Would Jesus be a Liberal?

iliveonramen said:

I don't know...what do you think

View attachment 67124596

Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Excellent example.

upsideguy said:

There is probably some truth with that.... I am assuming a normal distribution of DP posters. Of course, assumption is the root of most error.

While the specific question is a bit off target, the notion of whether a political philosophy is more aligned the the TEACHINGS of Christ is a very intelligent question.... and for a Christian, one of the most relevant that can be asked.

Click to expand...

as Lincoln said: the question is not whether He is on our side, but whether we are on His.




but yeah, the notion that God is really a late-20th-early-21st-century idealogue is.... humerous.

If Christ returned he would wage a Jihad on the west.

:shrug: pretty simple guess.

MKULTRABOY said:

If Christ returned he would wage a Jihad on the west.

:shrug: pretty simple guess.

Click to expand...

Nah, he and Shiva would have a tryst and go on a cruise with water slide and gamble.

Ockham said:

Nah, he and Shiva would have a tryst and go on a cruise with water slide and gamble.

Click to expand...

Ehh he'd prolly be busted in a Synagogue for being too much of a peacenik in Israel.

But if he wasn't he'd certainly go on a cruise.

Blackdog said:

Jesus was not about politics, he was about spiritual salvation. Jesus never got into Roman politics, ever. So no, it is a dumb question as no political philosophy aligns in any way with what Jesus taught.

So I will agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

First... my original post stated the Christ was not concerned with mortal politics. However, Christ also taught us how to live and what values to have. Christians "follow" Christ. We strive to adhere to his teachings on righteous living. If you do so, your political philosophy will be consistent with your Christian theology, thus the debate about which party is better aligned with the teachings of Christ is not a dumb question, it is one of the most important questions for each individual in a democracy.

cpwill said:

as Lincoln said: the question is not whether He is on our side, but whether we are on His.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I am not saying God or Christ favor a political philosophy. On the contrary, Christians, as individuals, should be choosing a political philosophy that is most closely aligned with the Christ's teachings of righteous living... and demanding that party conforms in areas where it isn't aligned.

He would probably be an anarchist and let free will decide decide humanity's fate.

upsideguy said:

First... my original post stated the Christ was not concerned with mortal politics. However, Christ also taught us how to live and what values to have. Christians "follow" Christ. We strive to adhere to his teachings on righteous living. If you do so, your political philosophy will be consistent with your Christian theology, thus the debate about which party is better aligned with the teachings of Christ is not a dumb question, it is one of the most important questions for each individual in a democracy.

Click to expand...

No for the points I already pointed out it is very stupid.

Conservative: anti gay marriage: Hell that falls right in with what the Bible teaches. Liberal: Charity for the poor: that fits right in with Christs teachings.

Neither follows what Jesus preached most: Love thy neighbor.

So again I will have to disagree, it's very silly in my opinion. Almost any political philosophy can fit in with Christianity because it is NOT political. Hell, Hitler and Torquemada used Christianity for their own ends. So it can fit that as well.

upsideguy said:

I am not saying God or Christ favor a political philosophy. On the contrary, Christians, as individuals, should be choosing a political philosophy that is most closely aligned with the Christ's teachings of righteous living... and demanding that party conforms in areas where it isn't aligned.

Click to expand...

Please point out which you think is closer, and I will point out how that is garbage.

I don't think Jesus would be apolitical, considering that he taught a comprehensive moral philosophy which would definitely have a bearing on his views of political justice, government, etc. Of course, giving him a 20th-21st century political philosophy is absolutely insane.

Imho, I doubt Jesus would be a worldy secular, doing whatever He carnally wants, for pleasure.

Blackdog said:

No for the points I already pointed out it is very stupid.

Conservative: anti gay marriage: Hell that falls right in with what the Bible teaches. Liberal: Charity for the poor: that fits right in with Christs teachings.

Click to expand...

You hit on a key issue.... the philosophy associated with the theology vs. planks/issues. When you talk to conservatives about alignment with the Bible, they consistently talk of gay marriage (or gay issues) and abortions. They over no other argument for alignment with the word of Christ. These are single issues / planks, not a philosophy. Yes, the Bible is quite clear about homosexual behavior, but its also very clear about divorce, adultery, greed and charity. If they are were truly concerned about legislation that was in line with Christian doctrine (clear dont's) then divorce would also be outlawed (or severely restricted) and adultery would be a crime. I do not believe in legislating morality as 1) it does not work and 2) if you are a God-fearing Christian, those matters are between the individual and God.

