"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar?s, and unto God the things that are God?s" is the phrase you are looking forTwad said:
Poll: If Jesus ran for president, would you vote for him?
- Thread starter triggrhappy94
- Start date
The founding fathers didn't write in separation of church and state, that was a Supreme Court ruling in 1947 for not allowing free transportation to catholic schools. They said no laws about regulating religions, which is to say no state religion. If the citizens elect an open Catholic president and an entire Assembly that is openly Catholic, they could in theory make it echo a religious state because of laws passed that are Christian.otakuoverlord said:
On a side note, Jesus wouldn't run for president.
John 18:36
John 19:1-3
Matthew 22:21
As has been mentioned, the Jesus described in the Bible wouldn't run for president. Just going with the question, though, I would say no, for practical reasons. I just couldn't see him running the economy or handling foreign affairs all that effectively.
I clicked yes, and then realized I should have clicked no. And the reason why is simple, Jesus isn't a politician, because the very word itself, 'Politician' is just a fancy word for 'Cannibal'. Why you may ask? Simple, politicians eat the ideas made by others for free, they take those ideas and use them as fuel for their own political agendas, and then you have honerable men and women who die for their country, and politicians devour them, using their sacrifice saying that their death was made to prove some politicians ideals, when it wasnt. There are very VERY VERY few politicians that follow any sort of ethics and moral code at all, and I can't even name any good ones off the top of my head. So no, Jesus shouldn't be president, because he wouldnt really be a president at all, he'd be more of a king.
Oh, and yes I realize that I jumped from socialism to communism, the simple reason why is because at least communism has those noble ideals, all that socialism has is a chain tied with one end around your ankle, and the other around a government.
I am tolerant of many things, but NOT of Marxists. Keep that bs to yourselves.
What do you mean? Are you implying that socialism is good and that Jesus would advocate for it? Because this cant possibly be true, Socialism has resulted in the uneeded deaths of millions of people all across history and the world. "But it has good ideals" you say, well thats lovely, let me tell you these ideals, I want to fix my country's economic problem, I want to unite humanity under a single flag so that we may advance to areas never seen before. These are noble and true goals right? Well what if in order to get those goals accomplished I start a holocaust? I invade other nations and kill innnocent civilians, all in the name of united humanity? Am I still a hero with true and noble goals then? Because if you say yes you my fine sir are full of BS. This is EXACTLY what Nazi Germany did, it had those wonderful good intentions, and then threw morality out the window, doing this would NOT make me a hero, it would make me a monster who needs to be put down. The same exact thing can be said for communism, it has noble goals, it wants to free man from his binds of economic slavery, a goal that everyone should work for starting first with their themselves, bettering their own lives, then their family's, then their communities, and then their world. But these good goals dont make up for the sensless slaughter of milliions done in 'the good of the nation'. whether it be your great leap forward or your destructive great purge, leave humanity the hell out of it.similar.squirrel said:
Oh, and yes I realize that I jumped from socialism to communism, the simple reason why is because at least communism has those noble ideals, all that socialism has is a chain tied with one end around your ankle, and the other around a government.
I am tolerant of many things, but NOT of Marxists. Keep that bs to yourselves.
I am non-christian and i probably WOULD vote for him, Jesus the man was really an interesting historical figure and regardless of the debate over him being the son of god, just a man, or fictional (personally i believe the second) i think he taught a lot about tolerance and respect for people.
The Original poster statement that he would have to follow all the teachings in the bible would be a deal breaker. Particularly since those teachings are really left up to the individuals interpretations. The bible says gays should be killed and that women shouldn't be allowed to wear pants but these were not the teachings of Jesus someone who had a very strong conflict is not the answer agenda, yet followers of his teachings went on to commit horrendous acts of violence in his name.
The Original poster statement that he would have to follow all the teachings in the bible would be a deal breaker. Particularly since those teachings are really left up to the individuals interpretations. The bible says gays should be killed and that women shouldn't be allowed to wear pants but these were not the teachings of Jesus someone who had a very strong conflict is not the answer agenda, yet followers of his teachings went on to commit horrendous acts of violence in his name.
Jesus thought gay's are bad.
I'm pretty sure he didn't.
One of my best friend's is gay, so no. Even if he didn't say "Gay's are bad" I still wouldn't vote for him, since what's he going to do other than preach religion. No thank you.
