If You Have Ever Voted Liberal, NOW Is The Time

[Progressive Tory]

Don't forget about the time he beat the money lenders to an inch of their lives - real pacifist. Don't forget that he was also the rightful heir to the throne of Judea.. more that a distributist but a disturbist also to the Roman occupiers along with the traitors that wanted him dead because he was the rightful owner of the land..being king and all.

Like I said, he was a Jew from the Middle East who supported revolutionary action and radical change. He was a socialist because he believed in sharing the wealth. He abhored the rich (money changers) and would never support war.

If he was Canadian and alive today, he would be voting NDP and I would have to debate him on this board, asking him to give Michael Ignatieff a chance. (and maybe smite his enemies if he wasn't too busy)

I don't consider this to be sacrilegious, because being sacrilegious would mean using his name to justify war, intolerance and hatred.

[capricorn]

Like I said, he was a Jew from the Middle East who supported revolutionary action and radical change. He was a socialist because he believed in sharing the wealth. He abhored the rich (money changers) and would never support war.

If he was Canadian and alive today, he would be voting NDP and I would have to debate him on this board, asking him to give Michael Ignatieff a chance. (and maybe smite his enemies if he wasn't too busy)

I don't consider this to be sacrilegious, because being sacrilegious would mean using his name to justify war, intolerance and hatred.

PT, you say Jesus would never support war. That's strictly your opinion. Whether or not Jesus was a pacifist is still hotly debated. My own personal opinion is that although Jesus epitomizes love, he was not a pacifist in the sense of being anti-war.

Ever since Adam, the world has been in a war between good and evil. For this reason, the pacifist position is unrealistic. When taken to its logical conclusion, it would virtually do away with courts and police departments. It would ultimately lead to anarchy due to the nature of human hearts.

Pacifism is also unbiblical, because it does not take the whole counsel of Scripture. It does not separate a Christian’s private duties from his public duties, and the role of the State versus the role of the individual.

(my emphasis)

http://christiananswers.net/q-faith/fc-warperspectives.html

The view of the Church of England set out in its Articles, to which all clergy are expected to assent is that “It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in wars.” (Article 37)

This position is clearly consistent with Scripture and this fact is supported by the simple fact that most Christians through the ages have not been pacifists.

It is sometimes claimed that the early Christians were pacifist because they were ambivalent about the Roman Army. However, the reluctance to join the Army had more to do with the cultic worship which was required of its members. Furthermore, it is evident in Scripture itself that when John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul encountered those who were soldiers there was no suggestion at all that their profession was inconsistent with their faith.

In the same way when Jesus was on trial he did not deny that Pilate had authority, rather he stated that the authority came from God. Pilate was not wrong to try Jesus, but he was wrong to convict him unjustly.

The primary tool for interpreting Scripture is Scripture itself. Jesus supported the rule of law and the rest of Scripture does not support a pacifist position. Therefore, to read certain texts as requiring pacifism is to misread those text.

What people fail to recognise is that commands describing personal behaviour - turn the other cheek for example - are not intended for those who exercise a judicial role since they are not acting personally but on behalf of others. We do not expect police officers to do this in the course of their duty and to do so would undermine the rule of law.

The other reason why people advocate a pacifist position is that they generally have an inadequate view of sin and the depravity of man. Anyone looking at the world around should be able to see that when God hands us over to our desires we are capable of much evil. Government and so on is given by God to curb evil (Rom 13.4) and to do this they have to use force on occasion. Therefore, when Christians are in the Police, or Prison Service, or Armed Services, they will have to use force at times.

http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/mi...ns_pacifism.asp

The net provides plenty of sites arguing as to whether Jesus was a pacifist or not. Those arguments rest entirely with their interpretation of the Scriptures.

[Canadian Blue]

Don't really remember reading about abortion in the Bible so we have no idea whether or not he would like women to go to butchers or risk their lives ending an unwanted pregnancy, instead of allowing doctors to use their God given talents to provide a safe and healthy alternative.

Here's how I see it, I ask myself whether Jesus would have supported the Eugenics movement from an ethical standpoint, chances are he wouldn't have.

If this has a religous base at all, then anti-abortionists need to rethink their strategy. Make it easier for young girls to talk to their families about pregnancy. However, the stand is always that she should not have had sex, so often fear makes her turn to abortion rather than face the wrath or disappointment of her parents.

I'll be quite honest, if I had a 12 year old daughter I wouldn't want her to have sex. I guess that makes me a bad person. However the Church I go to has counselling and groups setup for unwed mothers.

As far as other abortions go, and I don't promote abortion on demand, if a woman is determined to do this, she will do it. Her body, her choice. Inspire, council, but don't dictate or judge.

Why don't you promote it, do you find something unethical about abortion, if you do what is it?

I think if these pro-lifers would take some of their passion and protest brutal wars that kill thousands of children, it might be a different world, and just maybe more people would listen to them. Muslim children have a right to life too.

