NationStates Jolt Archive

Just having a bit of fun here, but feel free to turn it into a serious debate. In fact, I'm hoping you do.

If Jesus were a citizen in your country right now, what party would he vote for in your opinion? :p

Greens I would imagine.

jesus was a environmentalist hippie who would be torn between voting to help his fellow man through socialism, and voting for daddy via one of those right-wing religious parties...


nah, i'm sure jesus would be socialist :cool:

I doubt Jesus would vote. He would have far more important things to do than worry about short term things like who is in power in one specific country for the next 4 years.

I think Jesus would vote for himself at the head of his own party.

I think he'd found the Jesus party.

Edit: beaten to it.

I doubt Jesus would vote. He would have far more important things to do than worry about short term things like who is in power in one specific country for the next 4 years.

You're no fun at all. :p

Besides, it's not 4 years in every country.

You're no fun at all. :p

Besides, it's not 4 years in every country.

Doesnt matter how long it is, Jesus' mind thinks in terms of eternity. Compared to eternity, even an entire lifetime is nothing compared to it.

Firstly well done with the grammer in the title,

and secondly I don't think he would vote

"give to caesar what is Caesar's give to god what is goods"

Unless some monk added it to make Jesus look cool I take that as

"politics is like a temporal think so quit hassling me man"

To be perfectly honest i doubt Jesus would vote.
I think he would be against Politics.

So if he did vote it would be for McGillicuddy Serious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party or New McGillicuddy Serious Party( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party_(new )

I reckon JC is a libdem. Charles Kennedy, man! He's a dude.

Firstly well done with the grammer in the title,


Oh, the irony. :D

Jesus would not vote, he would either be some confidence man leading a cult or selling door to door insurance.

So, if Jesus lived in the Vatican like me, he'd obviously vote me into the Pope hat. And all of the terrible and tremendous power of Mariehamn would be felt through out all the world! HAHAHA!

Just having a bit of fun here, but feel free to turn it into a serious debate. In fact, I'm hoping you do.

If Jesus were a citizen in your country right now, what party would he vote for in your opinion? :p

Some sort of hippy-dippy, socialist, environmentalist party. In fact, if Jesus were alive right now he'd probably look like the average "hippy."

I tried to be as close to what I think Jesus said as possible, and when it doubt I used either official church stance or the slightly left option.

Jesus' Political Compass.
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.41

Jesus was a liberal in his own days, but everyone is when they're younger. What was considered liberal in Roman times is almost certainly not what would be considered thus today.

Having said that, I think Jesus probably would vote Liberal Democrat if anyone in the UK; middle class intellectuals tend to do that around here.

Doesnt matter how long it is, Jesus' mind thinks in terms of eternity.

What are you talking about? He was a nice man, but was not some far reaching visionary. He taught his people to concern themselves with the here and now.

I bet he would be a Libertarian Communist.

Personally, I think he'd run for leadership

Probably the Constitution Party, since they seem to lean toward Christian theocracy.

In Germany, there´s an obscure little party called "Die Bibeltreuen Christen", e.g. the bible-obeying christians.
I wonder, would Jesus vote them or would they vote Jesus? No to both, I guess.

I think Jesus would be a grassroots left-wing activist.

Probably the Constitution Party, since they seem to lean toward Christian theocracy.
They're a Protestant Party. Too capitalist for Jesus.

They're a Protestant Party. Too capitalist for Jesus.

The Bible says nothing of Jesus's political views. Moreover, socialism is based on the redistribution of wealth, which requires stealing it (via taxation) from some to give to others. This violates the Biblical commandment against theft, so clearly He would oppose it. However, capitalism creates huge gaps between the rich and poor, so He would not favor it, either. He would probably be a middle-of-the-roader.

The Bible says nothing of Jesus's political views. Moreover, socialism is based on the redistribution of wealth, which requires stealing it (via taxation) from some to give to others. This violates the Biblical commandment against theft, so clearly He would oppose it. However, capitalism creates huge gaps between the rich and poor, so He would not favor it, either. He would probably be a middle-of-the-roader.

I don't understand how you can justify calling taxation theft

Well, lets see...

Jesus took strong stances on morality, anti-adultery, anti-religious, anti-hypocrisy...

very practical "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, unto God the things that are God's", OK to heal or grab food from the fields on the Sabbath

pro-woman

pro-God, pro-Bible as Word of God, pro-Bible as completely true

pro-love

pro-theocracy

hmmm...what is the pro-theocracy, pro-morality, anti-discrimination, anti-government party in the USA?

No, really, I'm asking for an answer, cause I might've said Republican, but they no longer fit the bill, so who???