Blackdog said:

So again I will have to disagree, it's very silly in my opinion. Almost any political philosophy can fit in with Christianity because it is NOT political. Hell, Hitler and Torquemada used Christianity for their own ends. So it can fit that as well.

Click to expand...

I probably am not having this discussion with a strong Christian, as you don't seem to get the primary point. If you are a strong Christian, and thus a follower of God's word, which Christ teachings were designed to help us (focus us) with, then you would clearly understand that you want to organize all things in your life in a way that glorifies the Lord, including your politics. Given that politics is the art of the debate that shapes government, which is the administrative unit of the common interest, you want your government moving in a direction that glorifies the Lord. Therefore, the very first place you look to in choosing a political philosophy is your theology. If you theology is not that important to you, then this is a silly statement; if it is, and you think this is a silly argument, then you have some soul searching to do (I would start by spending more time in the Gospel).

This is entirely different then using Christianity for political gain... yes, you can do that (I think the Republicans do that).... but its using words, usually to manipulate those that do not know the Bible. The Bible tells us of many false prophets and charlatans, for this reason, we are to be versed in the Word so that we have discernment.

Blackdog said:

Neither follows what Jesus preached most: Love thy neighbor.

Please point out which you think is closer, and I will point out how that is garbage.

Click to expand...

Though Jesus taught us to love the thy neighbor, it was a subtext of what he preached about the most, which was the Kingdom. Christ was a Rabbi. He was a teacher of the Word, which was of course, what we refer to as the Old Testament. His point was to clarify it and make it come alive. He spoke of the pratfalls that mankind had encountered to date. In that regard, he spoke most often of worrying about your riches in heaven and not on earth; he spoke very often about the love for money and how it was an idol, that no man can have two Gods (God and money), as you will love one and hate the other.

He taught righteous living. He consistently used other people and our relationships with those people to illustrate God's relationship with us. We are to "love the neighbor", as we expect God to love us; we are to forgive our neighbor as we expect God to forgive us..... or, really better put, we are to love our neighbor, because God loves us; and we are to forgive our neighbor as God forgives us. Most of his parables follow and illustrate this theme (or speak of the Kingdom)..... .. and t. he core theme of being Christian is the death of self and the enslavement by God. We are not to be concerned about ourselves (Mathew 5 and 6, which are really the core of Christian theology, are very clear on this).... the concept of JOY (Jesus, Others, Yourself) should be how you think of the world.... so much for today's theology lesson (happy to help you with Bible passages, if you require, on any of this), but key to the next paragraph.

But, out of the "love thy neighbor" I do find the core philosophy of the Democratic party more aligned with my theology. In theory, it concerns itself with those that are without power; the poor, the elderly, the minorities, the handicapped, the laborer. They are not a party of "me or Yourself" first, but others first. They, as a philosophy believes as society moves forward only when its weakest link moves forward... I believe that. The other guys, seem to believe that if each individual worried only about himself, society would moves forward... that when the strong prevail, they bring everyone along with them. It has been the prevailing political philosophy since 1980, and all it has done is make the strong, stronger and the weak, weaker..... If Arab spring taught us nothing, it should teach us that you can not maintain a government with an educated mass where the few get all the profits.

upsideguy said:

You hit on a key issue.... the philosophy associated with the theology vs. planks/issues. When you talk to conservatives about alignment with the Bible, they consistently talk of gay marriage (or gay issues) and abortions. They over no other argument for alignment with the word of Christ. These are single issues / planks, not a philosophy. Yes, the Bible is quite clear about homosexual behavior, but its also very clear about divorce, adultery, greed and charity. If they are were truly concerned about legislation that was in line with Christian doctrine (clear dont's) then divorce would also be outlawed (or severely restricted) and adultery would be a crime. I do not believe in legislating morality as 1) it does not work and 2) if you are a God-fearing Christian, those matters are between the individual and God.

Click to expand...

So you are suggesting Republicans want a theocracy basically and they must pursue this or they are not being Christians?. You do realize that is absolute nonsense. You are trying to lump conservative Christians as if they are clones, all thinking in lock step. It does not work like that. Painting with such a huge brush is bigotry at it's finest. Then in the same breath you say you do not believe in legislating morality?

