• 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
Terrible argument? See, this is all you have.

This is the bull**** Im talking about. I already told you it was a terrible argument and I gave a LIST of reasons it was conceptually invalid. Total dodge... you're not interested in debate. It was obvious in the last thread and you've made it clearly and loudly obvious just now. This is ridiculous.


Your inability to understand is reinforcing my points so far.

Since you don't want to debate and seem to have some sort of personality issue where you enjoy dragging things out as long as possible to no specific ends of any sort you can go on ignore.

Bye.
 
Wanting to establish a Dictatorship to rule over humanity for all time doesn't count?


Dictatorship ?

If it's a Dictatorship of Love and Peace that's fine with me. :)
 
This is the bull**** Im talking about. I already told you it was a terrible argument and I gave a LIST of reasons it was conceptually invalid. Total dodge... you're not interested in debate. It was obvious in the last thread and you've made it clearly and loudly obvious just now. This is ridiculous.

Why is it that when I countered your argument you took notice of my counter while offering up nothing, and then concluded that I'm not interested in debate? You're outstanding.

Your inability to understand is reinforcing my points so far.

I'm sorry, but where did the whole Catholic insult come from?

Since you don't want to debate and seem to have some sort of personality issue where you enjoy dragging things out as long as possible to no specific ends of any sort you can go on ignore.

I'm on ignore for not debating? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Dictatorship ?

If it's a Dictatorship of Love and Peace that's fine with me. :)

Thats cool. Can definitely classify Him and His followers as fascists though. My understanding is that most fasciests claim that their totalitarian regime will be all flowing with milk and honey. And of course that justifies genocide and ordering folks to murder infants.
 
Last edited:
Thats cool. Can definitely classify Him and His followers as fascists though. My understanding is that most fasciests claim that there totalitarian regime will be all flowing with milk and honey. And of course that justifies genocide and ordering folks to murder infants.


Each one can think what he/she wants! :)
 
Each one can think what he/she wants! :)

Not much to debate there. Do you not think that fasciest is an appropriate label for Jesus' political ideology? If not, why not?
 
Thats cool. Can definitely classify Him and His followers as fascists though.

not at all - fascism entails an obsession with overweening government, of which there is likely little or none in the Kingdom of Heaven. "If men were angels", Madison points out "there would be no need of government." Well, in Heaven we shall be, insofar as we shall have a lack of all those things that make government necessary.
 
not at all - fascism entails an obsession with overweening government, of which there is likely little or none in the Kingdom of Heaven. "If men were angels", Madison points out "there would be no need of government." Well, in Heaven we shall be, insofar as we shall have a lack of all those things that make government necessary.

A Kingdom is a type of government. If Madison were correct, then how did Satan fall? Was it not for his rebellion against being governed?
 
A Kingdom is a type of government. If Madison were correct, then how did Satan fall? Was it not for his rebellion against being governed?


Satan? what are you Santorum? omg!:roll:
 
A Kingdom is a type of government.

not necessarily. Britain has a Queen - in no real way does she "govern". Government primarily is for the imposition of law, backed by force. In the Kingdom of Heaven, there is neither Law nor the need to use Force against the citizenry, so the notion that there could be "fascism" is sort of silly. Fascism is at once far too small and attempts to achieve far too much to fit inside of Christianity, and Jesus on Earth probably wouldn't have given it any more of a fig than He gave the various political factions of his day. Christians have existed inside of Monarchies, Democracies, Socialism, each of which in turn has claimed at some point the mantle of Christ to bolster their legitimacy. All of it ridiculous and besides the point: administrations, forms of government, civilizations are all transient and phantasmal things compared to the immoral souls who live in it for a mere handful of years out of infinity. I would suspect it is important to Christ only inasmuch as it tends to effect their eternal choice in one direction or the other. The only example I am aware of that would give us a hint of God's political preferences would be found in his response to the people's request for a King in Samuel:

I Samuel Chapter 8 said:
all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”...


So, Kings are bad because they seize property, impose taxes, and put people to the service of the government rather than leaving them free to pursue their own interests. that doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of Fascism.

If Madison were correct, then how did Satan fall?

:shrug: good question. the only eyewitness account we have doesn't really say except to say that it was "like lightning".

Was it not for his rebellion against being governed?

It was for the Sin of Pride. I'm not sure you would call it Being Governed, unless you wish to reject Gods' will, in which case you are rather rejecting Heaven by your own choice.
 
Last edited:
So how do the people collecting the taxes acquire the authority to do so, when if you or I did the same thing we would be said to be stealing? Who gives them the authority? Those collecting the taxes are people just like you and me, right? What is so special about them that gives them the moral authority to do what you and I are forbidden from doing?

Enter the 5th grade civics class; then Wikipedia; then THINK !
Go to Washington DC and ask these pointed questions....

So you yourself can't offer any reason why some people are more special than others and have the authority to tax?
 
What debate... can you reiterate any points made?
Here's a quick synopsis. Most people agree that it is wrong to steal, yet most people also think it is fine for "the government" to tax. My argument is that the rules of morality apply to everyone, and that everyone ought not steal, including the people constituting the government. If stealing is wrong, then it ought to be considered wrong for all people, not just for some people.

Someone said government taxation was thievery... and that I 'had' to prove it wasn't.
They should prove they arent crazy.
You don't HAVE to prove anything. You can simply issue your statements, and refuse to support them with any logical argument at all. It your choice, but people are more likely to agree with you if you can walk them through some sort of stepwise, logical reasoning.

