Would Jesus Support Republican or Democratic Values More?

[ElCodeMonkey]

I would argue that the Democratic policies focus on the well-being of the poor and the oppressed. As such, I believe Jesus would be more in favor of Democratic values than that of the Republicans which focus more on guns and military while being entirely calloused to the plight of the poor and tend toward discrimination of others not like them.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Meh, the data is not readily available. I'd have to do a lot more work than I care to given that you don't want to use data anyway. So lets move on to sexuality. Would Jesus support the left or the right? I would again vote left since Jesus would not impose things as much as let people make their own decisions. A woman was caught in adultery and instead of punishing her he allowed her to escape unharmed. He is more interested in the lack of harm and the tolerating of other peoples sins than our attempts at fixing other people (especially via laws). The only thing Jesus would want to stop is the harming of other people of which one's sexuality does not do.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 30 by ElCodeMonkey]

Without statistics, we can still point to examples to support our conflicting premise, and point out fallacies. Seldom do we use statistics in the general forums, though of course, sometimes we do. And I don't recall extensive statistical analysis in your book. Yet you did a fine job supporting your observations with Scriptural references.

As for Robert E Lee, he was a gentleman, a brilliant military tactician and strategist and a courageous warrior. And was very conciliatory when the war ended. He was a Virginian, and ultimately an American. He helped heal the country after the war.

Even his enemiles can admire those things. And did. One does not have to dwell on the fact that he had slaves. So did Washington and Jefferson. Do you want to dismantle their statues too?

It's not only Nazi's who want to preserve his statue. MANY regular Americans do too. History buffs, at the very least.

[Elijah John]

Meh, the data is not readily available. I'd have to do a lot more work than I care to given that you don't want to use data anyway. So lets move on to sexuality. Would Jesus support the left or the right? I would again vote left since Jesus would not impose things as much as let people make their own decisions. A woman was caught in adultery and instead of punishing her he allowed her to escape unharmed. He is more interested in the lack of harm and the tolerating of other peoples sins than our attempts at fixing other people (especially via laws). The only thing Jesus would want to stop is the harming of other people of which one's sexuality does not do.

We both agree that Jesus was a man of his times, do we not? As such he supported traditional marraige. And he said this:

4 “Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

Matthew 19.4-6

At the very least, that establishes heterosexuality and heterosexual marraige as the norm, according to Jesus. Do you really think the historical Jesus would have approved or endorsed homo-sexuality, bi-sexuality, trans-genderism, promiscuity or adultery?

In light of this passage, and in light of the context of the times, I would say no. It seems that to suggest otherwise, is to project Left-wing modern sensibilities onto a first century Palestinian-Jewish preacher. Revisionism.

And remember, even in the passage you cite about the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said "go and sin no more". Something you omited from the quote. So Jesus considered adultery as "sin" and yes, adultery, even between consenting adults, hurts people. A third, or a fourth significant party at the very least, and any children involved.

So, can you not at least concede that Jesus would not have endorsed either the Democrats or the Repuplicans entirely? That he probably would have agreed, and disagreed with both parties, but in different areas?

Yes, Jesus is not the sole property of the Religious Right. But neither is he the property of the liberal Left.

[Elijah John]

And here are some other, related matters I'm bringing over from your book thread, which are better situated here: (somewhat modified)

Are you convinced that the Democratic party is doing the work of Jesus. Abortion on demand hurts babies, kills them. Harrassing people in their private lives as Maxine Waters calls for, "restaruraunts, department stores, gasoline stations" also hurts people, and most recently, against the private property of Tucker Carlson, with his wife hiding in the pantry as Antifah chanted "we know were you sleep". Donna Brazile calls that kind of thing "Democracy in action". But perhaps she would have made an exception against the "doxxing"* practice of Antifah. One hopes that she would condemn that. Dems and their radical supporters not acting real Christian. Where's the observance of the Golden Rule in all that? A lot of evil is covered under the umbrella of "free speech". But it's only free speech for the Left. When the right says anything conservative, it is silenced by shouts of "racist" and "hate speech". If you don't believe me, just ask Ben Shapiro or Gavin McInnis.