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

upsideguy said:

I probably am not having this discussion with a strong Christian, as you don't seem to get the primary point.

Click to expand...

Now you are sitting in judgement of who is or is not a "strong" Christian? You are basing this on a question you feel I am not getting? :lol: Good thing the lord knows my heart and not you as you are ready to condemn me.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

upsideguy said:

If you are a strong Christian, and thus a follower of God's word, which Christ teachings were designed to help us (focus us) with, then you would clearly understand that you want to organize all things in your life in a way that glorifies the Lord, including your politics. Given that politics is the art of the debate that shapes government, which is the administrative unit of the common interest, you want your government moving in a direction that glorifies the Lord. Therefore, the very first place you look to in choosing a political philosophy is your theology. If you theology is not that important to you, then this is a silly statement; if it is, and you think this is a silly argument, then you have some soul searching to do (I would start by spending more time in the Gospel).

Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding? Please point out where in the Gospels it talks about Jesus getting involved in Roman politics, or him telling his disciples to do so? In fact in 1st Peter it says submit yourself's to every ordinance and so on...

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."

upsideguy said:

This is entirely different then using Christianity for political gain... yes, you can do that (I think the Republicans do that).... but its using words, usually to manipulate those that do not know the Bible. The Bible tells us of many false prophets and charlatans, for this reason, we are to be versed in the Word so that we have discernment.

Click to expand...

Well you have some real studying to do then. Because you are casting stones, big ones. So only Republicans do this huh? Do you really want to go there? Or do you want to back track and confess your political hackery right now?

upsideguy said:

Though Jesus taught us to love the thy neighbor, it was a subtext of what he preached about the most, which was the Kingdom. Christ was a Rabbi. He was a teacher of the Word, which was of course, what we refer to as the Old Testament. His point was to clarify it and make it come alive. He spoke of the pratfalls that mankind had encountered to date. In that regard, he spoke most often of worrying about your riches in heaven and not on earth; he spoke very often about the love for money and how it was an idol, that no man can have two Gods (God and money), as you will love one and hate the other.

Click to expand...

What???? Secondary????

““Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

upsideguy said:

He taught righteous living. He consistently used other people and our relationships with those people to illustrate God's relationship with us. We are to "love the neighbor", as we expect God to love us; we are to forgive our neighbor as we expect God to forgive us..... or, really better put, we are to love our neighbor, because God loves us; and we are to forgive our neighbor as God forgives us. Most of his parables follow and illustrate this theme (or speak of the Kingdom)..... .. and t. he core theme of being Christian is the death of self and the enslavement by God. We are not to be concerned about ourselves (Mathew 5 and 6, which are really the core of Christian theology, are very clear on this).... the concept of JOY (Jesus, Others, Yourself) should be how you think of the world.... so much for today's theology lesson (happy to help you with Bible passages, if you require, on any of this), but key to the next paragraph.

Click to expand...

Now we can include prideful. Keep going.

upsideguy said:

But, out of the "love thy neighbor" I do find the core philosophy of the Democratic party more aligned with my theology. In theory, it concerns itself with those that are without power; the poor, the elderly, the minorities, the handicapped, the laborer. They are not a party of "me or Yourself" first, but others first. They, as a philosophy believes as society moves forward only when its weakest link moves forward... I believe that. The other guys, seem to believe that if each individual worried only about himself, society would moves forward... that when the strong prevail, they bring everyone along with them. It has been the prevailing political philosophy since 1980, and all it has done is make the strong, stronger and the weak, weaker..... If Arab spring taught us nothing, it should teach us that you can not maintain a government with an educated mass where the few get all the profits.

Click to expand...

Hehehehehehe!

This is such political hackery man it is not even worth addressing. I will leave you with this...

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” 21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

upsideguy said:

But, out of the "love thy neighbor" I do find the core philosophy of the Democratic party more aligned with my theology. In theory, it concerns itself with those that are without power; the poor, the elderly, the minorities, the handicapped, the laborer. They are not a party of "me or Yourself" first, but others first. They, as a philosophy believes as society moves forward only when its weakest link moves forward... I believe that. The other guys, seem to believe that if each individual worried only about himself, society would moves forward...

Click to expand...

really?

hmmm.....

...Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives...

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household...

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood...

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition...

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."...

Click to expand...

