Ron Paul

Diskusjon om politiske temaer fra det internasjonale nyhetsbildet.

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 09 Mar 2012, 10:01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html


For Romney and Paul, a strategic alliance between establishment and outsiderBy Amy Gardner, Published: February 2
RENO, NEV. — The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other.

They never do.

Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.

“It would be very foolish for anybody in the Republican Party to dismiss a very real constituency,” said one senior GOP aide in Washington who is familiar with both camps. “Ron Paul plays a very valuable part in the process and brings a lot of voters toward the Republican Party and ultimately into the voting booth, and that’s something that can’t be ignored.”

To ensure that they are heard — not just now but after Election Day, too — Paul and his followers are working to gain a permanent foothold in the Republican Party nationwide. One state at a time, Paul’s supporters are seating themselves at county committee meetings, and standing for election as state officers and convention delegates, to make sure their candidate’s libertarian vision is taken into account. The goal is a lasting voice for an army of outsiders that has long felt ignored and sees the nation headed toward ruin if things don’t change.

That is just fine with the Romney campaign, which would be happy to bring Paul’s constituency — perhaps the most intense and loyal in the country — into the fold.

Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its internal thinking. The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things, the adviser said — even small details, such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primary for maximum effect.

One advantage for Romney is that Paul’s presence in the race helps keep the GOP electorate fractured. But there is also a growing recognition that the congressman plans to stay in the contest over the long term — and that accommodating him and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama.

“Ron Paul wants a presence at the convention,” the adviser said — and Romney, if he is the nominee, would grant it.

What Paul and his supporters would demand, and what Romney would offer, are subjects of some speculation. One Paul adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk freely, said prime-time speaking slots for Paul and his son Rand, the junior senator from Kentucky, are obvious goals. On the policy front, Ron Paul’s priorities are reforming the Federal Reserve and reducing federal spending. So promises to audit the Fed and to tackle deficit reduction seriously could appease the congressman and his supporters, the adviser said.

Less likely are concessions on foreign policy, where Paul’s non-interventionist stand is at odds with that of Romney and most other Republicans.

Infiltrating the party

For Paul’s campaign, playing the inside-outside game has required nudging activists into the party system, even as he and they remain wary of it.

“I’ve been involved in politics for 20 or 30 years,” Paul told an enthusiastic crowd in a Spartanburg, S.C., hotel ballroom in January. “One of the reasons I became frustrated with the whole process is that the rhetoric could be so different. Republicans would say one thing, but then, when they get into office, they haven’t done a heck of a lot.”

Paul paused, and his audience cheered loudly as he added: “Have you ever noticed that?”

The crowd that day was characteristically scrappy and diverse: a man with a ponytail and a camouflage hunting jacket, a young mother with two small children, a doctor and his wife, and a well-dressed, young professional couple.

Yet the insurgents are executing a concerted strategy to infiltrate the Republican Party. Five Paul supporters, for instance, sit on the state GOP’s central committee in Iowa, where their candidate finished a strong third in the Jan. 3 caucuses. In Nevada, the vice president of the state GOP backs Paul. In Virginia, Paul supporters are lining up to attend county and district conventions to influence the election of national delegates.

In Reno, regional coordinator Wayne Terhune used a slide show on a recent weeknight to teach volunteers how to participate in a Republican precinct meeting to help Paul win delegates in the state’s caucuses on Saturday. He has tutored packed rooms at Denny’s as well as smaller crowds in the campaign’s Reno headquarters, located in a low-slung office building alongside the airport.

In a tiny conference room with a water cooler and two dogs on the floor, Terhune told the volunteers not to allow paper ballots out of their sight once votes take place — and to dress neatly and inconspicuously, so fellow Republicans won’t be disinclined to elect them as caucus delegates.

A common refrain is to “cover your tattoos and cut your hair,” said Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, who often tells coordinators to “dress for business, because we mean business.”

