Ethics professor says Jesus would be a Dem.

[Truth Warrior]

Why is it so incredibly difficult to untie religion and politics, anyway? They're apples and oranges but for some reason people seem to believe they come from the same tree. One should be a matter of faith and the other of reason. Instead they both seem to devolve into matters of power. Yuk.

"Politics and religion are the very same thing. They are both effective ways to control large masses of people. It has always been that way, and always will be."

"Those that do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

 

[angelatc]

I took an ethics class a few years ago. One of my classmates asked how Jesus would affiliate himself politically. Our professor said he would lean Democratic. Nothing else was said about it. If I had known of Dr. Paul and his great Libertarian teachings at the time, I would have argued his answer. As I look back on it, I realize the professor didn't quite understand coercion vs. actual charity.

My question is: What are your thoughts on Jesus's possible political affiliation?

I think Jesus would avoid politics knowing that God would work it out. His "party" crosses the boundaries of the US.

How bizarre to think that anybody could think that the party that condones abortion and detests Christianity is the party Jesus would choose. Love them liberals and their logic.

 

[torchbearer]

Why is it so incredibly difficult to untie religion and politics, anyway? They're apples and oranges but for some reason people seem to believe they come from the same tree. One should be a matter of faith and the other of reason. Instead they both seem to devolve into matters of power. Yuk.

Politics and religion are the same. How?
Start to answer the fundementals.

What are rights and privileges?
Where do your rights come from?
Who is your creator?

Now, to cover how can i talk about religion in political terms? Because even a theocracy is a political institution.
The human tribe structures and later city-states of the bible all had political set-ups of one kind or another, and they were mostly organized by those God granting the right to do so.

Whether you believe any of this or not, it is interesting study.

edit in late: Think of Socialism as worship of the state, and anarchism as the worship of the self, etc.

 

[Give me liberty]

Jesus would never be in Politics.
This Ethics Professor should be fired for saying nonsense things like that.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Jesus would never be in Politics.
This Ethics Professor should be fired for saying nonsense things like that.

He's most probably just another Democratic Socialist with tenure.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

I think Jesus would avoid politics knowing that God would work it out. His "party" crosses the boundaries of the US.

How bizarre to think that anybody could think that the party that condones abortion and detests Christianity is the party Jesus would choose. Love them liberals and their logic.

I think Jesus was apolitical...in no way would he be either Dem or Repub. No he'd be all about God and the Almighty instead.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Actual those are all awesome points. I would love to have these discussion with you in person, we could probably learn a lot from each other.

You'l notice too, that Jesus did not fit their description of the Messiah... because the Messiah would come to be their new earthly king. To overthrow there enslavers. And start his kingdom on earth.

Jesus stated, his kingdom is still to come, so to the jews, this wasn't the messiah of their text.

So now, both the Jews and the Christians are waiting for the victorious Messiah to come to reign over the earth.

An intertesting way to percieve the messianic traditions of the bible. And it ties into the political expectations therein.

Thanks, I'm sure we would have some interesting conversations.

Well, see, there again, the Israelites wanted a powerful man to make their nation great again. Jesus did come to teach them how to free themselves from slavery and bondage yet they didn't understand him. They wanted physical, tangible freedom and what he offered them was spiritual and mental freedom.

Well as I see it the early christians where for handouts, sharing and communal living and against usury, profits, and the rich. You dont get much more socialist and anti-capitalist than that. (Then again im a atheist so what do I know

"give to the poor."

"go, sell what you have, and give to the poor."

"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves [...] And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Cheers

His statements about wealth and charity were part of the mental and spiritual freedom he offered people. The less stuff you have the less you have holding you back from trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you. Jesus' problem with the rich was not that they were rich. And he didn't say a rich person would not "go to" heaven. What he was saying was it is exponentially more difficult for someone to stay true to God if they have accumulated wealth because then they need to care for the accumulation. For most, not all, wealthy people, accumulation (and its care) is not only the means but the end. This is my understanding anyway.

The moneychangers in the temple is a whole other subject. Yes Jesus was against usury, but there was a whole other dynamic going on and it was one of the only times he became violently angry. It deserves special attention, but I don't have the energy for it right now.