I would suspect that the Democrat party approaches charity more in the manner of Pharisee's fasting - giving off the public image so you can reap the well-wishes and social rewards, but not privately, where it matters.


meanwhile, what does Paul tell us about how to give?

2 Cor 9 said:

6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:

“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor;
their righteousness endures forever.”[a]

Click to expand...

so... when Democrats start making tax rates optional so that each can give as he has decided in his heart, and when they start putting their money where their mouth is, instead of using State Power to put others money there... well, then, it might be charity. until then, however, it's just coercion, and attempting to confuse what is Caesars with what is Gods.

Jesus was staunchly apolitical. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's. I am amused when liberal's try to paint conservatives as unchristian for opposing government programs, even those that help poor or disadvantaged people. Not once do I recall Jesus' stating to to "Go forth and petition thy government to help the poor" He was very specific about doing things from one's own heart and of one's free will.

Jesus was a liberal in his day because he challenged the tradition and didn't accept it, and I am talking about the tradition of his religion.

Jesus would definitely not be a Conservative of the warhawk breed. I am pretty sure he would have been against invading Iraq, because he was never pro war or violence.

Other than that, I think Jesus would be a liberal in the modern times as he was in his time. I think he'd challenge the traditional beliefs many Christians hold strongly today. I won't name which ones, cause I don't know... but I think people should be open to the fact that Jesus foremost, is a teacher, and didn't directly tell anybody to go with the Catholic, Mormon, or whatever church, therefore, Jesus would probably challenge some beliefs and teachings of nearly every church.

Phoenix said:

Jesus was staunchly apolitical. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's. I am amused when liberal's try to paint conservatives as unchristian for opposing government programs, even those that help poor or disadvantaged people. Not once do I recall Jesus' stating to to "Go forth and petition thy government to help the poor" He was very specific about doing things from one's own heart and of one's free will.

Click to expand...

My problem is that many Christians want it both ways. You have people like Huckabee wanting to insert Jesus in the Constitution or whatever. Sanatorum wants to ban porn. Mormons in Utah have banned a lot of alcoholic beverages, because they are against it.

It's not hard to see that Christians want to impose their religious beliefs on others through the law... just look at the power and sway the churches in CA had over Prop8. Oh, but then they refuse to impose their beliefs on others through the law by helping the poor. WTF. It doesn't make sense to me. I think it says a lot about 1. their priorities, and 2. how much power the political system has on their core religious beliefs.


It's just pure BS. They're picking and choosing which fight for Jesus they'll fight politically.


You want to make that argument and you can, but I'll never respect such an argument for the reasons stated above.

SheWolf said:

Jesus was a liberal in his day because he challenged the tradition and didn't accept it, and I am talking about the tradition of his religion.

Click to expand...

No he was not. He fully supported the OT and all it's laws, period. What he was against were the pharisees who pretended to be pious but had no real faith.

SheWolf said:

Jesus would definitely not be a Conservative of the warhawk breed. I am pretty sure he would have been against invading Iraq, because he was never pro war or violence.

Click to expand...

You are making incorrect assumption's:

Matthew 10:34-36 - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

Luke 12:51,52 - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."

(Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."

The peace Jesus was bringing was a personal faith not your "worldly" definition.

John 14:27 - "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

SheWolf said:

Other than that, I think Jesus would be a liberal in the modern times as he was in his time.

Click to expand...

And it would be wrong as he was not political at all.

SheWolf said:

I think he'd challenge the traditional beliefs many Christians hold strongly today. I won't name which ones, cause I don't know... but I think people should be open to the fact that Jesus foremost, is a teacher, and didn't directly tell anybody to go with the Catholic, Mormon, or whatever church, therefore, Jesus would probably challenge some beliefs and teachings of nearly every church.

Click to expand...

You mean like he changed the old one's?

Matthew 5:18 - I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

He would not change God's law which is his law.

SheWolf said:

My problem is that many Christians want it both ways. You have people like Huckabee wanting to insert Jesus in the Constitution or whatever. Sanatorum wants to ban porn. Mormons in Utah have banned a lot of alcoholic beverages, because they are against it.

Click to expand...

So what do you suggest? We no longer support or morals and beliefs and accept yours and yours alone? Each person has a moral compass that is distinctly their own and no matter where it comes from it is their right to follow it as they see fit.

