I assume most respondents are Christian and am curious how Christians poll on this and I hope for comments
He would've probably supported private enterprise, but he wouldn't have been anything like most right-wingers whom are more likely to say that they aspire to being Christ-like, than left-wingers. Personality wise that is
If Jesus had lived in our time and he was asked if it lawful to pay taxes, Jesus would have asked to see a dollar bill and then asked "whose picture is on this bill?". The obvious answer is Washington to which Jesus would have replied "Then give Washington what is due Washington, but give God what is due God." I don't know if Jesus would have been a Socialist, but he definitely would have been progressive (and no Flanders, they are not the same).
Brute Force is a Requirement and a Fundamental of Socialism....... .....so Jesus is out.....[/end thread] . . . .
Exactly. He seemed oblivious to political concerns. He was interested in individuals - not societies. When individuals are right, collections of individuals will be right. And that's not "right" as in conservative - it's right as in morally/spiritually healthy.
Jesus never stole from one man to give to another. He asked us to give not to be generous with money that is not yours. He never used force. Socialism is the use of force to take from the haves to give to the have not’s, whether it be industry or private income. The Bible also recommends that no matter how much we make we tithe 10%. That’s a flat tax. Face it. The socialist Jesus you’re looking for does not exist.
The morality of natural law is as close as your going to come to a universal form of objective morality.
Well does "morality of natural law" (???) equate to your personal preferences, just like everyone else that claims what you just said?
He was a warmongering, crony corporatist. Duh. No, he wasn't a socialist. Socialists believe that you belong to the collective, that it is moral to use force against you to prevent you from engaging in peaceful economic actions. Jesus was a man of peace. I doubt he would have supported any government. Rather, he tended to defy them, a define that authoritarian progressives (the types to try to push socialism) abhor at least as much as authoritarian conservatives.
So you are saying that he would have recognized that Washington D.C, like Caesar, owns you and everything you think that you possess. That's interesting. Now, why would that make him a socialist? So he would have been for more government intervention in areas that he believed humans could be improved? That is, he would have advocated initiation of aggression against peaceful people as a means of social change?
He probably would have been against government, but also the violent defense of land and the death penalty, which most of the right-wing tend to support. He also would've frowned upon abortion, which means he wouldn't have truly supported civil liberty IMO.
No. he wasn't. He never said that government should take from the 'fortunate' and give to the less fortunate. What He and God said was that as Christians were are to take care of the less fortunate. The poor, the widows and their children and the sojourners. But it is also in scripture that if you don't work, you don't eat and that only those truly in need are to be helped not those that are able bodied but just lazy. Leftists support man centered social justice(socialism) and look at the gov't as the savior. And don't you have one now? Christians see Jesus as the Savior. surprising how those that claim to be atheist are quick to claim the political leanings of a man called Jesus when any other time, they deny his existence.
I personally prefer a system in which might makes right, because then I could be as corrupt as I want, using my charm and wits to become a politician and rule over others. However, I agree with Lex, natural law is the only consistent, objective form of morality, derived from self ownership. So, either all views on morality or equally true given the power to enforce them (might is right), or individual humans own themselves and violate the ownership of others by interfering with them in the initiation of force or fraud.
This is not only subjective but pretty vague; some people could have differing specific political intentions and yet still believe in "might makes right" or "self-ownership". If we look at naturalism and evolution, there is no "right", only might.
That sounds the most realistic out of all previous responses, IMO I agree with the first part, but not necessarily the latter; there are a lot of people whose ideal system would be anarcho-socialism or anarcho-communism. No government, and little or no private property (other than one's own body). It makes you look worse, rather than better, to admit that you believe in fairy tales, so you should have just left this part out of your post.
I am under the impression that Jesus the Christ believed in a Divine commune of Heaven. One of his messages was that we should try to be Angels on Earth so that we may no longer need the expense of Government.
Tolstoy would agree. He believed that Jesus was a true pacifist and would not even have advocated violence even if you are watching someone being raped and you are next in line to die. It is never your place to judge when another human being is to be judged by God, so turn the other cheek, forgive and love your enemy. Now, if you agree with that, fine. The jury is still out on that level of pacifism for me, though, if I were a monk, and I've considered that lifestyle, then I would certainly do so. Now, if self defense is rightful, then the protection of property against force or fraud is also rightful, since property ownership is an extension of self ownership. This is not to say that I would buy the rhetoric of the right, such as deeming peaceful immigrants to be "invaders" who should be punished by the police powers of the state. I think you're right. I consider myself pro-choice, or, I would say, I don't see that it should be interfered with in certain cases, but I'm certainly not in favor of it being funded by the government.
who are you to tell me i believe in Fairy Tales. I can say to you that you believe in nothing. I'm willing to let you believe in nothing and let you go on your merry way. ARe you willing to leave me alone so that i can believe as i wish?
I'm a bit peeved because you beat me to it (no, sorry leftists... Jesus and socialism are mutually exclusive) but let me further refine your point: The giving of yourself (because it requires a meaningful personal commitment to your fellow man and God) was much more essential to Jesus than passively handing over your money to some faceless money changers in the temple (socialist bureaucrats that cynically exploit the poor for political gain, by encouraging them to be dependent and beholding to the Party) so they can do what they wish with your money. Socialism absolutely substitutes the personal inner devotion to one's fellow man (so vital to Jesus) that's supposed to trigger charity and replaces it with a cold, bloodless government decreed duty, that requires nothing at all but obedience to bureaucrats (and a great deal of your money, of course).
I disagree. If we look at the matter scientifically, we can quite easily agree upon the fact that we can disagree on many things. If it were possible for one of us to own the other and that case were to exist, then disagreement would only be possible if the owning party allowed it. Now, it may be possible for one of us to have the political power to kill the other for expressing disagreement (or for any reason at all), but that does not mean that the other is unable to disagree, only that he suffers a consequence for doing so. Therefore, in order for us to have a disagreement, you must acknowledge that we each own ourselves. If, as you say, there is "only might", then the mightiest must be able to control everything, including your thoughts such that those thoughts are only the thoughts of the mightiest. Therefore, I can conclude that there is more than "just might."