Yes, I can see how John 14.6 has led to a lot of bloodshed through the ages, (we're saved, you're not as such you're the children of the Devil.") It's demonization. The religous right does it, but so does the looney (extreme) Left. And once "the other" is demonized, anything is fair game, right? Since one's opponent becomes not just wrong, but "evil". Persuasion and reasoned debate/discussion is overtaken by bully tactics of protest, resistance, anarchy and intimidation.

-------------

*"doxxing" the publication of private life information of one's political opponents, such as home addresses and telephone numbers, for the purpose of harassment.

[ElCodeMonkey]

We both agree that Jesus was a man of his times, do we not? As such he supported traditional marraige.
...
Do you really think the historical Jesus would have approved or endorsed homo-sexuality, bi-sexuality, trans-genderism, promiscuity or adultery?

It's rather difficult to say what is being a man of your time. His ideas were radical and not in conjunction with his time so I'd sooner say he was not particularly of his time. That said, the verses are about staying in marriage. It was indeed the hardness of hearts that led to separation. If both parties served love, they would remain committed to each other. Only for selfish reasons does one leave another. Not trying to put a moral accusation here, but even if that 'selfish' reason is self-preservation, it is still "for self" rather than for the partner. The marriage itself would still not need torn apart even if the two must separate while patiently awaiting a change. So Jesus might have been anti-divorce in that regard.

As for who can get married, I think it's interesting you refer to historical Jesus and being a man of his time. It seems to betray the fact that you believe he might change his mind in today's time. Well, I dare say that his teaching is timeless even if the application is slow and changing. If he were any good at practicing what he preached, then I think he'd be quite willing to leave people to their own devices and let God sort it himself rather than impose such things on others. In fact, I think Jesus was so unclear on this matter that it confused the Corinthians whom Paul later rebuked for having a son sleep with a mother. They were all celebrating joyously their love for one another and didn't stop to think that maybe this was wrong. It was unclear at best and it certainly went against Paul's sensibilities.

And remember, even in the passage you cite about the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said "go and sin no more". Something you omited from the quote. So Jesus considered adultery as "sin" and yes, adultery, even between consenting adults, hurts people. A third, or a fourth significant party at the very least, and any children involved.

The "Go and sin no more" may have been an addition to the story so as to ensure Jesus didn't simply allow adultery. Or, it could have been a simple statement like, "Go, walk with God" (which would be entirely equivalent since walking with God is following what is good which is not sinning). You don't know that others were harmed either (unless I'm forgetting the context). Adultery is simply sleeping with someone other than your spouse. Both could be unmarried and both could be childless. In the end, it is far more expedient and beneficial in those days for people to have only one partner and to have one partner for life due to the mere fact of disease and lack of birth control. Paul seemed to indicate that "all things were lawful but not all things were expedient." And it is this "expedience" that is actually important. Just because there is no law against me holding my finger in front of my sisters nose while chanting "I'm not touching you!" doesn't mean I'm not being an ass. And having rampant sex without cause or concern for disease and children is simply a bad idea and thus "missing the mark" of excellence that God desires for us to strive for.

So, can you not at least concede that Jesus would not have endorsed either the Democrats or the Repuplicans entirely? That he probably would have agreed, and disagreed with both parties, but in different areas?

Yes, Jesus is not the sole property of the Religious Right. But neither is he the property of the liberal Left.

