NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, so, it's election year. Mister Christ is leading the polls, and is eventually elected into office, with his expected administration of Mathew, Mark, Luke, Judas and the gang, and even a personal secretary named Mary (gasp, trouble is afoot!)

But yes, Big J is elected leader. It's the third testament, adapted and designed for the modern world. So, what's he going to do with it? What are his policies and opinions going to be regarding the social and international issues of the day?

Is he gonna be patting the back of the christian right? Is he going to be congratulating the neo-cons for a job well done in the USA? Is he going to turn western nations into authoritarian theocracies, or is he going to decide that forcing people to worship god through government isn't going to save anyone? Is he gonna be a hardcore free market capitalist, or is he going to love institutions like the UK's NHS?

Of which nation is he elected? Doesn't really matter. USA would be fun, as they have their fingers in many pots. But anything works. UK, South Africa, somewhere crazy like Iran if you want, whatever. It's a serious question, too, i'd like to hear what people think such a hypothetical government would run like, with so many diverse views as to what christianity is today, and how it seems to desire a much larger role in politics. Do you believe the old SoG would actually be a right-wing nutbag, or has his name just been hijacked for the cause?

Speculate away. :)

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

I believe Katrina and Rita have spoken.. ;)

I hear wood is his cryptonite.

I think Jesus would be concerned about very few things: 1) Safety and health of poor, sick, etc. I think we would see a national health care system and increased expediture to the non-profit sector. 2) Would probably be surprised divorce was a big thing and take steps to curve this. 3) Probably say "You all got my message wrong, the closest ones to it are the Quakers. (They're a little quiet for my tast, though). Religion is all about love and service, not beliefs." I think he would probably view the Neo-Cons as todays pharasies anounce a total end to war for whatever country he was president of and encourage other countries to do the same.

Probably atheists and communists.

Probably atheists and communists.

Jesus was a communist, honey.

Probably atheists and communists.

He'd actually side with them, come to think of it.

He'd bomb the fundies who give his religion a bad name.

I think Jesus was a "good" man, whether he was the son of god or not. But somehow I doubt that he would make a good national leader. He'd be tryin to tell everyone to love one another, while the DPRK was arming up, al-qaeda would be moving through his new "open" borders like water, and Iran would say "hey, its just for electricity, I promise" And he would probably beleive them.

Call me crazy, but I like having mean bastards in charge. They don't take any shit.

Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody.

/statestheobvious

Jesus was a communist, honey.

Just because someone cares about the poor doesn't make them a communist, "honey."

Just because someone cares about the poor doesn't make them a communist, "honey."

Living in a commune of 13 people does, sweety.

Living in a commune of 13 people does.

Say what you want, Jesus wasn't a communist. I highly doubt He had any political views.

trade unionists, gays, and people who are involved in abortion.

Yeah, I doubt Jesus would ever be a leader of anything, but it's just a hypothetical situation, for fun.

Personally, I think he'd be pretty libertarian. After all, he does supposedly like the free-will thing. He'd be the kind of guy who says 'this is what's right and wrong; the word straight from upstairs', but adds on 'whether you choose to do this is your own decision'.

So, on one level, I guess that means he would be pretty ok, legally, with a lot of stuff. Whether it also means he'll be into extreme stuff like opt-out taxes (you know, the whole "charity for a better society is nice, thing, but you get the final decision"), I'm not sure...

Say what you want, Jesus wasn't a communist. I highly doubt He had any political views.

There you go, flushing the Bible you apparently haven't read down the loo. Usually I'd commend the action, but perhaps a spot of reading is in order here.

I find this whole thread to be in rather bad taste.

That said, I'm sure he'd bomb American Idol because Bo didn't win.

There you go, flushing the Bible you apparently haven't read down the loo. Usually I'd commend the action, but perhaps a spot of reading is in order here.

I probably know a lot more about than you. Jesus wasn't a communist. Communists favor forcibly re-distributing wealth. Jesus was God, and one of His Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not steal." Taking from someone against their will is called stealing.

I believe Katrina and Rita have spoken.. ;)

I don't think he was aiming for the Civilians of New Orleans. But from far above I guess it's easy to miss Washington.

Jesus IS da Bomb, yo.


Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone. He's a pacifist (though he could probably be convinced to Pass-A-Fist into Pat Roberts mouth)

I probably know a lot more about than you. Jesus wasn't a communist. Communists favor forcibly re-distributing wealth. Jesus was God, and one of His Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not steal." Taking from someone against their will is called stealing.

Sure, reading it is in order here. You really should know what it is you are desecrating, bubbles.

I find this whole thread to be in rather bad taste.

I didn't intend for it to be in bad taste. The "who would jesus bomb?" thread title is copied from a political joke that I assumed was popular enough for people to recognise. For those that didn't: it wasn't neccesarily a serious question.