I'm pretty sure he didn't.
One of my best friend's is gay, so no. Even if he didn't say "Gay's are bad" I still wouldn't vote for him, since what's he going to do other than preach religion. No thank you.
I think if Jesus ran for president he wouldn't win because the religious right would call him a socialist.
1) He would eliminate almost all military funding
2) He would tax everyone to pay for a universal healthcare and education.
3) He would offer amnesty to illegal immigrants.
4) He would try and get laws pushed through to cut down on the number of people in prison. i.e. probation and therapy for first-time non-violent offenders.
So I would definitely vote for him.
1) He would eliminate almost all military funding
2) He would tax everyone to pay for a universal healthcare and education.
3) He would offer amnesty to illegal immigrants.
4) He would try and get laws pushed through to cut down on the number of people in prison. i.e. probation and therapy for first-time non-violent offenders.
So I would definitely vote for him.
hes not American so he could not. he is also from the middle east which would upset some people.
As someone once said (can't remember who):
I've got no problem with Jesus, just his fan club.
Yeah, I like Jesus' ideas, he'd make a good president, but he probably would step down from the job.
I've got no problem with Jesus, just his fan club.
Yeah, I like Jesus' ideas, he'd make a good president, but he probably would step down from the job.
You realize the difference between Germany's Nazi party and Marxists right? the fact that they are almost polar opposite of each other, to the point that it was actually called Anti-Communism? The US Republicans have more in common with Nazi Germany that any real socialist democracy.Rex Fallout said:
Besides Jesus told people to pay their taxes, that goes against the tea party, He told the wealthy that they had an obligation to help the poor, which goes against the free market system America is using at the moment. Much of Jesus' teachings were of a socialist utopia.
How many people out their live their lives relying on socialist systems, republican voters would probably be outraged if they found out the fire department wouldn't come for them because they were too poor yet Americans live with the same reality in their health care everyday because it would be socialist to do otherwise.
EDIT: i got so focused on the second half i forgot about the first
By calling politicians cannibals for stealing peoples ideas would you not be forced to call everyone in history a cannibal? Are the inventors of cars cannibals because they stole their ideas from the Carriage are they not just as bad for reworking the cart, are they not also guilty for reimagining the wheel? Is every car manufacturer, No every scientist, inventor, imaginative person or productive member of society a cannibal? Are you not also judging politicians on the worst they have to offer? If we are all held up to only are worst moment are we all not criminals? Does the fact that I have sped in my car told lies and drank before it was legal make me void of morality or does it make me human and subject to poor judgment, pride and fear.
Perhaps the label of cannibals should go to Christians who routinely eat the body and blood or christ, or is that just some sort of socialist metaphor for being of one body and soul?
Wow. It's always fun to see how badly people will twist the facts to make the Bible seem less horrible.Jonabob87 said:
Ok... here we go...
First of all, the author of this article tries to differentiate Biblical slavery from modern day slavery. They claim that modern slavery is forced labor, sex trade, and inheritable property but claim that this is not the case in the Bible. This is an outright lie. The Bible describes taking virgins as sex slaves, it explains how slaves are property to be inherited by the owners children, and as for the forced labor thing... that's kind of the definition of slavery.
As for Biblical slavery being a "social status" this is another fabrication. The author refuses to acknowledge the fact that the majority of slaves where taken when cities and other groups where conquered. These people did not "sell themselves" into slavery. They where taken forcibly against their will as spoils of war and any children born to slave parents where automatically slaves for life.
The author's argument regarding race based slavery is also absurd. He completely ignores the fact that the reason God wanted the Hebrews freed was because they where his "chosen people," it had nothing to do with why they where enslaved in the first place.
Now, the "man steeling" argument is a bit different. It seems the Bible does condemn kidnapping... of fellow Hebrews. The section of the Bible the author was using to support this position comes from a list of laws about how to act within the Hebrew community and have nothing to do with how they are to interact with other groups. As I said, taking slaves from other groups by force is well supported in the Bible. Not to mention a few verses after the one the author referenced is the verse describing how you can beat your slaves to the brink of death and as long as they survive for two days it's OK.
The final paragraph is just a bunch of religious banter about how the "grace of God" will somehow change the way you "think and act." I don't understand how this would lead to the abolition of slavery because, as I have quite clearly said, God explicitly promotes slavery.