Would Jesus Be a Democrat or a Republican?

[Lewis]

Here are some of the issues discussed: very good links here

Jesus never says anything about any conservatives or, as you call them, "right-wingers."​

How do you know how much conservative Christians give to charity? Many I know are quite generous.​

Oh c'mon, this passage from Matthew only applies to acts of individual charity.​

Even if Matthew 25 requires going beyond individual charity, conservative Christians have plans to help the poor, and that certainly satisfies the injunction in Matthew 25.​

Not so fast. Jesus didn't say have a government program to feed the hungry.​

Aren't you doing just what Sean Hannity says, claiming conservatives want to hurt kids and old people?​

The best situation for the Christian to meet the needs of the poor is the free market.​

Matthew 25:31-46 was not meant to call upon the government to force people to give.​

Alright, let's assume for the sake of argument that your analysis of Matthew 25 is correct. What kind of things are we talking about doing?​

<hr>

 

[Drew]

.....but He would not command the government to care for the poor, He commanded us ALL to do that.

False choice. You appear to presume that the means by which we, the citizenry, would help the poor would be through something other than some kind of governmental structure. But I am convinced otherwise.

Many Christians, no doubt well-intentioned, argue that the church, not the government, should pay the medical bills of those who cannot pay for their own healthcare. Well, that sounds nice, and it is certainly better than the decidedly non-Christian “survival of the fittest, those people should get jobs” thinking that one occasionally encounters in the church. However I suggest that if one thinks the idea of “church not government” through, one will conclude that one needs “government” anyway.

<O</O​

Let’s say that the government of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>USA</ST1l declares one day “no government support for heathcare, you are all ‘on your own’”. Fine. Now suppose that the next morning, 50 million American Christians in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region> wake up and each say to themselves “As a dedicated obedient follower of Jesus, I am personally going to make it my business to ensure that the poor get decent health care”. Great, a noble sentiment that I heartily embrace.

Now what, precisely, happens next? Does (Christian) Fred go out on the street and look for poor people who need money for health care? How will he know when he has found a truly needy person? This is a lot of work for all the “Freds” out there who want to act on their noble motive to help the poor with their medical bills. Of course, if Fred has any sense at all, he will get together will all the other Christians who want to help and they will organize themselves.​

Since it is highly inefficient for each of them to independently find people who really need help – these 50 million all have jobs to go to and cannot afford the time – they will choose a small set of appropriately skilled people who are willing and able to do the work for them. Perhaps they will pay these people a salary to become full-time workers who will assess all the needs out there and then determine how much money is needed and who should (and should not get it).​

This “team” will then report to the larger group as to how much money is needed and perhaps ask that each contribute to that total as they are able – the richer of the 50 million Christians giving more, the poorer giving less. The “team”, which of course represents the wishes of the larger group, will then pay out to the poor people in accordance with need.
<O</O​

Do I need to finish the argument? Well, I will. The point is that a sensible, efficient, and responsible approach to Christians undertaking care for the poor requires governance – an organization that does the legwork that cannot be done by each of the 50 million people acting independently. Imagine the inefficiency and waste that would be incurred if these 50 million people did not actually organize themselves to ensure that money went to where it is most needed.

<O</O​

So, of course, we need “government” no matter which we go. If you are going to argue that the church should take the responsibility for health care, then you really need to acknowledge that you will need to have a “governmental” structure to implement that. Otherwise, there will be great waste and inequity.<O</O

 

[theLords]

Lords you owe me 1 million





DEAD ONE

:toofunny

 

[Drew]

That doesn't mean He'd be caught up in politics. Mud slinging? Corruption? Abuse of power? Name one honest politician and I'll give you a million dollars

I agree, but Jesus is still a "political" king in the sense that the Bible has Him (presently) enthroned over all kings of the Earth.

Christ's Kingdom needs to physically come form heaven to earth, and we all know Revelation and how that's going to happen.

It is true that Jesus is not "here in the flesh", but He most certainly still is presently a political king - the Bible is quite clear on this.

Jesus is on the political side of "My will." There are no "politics" in the Kingdom of God because it's a monarchy. One King who holds all the power, while His people adore Him.

I agree. All I am trying to say is that Jesus is interested in how governments act, and certainly wants His "Kingdom of God" principles enshrined in all human institutions, including those of government.