The statements you make, paraphrases from the Bible, are not indicative of the assertion you opened with. Charity is not socialism. Communal living... the apostles were nomads, traveling and teaching once Jesus was gone. Again, here is more fuel for for my anarchy fire. Anti-capitalist? Please expand on that.

Why is it so incredibly difficult to untie religion and politics, anyway? They're apples and oranges but for some reason people seem to believe they come from the same tree. One should be a matter of faith and the other of reason. Instead they both seem to devolve into matters of power. Yuk.

Well, I think both are extremely effective ways of controlling people and when used in conjunction they stupefy. You're right. It's all about power.

 

[TurtleBurger]

When Huckabee made his comment that "Jesus was too smart to run for political office", the question related to capital punishment. In fact, Huckabee should have remembered that Jesus was actually put in a position to decide a capital punishment case. His verdict was "Whoever has no sin should cast the first stone." That is, no one should have the power to take life except God Himself. That stands in strong contrast to the rights that modern States arrogate to themselves.

 

[Truth Warrior]

When Huckabee made his comment that "Jesus was too smart to run for political office", the question related to capital punishment. In fact, Huckabee should have remembered that Jesus was actually put in a position to decide a capital punishment case. His verdict was "Whoever has no sin should cast the first stone." That is, no one should have the power to take life except God Himself. That stands in strong contrast to the rights that modern States arrogate to themselves.

Huck's answer was merely a humorous dodge of the real question he was asked in the debate, as you will surely recall.

 

[weslinder]

DIdn't say he was a hippy. Just communal in philosophy.

Agreed. I was responding to the Ethics professor, not you. Personally, I think the communal nature of his followers was organic. It was somewhat necessary for the earliest Christians, especially those in Palestine to band together to survive persecution. Communal living has often been the response of those fighting for survival. It isn't surprising to me that when Christians gained enough wealth and power in some areas that they could avoid persecution, the Church fathers began encouraging property ownership, industriousness, and giving out of the excess. Materialism was still discouraged, but 2nd century Christians (especially in Asia) were taught that their obligation was to make more money so that they could give more.

 

[DriftWood]

Thanks, I'm sure we would have some interesting conversations.

Well, see, there again, the Israelites wanted a powerful man to make their nation great again. Jesus did come to teach them how to free themselves from slavery and bondage yet they didn't understand him. They wanted physical, tangible freedom and what he offered them was spiritual and mental freedom.




His statements about wealth and charity were part of the mental and spiritual freedom he offered people. The less stuff you have the less you have holding you back from trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you. Jesus' problem with the rich was not that they were rich. And he didn't say a rich person would not "go to" heaven. What he was saying was it is exponentially more difficult for someone to stay true to God if they have accumulated wealth because then they need to care for the accumulation. For most, not all, wealthy people, accumulation (and its care) is not only the means but the end. This is my understanding anyway.

The moneychangers in the temple is a whole other subject. Yes Jesus was against usury, but there was a whole other dynamic going on and it was one of the only times he became violently angry. It deserves special attention, but I don't have the energy for it right now.

The statements you make, paraphrases from the Bible, are not indicative of the assertion you opened with. Charity is not socialism. Communal living... the apostles were nomads, traveling and teaching once Jesus was gone. Again, here is more fuel for for my anarchy fire. Anti-capitalist? Please expand on that.



Well, I think both are extremely effective ways of controlling people and when used in conjunction they stupefy. You're right. It's all about power.

Well the anti-capitalist angle.

Accoring to capitalism, the self interest and greed of the individual results in a society that is better for everyone. Its kindof counter intuitive. Its the "trickle down" and "rising tide floats all boats" theory. Socialism on the other hand. It states that individuals greed and self interest should be discouraged, that altruism should be encourage, so that a society that is better for everyone can form. Even though being nice, sharing and thinking about others first sounds like a good framework for society we know that it does not work. All such nice ideas that go aginast the human nature of self interest result in all kinds of destructive and opressive governments.

Jesus clearly thought that the world would be a better place if people where less selfish. He told people to sell everything they had and give it to the poor. He could not force anyone to do it, but he had alot of authority.

