PaulsBunions said:
Sims said:
Ah I see, well, I'm glad he's being honest.
I just weight that higher than a candidate's ability to thread a rhetorical needle to avoid losing hypothetical identity politics votes.
Well I guess we'll have to see how voters respond to this on election day. I was under the impression that saying Jesus Christ is not the way to heaven might annoy some Christians here.
Want to be upfront: I'm a Christian and I believe Jesus is the only way to the Father. That's settled for me. So this isn't me arguing Vivek is right about Jesus. He isn't.
But I can't square the idea that a Hindu candidate honestly stating Hindu beliefs is a political self-own he should have avoided. Scripture doesn't model a religious litmus test for civil authority. Isaiah 45, God calls Cyrus, a Persian polytheist, his "anointed," explicitly saying "though you do not acknowledge me." In Jeremiah 27 He calls Nebuchadnezzar "my servant."
Daniel served under both without requiring either to convert first.
Romans 13 frames the magistrate's job as restraining evil and rewarding good, not confessing Christ.
The thing that bothers me about the "he hurt himself with Christian voters" framing is that the implicit fix is for Vivek to fudge his beliefs for votes.
That would make Christianity into a tribal badge a candidate wears to be electable, exactly the kind of "Lord, Lord" profession Jesus warned about in Matthew 7:21. I'd rather have an honest Hindu than a strategic Christian, and I think that's actually the more biblical posture.