I don’t it is too much of a stretch to imagine Jesus would have been in favor of gun control, what with his “live by the sword, die by the sword” philosophy.
No, that just makes him opposed to gun ownership, not in favour of gun control.
In fact, generally speaking, Jesus said very little about how governments ought to behave. Mostly he talked about how individuals ought to behave. I don’t recall anywhere offhand that he so much as hinted that it would be good for the government to require people to behave in the manner which he said they should.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
[QUOTE=Liberal]
J but defends fiercely His property when usurpers and trespassers have squated there.
[/QUOTE
Is that in reference to his actions against the moneychangers at the temple? If so, how could the temple, in a libertarian sense, be considered his property? If not, can you elaborate?[/QUOTE]
It was His Father’s house. “I and my father are one.” — Jesus
Libertarianly, you might say that He is the owner of the heavens and the earth.
Christian author Tony Campolo wrote a book called Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? At the risk of oversimplifying, his conclusion was that neither party is wholly Christian. He praises Republicans for their emphasis on individual responsibility and Democrats for their recognition of structural evil in society.
Interesting responses.
You’re all right though, this changes the question - is Jesus a Liberal or a Libertarian? I won’t create another thread on this topic, but I will officially rephrase the OP (since no one has come along to the defense of Jesus being a Republican).
Would Jesus be for or against the welfare state. Interesting question. I think he may personally believe that each person would be giving enough to help each other via charity without state laws. But I’m going to stick with “Liberal”… he clearly is a champion of low class disparity.
And yes, I do know many pro-life liberals.
As an aside, good call on the “American Protestantism”… that makes a lot of sense. It carries a whole different ideology on how to behave, that may or may not be approved of by Jesus.
That’s not an endorsement of capital punishment as a means of dealing with criminals, though.
Becuase no one with an ounce of sense in their head is going to claim the Son of God as a member of their political party, or even a political philosophy.
Seriously claiming that Jesus would belong to this or that political persuasion is an act of monumental arrogance; and of course if a Republican were to do it, you’d have no end of disdain for them.
In short, its an asinine question. I think half the answers in this thread are tongue-in-cheek, and it’s whooshing right over…
He’s not hte Son of God, he’s a prophet.
It is no different than asking if Jefferson would be a Democrat or Republican.
I have no end of disdain for them anyway. But if a Republican were to do it, I would debate why I think Jesus would be a liberal hippie, 40% because that’s what I believe, 60% because I know it would piss them off a lot.
Of course it’s an asinine question. How can we tell what some dead guy would think?
Really, He was a Whig.
Then there’s always the Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus.
Well, obviously the people most likely to have a strong opinion would disagree with that.
Yes, in the sense that the issues are vastly different. But; Jefferson at least wrote copiously on his political philosophy. Christ did not.
So you were asking a pointless question in hopes of provoking outrage?
Ahem.
Sophistry.
No one is “compelled”, except that they go to Hell if they don’t believe.
And then there’s…
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.
Matt. 19:24
Makes me wonder why Christians get so upset about taxes…
Tough toenails. “prophet” is something you can be easily. “Son of God” you’ve gotta have some proof for (beyond letters from your friends about your speeches (see below)
No, but Jesus did speak at length about humanitarian and social policy, both of which interplay with political philosophy. We may not know whether he is a strict Constitutionalist or not, but we do know that he had a soft spot for the meek. Something about them inhereting the earth.
No, for entertainment. And because 40% of that is because that’s what I believe.
I mean, unless any Republicans want to come out and talk about Jesus’s stance against social welfare?
Catching a cold?
The reason it’s so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God is because he is likely quite satisfied with the kingdom he already has. Jesus teaches that neither He nor His Father judge anyone; rather, we all judge ourselves by His Word. One man’s heaven is another man’s hell. All God does is give us the desires of our heart.
Just about everything can “interplay with political philosophy.” Shall we draw conclusions about Newton because scentific issues are in play?
I trust you recognize the line you’re walking.
Cite that Jesus ever said anything about government-mandated welfare programs?
Remind me to reference this thread the next time someone talks about how it’s always Republicans who claim God is on their side and claim to being morally superior.
I always thought this was in reference to the idea it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven because of the sins he committed either acquiring or keeping the wealth he acquired and the sins he commits while he indulging in pleasures of the flesh. (ie: greed, lust, deception, adultery, gluttony…etc)
I understand your point though.
I took the cue for this from Jesus’ teachings about people getting what they ask for and having their rewards already. He was talking about the Pharisees and how they liked to show off and be seen as important. No reward would await them. “In all truth, I tell you,” He said, “they have their reward already.” In other words, they’ve gotten what they wanted. Same same with many rich people. There are many people of all kinds who would find God’s kingdom thoroughly unsatisfactory, and thus are not forced to dwell there. Poor people, too, can be greedy, lustful, deceitful, adulterous, gluttonous, and the like. Sometimes, people are angry that they are poor, and even turn to lives of crime, reasoning that they are entitled to the wealth of others. Politicians use wealth envy to motivate people to give them power. That’s what wealth distribution schemes are all about. Vote for me, and I will take money from rich people and give some of it to you. (After keeping a substantial cut for myself, of course.)
Absolutely, without a doubt. The vast majority of crimes are done by unwealthy people. (sheer numbers vs. violent crime)
But I thought he was addressing wealthy poeple at the time of this parable.
For him to let the poor believe that the rich would have an advantage even in death would contradict much of his previous teachings. In addressing the rich with the idea of moderation and charity and introducing them to the fact that donations to the church won’t buy you a seat in his kingdom.
The poor can not afford to give much to the church and many religions even today preach MORE, MORE, MORE.
Jesus was clarifying the difference IMHO.
Yeah, those are some rat bastards, demanding for themselves the widow’s mite. Again, as I see it, we all just get exactly what we want. The merciful get mercy. The meek get the earth. Those who want God’s kingdom get it. And those who want nothing to do with God are dutifully obliged. It isn’t God’s judgment that blocks us from Him; it is our own.
I appreciate the perspective and insight you’ve provided thus far. 
I just wanted to raise my family in peace and grow old with my wife. 
It’s raining today and the rain rejuvenates the flower and plants my wife and I spent years together lovingly nurturing. (them and each other) It just kinda crept up on me while I’ve been talking w/ ya.
sorry Lib I didn’t mean to go here, been kinda alone lately.
take care bud, t/k
you too Zag…didn’t mean to…well you know