Which wars in particular. The problem is that sometimes in the world people will be killed during wartime. Just look at World War 2 and how many civilians were killed on all sides, it doesn't mean we should have given up all of continental Europe to the Nazis. It's easy to sound off about how one is for nonviolence and pacifism in the safety of the west where men are more than willing to engage in acts of violence to ensure you sleep safely in your bed.

By the way, often times those Muslim kids will be involved in the fighting, or perhaps killing one another depending on their tribe.

Like I said, he was a Jew from the Middle East who supported revolutionary action and radical change. He was a socialist because he believed in sharing the wealth. He abhored the rich (money changers) and would never support war.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but wasn't Jesus about voluntary action. Christianity is largely based around the individual and not the collective, so being loving and compassionate is an act for the individual and not the collective, correct?

If he was Canadian and alive today, he would be voting NDP and I would have to debate him on this board, asking him to give Michael Ignatieff a chance. (and maybe smite his enemies if he wasn't too busy)

Doubt it, do you really think Jesus Christ would have sided with the Optimates, Populares, or Liberatores?

I don't consider this to be sacrilegious, because being sacrilegious would mean using his name to justify war, intolerance and hatred.

It is if you're forcing people to be compassionate by the barrel of a gun. Christianity is largely based on the individual relation to God and not the collectives relationship with said God. Even in Acts where they describe what seems like a socialist community, said community operates as a purely voluntary institution.

I'd say that the people who live like Jesus would have wanted would be Hutterites, Mennonites, and Anabaptists in general. However none of these communities believe in using the state to force people to live as they do, it would be immoral. That's why I think it's absurd to say that Jesus Christ would be a New Democrat.

[Canadian Blue]

Might I also point out the Just War principle set forward by Constantine as being an example of when it's excusable to go to war. Pacifism is a dangerous ideology soley because it is willing to waver in the fact of totalitarianism and would allow men and women to be enslaved without a fight by the state.

[Progressive Tory]

That's why I think it's absurd to say that Jesus Christ would be a New Democrat.

I can say beyond a doubt that Jesus would not support any war. Children get dragged into war all the time. I remember reading a story about an 8 year old French boy who was part of the resistance, and won a medal for killing 3 Germans. WWI was a family feud. WWII was caused by WWI because if the treaty hadn't been so harsh to Germany, Hitler would never have been more than a gutter rat.

Jesus was for sharing the wealth and abhored the rich and greedy. Sounds like Jack Layton to me.

He would vote NDP.

[Canadian Blue]

I can say beyond a doubt that Jesus would not support any war. Children get dragged into war all the time. I remember reading a story about an 8 year old French boy who was part of the resistance, and won a medal for killing 3 Germans. WWI was a family feud. WWII was caused by WWI because if the treaty hadn't been so harsh to Germany, Hitler would never have been more than a gutter rat.

Jesus was for sharing the wealth and abhored the rich and greedy. Sounds like Jack Layton to me.

He would vote NDP.

Yes, World War 1 was a clusterf*ck, however that doesn't mean that fighting Hitler wasn't worth it. You keep on arguing about how this is for the children, well guess what, even if the west doesn't get involved in any conflicts children will still die. Children died under the rule of Saddam Hussein, children died under the Taliban, and children will always die under tyrannical regimes. Stop pretending that children only die if Canadian soldiers are on the ground, because no member of NATO purposely murders innocent civilians, if they do they'll be charged.

As for Jesus talking about sharing the wealth and attacking the greedy, yes he did do that. But you've obviously never read the New Testament, if you did you'd realize that Jesus argued that INDIVIDUALS should be compassionate, not Ceasar.

You're using this simplistic formula that says if someone is rich or greedy they must be a Conservative. You make the first mistake of thinking that New Democrats are without sin and will not be corrupt if they are in a position of power, as we all know politics is corrupting, regardless of where a politicians allegiance is.

In addition, if you actually believe what you do then you must think that all Conservative voters are uncompassionate, greedy, or rich. This is absurd. In my old riding most of those Conservatives were rural folk who farmed for a living, went to Church, grew their own food, were volunteer firefighters, were charitable with their own money, and would help out in their community. Yet the vast majority were by definition conservative.

Once again, theirs a large difference between being compassionate in a voluntary sense and being compassionate at the ballot box.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus Christ ever advocated that people should be forced by the Roman Empire to be compassionate? One thing you'll notice in the NT is that Jesus gives his followers a choice in whether to follow him or not, let's make the clear, he gave them a CHOICE. What you're saying is that people shouldn't be given a choice in whether or not they're compassionate, but they should be forced by the government.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[blueblood]

Jesus was for sharing the wealth and abhored the rich and greedy. Sounds like Jack Layton to me.

He would vote NDP.

Ever read the parable about the master giving his servants various bags of gold? Then there is the "give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for life"

I don't think he'd vote period. Earthly governments were a non issue for him