Jesus was a "Liberal"

[porkenbeans]

Jesus was president of Costa Rica. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs ... nez_Zamora

You crack me up sometimes, FALL-OUT OUT-HOUSE BOY.

[mpjh]

Ahh, go brush your teeth. At least I wanted to bring up examples of real people, leading real lives.

[muy_thaiguy]

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”- No spreading the wealth, nothing like that. Just give what is their due, or their's to keep. Not exactly the most Liberal thing now a days.

Though I do consider myself more Conservative then Liberal on just about anything, my views also tend to fall onto a centrist point of view.

Also, one must also take into account that "liberal" and "conservative" happen to change depending upon the generation. Personally, I'd consider myself a Teddy Roosevelt Republican (yes, I am a registered Rep.) rather then a Reaganist. Though, might I point out one thing?

On the issue of abortion. I see it the way that you do. Well kinda. I believe that our shared view is not a Conservative, but a Liberal one. My concern is for the babies liberty. His rights. To take those rights away from that person is against everything that liberty stands for. The Woman's Rights movement that was fighting for their right to vote, was welcomed by the left. Their cause was a liberal one. But as they grew in power, Their platform changed to included women's right to an abortion. The word itself is anti-liberal, that is if you look at it from the baby's point of view. The left in my view needs to resolve this contradiction if they want to carry the liberal banner of JESUS.

The issue of abortion really hasn't changed all that much since it went to the Supreme Court. Conservative-Against Liberal-For. Before, it was really an underground thing.

And one last thing. To label Jesus Christ as a singular political ideology isn't really the thing to do. Mainly because 2000 years ago was one time. Now a days, one can really only assume what Jesus would do with certain circumstances, like Homosexuals. Love them? Most likely. Forgive them? Yes. Approve them getting married, that is a borderline issue altogether.

[Nobunaga]

.. John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

... In other words, if you're not a Christian, you are condemned.

... Pretty much the very core of Christian belief, spelled out by Jesus in his own words.

...

[black elk speaks]

Mark 8

14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

I like this one, It makes me think that you aught not be so quick to jump on the handouts of the government.

You are on the right track, but, your understanding of this lesson falls way short. What he was trying to communicate to his followers was not, that, accepting charity is a bad thing, but, rather dont buy in to the spoils of a corrupt and godless ruler. If you eat the bread, you are bowing before the wrong god. We know of this term today as the "dirty money" expression.
...try again.

And I think that you are missing the point. I read that passage as him saying that the food offered by the corrupt, is in and of itself, corrupt. To subject to it is to, in turn, corrupt yourself. Like today, and hear this all you liberals... to take the government cheese is to take the cheese that was forcibly taken from others, in the form of taxes, skimmed off, in the form of "Government Overhead Expenses" and tossed to the people to squabble over in welfare lines. You cannot be a shining example for Christ if you are wallowing in your own hardship asking the government to help you. Instead, ask your church for help for they will nourish both the body, mind and spirit.

That is what I read in that verse, anyway.

[nagerous]

Jesus was a socialist! Ten reasons:
1. Jesus owned nothing. 2. Jesus argued for the dissolution of the family and the establishment of communes. 3. Jesus loved all people regardless of ethnicity or class. 4. Jesus revolted against the imperial government, established religion and finance capitalism (usury). 5. Jesus taught that we should act as one body, one blood. 6. Jesus taught that his kingdom (ie nation state) is in the heart and not below the feet. 7. Jesus taught that we should fight for Justice and 'turn the other cheek' to petty morality. 8. Jesus was a laborer and a teacher. 9. Jesus practiced healing and forgiveness. 10. Jesus taught that you can't be an imperialist and a disciple at the same time.

[lgoasklucyl]

Jesus was a socialist! Ten reasons:
1. Jesus owned nothing. 2. Jesus argued for the dissolution of the family and the establishment of communes. 3. Jesus loved all people regardless of ethnicity or class. 4. Jesus revolted against the imperial government, established religion and finance capitalism (usury). 5. Jesus taught that we should act as one body, one blood. 6. Jesus taught that his kingdom (ie nation state) is in the heart and not below the feet. 7. Jesus taught that we should fight for Justice and 'turn the other cheek' to petty morality. 8. Jesus was a laborer and a teacher. 9. Jesus practiced healing and forgiveness. 10. Jesus taught that you can't be an imperialist and a disciple at the same time.