Oh absolutely. I myself see the good and bad in both. Why wouldn't Jesus? The question is simply which one is more fitting since we basically have to pick one or the other. I think given the current landscape, to be as "expedient" as possible, we need to pick one of the two to encourage the greatest amount of good while hindering the greater amount of evil. A third-party, say, or not voting at all, would encourage the greater evil by not voting for the greater good unless the people banded together sufficiently to make it effective. So Jesus would likely vote for one or the other while trying to change things internally to improve things. If ever we get Instant Runoff Voting, then we can vote for the person we TRULY think embodies all of what is good, but even then people are still people and will have some problem with their platform. I have yet to find anyone I agree with 100%.

Since both sides demonize the other, that's probably not worth debating unless you think one side leads to far more evil for it. I imagine they lead to equal amounts of evil except in that if one side is deemed the winner and it leads to converts then it could be said to be slightly more good, but hardly worth the evil to pull it off.

I'll let you respond to the above if you desire before moving on to Abortion and whatever the harassment is you're referring to .

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 35 by ElCodeMonkey]

OK, let's move on. Your position seems to be that both sides harrass and demonize each other.

Funny, I don't see a whole lot of Republican supporters heckling, making statements like Maxine Waters did calling for harrassment of public officials in their private lives, "gasoline stations, department stores, restaraunts ...let them know, they are not welcome anywhere" Who the dickens does Maxine Waters think she is? Sounds to me like she is calling for the denial of civil rights of people who she disagrees with. And she does not own those places. I wonder what the managers of the restaruants in question think of that. Do they give permission to Waters supporters to make scenes, create disturbances in their places of business?

And that is just what has happened. Leftists harrassed Kirstjen Neilson, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and his wife Elaine Chou, Pam Bondi, and thie list goes on. All when they were just going about their private lives. Proud legacy of the democratic party?

And consider this statement from Democrat standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton: "We cannot be civil with a party that wants to destroy everything we hold dear, maybe when we regain power, we can be civil again." That sure sound like a child throwing a hissy fit because she did not win, but using more grown-up verbiage.

What do the Democrats "stand for"? As far as I can tell, more and more it's disrespect for law enforcement, abolish ICE Camala Harris likened ICE to the KKK, the false narrative of Black Lives Matter (no one said they don't matter, and it's considered "racist" now to say that all lives matter) demonizing the police, etc, wide open borders, resist and impeach, obstruction, moral relativism, abortion on demand, "anything goes" etc, etc. And Elizabeth Warren said "the police are racist, front to back". She should go far in today's, inflammatory Democrat party.

Whatever happened to the party that was the champion of the little guy? Now it seems they will not be content until they destroy the traditonal, the social fabric and the family. All in the name of "diversity" for it's own sake. EVEN at the expense of the little guy now, if those little guys are poor white people, American citizens who live in Appalachia etc. And white men and Christians especially are demonized. Kavanaugh's advocate couldn't be a "white male", as though being a white male is something intrinsically unfair or evil... what did race have to do with any aspect of the Kavanaugh hearing? Both the judge, and accuser Dr. Ford are white, yet the Left just HAS to work race into everything.

And what about the practice of "doxxing". The publication of private information (like home addresses and phone numbers) for the purpose of harrassment. That is illegal. They did it to Tucker Carlson, and now those Antifah member who did so are being investigated for hate crimes. It's about time law enforcement stepped up to the plate and put a stop to all this nonsense. Maybe they have been all along, and we just don't hear about it. Perhaps when the mobs leave the scene, (yes CNN, MOBS) they are being prosecuted for distubing the peace, assault, disorderly conduct and harrassment. One hopes so.

So how is all this heckling etc, abiding by the Golden Rule? Woiuld Maxine Waters like to be harrassed in her private life? I doubt it, but that's what she wants for those she disagrees with.

[ElCodeMonkey]

OK, let's move on. Your position seems to be that both sides harrass and demonize each other.

Funny, I don't see a whole lot of Republican supporters heckling, making statements like Maxine Waters...