I don't understand how you can justify calling taxation theft

Taking something from someone against their will=theft

Just having a bit of fun here, but feel free to turn it into a serious debate. In fact, I'm hoping you do.

If Jesus were a citizen in your country right now, what party would he vote for in your opinion? :pSince I have two, I'd wager Jesus wouldn't vote in the US, and would either vote PBC (Party of Christians faithful to the Bible) or Christliche Mitte (Christian Middle).

Taking something from someone against their will=theft

So, you're saying that no one should pay taxes?

So, you're saying that no one should pay taxes?

I'm saying there shouldn't be an income tax.

I'm saying there shouldn't be an income tax.
Okay, understandable. But a socialist government wouldn't take money from one group of people to give it to another, they'd create programs with the money that everyone can use and enjoy.

Jesus, much like Wavy Gravy, would vote for Nobody.

Why? Well just look at these facts.

1) Which presidential candidate can balance the budget and erase the federal debt in just one term? Nobody!

2) Which candidate cares so much about the poor that he'd pass sweeping welfare, healthcare and education laws regardless of the political cost? Nobody!

3) Who can solve all the problems in the middle east and bring peace to the region? Nobody!

Jesus, much like Wavy Gravy, would vote for Nobody.

Why? Well just look at these facts.

1) Which presidential candidate can balance the budget and erase the federal debt in just one term? Nobody!

2) Which candidate cares so much about the poor that he'd pass sweeping welfare, healthcare and education laws regardless of the political cost? Nobody!

3) Who can solve all the problems in the middle east and bring peace to the region? Nobody!

Cheers to that!

I'm saying there shouldn't be an income tax.

What kind of tax should we have?

What kind of tax should we have?

Rather than taxing citizens directly, the federal government should tax the states themselves, in proportion to their population.

What kind of tax should we have?
How about a weight tax? The fatter you are the more you pay. It would kill two birds with one stone. Raise revenue for government and help slim down America!

Rather than taxing citizens directly, the federal government should tax the states themselves, in proportion to their population.

Isn't that just passing the buck though? Kind of like saying, I don't support killing animals, but I love steak.

How would the states raise the money?

How about a weight tax? The fatter you are the more you pay. It would kill two birds with one stone. Raise revenue for government and help slim down America!

ROTFL:
I'm for it, I finally get a monetary benefit for being a short marathon runner.

The Bible says nothing of Jesus's political views. Moreover, socialism is based on the redistribution of wealth, which requires stealing it (via taxation) from some to give to others. This violates the Biblical commandment against theft, so clearly He would oppose it. However, capitalism creates huge gaps between the rich and poor, so He would not favor it, either. He would probably be a middle-of-the-roader.
He divided loaves and fishes to feed 5000 people.

He divided loaves and fishes to feed 5000 people.
He said something about give and don't count the cost, right? He said that people should give to others without expecting anything in return too.

No one.

Jesus was an anarchist.

This violates the Biblical commandment against theft, so clearly He would oppose it.

By equating taxation with the biblical commandment against stealing, you make it sound as if Old Testament taxation was unheard of, which is not quite right.

Secondly... whose image is on that dollar bill of yours? Washington's? Then give unto Washington what is Washington's.

Seriously, though, I tend to agree with those who think Jesus wouldn't have a party. He was never able to withhold criticism from faulty groups, so he wouldn't support any of the ones we have (criticizing Pharisees and Saducees). He was not into political power himself, so he wouldn't start his own party (his kingdom being not of this earth). No, in the bible he worked to change human hearts and give healing.

Back on that taxation issue: I don't think he would even be eligible to pay them in the United States; I can't picture him doing anything other than volunteering his services as he traveled.

In fact, I doubt he'd appear in any country that had free elections. If so, he'd have little reason to stay. Jesus lived in Roman Palestine, not in Rome.

Also, the hippy tree-hugger thing. Not plausible. You show me a hippy tree-hugger who expounds on the sanctity of marriage, who claims every individual is morally accountable to God, and who has cursed at least one fig tree to death... and I might be convinced. ;)

A homeless vagrant of Middle Eastern descent, stirring up the population with strange and unorthodox religious teachings? I don't think they let Gitmo detainees vote. :D

No one.

Jesus was an anarchist.

If he was an anarchist, then it would only be so that everyone would flock to his father's way.

All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

So it's not "everybody does his/her own thing". It's "not the government's authority, but God's".

I would think he'd run for office himself, I mean who Wouldn't vote for the Son of God who's also an all around nice guy.

I think Jesus would be a grassroots left-wing activist.

