Would Jesus be a Liberal?

cpwill · Mar 5, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Yea but i guess we should ignore Jesus's actually words and teachings then huh?

perhaps you could quote me the relevant sections where Jesus tells us to covet our neighbors' belongings, or utilizing government to redistribute resources?

cpwill · Mar 5, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Like some of these teachings?

like all of them

Acts 4:32-35 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

yup. voluntary charity, baby, gotta love it. that is why, for example conservatives tend to give more to charity, despite making less money

Acts 2:44-45 And all who believed were together and had all things in common.

yup. you know what else we know about the church in Jerusalem? the group was impoverished, and dependent upon charity from Christian Communities elsewhere. Which those communities were happy to give.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

yup. that guy trusted for his security in his possessions - and so that is what he had to give up. but i still fail to see where Jesus is telling the guy that he shouldn't be engaging in charity, but instead paying higher taxes that will go to support the poor?

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

Indeed.

Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

that is also true. it is also more fun

. and how are we to give? are we to be mandated a certain amount (say, a certain percentage of our income)?

2 Corinthians 9: 1 There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the Lord’s people. 2 For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action. 3 But I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove hollow, but that you may be ready, as I said you would be. 4 For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to say anything about you—would be ashamed of having been so confident. 5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to visit you in advance and finish the arrangements for the generous gift you had promised. Then it will be ready as a generous gift, not as one grudgingly given.

looks like you are supposed to give generously and freely. well, does that mean that we should be required to give a certain amount, or that it is good to mandate such an amount through the use of governing functions?

2 Corinthians 9 continues: 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.

huh. apparently not.

or, perhaps, you could find for us some verses where we are commanded to give away other people's money, and then to take it from them without their will for that purpose?

see, it's interesting because then you cite this parable:

Matthew 25:15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

but you don't give it any context whatsoever. in the parable of the talents, a rich man gives his servants money to manage for him (the parable being the wealth that God has given us on this earth), and they are each rewarded or punished based on whether or not they grow it. here is the full parable:

Matthew 25 said:
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

blackjack50 · Mar 5, 2012

Again. Jesus would not get involved in politics. He didn't in the Bible. They tried to involve him though...and I think that is what would happen again.

Edit PS:

I hate these discussions. Why do people try to put political labels on people who existed long before these titles came about? Was Washington a republican? Democrat? What about Lincoln? Ghandi? Bilbo Baggins? Sasquatch? Donald Duck? Seriously?

People make their choices and only they know their political affiliation is. They cannot be judged and placed based upon decisions 100 years ago because times were different, thought processes, and certain understandings were different. Look at how much an individual's mind set changes as they grow older? How can you put someone in a category after they died?

Catawba · Mar 6, 2012

cpwill · Mar 6, 2012

answer: He never did. But Republicans are (somewhat and occasionally) more apt to follow the example of Lincoln (who was, after all, one of them), who argued that we should not claim God is on our side, but rather seek to be on His.

Adamski · Mar 6, 2012

I see a lot of posts regarding Jesus being Jewish and therefore being liberal, but wasn't he condemed by the Jewish priests for causing trouble. Instead of looking at only whether or not him being Jewish would affect his political leanings, lets look at his actual teachings and ideas.

He said to turn the other cheek and forgive anyone that does something bad to you. I don't want to pigeon hole an entire political ideology but on the highway, it's never the person in the Prius honking and flipping you off; it's the guy in the big truck with a confederate flag and gun rack that does.

Jesus spoke a lot about rich men and helping the poor. The liberal philosophy has a lot more programs and policies geared towards helping the poor then the conservatives do. While both sides of the political spectrum have wealthy members, the conservative ones seem to be much more worried about letting go of theirs.

There are many other examples, some that show Jesus to be a conservative such as being against government establishment, but overall I think that he would be considered liberal today.

24107 · Mar 6, 2012

Peter Grimm said:
If Jesus Christ were alive today, would he be a liberal, conservative, or something else? Why?

