0
SpeedRacer

Would Jesus be more of a Liberal or a Conservative?

Recommended Posts

lessee, using the generally accepted definitions in today's world...

1. Love the Lord. Generally considered to be a "conservative" view, i suppose.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Generally a liberal-leaning statement.

He was a centrist!

:P

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This oughta stir the pot.:D

Discuss.



We're talking about a Jewish fella with a penchant for mass media, right? How is this even a question?
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apocalyptic, revolutionary proto-socialist feminist.

No, I'm not joking. I refer you to The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Schweitzer among a bunch of good books I could recommend.

For the apocalyptic (a kingdom of God is soon to appear on earth, in which God will rule; the forces of evil will be overthrown, and only those who repent and follow Jesus’ teachings will be allowed to enter the kingdom; judgment on all others will be brought by the Son of Man, a cosmic figure who may arrive from heaven at any time), I refer you to Mark 13:24; Luke 17:24; and Luke 12:39. (Interestingly, the later the Gospel is written, the more the whole "The Son on Man is coming immediately!!!!1!" is toned down. Probably because these sources were written after his cruxifiction, and the further out in time you go, the less the immediacy of the prophecy makes sense.

On the "socialist" angle, I refer you to Matt. 19:16-22 (also found in Mark 10:17-22 and Luke 18:18-23), among a huge number of other citations I can give.

In particular, Jesus was concerned that his followers love those who were underprivileged and oppressed—the impoverished, the mentally diseased, the terminally ill, the outcast, the imprisoned. These people would inherit the kingdom when it arrived.

On the feminist angle, he associated publicly with women (Mark 15:40–451; Gospel of Thomas 114; Luke 8:1–3; John 4). These associations are significant, because women were widely regarded as inferior to men and, at least in Palestine, were restricted in their abilities to engage in public activities. This also makes sense in an apocalyptic context. Remember the kingdom would have complete equality, and those who were oppressed would be exalted.

He would not be a family values person (at least how we think of them). In fact, he was quite unambiguous that parents, siblings, spouses, and even children were to have no importance in comparison with the kingdom (Luke 14:26). Jesus appears to have realized how divisive this teaching could be, but he claimed that he would split families up rather than keep them together (Luke 12:51–53). Overall, Jesus did not advocate a strong structure to promote a healthy society, because he thought society was diseased and soon to be destroyed.
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pictures show he was poor, rarely shaved, was filthy, and wore disgusting robes and walked around trying to tell people how to act.

He's neither a liberal (who may hire someone like that and try to get their votes) nor a conservative (they shave and bathe).

He must be a CrW dawg.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


On the feminist angle, he associated publicly with women (Mark 15:40–451; Gospel of Thomas 114; Luke 8:1–3; John 4). These associations are significant, because women were widely regarded as inferior to men and, at least in Palestine, were restricted in their abilities to engage in public activities.


Why would you refer to Palestine? Jesus lived in Judea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not believe that Jesus was to concerned about politics. He did teach many times on how we should take care of the poor, widows and orphans. (This is really Christianity 101) These teachings were for the people NOT the government. This frustrated some of his followers. Peter The Zealot was more interested in over throwing the Romans while Jesus spoke about submitting to their commands and serving them even more.

If we read his teachings as a whole we find he was concerned more with the condition of a persons heart rather than just doing good deeds. We should take care of the poor and share our resources out of the love flowing from ourselves, not by being forced by any government, church or any other organization.
something funny and unique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't decide which I enjoyed more; the humorous or serious responses. Maybe a poll is in order.

What is your favorite flavor of SC banter?

Humorous
Serious
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The liberals would call him a fundamentalist and the conservatives would call him a socialist welfare hippie. He would wander around the US in a beat up Ford Focus preaching at soup kitchens and strip malls. His refusal to wear shoes, and his refusal to pipe down in airports and movie theaters would get him first on the no-fly list and then on a terrorist watch list. The leader of every major religion would condemn him, since he wouldn't look like any of the Jesuses or Mohammeds or Buddhas that adorn any of their church walls - and his speaking out against organized religion wouldn't help, either.

At some point, one of his followers would get bribed by Fox News (say, by thirty shares of stock) and he would be delivered to Glenn Beck, who would then turn him over to the authorities. He'd end up in Gitmo when his lack of proof of citizenship, lack of a provable father and support of socialism made him a suspect in several terrorist attack. There, he would accidentally be beaten to death. The twelve other prisoners in his cell block would go on to start a new religion with a waterboard as their symbol, which for centuries would be the butt of jokes and the target of anti-terrorist "enforcement" activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do not believe that Jesus was to concerned about politics.



Very strong cases have been made that it's ALL he cared about. That he was a radical against the state.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a comment about the current situation.

In its broader meaning as a geographical term, Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria.

So, yes, you're right. So am I, though. It's sort of like if someone lives in Edmonton - you could say they live in Edmonton, or you could say they live in Alberta, or you could say they live in Canada. They're all correct.
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

lessee, using the generally accepted definitions in today's world...

1. Love the Lord. Generally considered to be a "conservative" view, i suppose.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Generally a liberal-leaning statement.

He was a centrist!

> Generally a liberal-leaning statement.

Statement yes, but not in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are several aspects that could be read either way. Mainly, he preached his views as correct and moral. We see this coming from both the left and the right. For example, morality is best exemplified by banning gay marriage. On the other hand, the moral thing to do is allow gay marriage.

He was born without a father. This might lead him to identify with Democrats.
On the other hand, his mother claimed to be a virgin - which would lead him to identify with the conservatives.