Me too. If Jesus were Canadian and he voted, I think he'd vote NDP (New Democratic Party). He believed in giving others a helping hand, fairness, and mercy. He also said that rich men have as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. So even if Jesus was socially conservative on questions like gay marriage or abortion, I can't see him voting Conservative. Nor Liberal. And I can't see why he'd be so into Quebec separatism as to vote for the Bloc.

I don't see him starting his own political party, although people might create a party around him.

Firstly well done with the grammer in the title,

Shouldn't it be "for whom"?

And I think that he would probably vote for some ridiculous racist dictatorship with compulsary prayer.

A homeless vagrant of Middle Eastern descent, stirring up the population with strange and unorthodox religious teachings? I don't think they let Gitmo detainees vote. :D
Yeah, but he was Jewish, so he wouldn't go to Gitmo.

Quite a few people have suggested Christian parties.

Well, what makes you think Jesus would be a Christian in this day and age?

Shouldn't it be "for whom"?

And I think that he would probably vote for some ridiculous racist dictatorship with compulsary prayer.

The University of the Voice, in Passivocalia, says no.

"Whom" is a distinct word from "who", used when the word in reference does not perform the action. "Whom" is used because it exists for that purpose.

The age-old condemnation of prepositions at the end of sentences has no foundation. It is arbitrary, and it is not a grammatical rule up with which we should put.

Quite a few people have suggested Christian parties.

Well, what makes you think Jesus would be a Christian in this day and age?

Oh, I don't know. Biblical accounts. ::shrug::

All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

The University of the Voice, in Passivocalia, says no.

"Whom" is a distinct word from "who", used when the word in reference does not perform the action. "Whom" is used because it exists for that purpose.

The age-old condemnation of prepositions at the end of sentences has no foundation. It is arbitrary, and it is not a grammatical rule with which we should comply.

Personally I do not use whom as I believe it to be distastefully pretentious. However, complying to one grammatical rule and not to another closely related one seems stupid.

Before he got tagged with a cult following, Jesus was a small time political rabble rouser with ambitions of royalty based on his familial relationship to King David, who wanted to see the Jews freed from the oppression of Roman rule.

I am guessing he would vote for himself, to see if he might actually achieve his original political goals this time around. He might even succeed in convincing folks this time that he did not WANT deification.

Personally I do not use whom as I believe it to be distastefully pretentious. However, complying to one grammatical rule and not to another closely related one seems stupid.

Eh. "Whom" will die out before very long anyway.

I comply with "whom" because it is a distinction of whether a separate word should be used, when such words exist. I can stop saying "who" altogether and start saying "that" for everyone and everything.

"This is the spatula that you need."
"He is the one that believes in Marxism".

Yeah, it fits, but we can distinguish it further with the word "who". Or, "whom", if the case permits. Versatility.

The other rule involves no new words. No versatility can be gained by putting that preposition in the middle of the sentence instead of the end. In fact, requiring the preposition at the end denies versatility with no known advantages.

That is why I comply with one without the other; I do not see them as related. So, how 'bout that Jesus?

Personally I do not use whom as I believe it to be distastefully pretentious. However, complying to one grammatical rule and not to another closely related one seems stupid.

I always use 'whom' when I think of it. A couple of years ago I was teaching French for beginners to students at the University of Sydney. I was trying to explain some point of French grammar to them (I forget what, now), and I drew the comparison with the difference between 'who' and 'whom'.

There was a moment of silence, then the students (native English speakers, remember) admitted they had no idea when 'whom' is normally used.

Oh, I don't know. Biblical accounts. ::shrug::
You assume that the Christian faith fulfills the criteria of Disciples. I bet God thought Israel would fulfil the criteria of "his Chosen People".

I still don't actually see the added advantage of using whom over who, in comparison to using the preposition before the subject to after. (If you can work your way past my incoherency)

To whom are you talking? To who are you talking? They don't differ from eachother in meaning.

Who are you talking to? To who are you talking?

Neither are necessary for interpretation eh? Whom isn't more necessary than the preposition. (funny how Jesus' political leanings turned into an English literature debate)

In my honest opinion, if you're going to be correct with one grammatical rule, you should be with the other.

The Bible says nothing of Jesus's political views. Moreover, socialism is based on the redistribution of wealth, which requires stealing it (via taxation) from some to give to others. This violates the Biblical commandment against theft, so clearly He would oppose it. However, capitalism creates huge gaps between the rich and poor, so He would not favor it, either. He would probably be a middle-of-the-roader.

The redistribution of wealth to help the poor is a theme repeated several times throughout the Bible.

In the "Old Testament", there is a requirement for farmers to leave the corners of their fields unharvested, so that the poor could acquire food. Every fifty years there was supposed to be a redistribution of land, returning everyone to their original plots.

