• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Jesus be a Liberal?

Which of these political leans would Jesus be?

  • Liberal

    Votes: 40 44.0%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 12 13.2%
  • Moderate

    Votes: 7 7.7%
  • Potato

    Votes: 32 35.2%

  • Total voters
    91
The structure isn't really that hard to follow. If I tell a girl that I really want her to choose to have sex with me of her own free will and that if she doesn't I will shoot her in the head and it will be her fault for choosing not to have sex with me, are you saying that is rape?

How is this different from God saying He wants me to choose Him of my own free will and that if I don't He will cast me into a lake of fire to burn in eternal torment?

the lake of fire isn't literal - it's a metaphor. the threat isn't much of a threat: "Either choose Me, or you won't have chosen Me". For God to rape would involve forcing you to choose Him - which He does not do. It is not His fault that so many chose poorly.
 
Oh brother. Look up the tax codes given in the old testament of the bible. They definitely are NOT liberal in anyway shape or form. In fact they specifically point out that the rich and the poor should pay exactly the same flat tax.
 
Considering Jesus and His twelve apostles, I don't think He'd be a humanistic secular. He wouldn't be one that thinks humans should do whatever wordly acts they want.
 
Considering Jesus and His twelve apostles, I don't think He'd be a humanistic secular. He wouldn't be one that thinks humans should do whatever wordly acts they want.

I picture Jesus in a tuxedo t-shirt. It says he can be serious, but he's also here to party.
 
here is that verse:



nowhere in it do I see the word "government".

You didn't look very hard then. Verse 33, fifth word.



because we are born anew and made perfect :)

Much like the protaganist in 1984 was?


A.k.a. The Godhead, a.k.a. The corporate personhood of the State.


no. again you seem to have poor grasp on key terms here. Nationalism is when you take your identity from your Nation, from your ethno-cultural background, from an earth-bound corporate personhood.

When you take your identity from the Kingdom of God, that is nationalism. In what way is it not?

why would there be means of production in Heaven?
You claim that there is abundance in heaven. Whatever there is in abundance must be produced somehow.


um... no. again, you appear to have no idea what Fascism is, nor apparently what Christ or Christianity is about.

Nor do you. I suppose we shall just have to continue debating in ignorance.
 
Jesus is definitely not a liberal. If Jesus were a liberal he would have handed out food stamps instead of loaves and fishes, and he would have handed out govt ID cards for govt run health care instead of healing the people with the power of God.
 
Jesus is definitely not a liberal. If Jesus were a liberal he would have handed out food stamps instead of loaves and fishes, and he would have handed out govt ID cards for govt run health care instead of healing the people with the power of God.



best strawman argument ever!!!!!!

:lamo
 
I think both political groups would be upset if Jesus were a liberal.
 
Most liberals don't hate Jesus. In fact, most liberals are Christians, or self-identify as such.

If that were true, I think liberal policy would be different. I assume you know this based on data?
 
If that were true, I think liberal policy would be different. I assume you know this based on data?

Forget where I read it, but that statistic is out there and I can't seem to find it right now. Consider the fact that 70% of the nation is Christian, however, and that probably means that a majority at least of Dems, if not liberals, are Christian.

What do you mean "liberal policy might be different"? Just because most liberals believe in secularism does not make them non-religious. The only liberals who perhaps have a problem with Jesus (as he is portrayed in Scripture) are atheist liberals. Why would liberals in general have a problem with Jesus?
 
Last edited:
If that were true, I think liberal policy would be different. I assume you know this based on data?

How would it be different?
 
Jesus said marriage was a man and a woman. That makes Jesus a bigot, doesn't it?
 
I realize you might be attempting to be facetious here, Neal, but Jesus never said that.

Sure he did. I remember reading something like......"In the beginning, God made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his home or whatever and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, blah, blah".

I'll look for it.

Yep, it's right there in Matthew 19. Look it up.
 
Last edited:
Sure he did. I remember reading something like......"In the beginning, God made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his home or whatever and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, blah, blah".

I'll look for it.

Immediately afterward He said that that blessing was not meant for everyone to receive, but that those to whom it was given should recieve it rather than reject it.
 
Last edited:
Sure he did. I remember reading something like......"In the beginning, God made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall leave his home or whatever and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, blah, blah".

I'll look for it.

Yep, it's right there in Matthew 19. Look it up.

Once again, that's not what he actually says. This summarized what I was gonna say pretty well so I'll just stick with it:

Did Jesus define marriage as only between a man and a woman?

2. "Jesus has just defined marriage as a male man to a female woman, and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it."

Your conclusion is not at all what Jesus actually said. The Jewish men to whom Jesus spoke did not define marriage as one man with one woman for life. When Jesus cites Genesis 2:24, by no means did Jesus or Jewish men understand Genesis 2:24 as prohibiting polygamy.

We know Complementarity (one man with one woman for life) is not God's ironclad rule for all marriages because scripture makes exceptions for other situations like (1) polygamy and (2) divorce because of fornication. The fact that there are clearly stated Biblical exceptions to Complementarity proves your absolutist view is wrong.

It also leaves open the strong probability that God intended the 5% of humans who are same sex attracted to be same sex partnered. This belief is based on 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 where the principle of partnership is stated.

"To avoid fornication, everyone (except those gifted with celibacy) should have an orientation compatible partner."

I believe scripture is clear that the Jewish men He addressed did not understand Him to be prohibiting polygamy. There is no way Jesus intended His words to convey the meaning you give them - that the only marriage acceptable to God is one man with one woman. Here's how we know that.

And it goes on to explain rather clearly why that's a false conclusion.
 
Once again, that's not what he actually says. This summarized what I was gonna say pretty well so I'll just stick with it:

Did Jesus define marriage as only between a man and a woman?



And it goes on to explain rather clearly why that's a false conclusion.

Your site is a gay site and twists scripture. We are warned about people who do that to justify their lifestyle. I can twist scripture also. Judas went and hanged himself........Go and do thou likewise. I used scripture. Are you going to do it?

We do know one man for one woman because Jesus said it. He didn't say "the person you love". He didn't say "consenting adult". He said a man and a woman.

I understand your impulse to use gay sites who claim to be Christian, but they are twisting the Word of God to satisfy their agenda.
 
Last edited:
Nope. They asked him why did Moses give them permission to divorce. That is what was said immediately after that.

Matthew 19 NIV - Divorce - When Jesus had finished - Bible Gateway

Yep, keep reading. Jesus goes on to say:

*
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

The one man and one woman business isn't given to everyone. If it were, how would that command pertain to hermaphrodites? Are they not allowed to get married? Allowed to marry both at the same time? Jesus was not defining marriage, He was addressing the question of divorce between heterosexual couples.
 
The idea that marriage is between one woman and one man is demonstrably unsupported by scripture:

"I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more." -2 Samuel 12:8

Not only did king David have many wives, but his marriage to those wives is aknowledged as legitimate by the Word of God, and in fact God takes credit for delivering those multiple wives into David's arms. It also explicitely states that David did not sin by taking many wives, and that his only sins were adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah the Hittite.
 
Back
Top Bottom