None, because Jesus Christ would think worrying about a label(lean), and bickering with those of a label different than yours while millions of your fellow countrymen who depend on you( when i say depend on you, i am talking about those liberals and conservatives etc, that hold government positions and have your well being intrusted with them, as they are in position to make important discussions about important issues in your life, not to those people who just post on internet forums and have no ability or power to change things.) to improve the quality of life for them, by seriously and whole-heartly tying to address the matter as quickly as possible, instead of bickering on petty differences Americans are not concerned with, as long as you get the desired results of your constituants.. your most important and true constiuants if you are doing your job right, the citizens of the U.S.A. Honestly, I must say i find the title of the op very silly and distasteful to say the least. Jesus Christ is a rightous divine figure, in all three of the Abrahamic faiths(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), to have such a rightous figure, such as Jesus Christ compared to selfish and sometimes corrupt and inmoral politicians and everyday internet blogglers etc., is almost like a veiled insult or sign of disrespect to Jesus, assuming everyone on this internet forum(including this thread) are aware of that basic fact that Jesus is holy, rightous, and a divine figure. Also i don't see what knowledge and interesting facts can be gained from such a thread. Actually i believe threads like this, that are silly and non-benefical to the forum, lower it's quality. And become a waste of time, as at times, i myself become compelled to reply to the op's post, to point that out, and then you realized you just wasted your time explaining something people already know, but seem still not to care or show any semblence of respect for obvious and well know religious figures for example.(i just believe it's a basic common courtesy).

Centinel · Mar 6, 2012

Centinel said:
You may ignore his words and teachings if you wish. That is your right. Personally, as a Christian, I try to follow his teachings.

TheDemSocialist said:
Like some of these teachings?
Acts 4:32-35 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Acts 2:44-45 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Luke 6:20-24 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

Luke 3:11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

James 2:1-5 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

Luke 1:49-53 For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty.

Matthew 25:15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Yes, like those, as well as "Thou shalt not steal."

Panache · Mar 6, 2012

cpwill said:
That is incorrect. Christ gives you the choice between seeking Him or not doing so. Christians are nowhere ordered to attempt to force the choice, or to take any action against those who refuse other than the explicit order that we are to love them, even if they then do us the most grievous forms of harm. That is not to say that Christians have never broken that law, but simply to point out that them doing so is in contradiction to the dictates of their faith. I think you are thinking of Islam. Which does indeed have a rather different approach at current.

Christians don't force choice, Jesus does. The choice he offers is "seek me and live the good life' or 'don't seek me and be eternally punished for not seeking me.' To use your eloquent analogy, its like offering someone the choice to either make love to you or not make love to you and 'oh by the way if you choose option number two I will shoot you in the face.'

precisely. it's not your works - and thank God (quite literally) that it isn't.

but this makes precisely the opposite of the point that you are trying to make; namely you are arguing that Christ judges you by what you do or do not do on earth, much as a dictatorship would - whereas this citation rather demonstrates the opposite.

First of all, the passage talks about how people who see Jesus hungry and feed him (vicariously) will be rewarded, and how people who see Him hungry and don't feed Him (vicariously) will be eternally punished. So really the passage does say that Christ judges you by what you do (feed Him) or do not do (do not feed Him) on Earth. Not really sure where you got the idea that the passage somehow demonstrates the opposite.

Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus will eternally punish people who don't choose to seek Him.

It's a rough analogy, but you are basically looking at the differences between a couple making love and a violent rape, and concluding that because both involve sexuality, there must be an equal presence of consent on both parties.

If I tell a girl that she can choose to either make love to me or not make love to me, but warn her that if she chooses not to make love to me I will throw her into a lake of fire, what would you call that?

Got to go. More to come.

blackjack50 · Mar 6, 2012

Panache said:
If I tell a girl that she can choose to either make love to me or not make love to me, but warn her that if she chooses not to make love to me I will throw her into a lake of fire, what would you call that?

Got to go. More to come.

Congrats. You just compared someone's religous beliefs to YOUR sexual conquest.

cpwill · Mar 7, 2012

Panache said:
Christians don't force choice, Jesus does. The choice he offers is "seek me and live the good life' or 'don't seek me and be eternally punished for not seeking me.'

the choice to choose Christ or not is your own - if this makes him a dictator, it makes him the only dictator I can think of off hand who let's anyone tell Him to go F himself. How many examples do we have of Fascist dictators of the world willingly being tortured to death just in order to give people a free choice whether or not to seek to follow them?