If taxation is theft, tithing certainly is, and that is definitely a requirement in the Bible as well.

As for the original question, Jesus would vote Socialist.

All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
So, he'd be an imperialist, and he'd force people to convert to his religion, until everyone thought like him. He also sounds kinda over-class, like he's better than everyone else.

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
I always thought he was supposed to be humble, but this doesn't really fit my definition of 'humble'.

So, he'd be an imperialist, and he'd force people to convert to his religion, until everyone thought like him. He also sounds kinda over-class, like he's better than everyone else.

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
I always thought he was supposed to be humble, but this doesn't really fit my definition of 'humble'.

And why would you think that God would be humble?

Meek at times, but not humble.;)

Ah, misunderstanding/mistranslation, perhaps? Or is it... a CONSPIRACY!?

But didn't Jesus support a lot of "wacky" Hebrew rules in the Bible, slaves, low status of women, ect.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

As for the original question, I think as "god-less" as most Socialists tend to be these days (Such as myself) Jesus (If he existed of course) would NOT vote socialist, he lived like a hippie, but didn't always have the same views.

Plus, quite a few COmmunists/Socialists are very pro viloent revolution (Some are not of course, but still, viloence can be a part of the change) :mp5:

Jesus just would not vote.

Just having a bit of fun here, but feel free to turn it into a serious debate. In fact, I'm hoping you do.

If Jesus were a citizen in your country right now, what party would he vote for in your opinion? :p
He wouldn't, as the only form of Governance he had any knowledge of was an authoritarian dictatorship/subjugated Monarchy, and he preached a non-elected Governance of God.

Voting would be irrelevant to his agenda.

In total, I think this is what would happen if Jesus existed: He would start creating miracles, and preaching to the masses, saying that he was Messiah and that "all power in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Then he'd go to an insane asylum, where he'd rot away, 'cause he'd never deny God or that he was His son, and t would end in him crucifying himself to get out of his misery.

Hmm... one can only speculate about what the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth will be like. If it really came down to it, Jesus would be Prince, King, and Emperor. The Head. His kingdom would not have a monetary system. Instead everyone would work and give freely out of love for their neighbors and their King. He, in turn, would sustain them with blessings abound as He gives to all those who ask it of Him. No one would own anything, yet everyone would have everything.

Now, should He be here now, at this time, instead of two thousand years ago? As some others have said, he wouldn't get into voting. He would, however, be political. He'd attack the religious hypocrites in the heads of His church, and He'd threaten their power through His actions. He'd give lively speeches to crowds outside of cities and towns, then demonstrate what he said with symbolic miracles. He wouldn't say much one way or the other concerning the head of his country's government, except one or two statements regarding a certain respect for the heads of authority. "Render unto Bush what is Bush's..." someone would quote Him saying.

As to His followers, he'd make an example of them and let them live for each other and with each other. A commune. "Abandon your lives, drop your possessions, and follow me," he'd say to about twelve individuals, seemingly at random. More would soon follow, tagging along at his feet wanting to hear everything he said. Some would like to see him become a warrior he'd been prophesied as being, driving a tank and toting a gun toward the corrupt government. But he wouldn't. Instead, he'd drive ino D.C. (or whatever your respected capital is) in a rusted Volkswagon with empty hands.

Would he be a pacifist though? No. In fact, many of His speeches would speak of a coming revolution. An advancement of "the Kingdom". He would be heard saying "Don't assume that I came to make peace for the earth. I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword." He would warn that families would split, cities would crumble, and all would be turned "on its ear". What he had to say to the world would cause mass division, throwing the motions off balance. Jesus would be a radical.

Hmm... one can only speculate about what the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth will be like. If it really came down to it, Jesus would be Prince, King, and Emperor. The Head. His kingdom would not have a monetary system. Instead everyone would work and give freely out of love for their neighbors and their King. He, in turn, would sustain them with blessings abound as He gives to all those who ask it of Him. No one would own anything, yet everyone would have everything.

Now, should He be here now, at this time, instead of two thousand years ago? As some others have said, he wouldn't get into voting. He would, however, be political. He'd attack the religious hypocrites in the heads of His church, and He'd threaten their power through His actions. He'd give lively speeches to crowds outside of cities and towns, then demonstrate what he said with symbolic miracles. He wouldn't say much one way or the other concerning the head of his country's government, except one or two statements regarding a certain respect for the heads of authority. "Render unto Bush what is Bush's..." someone would quote Him saying.