“You’ll nominate yourself,” Terhune told the room. “They’ll probably have you give your speech. Have a meeting a day ahead so all the Ron Paul people know who the other Ron Paul people are, so you can vote for them. Then you give a generic speech, and the non-Ron Paul people say, ‘Oh, he’s solid, I can vote for him.’ ”

Terhune also urged the volunteers to pull out their iPhones and record the proceedings on caucus night if party officials “don’t play by the rules.”

Teaching the establishment

Paul’s infiltration strategy began in 2008, after his last presidential bid, when he saw the potential to continue building his movement by working within the Republican Party.

But the idea took off in 2010 when Paul’s son Rand ran for Senate. On an outsider, small-government message very similar to his father’s, Rand Paul won the Republican primary that year against an opponent who was handpicked by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader and senior senator from Kentucky.

Then, quite strangely, the establishment and the Pauls came together.

At McConnell’s request, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent an adviser to Kentucky to watch over Rand Paul’s general-election campaign — “to be the grown-up in the room,” according to one Washington Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

The adviser, Trygve Olson, developed a friendship with Rand Paul, and the two realized that they could teach each other a lot — to the benefit of both candidate and party. Olson showed Paul and his campaign establishment tactics: working with the news media, fine-tuning its message. And Paul showed Olson — and by extension, McConnell — how many people were drawn to the GOP by his message of fiscal responsibility.

One day that year, at Paul’s request, McConnell joined him for a tea party gathering in Kentucky, according to a Republican who was there. “Who are these people?” McConnell asked, bewildered by the dearth of familiar faces at a political event in his home state.

And at Rand Paul’s suggestion, Olson joined his father’s presidential campaign this year, basically to do what he did for Rand: help bring the Paul constituency into the Republican coalition without threatening the party. It’s probably no small coincidence that the partnership helps Rand’s burgeoning political career, too.

“You can dress in black and stand on the hill and smash the state and influence nobody, or you can realize the dynamics and the environment and get involved in the most pragmatic way to win minds and win votes and influence change,” said Benton, the campaign manager. “That’s what we’re trying to do.”
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 09 Mar 2012, 10:02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html


For Romney and Paul, a strategic alliance between establishment and outsiderBy Amy Gardner, Published: February 2
RENO, NEV. — The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other.

They never do.

Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.

“It would be very foolish for anybody in the Republican Party to dismiss a very real constituency,” said one senior GOP aide in Washington who is familiar with both camps. “Ron Paul plays a very valuable part in the process and brings a lot of voters toward the Republican Party and ultimately into the voting booth, and that’s something that can’t be ignored.”

To ensure that they are heard — not just now but after Election Day, too — Paul and his followers are working to gain a permanent foothold in the Republican Party nationwide. One state at a time, Paul’s supporters are seating themselves at county committee meetings, and standing for election as state officers and convention delegates, to make sure their candidate’s libertarian vision is taken into account. The goal is a lasting voice for an army of outsiders that has long felt ignored and sees the nation headed toward ruin if things don’t change.

That is just fine with the Romney campaign, which would be happy to bring Paul’s constituency — perhaps the most intense and loyal in the country — into the fold.

Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its internal thinking. The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things, the adviser said — even small details, such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primary for maximum effect.

One advantage for Romney is that Paul’s presence in the race helps keep the GOP electorate fractured. But there is also a growing recognition that the congressman plans to stay in the contest over the long term — and that accommodating him and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama.

“Ron Paul wants a presence at the convention,” the adviser said — and Romney, if he is the nominee, would grant it.

What Paul and his supporters would demand, and what Romney would offer, are subjects of some speculation. One Paul adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk freely, said prime-time speaking slots for Paul and his son Rand, the junior senator from Kentucky, are obvious goals. On the policy front, Ron Paul’s priorities are reforming the Federal Reserve and reducing federal spending. So promises to audit the Fed and to tackle deficit reduction seriously could appease the congressman and his supporters, the adviser said.

Less likely are concessions on foreign policy, where Paul’s non-interventionist stand is at odds with that of Romney and most other Republicans.

Infiltrating the party

For Paul’s campaign, playing the inside-outside game has required nudging activists into the party system, even as he and they remain wary of it.