-Do you think then, maybe, this Jesus may have accepted homosexuals?

[mpjh]

Absolutely, without doubt. A guy running around the country with 12 other guys preaching love and forgiveness, absolutely.

[nagerous]

Jesus's views on homosexuals are unknown, however he never says anything negative about them.

[StiffMittens]

Absolutely, without doubt. A guy running around the country with 12 other guys preaching love and forgiveness, absolutely.

Don't forget all that washing of each other's feet and anointing each other with oils.

[lgoasklucyl]

Jesus's views on homosexuals are unknown, however he never says anything negative about them.

Well I'm in position to assume with the amount he spoke of peace, love, and acceptance he preached I doubt he would have spoken against them. If so, he would have spoken out against a LOT more than just homosexuals- none of which we see. He probably didn't support them because the SOCIETY of the time was anti-homosexuals, something bible-quoting people should realize. Something that should have changed in 2,000 years. But, that's okay, I suppose setting aside our other advances in technology and social policy we can revert to discrimination based on social taboos of 2,000 years ago...

[jesterhawk]

On the issue of abortion. I see it the way that you do. Well kinda. I believe that our shared view is not a Conservative, but a Liberal one. My concern is for the babies liberty. His rights. To take those rights away from that person is against everything that liberty stands for. The Woman's Rights movement that was fighting for their right to vote, was welcomed by the left. Their cause was a liberal one. But as they grew in power, Their platform changed to included women's right to an abortion. The word itself is anti-liberal, that is if you look at it from the baby's point of view. The left in my view needs to resolve this contradiction if they want to carry the liberal banner of JESUS.

The issue of abortion really hasn't changed all that much since it went to the Supreme Court. Conservative-Against Liberal-For. Before, it was really an underground thing.

And one last thing. To label Jesus Christ as a singular political ideology isn't really the thing to do. Mainly because 2000 years ago was one time. Now a days, one can really only assume what Jesus would do with certain circumstances, like Homosexuals. Love them? Most likely. Forgive them? Yes. Approve them getting married, that is a borderline issue altogether.

I think you are missing PorkenBeans point, which could be restated like this. If Jesus was to show up today (not the second coming but come like he did back 2000 years ago) he would shock a lot of people. The reason is that he would not do what the "Christians" have come to expect him to do. Think of the woman caught in adultery, what did Jesus do? Did he jump in and stone her? Did he shout condemning scriptures at her? Did he damn her to hell? No, first he dealt with her accusers and then he just loved on her. We, as Christians, should take a good long look at him and learn a lesson especially when it comes to dealing with other people. To get back to what you said about Homosexuals. Jesus would most definitely love on them (you said most likely). But there are many who are too busy shouting at them that they are going to hell to stop and love on them like Jesus would.

In short, he would be seen just as much a radical today by even the "religious" leaders as he was back 2000 years ago, and remember it was the religious leaders that plotted to have him crucified.

JH

[jesterhawk]

Jesus's views on homosexuals are unknown, however he never says anything negative about them.

Well I'm in position to assume with the amount he spoke of peace, love, and acceptance he preached I doubt he would have spoken against them. If so, he would have spoken out against a LOT more than just homosexuals- none of which we see. He probably didn't support them because the SOCIETY of the time was anti-homosexuals, something bible-quoting people should realize. Something that should have changed in 2,000 years. But, that's okay, I suppose setting aside our other advances in technology and social policy we can revert to discrimination based on social taboos of 2,000 years ago...

Ummm, check your history. As Greek influences flood the Roman empire homosexuality became very accepted and emperor Nero may have been the first to marry a male (if Edward Gibbon is right). Point being that homosexuality is not new at all. It may not have always been accepted as it has gone through periods of acceptances and non-acceptance and disdain, but it is not new and the idea of it being socially acceptable it not new either.

JH

[lgoasklucyl]

Jesus's views on homosexuals are unknown, however he never says anything negative about them.

