105 votes

Ron Paul Quotes Jesus, Conservatives Outraged

Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on February 4, 2013 | LewRockwell.com

Remember that time Ron Paul used the Golden Rule to explain his foreign policy? Conservatives booed him for that. So who can be surprised that conservatives, including Rand Paul, have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus -in correct context, by the way - to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front?

Every neocon pundit and middle-American red-blooded conservative took a few minutes out from running around shrieking "boo-yah" and polishing his dually F-250 to be outraged that someone dared suggest that a government employee wasn't a holy relic.

The Daily Caller was the first to the show, posting Paul's twitter post without comment and allowing the comment box to quickly fill with outraged Republicans who were dismayed that anyone would not endorse every action of every single taxpayer-funded soldier who ever drew a bead on some dirt-poor 12-year-old child-soldier 10,000 miles away. Others soon piled on.

The most transparent were the conservatives who claimed to be former supporters of Paul who must now go support some more "patriotic" politician: One who doesn't actually question anything the military does.

One member at RonPaulForums.com said "'Live by the sword, die by the sword' is what the dumbest, stupidest, most delusional people around here would say. There's no way that Ron actually said this. Ugh. How said [sic] and pathetic."

That seems to be the general reaction one gets from conservatives about the Golden Rule also.

This is what it comes down to for most conservatives, of course. All that stuff about laissez faire and freedom and free markets has never been more than an act and an affectation which goes right out the window if someone ever criticizes the US Government in a truly trenchant or penetrating manner.

Most of these sunshine patriots who now whine that Ron Paul has lost their support, wouldn't ever have supported Ron Paul in the first place if Obama weren't in office. Had Ron Paul run against a GOP incumbent, most of these timid and prevaricating "opponents" of big government would have condemned Paul for questioning the glorious deeds of "our" Commander-in-Chief. Among conservatives, Ron Paul has only ever had minority support, for in the end, conservatives love government, as exhibited by their latest outrage. They just love it in a slightly different way from the left liberals.

As I've noted before, the Tea Party movement, and most conservatives who pretend to be for small government, only act when there's a Democrat in office. During eight years of Bush shredding the constitution, spending money like there was no tomorrow, and inflating the money supply with his pals at the central bank, no conservative would walk ten feet to protest the federal government. But about five minutes after Obama was sworn in, the Tea Party protests swelled into a huge disingenuous show that will evaporate five minutes after any Republican is sworn into office, assuming the GOP can actually win a national election with one of the out-of-touch never-had-a-real-job rich boys they insist on nominating.

In the end of course, Ron Paul has never been about rallying people to himself. He has been about the message, and the message is about freedom. It is a logical impossibility to be simultaneously pro-freedom and pro-military. Patrick Henry, who called government soldiers "engines of despotism" knew this. Thomas Jefferson knew this. Every true friend of liberty from William Graham Sumner to Murray Rothbard knew this. And Ron Paul knows it. Some of his supporters, still stuck in the mindset of a form of Geezer Conservatism in which "freedom-lovers" bow and scrape before the US Government, denied that Ron Paul could have even agreed with the Twitter post. No such luck for them. The tradition of laissez faire is a tradition against standing armies, and wars, and deference to military "heroics." Conservatives who are troubled by this should probably be honest with themselves and find a candidate more suitable to their views. I hear Newt Gingrich is still taking donations.

Source: LewRockwell.com

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

History in the connection to the Word of God

"Somebody's opinion about what supposedly happened in the early church doesn't carry the same weight as God's Word."

Well, depending on what happened in the early church, that is, actually in the early churches matters a lot because possibly a lot of God's Words were excluded from the Bible, for example, the Gospel of Thomas which was written possibly as early as 50 AD.

Have you read the Gospel of Thomas? It might be nearest to the Q Source.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--


I think the point that was made about scripture holding more weight than someones opinion of history was a good one, and in the context of the trinity, the fact that it is taught in scripture would not be changed even if there were some missing books.

The gospel of Thomas is an obvious forgery made by gnostics and had no relation to scripture. If you read it, you will see just how silly and reprehensible it is. If it were actually written by Thomas, you'd think that the churches he established on the Malabar coast of India would have had some similarities to it's teachings.
Typically, people who say that the early church excluded parts of the bible, and then point to gnostic texts as examples have no concept of Church history or Christian theology. Canonization of the books of the bible was a mere recognition of what Christian churches had already accepted and were already using. Look at the writings of the early church fathers, students and friends of the apostles picked by Jesus, and students of those students, etc. They quote the Bible quite frequently, but they don't promote the gnosticism found in those non-biblical gnostic texts. You can just about recreate the new testament from early patristic quotations, and the new testament itself is completely at odds with gnosticism.

There is no Q. Q is an imaginary hypothetical concept with no manuscripts to verify it's existence.