“I’ve been involved in politics for 20 or 30 years,” Paul told an enthusiastic crowd in a Spartanburg, S.C., hotel ballroom in January. “One of the reasons I became frustrated with the whole process is that the rhetoric could be so different. Republicans would say one thing, but then, when they get into office, they haven’t done a heck of a lot.”

Paul paused, and his audience cheered loudly as he added: “Have you ever noticed that?”

The crowd that day was characteristically scrappy and diverse: a man with a ponytail and a camouflage hunting jacket, a young mother with two small children, a doctor and his wife, and a well-dressed, young professional couple.

Yet the insurgents are executing a concerted strategy to infiltrate the Republican Party. Five Paul supporters, for instance, sit on the state GOP’s central committee in Iowa, where their candidate finished a strong third in the Jan. 3 caucuses. In Nevada, the vice president of the state GOP backs Paul. In Virginia, Paul supporters are lining up to attend county and district conventions to influence the election of national delegates.

In Reno, regional coordinator Wayne Terhune used a slide show on a recent weeknight to teach volunteers how to participate in a Republican precinct meeting to help Paul win delegates in the state’s caucuses on Saturday. He has tutored packed rooms at Denny’s as well as smaller crowds in the campaign’s Reno headquarters, located in a low-slung office building alongside the airport.

In a tiny conference room with a water cooler and two dogs on the floor, Terhune told the volunteers not to allow paper ballots out of their sight once votes take place — and to dress neatly and inconspicuously, so fellow Republicans won’t be disinclined to elect them as caucus delegates.

A common refrain is to “cover your tattoos and cut your hair,” said Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, who often tells coordinators to “dress for business, because we mean business.”

“You’ll nominate yourself,” Terhune told the room. “They’ll probably have you give your speech. Have a meeting a day ahead so all the Ron Paul people know who the other Ron Paul people are, so you can vote for them. Then you give a generic speech, and the non-Ron Paul people say, ‘Oh, he’s solid, I can vote for him.’ ”

Terhune also urged the volunteers to pull out their iPhones and record the proceedings on caucus night if party officials “don’t play by the rules.”

Teaching the establishment

Paul’s infiltration strategy began in 2008, after his last presidential bid, when he saw the potential to continue building his movement by working within the Republican Party.

But the idea took off in 2010 when Paul’s son Rand ran for Senate. On an outsider, small-government message very similar to his father’s, Rand Paul won the Republican primary that year against an opponent who was handpicked by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader and senior senator from Kentucky.

Then, quite strangely, the establishment and the Pauls came together.

At McConnell’s request, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent an adviser to Kentucky to watch over Rand Paul’s general-election campaign — “to be the grown-up in the room,” according to one Washington Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

The adviser, Trygve Olson, developed a friendship with Rand Paul, and the two realized that they could teach each other a lot — to the benefit of both candidate and party. Olson showed Paul and his campaign establishment tactics: working with the news media, fine-tuning its message. And Paul showed Olson — and by extension, McConnell — how many people were drawn to the GOP by his message of fiscal responsibility.

One day that year, at Paul’s request, McConnell joined him for a tea party gathering in Kentucky, according to a Republican who was there. “Who are these people?” McConnell asked, bewildered by the dearth of familiar faces at a political event in his home state.

And at Rand Paul’s suggestion, Olson joined his father’s presidential campaign this year, basically to do what he did for Rand: help bring the Paul constituency into the Republican coalition without threatening the party. It’s probably no small coincidence that the partnership helps Rand’s burgeoning political career, too.

“You can dress in black and stand on the hill and smash the state and influence nobody, or you can realize the dynamics and the environment and get involved in the most pragmatic way to win minds and win votes and influence change,” said Benton, the campaign manager. “That’s what we’re trying to do.”
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Cragfarm 03 Jun 2012, 12:51

Vegard Martinsen skrev:Paul tror ikke på evolusjonsteorien.