But the rest of the post is serious. It's more an exercise in finding out what people really think of Jesus and christianity, and putting the question in a semi-practical and contemporary context.

No offense is meant, and I'm hoping none'll be meant in any of the replies, interpretations or opinions posted.

Sure, reading it is in order here. You really should know what it is you are desecrating, bubbles.

Unlike you, I actually read it, rather than milk politically correct myths, such as Jesus being a long-haired pinko thief.

Yeah, so, it's election year. Mister Christ is leading the polls, and is eventually elected into office, with his expected administration of Mathew, Mark, Luke, Judas and the gang, and even a personal secretary named Mary (gasp, trouble is afoot!)

But yes, Big J is elected leader. It's the third testament, adapted and designed for the modern world. So, what's he going to do with it? What are his policies and opinions going to be regarding the social and international issues of the day?

Is he gonna be patting the back of the christian right? Is he going to be congratulating the neo-cons for a job well done in the USA? Is he going to turn western nations into authoritarian theocracies, or is he going to decide that forcing people to worship god through government isn't going to save anyone? Is he gonna be a hardcore free market capitalist, or is he going to love institutions like the UK's NHS?

Of which nation is he elected? Doesn't really matter. USA would be fun, as they have their fingers in many pots. But anything works. UK, South Africa, somewhere crazy like Iran if you want, whatever. It's a serious question, too, i'd like to hear what people think such a hypothetical government would run like, with so many diverse views as to what christianity is today, and how it seems to desire a much larger role in politics. Do you believe the old SoG would actually be a right-wing nutbag, or has his name just been hijacked for the cause?

Speculate away. :)

Has anyone ever told you that you are an idiot? If so, believe them. If not, I'm informing you now.

Jesus was a communist, honey.

Although it is true that the early Chritian church pooled their finances and members were each paid what they needed from the kitty, and hence we can say that the early church was socialist, Jesus cetainly did not behave in the manner of a modern Communist nation. He tryed to convert people to his way of thinking through love and kindness, not through nukes and propaganda.

Although it is true that the early Chritian church pooled their finances and members were each paid what they needed from the kitty, and hence we can say that the early church was socialist, Jesus cetainly did not behave in the manner of a modern Communist nation. He tryed to convert people to his way of thinking through love and kindness, not through nukes and propaganda.

I think you've been reading a little too much propaganda yourself.

(psst...being communist doesn't mean I heart Stalin. :))

I find this whole thread to be in rather bad taste.

.

You're not the only one.

It would be amusing to see his reaction to the religious right's obsession with family values, considering he demanded all his disciples leave their families to follow him.

Unlike you, I actually read it, rather than milk politically correct myths, such as Jesus being a long-haired pinko thief.

Haha, you truly are an amusingly inept troll. Stringing you along like this, while fun, is not liked by the mods, so I really should stop giving you the impression that there's somebody reading your fauxdignant posts. Your feeding service has been suspended. Jesus may redistribute some for you in the form of fish, though.

I didn't intend for it to be in bad taste. The "who would jesus bomb?" thread title is copied from a political joke that I assumed was popular enough for people to recognise. For those that didn't: it wasn't neccesarily a serious question.

But the rest of the post is serious. It's more an exercise in finding out what people really think of Jesus and christianity, and putting the question in a semi-practical and contemporary context.

No offense is meant, and I'm hoping none'll be meant in any of the replies, interpretations or opinions posted.

Oh, no worries. I was being semi-facetious. I do think it would be interesting to consider other options such as "Who would Buddha bomb?" but speculation is speculation and if the Son of God can't handle a little creative thinking, then he's probably not all he's cracked up to be in the first place.

Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody.

/statestheobvious
/unnecessarily agrees with SB


He's far too kind-hearted and noble and nonsense. Ugh, that weakling compassion! It disgusts me!

I don't think he was aiming for the Civilians of New Orleans. But from far above I guess it's easy to miss Washington.
Yeah, I was wondering why he kept going out to serve as a rescue worker when usually he doesn't interfere when his targets are struck... ;)

Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone. He'd unleash the Kung-Fu Fury upon their arses.

Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone. He'd unleash the Kung-Fu Fury upon their arses.

What, with those limp wrists?

What, with those limp wrists?

Okay, that's funny, but egads is it evil!

Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone. He'd unleash the Kung-Fu Fury upon their arses.
LOL!

Wouldn't he be slightly more adept at cross-fighting?

Yeah, so, it's election year. Mister Christ is leading the polls, and is eventually elected into office, with his expected administration of Mathew, Mark, Luke, Judas and the gang, and even a personal secretary named Mary (gasp, trouble is afoot!)

But yes, Big J is elected leader. It's the third testament, adapted and designed for the modern world. So, what's he going to do with it? What are his policies and opinions going to be regarding the social and international issues of the day?

