Would Jesus be a Liberal or a Conservative?

Great Debates
101

Act outside of Love, yes, it happens, I do believe the more a person does so the more of that tendency is removed from them. This is part of the refining process.

Then you must ignore scripture, Jesus said if you have the faith of a mustard seed you can move the mountain, and Paul said all things are working towards the good for those who Love God, and we see example after example of God actually moving heaven and earth in scripture, so it’s all part of the whole.

Hey if the way you feel the Love of God is through UHC then go for it. I don’t believe that is the way (as Jesus is the way), and I believe scripture points to Jesus not depending on government, only His Father, and I believe scripture supports that clearly.

Also note the 2 in the good Samaritan did nothing but left that person abandoned, even by the words they spoke, prayer would be something - actually something very big. Prayer would be a connection of the heart to God and the person in distress, it would be crying out to God for this brother, which may be all that is needed, and may be all they were able to do and may have had instant results instead of the long recovery time. Jesus prayed for many and they got well. The Good Samaritan did what he knew how to, it was the action of his heart, which God blesses and can use.

Just like this discussion if you believe that UHC is going to help, God will hear your heart and work that Love for your fellow man/woman through that system, but it’s not ideal.

102

The inherent contradiction is that people don’t want others to use force against them without proper justification, but they are willing to vote for policies that cause the state to use force against others without justification.

I mentioned this in the “Taxes are Theft” thread, but I’ll repeat it: you are using an odd definition of “voluntary.” If I put a gun to your head and tell you that I will kill you if you don’t give me your money, then you giving me your money is not voluntary.

You continue to not recognize the difference between the use of force and actually voluntary transactions. A renter chooses to pay a certain amount to a landlord for the use of space. A citizen can’t simply choose to not pay taxes that the citizen thinks shouldn’t be imposed.

103

No contradiction. I don’t want anyone to use force against me or anyone else without justification, and I do want them to use force against me or anyone else with proper justification.

No, but a sufficiently large set of like-minded citizens can simply choose not to pay particular taxes.

104

I don’t see it as an obvious point. It’s obvious to me that he wouldn’t promote armed robbery; from my point of view, it’s the same obvious reason he wouldn’t promote a new tax. From my point of view, it’s obvious that he’d urge you to submit to armed robbery and that he’d urge you to submit to some new tax, sure as he’d urge you to submit to someone looking to smack you upside the head; from my point of view, he’d also tell you to refrain from committing armed robbery, and from smacking others upside the head, and from imposing a new tax: I believe he counsels us to resist not evil while refusing to cast the first stone while busily turning the other cheek, forgiving others their trespasses and judging not and so on, which strikes me as incompatible with authorizing any use of force for any reason ever, no exceptions.

To me, it’s all one thing. To you, it’s – not.

No, we’re on the same page regarding that point; when our lawmakers create a law and an accompanying tax, Jesus says we should hand over the money instead of resisting – no matter what it’s a tax for.

I’m afraid you’ll need to be more specific. Mat 5-7 is exactly the stuff I’d point at to claim intent is irrelevant; the sermon Jesus delivers there is built around replacing eye-for-an-eye retaliation with turning the other cheek, and forgiving others their trespasses while praying for those who persecute you, and judging not and taking no thought for what you’ll eat or drink tomorrow. Exactly how any of that translates

See, that’s why it wasn’t obvious to me that you think Jesus would be against armed robbery. If the overall intent there is to help people have better accessible health care, wouldn’t a private citizen robbing the rich to help the less fortunate likewise fall under some pretty obvious teachings of Jesus?

I, of course, don’t see it that way; regardless of intent, Jesus would never authorize a private individual to engage in armed robbery – not even to help the less fortunate, not even for health care. Sure, he’d tell you to submit to such a robber – but the point is, Jesus doesn’t allow an exception for intent when it comes to individuals who’d like to commit armed robbery. Intent is irrelevant for individuals; why figure it’s relevant when it comes to legislators?

105

Of course he can; like the renter who finds the rent too steep, he is free to find less expensive accommodations. You are like the renter who likes the penthouse, but doesn’t want to pay for it. How is requiring taxes for the use of public services theft? You have a choice, you know. No one is forcing you to rent in the most prosperous country in the world; I hear there are some condos in Somalia that can be had for a song.

106

Christ, a reference to Somalia. FI, please try to make it harder to make fun of you for not being that intelligent, it’s no fun when it’s so easy.

107

While you are searching for a comeback, make me a McFlurry. And don’t forget the sprinkles this time.

