• 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
No. 22 liberals think Jesus would have been a liberal. Learn to use logic instead of straw man arguments.

Liberals are for? Try to use logic to follow along at least.

We have different definitions of cuteness. I find Libertarians politically irrelevant but realistically cute.

Getting the message of a strong government out of just about anything he said is cute. Trying to claim that a lean being accepted or not accepted in the modern day political environment had anything to do with Jesus and how he thought is just idiotic. Jesus was just interested in teaching faith and the message of god and that is it.

Sure he was. He also told his followers to sell their possessions, feed the poor and remove themselves from pursuit of material wealth.

So what? How does that show he is a liberal?
 
For me, it was the opposite. I read Marx in my teens and later found the real world is different.

But of course you're right, it's easy to talk about "responsibility" when you're not in need. And when you are denied all other options besides pestilence and cholera, it's more than understandable that you will attempt to change the rules of the game. Freedom can't fill your belly.

It's not even that. It's that Libertarians are simply unable to understand that human beings do not live in singular little vacuums. Their policies are destructive because they are unable to see that they do have a responsibility to the community they live in whether they like it or not. In a playground they are like those kids who go play on the publicly built jungle gym but will not let the other kids go down the slide and use it.
 
Liberals are for? Try to use logic to follow along at least.

Not necessarily a strong central government.

Getting the message of a strong government out of just about anything he said is cute. Trying to claim that a lean being accepted or not accepted in the modern day political environment had anything to do with Jesus and how he thought is just idiotic. Jesus was just interested in teaching faith and the message of god and that is it.

Still fighting that straw man hard are you?

So what? How does that show he is a liberal?

It shows he was far more aware of the social contracts binding a community than you are.
 
We don't know what Jesus would have said about this modern problem, but if you believe in further revelations, you can read what the Baha'i teachings say about it here:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 273-277

You have questioned me about strikes. This question is and will be for a long time the subject of great difficulties. Strikes are due to two causes. One is the extreme greed and rapacity of the manufacturers and industrialists; the other, the excesses, the avidity and intransigence of the workmen and artisans. It is, therefore, necessary to remedy these two causes.

But the principal cause of these difficulties lies in the laws of the present civilization; for they lead to a small number of individuals accumulating incomparable fortunes, beyond their needs, while the greater number remain destitute, stripped and in the greatest misery. This is contrary to justice, to humanity, to equity; it is the height of iniquity, the opposite to what causes divine satisfaction.

This contrast is peculiar to the world of man: with other creatures—that is to say, with nearly all animals—there is a kind of justice and equality. Thus equality exists in a shepherd’s flock and in a herd of deer in the country. Likewise, among the birds of the prairie, of the plain, of the hills or of the orchard, and among every kind of animal some kind of equality prevails. With them such a difference in the means of existence is not to be found; so they live in the most complete peace and joy.

It is quite otherwise with the human species, which persists in the greatest error, and in absolute iniquity. Consider an individual who has amassed treasures by colonizing a country for his profit: he has obtained an incomparable fortune and has secured profits and incomes which 274 flow like a river, while a hundred thousand unfortunate people, weak and powerless, are in need of a mouthful of bread. There is neither equality nor benevolence.

So you see that general peace and joy are destroyed, and the welfare of humanity is negated to such an extent as to make fruitless the lives of many. For fortune, honors, commerce, industry are in the hands of some industrialists, while other people are submitted to quite a series of difficulties and to limitless troubles: they have neither advantages, nor profits, nor comforts, nor peace.

Then rules and laws should be established to regulate the excessive fortunes of certain private individuals and meet the needs of millions of the poor masses; thus a certain moderation would be obtained. However, absolute equality is just as impossible, for absolute equality in fortunes, honors, commerce, agriculture, industry would end in disorderliness, in chaos, in disorganization of the means of existence, and in universal disappointment: the order of the community would be quite destroyed. Thus difficulties will also arise when unjustified equality is imposed.

It is, therefore, preferable for moderation to be established by means of laws and regulations to hinder the constitution of the excessive fortunes of certain individuals, and to protect the essential needs of the masses. For instance, the manufacturers and the industrialists heap up a treasure each day, and the poor artisans do not gain their daily sustenance: that is the height of iniquity, and no just man can accept it.

Therefore, laws and regulations should be established which would permit the workmen to receive from the factory owner their wages and a share in the fourth or the fifth part of the profits, according to the capacity of the factory; or in some other way the body of workmen and the manufacturers should share equitably the profits and advantages.

Indeed, the capital and management come from the owner of the factory, and the work and labor, from the body of the workmen. Either the 275 workmen should receive wages which assure them an adequate support and, when they cease work, becoming feeble or helpless, they should have sufficient benefits from the income of the industry; or the wages should be high enough to satisfy the workmen with the amount they receive so that they may themselves be able to put a little aside for days of want and helplessness. (...)

That's actually part of the Holy Scripture of the Baha'i religion.
 
Not necessarily a strong central government.