Is he gonna be patting the back of the christian right? Is he going to be congratulating the neo-cons for a job well done in the USA? Is he going to turn western nations into authoritarian theocracies, or is he going to decide that forcing people to worship god through government isn't going to save anyone? Is he gonna be a hardcore free market capitalist, or is he going to love institutions like the UK's NHS?

Of which nation is he elected? Doesn't really matter. USA would be fun, as they have their fingers in many pots. But anything works. UK, South Africa, somewhere crazy like Iran if you want, whatever. It's a serious question, too, i'd like to hear what people think such a hypothetical government would run like, with so many diverse views as to what christianity is today, and how it seems to desire a much larger role in politics. Do you believe the old SoG would actually be a right-wing nutbag, or has his name just been hijacked for the cause?

Speculate away. :)

Jesus would favor free enterprise (with some socialism built in to help those who cannot help themselves -- but Jesus did not support sloth, so it wouldn't be "if you don't feel like working to support yourself, you don't have to") because it is the system of financial freedom.

Jesus would encourage private donations to churches/other charities to help those in need rather than de-personalizing it with tax dollars.

Jesus would favor governments that favor freedom (broadly): representative republics. Jesus probably would not be into dictatorships.

To foment the above, Jesus might sanction the removal of certain bad rulers/systems of government and emphasize the implementation of governments that are elected by the people they serve/govern.

Jesus would understand that so long as there are bad people in the world, military force is sometimes necessary.

But He would encourage peaceful means whenever possible to remove such people. (he's not called the Prince of Peace for nothing)

That said, he is his Father's Son, so he's no pansy when it comes to armed conflict -- God, throughout the Old Testament, showed His power and his love for the Israelites by ordering the Israelites to slaughter their enemies and making it easy for the Israelites to do so.

Sure, reading it is in order here. You really should know what it is you are desecrating, bubbles.

lol. I love bait the troll, and I bow to your skill, Fass.

If Jesus were in power and another 9/11 occurred, he'd turn the other cheek...with a holy flamethrower.

Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody.

/statestheobvious

He is the leader of the armies of heaven in Armaggeddon... more destruction than any one bomb.

/statestheobvious :rolleyes:

Jesus would tell the Pope he had got it all wrong, and to disband the Catholic Church. He'd tell the fundamentalists in Israel to lighten up and to live in peace with their Palestinian brothers. He'd lobby for the impeachment of George Bush.

I think Jesus would be concerned about very few things: 1) Safety and health of poor, sick, etc. I think we would see a national health care system and increased expediture to the non-profit sector. 2) Would probably be surprised divorce was a big thing and take steps to curve this. 3) Probably say "You all got my message wrong, the closest ones to it are the Quakers. (They're a little quiet for my tast, though). Religion is all about love and service, not beliefs." I think he would probably view the Neo-Cons as todays pharasies anounce a total end to war for whatever country he was president of and encourage other countries to do the same.

1. The poor are poor because they're lazy. He'd laugh at their spinner wheels and 40 oz beers. Every weekend I see the poor lined up at the beer store. Go by your local community college and tell me how many poor peopel are there.

Who needs National Health care, he can heal everyone.

2. He'd probably blame the gays for the failure of heterosexual divorce rates, everyone else does.

3. Maybe his message was taken wrong. Maybe the "love and service" was all about that cute little Mary Magdalene, if you know what I mean.

What, with those limp wrists?

Dude. Where in you're brain do these thoughts get formed?

Dude. Where in you're brain do these thoughts get formed?
He has a brain?

Dude. Where in you're brain do these thoughts get formed?

In my impressively large lower brain.

Jesus loves us all.

Unless you piss him off. :p

I imagine that if Jesus ruled as dictator, he would dismantle the military, increase funding to the national healthcare, education and welfare systems, restrict divorce and abortion laws, open the borders, and increase international aid.

I think Jesus was a "good" man, whether he was the son of god or not. But somehow I doubt that he would make a good national leader. He'd be tryin to tell everyone to love one another, while the DPRK was arming up, al-qaeda would be moving through his new "open" borders like water, and Iran would say "hey, its just for electricity, I promise" And he would probably beleive them.

Call me crazy, but I like having mean bastards in charge. They don't take any shit.
I agree. I wouldn't vote for Jesus if my country was under threat. He would just let us get bombed out of existence while "turning the other cheek."

1. The poor are poor because they're lazy. He'd laugh at their spinner wheels and 40 oz beers. Every weekend I see the poor lined up at the beer store. Go by your local community college and tell me how many poor peopel are there.

Who needs National Health care, he can heal everyone.

2. He'd probably blame the gays for the failure of heterosexual divorce rates, everyone else does.

3. Maybe his message was taken wrong. Maybe the "love and service" was all about that cute little Mary Magdalene, if you know what I mean.

