jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (59 posts)

Would Jesus Be a Conservative OR Liberal

  1. profile image0
    awesome77posted 6 years ago

    What political philosophy do you think Jesus would lean towards? A careful look at his teachings point to him been conservative on personal responsibilities. Feel free to speculate if JESUS would be a conservative or Liberal!

    1. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Scottish Nationalist

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image65
        prettydarkhorseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Please explain Dave!

    2. lady_love158 profile image57
      lady_love158posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      No question... definitely a conservative! The libs will point to his calls for helping those in need as an order to spread the wealth and characterise Him as a socialist... but Jesus wanted us to do so of our own volition not through force!

      1. profile image0
        Texasbetaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Really? Let's see what the Bible says Jesus instructed at the choosing of the Apostles:

        "All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
        (Acts 2:44-45)

        "Lawyered"

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          That was a religious community voluntarily sharing their property - sounds pretty conservative.  If they were atheists forced to "share" equally than I would say they were liberals.

          1. profile image61
            stoneyyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The babble instructs the selling of things and give them to the poor.  Gee, I don't see all these wealthy Christians, or Christian institutions divesting themselves to aid the poor.

            The Jesus character was a hypocrite, and a liar. He was being taken to task for being anointed with expensive oil instead of selling it to help the poor.  "You won't always have me" was his response.

            All an atheist is is a person who isn't a theist.  What the person does or doesn't do is their business.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Your profile name says it all.

            2. profile image0
              Texasbetaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Interesting, so if flat out socialism happens as instructions from Jesus as to how the Apostles were to handle their belongings and needs, then it is "conservative", because it involved religious people. However, if the people WEREN'T religious, then it is socialism and bad huh? What a joke. YOUR OWN BOOK is liberal. The only thing, the single argument that could be made, is about abortion rights. Liberals support the rights of the mother to terminate pregnancy, and conservatives don't. HOWEVER, every single other thing either is a shared sin or liberal leaning in its instruction. Gay rights? Liberals support it, however it was listed in DEUT along with a list of things that were sins, which include wearing of blended fabrics, touching a woman during her period, and the like...which all party constituents do, so the entire list acts a shared sin, being that we both do or support it. See what I mean? Aside from that...do you see your hypocrisy?

              1. profile image0
                Texasbetaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Oh yeah..."lawyered."

              2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Voluntary!  Voluntary! Voluntary!  that is the key to conservative.  If one is compelled to share it is liberal, if one shares because one chooses to share it is conservative.  I know the point is wasted on liberals but it is a salient difference.

                1. profile image0
                  Texasbetaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  No, that makes sense. I get your point. Then, why exactly does Boehner drive a Mercedes? If he is a conservative, then by your logic, he would choose to give away his property to those who need it more, and choose to sacrifice for the poor, because they are poor...and only take what is needed.  However, he doesn't...in fact, quite the opposite. So, if "choosing" to give all and only take what is needed is limited and defining of conservatives, then why don't conservatives do it? Wouldn't that, by definition, make them NOT conservatives...based upon your logic obviously? Choosing to share and only take what is needed would seem to me to define one who is Christian, rather than conservative wouldn't it? Conservatives don't have to be Christians and Christians do not have to be conservative. In fact, the intended point is that Christians have more in common with liberal causes than conservatives causes.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    No as a conservative I say, "He will do as he does and I will do as I do.  Each must work out for himself the nature of his salvation.  Absolutes being unworkable, if he seeks the disruption of civilized society, the impeding of another's search for salvation or the violation of another's natural rights - than I will do what is necessary to stop him.  Boehner is doing none of these"

                    Liberals seek to compel.  One cannot act morally if compelled to do so since free choice is the primary component of moral action.  Liberals seek to insulate people from the negative consequences of their own choices and to supplant a heavenly directive with a governmental one.  By defining equality, freedom and justice as material things vested in an active government one eliminates God and freedom from the equation yielding a purely materialistic definition of humanity, spirituality and salvation.

                    1. Jane Bovary profile image83
                      Jane Bovaryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                      I guess God was a liberal then because isn't a 'heaveny directive" a kind of compulsion, based on the threat of damnation and the reward of Heaven? Where's the freedom?

                2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  If one is forced it isn't liberal, it is slavery.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Really, so all those taxes taken from me merely to transfer to another citizen isn't compulsion.  The welfare state isn't compulsion.  Obamacare contains no compulsion.  The liberal possesses a vision of a prefect-able society along the lines of his fantasy and seeks to compel others to live in his fantasy. It is a pattern repeated time and again.  It fails and it is insidious.