If it is simply your intention to complain about hell, it is a losing proposition from the start. You cannot simply start out decrying Jesus as some kind of abusive totalitarian, only to complain that He does not control you enough. That he should force you to choose Him.

First of all, the passage talks about how people who see Jesus hungry and feed him (vicariously) will be rewarded, and how people who see Him hungry and don't feed Him (vicariously) will be eternally punished. So really the passage does say that Christ judges you by what you do (feed Him) or do not do (do not feed Him) on Earth. Not really sure where you got the idea that the passage somehow demonstrates the opposite.

because they are being measured by their hearts. Jesus made it quite explicit that it was ones' faith, not ones' deeds through which they were Saved.

Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus will eternally punish people who don't choose to seek Him.

not at all - they are punishing themselves by seeking themselves. the gates of hell (inasmuch as such exists in the human heart) are locked from the inside.

you may benefit from reading an excellent short piece by the name of The Great Divorce. Certainly it would give you a better understanding of what you are trying to expound upon here.

cpwill · Mar 7, 2012

stonewall50 said:
Congrats. You just compared someone's religous beliefs to YOUR sexual conquest.

I brought up the analogy. Panache is complaining that God does not rape, but only woos. Then he is accusing him of rape all the same. It seems he isn't quite sure precisely what he believes (in the sense of having a fully thought out internally coherent belief structure), but is rather throwing whatever makes Christianity sound sort of bad at a wall and seeing if it sticks.

nathanjames1791 · Mar 7, 2012

Viktyr Korimir said:
I think Jesus would be too much concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven to worry overmuch about the Kingdom of Man.

If Jesus was not concerned with the world of man then why did he ever come to earth?

Jack Webb · Mar 8, 2012

You tell me.

2 Thessalonians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)

10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Half of all Jesus' teachings involved money because:

Matthew 6:21

21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Jesus was neither a liberal or a conservative. Both of those words are politically charged. The word "liberal" used to mean libertarian until progressives burn-up the word "progressive" and had to use a new "good" word. Then, they ran from the label "liberal" after they trashed that word. Jesus was approached by some big-time talent scouts from Athens Greece, which was the top place to be for the good life. What do you think Jesus told them?

Yeah, you guessed it. Jesus stayed far away from anything political.

John 3

Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews approached Jesus and tried to flatter him. Anybody know how that went?

Liberal and conservative? Nope.

Have you ever looked at the difference between the words "define" and "describe?" Religion is "defined." Check the teachings of Jesus. They are all about "describing."

Nope. Jesus was Neither a liberal or conservative.

JustinS · Mar 8, 2012

Jack Webb said:
The word "liberal" used to mean libertarian until progressives burn-up the word "progressive" and had to use a new "good" word. Then, they ran from the label "liberal" after they trashed that word. Jesus was approached by some big-time talent scouts from Athens Greece, which was the top place to be for the good life. What do you think Jesus told them?

Classical Liberalism =/= Libertarianism

haymarket · Mar 8, 2012

JustinS said:
Classical Liberalism =/= Libertarianism

Upon which century are you basing that..... 17th or 18th?

JustinS · Mar 8, 2012

haymarket said:
Upon which century are you basing that..... 17th or 18th?

From what I know, Classical Liberalism hasn't been used as a term to identify Libertarianism until sometime in the 20th century.

haymarket · Mar 8, 2012

JustinS said:
From what I know, Classical Liberalism hasn't been used as a term to identify Libertarianism until sometime in the 20th century.

That is not what I asked.

What definition of classical liberalism as it existed in what century are you using to equate it with libertarianism?

JustinS · Mar 8, 2012

haymarket said:
That is not what I asked.

What definition of classical liberalism as it existed in what century are you using to equate it with libertarianism?

Do you think I am trying to equate classical liberalism with libertarianism? I said that they weren't equal.

I define Classical Liberalism as a philosophy that seeks to preserve and diffuse democracy, holds that the world can be improved by human effort, views the individual as having moral primacy over any collective entity (and hence sees the primary purpose of the state as being the facilitation of conditions in which citizens are allowed autonomous choice), values (relatively) free and open markets, and is focused more on humanity as a whole rather than specific cultural origins or histories.