Well, I, for one, could use a decent foot massage.

trade unionists, gays, and people who are involved in abortion.

Exactly. Oh, wait. Except for that whole thing about loving your neighbor, regardless of who or what they are. Maybe I just missed the part where Jesus said to hate the lepers, thieves and prostitutes instead of hanging out with them like he did.

And regarding the other post that said Jesus would not have redistributed peoples money, it was Jesus who said "give unto Caesar what is Caeser's" (i.e. pay your taxes). He also said that people should give everything that they have to follow him and that the poor and downtrodden in society should be taken care of. Don't see too many "conservative Christians" talking about that anymore.

The first time he came, he came a servant. The next time he comes he comes with a sword… He doesn’t need to bomb anyone because the entire world’s collected armies will be there ready for him to defeat.

2. Rev. 1:12-16, (start in middle of vs. 12) "I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength."

Acts 2:17-21 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: {18} And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: {19} And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: {20} The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: {21} And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Revelations 19:11, "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." verse 14, "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses..." verse 19, "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."

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, {2} Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Psalm 7:11-13, "God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If he does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready. He also prepares for Himself instruments of death; He makes His arrows into fiery shafts."

2 Thess. 1:7-9 "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power."


:)

How ironic that the day that The Lord's mercy dies is the day my faith in Him dies also.

I pray that day never comes.

Jesus loves us all.

Unless you piss him off. :p
How true...

trade unionists, gays, and people who are involved in abortion.
I doubt he would bomb anybody. He would probably imprison people involved in abortion (or fine them and give the money to women's charities), frown upon gays (but not outlaw them) and would do nothing against trade unions.

I probably know a lot more about than you. Jesus wasn't a communist. Communists favor forcibly re-distributing wealth. Jesus was God, and one of His Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not steal." Taking from someone against their will is called stealing.
Most communists don't favour taxing people. You're thinking of democratic socialists.

Unlike you, I actually read it, rather than milk politically correct myths, such as Jesus being a long-haired pinko thief.
What is this political correctness? Why do conservative pharisees always just accuse other people's statements as "political correctness" as if that accusation invalidates them?

Jesus would favor free enterprise ....
-snip-
I read your entire post. Dude, you could have just said "Jesus would favour my opinions/ideology."

He'd tell the fundamentalists in Israel to lighten up and to live in peace with their Palestinian brothers.
Despite the fact that the situtation there is more the Palestinians' fault than the Israelis'? Actually, you're right, Jesus would say something like that, the fool.

Exactly. Oh, wait. Except for that whole thing about loving your neighbor, regardless of who or what they are. Maybe I just missed the part where Jesus said to hate the lepers, thieves and prostitutes instead of hanging out with them like he did.

And regarding the other post that said Jesus would not have redistributed peoples money, it was Jesus who said "give unto Caesar what is Caeser's" (i.e. pay your taxes). He also said that people should give everything that they have to follow him and that the poor and downtrodden in society should be taken care of. Don't see too many "conservative Christians" talking about that anymore.

"loving" your neighbor does not mean you shouldn't frown on sin. Jesus hates sin.

and everyone sins, so let's not get into the "you're self-righteous" anti-christian axiom hurled by the left (primarily the left, anyway).

How ironic that the day that The Lord's mercy dies is the day my faith in Him dies also.

I pray that day never comes.

Seconded, sooooo seconded.

I doubt that Jesus would be party to standing for election. Assuming he was elected through no effort of his own and accepted the unsolicited position, I think his policies would be along the lines of:

dismantlement of any state or institutionized religon (he presiously fought the established synagogues - remember, Christ was a jew).

the immediate ban on any method of profiting from faith. thus, no more plastic jesus statues, theme parks, any iconic representation, and TV pay-to-be-saved shows (previously, he trashed shucksters who hawked goods outside of the synagogues).

the complete dismantlement of any armed forces (he was a pacifist. "turn the other cheek" implies it's better to die than to kill another).

the entire destruction of the capitalist economy. (I know this one is difficult for many to fathom but strict christian teaching stresses that there is no need for wealth. a good christain immediately gives what he has to others without hesitation).

at this point, those of the right-wing bible-belt who elected him in the first place would crucify him for the second time.

I agree. I wouldn't vote for Jesus if my country was under threat. He would just let us get bombed out of existence while "turning the other cheek." He wasn't afraid to take action when absolutely necessary.

Anyway, I reckon he'd… lessee… keep the NHS, and get us all to help each other through sheer guilt force. Also, he'd bomb the temple. He split one in two before, he can do it again. :)

"loving" your neighbor does not mean you shouldn't frown on sin. Jesus hates sin.

Yes but I never saw him punishing anyone for it or even yelling at them. He was gentle to the adulterers even thougth he (probably) strongly believed in the sanctity of marriage. He realized that things can only be corrected through Love, tough love sometime, but love none the les.

and everyone sins, so let's not get into the "you're self-righteous" anti-christian axiom hurled by the left (primarily the left, anyway).