108

It’s the obvious counter to libertarian rhetoric, and a lot closer to what the result of libertarian policies would be than their fantasies are. And there are libertarians who claim that Somalia has improved due to the lack of a government.

109

It’s only the obvious counter for people who think that any government that doesn’t do everything they want it to do is equivalent to a completely failed non-working government like in Somalia.

110

Oh, there will be sprinkles in there, don’t you worry your little shrunken head about that . . .

111

I definitely believe it’s a process, which is why standard Christian theology doesn’t make sense to me.

No I don’t ignore them, and I don’t ignore all the others either. Jesus advocated us helping each other, visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, etc. Those are the ones that relate to the OP. Thinking prayer and love is going to erase our need for medical services altogether is not very realistic.

It’s so simple. The question is would Jesus advocate for UHC. Since he clearly advocated those with more helping those with less and helping our fellow man in general, I’d say he’d support UHC as a vehicle for that help.
Surely you don’t think Jesus advocated just prayer and love rather than more practical aide to human needs. He advocated both. There’s a verse in there somewhere that says {paraphrased} what good are you doing if you face a hungry person and just offer to pray for them? Feed them, to demonstrate your love and brotherhood, and pray for them also. The same for health care.

Right. Now apply this to UHC.

No it’s not. It’s humanity as it is, not how we wish we were.

112

That’s not taxes either

And a landlord can decide to raise the rent. What are the renters choices then? What are the tax payers? See any similarities?

We choose to pay taxes with voting and by choosing to remain citizens.

113

There are only so many ways to phrase the point and I think it’s been phrased for you enough different ways.

But I’ll try one more time because I’m like that.

There is a fundamental aspect of the golden rule that you don’t appear to be getting. Perhaps an example will help: let’s define the Boobyhead Principle as a belief that anyone who calls someone a boobyhead should get a punch in the nose. Let’s say I believe in the Boobyhead Principle, and I am genuinely quite accepting that if I call someone a boobyhead I should be punched in the nose. If so, then I am not breaking the golden rule if I punch someone in the nose when they call me a boobyhead. I may be a thug, I may be uncivilised, but I am not breaking the golden rule because I am simply doing unto others what I would have them do unto me.

So now lets say you are a vociferous, outspoken, fanatical anti-Boobyhead Principle campaigner. Let’s say you then call me a boobyhead and I punch you in the nose. Where you are getting confused is that you are saying that I would, by so doing, be breaking the golden rule because I am doing to you what you would not do to me. But that isn’t the golden rule.

People vote for a tax systems that apply to everyone including themselves. They are doing to everyone else what they are doing to themselves. They are therefore following the golden rule. They are not breaking the golden rule because you would not do to them what they would do to themselves (and you).

114

You’re putting so much in there I’m failing to see the point. Can you be more concise? Are you saying you equate armed robbery with a new tax? If so just spit it out. As I’ve said several times, that’s a false equivalency. Unless you can demonstrate how they are equivalent {and you can’t because they aren’t} then it does not relate to the OP.
Or, perhaps you’re saying JC would not support UHC because it threatens force? If you gladly help your fellow man, no force is necessary.

If you hate it’s the same as murder. If you lust after another it’s the same as adultery. That’s all intent rather than actions. So the idea that we all pitch in to help provide basic health care to those without is an intent to do good for others.

Again, you seem to be implying using tax money to pay for health care is the same as robbery. If that’s your point just state it clearly.
Jesus would advocate that the rich help help the poor gladly.

I don’t. It’s just that taxes are not robbery and nobody, including you ,has shown that they are, or even offered a credible argument to support that thought.

115

I’m not equating them across the board; I’m saying intent is irrelevant in either case.

Jesus doesn’t believe I should engage in armed robbery regardless of my intent: it doesn’t matter whether I want to rob the rich to help the poor or to buy myself an especially lavish feast, there’s no exception for intent. Jesus says you should turn the other cheek and forgive others their trespasses; he spells out no exception for intent, he just puts a blanket statement out there. Jesus says you should resist not evil (regardless of intent) and refuse to cast the first stone (regardless of intent) and judge not (regardless of intent).

I’m not equating armed robbery with any of that stuff – except to note that in every case he delivers his statement with no regard to intent. I’m saying that intent is irrelevant in all of those cases, and is likewise irrelevant

But Jesus never says that “an intent to do good for others” makes it okay for you to hit back rather than turn the other cheek. He never says “an intent to do good for others” makes it okay to cast the first stone or engage in armed robbery. I therefore don’t see where Jesus ever says that “an intent to do good for others” makes it okay to impose a new tax; either that’s okay regardless of intent, or it’s wrong regardless of intent.