 

[Pizzaguy]

False choice. You appear to presume that the means by which we, the citizenry, would help the poor would be through something other than some kind of governmental structure. But I am convinced otherwise.

You didn't even think before you went on yet another of your multi-paragraph, narcissistic diatribes.

Social Security, Disability and Medicaid/Medicare are fine with me. My problem is with our churches (not all of them, 95% or more) that do way too little for those in need. Giving 10% of our offerings to "missions" is not ministering to the poor.

 

[Theofilus]

Daniel 2:21
And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding

Daniel 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

God puts rulers in power, but that doesn't mean that He supports those rulers or their agendas. I know that sounds strange, but think about it for a while. If God supports the agendas of all the rulers He puts in power, wouldn't that mean that He supports Obama's agenda? If that's the case, then why are so many American Christians against him? Also, wouldn't it mean that God supports the agendas of rulers like Gadaffi and Ahmadinejad or that He supported the agendas of past leaders like Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin? I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. God put all these leaders and many more in power for some reason but, other than fulfilling God's purpose for them, He didn't / doesn't support their agendas.

 

[theLords]

I agree, but Jesus is still a "political" king in the sense that the Bible has Him (presently) enthroned over all kings of the Earth.


It is true that Jesus is not "here in the flesh", but He most certainly still is presently a political king - the Bible is quite clear on this.


I agree. All I am trying to say is that Jesus is interested in how governments act, and certainly wants His "Kingdom of God" principles enshrined in all human institutions, including those of government.

I agree. I think we are just debating the semantics of 'politics.' I don't 'politics' really apply to a Holy monarchy.

 

[Lewis]

You didn't even think before you went on yet another of your multi-paragraph, narcissistic diatribes.

Social Security, Disability and Medicaid/Medicare are fine with me. My problem is with our churches (not all of them, 95% or more) that do way too little for those in need. Giving 10% of our offerings to "missions" is not ministering to the poor.

Hmmm, I agree with that

 

[Cheyenne K]

Neither. He'd be King.

In all honesty, I think Christ would be more preoccupied with saving the lost, helping the needy, and teaching the Church about what He said in Matthew 5.

 

[Hitch]

Ran across this so I thought I'd post it. I would hope that He would have been a Republican.

​

Republican Christians certainly would not think that Jesus would be a Democrat, yet -- as with most things -- they are wrong.

We are given some hints in the Bible and the Catholic Church's teachings about whether Jesus would be a Democrat or a Republican:

· In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell.

In doing so Jesus condemned 'charity by force'.

· Catholic social doctrine holds that the resources of the earth, and the output of man's work, are meant to be shared equitably by all.

· The Catholic Church calls for a "preferential option for the poor."

The OT demands equal protection under the law and specificly warns against preference for rich or poor.

· An overwhelming concern for the poor and for economic justice permeates the Old Testament.

What the OT says is' Thou shalt not steal.' And that is cast in stone.

So Jesus would probably closer to the Libertarians.

 

[reba]

Neither. He'd be King.

In all honesty, I think Christ would be more preoccupied with saving the lost, helping the needy, and teaching the Church about what He said in Matthew 5.

Amen! He is King He is the King of kings

 

[Hitch]

I agree that Jesus would not support the killing of the unborn. But He would certainly support universal health care - so its pretty clear He would not be a Republican either.

Can you cite any instance when Jesus instructed a follower to take anything by force from one so as the give it to another?

I am uneasy with the question - people are too attached to their "tribe" - Democrat or Republican. I think its is clear that Jesus' worldview would share elements of both and reject elements of both.

Lets see, what are we sure He would be for;

Private property.

What are we sure He would oppose,

Abortion.

 

[Drew]

In doing so Jesus condemned 'charity by force'.

Perhaps. But let's remember what we are talking about. If we are asking, "what position on the matter of wealth re-distribution would Jesus adopt, if He were constrained to operate in our present "system"?, I am sure He would advocate for wealth re-distribution by taxation.

People have this funny notion that taxation is "taking money by force". Its not - you are free to vote for a government that will not tax you at all. You choose to be taxed at the ballot box.

 

[Drew]

Can you cite any instance when Jesus instructed a follower to take anything by force from one so as the give it to another?
Lets see, what are we sure He would be for;

Private property.

What are we sure He would oppose,

Abortion.

I agree on the abortion thing, but see no evidence that Jesus would support private property. Nor do I see any evidence that He would support it.

What evidence you have that Jesus would support private property?