Det gjorde så vidt jeg vet ikke Rand heller. Men nå regner jeg med at Paul ikke tror på den fordi den strider mot Bibelen. Rand på sin side valgte å ikke ta side fordi hun ikke hadde studert bevismaterialet.
Cragfarm
 
Innlegg: 202
Registrert: 20 Okt 2010, 18:10

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 03 Jun 2012, 13:39

Cragfarm skrev:
Vegard Martinsen skrev:Paul tror ikke på evolusjonsteorien.


Det gjorde så vidt jeg vet ikke Rand heller ...


Dette blir helt feil å si det slik. Det hun sa var følgende.

"I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent."

Hun var filosof og ikke realist (realist i betydningen en som har realfag som sitt fagområde), og hadde ikke studert den naturvidenskapelige siden ved evolusjonsteorien, og lot derfor være å uttale seg.

Ron Paul, derimot, er realist (han er lege), kjenner derfor godt til og har benyttet naturvidenskeplige metode, og velger allikevel å avvise evolusjonseorien.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Evans 04 Jun 2012, 19:20

Det virker merkelig at hun tok en mellomposisjon i et så viktig spørsmål, men jeg mener å huske at hun motvillig godtok evolusjonsteorien?
Evans
 
Innlegg: 142
Registrert: 05 Sep 2005, 10:19

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 05 Jun 2012, 05:32

Evans skrev:Det virker merkelig at hun tok en mellomposisjon i et så viktig spørsmål, men jeg mener å huske at hun motvillig godtok evolusjonsteorien?



Siden hun var filosof så regnet hun muligens med at hun måtte si noe stort og vektig, men siden hun ikke hadde satt seg inn i teorien (og heller ikke hadde noen bakgrunn innen realfag) så kunne hun ikke si noe slikt så da lot hun være å uttale seg ...
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg simon 05 Jun 2012, 08:00

Likefullt synes jeg også det er merkelig, gitt hennes sterke oppfordring til å ta stilling til alle viktige saker. Det er i alle nå en viktig sak, om å fastholde eller oppgi fornuften.

Muligens var settingen dengang ikke slik at vettuge mennesker kunne tenkes å støtte kreationisme, jeg vet ikke.
simon
 
Innlegg: 1750
Registrert: 08 Sep 2003, 14:11
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 05 Jun 2012, 08:43

simon skrev:Likefullt synes jeg også det er merkelig, ... Muligens var settingen dengang ikke slik at vettuge mennesker kunne tenkes å støtte kreationisme, jeg vet ikke.


Kreasjonisme var ikke noe alternativ da AR sa dette, til det sto religionen for svakt. Kreasjonisme (i et slags videnskapelig språk) har vokst frem de to tre siste tiår.

gitt hennes sterke oppfordring til å ta stilling til alle viktige saker. Det er i alle nå en viktig sak, om å fastholde eller oppgi fornuften.


Det ikke-rasjonelle alternativ var for henne så opplagt på jordet at det vel ikke var nødvendig for henne å si noe om det (som sagt, kreasjonismen eksisterte ikke da i en slags kvasi-videnskapelig sammenheng slik den gjør i dag).

Alternativet til evolusjon var muligens en teori om at nye arter oppsto spontant ved mutasjoner, og at det ikke, slik evolusjonsteorien hevder, foregår en gradvis utvikling. Det var vel slike alternativer AR ikke var interessert i å sette seg inn i.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg amundsentb 24 Jan 2013, 18:08

Hei!
Jeg hadde neppe vært her (på dette forumet) om det ikke hadde vært for Ron Paul. Moro hvordan idéer kan spres.

Prinsipelt sett mener jeg at kvinnen har rett til å bestemme helt frem til fødselen, men at det kan være umoralsk å foreta en abort sent i svangerskapet.

Politikken vil alltid handle om å gjennomføre med tvang det som er mest moralsk.


Hva er da mest moralsk i denne sammenhengen?

Som en Ron Paul beundrer føler jeg meg kallet,
Og for å gjenta det svært viktige poenget som RP-fansen ikke vil forholde seg til: Når RP sier at han følger Jesus i alt han gjør (sjekk Bergprekenen) så gir han moralsk legitimitet til de som vil drive omfordelingspolitikk. Og at hans persoen kobler liberalisme til å ikke tro på evolusjontseorien => liberalisme er middelaldersk!