Gnostics, Christians, Q etc.

The Gospel of Thomas is not OBVIOUS forgery. We do not even know if it a Gnostic Gospel and who are the Gnostics? Those who could be called the Gnostics include many different groups of Christians (the so called Gnostic Christians) who might have had completely opposing views of each other. There is not one single sect called the Gnostics. Gnosticism of course refers to the word gnosis 'knowledge'. This 'knowledge' was the secret knowledge or the secret teaching of Jesus which to also the biblical Gospels refer to and to which you yourself referred to in your previous reply to my comment in connection to parables of Jesus.

If you say that the Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas, well this MIGHT be true, but it is also true that we do not know who even wrote the Gospels of the New Testament. Yes, they are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but there is no certainty of the original writers these Gospels either.

I disagree that the Gospel of Thomas is "silly and reprehensible". Why is that? Are the Gospels of the New Testament completely at odds with gnosticism as you write? Well, it is a question of which gnostic groups are we talking about. You seem to lump all so called gnostic groups together as they were all thinking the same way which is not at all true.

You wrote: "Canonization of the books of the bible was a mere recognition of what Christian churches had already accepted and were already using."
This is a half-truth. It is true, but only partially as some Christian churches were using many texts which were not included in the Bible. It is all about the power game. From my perspective Irenaeus and other Church Fathers were destroying the multidimensionality of the Christian Tradition and from your perspective they were cleaning it from the heretic tendencies of Christianity.

Q might be an imaginary hypothesis, but there was pretty sure something like it, that is, a collection of sayings of Jesus which the writers of the synoptic Gospels used and which might have been quite similar to the form of the Gospel of Thomas. So many of the texts of antiquity (philosophy, religious, scientific, etc.) have been lost, but that does not mean that they didn't exist originally. Irenaeus mentions many Christian/gnostic texts which do not any more exist. Happily Nag Hammadi was found.

It is always the winners who write the history, and this also applies to the Christian history.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

What I was referring to in

What I was referring to in parables is not the same thing as Gnosticism. I wasn't talking about salvation through gaining secret knowledge. I think God makes things clear to those he saves, but he saves them based on his grace and work on the Cross of Jesus.

You said: "I disagree that the Gospel of Thomas is "silly and reprehensible". Why is that?"

I don't know where to begin. Did you not read the part about women not being worthy of life, and how they would have to become male to be saved? That goes against scripture in Galatians where men and women are equal in Gods sight despite having different gender roles.

You said "It is true, but only partially as some Christian churches were using many texts which were not included in the Bible."

Some christian churches were boasting in blatant immorality and incest as well, that is why other churches corrected them. But the criteria for canonization included consistency of use. If some offshoot was bringing other stuff in which nobody else had heard of, or which contradicted scriptures which were established as reliable, that is not a good reason to accept the stuff.

You said "It is all about the power game. From my perspective Irenaeus and other Church Fathers were destroying the multidimensionality of the Christian Tradition..."

What is notable is that Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a friend and student of the apostle John who was chosen by Jesus. John appointed polycarp as a bishop to lead the church in Smyrna. Iranaeus knew that the bishops and leaders of the christian church were well known and that they didn't teach gnosticism, and he also made use of scripture which was established as reliable, and which contradicted gnosticism. Your talk of multidimentionality reminds me of your somewhat relativistic talk elsewhere. How did you come to the conclusion that it was a power game?

You said: "Q might be an imaginary hypothesis, but there was pretty sure something like it, that is, a collection of sayings of Jesus which the writers of the synoptic Gospels used..."

Q is short for the german word for 'source'. Obviously there was a source(probably the writers own experience and the unanimity of the church), but the idea that the source was Q (i.e. a unified written collection of sayings) is an idea which has no real evidence.

"It is always the winners who write the history, and this also applies to the Christian history."

This rationale doesn't really work in this instance to further your argument. The fact that God is involved in scriptures inspiration and preservation would secure it's success. If the purpose of scripture is to teach and sanctify God's church, then it would follow that God would give that scripture to the church. Here is an article you might check out: http://www.str.org/site/News2?id=5473

you said: "but there is no certainty of the original writers these Gospels either."
While it's true that not every books authorship is totally certain, I don't think it is as encompassing as you portray it. Authorship of all the gospels was strongly attested by the early church. The fact that they don't all say who wrote them "in them" is a problem for some people. There is certainty that the gospels which are in the bible were established as reliable and accepted by the church early on and the same can't be said for the Gospel of Thomas.

No Harm

In learning about early Christianity, whose leaders argued over church doctrine and compiled the books of the Bible.
No harm in reading about two priests: Arius and Athanasius, who prior to 324 AD disagreed over Jesus' degree of divinity, which led to violence and bloodshed among Christians three centuries after the birth of Christ.
Fear not in learning the history of the Bible we read as Gospel.