Historically, earlier Classical Liberals (e.g. John Locke) have used the social contract as a means of explaining the relationship between individuals and their governments, which generally puts Libertarians to the right of Classical Liberals in regards to social responsibility and economic regulation (i.e., Libertarianism as an ideology has more individualist and laissez-faire tendencies than earlier Classical Liberals). Of course the later "Classical Liberals" (e.g. Hayek) may not have favored the social contract, but I generally don't include them in my definition and categorize them as Libertarians (since they are basically indistinguishable from Libertarians).

cpwill · Mar 8, 2012

nathanjames1791 said:
If Jesus was not concerned with the world of man then why did he ever come to earth?

because He loves men.

it doesn't make much sense until you shift to begin considering human beings as immortal beings; and the governing systems in which they may reside for a brief second of time here on earth as inherently phantasmal. Jesus cared alot less about your government than about whether your properly related to it and to others.

Panache · Mar 14, 2012

cpwill said:
You still have, for example, yet to explain how fascism can exist stripped of all the things that identify it as "fascism". In Heaven there is no large welfare state, for the simple enough reason that there is no need for welfare.

Really? Jesus ddn't promise that the State would provide welfare for the needs of its citizens? Matt 6:25-33

There is no martial law, for the simple enough reason that there is no crime.

Why is there no crime? Isn't it a crime to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit?

fascism involves (among other things) placing the origin of the eschaton in the corporate personhood of the State; which not only isn't present in Heaven, but is indeed idol-worship.

And where do you believe Jesus places the origin of the eschaton?

National Socialism? There is neither Nationalism (for all are together and loved and love each other in Christ Jesus)

So you are a universalist then? Do you also believe that Satan will be together and loved in Jesus Christ? If not, loyalty to the Kingdom of God is nationalism.

nor Socialism (for there is no scarcity, but only ever present abundance) in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Who will control the means of production in heaven?

Ideologies such as Fascism, Socialism, Conservatism, do not exist - they are limited, earth-bound creations of man, built upon sand, and doomed as surely as the sun, though they shall not last nearly as long.

Ok. But Emperor Palpatine was a fascist, and so was Jesus.

Panache · Mar 14, 2012

cpwill said:
the choice to choose Christ or not is your own - if this makes him a dictator, it makes him the only dictator I can think of off hand who let's anyone tell Him to go F himself.

So you believe that people in Heaven will tell Jesus to go F Himself and be allowed to remain in Heaven? What does Jesus say about the consequence of speaking out against the State, a.k.a blasphemy?

Panache · Mar 14, 2012

cpwill said:
I brought up the analogy. Panache is complaining that God does not rape, but only woos. Then he is accusing him of rape all the same. It seems he isn't quite sure precisely what he believes (in the sense of having a fully thought out internally coherent belief structure), but is rather throwing whatever makes Christianity sound sort of bad at a wall and seeing if it sticks.

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?

cpwill · Mar 14, 2012

Panache said:
Really? Jesus ddn't promise that the State would provide welfare for the needs of its citizens? Matt 6:25-33

here is that verse:

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]?

28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

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

Why is there no crime?

because we are born anew and made perfect

And where do you believe Jesus places the origin of the eschaton?

Himself

So you are a universalist then? Do you also believe that Satan will be together and loved in Jesus Christ? If not, loyalty to the Kingdom of God is nationalism.

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.

Who will control the means of production in heaven?

why would there be means of production in Heaven?

Ok. But Emperor Palpatine was a fascist, and so was Jesus.

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

cpwill · Mar 14, 2012

Panache said:
So you believe that people in Heaven will tell Jesus to go F Himself and be allowed to remain in Heaven?

really failure to grasp.

look - you get that we aren't talking about a physical, geographic location within the universe?

Would Jesus be a Liberal?

Which of these political leans would Jesus be?

Liberal

Conservative

Moderate

Potato

Disappointed Evolutionist

Adamski

Irrelevant Pissant

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Irrelevant Pissant

Irrelevant Pissant

Irrelevant Pissant