(Spinoff on gtownspur's post about Jesus in the White House).
Let's see, what would Jesus's position be on today's issues?
1. For voluntary prayer and Bible classes in the Schools ("suffer the little ones to come to me and forbid them not")
2. Against abortion in almost all cases (bye-bye Roe v Wade "beautifully you were created in you mothers womb" )
3. Against hoarding great wealth (Corporate and individual greed is out "the love of money is the root of all evil) Acts 20:35
4. Against discrimination (bye-bye cronyism, racism. nepotism, political favors, etc.)
5. Against gay marriage (but has an powerful and intense spiritual love for them)
6. For a balanced budget (pork barreling is out, line item veto is used)
7. For posting the Ten Commandments everywhere (being its Author need I say more?)
8. Against taxation without represention (he encouraged those that have more to give to those that had less and what was given was accounted for in a responsible manner by those in charge of dispensing it)
Feel free to add to the list or expound it but don't even think about taking away from the list.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 10-29-2005 at 12:11 PM. Reason: more appropiate thread title
First of all, Jesus would NOT be president.
But if Jesus were, as much as he wouln't allow abortions, neither would he go to war or have the death penalty.
Other than that, I believe Jesus would be assassinated, even again this time around because he would always help the poor. And, that's just sad.
Jesus would be in favor of progressive income taxes.
“And he sat down over against the treasury, and beheld how the mul ude cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing[1/4 penny]. And he called unto him his disciples, and said unto them, 'Verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than all they that are casting into the treasury: for they all did cast in of their superfluity[abundance, excess--RG]; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living'” (Mk. 12:41-44; cf. Lk. 21:1-4).
(progessive income taxes mean that as you make more money your tax rate goes UP)
Agreed, thread le should have been entered as "where would he stand on the issues.
These seem to contradict one another.
________
Kids nexium
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:39 PM.
This entire bumper-sticker bull of "What would Jesus do" is degrading of Jesus, His life, and teachings, and simplistically childish in the extreme.
Worst, it's a sin of pride to pretend to "know" the Mind of God. Adam got his butt kicked out for his sin of "knowledge". Serious, mature Christians have the humility and respect not to play such silly parlor games.
^^^^
in that case since the woman gave her all, then jesus approving progressive taxes, would want everything from the rich and then more. The rich guy would then have to find a loan somehow.
[QUOTE]There's nothing childish or simplistic about bringing attention to the righteousness of Christ which is what the "What would Jesus do" question does.
However your thought about it is oversimplistic and totally lacking in spiritual insight and degrading in that you pretend to have enough knowledge of Christ and his nature to qualify you as a legitimate analyizer of spiritual do's and don't's. Any talk of Christ that urges us to reflect upon his perfection in making decisions is a form of worship of Him, I'm quite sure He doesn't consider that degrading.
Go back to you profane laced infantile tirades against the President, that's where you excel.
You're in dire need of an education in the difference between knowing and speculating. Maybe Mr. Dictionary is in the office today.Worst, it's a sin of pride to pretend to "know" the Mind of God. Adam got his butt kicked out for his sin of "knowledge".
This is not as laughable as you seem to think.^^^^
in that case since the woman gave her all, then jesus approving progressive taxes, would want everything from the rich and then more. The rich guy would then have to find a loan somehow.
Jesus understood the truth in that material things are transitory and meaningless in the end. You can't take it with you, and God doesn't give a rat's ass how much you are worth at the end of your life, merely that you were good and decent while living.
That said:
You have sadly, once again, missed the underlying concept. Not only that you have tried to set up a straw man. Sorry, I ain't gonna let you get away with that logical fallacy.
Jesus understood intuitively what you do not: "marginal income".
What the rich gave meant little to them. They had what they needed to live and thrive and then some. They gave of this excess.
There is an income level for any country at any time at which you have all the food, shelter, clothing that you need to physically survive. Beyond this point, you are going to add things that are not 100% necessary for sustaining life. Any income earned over that is "marginal", that is you will not be buying shoes , or enough food, you will be buying better shoes, better food, better shelter.
This is what progressive income taxes are based on. People making substantially more than they need to survive are taxed based on this concept.
What gay marriage and discrimination? Just like sex offender and discrimation,. Gay marriage is a sin of action and not of pigmentation or eye color. If all discrimination is un ethical,.. you then slip into relativity.
Discrimination is wrong when it is used to deny some ones basic freedom. Gays wanting marraige cannot argue the same. Marriage has always been in a hetero religous context. Had it been practiced by society as non gender then you'd have a reason to boot.
Sorry Random, i respect you alot. But the message of Christ in that verse was simple. It was that sacrificing and giving out of your heart was worth more than any gold, not that the more gold you give becuase your rich, meant that your were more honorable. This message was intended to be understandable to a young child. A young child would of not come out reading this verse wanting to vote for progressive taxes.
The message was that the rich guy gave less because it was no sacrifice. THe woman on the other hand gave less than the rich but more in heart because it was done in a pure heart.
Random, please show me with exegis (dont just tell me,) how this verse is about marginal income.
So then you're saying He'd have no problem with the Supreme Court's decisions concerning school prayer, since those decisions have never struck down the right of individual students to engage in voluntary prayer or Bible study in public schools? Those decisions only forbid the school from endorsing the activity or officially devoting school time to it (neutrality).