Yes, he would; we agree on that. And we further agree that, if the rich refuse to help the poor, Jesus would not advocate that you should, as a private individual, engage in armed robbery to transfer that wealth; there’s no “help the poor” exception on that ban, just as there’s no “help the poor” exception for the bans on casting the first stone or forgiving others their trespasses or whatever.

(Of course, in each case Jesus would say the person you target should comply with you; resist not evil and turn the other cheek and all that, regardless of intent.)

Now imagine you’re still a private citizen but have a number of people hanging on your every word: employees, followers, something, whatever. Can you, as a private citizen seeking to follow the teachings of Jesus, tell them to go engage in armed robbery? Can you tell them to strike back if someone smacks 'em upside the head while they’re out doing as you ask? Can you tell them to go cast the first stone at a sinner – explaining that you’d of course do it yourself, but Jesus has said you shouldn’t, and so here’s a hundred bucks if you’ll do it for me? Can you, as a private citizen barred from murder, hire a hitman to perform the murder and thus be okay with the teachings of Jesus?

Well, no, IMHO; if it’s wrong for you to do it, it’s wrong for you get it done by telling someone else to do it. And, again, that “no” applies regardless of intent: Jesus doesn’t make an exception for personally hitting back or casting the first stone when it’ll help the poor, and so I don’t see that he’d make that exception if you personally tell an employee to do it in your stead, or whatever.

(Of course, Jesus would again tell your victim-by-proxy to refrain from resisting regardless of intent; never mind that now.)

And now imagine you’re a legislator; can you personally authorize people someone else to go smack people upside the head? Can you tell them that you (a) need to forgive others their trespasses and refrain from hitting back, which is why you (b) are telling them to go out and do the opposite of that? Can you tell others to go cast the first stone at a sinner, just like you’re banned from doing?

I say no, and I say intent remains irrelevant; Jesus never says there’s a help-the-poor exception for personal action in such cases, and I don’t see that he spelled out a help-the-poor exception for action-by-proxy in such cases. I don’t see that intent ever enters into it.

(And, again, if you do send out those enforcers, Jesus would counsel the folks they target to comply rather than resist; never mind that now.)

So, no, I’m not saying that armed robbery is equivalent to taxation. I’m saying they’re alike only insofar as Jesus never said a help-the-poor exception is relevant to either.

116

You’re overlaying a dual assumption here: that taxation is as illegitimate as all other extortion because the evil of “using force to take money from other people” is so great as to outweigh the good from any use of taxation. This is in line with a greater assumption: that coercion is always evil, & anything that comes from coercion is inherently evil.

But law is necessarily coercive. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is from the same place as, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” & “That which is hateful to me I will not do to my neighbor.” And none of those voids the other coercive parts of the law. As Hillel the Elder said:

Taxes, regulations, laws, police, courts, & associated coercions are in part how we take care of the future of society, & ensure the opportunity & well-being of its members.

117

Yeah, more or less. Jesus makes Karl Marx look like a mild-mannered moderate.

118

Jesus is a conservative.

And left-handed.

119

I see no dichotomy for Jesus then and his worshippers now. When Jesus was alive he wanted a change in the status quo (liberal), believers following his message now want those changes to remain in perpetuity (conservative). It’s the changes (message) that are important.

120

although you say you’re not equating them across the board when you make statements like this it appears you are. You keep equating a new tax with some form of violence. No matter how you rephrase it, it’s a false equivalency.

Agreed while noting this does not apply to the OP or any tax associated with health care.

Here’s the false equivalency again.
Was Jesus doing something akin to violence when he instructed his disciples on what to do, or criticized them? How about the time when he instructed the rich man to give all he had to the poor? How about when he judged and criticized the religious leaders of his day? No, because he saw that as his mission , his purpose and he believed God had given him the authority to do those things.
If I’m a legislator I’ve been given the authority by the people to pass laws including taxes. There’s nothing remotely like smacking people in the head when a legislator is simply doing the job they were given the authority to do.

I don’t agree with your to literal interpretation but it doesn’t matter for the discussion here. Your analogies to violence simply don’t work.

and yet you continue to equate taxation with some form of violence. It isn’t and the analogy fails.

Jesus made a clear distinction on lip service and action. You could claim to follow him but you were a true follower if your actions demonstrated it. That theme is repeated by his followers when they are admonishing the churches. That’s why I tend to think he’d approve of legislation aimed at helping the poor, and the associated taxes.