Im going to go off on a tangent here..
I would argue that the whole concept of charity or giving something for nothing is anti-capitalist. You see when you buy something from someone both off you are better off. You get, say, a hot dog and someone gets your money that he in turn can use to buy, say, a newspaper. Both of you are better off. Its like turning one apple into two apples. Society as a whole has in some way benifited. When you give something for nothing then, one of you is better off while the other is worse off. Society as a whole is no better off. The poor guy is now rich, and the rich guy is now poor. Its better to instead of giving away money for nothing, to trade it for something that also makes you better off. The person gets the insentive to produce something that is of value to society that he can trade in exchange for your money. So giving something for nothing is actually making the world a worse place, not a better. So instead of giving money to the homeless guy down the street, buy something from one of the street vendors. If everyone did this, the beggar might start selling stuff instead of begging. He would contribute to society.
The same goes for charity to africa, why not buy a product from africa instead. That way you have given someone a job aswell as food.

Thats the long way around it. I think Jesus was a bleeding heart idealist, and that he therfore would have been a terrible statesman. Sorry if that offends anyone.

Dont forget that self interest and capitalism is at the hearth of libertarianism. And that a good thing.

Cheers

 

[LittleLightShining]

Well the anti-capitalist angle.

Accoring to capitalism, the self interest and greed of the individual results in a society that is better for everyone. Its kindof counter intuitive. Its the "trickle down" and "rising tide floats all boats" theory. Socialism on the other hand. It states that individuals greed and self interest should be discouraged, that altruism should be encourage, so that a society that is better for everyone can form. Even though being nice, sharing and thinking about others first sounds like a good framework for society we know that it does not work. All such nice ideas that go aginast the human nature of self interest result in all kinds of destructive and opressive governments.

Jesus clearly thought that the world would be a better place if people where less selfish. He told people to sell everything they had and give it to the poor. He could not force anyone to do it, but he had alot of authority.

Im going to go off on a tangent here..
I would argue that the whole concept of charity or giving something for nothing is anti-capitalist. You see when you buy something from someone both off you are better off. You get, say, a hot dog and someone gets your money that he in turn can use to buy, say, a newspaper. Both of you are better off. Its like turning one apple into two apples. Society as a whole has in some way benifited. When you give something for nothing then, one of you is better off while the other is worse off. Society as a whole is no better off. The poor guy is now rich, and the rich guy is now poor. Its better to instead of giving away money for nothing, to trade it for something that also makes you better off. The person gets the insentive to produce something that is of value to society that he can trade in exchange for your money. So giving something for nothing is actually making the world a worse place, not a better. So instead of giving money to the homeless guy down the street, buy something from one of the street vendors. If everyone did this, the beggar might start selling stuff instead of begging. He would contribute to society.
The same goes for charity to africa, why not buy a product from africa instead. That way you have given someone a job aswell as food.

Thats the long way around it. I think Jesus was a bleeding heart idealist, and that he therfore would have been a terrible statesman. Sorry if that offends anyone.

Dont forget that self interest and capitalism is at the hearth of libertarianism. And that a good thing.

Cheers

Well, I would agree that Jesus wasn't a capitalist.

As for your tangent about charity, I disagree emphatically with the entire premise. Let's say I have $20 more than I need in my pocket. It's not allocated for anything. I'm on my way home, thinking about what I could spend it on. In my travels I come across a homeless person. Hmmm... 6 pack, smokes and a paper? or surprise the heck out of her and stick it in her hand?

Who benefits either way? Am I doing good for myself because I can buy beer (which I do drink), cigarettes (which I do smoke) and media garbage (which I do consume)? Of course these businesses will benefit. Maybe they still will if the homeless lady makes the same choice I would have. However, if I were to give her the money I have put a smile on someone's face. She knows someone cares enough to notice her. I feel good knowing I brightened someone's day. Emotionally and spiritually I've made a better investment in giving the $20 away.

This is only one small scenario. Charity is never a negative if your intentions are right. And I know you said you're an atheist but the Bible tells me not to lay up my treasure here. The spiritual benefit of quiet charity far outweighs any loss of capital.

Is self-interest at the heart of libertarianism? Individualism yes, selfishness... ? Convince me.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I took an ethics class a few years ago. One of my classmates asked how Jesus would affiliate himself politically. Our professor said he would lean Democratic. Nothing else was said about it. If I had known of Dr. Paul and his great Libertarian teachings at the time, I would have argued his answer. As I look back on it, I realize the professor didn't quite understand coercion vs. actual charity.