                    It is precisely the imperfect-ability of humanity and a reliance on natural law that make Christianity a conservative philosophy

          2. profile image61
            stoneyyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Communism.  EEK!  The 'Red Scare!"

      2. profile image61
        stoneyyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Conservative or Liberal?  Clearly, the answer is 'yes.'  Fictional characters can be anything and everything.

      3. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Jesus was a liberal, his world changing views/philosophy were so anti-conformist that they got him killed.

      4. profile image0
        Texasbetaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Let's be honest...if some guy showed up looking like an Arabic hippie, walking on water...it would be on YOUTUBE in 3 minutes, and the first comment below the video would be : "fag!"

        Ann Coulter would have posted said post.

      5. Wayne V profile image52
        Wayne Vposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I shall get shot out of the water for this, but considering his teachings of a new Kingdom and all, to the Romans(Modern West) he would have been a terrorist inciting rebellion etc.

        1. DTR0005 profile image85
          DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Not shot out of the water, but applauded -

    3. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

      Many mistakenly assume Jesus to be a liberal because of his redistribution ideas (i.e. give all you have to the poor, etc).

      What they fail to realize is that Jesus was saying we should do so out of a heart of love and compassion for our fellow man, not because the government mandates that we do so.

      I'm sure somebody will also say "well, Jesus also said "render to Caeasr (government) the things that are Caesar's" meaning we should follow all government edicts, although I don't believe he would endorse government abuses and overreaching....

      1. kerryg profile image84
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Jesus went way beyond telling people to "spread the wealth" out of "love and compassion for our fellow men." He argued that the pursuit of wealth was completely incompatible with a life of virtue and suggested that the only way for a rich man to redeem himself and be saved was to literally give away everything he owned.

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The book of Timothy also establishes that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, not money itself.

          Read in context, I believe Jesus was warning of the danger of allowing material wealth to become a god in and of itself...

          1. kerryg profile image84
            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "I believe Jesus was warning of the danger of allowing material wealth to become a god in and of itself..."

            Yes, but the point is that money and material possessions are the rich person's god by definition.

            In Matthew 19:16-24, for example, that young man has done everything right - lived a virtuous life and kept the commandments - but he can't bring himself to give up his wealth, so he is unfit to become a disciple or to enter the kingdom of heaven. The only way you can prove that money and material possessions have no hold over you is to give them all up. "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

            1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
              BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Operative words are that he couldn't bring himself to give up his wealth.  He had made wealth his God.  Not every wealthy person does so.

              In fact, I have known people who would be considered poor that are far more stingy with their money than rich people.

              Being a pauper is not a corner on the morality market....

              1. kerryg profile image84
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                "Not every wealthy person does so."

                Uh huh. How many wealthy people do you know who would give away everything but the clothes on their back and go wander the earth as an itinerant preacher? How many people, period? By the standards of Jesus's time, we all live like emperors...

      2. Jane Bovary profile image83
        Jane Bovaryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Nice rationalization there Billy Ritchie but not very convincing.

        Would Jesus be likely to support a political philosophy that advocated taking care of the weakest/poorest members of society or would he support a philosophy that ensured that the interests of the affluent and comfortable were protected and the poor had to rely on the whim of charity?

        After all, according to the NT rich people won't even be able to get into Heaven...that'll stop a lot af conservatives at the door for a start.

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          So I guess we assume that Jesus would side with the liberals, no wait, there's that whole thing about homosexuality being an abomination, which turns out the gay community (a liberal base) and murder being unacceptable, which rules out the pro-choice crowd.

          Dilemma, dilemma.....

          1. kerryg profile image84
            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Jesus didn't say a word about homosexuality. The NT mentions are mostly from Paul, who didn't even know Jesus. Given that Jesus hung around with and/or defended other social outcasts such as prostitutes, adulterers, and tax collectors, I doubt he would have objected to hanging out with gays and lesbians. tongue

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Jesus did reach out to those who were defined as sinful by Jewish law and custom and separated from Godly salvation.  He did not condone sin but instead embraced those who sin because he sought their salvation.  Are you saying homosexuality is a sin?

    4. Daniel Carter profile image87
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

      Jesus condemned the righteous of the day (the Pharisees and Saducees) and ministered to outcasts. So what Christians today believe who Jesus would hate usually makes no sense. He would despise the average church-goer and minister to whom church-goers despise.

      If you evaluate his life, he was a flaming liberal, nothing conservative about him. In fact, he would hate the label of being either liberal or conservative. It's just us who have a need to assign a label to him, and so by definition and evaluation, he comes in on today's standards as a liberal.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Let me guess.....you're a liberal.....

