Article: 'How Would Jesus Vote?'

There are a lot of bonkers, looney toon, Christian conservatives on this board and I would love to hear how you reconcile your weird political beliefs with your weird religious beliefs in light of this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-would-jesus-vote/2012/08/03/4333312a-ddc2-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_blog.html

Quoted:

I write, of course, as an atheist: but an atheist who used to be a committed Christian and who still remembers feeling deeply inspired by the sheer humanity of the character of Jesus as shown in the Gospels. Another time I might argue about the historical reliability (or otherwise) of the Gospels and take issue with other aspects of their message. But for now I want to take them at face value and ask: what would the Jesus of the Gospels make of some of the shibboleths of U.S. politics?

Let us start with the question of wealth. Far from emphasizing the importance of wealth-creation, Jesus repeatedly told his followers to forsake it; that it would get in the way of their relationship with God. His advice to a wealthy would-be disciple? Sell all you have and give it to the poor. And give it to the poor! No sign here that he thought of the poor as being to blame for their own predicament, people to be frowned on, people who did not deserve to have their well-being taken into account. Suppose Jesus really were alive today. Would he despise the poor? Ignore their needs? Begrudge their miserable welfare hand-outs? Cheer at the idea of letting the uninsured die of disease?

When did the Jesus of the Gospels ever proclaim that the poor and sick and unfortunate do not deserve your compassion? That you are not your brotherâ??s keeper? That paying tax is an abomination?

The Gospels show us a man who shunned the respectable, reaching out instead to the poor and weak, seeking out societyâ??s rejects and publicly aligning himself with them. Would the Jesus who healed abundantly have been outraged at the idea of â??Obamacareâ??? At the suggestion that he should put his hand in his pocket to help ensure the poorest in the wealthiest nation on Earth did not have to live in fear of illness?

And then thereâ??s the baffling issue of guns. To a nation in which not even our police are routinely armed, the power of the gun lobby in the US is simply incomprehensible: the reality of rampant gun-ownership in America seems to bear little resemblance to the â??well regulated militiaâ?? foreseen in the Second Amendment. American Christians: can you imagine any circumstances in which the Jesus who said â??Turn the other cheekâ?? and â??Love your enemiesâ?? would approve of your owning a gun?

President Obama speaks during a campaign event at the Washington Convention Center on April 27, 2012 in Washington. (AFP/GETTY IMAGES)To Brits watching from across the Atlantic, U.S. society seems worryingly divided. Not just between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots, but also between those who consider themselves respectable and those whom those same people do not consider respectable. I can think of no other industrially and commercially advanced country â?? much less an avowedly Christian one â?? in which it is apparently so acceptable to demonize those who do not share your beliefs, for example, or your sexual orientation.

The sight of American Christians in full self-righteous fervor, working themselves up into a rage over other peopleâ??s beliefs and other peopleâ??s sexuality, is hard to reconcile with the Jesus of the Gospels, whose anger was almost exclusively reserved for those who dared to judge and look down on others; the Jesus who, himself, chose always to align himself with those so judged.

Romney, of course, is a Mormon. But many of those who support the right-wing politics he espouses will be mainstream Christians. Christians, it must be said, whose Bibles must contain very different accounts of Jesusâ??s teachings than the one on my bookshelf.

END QUOTE

I’ve often wondered myself but she put it better…

If it wasn’t clear and it never is over the internet I was being very toungue in cheek with my intro. In fact I think I could quite easily argue against her post but it is an interesting one and worth (I think) some discussion.

No, its really not.

He never argued for forced redistribution of wealth, that includes health care, his disciples carried swords ,bad, bad conservatives give more of their money and much more of their time then liberals for voluntary charity and you can double that for devoutly religious people.

Also, the conflation of you giving something with the government taking it is so common that I wonder whether the people writing such diatribes are utter morons or if they have a blind spot I could drive a Nimitz class aircraft carrier through.

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/7/9/79a21_ORIG-yawn.jpg

Not again? ANOTHER alleged ex Christian (as if there could be such a thing) that knows literally zero of the gospel, zero of who and what Jesus of Nazareth was and is and mangles his words beyond recognition? Again? If I get especially motivated I may dig up some of my many posts correcting this kinda modernist butchery… again. Probably not though.
EDIT: BTW, even Orion gets this by now. He’s on the right track. As far as he goes. Which isn’t very far, but still.

I think the question requires further specifics . Are we talking about the Jesus in the bible or the Jesus that runs the Republican party ?