Noen kommentarer fra en RP-fan til de to siste poengene vilel vært velkomne (og ikke si at de ikke spille noen rolle, slike ting er svært viktige ...).


Det er dumt at RP er kristen. Det er dumt at han ikke tror på evolusjonsteorien. Slike ting er viktige. Det er vel alt som behøvs å si om det. For meg personlig er andre saker viktigere. Jeg har ikke til hensikt å lese meg opp om Jesus sine taler og jeg vil tro at RP taler den godeste Jesus midt i mot på enkelte felt. Mitt inntrykk av RP er at han er imot initiering av tvang på alle måter og frivillighet på alle måter og arenaer (også den sosiale), i tillegg til at han er en varm forsvarer av eiendomsretten. Dette er det viktigste for meg. Så enkelt er det! Jeg tror også at mange andre sitter med dette inntrykket.

Så dette med at han begrunner sine standpunkt med henvisning til grunnloven i USA. Mitt inntrykk er at han ser på grunnloven som et bra dokument, men ikke perfekt. Jeg tror han ser på det som et nyttig verktøy for å påvirke samfunnet i en liberalistisk retning. I mine øyne er det flott og jeg applauderer ham for det han har fått til.
Når det gjelder utenrikspolitikken til RP, så må dette nødvendigvis være mye mindre viktig enn det fundamentale, mot initiering av tvang og eiendomsrett. I mine øyne har RP vært en fantastisk eksponent for liberalismen og hatt en voldsom suksess med å spre idéer.
amundsentb
 
Innlegg: 7
Registrert: 24 Jan 2013, 17:19

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 24 Jan 2013, 18:15

Men frihet forutsetter et grunnlag av rasjonelle ideer, og da er det vel ikke lurt å ha en frontfigur som benekter slike ideer?
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg amundsentb 24 Jan 2013, 18:40

Nå er ikke jeg en ekspert, men i mine øyne er, ikke initering av tvang, eiendomsrett og frivillighet rasjonelle ideer. Dette må da vel være et godt grunnlag for frihet?

Ron Paul sto ikke til valg for stillingen frontfigur for liberalismen. Som kandidat for USAs president mener jeg han var det klart beste valget. Da mest fordi jeg forstod ham som klar på det overnevnte.
amundsentb
 
Innlegg: 7
Registrert: 24 Jan 2013, 17:19

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 25 Jan 2013, 07:31

amundsentb skrev:Nå er ikke jeg en ekspert, men i mine øyne er, ikke initering av tvang, eiendomsrett og frivillighet rasjonelle ideer. Dette må da vel være et godt grunnlag for frihet?


Grunlaget er dypere enn dette.

En kristen er tilhenger av irrasjonalitet og selvoppfrelse, og man kan ikke bygge frihet på et slikt grunnlag.

Frihet er retten for hvert individ til å gjøre som han vil (så lenge han ikke initerer tvang mot andre mennesker). dvs til å beholde sine penger og bruke dem på goder for seg selv. Dette er uforenlig med selvoppofrelse og altruisme, Husk hva Jesus sa:

"Sett dere ikke imot den som gjør ondt mot dere. Om noen slår deg på høyre kinn, så vend også det andre til. Vil noen saksøke deg og ta skjorten din, la ham få kappen også. Tvinger noen deg til å følge med en mil, så gå to med ham.» (Matt 5,39-41.