Well I'm in position to assume with the amount he spoke of peace, love, and acceptance he preached I doubt he would have spoken against them. If so, he would have spoken out against a LOT more than just homosexuals- none of which we see. He probably didn't support them because the SOCIETY of the time was anti-homosexuals, something bible-quoting people should realize. Something that should have changed in 2,000 years. But, that's okay, I suppose setting aside our other advances in technology and social policy we can revert to discrimination based on social taboos of 2,000 years ago...

Ummm, check your history. As Greek influences flood the Roman empire homosexuality became very accepted and emperor Nero may have been the first to marry a male (if Edward Gibbon is right). Point being that homosexuality is not new at all. It may not have always been accepted as it has gone through periods of acceptances and non-acceptance and disdain, but it is not new and the idea of it being socially acceptable it not new either.

JH

"At the same time, it should be noted that various other "homosexual" practices in Greece and Rome were vehemently derided and denounced (e.g. male effeminacy, the sodomitical penetration of an adult Roman citizen by another citizen, or allowing oneself to be penetrated by a slave, etc.). Plutarch, for instance, refers to "the intercourse of man with man" as an "immorality or assault" and adds: "we regard men who take pleasure in passive submission as practicing the lowest kind of vice." Classical antiquity thus bequeathed to nascent Christianity a pagan milieu in which many forms of "homosexual" behavior were regularly reviled and denounced. This milieu lent itself to combination with the Judaic prohibitions found in Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Christianity was thus able to present itself as effecting (among other things) a purification and completion of pagan sexual morality."

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned. The Christian emperor Justinian (527-565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."

On Nero
-Nero doing it himself did not raise tolerance for it within society. The book actually states 'he utilized his two 'marriages' to ignite rage''. That doesn't seem too widely accepted to me.

[luns101]

This thread is for all of you "Christian Conservatives" out there, to please explain to the rest of us, just why it is, that you wrap yourselves with the blanket of Christ, But, You do not follow your own Lord ? I want to hear what it was about Jesus, that led you to believe he was anything less than a Liberal.

Not really sure the right way to respond to this, pork. I'll try.

Personally, I don't believe that Jesus concerned himself with earthly political power that much because He was constantly talking about the Kingdom of God. Earthly kingdoms only have temporary political power and fade away. Jesus talked about eternity and the way to achieve it was by being reconciled to God through Himself. When I say that, I'm referring to His sacrificial death on the cross for our sins. Anyone who accepts that message has their sins forgiven and is redeemed.

I do hold what is considered politically conservative positions based on the totality of what the Bible says. My uncle, his daughter, and my great-aunt hold very liberal positions. They are still believers in Christ and we worship together. They voted for Obama and I didn't, but we still all worship Jesus Christ. I disagree vehemently with Jimmy Carter's political stances but he does claim to love the Lord, and I do believe I'll be seeing him in heaven when we both die.

[Napoleon Ier]

I completely agree that Jesus was a liberal in the classical, Gladstonian sense. In fact there's an excellent book on the subject, Un Libéral nommé Jésus, which I should try to dig out. This however has little to do with "liberal" in the modern Anglo-Saxon sense.

[Nobunaga]

... If a Christian approaches you and warns you of Hell, and tells you that you must accept Christ if you hope to avoid eternal damnation.... Would that be a conservative speaking?

... I ask because many people become very much offended when told this, accusing the speaker of being small-minded, backward (which connotes conservative values), even Republican.

... But Jesus said this himself. Are these the words of a liberal, at least in the context of this somewhat skewed discussion?

...

[Napoleon Ier]

Jesus's views on homosexuals are unknown, however he never says anything negative about them.

Well I'm in position to assume with the amount he spoke of peace, love, and acceptance he preached I doubt he would have spoken against them. If so, he would have spoken out against a LOT more than just homosexuals- none of which we see. He probably didn't support them because the SOCIETY of the time was anti-homosexuals, something bible-quoting people should realize. Something that should have changed in 2,000 years. But, that's okay, I suppose setting aside our other advances in technology and social policy we can revert to discrimination based on social taboos of 2,000 years ago...

Ummm, check your history. As Greek influences flood the Roman empire homosexuality became very accepted and emperor Nero may have been the first to marry a male (if Edward Gibbon is right). Point being that homosexuality is not new at all. It may not have always been accepted as it has gone through periods of acceptances and non-acceptance and disdain, but it is not new and the idea of it being socially acceptable it not new either.