SheWolf said:

It's not hard to see that Christians want to impose their religious beliefs on others through the law... just look at the power and sway the churches in CA had over Prop8. Oh, but then they refuse to impose their beliefs on others through the law by helping the poor. WTF. It doesn't make sense to me. I think it says a lot about 1. their priorities, and 2. how much power the political system has on their core religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Please name a person who is politically active who does not want to makes laws as they see fit? Or force the laws they want to see on society? Yea, look in the mirror.

SheWolf said:

It's just pure BS. They're picking and choosing which fight for Jesus they'll fight politically.

Click to expand...

No. They are picking and choosing which laws THEY want to fight which is their right as American citizens. Has nothing to with fighting anything for Jesus. Some may see it that way, and they would be wrong as well.

SheWolf said:

You want to make that argument and you can, but I'll never respect such an argument for the reasons stated above.

Click to expand...

Your reasons are highly flawed.

He would have been a cult leader.

FreedomFromAll said:

He would have been a cult leader.

Click to expand...

All religions fall under the definition of "cult" so what? "Cult" is not a negative term if that's what you are shooting for.

Blackdog said:

So what do you suggest? We no longer support or morals and beliefs and accept yours and yours alone? Each person has a moral compass that is distinctly their own and no matter where it comes from it is their right to follow it as they see fit.

Click to expand...

I suggest not being hypocritical when imposing or trying to impose your beliefs on an entire nation. Jesus taught to feed and care for the poor, but Christians like Rick Santorum don't support forcing us all the care about the poor. He does support imposing his Christian values on us all by wanting to ban porn and gay marriage however. It's simply not consist.

If Christians as a whole, didn't try to ban porn based on their religious values, and weren't trying to ban gay marriage based on their religious values... then arguing that Jesus didn't propose government force to help the poor, would be a fair argument to make and I'd respect people actually making for a change.

Please name a person who is politically active who does not want to makes laws as they see fit? Or force the laws they want to see on society? Yea, look in the mirror.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well, I don't do it in the name of religion. For those doing it in the name of religion, it's really ironic that want to make laws restricting gay rights, access to porn, alcohol, etc. etc., but stop when it comes to policies forcing us all to help the poor.

No. They are picking and choosing which laws THEY want to fight which is their right as American citizens. Has nothing to with fighting anything for Jesus. Some may see it that way, and they would be wrong as well.

Click to expand...

We're not talking about American citizens. We're specifically talking about Christian, Americans, and yeah, they have the right to be hypocritical when it comes to imposing their belief system on others too. I also have a right to point the hypocrisy out.

SheWolf said:

I suggest not being hypocritical when imposing or trying to impose your beliefs on an entire nation. Jesus taught to feed and care for the poor, but Christians like Rick Santorum don't support forcing us all the care about the poor. He does support imposing his Christian values on us all by wanting to ban porn and gay marriage however. It's simply not consist.

Click to expand...

It is absolutely consistent. Jesus taught us to care for the poor and give with a gracious heart. Not to take money by force and give it to someone else. Nothing hypocritical about it at all. Before you sit in judgement you should actually learn a little more about what he taught.

SheWolf said:

If Christians as a whole, didn't try to ban porn based on their religious values, and weren't trying to ban gay marriage based on their religious values... then arguing that Jesus didn't propose government force to help the poor, would be a fair argument to make and I'd respect people actually making for a change.

Click to expand...

It is a stupid argument and I have already explained why.

SheWolf said:

Yeah, well, I don't do it in the name of religion. For those doing it in the name of religion, it's really ironic that want to make laws restricting gay rights, access to porn, alcohol, etc. etc., but stop when it comes to policies forcing us all to help the poor.

Click to expand...

Again really dumb argument I have already covered. Repeating it will not make it any better.

SheWolf said:

We're not talking about American citizens. We're specifically talking about Christian, Americans, and yeah, they have the right to be hypocritical when it comes to imposing their belief system on others too. I also have a right to point the hypocrisy out.

Click to expand...

So Christians are not American citizens? Again you repeat the same tired argument I have already debunked. Nothing hypocritical about it. The only thing hypocritical here is you want one standard for Christians and one for others. Law does not work that way.

Blackdog said:

No he was not. He fully supported the OT and all it's laws, period. What he was against were the pharisees who pretended to be pious but had no real faith.

Click to expand...

Jesus argued with rabbis and was accused of blasphemy, and was nearly stoned to death. Are you familiar with the story of his persecution and execution? The entire religious community wasn't exactly on his side. He worked on Sunday, healing people, he touched lepers, and did many other things they condemned to boot.