At utbredt religion ikke er forenlig med frihet ser man jo også i de kulturer og de epoker hvor religion står eller har stått sterkt: ingen slike er/har vært frie.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Bartors 09 Mar 2013, 10:12

Av det jeg husker så ifølge Bibelen har mennesker fri vilje, altså frihet for hvert enkelt individ. I sitatet du siterte så oppfordrer han mennesker til å følge være "snillE2, men han tvinger ingen til å følge ham. Han mener at det er bestfor mennesker at menneskene følger reglene Gud ga dem, men Jesus tvinger ingen til å gjøre det.
Det at du mener at det er rasjonelt å slå tilbake når du blir angrepet betyr ikke at det er det for andre, for dem kan det være rasjonelt å gi fra seg klærne men beholdet livet, vi må huske at hvert enkelt individ har sin egen personlighet og disponerer med forskjellige informasjoner, derfor velger den som er best for dem selv ut av det de kunnskapene den har, resjonell egosime kalles det vel.
Det om hvorvidt evolusjonsteorien og skapelseshistorien er motsettninger av hverandre er diskutabelt, jeg mener å huske at størstedelen av begge "historiene" er ikke motsetninger men sier at ting skjedde i samme rekkefølge. Darwinismen sier hvordan det ble til mens Bibelen sier hvem er det som har forårsaket det.

Rett meg hvis jeg sa noe feil.
Bartors
 
Innlegg: 3
Registrert: 29 Des 2012, 22:17

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Rounin 09 Mar 2013, 12:05

Folk kan forsåvidt ha ulike oppfatninger av hvilke handlemåter som er rasjonelle. Dog tror jeg mange her på forumet har erfart at ettergivenhet fungerer dårlig for oss, og at å aktivt forsvare vår egeninteresse i ord og handling er det som fungerer best.

Bibelen inneholder forøvrig en interessant motsetning: Jesus advarer på flere steder om dommen som til sist skal komme, og han nevner både flammer og gråt og tenners gnidsel. Dersom Gud gjorde de tingene som nevnes, ville det være et eksempel på en type egoisme hvor man ikke bare beskytter sin egeninteresse, men også hensynsløst krenker andres.

Kristendommens etikk er altså asymmetrisk – Mennesker, kanskje Jesus inkludert, skal følge en altruistisk etikk, mens Gud kun skal ta hensyn til sin egen vilje. Rasjonell egoisme er symmetrisk – Man setter sin egen interesse høyest, all else being equal, men anerkjenner andres rett til å gjøre det samme, og alle er like for loven og tar hensyn til hverandre.

I mange debatter om helvete og det ondes problem, har jeg sett kristne forsøke å sno seg rundt dette temaet ved å henvise til nettopp den frie vilje – Gud respekterer bare menneskene så grenseløst mye at han allernådigst kan gå med på å kaste oss i helvete hvis vi absolutt vil. Det er åpenbart et galt argument, men det viser at også mange kristne egentlig anser en symmetrisk etikk som mer rettferdig, og forsøker å forene kristendommens etikk med dette.

Hva gjelder skapelsesberetningen(e) i kristendommen, er de(n) nærmest helt uforenlig(e) med det vi har observert. Det som beskrives er hvordan Gud skapte verden på syv dager, inkludert dyr, planter, de første menneskene, og så videre. Skal man forene fortellingen(e) med vitenskapelig tenkning, må man altså i det store og det hele anse det som en metafor.
Brukerens avatar
Rounin
 
Innlegg: 747
Registrert: 06 Jun 2007, 17:17

Re: Ron Paul

Innlegg Bartors 09 Mar 2013, 21:46

Jeg ville heller forsøkt å forklare Gud i Kristendommen som en far som setter regler for hvordan barna hans skal være, fordi han vet best, og straffer dem hvis de følger ikke det han sier.

Dett6e med skapelseshistorein, så så jeg såklart bort fra tidsperioden og så på tiden som en stor metafor, det jeg siktet til var rekkefølgen til skapelsen. Personlig så synes jeg det er ganske tåpelig å diskuterere religion fordi fra kristnens tankegang er Gud allmektig og kan alt, altså Gud er svaret på alt, du kan også ikke sammenligne han med det vi kjenner fordi han er over det etc. Og ateister kan spøre om det høres logisk ut og selvmotsigelser osv, men feiler når en troende spør dem, hvem skapte jorda, hvem skapte bingbang? osv, slike spørsmål tar aldri slutt.
Bartors
 
Innlegg: 3
Registrert: 29 Des 2012, 22:17

ForrigeNeste

Gå til Utenrikspolitikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 0 gjester

cron