I have noticed a fad of political discrimination going around, that presumes to be in the mind of Christ and label his political stance. We all know this could go round and round, the funniest one is "Jesus is a socialist" because he broke his bread and fish and gave it away....
I just have to say, if Jesus was a socialist, he would have sent his disciple and that food to Caesar, way over in Rome, The Roman government would dry the fish, crumble the bread and disperse it to those they deem worthy to get hand-outs. This is honestly what Jesus would have to do to be a socialist, but he gave directly to the people he intended to help, much like people who give directly to a food pantry or a group of people. HELLO!!!
Now in spite of my political opinions, I am not going to pretend Jesus can fit into politics, far from it, he stayed as far away from politics and religion as possible, to the religious elite, he was there worst nightmare, to the government, he was a whisper, stealthy, not even noticed....that is how I want to be, he said he is not of this world, if it were so, He would have stood up to Pilot.... he is not your political pansy folks...quit misquoting scripture to fit your personal desires...I can make him out to be a total conservative if I wanted, One man and one woman, he loved children he would never allow abortion...etc etc... so lets not fit him in a box...he is so much bigger than you or me!!!!!
Um no. You actually cannot make Jesus into a conservative for a few reasons. By the original definition of conservative, the Edmund Burk types, it means that change should not happen too quickly. It needs to happen very slowly so we can see what effects a given policy may have, and can reverse course early before it's too late (in this sense, many of us would be "conservative"). But this view does not necessarily support any policies in particular. It depends on the time one lives in.
As to the way "conservative" is used today on social issues, Jesus is COMPLETE SILENT on both abortion and homosexuality, and also says in 3/4 gospels to sell all of your stuff. But that is another story. There are no verses for you to quote that could support Jesus one way or the other on either of these issues. And the fact that Jesus is SILENT on homosexuality especially, given that other parts of the Bible mention it, shows he just didn't see it as a big deal.
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12
OK this doesn't show anything about homosexuality. Pay attention to the question the Pharisee is actually asking. Since the wonderful Moses (who the inerrant has to account for Jesus smacking down) claimed you could divorce for any reason, the Pharisee was attempting to bait Jesus into saying Moses was wrong. And apparently Jesus took the bait. This is only about a man and woman divorcing.
And, if homosexuality was important to Jesus, he would've been much more direct than a parable responding to a question about divorce. I'm not arguing that Jesus was pro-gay, but only that he is silent. Therefore, he cannot be used as evidence against homosexuality.
The entire context is about divorce, not sexual orientation.
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Matthew 19: 1-11.
If you insist that the verse does condemn homosexuality, I'd like you to explain how this verse should be understood when, taken LITERALLY, actually accepts homosexuality among men as perfectly normal.
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15There is nothing from without a man, that ENTERING into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
I don't see in what way giving the food to the Roman government would be a socialist move? As for Jesus, he also reflects your own desires! Why would he be others' but yours?
yes maxowhatever.... I wrote the book...it was me...LOL... and maybe you should read up on socialism first.... and you would understand the idea of pro-socialists and pro-communists idea of taking a lot from their people and then giving a little of it back to those they deem approved, before anyone has a chance to willingly give to those they truly know are in need.
you look familiar....are you the same guy haunting religious/political forums for the last few years? maybe its another guy I'm thinking of... if it is you...honey, go get some sun..... you'll feel so much better...:)Its all up to you tho...
Of course today its the newest fad among liberal intellectuals to dispove ,disrespect and dispose of the whole GOD issue. As long as its anti -christian its cool!
Why associating both ideologies if you knew what they were? Let me precise the question about your fallacious allegory, in what way Jesus giving to the Roman government (representing the elite i.e. the means, the capital) is a just comparison to socialism?
Because then Jesus would be inserting the government as the intermediary between the people and the poor. He would have been sanctioning the redistribution of wealth and preaching that the government had a legitimate role. Instead he bypassed the government and appealed to each individual persons sense of duty. He told everyone to look in the mirror and do what was right.
