Journal Community

Group:

Libertarians

Explore Group

Who would Jesus Vote For? (wwjvf)

I believe that Jesus was one of our most profound and successful philosophers. Using the anvil of love and the hammer of forgiveness, he helped 100's of millions of people take more responsibility for their own lives and thus was a major force in human cultural evolution.

If Jesus was alive today, would he vote for the current POTUS or would he vote for a replacement. Please try not to be humorless in your answer.

«
  • 1
  • 2
»
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon
    • 11 hours ago
    Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    Jesus Christ would vote for Barack Obama in 2012.

    Surely He is a Democrat because the Dem's help the needy far more than the Republicans. Funny how most church and faith based organizations vote Republican..?

    He might ask why He is being left out of paying taxes to help support the country, but there is no way Jesus is a Republican.

    2 Recommendations

      • 10 hours ago

      Very funny.

      Recommend

      • 8 hours ago

      If you read Arthur C. Brooks' book, "Who Really Cares," you might think differently. He spent ten years painstakingly documenting that conservatives, particularly religious ones, give more of their money and time to the poor, at all income levels, than liberals.

      When Brooks began his work, he was a liberal and assumed (as do you) that liberals care more about the needy than conservatives. When the data resulted in the opposite conclusion, he assumed that he was wrong: he gathered additional data, conducted other analyses, questioned his methods. In the end, he couldn't refute the facts: conservatives are more compassionate than liberals, and give more to the needy, both in time and money.

      Democrats talk a good game in public, especially about how to spend somebody else's money, but in private they are stingy.

      By the way, Brooks was so profoundly altered by his findings that, as he describes in his book, he did the only logical thing left to do: he changed his beliefs.

      4 Recommendations

      • 48 minutes ago
      Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

      You say the dems help more than the republicans. The republicans pay more of the taxes. According to studies on generosity republicans donate more time, blood, and money per capita than democrats. The only thing they don't do is vote for the government to take it at gun point.

      Recommend

    • 8 hours ago

    The questions "who would Jesus vote for" or more generally "what would Jesus do" misses the central theme of the Gospels. They describe the activities of Jesus, but more importantly they describe his teachings, most taught in the form of parables. Jesus was not a ruler or a politician. In fact he deftly avoided many traps set for him by the politicians (Jews and Romans). Many tried to make him the King of the Jews - a role that he strongly denounced. If one would like to know what Jesus would advocate read the Sermon on the Mount in Mathew 5, 6, and 7. What one finds is a teacher that brings the message of love, forgivness, and compasion - tempering some of the more rigid teaching in the Old Testement. In summarry Jesus would not have voted, but would have advocated those who do vote (and rule) to do so according to the messages of his teachings.

    2 Recommendations

      • 5 hours ago
      Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

      I agree, except for the not voting part. Jesus was very much so active politically. The closest thing to voting Jesus' culture had was the debates at the temple steps. This is where leaders listened to gauge the flow of public opinion. Jesus was very active in these discussions. In our culture, he would not only vote, but he would attend rallies, and probably carry a sign or three.

      Recommend

        • 5 hours ago

        Backward projection. He was not a modern leftist, by any stretch of the imagination. His concerns were of the soul and the hereafter.

        2 Recommendations

        • 3 hours ago

        These were religous debates and discussions. Participating in them would be like talking with your preacher on the steps of the church. You may want to think Jesus was far left politically, but that's your bias, unsupported.

        The sad thing is that you are taking some of the things he preached that individuals should do, and using that as justifying government coercion. You missed the point.

        Recommend

    • 5 hours ago
    Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    In the Christian Bible, Jesus chastised his followers for comments that parallel most Republican planks. Republicans would be the equivalent of a combination of Pharisee and Sadducee; the Pharisee's being the tax-break-for-business group, and the Sadducee's being the Moral Right.

    Jesus view on Tax breaks? ~ it is better for a rich man to give away his riches to the needy ~ definitely not Republican: somewhat Democrat

    Jesus view on gay marriage? ~ he chastised his disciples for their mistreatment of a woman (woman at the well) because she had a different lifestyle than they thought appropriate. He treated her with respect. ~ Jesus would chastise people who voted Republican due to their disrespect of others differences. He would likely attend pro-LGBT rallies. Notice I didn't say he agreed with them, just that he believed that disrespecting people because they are different was wrong.

    I could make more points, but the fact is, Jesus was definately what we would call a Liberal. FAR left, politically. And as to the "Jesus wouldn't vote" comment I can't find anymore, "Render to Ceasar". Yes, he would vote.and with our choices, he would vote Democrat, even if he didn't agree with all of their platform. He did the equivalent to voting. He participated in the debates at the temple steps, which is where rulers heard what the people wanted. He would NOT run for office, though.

    Recommend

      • 5 hours ago

      Tony, you have created a modern liberal narrative and then misinterpreted the life of Jesus to conform to it.

      For instance, you have misunderstood and mischaracterized the story of the woman caught in adultery. First, he shamed the men who wanted to stone her, according to the law of Moses of the Old Testament, by pointing out that all people are sinners. Then he said to the woman, "go and sin no more." He did not say, "go and do it again." Or, "what you did was okay." We do not have a statement from him about gay relationships, but you have correctly identified this story as being the closest lesson to them. You just drew the completely opposite conclusion of what the story tells.

      You sound like a non-Christian interpreting the life of Bible from a modern perspective.

      3 Recommendations

        • 3 hours ago

        Jonathan - I think he's referring to the Samarian woman at the well - the disciples didn't think he should be speaking with Samarians. Tony completely misses the point here, and you are right in the points you made with the woman caught in adultery. As for the wealthy man - Jesus said it was better for him to give to the needy, not for the needy to use arms to take the man's wealth by force. I believe we should be individuals that take care of widows, orphans, and the ill to the extent that they are unable to care for themselves. That action has to be voluntary for each individual. I do not think there is any virtue in maintaining people in their vices (sloth, drug abuse, etc) which is what most government programs do.

        Most of Tony's post is personal bias wrapped in rationalization. He makes stuff up out of whole cloth.

        Recommend

    • 3 hours ago
    Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    Jesus would vote for whoever loves and respects Him, and all that follows on one's journey of faith.

    This is not nearly as hard a question as people protract it to be.

    Recommend

    • 2 hours ago
    Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    Jonathan,
    You site Brook's book as example to demonstrate that, indeed, conservatives are more compassionate to the needy then Liberals.

    I am having hard time though, trying to reconcile it with their deeds - trying to cut benefits from the most vulnerable segment of our society. The poor, the elderly, and the retirees

    Everyone agrees that, expenses must be brought under control. Suffice however, to observe the current deficit debate in congress to see that, while the conservatives do the talk - they refuse to do the walk.

    Cutting from SS & Medicare on those who need it most - while they refuse even to let tax loopholes to expire, for those who need it the lease.

    Something is incongruent here.

    Recommend

  •   
  • 11-15
  • of 15
Page: « Previous
  • 1
  • 2
Next »

Add a Comment

We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules. All comments will display your real name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Or log in or become a subscriber now for complete Journal access.

  • Clear
  • Post
Login with Facebook
Share articles and post your comments on Facebook What's this?
close

You can connect your Facebook profile with WSJ.com to share articles, comments, and other activity with your friends.

Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.

Your profile gives you access to personal messages, connections, and Group invitations.

Your Groups Here…

Participate in engaging dialogue on topics that matter to you and other members of your group.

When you join groups you'll find them for easy access here. Learn new perspectives and educate each other.....

Most Active Discussions