        1. Daniel Carter profile image87
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Absolutely wrong. I'm not. I voted for Bush and McCain. Although I'm not really a conservative, either. So keep guessing if you'd like. Doesn't matter to me.

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
            BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I'm always amused when liberals run from the label, reminding us who they voted for, etc etc.....it's like Kryptonite to Superman....

    5. Greek One profile image77
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

      Jesus overturned the conservative order of the religious elite.

      That being said, He is the son of God, not a local city councilor.   “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

    6. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago

      Neither, he was a socialist.

    7. profile image67
      logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago

      I'm guessing he was the orginal socialist if you use what has been written about him.
      How that is viewed depends on your vision, and concept of him.

    8. prettydarkhorse profile image65
      prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

      socialist

      1. junko profile image64
        junkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Liberals and conservatives suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.  I don't believe Jesus would want to be indentified with confused and leaky people.  Jesus would be a leader not a follower.  He wouldn't need a political party to justify his actions.

    9. mikelong profile image73
      mikelongposted 6 years ago

      Let's see...

      Jesus called out against the ruling caste in Jerusalem.....he turned out the money changers in the temple....

      He fed the masses, and told the rich to give up their belongings in order to follow him....

      He was selfless, and paid the ultimate price for his beliefs....and when he was falsely accused and tried, he never complained...

      While he did say "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" he definitely encouraged a way of life outside of what society of the time was doing....

      Jesus would have been marching in the streets against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....  He would have reminded us that "vengence is mine" and not for humans to usurp...and he would have followed that up with "turn the other cheek"....

      He would be far more on the left end of the American political spectrum than the vast majority of those who follow him today...that is for sure...

      1. profile image0
        awesome77posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        well, you forget that JESUS was sent by God, that also used wars and famine to resolve situations!

        When you look at all the present day issues, I think Jesus certainly will be more to the right of issues we presently face!

    10. Daniel Carter profile image87
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

      Not entirely a socialist.
      Remember the expensive ointment the woman put on him and the 12 scolded her because the money could have fed the poor?

      His response was essentially...the poor you will always have among you, but you won't have me around for long.

      There are other examples of this in his life as well. What he taught was to learn to become responsible for your own peace and freedom. He knew you can't save the poor from poverty because if you do, they'll just go back to it. They have to save themselves from it. That's the misinterpretation most people have of what he taught.

    11. Midnight Oil profile image88
      Midnight Oilposted 6 years ago

      What a really daft question...  It's like would Jesus use a PC or a Mac.

      ... The bible was my idea !

    12. Pearldiver profile image86
      Pearldiverposted 6 years ago

      What A Really Sad Question to Ask sad

      Either Way He'd Get Nailed!! hmm

    13. SpanStar profile image61
      SpanStarposted 6 years ago

      He would be neither for neither can come up to his high standards of honesty, caring, and truth.

    14. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

      He would EASILY be a Libertarian.

      Just about every "government" quote in the bible is him sticking it to the man.

      Jesus: the original Anarchist.

      1. profile image0
        awesome77posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        If you look at his teachings, you will  discover the acceptance of need for some type of governing body, against personal excesses and need for strong social order!

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, because the Bible is distorted and Jesus' original teachings misconstrued, you would see it that way.

          However, if each person remained honest and governed themselves honestly, then there would be no need for a government or for anyone to be an authority over another(except in a business atmosphere).

          Just a thought.

    15. Mighty Mom profile image89
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

      I thought Jesus was a carpenter? cool

    16. Pat L profile image55
      Pat Lposted 6 years ago

      Jesus was an Independent.

    17. BobbiRant profile image59
      BobbiRantposted 6 years ago

      Speculation is just that, pure speculation.  Jesus loves all, just as God does, ad I doubt either one throws or would ever throw in with human government systems since God promises He will be the government in the 'new' system, not humans.  I'm sure those who are conservative will say conservative and liberals will say liberal, yet we are still human and all sinners and all biased in our own way.

    18. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

      here's a video discussing the idea that Jesus was like a libertarian.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTLsOgSyno

    19. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

      Kinda wondering why we insist on attempting to place the God of the universe into a neat little box when common sense should tell all of us that it isn't that simple.....not by a long shot.

    20. SparklingJewel profile image64
      SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago

      Jesus came to personify the Christ...an aspect that is in all of us that we are to learn to personify as well.

      He would be neither, because politics are a distraction from unity in humanity and unity with God.

      My guess is that he would promote working together from a more sacred vision of what and how to create civilization.

      Divide and conquer is the work of those that want to not have the abundant Life of peace and prosperity.

      I think he would focus on free markets and ethics thereof based on the Golden Rule.

     
    working