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 10-29-2005 at 03:13 PM.
If Jesus had wanted to be President,. or hold any other office, He would have. He didn't, so your premise favoring Theocratic government based on how He might govern is flawed.
You're talking about two different things, gtown.
Marriage is an ins ution of both the State and the Church. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the Church could prohibit same-sex marriages -- the Cons ution doesn't apply in churches, which allows churches to be as inclusive or discriminatory as they wish in terms of the dogma they preach. Certainly, it is clear that marriage in the religious context can (and maybe even should) be left exclusively for the union of a man and a woman.
The question, I think, is whether the State can act the same way. The 14th Amendment guarantees the Equal Protection of the laws to every citizen of every state. The provision can't mean literally what it says, because otherwise, a state couldn't prohibit felons from voting or put age limits on certain activities. There are obviously limits and certain different standards that apply to different contexts. But as a general principle, the Equal Protection Clause is understood to prohibit a State from denying a fundamental right to any citizen (again, there are minor exceptions, such as denying felons the franchise).
The right to marry one person has been understood to be a fundamental right. So, if the State can't deny a fundamental right to a person and marriage is a fundamental right, what is the legal basis (not the religious basis -- that whole separation of church and state thing) for denying someone the right to marry an individual of the same sex?
There has to be some sort of important governmental interest in prohibiting that activity and whatever limitation exists must be substantially related to achieving that interest.
If the State can articulate an important interest in limiting same-sex marriage, the second question is easily answered. But I have yet to hear any argument as to what important governmental interest is served by prohibiting same-sex marriages.
And, by the way, the law doesn't prohibit sexual marriages and doesn't allow all heterosexual marriages -- there is no doubt that the law permits a sexual man can marry a sexual woman; the law would prohibit a heterosexual man from marrying a heterosexual man.
Jesus would be a half Puerto Rican (with that name what else could you expect), half Palestinian long-haired hippie. He'd spend most of his time drinking wine, and living from welfare since he was forced to close his craftsman carpenter job due to unfair compe ion from multinational corporations.
he would be for war without end
for sure
Just wanted to clearify this point, Jesus did not write the Ten Commandments, according to the bible they were given to Moses in Mount Sinai after the jews left Egypt.
Oh, I think he'd have a problem with that fwd.
I'll say that He would want teaching of Himself and His Word to be given to all children who want it during prime school time, why wouldn't he?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That can be defined as so "separation of Church and State" only in the context of not establishing a State run Religion. It was meant to keep governments meddling, controlling hand from infringing on our religious freedom, not to keep Christian influences out of the lives of our children who spend a large portion of their lifetimes in public education. It was never intended to keep the children in public schools from practicing their religion openly in schools during school hours.
It's called electives, allow the children / parents to decide if they'd like to participate or not.
Yeah, well the United States Supreme Court has never disagreed with that premise. Cons utionally, students are permitted to practice their religion during school hours. If a school administrator stops a child from praying or reading the Bible or talking about religion with his or her friends, then the administrator is violating the child's rights. The Supreme Court's decisions make that very, very clear.
What the Supreme Court has also said, though, is that the school cannot provide a platform for the conveyance of religious messages and it cannot organize or offer religious activities for students. If students wish to convey messages on their own, their Free Exercise rights permit them to do so and again, a refusal to allow that conveyance is a cons utional violation (as long as the student isn't violating other school rules). If the students wish to organize a religious group and use school facilities to meet, that is cons utionally permissible, too (though the school can limit the meeting times to before or after school hours).
What more do you want? I mean, do you want public schools to offer whole courses on religion? If so, how do you account for the diversity of religious viewpoints? Do you have a class that caters to Christian beliefs, but no similar class for Jewish or Muslim or Hindu students? If so, why? Do you have similar classes for atheists and agnostics? I mean, if the idea is to allow religious instruction during school hours (which I would argue is cons utionally infirm) how do you facilitate all viewpoints? Or do you just not worry about those who don't share your Christian views?
Alot of people in the Bush administration who supoosedly praise Jesus, would actually hate Jesus' beliefs if Jesus were alive today.....hypocrites.
[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]I'm sure I stated as much. There's a serious morality problem in our Country and at last look it was because of the actions of real-live human beings who have gone through a Public Education system that has attempted to remove every vestige of morality from within its confines for a generation or two.What more do you want? I mean, do you want public schools to offer whole courses on religion?
They've done us a real favor, ay?
School vouchers that allow parents to send their children to the schools of their choice including private religiously affiliated schools. After all, religious poeple pay the bulk of the taxes. (most people declare a religious preference)If so, how do you account for the diversity of religious viewpoints? Do you have a class that caters to Christian beliefs, but no similar class for Jewish or Muslim or Hindu students?
Electives, not going to the classes should satisfy the athiests and agnostics.Do you have similar classes for atheists and agnostics?
There probably are, would you care to provide some of the "lot" by name and explain why they would hate his beliefs?
If Jesus ran for office, he'd be accused of being a liberal socialist and wouldn't even win his party's nomination.
Well, Bush is a liar, and Jesus wouldn't lie,
Bush and his pals don't like helping the poor, Jesus does.
Both of those reasons alone;
all of a sudden they would say Jesus is worse than Clinton and alot of nonsense like that. But since Jesus is not here, they will lie and say they worship him.
Baloney.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
