Debate Now Are Clinton and Obama Christian? Consensus seekers only or DO NOT POST HERE

[emilynghiem]

PLEASE READ RULE #2 BEFORE POSTING.

1. A friend of mine, fellow believer in Christ, does not believe Obama or Clinton are "real Christians."

I believe they are, or else they could not get where they are today.

The message is forgiveness of wrongs is more important to correcting them, rather than haranging and judging people for wrongs which skews and obstructs the process of "redressing grievances."

That's why we aren't getting anywhere with rebukes and corrections -- they should be based on Consensus on truth, law and justice in the spirit of Christ. Not on judgment and punishment that becomes biased with personal emotions and interests. See Matthew 18:15-20 which can be applied to Constitutional law as well as Scripture to rebuke "fellow believers" as peers in order to resolve conflicts and reach agreement on corrections.

I believe even though Clinton and Obama have abused their authority to violate Constitutional principles, they are both Christian. They and their supporters pray for forgiveness and that's why they can keep going.

But because they are Christian, they will respond to Christian rebuke when given in that spirit. The problem is we've never followed that process so we don't get the rebuke and corrections we seek.

2. RULE: Anyone who posts here, the purpose and rule is to SEEK CONSENSUS -- to COMMIT to resolving ANY and ALL conflicting posts and perceptions, in order to arrive at a CONSENSUS. The answer is either yes or no when we all agree at the end of the process.

No hit and run posters. Of course anyone can disagree with anyone else, but the point is to RESOLVE whatever problems prevent us from agreeing on truth, which is either yes or no. if we don't agree on "definitions or meanings" of what is Christian, then let's discuss that and settle it. So we reach a CONSENSUS.

If you don't believe consensus is possible, then do not post here. Otherwise, it will just lead to projection back and forth and not constructive critique and corrections.

3. NOTE: If you are secular gentile, nontheist/atheist or nonbeliever, that's fine as long as you are willing to forgive in order to resolve conflicts and reach an agreement. I am happy to interpret and translate between Christian terms and secular language for the same concepts/principles in order for nonchristians to participate. Agreement to conflict resolution and consensus is all that is necessary to work out the issues. Thank you!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I believe they "are", for political purposes only.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Obama is Muslim, has always been Muslim and will continue to promote radical Islam worldwide.
And Hitlery will say anything to get elected. < according to our resident Muslim.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama is Muslim, has always been Muslim and will continue to promote radical Islam worldwide.
And Hitlery will say anything to get elected. < according to our resident Muslim.

OK I know Muslims who are also neighbors in Christ, and one friend who identifies as both. He even confronted his parents about Jesus being God and went through a real struggle to restore relations with them after they rejected him at first as being blasphemous to say such a thing much less believe it. They appear to be on really good terms, and have grown and moved forward where it's getting better. They even liked a Christian movie he suggested because of its message, and didn't reject it as he feared.

I agree with you The Irish Ram that both Obama and Clinton are putting secular politics and party before following the Constitution, God and Christ as first. I still think they are following the path God has them to follow. This is partially to challenge and change the system; I find they are doing it the wrong way, and forcing change by abusing and violating the process and principles we should be AGREEING how to follow.

I still believe they will respond to rebuke and corrections in the spirit of Christ when called to do so. They just haven't been called out to do so yet. This has not yet been set up as a Christian rebuke so it isn't happening.

Is the only way to prove this to actually SET UP the Christian rebuke, and ask for corrections in the name of Christ Jesus as fellow believers? To follow the steps in Matthew 18:15-20 and ask them both to quit coveting the labor and authority of other people by abusing the party politics to violate equal rights, protections and representation of others?

Would that settle the matter in your eyes, as a faithful follower and believer, if you saw that they responded to, accepted rebuke, and corrected problems in the spirit of Christ when addressed by fellow believers in that spirit?

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe they "are", for political purposes only.

Dear Billy_Kinetta:
1. is that "political purposes only" approach to "being Christian" ENOUGH to address AND correct problems by consensus? if so, then for all practical purposes this is consistent with Christian, if rebukes can be received, issues resolved, and truth established by agreement.

2. however, if they refuse rebuke and deny or obstruct corrections, then is this because
a. the "political purposes only" approach is not sufficient, so it cannot be used as the criteria
b. the people themselves, Clinton and Obama, do not really have faith in the consensus process of establishing truth and justice for peacemaking.

is the problem with them, or with that system of depending on the political process to establish truth and justice.

if we used a straightforward system, without the politics skewing it, of redressing one another for the sake of correcting problems, resolving conflicts, and reaching agreement on truth universally, would that work with Obama and Clinton?

So the problem ISN'T with them, but with the politics?

Which part is preventing truth from being established by agreement?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I believe they "are", for political purposes only.

Dear Billy_Kinetta:
1. is that "political purposes only" approach to "being Christian" ENOUGH to address AND correct problems by consensus? if so, then for all practical purposes this is consistent with Christian, if rebukes can be received, issues resolved, and truth established by agreement.

2. however, if they refuse rebuke and deny or obstruct corrections, then is this because
a. the "political purposes only" approach is not sufficient, so it cannot be used as the criteria
b. the people themselves, Clinton and Obama, do not really have faith in the consensus process of establishing truth and justice for peacemaking.

is the problem with them, or with that system of depending on the political process to establish truth and justice.

if we used a straightforward system, without the politics skewing it, of redressing one another for the sake of correcting problems, resolving conflicts, and reaching agreement on truth universally, would that work with Obama and Clinton?

So the problem ISN'T with them, but with the politics?

Which part is preventing truth from being established by agreement?

The whole point of a masquerade is to conceal one's true identity.