are to hold a militia for a maximum of 2 years.
Let me ask you. When DO we pull out? We have given them a government! They have held elections! Suddam Husein is dead. The Iraqi army is pretty much depleted to a minimum, so who are we still fighting? Um... when do we "Finish" what we "Started?"
There is no answer. Every dictatorship in the world will never be put down, and certainly not only by us. It will never happen.
You seem to be looking at the emotional side of the Iraqi invasion. (For it is not a war. Congress NEVER declared war on Iraq) We can not have a country led by emotions.
David,
I appreciate your thoughts on Dr. Paul’s position on abortion. But I think that your comments just validate what Bill G. said about Paul’s inconsistency.
In 1976, he supported the first Human Life Amendment, yet in 2006 he says that “abortion simply is not a constitutional issue.” In 2005 he sponsored HR 1094, which defines life as beginning at conception, yet in 2006 he states, “the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.” If the federal government has no authority to involve itself in the abortion issue, then how does it have the authority to define life? If you define life as beginning at conception (which I support), then you’re not “returning the issue to the states”, as Dr. Paul says we should.
Even if the Sanctity of Life bill was passed; according to Dr. Paul’s logic, the federal government would not have the authority to intervene if a state voted to allow abortion. So then, what is the purpose of a Sanctity of Life bill, if you allow the states to ultimately determine the legality of abortion?
Therefore, I would support the Sanctity of Life bill; but without the authority to enforce it, it effectually does nothing.
Thanks again for your thoughts on this issue.
Joseph
P.S. I think it’s also worth noting that Ron Paul’s average score (1997-2006) from the NARAL Pro-Choice America group is 29.9%. That’s certainly not a really good pro-life rating, especially when compared to the other Republican candidates; even John McCain, who I definitely do not support, got a 2% rating from the same group.
Joseph, I don't suppose you read anything in my comment, did you?
Abortion is not a federal issue or a constitutional issue, no more than murder or theft are. The rights are (and should be) outlined in the Constitution, but laws outlining prosecutional procedures, special exceptions, etc. are the realm of state government.
The federal government does not have the jurisdiction to create or "enforce" laws about murder, theft, abortion, etc. HOWEVER if any state allows these things in their laws, they will be found in non-compliance with the Constitution which outlines the rights that such crimes violate.
Bill G.,
I agree, I think many of Dr. Paul's supporters just haven't thoroughly thought this out. I can't imagine that Dr. Paul can't understand the contradiction, but maybe he doesn't. Regardless of whether he realizes the contradiction or not, I think we have to assume that if he says that the federal government has no authority to be involved in the abortion issue, then as President he would oppose any attempts to do so.
I don't quite understand how you would consider voting for Ron Paul if Alan Keyes wasn't running. I think that Dr. Paul, on most moral issues, is on the opposite side of Alan Keyes. Here's Alan Keyes on abortion: "The Declaration states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with our basic human rights. But if human beings can decide who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly corrupted." And he also supports a Human Life Amendment.
Dr. Keyes' supports the death penalty, while Dr. Paul does not.
Dr. Keyes' also believes that we should support Israel, and other nations who are fighting for freedom and representative government: "We must set our course mindful that we are morally obligated to always stand foursquare with those who fight on the front lines of freedom and representative government — especially if they do so with the kind of decency, courage, and integrity demonstrated by the valiant people of Israel."
Dr. Keyes' position on the War on Terror is also very different from Dr. Paul's. Dr. Paul believes that the 'just war' doctrine doesn't allow for pre-emptive strikes. Here's Dr. Keyes' on the subject:
"What do you do about the war on terror" is like asking, "Do you want to die." No we don't — therefore we must defend ourselves against this threat, and we have no option and no choice. The issue is how are we going to fight it most effectively, how are we going to make sure we go after the terrorists and pre-empt their violence and destroy them before they destroy us?" … "Each time we speak of the war on terror, therefore, we evoke the moral cause of the war in which we are engaged. We rightly remind ourselves that our fight is not just against people who have attacked us, but against the evil that they embrace and embody in their heinous crimes against human conscience." Dr. Paul doesn't believe that Islamic fanaticism is the reason terrorists attack us; he says it's because we are occupying their countries!
All that to say, I think that Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are on opposite ends of the spectrum on most moral issues.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Scottie,
Actually, if you'll look at the top of my comment, you'll see that I was replying to David Bazley. I'm trying to reply to comments in the order that they were posted, but somehow I skipped yours when going through the list.
You say "the Constitution does not provide for the Federal Government to enact laws regarding abortion, murder, euthenasia, theft, and so forth." But Benjamin Franklin believed that Congress had the authority to prohibit slavery, so wouldn't that also mean they have the authority to prohibit murder? (See the quote below from Franklin’s Petition for the Abolition of Slavery, introduced to Congress in February of 1790:
“many important and salutary powers are vested in you for 'promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States;' and as they conceive that these blessings ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or delayed.
From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion, and is still the birthright of all men; and influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the principles of their institution, your memorialists conceive themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bands of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom.”
This is precisely the case I have made about the abortion issue; that Congress has the duty to prohibit abortion; otherwise, they cannot uphold their duty of “promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States.” If Congress had the authority to prohibit slavery (which Franklin believed), then they certainly have the authority to prohibit abortion.
From what I've read from Dr. Paul, I don't think he would believe that the federal government has the authority to intervene if a state didn't prosecute abortion. He says “the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.” Look back at my reply to David Bazley for my thoughts on this area.
So if you leave the abortion issue to the states, but don't allow them to not prohibit abortion, then you're not really leaving it to the states.
BTW, I'll go along with leaving the abortion issue to the states, if they are forced to prohibit it. But as I said before, that's not really leaving it to the states anyway.
Joseph
Renee,
It's not a contradiction for me to say that Ron Paul and I disagree on certain moral issues. Because we do. But maybe I should have clarified, I am mainly talking about his position on policy, not his personal moral views. But even some of his personal views I have huge disagreements with. Such as:
- Dr. Paul's refusal to call abortion murder
- Dr. Paul's refusal to call homosexuality a sin. Here's an excerpt from an interview John Lofton did with Dr. Paul:
"Lofton: Do you believe it [homosexuality] is a sin?
PAUL: I have not...I'm not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background, so I don't see it in those simplistic terms; I think it's a complex issue to decide whether it's sin or other problems with the way people are born. It's to me too complex to give an answer as simple as that.
LOFTON: Do you believe that God says it is a sin?
PAUL: Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way, but I think everybody's God's child too, so I have, you know, trouble with that."
- Here's what Dr. Paul believes about the death penalty: "Paul says he doesn’t know if he “accepts completely” that God has decreed the death penalty for murder though he believes all States have the right to impose capital punishment." Hear the entire interview here: American View
Your understanding of love, based on what you wrote here, is fundamentally flawed. Loving someone doesn't mean ignoring and allowing them to commit sin and wickedness. There is a lot of wisdom in the saying "Friends don't let friends drink and drive." Here are some verses that are very relevant to the issue of love:
Numbers 14:18: "The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty…"
2 Chronicles 19:2b: "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD." -- This verse clearly states that we should not love those who hate the Lord.
Psalm 26:4-5: "I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." -- This is very relevant to what I said about the endorsements listed on Ron Paul's website.
God not only hates wickedness, he hates the wicked: Psalm 11:5: "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence."
Following your definition of love, government cannot enforce any laws, because that would be forcing someone to obey God's laws. Where do we get the basis for laws against murder and theft? We get it from God's law, which is above all other laws. So, should we force people "to obey God's laws" concerning murder and theft?
Post a Comment