The "self-righteous" axiom hurled out is because many of us feel the right's morality is being imposed on us. You know what? I think it's immoral to not allow homosexuals to marry. I think it's immoral to not ordain women. I think it is immoral to give money to organizations that descriminate on the basis of religion. I think it is immoral to pay someone less than a living wage. I think it's immoral for jobs to not supply affordable health care. I think it is immoral for buisnesses not to supply day care for their workers. I think it is immoral not to teach our children all about sex.

I won't impose my morality on you: I won't force your church to accept gay marriage, ordain women, donate to all causes regardless of faith, teach your kids sex ed, force your buisness to supply a living wage, affordable health care and day care if you don't force your morality on me.

All I ask is the same.

I doubt he would bomb anybody. He would probably imprison people involved in abortion (or fine them and give the money to women's charities), frown upon gays (but not outlaw them) and would do nothing against trade unions.


Most communists don't favour taxing people. You're thinking of democratic socialists.


What is this political correctness? Why do conservative pharisees always just accuse other people's statements as "political correctness" as if that accusation invalidates them?


I read your entire post. Dude, you could have just said "Jesus would favour my opinions/ideology."


Despite the fact that the situtation there is more the Palestinians' fault than the Israelis'? Actually, you're right, Jesus would say something like that, the fool.

not necessarily... what i didn't say was that Jesus would probably endorse Christianity (while allowing, of course, freedom of religion). I don't think that government should endorse any certain religion.

also, he might go for more welfare than i'd like

as for free enterprise, the key is the adjective: free. I believe Jesus would favor freedom whenever possible.

he'd probably keep some fairly strong regulations on business to ensure that they're honest and forthcoming with info for consumers..

me :mp5:

All the brown people. yeah..

Yes but I never saw him punishing anyone for it or even yelling at them. He was gentle to the adulterers even thougth he (probably) strongly believed in the sanctity of marriage. He realized that things can only be corrected through Love, tough love sometime, but love none the les.



The "self-righteous" axiom hurled out is because many of us feel the right's morality is being imposed on us. You know what? I think it's immoral to not allow homosexuals to marry. I think it's immoral to not ordain women. I think it is immoral to give money to organizations that descriminate on the basis of religion. I think it is immoral to pay someone less than a living wage. I think it's immoral for jobs to not supply affordable health care. I think it is immoral for buisnesses not to supply day care for their workers. I think it is immoral not to teach our children all about sex.

I won't impose my morality on you: I won't force your church to accept gay marriage, ordain women, donate to all causes regardless of faith, teach your kids sex ed, force your buisness to supply a living wage, affordable health care and day care if you don't force your morality on me.

All I ask is the same.

it's the morality of the Bible (often). IF someone makes something up and tries to act high and mighty, that's another thing entirely (that would be self-righteous: "these are my rules and everyone should follow them" as opposed to the more acceptable "these are God's rules and everyone should follow them"). But accusing someone for being "self-righteous" when they're basing their behavior on righteousness as mandated by God is not self-righteousness... it's simply following the rules of the Bible. if you have a beef, take it to God, who made the rules. And call them bible-righteous maybe. hehe

i don't care about your morality... I care about God's. You can't judge me; God will. (no offense... but I'd rather piss you off than God)

hehe

as for your specific points:

I think it's immoral to not allow homosexuals to marry.

God doesn't... God defined marriage.

I think it is immoral to give money to organizations that descriminate on the basis of religion.

I think it's far more immoral to tell people what they can and can't do with their own money.

I think it is immoral to pay someone less than a living wage.

I think that while a living wage is not necessarily a bad thing (I'd make sure, for instance, that all my workers were paid well), I believe it should be up to the owners of the business as to how much they choose to pay those who work for them. If you take away owners' ability to govern the business they own, you take away one of the incentives for going into business in the first place, and then you have business not being created (and resulting job-loss).

I think it's immoral for jobs to not supply affordable health care.

Again, I pretty much agree and would offer affordable health care to my employees, but you can't force business owners to offer benefits.

I think it is immoral not to teach our children all about sex.

Well certainly different parents have different ways of going about that. My education came largely in the form of Playboys (lol) and late-night Cinemax at sleep-over parties in junior high. Of course kids should be taught about the joys and dangers of sex (let parents handle the morality part -- morality shouldn't be in schools beyond a basic sense of right and wrong -- "don't steal" for instance).

Finally, of course i won't try to force anything on anyone... we all make our own choices, and far be it from anyone to try to force anyone else to make certain choices. But I think there's nothing wrong with recommending certain paths.... IE, giving advice.