As to His followers, he'd make an example of them and let them live for each other and with each other. A commune. "Abandon your lives, drop your possessions, and follow me," he'd say to about twelve individuals, seemingly at random. More would soon follow, tagging along at his feet wanting to hear everything he said. Some would like to see him become a warrior he'd been prophesied as being, driving a tank and toting a gun toward the corrupt government. But he wouldn't. Instead, he'd drive ino D.C. (or whatever your respected capital is) in a rusted Volkswagon with empty hands.

Would he be a pacifist though? No. In fact, many of His speeches would speak of a coming revolution. An advancement of "the Kingdom". He would be heard saying "Don't assume that I came to make peace for the earth. I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword." He would warn that families would split, cities would crumble, and all would be turned "on its ear". What he had to say to the world would cause mass division, throwing the motions off balance. Jesus would be a radical.
Clever.

I still find it amusing how people waste their time bickering over what modern political party a cult leading carpenter in ancient middle east would vote for. Stupid question really.

Probably more important would be who would our founding fathers (of the US) would vote for; which modern political party would restore our freedoms and liberties that were supposed to be guaranteed and safeguarded in the Constitution.

That and which political party can get us out of the complete domestic and international mess that we're in.

I hate it when people put people's well-being and lives in the hands of people that base their actions off of myth and works of fiction.

This violates the Biblical commandment against theft, so clearly He would oppose it.
That's odd. Only one human society has ever been designed by God. In that society, all citizens had to give 10% of their stuff to the poor.

I personally think Jesus, being fair, just, and partisan, would abstain from casting a ballot, so as to perserve the sanctity of the election to the best extent of the ability (by taking away his undue influence).

But just to be an ass, I had to ask the thread starter: you went through ALL the awkward trouble of saying "whom" to make this gramatically correct, and you LEFT A HANGING PREPOSITION!?!!?! (for whom would Jesus vote - ;))

Well, Jesus didn't like the Pharasees so that leaves out any party supported by Robertson or Fallwell. The first Christians were Communists. God actually killed one couple for not turning in all their worldly goods. Jesus spoke in favor of aiding the weak, sick, poor, etc., so he can't support a party that takes from the poor to give to the rich.

So I would say, he would reject all current US parties for being too "conservative".

Clever.

I try. :)

Okay, understandable. But a socialist government wouldn't take money from one group of people to give it to another, they'd create programs with the money that everyone can use and enjoy.

Well what if I want to keep my money that I earned through my work for things that I want?

And Jim Bob down the street can keep his money that he earned through his work for things that he wants.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

Jesus would hold his head in his hands, and declare "And Dad made these morons in his own image".

He would then create his own free state, al la Peter Griffin (Family Guy) and set up his own socialist repulic state in his back yard, offering visas and work permits for well educated immigrants, and setting himself as head of state, being open to fair and open elections of course, but considering he'd be the only candidate running, and the only one to vote, it's highly like that he'd get into office (although viewers should be aware that there is a 5% error margin). He would then declare war on the rest of the country, and when told about the large numbers on the opposing side, would surrender, claiming that he could never feed and shelter that many prisoners of war...

God actually killed one couple for not turning in all their worldly goods.
Wrong. He killed the couple for pledging to give away all their goods and then not making good on the promise. You missed the whole point, don’t lie to God. Way to go.

Well what if I want to keep my money that I earned through my work for things that I want?

That is the concept behind socialism.

The labor of the proletariat is the foundation of society; therefore, society should benefit the proletariat, instead of being controlled by the wealthy elites who control the means of production.

Or a slightly different formulation: The institutions of capitalism deprive the proletarian of the rightful value of his labor. Therefore, capitalism should be eliminated.

That is the concept behind socialism.

The labor of the proletariat is the foundation of society; therefore, society should benefit the proletariat.

And who decides what a proletariat is? Personally, I consider sitting at a desk and actually managing the workings of a huge, multinational corporation to be much more difficult than stamping a part on an assembly line.

Probably more important would be who would our founding fathers (of the US) would vote for; which modern political party would restore our freedoms and liberties that were supposed to be guaranteed and safeguarded in the Constitution.

Why are the opinions of the 18th century American elite all that more relevant than those of Jesus?

And who decides what a proletariat is? Personally, I consider sitting at a desk and actually managing the workings of a huge, multinational corporation to be much more difficult than stamping a part on an assembly line.

I would take it before stamping a part on an assembly line any day, even with equivalent monetary benefits.

Far less boring, far less physical exertion, far more intellectual exertion.

But a manager of a corporation is still an employee, anyway. He does benefit from the hierarchical nature of the capitalist system, benefits hugely if recent statistics are any indication, but the ultimate question is one of ownership.