JH

"At the same time, it should be noted that various other "homosexual" practices in Greece and Rome were vehemently derided and denounced (e.g. male effeminacy, the sodomitical penetration of an adult Roman citizen by another citizen, or allowing oneself to be penetrated by a slave, etc.). Plutarch, for instance, refers to "the intercourse of man with man" as an "immorality or assault" and adds: "we regard men who take pleasure in passive submission as practicing the lowest kind of vice." Classical antiquity thus bequeathed to nascent Christianity a pagan milieu in which many forms of "homosexual" behavior were regularly reviled and denounced. This milieu lent itself to combination with the Judaic prohibitions found in Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Christianity was thus able to present itself as effecting (among other things) a purification and completion of pagan sexual morality."

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned. The Christian emperor Justinian (527-565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."

On Nero
-Nero doing it himself did not raise tolerance for it within society. The book actually states 'he utilized his two 'marriages' to ignite rage''. That doesn't seem too widely accepted to me.

That is however, utter bollocks. I can't speak for the statistics on adoption you say you've studied at an advanced level, but this is just a historical travesty. When you consider the radicality of Jesus' teachings, the acceptance of the Samaritans, of women as witnesses, the association with the Roman military, to claim he was completely conditioned by the context of his time is just false.

Homosexuality is widely considered by most serious classicists not be an applicable in the context of antiquity anyway.

[porkenbeans]

This thread is for all of you "Christian Conservatives" out there, to please explain to the rest of us, just why it is, that you wrap yourselves with the blanket of Christ, But, You do not follow your own Lord ? I want to hear what it was about Jesus, that led you to believe he was anything less than a Liberal.

Not really sure the right way to respond to this, pork. I'll try.

Personally, I don't believe that Jesus concerned himself with earthly political power that much because He was constantly talking about the Kingdom of God. Earthly kingdoms only have temporary political power and fade away. Jesus talked about eternity and the way to achieve it was by being reconciled to God through Himself. When I say that, I'm referring to His sacrificial death on the cross for our sins. Anyone who accepts that message has their sins forgiven and is redeemed.

I do hold what is considered politically conservative positions based on the totality of what the Bible says. My uncle, his daughter, and my great-aunt hold very liberal positions. They are still believers in Christ and we worship together. They voted for Obama and I didn't, but we still all worship Jesus Christ. I disagree vehemently with Jimmy Carter's political stances but he does claim to love the Lord, and I do believe I'll be seeing him in heaven when we both die.

Hello brother Luns, It is always good to hear from you. I appreciate your views, and never skip past YOUR posts. This thread however, is an attempt to give Con. Christians a chance to show the rest of us any examples from the bible, that, Jesus was NOT a Liberal. In this thread, I am not interested in anyone's personal, political, or religious views. I just want "RED WORD" examples that go to prove my contention incorrect. And that is, "Jesus was the biggest bleeding heart liberal that ever walked the earth". The red words belong to Jesus. I want to hear his words used to prove me wrong. I have searched and not found in any of his words, anything that would lead me to believe that he was a Conservative. I have however, found much evidence, to how he felt about hippocracy.

[luns101]

Hello brother Luns, It is always good to hear from you. I appreciate your views, and never skip past YOUR posts. This thread however, is an attempt to give Con. Christians a chance to show the rest of us any examples from the bible, that, Jesus was NOT a Liberal. In this thread, I am not interested in anyone's personal, political, or religious views. I just want "RED WORD" examples that go to prove my contention incorrect. And that is, "Jesus was the biggest bleeding heart liberal that ever walked the earth". The red words belong to Jesus. I want to hear his words used to prove me wrong. I have searched and not found in any of his words, anything that would lead me to believe that he was a Conservative. I have however, found much evidence, to how he felt about hippocracy.

Thanks buddy!

I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that Jesus was more concerned with peoples' souls than a political ideology. Speaking as a conservative Christian myself, I find it ludicrous if someone tried to make the case that He was either a liberal or conservative. He is the Son of God for us who worship Him, and He said that His kingdom was not of this world.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Jesus was basically apolitical. He basically just said go about your business and give your taxes to The Man, cuz it's not going to matter in the end anyways.