The only reason he said the famous "Render unto Caesar...." comment was because he was being asked a trick question and he avoided an act of sedition with a clever retort. He told them to look at the coins they held and asked whose name was on it. They realized that he was telling them they were under his rule so they had to do it if they wished to submit to him. But at the same time Jesus was saying he was not of this earth and he submitted to another authority.
At least that's how I see it. I think it's a bit complicated.
Are you Angel? People like her pretending to know something bother me. The only reason why I questioned her is to nail her! Her silence is explicit enough!
As for you, you are not answering the question.
My take on Jesus is that he he wasn't a politician, and therefore wouldn't have been a socialist (if socialism as an ideology and movement had existed in the time of the slave-owning Roman Empire), but he probably would have sympathized with the socialist movement, because of its basic spirit of rebellion against the dominance of the wealthy, its drive toward equalizing opportunity and access to resources, and notion of social liberation.
However, Jesus in my view was more of a guru — his teachings to his followers were directed inwardly, to self-examination, self-awareness, spiritual awakening, and the need for change in personal behavior. Nowadays, a figure like that who comes to mind is Eckhart Tolle, and there may be others. Of course, there was Jesus's episode of rage against the money-lenders in the temple — but that seems more like outrage against the Judaic establishment rather than an outbreak of political revolt.
If Jesus were a socialist, why would a socialist want to collect resources from the poor and deliver them to Caesar, the head of state of the Roman wealthy slave-owning ruling class?
In my view, the figure in the Roman era who most comes to mind representing political revolt and a socialist impulse is Spartacus, who envisioned a society where political power would be transferred into the hands of the slaves and masses of working people, and who attempted to lead a revolt of liberation against the Roman emperor and slave-owning ruling class.
Before somebody else jumps on this, I'd better qualify my comparison of Eckhart Tolle with Jesus. If Jesus were suddenly to appear today, I doubt he'd be charging double and triple-digit prices to hear his message; he'd probably look like an unshaven homeless guy walking mainly around in impoverished parts of town, trying to perform some kind of healing and to get people to listen to him. The Christian establishment (across the spectrum) would probably denounce him as a charlatan and imposter.
My Jesus was a rebel and a revolutionary for Religious teachings and to welcome flocks of people into Christianity. He got angry and concerned with regard as to what was happening with sinful ways of money and treatment of others - HE - brought a total change into a world whether you accepted it or not. My question of late is - Did Jesus Christ lose his Human Character once he arose into HIS Father's Heaven and become the omnimportant Spirit - His Father intended?
No fair co-opting Jesus to support liberal politics; we conservatives already called dibs on Jesus to support right-wing politics!
the image is too small to read so here it is in readable version http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/photos/unc … ushweb.JPG
Jesus would be a who he was.... he would be the conscience of the world. Each person has to decide what role government plays in our lives and try to find the balance that lifts the most boats. Your vote should be influenced by your values and Jesus is a resource in that regard.
But never think that Jesus was soft on sin. He saved the adultress from stoning and taught us about judging; but then he looked at her and said, "Sin no more."
If you wish to sin and use his "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" as cover for your actions then remember that you have to answer to him because he CLEARLY told her not to sin.
This is just how I interpret it....
by James Smith4 years ago
This is partially a joke - everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them. A question to consider though: although Jesus advocated compassion, charity and liberty, he did not advocate the use of violence to achieve any end,...
by Gable Rhoads4 years ago
Do you more experienced Hubbers believe writing about controversial topics like politics hurts or help your page traffic? For example, if you disagree with someone's political Hub, will you not visit their other Hubs?
by ahorseback2 weeks ago
One could argue that the left is and has been the politically, loudest voice for decades , Since the sixties at least , However the pure , raw political obstructionism and corruption of...
by cooldad12 months ago
In another forum, someone posted that they dumped their significant other because he/she voted for George Bush. I was kind of shocked by that. It seemed incredibly shallow to me, but I don't know either of...
by James Smith4 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter5 weeks ago
Why do emotions run so high between some Republicans and some Democrats? Is there any room for compromise? Does being a member of the "other party" make a person a bad person?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.