My question is: What are your thoughts on Jesus's possible political affiliation?

I'm no Christian, but my take on Jesus was that he was concerned with god's kingdom and not earthly kingdoms. I doubt he would affiliate with any political party.

 

[skinnyskittles1989]

Well in defense of libertarians, not all libertarians are pro-choice. And no libertarian is for force against another person. And no libertarian is for killing babies.
Where the disagreement comes into play is when does one become a human with rights. And the answers to that question is the heart of the debate.
No one in the LP is for killing babies.

The libertarian Walter Block offered a third alternative for abortion that he defends as the proper choice for libertarians and it's called pro-eviction. Since the mother has womb property rights then she can evict the baby but assuming that the life begins at conception, the baby also has body property rights so she cannot kill the baby.

here's him talking about it if anyone's interested
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block8.mp3

 

[JMann]

Well in defense of libertarians, not all libertarians are pro-choice. And no libertarian is for force against another person. And no libertarian is for killing babies.
Where the disagreement comes into play is when does one become a human with rights. And the answers to that question is the heart of the debate.
No one in the LP is for killing babies.

If you are a libertarian and you are on an airplane with a screaming baby next to you at that point you may be libertarian that is pro baby killing.

 

[Paulitician]

Im going to go off on a tangent here..
I would argue that the whole concept of charity or giving something for nothing is anti-capitalist. You see when you buy something from someone both off you are better off. You get, say, a hot dog and someone gets your money that he in turn can use to buy, say, a newspaper. Both of you are better off. Its like turning one apple into two apples. Society as a whole has in some way benifited. When you give something for nothing then, one of you is better off while the other is worse off. Society as a whole is no better off. The poor guy is now rich, and the rich guy is now poor. Its better to instead of giving away money for nothing, to trade it for something that also makes you better off. The person gets the insentive to produce something that is of value to society that he can trade in exchange for your money. So giving something for nothing is actually making the world a worse place, not a better. So instead of giving money to the homeless guy down the street, buy something from one of the street vendors. If everyone did this, the beggar might start selling stuff instead of begging. He would contribute to society.
The same goes for charity to africa, why not buy a product from africa instead. That way you have given someone a job aswell as food.

I somewhat agree/disagree. What if the money and support you're giving to a person or organization makes you feel good, because you thought it was in your own self-interest to do so? That's not necessarily giving "something for nothing" IMO. Also, if you give a peasant "free" money or knowledge for, say, building a businees or growing a farm, it could have been in your interest to help yourself or even "society" by supplying more food or services that can be bought. Those are two examples where it can be seen as giving something for nothing, but aren't necessarily so. However, I do believe giving things away for non-productive reasons or no real reason at all is anti-capitalist (especially if done by force), not to mention nonsensical.

 

[torchbearer]

If you are a libertarian and you are on an airplane with a screaming baby next to you at that point you may be libertarian that is pro baby killing.

On my flight home I had a lil' girl continuously kicking the underneath of my seat. So yeh, children on airplanes can spur anyone to consider force against youth.

 

[kigol]

lol

 

[torchbearer]

lol

Yeh, and that was on a 3hour flight.
A true test of patience. Lucky for her, I have tons of it. But it wasn't easy.

 

[aravoth]

I took an ethics class a few years ago. One of my classmates asked how Jesus would affiliate himself politically. Our professor said he would lean Democratic. Nothing else was said about it. If I had known of Dr. Paul and his great Libertarian teachings at the time, I would have argued his answer. As I look back on it, I realize the professor didn't quite understand coercion vs. actual charity.

My question is: What are your thoughts on Jesus's possible political affiliation?

Jesus cared about people. No way he'd be a democrat or a republican, they don't give a shit about anything except the rights they trample on, the power the take, and the money they steal from all of us that actually earn a living. Or as Jesus put it, give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

You seriously think all these democrat "handouts" is teaching anyone to fish? Or how about the Current Republican "economic simulus package". Jesus would hopefully ask his dad to smite both parties like he did with sodom and gamorah.