 

[Hitch]

Perhaps. But let's remember what we are talking about. If we are asking, "what position on the matter of wealth re-distribution would Jesus adopt, if He were constrained to operate in our present "system"?, I am sure He would advocate for wealth re-distribution by taxation.

LOL I see you retain little of the make god in my image disease.

But since youre certain of this it should be easy for you to support it from the Law and from the NT.

People have this funny notion that taxation is "taking money by force". Its not - you are free to vote for a government that will not tax you at all. You choose to be taxed at the ballot box.

PGE


It easy to see satan 'laughing with delight' when the religious types bend and twist what Jesus did into a plan for teaching Joshua its not only OK for him to reach into Abe's pocket ,but its what Jesus would be going if He were here.

 

[Drew]

But since youre certain of this it should be easy for you to support it from the Law and from the NT.

Well, the Law of Moses is no longer in force.

If we frame the problem as one where Jesus is plunked down in a democracy, He would clearly do what we all should do - advocate for the enshrinement in law of principles in which we believe.

So I am sure Jesus would "vote" for making abortion a crime. And He would also do what every compassionate and obedient Christian would do - vote to have money channelled from the rich to the poor. If Jesus could snap His fingers and everyone would have enough money, fine.

But if He is constrained to live under our present "democratic" system, He would most certainly vote for taxing the rich to give to the poor.

Asking me to "prove" this from the New Testament - as if there is a "verse" for it - is a little unfair. I think that the case can be made on principle and pragmatics. Why do we not ask everyone to "chip in freely" for that new overpass? Obviously, that simply would not work - so we agree at the ballot to be taxed and expect the government to use the money in the ways they promised to.

And giving such money to the poor is one such use which the obedient and serious Christian would support.

 

[Hitch]

I agree on the abortion thing, but see no evidence that Jesus would support private property. Nor do I see any evidence that He would support it.

What evidence you have that Jesus would support private property?

Well I can quote Jesus personally.

and I can quote the only portion of scripture personally written by God;

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

 

[jasoncran]

Perhaps. But let's remember what we are talking about. If we are asking, "what position on the matter of wealth re-distribution would Jesus adopt, if He were constrained to operate in our present "system"?, I am sure He would advocate for wealth re-distribution by taxation.

People have this funny notion that taxation is "taking money by force". Its not - you are free to vote for a government that will not tax you at all. You choose to be taxed at the ballot box.

taxes that i dont want nor would vote for pay for abortion. so by not voting one doesnt have to pay taxes? man if that was the case. i wouldnt have bothered to vote.

i didnt vote for the govt to pay for abortions, and other ungodly things.they represent us, yes but the govterment here doesnt really represent the people do they drew? surely you realise the right is big business and the left unions and special interests. all of which i'm neither. i'm not in a union, dont own a business and also special interests i'm not. ie gay rights, radical eco groups etc(not all those are bad but some take it too far).

do these guys consult me or those like me when they made the decisions for obamacare(nope)? the people were agaisnt obamacare all the way.

so drew by your vote did you support the canadian alliance in afghanistan and or iraq?

 

[Drew]

Taxation is simply not "taking money by force".

We vote to be taxed. True, everybody is "forced" to pay their taxes. But that is an unavoidable consequence of acting as a society - it is entirely unworkable to let people decide yay or nay re each possible governmental expenditure.

 

[Hitch]

Well, the Law of Moses is no longer in force.

If we frame the problem as one where Jesus is plunked down in a democracy, He would clearly do what we all should do - advocate for the enshrinement in law of principles in which we believe.

So I am sure Jesus would "vote" for making abortion a crime. And He would also do what every compassionate and obedient Christian would do - vote to have money channelled from the rich to the poor. If Jesus could snap His fingers and everyone would have enough money, fine.

Jesus is not a thief and you cant come up with any support

But if He is constrained to live under our present "democratic" system, He would most certainly vote for

Asking me to "prove" this from the New Testament - as if there is a "verse" for it - is a little unfair. I think that the case can be made on principle and pragmatics. Why do we not ask everyone to "chip in freely" for that new overpass? Obviously, that simply would not work - so we agree at the ballot to be taxed and expect the government to use the money in the ways they promised to.

And giving such money to the poor is one such use which the obedient and serious Christian would support.

Well make your case for government charity. Since you've conceded you cant do so from the Law try somewhere else.

I cant wait.