Like in the end there is a difference.

Still fighting that straw man hard are you?

No, just people that can't see what is obviously in front of them.

It shows he was far more aware of the social contracts binding a community than you are.

You are not even aware of how much I give to the poor a year so you can either ask or stop acting like I give nothing.

You realize that all of what you just said is voluntary, yes? Where did he say government should do any of that or it should be given to the government as a middle man?
 
Last edited:
It's not even that. It's that Libertarians are simply unable to understand that human beings do not live in singular little vacuums. Their policies are destructive because they are unable to see that they do have a responsibility to the community they live in whether they like it or not. In a playground they are like those kids who go play on the publicly built jungle gym but will not let the other kids go down the slide and use it.

I'd say the more childish libertarians, anyway. there are certainly some more mature libertarians who do realize other people exist.


As far as I'm concerned, much of the art of politics involves the reconciliation between two distinct needs -- that of the individual's self expression and that of the community. Since we cannot survive as a species unless we cooperate with each other, then obviously the more extreme libertarian views are counterproductive as they do not take into consideration the needs of the community with sufficient commitment. Still, since we are individuals with individual needs, our ability to seek out our own path should be considered.

It's like the old adage that my right to swing my fist extends only so far as your nose in that the less mature libertarians really only understand the first part of the equation and not the second.
 
Last edited:
It's not even that. It's that Libertarians are simply unable to understand that human beings do not live in singular little vacuums.

We don't believe that.

Their policies are destructive because they are unable to see that they do have a responsibility to the community they live in whether they like it or not.

We understand this just fine.
 
Like in the end there is a difference.

Oh but there is.

No, just people that can't see what is obviously in front of them.

Well if you're debating straw man argument, it doesn't really matter what I see because you're only seeing what you want. :)

You are not even aware of how much I give to the poor a year so you can either ask or stop acting like I give nothing.

I don't care?

You realize that all of what you just said is voluntary, yes? Where did he say government should do any of that or it should be given to the government as a middle man?

Social contracts aren't voluntary. You can either be part of them or try your luck in a state of nature. Good luck!
 
We don't believe that.



We understand this just fine.

Am I the only one here enjoying the irony of the libertarian referring to himself as part of a hive mind?
 
Oh but there is.

At that point there really isn't. Great argument, btw.

Well if you're debating straw man argument, it doesn't really matter what I see because you're only seeing what you want. :)

My strawman is where exactly?

I don't care?

Try to keep your assumptions to a minimum then.

Social contracts aren't voluntary. You can either be part of them or try your luck in a state of nature. Good luck!

That has to do with what Jesus said how?
 
Last edited:
We don't know what Jesus would have said about this modern problem, but if you believe in further revelations, you can read what the Baha'i teachings say about it here:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 273-277



That's actually part of the Holy Scripture of the Baha'i religion.

I appreciate your posting that, as I've been wondering about the religion since I saw you mention it in another thread a few days ago. Regarding a small excerpt of the quote you linked, this is one of my observations:

This contrast is peculiar to the world of man: with other creatures—that is to say, with nearly all animals—there is a kind of justice and equality. Thus equality exists in a shepherd’s flock and in a herd of deer in the country. Likewise, among the birds of the prairie, of the plain, of the hills or of the orchard, and among every kind of animal some kind of equality prevails. With them such a difference in the means of existence is not to be found; so they live in the most complete peace and joy.


It is quite otherwise with the human species, which persists in the greatest error, and in absolute iniquity. Consider an individual who has amassed treasures by colonizing a country for his profit: he has obtained an incomparable fortune and has secured profits and incomes which 274 flow like a river, while a hundred thousand unfortunate people, weak and powerless, are in need of a mouthful of bread. There is neither equality nor benevolence.

The animals live in “peace and joy” because they don’t think. They aren’t self-aware. The laws of nature reign supreme, and there is no questioning about the fairness of it. This is the difference. As humans, we dream, we think, we aspire, we desire, we create our own inner worlds. The animals are no more equal than humans, they just aren’t cognizant of the differences.

That being said, animals do have more equal access to resources, because the resources they use consist of earth and its products, and water, and since they can't speak, think, write, and create, they can't really gain an unfair advantage. While I understand the points very well, I find the concepts a bit naive for dealing with humanity problems without the presence of a fascist dictator who weilds a huge hammer.
 
That being said, animals do have more equal access to resources, because the resources they use consist of earth and its products, and water, and since they can't speak, think, write, and create, they can't really gain an unfair advantage. While I understand the points very well, I find the concepts a bit naive for dealing with humanity problems without the presence of a fascist dictator who weilds a huge hammer.

Did you read this excerpt too?:

Then rules and laws should be established to regulate the excessive fortunes of certain private individuals and meet the needs of millions of the poor masses; thus a certain moderation would be obtained. However, absolute equality is just as impossible, for absolute equality in fortunes, honors, commerce, agriculture, industry would end in disorderliness, in chaos, in disorganization of the means of existence, and in universal disappointment: the order of the community would be quite destroyed. Thus difficulties will also arise when unjustified equality is imposed. It is, therefore, preferable for moderation to be established by means of laws and regulations to hinder the constitution of the excessive fortunes of certain individuals, and to protect the essential needs of the masses.