1. The poor are poor because they're lazy. He'd laugh at their spinner wheels and 40 oz beers. Every weekend I see the poor lined up at the beer store. Go by your local community college and tell me how many poor peopel are there.

Just about everybody I know that goes to the community college here is pretty darn poor. Just because some poor people (whom you have very subtly indicated are mainly black via some lovely stereotypes) are lazy, does not mean that all of them are. Jesus would probably be simultaneously laughing and crying at people who think like you do.

2. He'd probably blame the gays for the failure of heterosexual divorce rates, everyone else does.

I don't remember Jesus doing that much blaming, from what I've heard about him. As for heterosexual divorce rates, that's because people have forgotten what love is about, not because some people love those of the same sex. Jesus had a hell of a lot more compassion than to say something as blatantly ignorant as that.

3. Maybe his message was taken wrong. Maybe the "love and service" was all about that cute little Mary Magdalene, if you know what I mean.

Were that statement not so funny, I'd call you a pig.

Jesus' message definitely was taken wrong, as is indirectly illustrated in some well-read books, like the bible.

I personally think Jesus would make a terrible leader. His message is a good one, but one that is most effective through personal interaction, not on a grand scale. Were he to indoctrinate his views, they'd go horribly wrong (like, um, oh, I dunno, organized religion for the past 2000 years or so).

I personally think Jesus would make a terrible leader. His message is a good one, but one that is most effective through personal interaction, not on a grand scale. Were he to indoctrinate his views, they'd go horribly wrong (like, um, oh, I dunno, organized religion for the past 2000 years or so). I reckon he'd more be the greasy eminence rather than the leader - he would rather influence his people. I won't apologise for the Pratchetty spelling of eminence grise.

as for free enterprise, the key is the adjective: free. I believe Jesus would favor freedom whenever possible.
So he would allow abortion and divorce? I doubt it! I read your post and just saw your own opinions on how a country should be run. At leas tI was honest and admitted that Christ would pursue some policies that I would significantly disagree with.

Christ as He came to the Jews would not be a political leader at all, question answered. I am sure that He would express sorrow at the sights of today, though - all manner of terrible cultural practices, hypocrites that use His name for power and wealth rather than for the benefit of mankind, an inability to withhold judgments and to love our neighbors. He would probably be called a right-winger and libertarian as his doctrines support the establishment of moral and economic liberty and personal agency.

I think personally he would shock a certain less-informed portion of leftists and the religious right alike - lets face it, too many people associate his name with a few random "Christian" nutcases. And some of course are those "Christian" nutcases.

I reckon he'd more be the greasy eminence rather than the leader - he would rather influence his people. I won't apologise for the Pratchetty spelling of eminence grise.

Considering hygiene practices back then, he probably would be a bit greasy. Damn hippies.

Not to be pedantic but he wouldn't bomb anyone, I believe he was a PACIFIST, tolerant and liberal human being (poor bloke)

Not to be pedantic but he wouldn't bomb anyone, I believe he was a PACIFIST, tolerant and liberal human being (poor bloke)

I believe this is a point rehashed about 750 times o.0;;

Jesus was hardly a peacenik ninny who went around acting like he was living in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood...

Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be quiet, and come out of him!" Mark 1:25

Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" When the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm. Luke 4:35

So I brought him to your disciples, but they couldn't heal him." Jesus replied, "You stubborn, faithless people! How long must I be with you until you believe? How long must I put up with you? Bring the boy to me." Matthew 17:16-17

The disciples went and woke Him, saying, "Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!" 26He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. Matthew 8:26

8Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Matthew 16:8-12

Get behind me, Satan!' he said. 'You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men’ Mark 8:33

They suggested, "'Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?' But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village" (Luke 9:54-56).

15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" John 2:16-17

"My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in." Proverbs 3:11-12

Jesus was hardly a peacenik ninny who went around acting like he was living in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood...

Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be quiet, and come out of him!" Mark 1:25

Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" When the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm. Luke 4:35

So I brought him to your disciples, but they couldn't heal him." Jesus replied, "You stubborn, faithless people! How long must I be with you until you believe? How long must I put up with you? Bring the boy to me." Matthew 17:16-17

The disciples went and woke Him, saying, "Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!" 26He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. Matthew 8:26

8Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Matthew 16:8-12

Get behind me, Satan!' he said. 'You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men’ Mark 8:33

They suggested, "'Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?' But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village" (Luke 9:54-56).

15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" John 2:16-17

"My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in." Proverbs 3:11-12


Thanx Ph33rdom!

No limp wrists there! :mad:

i think Jesus answerd this question himself when he said "My kingdom is not of this world" i forget were it is exactly but he would not run any country would not belive in any politics and he would denounce all protestant groups he would attempt to correct the catholics but find it useless and return to staying with the orthodox chritians who shead their bloods for the sake of his name in the millions.

athiests
Osama bin Laden (Jesus, I hope so)
Mecca (because Islam calls Christianity corurpt WTF!)

because some poor people (whom you have very subtly indicated are mainly black via some lovely stereotypes) are lazy, does not mean that all of them are. Jesus would probably be simultaneously laughing and crying at people who think like you do.

