No not at all. We've been over this ground before. In terms of who is certainly a Christian, I can't know that. Who can know the human heart but God? But given what a Christian is and what a Christian should believe, you'll have more or less reason to affirm someone's claim to Christianity on the basis of what they believe and how they behave. Is that a cut & dry way of determining anything? No, but that's really because you're not determining anything other than whether you have good reason to affirm their claim yourself. There certainly could be Christians within the Democratic party, though if they are a growing and developing Christian, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit and growing in their knowledge God and His word, then they will naturally become more and more conservative as time proceeds until they hold beliefs and behaviors that are consistent with a Christian worldview. Being a Christian and holding views and beliefs that are deeply inconsistent with the Christian worldview is an example of sin and a lack of growth and sanctification in one's Christian life. It would be like being a Christian but believing it was OK to visit prostitutes on a regular basis. Could a new believer visit a prostitute and still be a Christian? Yeah, but if that behavior continues unabated by guilt and repentance that leads to a change in behavior, then I would tell that person to seriously question whether they are a true follower of Jesus Christ. I hope that makes sense, but there is really no reason to make this more difficult than it has to be.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

It does not make sense. In order to be a Christian, as I understand it, one must believe that Jesus is the incarnation of God and that he died on the Cross and rose three days later, symbolizing the promise of eternal life for believers. I don't see anything in the Bible about contemporary politics. I don't see how one Christian can claim that members of a political party he opposes are not Christians, though the vast majority of the members of that party see themselves as Christians. In your view, all of these people were/are not Christians: Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy--and the rest of his large, Roman Catholic family, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (oh--I forgot: he's of course a Muslim, born in Kenya).

Judge not--well, you know the rest.

Well, you've got part of it, but the rest of it is placing your trust in Christ sacrifice as payment for your sins and making a willful choice to turn your life over to God and follow Jesus Christ, thus becoming more like Christ in the quality of your character as you develop in your Christian life.

Whether someone is a Christian or not has nothing to do with political party, as there are likely many many Republicans who are not Christians. It has to do with whether your beliefs and behaviors are consistent with a Christian worldview or not. And of course, the relevance of that is dependent upon the position of your heart toward God. In other words, have you placed your trust in Jesus Christ and turned away from your former life (repented of your sin & asked God to forgive you) in order to dedicate your life to Jesus Christ or not? If you have, your life will change and you will become more like Jesus Christ, increasingly possessing more and more of a Christian worldview at time proceeds.

And why would Martin Luther King Jr. not be a Christian? He was a Republican by the way, but of course, as I said, that wouldn't make him a Christian. I just don't know why his name was put in there. As for the rest of them, whether they are Christian or not, in the sense of certainty is unknown by me. The best that I can say for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is that I have few if any good reasons to affirm their claim to Christianity, as they behave and believe in ways that are contrary to the truth of Christianity and therefore a Christian worldview. Regarding John Kennedy and his family, I'm not certain I know enough about his family to make a comment one way or another. I know that I don't have a lot of reason to affirm the Christianity of someone like Ted Kennedy and to some degree his brother John, but I couldn't say more than that. In addition, my affirmation of someone's Christianity also doesn't decide one's Christianty or make them a Christian. With regard to a Muslim born in Kenya, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you asking if Kenyan Muslims can be Christians? The simple answer to that is no. That is, unless they reject Islam and become followers of Jesus Christ, which is to say, Christians.

Lastly, the passage regarding judgment is not meant to convey that one cannot make sensible judgments. It has more to do with making wrong judgments about others. I try not to do that, which is why I will generally always say that I don't know someone's eternal destiny for sure. The best I can normally do is to decide whether I have reason to personally affirm their claim. That is different than knowing the internal state of their heart and its relation to God. Only the person and God are aware of that.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

In addition, I think many of the programs traditionally supported by Democrats are consistent with the teachings of Jesus:

-Democrats are in favor of helping the poor, increasing educational opportunity for those who need it, assisting with training for those who need jobs and many other "social" programs that Republicans often fight;
--Democrats are in favor of providing a "safety net" that includes social security for the elderly, welfare assistance for those without incomes (along with education and training when possible); affordable health care available for all citizens; assistance for those who cannot work, for example, the mentally ill or severely retarded.
--Etc.

We've discussed this before. I know you, Gom, do a great deal of charity work yourself, which I certainly admire and respect. I know you think government assistance is unnecessary or wasteful or otherwise inappropriate--but many Democrats are in favor of using tax money to help the truly needy and to improve opportunities for those who have few opportunities.

I think these kinds of Democratic proposals and practices are consistent with true Christianity. This is part of the reason I disagree with your view that conservatives/Republicans are much closer to Christianity than are liberals/Democrats. Some are, some aren't. I don't see any evidence that Republicans/Conservatives behave more like true Christians than do Democrats/Liberals. You may think there is some philosophical connection, but I don't see any at all in the "real" world. Is this a widespread idea among conservatives?

If it is, it seems to me just another way conservatives can drive a wedge between one party and the other, when we really need to work together as fellow Americans who all want the best for the country we love.

Edited to add this P.S.: I wrote the above while you were were writing your last post. I truly can't believe you would set yourself as a judge as to whether someone like Bill Clinton or others is a Christian. I'm done with this line of discussion.

"Liberals can't be true Christians" is another case of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Anybody can define Christianity to mean something that will exclude some group, even conservatives. And if Gom is going to make Christianity a matter of behavior, and not just belief, then that makes lots more possibilities to exclude anyone.

This goes back to the Religion of Peace thread. The most usable and coherent definition for any religion is that the religion and membership are defined by those who profess to follow it. What is the "true" religion for any religion is just an unprovable, subjective matter.

Generally speaking, belief dictates a large portion of our behavior, so naturally it would be included, though there is certainly more leeway. You're quite correct. Whatever logical category you create, you have to be sure that it's an accurate representation.


Actually, you're better off to look at the texts & teachings themselves, as well as the example of the religions founder(s). You want to remove as much subjectivity as possible, but you are correct in that certitude is not possible. But of course, that's true in most areas of our lives. That doesn't mean we're not justified in believing and doing many of the things that we do.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

Why would looking at the texts, teachings, and examples of the founders of a religion be the correct way to look at a religion in existence today? It's like deciding what Americans are like by looking at the Constitution and what the people alive in the early 1800's were like. There is some information to be gleaned, but a lot has happened since then for Americans. Even more has happened for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. To focus on the distant past seems somewhat unproductive. You should look at it, of course, but it doesn't give you a full picture of the current state of affairs.