Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-23T19:20:59Z

Neuro: /* No */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-03-23T19:19:18Z

Neuro: /* No */

== No ==

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way to long to actually expect that we can round them up. If no-one else had a gun neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case God Forbid you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

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

2007-03-21T20:23:41Z

Neuro: /* Conservative */

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.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

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.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> 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.--[[User:TerryH|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.
:* 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. --[[User:Mtur|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. --[[User:Scrap|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!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== 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.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|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. [[User:Myk|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 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? [[User:Niwrad|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|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|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. --[[User:Mtur|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)--[[User:Goose89|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.--[[User:Ronnyreg|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.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> 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.--[[User:TerryH|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.' [[User:Niwrad|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]].--[[User:TerryH|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. [[User:Niwrad|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.--[[User:TerryH|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. --[[User:Scrap|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 depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== 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. [[User:Wikinterpreter|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. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|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. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=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 [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

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

2007-03-21T20:23:06Z

Neuro: /* Conservative */

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.
== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

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.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> 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.--[[User:TerryH|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.
:* 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. --[[User:Mtur|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. --[[User:Scrap|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.

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== 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.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|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. [[User:Myk|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 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? [[User:Niwrad|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|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|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. --[[User:Mtur|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)--[[User:Goose89|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.--[[User:Ronnyreg|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.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> 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.--[[User:TerryH|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.' [[User:Niwrad|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]].--[[User:TerryH|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. [[User:Niwrad|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.--[[User:TerryH|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. --[[User:Scrap|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 depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== 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. [[User:Wikinterpreter|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. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|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. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=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 [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>