Arond here they're more likely to be Mexican immigrants. I was born poor, and I didn't like it. I have no sympathy for the poor that stay that way.

Around here, the children of immigrants still speak their parents native language exclusivley. What a shock that they're still poor. What a shock when you see these immigrant parents lined up at the liquor store. For the cost of a couple cases of beer, you could learn something. Maybe improve the lot of your family. Maybe give your kids a chance. Naw, better to down some beer and watch Telemundo.

No sympathy at all. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason!

That's easy.

Take a look at the paths of hurricanes over Florida in the election vs Al Gore:
http://choplogicrock.com/images/GODvsBUSH.jpg

That's easy.

Take a look at the paths of hurricanes over Florida in the election vs Al Gore:
http://choplogicrock.com/images/GODvsBUSH.jpg
could we something like that for hurican rita and kitrina as well as one for time for relife to get to each spot

oh and jesus also was ofered the chance to be king several time but each time he refused it forinstance after the feedingof the 5000 men he left but they followed after and tried to crown him king but he refused their request.

To begin with, I must say... I agree with Ph33rdom--whom I usually agree with. ^.^

Next: Jesus was a leader, maybe not politically... but he was still. Notice how he sent his disciples about to spread His Word. I think he would have a very, very effective political campaign if he turned his mind to it. To outline this, he would visit those who disagreed with him the most and talk to them. Those that already agree with him do not need to be convinced, so he wouldn't focus on them as much. I believe he would have the largest margin of win in modern election.

After being instated, I believe he would practice a very liberitarian point of view.

1) Tax rates would be low (however, he notedly supported the payment of them).
2) He would probably allow freedom of religion, though strongly announce his own faith in Yahweh.
3) He would not be against violence towards those whom originally attacked him. Re-read Ph33rdom's entry. Espec Mark 8:33
4) He would probably press that people express their opinions for and against him in a more peaceful manner. Eventually, people would see how he was right.
5) His laws would be just, and the punishments would be exact. He would probably have a 3-strike rule much like we do.
6) He would furthermore press that people ought to take things up through the courts, and he would instate courts based upon religious decrees. I.E... Muslims to a Muslim-based court, Christians to a Christian-based Court. Why? Because that furthers the establishment of religion (furthermore, the Bible says that is how it should be done).
6) He would press that denominization would be put out. Why? Because there is only one message... not many. And since he would be here, there would be no dispute about it.

As to other peoples' posts... he was not a communist. He was very conservative about politics. An oppressive society would merely change the message of free-will. He was, as I said, liberitarian.

Note: I gave my opinion Biblically based, if I was wrong Biblically... tell me. Furthermore, I based this off the first-coming. If you would rather that I base this on the second-coming... where he is the great warlord... then I will do that later.

Arond here they're more likely to be Mexican immigrants. I was born poor, and I didn't like it. I have no sympathy for the poor that stay that way.

Around here, the children of immigrants still speak their parents native language exclusivley. What a shock that they're still poor. What a shock when you see these immigrant parents lined up at the liquor store. For the cost of a couple cases of beer, you could learn something. Maybe improve the lot of your family. Maybe give your kids a chance. Naw, better to down some beer and watch Telemundo.

No sympathy at all. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason!

Great assumptions. I love how you basically say that a) all poor people line up at the liquor store, and b) all poor people are non-white. While I agree that speaking a foreign tongue exclusively in a country is not conductive to good living, pretty much everything else you say is based on broad generalization. Just because you "used to be poor and got out of it", doesn't mean that that is a possibility for everybody. There are people who work their asses off and are just barely able to support themselves, such as my mom who has lived out of her car before while working three jobs. There are other factors in this world besides "sloth".

Great assumptions. I love how you basically say that a) all poor people line up at the liquor store, and b) all poor people are non-white. While I agree that speaking a foreign tongue exclusively in a country is not conductive to good living, pretty much everything else you say is based on broad generalization. Just because you "used to be poor and got out of it", doesn't mean that that is a possibility for everybody. There are people who work their asses off and are just barely able to support themselves, such as my mom who has lived out of her car before while working three jobs. There are other factors in this world besides "sloth". Yes - like pride, it would seem from the post you were referring to.

Also, I'd like to get this sorted out: Jesus wasn't white. He would have resembled the Jews of the time - looking like something between modern Aryans and modern Arabs

Your mom :eek:

Jesus will bomb everybody.no people=no sinners

I'm glad you pointed out he was not white. I'm also glad you didn't say he was black. -_- I'm tired of both of those assumptions.

