Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservlogo.png

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? Conservative or Liberal? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

Contents

"WTF?"

... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --Kirby 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. Graham 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)


Communist

Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people. To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.


Conservative

Where else would he find a home? Liberals deny him. They deny his creative role,[1] and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.[2]

Few liberals would deny him if he were still alive (and doing miracles, otherwise he'd be thrown in the crazy bin) Darwon 17:16, 14 December 2014 (EST)

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. Burgy 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

2. Jesus didn't want people to revere him, like said before not all liberals deny christ in reality many liberals are christian. also, didn't Jesus want people to give money to the poor and try this one "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." [Luke 14:13 &14.] The argument that Liberals would hate him is completely invalid. And if the moto for this wiki is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", you really need to get your facts straight.


Moreover, Jesus would never countenance the behaviors in which liberals routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.[3] Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the Jewish custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.[4] Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.[5] Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and not of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.[6]

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks[7] has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to sin in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--TerryH 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
Let us look at Conservative to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
  • National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.

He didn't use violets?!--The vigilante 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
  • Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
  • Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --Mtur 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --Scrap 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leninrules (talk)

No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--TerryH 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Would Jesus consign to any party? I do not believe so. The combination of politics and religion was never meant to be. And besides, Jesus would never force any of his laws on anyone. You cannot force a person to love Jesus, and Christ knowing this would not force anyone to follow his teachings. Christ was about personal choice. --


Erm, hello majority of verses here?----

Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Applestooranges (talk)

That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. Romans 13:6-7 (NASB)--TerryHTalk 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
In ancient Rome, there was a program called the annona. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, George Bush advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[1] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --Mtur 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
That's all very well. But would Jesus say that the government ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--TerryHTalk 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is no way that Jesus would come out on the side of the abortionists. He'd be pro-life for sure. Vossyspeak 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If he would have any political affiliation, he would definitely be a conservative.

Liberal

As stated in liberal he would clearly fall in the liberal end.

  • equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
    • Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
    • Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
    • Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
    • In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
    • With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
    • Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
    • In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
  • distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
    • It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
  • government programs to rehabilitate criminals
    • The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
    • There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
  • taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
    • Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
  • support of government programs such as welfare
    • This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
  • support of affirmative action
    • Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
    • Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.

--Mtur 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--TerryH 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. Myk 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--TerryH 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--Tehstone 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
The one thing that Jesus would not do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
He would say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--TerryHTalk 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? Niwrad 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --steponme1623 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:

Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:

Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?" And of helping people in general:
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”

So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --Arod 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --AppalledBystander 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? Flippin 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If God loved the world, as Jesus said in John 3:16, and if you should treat your neighbor as you do yourself, than Jesus would be liberal. He would advocate for the government to help the poor and to legalize same-sex marriage. Dave07 18:10, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Matthew 21:12-13 "And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers." From this verse, I conclude that Jesus would be for government regulation of businesses, so that the businesses do not cheat their customers or monopolize the market.

Mark 2:15 "And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him." This sounds like a liberal thing to do, to associate with sinful people and outcasts. Userafw 22:21, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Neither

Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. MountainDew 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --Mtur 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--Goose 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--Ronnyreg 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, He did tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He also told men to stop looking at women as if they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.[8]
And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.[9] That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--TerryH 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' Niwrad 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the United States deserved to be attacked in the World Trade Center incident. That incident was the start of a war of Islam against Christianity.--TerryH 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book Debt of Honor - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. Niwrad 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--TerryH 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work. -Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side. -mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --Scrap 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[2]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--Mister Bug 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]

Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's endPastafarian2 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Luke 6:35-36 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." Neither the liberal president nor the conservative House of Congress seems to be paying much attention to this verse right now, for neither side will give an inch, and the fiscal cliff will overtake us. Userafw 22:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Anarchist

Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caboose84 (talk)

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -danq 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Socialist

Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesII (talk)

A great place to see this is on the Social Democracy of America, SDoA political spectrum page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. Template:AtleeYarrow

Libertarian

I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of free trade and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of peace and love. Babbit

Stop it everyone

I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. Wikinterpreter

Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --Mtur 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll say this for you, Mtur: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His actual Mission.
That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere possession of great wealth but rather the worship of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.
Nor is charity the mission of government. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB) tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.
Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.
You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz. Rehabilitation means to re-invest a person with dignity. Where is the dignity in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing dignified about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming from--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.
But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.
Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the nature of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the Soviet Union long boasted--and only He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and assign people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.
Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support capitalism--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, except for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital per se.)
Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--TerryH 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--jp 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... Pandeism 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Political words of Jesus

This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant


"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
--Yellowlamp 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Ahem

Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways. --MrSmiley 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --Sforzando 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Monarchist

Hey, his official title is "King of Kings". --Gulik5 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Honestly,

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, peace and love. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? Ultimahero 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)


Agreed. Jesus went against convention: Liberal -Nonobu

Faulty Question

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) Ultimahero 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

References

  1. Genesis 1:1 (NASB)
  2. Romans 3:10-12 (KJV)
  3. Matthew 5:27-30 (NASB)
  4. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (KJV)
  5. Luke 16:18 (KJV)
  6. Luke 23:42 (KJV)
  7. Romans 14:13 (KJV)
  8. Matthew 5:28-30 (NASB)
  9. Luke 22:35-37 (NASB)


He wouldn't.

He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --GunnerRecall 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked...

...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.Jros83 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

He already answered

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --LincolnShuddered

Wait Till He Returns

You will get a pretty good picture of His style of Government in Heaven. Baronvonbob

Socially conservative, economically moderate

One can only speculate, I believe Christ would be highly conservative with social issues and moderate on economic issues. Now when I say moderate on economic issues, I say that because nearly all modern economic systems lead to a certain degree of sin. Communists and socialists aren't generous at all; under communism and socialism, you likely end up with a greedy government where officials live a life of luxury whereas the rest of the citizens are poor. Under communism and socialism in its purest form, the government owns everything. Under capitalism, it's easy to end up with greed in the private sector. I don't think Jesus would want to tax people to help the poor, but rather I believe Jesus would want people to choose to help the poor out of the goodness of their heart. Social issues are a no brainier; while Jesus was a forgiving man, that doesn't mean he outright supported sinful activities like homosexuality, adultery, and paganism, and I doubt he would approve of abortion and contraception either. DMorris 19:14, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Can you please point me to biblical passages where Jesus clearly and unambiguously expressed an opinion on homosexuality? MattyD 19:43, 5 December 2012 (EST)
Personal tools