What is your problem...

with the saying, "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"?

It seems a perfect companion precept and support to the NAP. If you go about engaging in aggression there will be unpleasant consequences to the aggressors and empirical observation (sans divine revelation) of man in society seems to concur.

Even many atheists and secularists are completely comfortable appealing to aphorisms in the christian and judaic scriptures. You just seem to have some other agenda not related to the topic at hand... :p

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Because it is not

true - it does not reflect REALITY. What the 150 muslims did before they died? What Sandy Hook children or 9/11 victim did? Yasser Arafat, who was fighting all his life, died from HIV.

Arafat murdered with radio-isotope?

Swiss, French and Russian experts were given samples to establish whether his death in Paris in 2004 at the age of 75 was the result of poisoning.

France began a murder inquiry in August after Swiss experts found radioactive polonium-210 on his personal effects.


Free includes debt-free!

Your english is awful Liberty_First

What country are you from?


...I reject your use of 'hard-core' and 'soft-core' in this way. You will find Christians who are 'hard-core' for a deep, Scriptural relationship with Christ through the gospel, regardless of what secondary view they hold on the ultimate nature and working out of God's justice and love. The creeds of the early church did not even address views on the subject -- it was and is a 'gray' area. The core gospel of our 'old man' of sin being spiritually crucified and buried with Christ and our 'new man' being raised in Him is what should be looked at. Differences beyond that are less important.

'Soft-core' would be more apathetic and lukewarm, indifferent, just claiming the faith as a label or a tradition or ritual that doesn't really mean much beyond that.

From my particular perspective, Scripture is clear that God is love and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and therefore that neither should we.

Since viruses have no free will

who allows them to kill babies before being baptized?


if God created people, planets and viruses according to a purposeful plan and provided a transition for the souls of people from the earthly to a spiritual realm, then proclaiming, "I do not know all of God's plans and purposes therefore God cannot exist or else God is immoral" is a mere logical fallacy. A straw man you are flailing at God.

Such a God would be in full control of the care of the souls of all babies. And such a God could have individual plans and purposes for each baby with each baby having a different ordained lifespan and all of this could beyond the capability of your mind to comprehend. And all of this would be logically consistent.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

The same One...

...who made all things will allow all things in this fallen world to leave it so that they may be reconciled to Him in a better place, in His time. That does not mean that He has any pleasure in temporal suffering and death, whether here or in the outer darkness. This valley of evil we are in will someday end. He is the Author and Finisher of our story -- the beginning and the end. And the end of the story is good. :)

Blind belief or logic of a rational mind?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

false dichotomy

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

two other options:

1. If there is a greater good for allowing evil, then God is not malevolent. The possibility of evil is a necessary consequence of freedom. And yet, the value of that freedom outweighs the cost of the possible consequences, at least that's what I hear with regard to the liberty message I see on this site.

2. The bible teaches that there is no good person, that there is none who seeks God, and that we are all sinners, etc. (see Romans 3). If we all deserve Hell because of our rebellion against God, then any evil that happens to us which is less severe than the Hell we deserve is actually a moment of mercy in which we do not get the full punishment due. If we deserve worse than the evil we experience in this temporary life, then how could God be considered malevolent for showing mercy to those who deserve more evil than they get?

Willing and able...

...to allow Liberty/free will AND to reconcile ALL evil that may come as a result.

It's not either God's will or human will -- it is both. And that is one area where I believe the universalist outlook has an edge: it allows human will to asymptotically approach God's will, as you take the limit as time goes to infinity. All the prodigals will eventually come home, just as coins with superglue on one side will eventually all stick as you shake the shoebox that contains them. Evil will be defeated YET human Liberty will be preserved.

The traditional view truncates that process, and sees either God as not truly willing everyone to be reconciled (Calvinism), or as having his will mostly frustrated due to human free will (Arminians) and there always being a pocket of contained evil somewhere.

I say, no: evil will be eradicated AND free will is preserved.

Hey, this kind of goes with your username: Liberty_First! :) (and I would say concurrent with the wills of both God and humanity.)

GoodSamaritan's picture

How does a Christian place someone in hell?

And why is distinguishing between true and false Christians funny?

Also, where did you read in the Bible that Jesus places Muslims in hell?

Just curious as to how you came to your conclusions.

BTW, the Bible has a clear and succinct definition of "religion":

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." James 1:27

Not sure how you get "collectivist dogma" from that.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

We all know that pre-requisites for going to hell

is different from one church to another. Some require actions, some require content of your heart. If your church does not put those who reject Jesus into hell, it is all right. Can you call yourself a True Christian. Yes, you can.

GoodSamaritan's picture

A true Christian

would be someone who's way of life is to obey Christ. The word Christian simply means Christ-like.