Idiot.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not again? ANOTHER alleged ex Christian (as if there could be such a thing) that knows literally zero of the gospel, zero of who and what Jesus of Nazareth was and is and mangles his words beyond recognition? Again? If I get especially motivated I may dig up some of my many posts correcting this kinda modernist butchery… again. Probably not though.
EDIT: BTW, even Orion gets this by now. He’s on the right track. As far as he goes. Which isn’t very far, but still.[/quote]

Well, at least I have read the book and I highly dislike it if someone tries to bullshit me because he thinks I have not.

Why would Jesus even need to vote?

[quote]orion wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Not again? ANOTHER alleged ex Christian (as if there could be such a thing) that knows literally zero of the gospel, zero of who and what Jesus of Nazareth was and is and mangles his words beyond recognition? Again? If I get especially motivated I may dig up some of my many posts correcting this kinda modernist butchery… again. Probably not though.
EDIT: BTW, even Orion gets this by now. He’s on the right track. As far as he goes. Which isn’t very far, but still.[/quote]Well, at least I have read the book and I highly dislike it if someone tries to bullshit me because he thinks I have not. [/quote]I’ll give ya some credit. You are pretty much right in that post. Like I say. As far as it goes. I’ll just say this. EVERY single syllable of both testaments of the Holy Bible, excepting only those commanding repentance and surrender, are addressing THE CHURCH. Christians. NOT the world or the world’s governments. If somebody decides they want a socialist welfare program or a marxist healthcare bill? Go ahead. But it ain’t got nuthin to do with the living God of whom Jesus Christ is the second person and eternally begotten Son. THE CHURCH is commanded to care first for HER OWN and then yes, the poor.

Any alleged Christian who thinks that stealing unbelievers money and giving it to other unbelievers by force is part of the saving gospel of grace is utterly devoid of knowledge of what that gospel is. The risen Christ abominates everything this nation has degenerated into. Both parties are abhorrent in his site, but of eternally more importance is the populous they reflect.

And for the record… again. There is NO system of civil government explicitly taught in the New Testament. Other indirect principles must be brought to bear if a society would honor God in their public policy. If not? It doesn’t really make much lasting difference. We are dying proof.

[quote]pat wrote:
Idiot.[/quote]

That’s been well established. They can say what they want about drugs but I think they’ve really effected him and not in a good way.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why would Jesus even need to vote?

[/quote]

Would he even care? Wouldn’t Jesus just casually say…‘render onto Caesar that which is Caesars’…or some such blow-off?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why would Jesus even need to vote?

[/quote]

Hahaaha

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why would Jesus even need to vote?

[/quote]

To show the republicans his dad is on their side, of course!

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why would Jesus even need to vote?

[/quote]

To show the republicans his dad is on their side, of course![/quote]Except that He’s not.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why would Jesus even need to vote?

[/quote]

To show the republicans his dad is on their side, of course![/quote]
Except that He’s not.
[/quote]

True, to be on a side you first have to exist, voting and political parties is kind of irrelevant.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< True, to be on a side you first have to exist, voting and political parties is kind of irrelevant.[/quote].

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why would Jesus even need to vote?

[/quote]

To show the republicans his dad is on their side, of course![/quote]
Except that He’s not.
[/quote]

True, to be on a side you first have to exist, voting and political parties is kind of irrelevant.[/quote]

If only you had written “in order to vote you have to exist”.

That would have been fun.

The greater concern is separating bronze age mythology and superstition from the modern political process entirely. Further more, the notion of imposing anthropomorphic characteristics and human-centric concerns upon the Creator of the Universe(Which I do not claim to have knowledge of and by definition is beyond human comprehension or experience) as attempted by “revealed” religions is beyond arrogant and simply illogical.

[quote]Legionary wrote:
The greater concern is separating bronze age mythology and superstition from the modern political process entirely. Further more, the notion of imposing anthropomorphic characteristics and human-centric concerns upon the Creator of the Universe(Which I do not claim to have knowledge of and by definition is beyond human comprehension or experience) as attempted by “revealed” religions is beyond arrogant and simply illogical.[/quote]

If you remove bronze age mythology you run on steam age mythology alone.

I prefer the more time tested mythologies that have been somewhat domesticated.

People believe all kinds of things for no good reason, if you take one belief system out something else will move in.

[quote]Legionary wrote:<<< The greater concern is separating bronze age mythology and superstition from the modern political process entirely. Further more, the notion of imposing anthropomorphic characteristics and human-centric concerns upon the Creator of the Universe(Which I do not claim to have knowledge of and by definition is beyond human comprehension or experience) as attempted by “revealed” religions is beyond arrogant and simply illogical.[/quote]Well thank you very much for settling that for us. Look folks, Elder Forlife’s back!!! These guys are a blast LOL!!!