(Note: He said Aryan, not Arian... they're different.)

it's the morality of the Bible (often). IF someone makes something up and tries to act high and mighty, that's another thing entirely (that would be self-righteous: "these are my rules and everyone should follow them" as opposed to the more acceptable "these are God's rules and everyone should follow them"). But accusing someone for being "self-righteous" when they're basing their behavior on righteousness as mandated by God is not self-righteousness... it's simply following the rules of the Bible. if you have a beef, take it to God, who made the rules. And call them bible-righteous maybe. hehe


i don't care about your morality... I care about God's. You can't judge me; God will. (no offense... but I'd rather piss you off than God)

Yes but I believe my morality based on revelation comes from God too. Who is right? I personally would rather get it from the source (God) then from second hand (the Bible)



as for your specific points:

I think it's immoral to not allow homosexuals to marry.

God doesn't... God defined marriage.

Yes and I believe God defines it as a loving relationship between two adults regardless of gender. Where does that leave us?

I think it's far more immoral to tell people what they can and can't do with their own money.

Nonsense, we tell people they can't buy drugs with their money, or sex, or human organs, etc.

/snip

Finally, of course i won't try to force anything on anyone... we all make our own choices, and far be it from anyone to try to force anyone else to make certain choices. But I think there's nothing wrong with recommending certain paths.... IE, giving advice.[/QUOTE]

Deffinatley not, however many things are denied us: The right for homosexuals to marry for instance. You say God says in the Bible that they shouldn't, I say God has told me they should. Where does that leave us? Individual churches should make that decision, not the state.

Assuming he took control of America, I would say he would be a Republican. He would encourage saving money and spending it wisely. He would also encourage investing in Real Estate.

In his first term as President, he would focus on domestic issues, such as Social Security, Healthcare, as well as other things I can't think of. He would also secure (Note: Secure does not mean close the borders) the borders and do his best to destroy the drug problem we have today.

In his second term, he would focus on International Politics. He would take on anyone who would try to take on anyone who tried to destroy the US or hurt us, and would probably try to convince dictators to stop being so mean. If that didn't work, he would remove the dictators from power and put in a regime he would agree with.

I think that is pretty accurate.

Yeah, so, it's election year. Mister Christ is leading the polls, and is eventually elected into office, with his expected administration of Mathew, Mark, Luke, Judas and the gang, and even a personal secretary named Mary (gasp, trouble is afoot!)

But yes, Big J is elected leader. It's the third testament, adapted and designed for the modern world. So, what's he going to do with it? What are his policies and opinions going to be regarding the social and international issues of the day?

Is he gonna be patting the back of the christian right? Is he going to be congratulating the neo-cons for a job well done in the USA? Is he going to turn western nations into authoritarian theocracies, or is he going to decide that forcing people to worship god through government isn't going to save anyone? Is he gonna be a hardcore free market capitalist, or is he going to love institutions like the UK's NHS?

Of which nation is he elected? Doesn't really matter. USA would be fun, as they have their fingers in many pots. But anything works. UK, South Africa, somewhere crazy like Iran if you want, whatever. It's a serious question, too, i'd like to hear what people think such a hypothetical government would run like, with so many diverse views as to what christianity is today, and how it seems to desire a much larger role in politics. Do you believe the old SoG would actually be a right-wing nutbag, or has his name just been hijacked for the cause?

Speculate away. :)

theres a reason jesus never got into politics

but for fun lets just say, he would put alot of emphasis on doing to others what you want done to you, he would most likely stay out of alot of controversial issues and would give everyone the right to do whatever, but would really appreciate it if you followed his rules.

judas will be in charge of department of defense, then would tell the enemy where to find our troops, jesus would be constantly going to dinner parties and some will accuse him of child molestation from all the children he likes to have around him.

he would also turn the great lakes into great lakes of wine ;)

Thou shalt not kill...Jesus wouldn't bomb anybody

I'm really amazed by the number of American right-wing Christians who are making suggestions. Most of them are pretty much suggesting that Jesus would be like George Bush. The concept that Jesus would ever support any war or other killing is utterly alien to any church I have ever been in.

Well, for America I know that Jesus would never be President. Because of seperation of church and state.....having the person behind the formation of Christianity as leader of the US would insinuate that the America is pushing Christianity on all Americans. So to speculate on what Jesus would do as Pres is a moot point. Besides, Jesus is not a natural born American citizen so no Pres for him again. Its in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President".

Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone. Though he would hit out against religious fundamentalist. They we're the one's who Jesus usually uh.. (condemn is too harsh), criticise while he was living. (Pharisee, Sudecee's) Teachers of the law that we're very harsh, and corruption (People giving money for forgiveness).

Jesus was no political leader, he wasn't interested in politics. He was interested in people believing in him and by doing so, your sins are forgiven, healing the sick, and talking to people to depend on God is how to live your life.