Fine, but most candidates claim they are religious, they don't debate the finer points of doctorine.

Doctrine is not a finer point either.  So you're saying I can sit here and claim to be a U2 fan without having heard a single song or knowing the names of any members of the band?  Oh, but I'm wearing a U2 shirt, so that makes me a fan, right?

So I can claim to be a Seattle Mariners fan, but I don't know who pitches?  What if I claimed to be a Mariners fan, but didn't know the first thing about how baseball is played?

So it is with the majority of mainstream Christians.  Every week, they show up in a building and think that's the church, they sing a repetitious mantra completely devoid of theology and call it a "praise song", then they sit there and listen to a watered down sermon built off 1 or 2 cherry picked verses, and you call that a religion? 

Your faith isn't a skipping stone dancing on the surface of the water. 

You can't determine that, that would require knowing the man's heart and mind. All we can do is view and judge the fruit.

Oh! Did you say "judge"? 

What kind of judgement, the condemning or discerning kind?  I vote the latter.  "For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush."  Oh, but what is this fruit you speak of?  Galatians 5:16-25 covers this, but it applies only to those who are walking in the Spirit.   These are those that are in intimate attachment with the Vine. 

John 15:1-8:  “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.  Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.  You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.  Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.  “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.  If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.  If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.  By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples."

The tree is known by its fruit and vice-versa.  His word must abide in order to bear fruit.  Thus we can test the spirits as John told us, not to attack, but to protect ourselves from false teachers.  It's a defense; not the offence you're making it out to be.

Meaning, Satan knows the scriptures, is he converted? Scriptures are the word of God, but they don't convert nor do they save. God converts and saves. Sure we can learn more about God and get closer to God by reading his word, but the words themselves do not covert nor save.

When Satan uses scripture, it is only partial and always meant to deceive you away from the truth.  God converts and saves humans (not angels) how?  By the same scripture I cited in the earlier post.  You're just blatantly and willfully ignoring it now CV. 

No, they understood the scriptures as well, but the Pharisees were the officials over how to read the scriptures...they were the professionals. Hence knowledge in scriptures by itself does not save nor convert. 

CV, are you even reading my posts?  I said there is a difference between peripheral knowledge and true understanding.  Read John 8:31-47.  Jesus is saying they don't understand God or His word at all, "He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Now contrast the Pharisees with the knowledge of the apostles after the resurrection in Luke 24:45!!! 

How could Paul say "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" in Romans 10???   Is Paul lying?  Well then, there must be another explanation then. 

Trach, if a political person is taking photo opts at the Church as a way to get votes and prove he is somehow a church guy...you can see right through it. Why? It isn't because his lack of familiarity of the scriptures, its because they are hypocrits who are opportunists...who make use car sales men and lawyers look good by comparison.

Um, that would require discernment, correct?  During an election a few years ago, an incumbent governor (R) spoke at our church on the agreement with our pastor and elder board that while speaking, he wouldn't "get political".  After a few minutes of speaking about his childhood faith and morality, he started pointing out the flaws of his liberal opponent by comparison and broke his agreement with his hosts.  He got away with it and no one noticed.  No one confronted him on this (not even me) and he got away with it.  We were either starstruck or too scared.  The only thing everyone was demanding of him was a pic and an autograph.  

By contrast a person who LIVES the scriptures and tries to be a regular humble guy who does his best to be honest and decent you know they understand the gospel even if they can't quote you the right scripture.

LOL, this would require living the scriptures first as you said, which requires knowledge.  Heh, you can't get away from it, sorry.  Would he sue another Christian?  Is he a man of prayer?  Is he devoted to one wife?  Why, this is almost the same comparison we would make as if he were. . .running for bishop!

If you can live it, then you can quote it.  Or else you're just following a pattern of moralism.  Cultural_Moralism is not Christianity.  It's not even close to Christianity. 

They probably could recite various Sunday School lessons, Bible stories, etc, but not to handle a scripture war. His fruit, does he treat his staff well? Is he faithful to his wife? Is he a boy scout? Brave, Clean, Reverent...etc.

This is cultural moralism.  Who's he trying to please?  God or himself?

These are true measures of a candidate...not which Church they go to or how well they can recite things in the Bible. Because if he is honest, then you can judge his platform and determine if he can follow through his his promises, or if he is just trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Oh good, then religion shouldn't be a factor at all in a candidacy.  It should be completely off the table to everyone then, especially the media.  I've proposed that before and I'm totally cool with it.  It should be as taboo as asking the candidate about their sex life.  The problem with this is that it is an impractical proposal at best.

All religions teach morality. I vote for the man, not his religion.  Even someone like Unsane who doesn't believe in God has a sense of morality...I could vote for Unsane.

That's all well and good for you.  But you are telling me that testing someone who claims they are religious if they are seeking an elected position is like some form of unfair religious discrimination?

If I am an employer, I am rightfully forbidden to inquire about an applicant's faith.  The same should go for a presidential candidate.  But since this is not happening, I should at least be allowed to play it safe and investigate any religious claims that a candidate might make voluntarily.  Correct? 

You CV, are telling me that I cannot do this.  As if you're not allowing me to or something!  Like Dagda and I were endorsing some form of hate or intolerance.  All I am saying is, "He states he is X, does he truly walk the walk and talk the talk?"

If Mitt claims to be Mormon, what's wrong with that? 

Or are you just contending with me because you're afraid Mitt will be seen as only a Mormon and. . .nothing more? What are you afraid of?

Chips are stacked to the ceiling and I call your bluff.   Time to show your cards man.  This is getting tiring if you won't read my posts. 

-PJ 

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07