Jesus considered Matthew, the tax collector, to be a sinner and tried to help convert him from taking other peoples' property.
Jesus then said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

On the other hand, Jesus never had a job himself, and preached that how you treat the sick and poor is how you treat him, and if you treat them poorly you'll go straight to hell, which would lead him to the liberal side of things.

Jesus is tortured and executed, which is a conservative way of doing things. But since he spoke of God in public and aspired to become king of the Jews, he was viewed as just another religious nut trying to take over the country.

Jesus hung around with the hippies of the day - so he'd be a liberal. But he also encouraged them the go to work and start businesses. Again - he hated taxes. Which would be conservative.

Jesus said, "Love your enemies." A liberal thought.
Jesus also encouraged those to hate their mother and father and wife and children, instead to spend your time loving everyone else. Liberal.
But then Jesus said to provide for them on your own, and not by way of government.

I think he was neither.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do not believe that Jesus was to concerned about politics. He did teach many times on how we should take care of the poor, widows and orphans. (This is really Christianity 101)



I would tend to say that it's more Religion 101--not so much Christianity 101. ALL major religions teach that we should help the poor, etc. It's not a message that is unique to Christianity or Jesus.

As such I would tend to say that--to the extent that Jesus may have actually existed :)
Generally speaking, though, I think that religion offers at best a very incomplete philosophy, and so probably isn't worthy of either being labelled liberal or conservative. Religion usually offers the simplistic view of "poor is good, rich is bad" instead of developing a more complete philosophy as to how best to allocate resources.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Pictures show he was poor, rarely shaved, was filthy, and wore disgusting robes and walked around trying to tell people how to act.



Describes at least half the people here in SC myself included! :D
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Pictures show he was poor, rarely shaved, was filthy, and wore disgusting robes and walked around trying to tell people how to act.



Describes at least half the people here in SC myself included! :D


and, of course, this thread is strictly about each poster wrongly stereotyping the "other guys" so it's just like the other threads

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while we're at it, if Jesus were a skydiver, which type would he be? Swooper? Relative Work? Free Flyer? Wing suit? Board? CREW?

And would he turn water into wine before the beer light came on?:o

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Liberals tend to be on the side of "the poor" and conservatives are more capitalist.



SPun another way, liberals tend to want to keep "the poor" poor while conservatives want them to go to work. Capitalists, after all, can't get paid by the poor. Socialists lose a job if the poor are eliminated.


Quote

they can appear to be quite compassionate whereas in practice conservatives like to leave compassion to others



Conservatives tend to donate more of their own money to private charities. Liberals tend to want others to be taxed into supporting their causes (typically they don't donate much themselves.)

Conservatives believe in choice of private charity. Liberals believe in governmentally forced charity.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

SPun another way, liberals tend to want to keep "the poor" poor while conservatives want them to go to work. Capitalists, after all, can't get paid by the poor. Socialists lose a job if the poor are eliminated.



Liberal != socialist. Conservative != capitalist.

Quote

Conservatives tend to donate more of their own money to private charities. Liberals tend to want others to be taxed into supporting their causes (typically they don't donate much themselves.)

Conservatives believe in choice of private charity. Liberals believe in governmentally forced charity.



This "statictic" has been discussed before and found lacking. If you take out charity that conservatives donate to their church (which sometimes is true charity and sometimes goes to a shiny new church building) giving patterns seem fairly flat.

Oh, and one more time for clarity:

Liberal != socialist. Conservative != capitalist.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Liberal != socialist. Conservative != capitalist.



er - it's a thread about stereotyping political views




(and discounting religious donations from being charity is really arbitrary. Especially when liberals call the salary they pay their housekeepers to be charity contributions also)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if we're going to stereotype, Jesus was clearly a liberal:

1. He was subjected to enhanced interrogation, and has now been whining about it for 2,000 years (or at least his earthly reps have). Good conservatives recognize that as a diety, Jesus was not subject to the Geneva Conventions, so anything the Romans did to him was fair game.

2. "Turn the other cheek"? What a wuss. Clearly a bleeding heart. A good conservative would sport an arsenal of guns, lashes, scimitars, whatever, and have a bumper sticker to the effect of, "If a man should strike you on your cheek, blow his ass away." or perhaps, "Kill 'em all and let me sort 'em out."

3. He had great abs, hung out with 12 other dudes and one fag hag, drank wine (not beer!), and ate fish (probably free range organic). Jesus was just a little gayer than Liberace.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you take out charity that conservatives donate to their church (which sometimes is true charity and sometimes goes to a shiny new church building) giving patterns seem fairly flat.



Isn't that like saying, "If you take out credit card debt, the unsecured debt/income ratios of most Americans is fairly low."

Or, "If you don't count African-Americans, the racial makeup of NFL players is incredibly slanted towards white players, despite 50 years of desegregation."


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Isn't that like saying, "If you take out credit card debt, the unsecured debt/income ratios of most Americans is fairly low."

Or, "If you don't count African-Americans, the racial makeup of NFL players is incredibly slanted towards white players, despite 50 years of desegregation."



Um, no it's not.

Just because an organization has been recognized as tax exempt doesn't mean that money donated to it will be used for charitable purposes. IMHO parishioners giving money to a church so that it can build a new building for said same parishioners is not charity. It is very hard to separate out religious giving by true charity vs. self-serving tax shelters.

Or, in the spirit of SC:

Counting donations by religious freaks to the Cadillac fleet of their local megachurch as conservative charity is like counting my donations to the dropzone beer fund as liberal charity.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0