As for who ends up in hell, that's up to God. I think the Bible is pretty clear on the subject of hell but there are also many verses that tell us it is possible for some to avoid going there:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." John 3:16-17

Also, to those who have already been forgiven, a reminder that salvation is a free gift and not something we earned:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

What does it mean to be a True Christian?

You write: "A True Christian would be someone who's way of life is to obey Christ. The word Christian simply means Christ-like."

But what does this mean? What does it mean to obey Christ? And if 'the word Christian simply means Christ-like', then what does it mean to be Christ-like?

If it means to obey Christ, does it mean that a person CAN BE a Christian and not care much about what the followers of Jesus did in the New Testament? So can a person obey Christ, but not obey Peter, Paul, Acts or Revelation as they are interpretations of the teachings of Jesus and not his own words? Could it then be that the Gospels would be the most important part of the Bible for a person who obeys Christ?

Is somebody a heretic if he takes the teachings of Jesus very seriously, but not so much anything else in the New Testament? If so, then why?

You seem to be very keen to quote Timothy where Paul says that All Scripture is theopneustos, but Jesus does not express this idea in this kind of manner. Jesus instead says: "it is not you who speak, but the Spirit [pneuma] of your Father who speaks in you." (Matt. 10:20) This is not the same idea as this has no reference to All Scripture. Paul's and Jesus' thinking are not the same.

So my basic question is what does it mean then to be a True Christian? Are so called Christians then more Christians (follow Christ), Paulians (follow Paul) or Peterians (follow Peter)?

Can a person be a True Christian without following at all the interpretations and theologies of the Christian Tradition, that is, for example the Church Fathers? Or could it actually other way around, that a person who just follows the teachings of the Christ is actually a True Christian?

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

GoodSamaritan's picture

I already answered your question

A true Christian is one who lives a life of obedience to Jesus Christ. I would label someone a false Christian if he or she claimed to be a Christian but did not demonstrate obedience to Jesus Christ as a way of life.

"But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." James 2:18

Since the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus is God in human form, and He communicated part of His Word through the Apostle Paul, then there is no disagreement between Jesus and Paul. But I'll let Paul himself answer your question about Christians following different church leaders:

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor 1:10-13

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

needle ear...

I assume, that if one does not go to heaven, he goes to hell. No Limbo, no annihilation. Jesus had a famous quote that a poor person has a bigger chance to get into heaven than a rich one. Hard work, productivity, actual usefulness was never on Jesus mind who himself did not earn a penny during his 33 years. When Jesus came to Temple, he had no money to buy an animal for a ritual. The anger forced him to use brutal force...

GoodSamaritan's picture

Jesus wasn't angry because He couldn't buy an animal

He was angry because money changers had turned the Temple - His Father's House - from a house of prayer into an opportunity to fleece people coming to worship:

"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of robbers." Matthew 21:12-13

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father


Jesus' father carefully instructed how rituals must be performed in the Temple. It is written in detail in the Old Testement. Trinity did not exist at that time. Messiah was not supposed to change or challenge god's instructions. Jesus had no money to perform a ritual. I suspect that he did not remember the scripture well or his desciples invented things in the New Testement later.

GoodSamaritan's picture

No instructions were changed

and Jesus - being God in human form - didn't forget anything.

Not sure how those verses can be made much clearer for you. The money changers were conducting their business IN THE TEMPLE. The House of God is not a marketplace...it's a house of prayer, just as Jesus said when He quoted His Father.

You have no basis for saying that Jesus had no money and you have offered no explanation for why God repeatedly speaks of Himself in the plural throughout the OT.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all referenced in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit is mentioned at least three times, in Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 63:10, and Isaiah 63:11. The Son is referenced by various names and offices in every book of the OT.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

How DARE...

Ron Paul not praise the works of Abaddon (the destroyer)! ;(

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

The sniper lived and died by the sword

For some reason people can't hear that. It is strange that he was glorified for killing 160 people and sold books about it. It is strange that parents buy their little boys shooter video games. It is strange that people continue to sign up to go kill innocent people on behalf of foriegn bankers. You're not the strange one Dr. Paul. God's law is first - Exodus 20 says "Thou shall not murder". (I understand this is the proper translation, but you are to defend yourself). What part of that do they not understand? Face it people, you are wilfully blind. You are morale cowards. Home of the brave, land of the free-

From what little I have read and seen...

...the guy loved to kill.

They call themselves Christians. They go to church.

They invoke the name of Christ on one hand and they are happy to give their tax dollars to a government to go kill Arabs on the other hand.

Christ hated hypocrites more than anything else.

And anyone who is belittling Dr. Paul for his truth are HYPOCRITES.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


As I recall, having read the Bible, all of the way through, Christ hated no one. It is like the saying we hear in church, "Hate the sin but love the sinner".