I regard taxation as no different than theft, since both acts consist of one person forcibly taking the property of another. If all people are bound by the same ethical rules, then I see no other way to regard taxation. I have explained my reasoning. You have not explained yours, other than to repeat that some people (the government) have special powers that the rest of us don't have. Yet you fail to even attempt to explain where these special people acquire this special exemption from the normal rules of ethical behavior.
 
1) The government is not an individual the analogy is invalid
2) the government is part of a social contract that establishes law order and civilization, the analogy is invalid
3) the government drafts the laws and enforces them that you may not be robbed in the first place.

Calling a certain group of people "the government" and then saying that the normal rules of social behavior don't apply to these people because, after all, they're "the government" is to completely sidestep the issue.

You completely miss the point of lizzie's question. Other than that certain people are called "the government", what is different about one person pointing a gun at you and saying give me money and another person pointing a gun at your and saying give me money? Two people, doing exactly the same act, yet you claim one person is acting morally and another is acting immorally.
 
Across this board we have libertarians claiming folks dont have a right to education, healthcare, and in the voter ID thread, that folks dont have an explicit right to vote.

Sorry, you can't actually prove whatever vapid philosophical stance on the nature of rights substantiates such positions.

Unless you want to try right now. Theres a reason libertarian philosophies don't make it far out of the basements of libertarians...
Can you please cite a specific reference in our constitution or bill of rights that enumerates the rights to education and health care? I would love to see that part.

It seems that you, with your crazy ideas that education and health care are a right, are far more extreme than us in a constitutional sense.
 
1) The government is not an individual the analogy is invalid
2) the government is part of a social contract that establishes law order and civilization, the analogy is invalid
3) the government drafts the laws and enforces them that you may not be robbed in the first place.

You cannot make an analogy between the public burden of taxation
and some psychotic vision where the government robs your money and gives it to me personally.

The government is an abstraction, remember. "The government" can't do anything. "The government" can't tax people, nor can "the government" shoot people, or take their stuff.

Only real, physical, actual people can act. If a tax is being collected, this tax is not being collected by "the government". It is being collected by people, and these people are taking another person's stuff. So, how does this particular person who is taking another's property acquire the ethical authority to do so, when if you or I did so we would be considered thieves?

I keep asking you about the ethics of human acts, and you keep referring to the "acts" of the government, a concept that has no physical reality.
 
Can you please cite a specific reference in our constitution or bill of rights that enumerates the rights to education and health care? I would love to see that part.

It seems that you, with your crazy ideas that education and health care are a right, are far more extreme than us in a constitutional sense.
During the time of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, three centuries ago, for all practical purposes, health-care and education did not exist, particularly for the masses(farmers).
Today, if we were to design a totally new Constitution, these and many other things would be included....otherwise we would have a people's revolution.... Maybe this is what the Librarians want.....hard to tell...
 
The government is an abstraction, remember. "The government" can't do anything. "The government" can't tax people, nor can "the government" shoot people, or take their stuff.

Only real, physical, actual people can act. If a tax is being collected, this tax is not being collected by "the government". It is being collected by people, and these people are taking another person's stuff. So, how does this particular person who is taking another's property acquire the ethical authority to do so, when if you or I did so we would be considered thieves?

I keep asking you about the ethics of human acts, and you keep referring to the "acts" of the government, a concept that has no physical reality.

And this is all an absolute FACT , NOT one man's opinion....lol
 
Might we consider what Dorothy Gale would be if she would if she were alive today?
 
The government is an abstraction, remember. "The government" can't do anything. "The government" can't tax people, nor can "the government" shoot people, or take their stuff.

Only real, physical, actual people can act. If a tax is being collected, this tax is not being collected by "the government". It is being collected by people, and these people are taking another person's stuff. So, how does this particular person who is taking another's property acquire the ethical authority to do so, when if you or I did so we would be considered thieves?

I keep asking you about the ethics of human acts, and you keep referring to the "acts" of the government, a concept that has no physical reality.

And as for the authority of the police?
I assume they fit into this model of not-real authority too?
 
Can you please cite a specific reference in our constitution or bill of rights that enumerates the rights to education and health care? I would love to see that part.

It seems that you, with your crazy ideas that education and health care are a right, are far more extreme than us in a constitutional sense.

Some countries don't have constitutions or bills of rights and their rights to healthcare and education are far more secure.
By the same rules we don't all have a 'right' to vote. But I would also be leery of making such an argument.
 
Jesus liberated the Jews by fullfilling the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, and the gentiles by bringing unto to the Kingdom, the Glory and the promise. Economics... give unto. Social... turn the other cheek. Ecology... love others. He ended the oppressive and hopeless legalism of the Jewish Scripture, gave freedom in forgiveness and sacrificed to our redemption.

In what way could he be argued conservative (ok, maybe I'll read the thread to see)?
 
Some countries don't have constitutions or bills of rights and their rights to healthcare and education are far more secure.
By the same rules we don't all have a 'right' to vote. But I would also be leery of making such an argument.
You can't claim that you have a right to have your government give you something, without some kind of evidence to back it up. The constitution was designed to tell the government what it can do, everything else is by default out of it's scope of power. Therefore, by default, you don't have the right for your government to give you things like healthcare and education.

I like pizza, do I have a right for the government to give me pizza? Or do I possess the right to go get pizza for myself?
 
Might we consider what Dorothy Gale would be if she would if she were alive today?

probably something along the lines of "I wish either I or someone else had been capable of defending me."
 
Back
Top Bottom