I don't want to speak too much outside my knowledge and I don't know much about Maxine Waters. It looks as if she is not speaking for the whole of the Democrats though and that other Democrats are getting a bit anxious about her behavior. But I don't know the comments nor the situation just yet. I would point out, however, that this is exactly the kind of behavior that the right did to gay people. Same stuff, different enemy. Obama was often disrupted by republicans during his speeches and he actually took a very firm stance that we ought to be better than them, respect them, and be nice. I can't say that's our current left-wing which is sad, but again, it went both ways. And Obama was bashed like crazy by the right the whole while he was president. I was practically forced to watch Fox News when I worked at my previous company and I didn't follow much for politics outside it so it had me believing that everyone hated Obama and I was surprised he was still in office. Both sides absolutely demonize and disrupt.

And consider this statement from Democrat standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton: "We cannot be civil with a party that wants to destroy everything we hold dear, maybe when we regain power, we can be civil again." That sure sound like a child throwing a hissy fit because she did not win, but using more grown-up verbiage.

This is a bit extreme for her to say, but it's indicative of the current nature of the polarization and the extreme repercussions believed by certain decisions. The left VERY strongly believes in Global Warming and the global catastrophe that will be caused by not doing anything. Our very way of life and concept of life could drastically change if immediate action is not taken. This is potentially deadly on apocalyptic levels. To not do something and simply be kind is akin to politely requesting Mr. Hitler to stop his silly antics. That's how she and many left-wingers feel. I also felt it for quite some time and I'm still unsure if I should feel it. Is it that dire? I really don't know. Is racism really as dire as is painted? I don't perceive it, but how could I? If things really are as bad as they claim, I can see why they'd be so mad. Unfortunately, I've also been the brunt of their attacks so I lean toward thinking they're overdoing it for flame-baiting and garnering support. Doing so will only widen the gap and make things worse.But they truly believe it is that dire.

What do the Democrats "stand for"? As far as I can tell, more and more it's disrespect for law enforcement, abolish ICE Camala Harris likened ICE to the KKK, the false narrative of Black Lives Matter (no one said they don't matter, and it's considered "racist" now to say that all lives matter) demonizing the police, etc, wide open borders, resist and impeach, obstruction, moral relativism, abortion on demand, "anything goes" etc, etc. And Elizabeth Warren said "the police are racist, front to back". She should go far in today's, inflammatory Democrat party.

Whatever happened to the party that was the champion of the little guy?

You're taking the far-right perspective on these issues. They don't disrespect law enforcement, they believe that there is a severe racial issue. We can argue if that's the case separately, but that's the drive. The "little guy" or the "voiceless people." They're trying to stand up for what they see as injustice. It's why they shout Black Lives Matter because it seems as if people act like they don't. The shout that all lives matter doesn't sound like a fair response because, though it is true, it need not be said because only the black lives are the ones being severely traumatized. They want the wide open borders because people are fleeing from persecution, death, famine, and whatnot. They care for those "little guys." Even abortion isn't about having rampant and unrepentant sex or baby-murdering, it's about situations that exist, perhaps due to poor decisions, some due to unforseen circumstances such as rape or failing birth control, and recognition that forced babies causes problems for both the mother and the babies who, without a proper social safety net when born, will likely suffer and become delinquent. Again, we can argue the truth of these claims separately, but those are the justifications. Again, these all have consequences, but they're coming from a perspective of desire to help people. Which, I think, is very akin to Jesus.

Now it seems they will not be content until they destroy the traditonal, the social fabric and the family. All in the name of "diversity" for it's own sake. EVEN at the expense of the little guy now, if those little guys are poor white people, American citizens who live in Appalachia etc.

