Jesus would vote Democratic

Left Wing Seattle Times ^ | Thursday, August 18, 2005 | LINDA VALDEZ

[Loud Mime]

I don't understand your post...it may be the wording or my not having my coffee.....

How would you respond to the points in their entirety?

[PhilipFreneau]

Exactly what He said He was doing. Protecting His Father's (or His) house.

I can't let you weasel out of that one. You wrote earlier: "Republicans must come to grips with the truth that they are not the Christian party. Christ did not 'force' anything on anyone. He gave us a choice to accept His love. Yes, there are consequences for making the wrong decision but at no point in the New Testament did He 'force' anything on anyone. He always gave the choice of free will."

... and I replied, "How would you characterize Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple with a scourge of cords?"

And your response was, "Exactly what He said He was doing. Protecting His Father's (or His) house"?

No offense, but Christ driving people out of the temple with the threat of a beating can only be described as forcing his will on people. In fact, your entire characterization of Christ is bogus. Christ threatened non-believers with hell and eternal damnation, and threatened the disobedient with a beating with "many stripes". Our (man's) current system of justice differs only with Christ's system of justice in that our system of justice promises punishment for criminal or disobedient acts in this life.

[Delphinium]

He would vote independently, and might tell us to vote on priniples not part line.

He has already told us "Righteousness exalts a nation."

[RobbyS]

Fact is that Jesus was hated by all the political factions. The gospels make the point that it was a rare alliance between the Saducees and Pharisees that led to his execution. Assuming that Barrabas was a Zealot, even THEY profited.

[billbears]

In fact, your entire characterization of Christ is bogus.

Please enlighten me. Put Christ into your little partisan box and explain how Christ would only vote Republican. Explain how Christ would use the state to forward His message, even though it was the state that tried Him and crucified Him for His actions and His words. Granted He allowed it but I would love to watch such an ardent Republican as yourself try to explain it.

Christ threatened non-believers with hell and eternal damnation, and threatened the disobedient with a beating with "many stripes"

He threatened no one. He simply stated a fact of the wrong choice of our free will.

Our (man's) current system of justice differs only with Christ's system of justice in that our system of justice promises punishment for criminal or disobedient acts in this life

Wow, Christ was all about punishment. And to think I've sat in church all these years thinking Christ was here to show us God's love and His grace through His sacrifice. And to think He was here to teach us to use the state to force people to live a certain way. Makes you wonder why God didn't just put a fence around the tree in the first place doesn't it? Heck He could have forced Adam and Eve to live right.

I said He was protecting His Father's house. And if you read the Scripture that's exactly what He said He was doing (Matthew 2:12)

Our (man's) current system of justice differs only with Christ's system of justice in that our system of justice promises punishment for criminal or disobedient acts in this life

We're not talking about the system of justice, we're talking about whether Christ would vote Democratic or Republican. And the point is that I doubt He would vote for either considering their stances on multiple issues

[Delphinium]

who would Jesus bomb

Read the WORD:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which [sword] proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.Rev 19

[billbears]

Lets talk ethics: If a Christian believes that murder is wrong, does he only believe that because its what a Christian believes? Of course not. He believes that murder is wrong because such a belief is ethical.

As a Christian, I can agree with that statement. However, we could ask where this ethical standpoint came from. By natural law inherent in us, given to us by God. However, this does not address the issue of the article, whether Christ would be Republican or Democrat

Furthermore, Jesus believed in the power of government and succumbed to its powers, possibly as a lesson to us all concerning the terrors that could be inflicted by a government that does not obey its own laws.

Typo on my part sorry. What I meant to say was this. By that argument, you have only further confirmed what I said. Republicans nor and Democrats use the government to forward their own ideals even if that requires that they break the 'laws'(i.e. specific powers of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution) of the government. If they break the 'law' (limits within the Constitution) to forward their views, then both are wrong.

[RobRoy]

This person has never read the four Gospels, or if they have, they flunked reading comprehension.

[RobRoy]

This article, LITERALLY, fits the definition of using God's name in vane.

It is singularly repulsive.

[pollyannaish]

Jesus taught personal love, tolerance, forgiveness, charity and humility.

There...I fixed it. It drives me nuts when the left—or the right—claims Jesus would vote for them. Jesus was here to speak to individuals in an intensely personal way.

It is about the state of our hearts and minds and souls, not about the state of any country. He is much, much bigger than partisan politics and even nationalism, although he acknowledged their existence. If he had been here to muck around in politics he would have hung out with the Roman or Jewish civic and religious leaders—but he did not because it was not his purpose..

Honestly, I believe it is a bit on the blasphemous side for anyone to claim he is on their side. As the old song goes, the question is whether we're on his.

[Loud Mime]

your point is valid when you cite that religious people aren't necessarily ethical. We all have our faults.

[watchin]

I sent her something a little stronger, but along the same lines.

[beavus]

"liberals support changes that increase personal freedom and tolerance, and exercise the liberty to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends."

Yeah, "empower the government to the extent" of intolerance and decreasing personal freedom.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

Jesus didn't spend near enough time advocating legalized marijuana to be considered a libertarian.

He didn't force people to stay away from alcohol, why would he force them to stay away from pot?