I don't think He'd care one way or the other, socialist or capitalist - he didn't preach to or about governments, he preached to and about people.

[Snorri1234]

Jesus was basically apolitical. He basically just said go about your business and give your taxes to The Man, cuz it's not going to matter in the end anyways.

I don't think He'd care one way or the other, socialist or capitalist - he didn't preach to or about governments, he preached to and about people.

Well there are actually also quite a few things that concern people that the gov does.

[porkenbeans]

Hello brother Luns, It is always good to hear from you. I appreciate your views, and never skip past YOUR posts. This thread however, is an attempt to give Con. Christians a chance to show the rest of us any examples from the bible, that, Jesus was NOT a Liberal. In this thread, I am not interested in anyone's personal, political, or religious views. I just want "RED WORD" examples that go to prove my contention incorrect. And that is, "Jesus was the biggest bleeding heart liberal that ever walked the earth". The red words belong to Jesus. I want to hear his words used to prove me wrong. I have searched and not found in any of his words, anything that would lead me to believe that he was a Conservative. I have however, found much evidence, to how he felt about hippocracy.

Thanks buddy!

I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that Jesus was more concerned with peoples' souls than a political ideology. Speaking as a conservative Christian myself, I find it ludicrous if someone tried to make the case that He was either a liberal or conservative. He is the Son of God for us who worship Him, and He said that His kingdom was not of this world.

I do understand that you may find it ludicrous. But why do you find it ludicrous. Are there any red words that led you to this belief. That is what I am after. The crowd that you belong to are always dictating and speaking with such authority. But I am weary of hearing from mans words. I want to hear from the man himself. I am not saying that he would subscribe to any political party. This is not my point. What kind of a man was he, what did he do and say while he was here. From what I have read, I believe that he showed us how he wanted us to live, by his example. Please show me just one example of Jesus ever acting like a Conservative. Your group is not dissimilar from the radical Muslims that have hijacked Islam. And I believe that good people like yourself have let themselves be caught up in this perversion of religion. Do you think that those suicide bombers are evil ? and are trying to do bad. Or maybe, they too are just as brainwashed as your crowd. I would argue that they are even more devout and full of faith than the Christan brand of fanatics that we have here at home. If we all would just live by the example that Jesus gave, No longer would this world be so divided. And I have to think that this would bring a smile to HIS beautiful face.
....I would feel honored if I had the power to make him smile. ...YOU ?

[brooksieb]

This thread is for all of you "Christian Conservatives" out there, to please explain to the rest of us, just why it is, that you wrap yourselves with the blanket of Christ, But, You do not follow your own Lord ? I want to hear what it was about Jesus, that led you to believe he was anything less than a Liberal. When I read the red words of the holy book, I see a man, that was the polar opposite of everything "Cons." stand for. This is the biggest con job, in modern history. If the Liberals crowned Jesus as its Founding member, They would have far more creditability, than you hypocrites. Please for the rest of us, quote some red words that support your ideology. And remember, HITLER was a consertive, and, that JESUS guy, ...was a LIBERAL.

For his time Jesus was liberal, put into todays' world he could well be put into conservative status, anyway Jesus should be loved and respected by everyone, in Christianity he is regarded as the son of god, in Islam a highly revered profit, even in Hinduism and Buddhism he is regarded as saints status (even to go as far as being a re-incarnation of a god), though the religions existed before christ was born, christ comes in many different forms and each must be respected.

[Napoleon Ier]

Jesus was basically apolitical. He basically just said go about your business and give your taxes to The Man, cuz it's not going to matter in the end anyways.

I don't think He'd care one way or the other, socialist or capitalist - he didn't preach to or about governments, he preached to and about people.

Insofar as Socialism is based on a flagrant violation of human rights, which Jesus very much believed in, I'd say he'd care. You can't call Jesus completely apolitical without ending up in a self-defeating scenario in which you start having to draw arbitrary lines in the sand. I mean, would Jesus have cared about the Commies coming to power, or about the Nazis? I'd like to think so. Fundamentally, the only system compatible with objective morality is libertarianism. Hence really a foundation of the idea that Jesus was a liberal, in the classical sense. To an extent though, you're right, in that he clearly had concerns for far bigger things.