You are making incorrect assumption's:

Matthew 10:34-36 - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

Luke 12:51,52 - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."

(Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."

The peace Jesus was bringing was a personal faith not your "worldly" definition.

Click to expand...

Jesus did not propose war. There were many anti Roman, and pro Israel militias in his day. He didn't join any of them, and from my understanding, he was opposed to them. I'd say that Jesus was peaceful by my worldly definition. He wasn't violent, nor did he promote violence or holy war against Rome. His message did create conflict, but he wasn't teaching conflict and war as a value in those verses.

John 14:27 - "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.



And it would be wrong as he was not political at all.



You mean like he changed the old one's?

Matthew 5:18 - I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

He would not change God's law which is his law.

Click to expand...

I know he didn't claim to change God's law. You totally missed my point. He wasn't arguing with rabbis against God's laws. He was arguing with their perception, teachings, and scriptural interpretations of God's laws. I believe that is what he'd do today given the various and conflicting interpretations Christian churches teach and practice concerning his message. The Mormons, for example, teach the word of Joesph Smith, which is a prophet that doesn't exist in any other Christian church. Then you have the Fundamental Mormons, they practice polygamy... and then the Jehovah Witnesses, who believe it's immoral to donate blood or accept blood transfusions. The Catholics, they pray to Mary and Saints, which other churches disagree strongly with, and don't eat meat on Sunday...

You don't think Jesus would turn some of those beliefs on their head or argue against some of them??? It's still worshiping the same God of course, and that's what really matters... but the Pope isn't God and churches don't replace God either. I personally believe that I should pray and ask God to open my mind and heart to learn his teachings and for direction concerning such conflicting teachings and traditions. Humans are going to make mistakes, and I know God knows that. God didn't create millions of different Christian churches. People did.

SheWolf said:

Jesus argued with rabbis and was accused of blasphemy, and was nearly stoned to death. Are you familiar with the story of his persecution and execution? The entire religious community wasn't exactly on his side. He worked on Sunday, healing people, he touched lepers, and did many other things they condemned to boot.

Click to expand...

Who do you think the pharisees were? He was accused because they were trying to trick him etc. They condemned because they did not like the people following him and the law as intended, not what they wanted.

SheWolf said:

Jesus did not propose war. There were many anti Roman, and pro Israel militias in his day. He didn't join any of them, and from my understanding, he was opposed to them. I'd say that Jesus was peaceful by my worldly definition. He wasn't violent, nor did he promote violence or holy war against Rome. His message did create conflict, but he wasn't teaching conflict and war as a value in those verses.

Click to expand...

That is the whole reason he came. He was not some peace-nick as you would present him as. He also noted there is a time for war.

SheWolf said:

I know he didn't claim to change God's law. You totally missed my point. He wasn't arguing with rabbis against God's laws. He was arguing with their perception, teachings, and scriptural interpretations of God's laws. I believe that is what he'd do today given the various and conflicting interpretations Christian churches teach and practice concerning his message. The Mormons, for example, teach the word of Joesph Smith, which is a prophet that doesn't exist in any other Christian church. Then you have the Fundamental Mormons, they practice polygamy... and then the Jehovah Witnesses, who believe it's immoral to donate blood or accept blood transfusions. The Catholics, they pray to Mary and Saints, which other churches disagree strongly with, and don't eat meat on Sunday...

You don't think Jesus would turn some of those beliefs on their head or argue against some of them??? It's still worshiping the same God of course, and that's what really matters... but the Pope isn't God and churches don't replace God either. I personally believe that I should pray and ask God to open my mind and heart to learn his teachings and for direction concerning such conflicting teachings and traditions. Humans are going to make mistakes, and I know God knows that. God didn't create millions of different Christian churches. People did.

Click to expand...

OK I agree here. I did completely miss the point.

This however does not change the fact that Jesus was portrayed as a non political entity and to try and judge him as liberal or conservative is a fool's errand. He does not fit either.

I clicked conservative because Jesus asked only that people give freely of the heart rather than demand that government take from some to give to others.

And I also can't see Jesus supporting such perversions as homosexuality and aborting unborn babies__These liberal policies are contradictory to his teachings.

Not to mention the fact that liberals are vulgar profane haters while Jesus was kind caring and loving. eace