Difference between revisions of "Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?"

Revision as of 20:08, March 17, 2007

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? 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]

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.^{[Citation Needed]}

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.
• 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)

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)

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)

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

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. He got raked over the coals, too, by some as somehow being responsible - near as I can make out, this particular set of clowns figure he gave bin Laden & Co. the idea for the methodology of their attack. Niwrad 16:08, 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 depends

Are we talking about Jesus, or Jeezus? --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. 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)

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)