The left is still very much pro-poor-white. This is why Obamacare was instantiated. By forcing health care upon everyone, it caused people who didn't need it to buy in so that it could help the poor. Yes, again, consequences, but we're talking about motive. As for traditional, what is so important about making one person's tradition forced upon other people? It seems a bit unfair to me. I don't make you drink egg nog while putting up a Christmas tree just because that's my family's tradition. We do our thing, other people can do theirs. Jesus destroyed all the Pharisee's traditions. The left holds a perspective that sexual identity is not really a choice of our own. We are what we are and we can hide it or be happy with who we are. Again, maybe true and maybe false (I believe true, of course) but the point is the perspective. Believing they have no choice, then they are being unfairly persecuted and prejudiced against. They are the little guy with no voice. People hate them, want to kill them, and ban them from stores because of a mere facet of who they are that they had no choice over. It's equivalent to skin color. No choice.

And what about the practice of "doxxing".

As with my previous post, one person's actions do not constitute the entirety of the party. And again, if they feel there is SO MUCH on the line that it's likely to harm and kill millions, I can see why some people would want to get a bit more "in your face." Again, not that I agree, but they have a motive of support for life and liberty for all people.

So how is all this heckling etc, abiding by the Golden Rule? Woiuld Maxine Waters like to be harrassed in her private life? I doubt it, but that's what she wants for those she disagrees with.

It's not. But not believing that Jesus will swoop down and save things, it makes sense to take matters in their own hands. We didn't simply do unto others when Hitler was killing people either. Would Jesus have approved of stopping him? I think that rule applies mostly from a personal level, not a governmental level. I see this increase in divide and feeling of dire straights will be our undoing if we don't cut the hype and reach across the divide.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Here's a little humorous video responding to right-wing name-calling of the left. Just some more evidence of it going both ways and how the left is desiring to help people. The right called a survivor of a school gun-shooting a "snowflake" because he came to the conclusion that maybe guns are bad now. Informative AND funny

[youtube][/youtube]

[Elijah John]

I'll get back to your post 37, but here is what I'm talking about with Maxine Waters:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ma ... ORM=VRDGAR

And it is not just Homeland Security sectretary Neilson, several others have been harrassed in their private lives,( presumably at Water's behest), including Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ted Cruz, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and his wife, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chou, (several times for them) and now, Tucker Carlson and his family, at their home.

That is very different than Trump calling public officials names, from the podium.

And moderate Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin have been mobbed by chanting Leftists at the capitol over their Kavanaugh votes.

Do you think such tactics of bullying and intimidation wins anyone over to their cause? The Left should use persuasion and appeals to reason instead.

I remember once Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer calling for a more civil approach, but they have been largely silent since. And the Democrat standard-bearer Hillary Clinton has not comdemned the extremism of the Left, far from it. She indirectly encouraged it in her recent statement about civility. "We cannot be civil....". And Obama AG Eric Holder was not much better. "if they go low, we kick 'em"..

And here's a video compilation of examples:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Th ... ORM=VRDGAR

And you have me at a disadvantage, because I do not know how to embed a video. Hopefully, the links will do.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Yeah, I absolutely don't agree with Maxine's perspective nor Hillary's. Harassing and making noise is stupid. We need to fight with logic and kindness. I don't know if it will be extremely effective, but it's better than the alternative which is guaranteed to backfire. It is hard to reason when nearly everyone is being unreasonable. I might agree that the left is being far more vocally rude and less reasonable. That doesn't make them wrong in their political agenda, per se, but it does make it a lot less kind and compassionate than their actual agenda.

I learned to embed videos by "quoting" someone who did it and seeing the tag for it . It only works with YouTube. Just surround a YouTube link with the youtube tag.

Another example of the left being unwilling to reason and discuss and just plain being rude.
[youtube][/youtube]

At least lately, behavior-wise, I might think Jesus would sooner side with the right, though goal-wise I think he might side with the left.

It might also be worth considering tactics. Jesus is wise and even if he disagrees more with one side than another, if one particular issue would lead to greater change, he might first side with them to get that one issue out of the way. For me, any side promoting Instant Runoff Voting would likely get my vote unless they have other policies that are just far too terrible. But IRV would enable so much good in our country I would vote for that over anything else as of yet.

I'll await your continued response to 37.