Abdul-Baha does not claim mankind should emulate the equality of animals. Not imposing equality is the goal, but moderation.
 
Did you read this excerpt too?:



Abdul-Baha does not claim mankind should emulate the equality of animals. Not imposing equality is the goal, but moderation.

Yes, I did read that too. I can understand the sentiment, however, as I've said in other threads, this would still ultimately result in our having to face the hard cold facts of nature: those which say animals (and I group humans in with animals in this context) must earn their right to survive. Otherwise, resources are wasted, become short in supply, then when the demand exceeds the supply, a correction happens in the form of death, disease, starvation, and other natural remedies, or in the case of humans- wars.
 
Yes, I did read that too. I can understand the sentiment, however, as I've said in other threads, this would still ultimately result in our having to face the hard cold facts of nature: those which say animals (and I group humans in with animals in this context) must earn their right to survive. Otherwise, resources are wasted, become short in supply, then when the demand exceeds the supply, a correction happens in the form of death, disease, starvation, and other natural remedies, or in the case of humans- wars.

I don't think humanity's main problem is a lack of resources to meet basic needs. There is enough food on this planet to feed everybody. The problem is the distribution.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point: Humans fight to get what they want. And certainly humans are ready to fight and die on the question of distribution.

But that's what religion is for: It tells us what we *ought* do, for that we have a better life on earth and possibly salvation too. That we're not likely going to do that is a different problem. ;)
 
Liberals think he would be a liberal. Conservatives think he would be a conservative. He would be both. He was/is perfect that way.
 
I'd say the more childish libertarians, anyway. there are certainly some more mature libertarians who do realize other people exist.


As far as I'm concerned, much of the art of politics involves the reconciliation between two distinct needs -- that of the individual's self expression and that of the community. Since we cannot survive as a species unless we cooperate with each other, then obviously the more extreme libertarian views are counterproductive as they do not take into consideration the needs of the community with sufficient commitment. Still, since we are individuals with individual needs, our ability to seek out our own path should be considered.

It's like the old adage that my right to swing my fist extends only so far as your nose in that the less mature libertarians really only understand the first part of the equation and not the second.
People who don't understand the second part aren't libertarians at all. When powerless, we call them children, period. When they've acquired power, we call them autocrats.
 
I don't think humanity's main problem is a lack of resources to meet basic needs. There is enough food on this planet to feed everybody. The problem is the distribution.

We will outgrow our ability to meet demand without any natural stops in place. We already have mass food production and distribution, but with the methods we've used to increase production, we've lost quality. The quality of foods most people eat today is poor compared to just 100 years ago.

The other problem is that with everyone being adequately fed, and guaranteed a subsistent life, they will keep breeding more mouths to feed, and human lifespans are increasing. We could easily outgrow our capacity to produce.
 
Oh, and just for the record:

The quote above is from "Some Answered Questions" by Abdul-Baha.

Abdul-Baha was maybe "the Peter of the Baha'i": Baha'u'llah founded the Baha'i religion in the 19th century and he is, like Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, considered a "manifestation of God", a prophet who received a divine revelation. Abdul-Baha was his son and was given the authority to lead the community and interpret the scriptures after Baha'u'llahs passed away. His scriptures are part of the Baha'i canon.
 
Oh, and just for the record:

The quote above is from "Some Answered Questions" by Abdul-Baha.

Abdul-Baha was maybe "the Peter of the Baha'i": Baha'u'llah founded the Baha'i religion in the 19th century and he is, like Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, considered a "manifestation of God", a prophet who received a divine revelation. Abdul-Baha was his son and was given the authority to lead the community and interpret the scriptures after Baha'u'llahs passed away. His scriptures are part of the Baha'i canon.

Yeah- I googled it a couple of days ago. :mrgreen:
Thanks! (actually, I was googling another subject, and the one of Baha'i popped up. :))
 
Last edited:
We will outgrow our ability to meet demand without any natural stops in place. We already have mass food production and distribution, but with the methods we've used to increase production, we've lost quality. The quality of foods most people eat today is poor compared to just 100 years ago.

The other problem is that with everyone being adequately fed, and guaranteed a subsistent life, they will keep breeding more mouths to feed, and human lifespans are increasing. We could easily outgrow our capacity to produce.

That's certainly true, and neither religious morals nor laws can prevent people from starving when there is simply not enough food.

But getting back on topic, what I read out of these scriptures is that Baha'i oppose laws that aim at imposing absolute equality, but support laws that put a limit to immoderate, irresponsible accumulation of wealth by private individuals. The details are up to debate. ;)

I guess you could justify a progressive tax that way, for example. Or regulation of the finance sector.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom