Poll: Jesus would support stricter gun laws, higher taxes on the rich, reducing carbon emissions, and universal health care

posted at 8:01 pm on July 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

This is as close as I’m going to get today, it seems, to some patented slow-news-day atheism-themed clickbait. No need to thank me. Your page views are thanks enough.

Turns out the American public thinks Jesus is a pro-life liberal. Who knew?

The latest research from YouGov shows that on social issues in particular Americans tend to have more liberal attitudes than imagine say Jesus would have. 48% of the public supports legal abortion, compared to only 20% who say Jesus would support it, the biggest divide between public opinion and expectations of what Jesus would think. Only on one issue, the death penalty, do the public stake out a more conservative position, with 58% in favor of the death penalty for murderers compared to 34% who say that Jesus would support it. The smallest difference in attitude is on universal healthcare. 56% of Americans support universal healthcare and 55% of Americans say that Jesus would support it too…

Comparing Protestants and Catholics we see that Jesus’ imagined position amongst Protestants is more conservative than amongst Catholics. A third of Catholics say that Jesus would support gay marriage, compared to only 20% of Protestants. Most Catholics also say that Jesus would support universal healthcare and stricter gun laws, while in each case less than half of Protestants agree.

Abortion and gay marriage were the only issues tested in which more people thought Jesus would take the traditional conservative position than the liberal one. When asked if he’d support or oppose legal abortion, a clear majority of 20/52 overall said the latter:

abortion

A near-majority of 32/45 overall say he’d oppose gay marriage — although a near-majority of Democrats say he’d support it:

ssm

Among atheists specifically, a heavy majority think Jesus would be pro-SSM (69/5) and a plurality think he’d support legal abortion(!) (31/19). They were the only one of 24 different subgroups in which more people thought Jesus would favor abortion rights than would oppose them. As you can see in the first table above, even Democrats split 29/38 on that question.

On the five other hot buttons tested, Jesus is evidently an Elizabeth Warren progressive — and it’s not always just Democrats and indies who think so. The partisan “WWJD?” split on capital punishment is narrow, with Dems thinking Jesus would oppose it (27/45) and Republicans thinking he’d favor it (43/34). The split on stricter gun laws is wider, though: Overall 46 percent think Jesus would support those laws versus 25 percent who disagree. Among Democrats it’s 68/8 but just 28/43 among Republicans. The numbers are similar for Jesus’s support or opposition to higher taxes on the wealthy — 45/23 overall, with Dems breaking 63/10 while Republicans break 18/40 against. (Independents side with Democrats, 43/25.) When you ask about universal health care, the gap widens even further. It’s 55/19 overall in favor of those who think Jesus would support it, with Dems splitting 80/3 versus Republicans at 23/41. (Again, indies side with Democrats, 52/20.) And when you get to reducing carbon emissions, the three partisan demographics finally align. Fifty-two percent say Jesus would favor that versus 13 percent who disagree; among Democrats it’s 68/4 and among Republicans it’s 31/26, with independents in the middle at 51/13. I’m surprised that the global warming question drew a consensus when the other questions didn’t, but maybe I shouldn’t be: When YouGov asked respondents whether they personally thought carbon emissions should be reduced (not what they think Jesus would do), 40 percent of GOPers said yes versus 35 percent who said no. That may be the real news from this poll. A plurality of Republicans, whether they’re sold on man-made global warming or not, support lightening the atmosphere’s carbon load. Go figure that if they feel that way, they might attribute the same view to Jesus.

Exit question: Will Jesus endorse Hillary in 2016?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You know you’re guilty of creating God in your own image when He starts hating all the same people and things that you do.

Madcap_Magician on July 8, 2014 at 8:44 AM

.
People who are hated by Christians, include :___________________________
.
In the meantime, would you please read Revelation 2: 1-7 ?

listens2glenn on July 8, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Except slavery, which your holy book never saw fit to prohibit.

But other than that, yeah, all human dignity and morality comes from your holy book or something. Except that other cultures that had never heard of or weren’t interested in your scriptures also had legal codes banning murder, rape, theft, etc.

So back to the drawing board for you, huh?

Good Lt on July 7, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Only if you apply your version of History versus the intellectually consistent version of History.

The Humanist view is billions of years, and goo to you evolution so when you say that other cultures came up with these on their own, it is because you apply your template to attempt to deconstruct that which you oppose.

The Biblical view says fewer than ten thousand years and that all humans descended from Adam & Eve, and then after the choke point with Noah and his seven other passengers aboard the Ark, all descended from them.

Then there is the narrative of the event at Babel where all people were as one. Because they were in a city, it is clear that they were civilized and shared a culture which they no doubt received from Noah who was considered by God to be Righteous.

As you can see, with the consistent view of History, there is a common morality base that later spread to the entire planet.

It would seem that the Humanists are arguing against themselves when they say that the common shared values and morals grew independently and organically.

The evidence screams “Common Designer” and “Common Ancestor”.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 9:33 AM

M240H on July 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM

.
Why do you think that? In Matthew 15, Jesus said “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” That quite elegantly negates the premise that Jesus opposes the death penalty.

Immolate on July 8, 2014 at 9:29 AM

.
I agree … Lyle and Erik Menendez should be executed.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Proof that no one reads the Bible anymore. If they did, they would know better.

mountainaires on July 8, 2014 at 9:38 AM

It’s leftwing religious folks making these arguments, champ.

Not the evil, immoral, anarchistic, kill-everyone-because-no-morality-lol ‘atheists.’

Religious folks like you are saying these things.

Now what do you do? They’re working from the same playbook as you.

Good Lt on July 7, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Among atheists specifically, a heavy majority think Jesus would be pro-SSM (69/5) and a plurality think he’d support legal abortion(!) (31/19). They were the only one of 24 different subgroups in which more people thought Jesus would favor abortion rights than would oppose them. As you can see in the first table above, even Democrats split 29/38 on that question.

Remember, kids, reading IS fundamental!

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 8, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Except slavery, which your holy book never saw fit to prohibit.

But other than that, yeah, all human dignity and morality comes from your holy book or something.

Good Lt on July 7, 2014 at 9:29 PM

To continue on with your screed.

By what authority do you condemn slavery? Can you even define slavery? Can you distinguish the difference in slavery in Scriptures and the characterization of the antebellum South?

Would you call someone a “slave” who sold himself to another person in order to pay a personal debt?

I think you play the same stupid deconstruction/false-equivocation word games that the Left engages in. Hardly possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone bent on deception and lies to make their point.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 9:39 AM

I do think Jesus would object to the death penalty, though. I personally am not opposed to it, but I’d like to think that humility leaves me open to consider arguments against. Gee, I wonder where one might find a good example of humility to emulate …

M240H on July 8, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Why do you think that? In Matthew 15, Jesus said “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” That quite elegantly negates the premise that Jesus opposes the death penalty.

Immolate on July 8, 2014 at 9:29 AM

I was making a bit of a poor joke there as that aspect of Jesus which was man was executed by the state. More seriously, though, I think Jesus would be fine with protecting lambs from wolves, i.e. incarceration, but I also think it is difficult to assign His approval to the ultimate judgement of a planned-by-the-state life-taking. It’s not really for me to say , though.

M240H on July 8, 2014 at 9:43 AM

2 points:
1 – We have universal healthcare. Does everyone (including me) get Cadillac, “my” floor treatment, no but everyone has healthCARE. It’s the “who pays for it” portion that seems to be a problem.
2 – Very interesting how the secular left tries to claim what Jesus would support. Just incredible – they trash the Christian religions then turn around and claim Jesus would support them.

MN J on July 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Proof that no one reads the Bible anymore. If they did, they would know better.

mountainaires on July 8, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Mark 8:18

Roy Rogers on July 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

How was it Reagan put it?

“It isn’t so much what they don’t know, as what they think they know that just isn’t so.”

That is very true of the people who were polled for this.

For those of you bandying about the 10% number, that’s for tithing to the temple, old testament doctrine, and has nothing to do with taxes owed to one’s government.

Immolate on July 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM

That’s pretty accurate. But, the temple was the only government that should have been necessary for the nation. (A better quote, imo, when distinguishing a “tax” to God from a tax to the government is God’s warning against getting a king in 1 Samuel 8:11-18. It includes “He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants” among other takings.)

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 9:45 AM

MN J on July 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The left does not protest war or the use of armed forces to put down a protest like they used to either.

Roy Rogers on July 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Except slavery, which your holy book never saw fit to prohibit.

But other than that, yeah, all human dignity and morality comes from your holy book or something. Except that other cultures that had never heard of or weren’t interested in your scriptures also had legal codes banning murder, rape, theft, etc.

So back to the drawing board for you, huh?

Good Lt on July 7, 2014 at 9:29 PM

If I”m not mistaken, “slavery” in those times were like indentured servitude of more recent times.

BTW, I have a secret. You know what? Christians were the ones that headed the abolishanist movements both in the U.S. and England. Oh, and they did this by inspiration of God’s Word.

Oh, and before you say “But the pro-slavery people used the Bible to blah blah blah” they were trying to use it to refulte what the abolishanists were saying. YOu know what’s real funny? The way they would “prove” that the Bible promotes slavery is the same way atheists use to say it promotes it: “Well, it mentions slavery in the Bible so it must be 100% for it, and I mean slavery like they had in the South”.

DethMetalCookieMonst on July 8, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Can we get some labels on those tables?

J.S.K. on July 8, 2014 at 9:50 AM

I think they have confused Jesus for Caesar.

Stephen L. Hall on July 8, 2014 at 9:51 AM

The following piece was written in 1912 by the editor of the Commercial Appeal in Memphis, Tennessee, C.P.J. Mooney. Since then, it has remained so popular, that the newspaper has published it on their op ed page every year at Christmas.

JESUS, THE PERFECT MAN

There is no other character in history like that of Jesus.

As a preacher, as a doer of things, and as a philosopher, no man ever had the sweep and the vision of Jesus.

A human analysis of the human actions of Jesus brings to view a rule of life that is amazing in its perfect detail.

The system of ethics Jesus taught during His Earthly sojourn 2,000 years ago was true then, has been true in every century since and will be true forever.

Plato was a great thinker and learned in his age, but his teachings did not stand the test of time. In big things and in little things time and human experience have shown that he erred.

Marcus Aurelius touched the reflective mind of the world, but he was as cold and austere as brown marble. …

Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ is a thing of rare beauty and sympathy, but it is, as its name indicates, only an imitation.

Sir Thomas More’s Utopia is yet a dream that cannot be realized.

Lord Bacon writing on chemistry and medicine under the glasses of the man working in a 20th century laboratory is puerile.

The world’s most learned doctors until 150 years ago gave dragon’s blood and ground tails of lizards and shells of eggs for certain ailments. The great surgeons a hundred years ago bled a man if he were wounded.

Napoleon had the world at his feet for four years, and when he died the world was going on its way as if he had never lived.

JESUS TAUGHT little as to property because He knew there were things of more importance than property. He measured property and life, the body and soul, at their exact relative value. He taught much more as to character, because character is of more importance than dollars.

Other men taught us to develop systems of government. Jesus taught so as to perfect the minds of men. Jesus looked to the soul, while other men dwelled on material things.

After the experience of 2,000 years no man can find a flaw in the governmental system outlined by Jesus.

Czar and kaiser, president and socialist, give to its complete merit their admiration.

No man today, no matter whether he follows the doctrine of Mill, Marx or George as to property, can find a false principle in Jesus’s theory of property.

In the duty of a man to his fellow, no sociologist has ever approximated the perfection of the doctrine laid down by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

Not all the investigations of chemists, not all the discoveries of explorers, not all the experiences of rulers, not all the historical facts that go to make up the sum of human knowledge on this day in 1912 are in contradiction to one word uttered or one principle laid down by Jesus.

The human experiences of 2,000 years show that Jesus never made a mistake. Jesus never uttered a doctrine that was true at that time and then became obsolete.

Jesus spoke the truth, and the truth is eternal.

History has no record of any other man leading a perfect life or doing everything in logical order. Jesus is the only person whose every action and whose every utterance strike a true note in the heart and mind of every man born of woman. He never said a foolish thing, never did a foolish act and never dissembled.

No poet, no dreamer, no philosopher loved humanity with all the love that Jesus bore toward all men.

WHO, THEN, was Jesus?

He could not have been merely a man, for there never was a man who had two consecutive thoughts absolute in truthful perfection.

Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be — a divine being — or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave the world as a heritage.

No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

kingsjester on July 8, 2014 at 9:52 AM

I was making a bit of a poor joke there as that aspect of Jesus which was man was executed by the state. More seriously, though, I think Jesus would be fine with protecting lambs from wolves, i.e. incarceration, but I also think it is difficult to assign His approval to the ultimate judgement of a planned-by-the-state life-taking. It’s not really for me to say , though.

M240H on July 8, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Romans 13 says that God ordains government to “bear the sword”.

Furthermore, Jesus is God, so when reading the OT when you see barrels of blood-shed, God/Jesus is involved. When reading the Law, it is clear that those who shed innocent life, the transgressor must also be put to death. There are quite a number of capital crimes enumerated in Scripture. Two reasons for DP is 1) Justice, 2) to not defile the land.

So DP is required. Also, it may be a practical matter from nomadic tribes, but I don’t see incarceration until we have cities and people like Nebuchadnezzar. Earlier incarceration was more like kidnapping. Holding someone for political reasons because to many, life is cheap and incarceration is not.

Lastly, All government is ordained by God, including the reign of the Pharoahs, Nero, the ultimate tyrannical dictator Nebuchadnezzar (called “my servant” by God), Hitler, even this crummy Regime we are under now.

I always say, if God didn’t want it, He would brush it away.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 9:57 AM

This is how God responded to Israel when they asked for a king: From 1st Samuel chapter 8.

10 Samuel told the people who were asking him for a king everything the Lord had said. 11 Samuel told them, “Here’s what the king who rules over you will do. He will take your sons. He’ll make them serve with his chariots and horses. They will run in front of his chariots. 12 He’ll choose some of your sons to be commanders of thousands of men. Some will be commanders of fifties. Others will have to plow his fields and gather his crops. Still others will have to make weapons of war and parts for his chariots.

13 “He’ll also take your daughters. Some will have to make perfume. Others will be forced to cook and bake.

14 “He will take away your best fields and vineyards and olive groves. He’ll give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and a tenth of your grapes. He’ll give it to his officials and attendants. 16 He will also take your male and female servants. He’ll take your best cattle and donkeys. He’ll use all of them any way he wants to.

17 “He will take a tenth of your sheep and goats. You yourselves will become his slaves.

18 “When that time comes, you will cry out for help because of the king you have chosen. But the Lord won’t answer you at that time.”

God’s way is for each of us to make HIM or king, not to set up a government to rule us, but for us to submit to HIM.

Trey

TMink on July 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM

No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement.

kingsjester on July 8, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Several times in the OT, God commands His leaders to implement “Just Justice” while also condemning what we now label “social justice”.

Humanity hasn’t changed. It has always rebelled against the Created Order. “Social Justice” has been perverting “Just Justice” since the beginning of time.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Let’s face it, baby, Jesus was a “happening” kind of guy. “Zen, man, A.A. Milne, nonobjective”–who would have zealously supported:

. Buggery
. Infanticide in the tens of millions
. Using the bodies of murdered babies to fuel hospitals.

And all this coming from Marxist atheists who don’t believe Jesus ever existed.

MaiDee on July 8, 2014 at 10:06 AM

I would much rather have a government which embodies my religion than someone else’s. That said, my religion doesn’t say we are allowed to steal from the rich to give to the poor.

The problem in my mind is not, for example, universal health care — single payer — the problem is all those politically connected people who would enrich themselves at the expense of others were such a program implemented, and all the damage to innovation which would result by the price controls which would be implemented to assure that the “wrong” people did not profit from the program.

The left loves to give money to drug addicts on the corner. Yes, giving is thought to be Christian, but sometimes it isn’t — especially when it causes more bad than good.

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 10:06 AM

I get it. “Render unto Caesar the thoughts of your prayers.”

onomo on July 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement.

kingsjester on July 8, 2014 at 9:52 AM

.
Several times in the OT, God commands His leaders to implement “Just Justice” while also condemning what we now label “social justice”.

Humanity hasn’t changed. It has always rebelled against the Created Order. “Social Justice” has been perverting “Just Justice” since the beginning of time.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:00 AM

.
Well stated, Reuben’.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

That’s pretty accurate. But, the temple was the only government that should have been necessary for the nation. (A better quote, imo, when distinguishing a “tax” to God from a tax to the government is God’s warning against getting a king in 1 Samuel 8:11-18. It includes “He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants” among other takings.)

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Go back and do some more reading.

Joseph (son of Jacob), when he was made the Number Two guy in Egypt was a downright tyrant in terms of taxes. He confiscated seven years of produce by the people and then in the seven lean years he sold it back to those he seized it from.

King Solomon enslaved every able-bodied man for one-third of his time (one month in Lebanon, two months at home) to build Solomon’s palaces, stables, temples to foreign gods (to appease his many wives), and a plethora of other things (besides building The Temple his father David wanted to build).

While enslaving people, the post exile people were also expected to pony up the 10% tithe/temple tax, and still allow strangers to “glean the corners” of the fields.

The people were taxed heavily.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

. . . . . The left loves to give money to drug addicts on the corner . . . . .

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 10:06 AM

.
As long as it’s not their own money.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2014 at 10:09 AM

While enslaving people, the post exile people were also expected to pony up the 10% tithe/temple tax, and still allow strangers to “glean the corners” of the fields. The people were taxed heavily. Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

That’s why the children of Israel were told by God DON’T HAVE A KING in the first place. God’s not into big government, big earthly government anyway.

Jesus is the Creator of life, no He wouldn’t be a demokkkrat all in favor of slaughtering the very same lives He created.

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2014 at 10:21 AM

The problem in my mind is not, for example, universal health care — single payer — the problem is all those politically connected people who would enrich themselves at the expense of others were such a program implemented, and all the damage to innovation which would result by the price controls which would be implemented to assure that the “wrong” people did not profit from the program.

Maybe someone brought it up earlier, but in the OT, the people are demanding that they have a king to rule over them and protect them. What History shows us is what is echoed by Ben Franklin who observed those who will give up liberty for security will end up with neither. Nevertheless, the Prophet Samuel explained to them exactly how bad and corrupt it would be – pretty much a more dystopian view than what you present here. Yet the people were stubborn and lazy and voted to surrender their Liberty to what became a corrupt and incompetent King.

The left loves to give money to drug addicts on the corner. Yes, giving is thought to be Christian, but sometimes it isn’t — especially when it causes more bad than good.

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 10:06 AM

I think what has happened here is that the generic “giving” has magically replaced the original “charity”. The original meaning of “charity” is not been giving drug money to addicts, rather helping real people with real problems. Case example is the “Good Samaritan”. The Samaritan didn’t inquire to the character of the one lying beaten to near death in a ditch, rather he altruistically gave of himself.

The idea of “Charity” is to be a living example of the Grace given by God. While some would argue a “Common” Grace that is non-salvific which is expressed in terms of rain, sun, relative peace and protection from disease and pestilence, and other things conducive to human flourishing.

So that is the example of helping for the “common welfare” as is expressed in this nation’s founding documents.

The giving drug money to addicts is a Leftist perversion and corruption of the original idea of “charity”. The Left hates God so naturally they must misrepresent and recharacterize the things of God by polluting the manifestation of and testimony to His Character.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I dare say, if Jesus were on earth today, he would not subscribe to either political party.

Jesus will be on earth again, of course, and he will rein for a thousand years. No term limits for the Son of God.

Immolate on July 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

the problem is all those politically connected people who would enrich themselves at the expense of others were such a program implemented

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 10:06 AM

IOW, you have a problem with sin. And ain’t that the truth. If we could do away with sin, socialism would work like a charm. And, without the need for totalitarian government, to boot.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

First, what in the world are you arguing with me about? Is your reading comprehension level down there with LFoD’s? Second, I’ve done plenty of reading, and nothing I said conflicts with your statements in the least. Of course, that’s because your statements don’t reflect on my statement nor on the one to which I was responding.

Your bit about the gleaning and an emphasis on “enslavement” in your statements tells me you’ve got something eating your bacon.

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 10:27 AM

I dare say, if Jesus were on earth today, he would not subscribe to either political party.

Immolate on July 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Always remember that Jesus was bi-partisan. He ate with ‘publicans and sinners. ;)

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM

That’s why the children of Israel were told by God DON’T HAVE A KING in the first place. God’s not into big government, big earthly government anyway.

Mojave Mark on July 8, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Do a study on “cities” in Scriptures. The short version: cities are the representation of Evil.

Cain, after butchering his brother was instructed not to go to a city, so Cain made a city for himself.

The city of Babel was an affront to God and from there the world became divided.

Abraham, who for intents and purposes might as well have been a King (given the large number of people who work and fight for him), was never described as a King. OTOH, Lot, eventually moved to the city of Sodom.

In the conquest of Canaan, 31 kings and cities were destroyed, Jericho being one of the more notorious.

Then there is Babylon, Damascus, etc. All later destroyed because of the iniquity within. Babylon was a place of judgement against the Jews.

In the NT, the disciples are called to the cities. Many argue because cities are now good, I reply that the cities are just as evil and corrupt. The physician goes to the sick and dying not to the healthy and vigorous.

Just something to think about…

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I’ll contribute to spread the works of Jesus Christ. I’ll contribute to ‘that which belongs to Caesar’ when Caesar earns his keep.

Taxing the rich out of existence, disarming us, supporting homosexuality, and killing the unborn don’t seem to be supported by the teachings of Jesus.

Before anyone claims to know what Jesus would do better read the Bible first.

As an example, lets look at the Second Amendment. Caesar hasn’t done a very good job keeping his hands off our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I don’t think we should pay him for that!

Woody

woodcdi on July 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Always remember that Jesus was bi-partisan. He ate with ‘publicans and sinners. ;)

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM

And what did He say to the adulteress? “Go and sin no more”.

There is quite a difference in ministry to a needy audience, and accepting and endorsing their pagan behavior.

He ~might~ have visited Folsom Street during their parades, but He certainly would not have paraded around wearing only S&M gear and make-up.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Turns out the American public thinks Jesus is a pro-life liberal. Who knew?

Well… he did wear sandals.

Axeman on July 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I tend to avoid these types of discussions because it’s another poor leftist attempt to convert Christians to convert to the liberal thought process.

Anybody who claims that Jesus would approve or disapprove of [x] should be ignored if same that person does not accept, in any unconditional terms, that Jesus is the true Son of God and the Messiah. Since leftists tend to reject Jesus as anybody other than “just another man” then why do Christians want to argue with such fools? If Jesus is really simply another man then why is it so important what Jesus thinks? To the left, Jesus’ opinions are no more important than Al Gore’s which is why their arguments hold no water. I don’t care about Mohammed’s, Ghandi’s or Marx views because they’re mere humans with standard opinions. They’re not God and are NOT “The Way, the Truth and the Life” so, big deal what they think!

Liberals have only one religion: Liberalism. Liberals view themselves as the center with their worldview the only true view. Liberals tend to reject Jesus as the Son of God because that would force them to view Christianity with higher respect than liberalism.

The critics on this forum don’t respect Jesus’ ministry; they only accept Jesus’ teaching IF (and only if) it doesn’t conflict with the liberal view. The left gets its information about Jesus from other liberal sites; they NEVER read the Bible.

Argue with them if you wish but you’re only wasting your time. Until a lib can convince me that Jesus’ primary mission was to spread the Word of God I’m convinced that they have no clue what they’re talking about.

Kingfisher on July 8, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Ben Franklin who observed those who will give up liberty for security will end up with neither.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

I submit that giving up security for liberty means one will wind up with neither.

In other words, we expect government, for there are those who, in its absence, will find that the strong people who replace government are not the kind which follow any kinds of rules, Old or New. With the right government (a rarity, I will admit), everyone’s liberty and security are maximized.

IOW, you have a problem with sin. And ain’t that the truth. If we could do away with sin, socialism would work like a charm. And, without the need for totalitarian government, to boot.

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Exactly. So, what is the path to universal health care which does not embody sin? Seems to me that the liberals don’t want religion as part of healthcare, for the religious have historically been the best providers. There’s a reason why the Catholic healthcare system is the largest in the nation. The reason liberals don’t want the religious in healthcare is obvious, for the religious tend to view things that liberals want healthcare-wise as anathema.

Liberals demand that the government provide healthcare, for that is the only way to force people to act against their religious feedoms — by making an overriding claim of “public welfare”.

And those last two words are certainly loaded with meaning.

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Jesus would support obeying the laws of the land you live in, unless they prohibited you from worshipping him. He did not concern himself with earthly kingdoms. While Jesus walked this planet, in his homeland of Judea, there was a great outcry to overthrow the Romans – Jesus repeatedly rejected pleas to get involved even going so far as telling one man that if Cesar is on the coin he holds, he should give to God what is His and Cesar what’s is his.

Jesus is not about any form of government – He is about the heart transformation of individuals. He is about reconciling humanity back to God.

I am sure if Jesus was asked his response would be “sort yourselves out.” He’s got bigger fish to fry.

joshleguern on July 8, 2014 at 10:49 AM

I think what has happened here is that the generic “giving” has magically replaced the original “charity”.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM

But charity, or almsgiving, is a private act. It is never public, for as we know, those who publicly give charity, or alms, are seeking a reward which is not good.

That’s why liberals use the power of the state for giving — it makes those given to indebted, and the indebted are reliable voters, regardless of the corrosive nature of the gift.

As drug dealers do it, the first hit is free. As an example, blacks may hate the education system liberals have foisted upon them — an education system which keeps them on the lowest rungs of society — but in every election they as a group are a reliable vote for those who keep their minds in chains.

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 10:55 AM

No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

kingsjester on July 8, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Well said. Good post (thanks for that 1912 article).

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 10:56 AM

The short version: cities are the representation of Evil.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Ummmm, wow. You have a seriously bent take on Scripture.

Reuben Hick on July 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM

You also have NO sense of humor.

So, what is the path to universal health care which does not embody sin?

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 10:47 AM

The one that includes no humans.
So, we should let computers control our healthcare? o.O /s
(Well, said, btw.)

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 10:57 AM

joshleguern on July 8, 2014 at 10:49 AM

No, you make the mistake the liberals make — the one FDR made with his putative “Four Freedoms”. A freedom to worship means that you are allowed, on a day of your choosing, a few hours in a room with others of like persuasion to verbally honor the god of your choosing.

Freedom of religion means quite a bit more than mere worship.

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 11:01 AM

The one that includes no humans.
So, we should let computers control our healthcare? o.O /s
(Well, said, btw.)

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I think humans can do it, but liberals can’t.

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 11:02 AM

No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

kingsjester on July 8, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Jesus was indeed part of a “social justice movement.” We are called by Him to act, for in the absence of acts, our faith is dead. He has told us that. Part of your soul-saving must of necessity be acts in support of social justice.

But how liberals and conservatives interpret social justice is different. Liberals, for example, want a living wage — while conservatives want a wage which justly values the work performed (a level of work which may not rise to what the liberal considers a living wage).

An example: A $15/hr miminum wage is considered a living wage by the liberals. So, when the illegal alien arrives at Home Depot and will work hard for many hours at less than that minimum wage, he will get the job that the liberal-wage-mandated $15/hr person won’t. And the buyer of that work will often be a liberal, who will publicly pay lip service to the concept of a minimum wage while paying full service to the concept of paying the true-value price for the work.

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Wouldn’t it also be true, by popular poll, that “Uhm…I give up” is the President Pro-tem of the Senate?

Axeman on July 8, 2014 at 11:32 AM

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM

The greater distinction is that Jesus never advocated stealing from your neighbor in order to commit acts of charity.

That’s what liberals do.

In fact, the Bible encapsulated and condemned liberalism by describing Judas in terms that are applicable today:

John 12:1-6

1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

fossten on July 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Wow, look, we have two imbeciles! Either that, or two people willing to deliberately take things out of context to further themselves.

Why do you not read my entire post and put it all together.

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 8:21 AM

I did read your entire post. Maybe you should take more time to articulate in a fashion that isn’t so easily misinterpreted, although I’m not sure how this phrase “Slavery in and of itself is not evil…” can be misterpreted.

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM

This reminds me why I am not a Christian.

Jesus is too much of a hippy turn the other cheek fellow for me and therefore can be used by our modern leftist for all sorts of idiotic causes.

The early Christian church had to jerry-rig warfare back into the religion in order to fight off the Muslims and Vikings. If not Christianity would not exist today.

And yes I know all the arguments conservative Christians use to say Jesus would been for gun rights, obeying the law, etc., the problem is it is a hard argument to make. Trying to make Jesus look like a rough neck defender of human rights is like trying to turn Muhammad into a peace loving nice guy.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Jesus and Christianity is one reason Western Civilization accomplished what it did, and I don’t mind at all living in a Christian centric America, which is much better than living in a Karl Marx nightmare like the leftist really want, but there is a limit to that. Other movements and philosophies also played a role in making Western Civilization dominate as well, not just Christianity, like the enlightenment, scientific revolution, and the heritage of Greco-Roman Civilization.

William Eaton on July 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Wow, look, we have two imbeciles! Either that, or two people willing to deliberately take things out of context to further themselves.

Why do you not read my entire post and put it all together.

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 8:21 AM

I did read your entire post. Maybe you should take more time to articulate in a fashion that isn’t so easily misinterpreted, although I’m not sure how this phrase “Slavery in and of itself is not evil…” can be misterpreted.

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Obviously you did not read the entire post or you would understand that slavery is not “taking or holding ownership over another”.

Many times slavery is entered into voluntarily by the slave to the master. As my post very specifically spelled out in SEVERAL WAYS.

Slavery in and of itself is not evil…
astonerii on July 7, 2014 at 10:31 PM

You do not see one person taking or holding ownership over another as evil? Are you morally bankrupt?

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 7:49 AM

Obviously, it is quite easy to misinterpret something particularly when you are a hack deliberately doing so.

Here is the whole post again…

He will never admit that the ‘slavery’ allowed in the bible was 180 degrees different than the slavery as practiced in the United States of America. To do so would be to undermine that argument.

For the most part the only slaves were, Apprentices who learned a trade for giving up a part of their life time to study and be under complete control of a master or to become part of a house that was far more powerful than their own lot, war prisoners who eventually would be let go after it was clear they would pose no threat, and people who became slaves to pay off debts even if it was against their will.

Slavery in America began as a part of indentured servitude where someone paid for their trip from the old world to the new world by promising to work for the person who paid for the trip for a certain period of time.

The trips across the ocean were very deadly and the greedy and evil people who paid for the trips became greedy and began to make it impossible for those indentured to earn their freedom or to only do so after many years beyond the original agreed upon time. It eventually turned to until they repaid a certain amount of money, but with fees for lodging and food that made it impossible to repay.

There was a little extra evil added every now again in this path until eventually Africans were being sold into permanent and inheritable slavery and became possessions.

Slavery in and of itself is not evil and in its time served many good purposes for the societies it was used in. It allowed the only real social/economic upward mobility that existed at the time. Being able to go from nothing to being a craftsman master or become part of a higher social caste.

Everything is based on what is going on, not the term used. An apprentice was a slave and lived under slavery. It was no more evil than a student going to college today. Becoming a slave to a powerful family is no more evil than marrying into a wealthy family today. Being forced into labor to repay debts you voluntarily agreed upon is no more evil than a mortgage or student loan payment today. At the time, a person’s time was considered the payment and their life the collateral.

astonerii on July 7, 2014 at 10:31 PM

So, apparently, with all of that stuff around it, that you admit that you read, you still want to claim that you are too stupid to comprehend?

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 11:52 AM

William Eaton on July 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM

‘Turn the other cheek’ wasn’t meant for the general public – only Christians. It was meant for his disciples as a guideline for how he wanted them to behave when they were out spreading the gospel. Nor does ‘turn the other cheek’ contradict his advice to sell your clothes and buy a sword. Each statement has its own context and was referring to different situations.

Furthermore, ‘turn the other cheek’ doesn’t have anything to do with liberalism. Modern liberalism is all about ‘steal from the other guy so you can buy votes.’

Moreover, Jesus’ advocacy of giving to the poor and other forms of charity was all implied as a voluntary act. Modern liberalism is not voluntary, but confiscatory.

fossten on July 8, 2014 at 12:09 PM

unclesmrgol on July 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I would never use the term “social justice” for what Jesus preached. He preached loving your neighbor as yourself. The Law commanded justice. “Social justice” is a conflating of the two – twisting charity into justice.

GWB on July 8, 2014 at 12:34 PM

People who are hated by Christians, include :___________________________
.
listens2glenn on July 8, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Pagans, intellectuals, gays, independent women, atheists, and (amusingly) other christians who have the slightest variations in perceptions of dogma.

Let’s face it when one of the bloodiest long ranging fights between sects comes down to the nature of freaking crackers you’re talking about people prone to flying off the handle.

Tlaloc on July 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

The “self” is ambiguous–if the “self” is “self-empowered” and “self-actuating“. “Deciding for yourself” determines no specific content of what is decided. “Consenting” is the same thing as “deciding”. The “consent of adults” is a little circular if we decide that the one thing determining what an “adult” is is being at or above a certain age which we take as significant in deciding whether or not you’re capable of “consent”. In other words, we take a brute individual fact, and we interpret the particular by reference to an aggregate trend?

But an aggregate trend to what??If there is evident “dignity” in people deciding for themselves, why do atheists often-enough deride the choice of belief, and belittle people for those choices? You could argue that it’s because belief is often concurrent with deriding choices other people have made. You could argue that decrying belief that derides other belief is ultimate support in “dignity” of people deciding for themselves. However, in deriding people for choices that they make, based on values you “hold” is based on whether they construe the dignity the same way! And how can they, because you, yourself, demonstrate scorn for people who have decided a different theory of human dignity.

As mentioned before the abstract “decision” holds no content, but decisions do. There are true statements and there are false statements, but “S is a Statement” implies neither about S. It’s part of the abstraction that makes up statements and decisions that the instances of those objects contain specific content, which is not as neutral as the class itself.

Unless we have an assumption of the type of results a person capable of “consent” should choose and a way to evaluate the parts of those results, we can’t engage on any such model as “capable of consent”. So even the aggregate model assumes some criteria for evaluating the capacity to consent, and not just being at or above a certain age (or otherwise it would be a simple tautology for people who are at or above a certain age to manifest the behavior of being at or above a certain age), a tendency to expect a certain type of behavior (which people could choose to engage in or not) based on age.

And again, it will seem to be a bit far-fetched owing to the fact that people make intuitive corrections in their head all the time. But how would abortion fit in with the uniform value of personal liberty. It’s one decision for the woman, versus a lifetime of liberty and personal decisions for the alternative child. Isn’t it obvious that there is an ambiguous–intuitive, subjective–judgment involved in regulating the “value” of personal liberty?

Isn’t the decision to abort inconsistent with a value on personal autonomy and liberalism just based on somebody’s idea of how onerous you would be to have to foster?

The idea that all these questions will be solved if we denigrate another’s choice in value systems, while presenting a dubious one of our own and taking it as read that all that we enjoy today is thoroughly reconstructible without regard to anybody’s subjective conclusions is too simplistic to be believed.

Axeman on July 8, 2014 at 3:45 PM

They must have polled people who know diddly about theology.

Citizen Jerry on July 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM

So, apparently, with all of that stuff around it, that you admit that you read, you still want to claim that you are too stupid to comprehend?

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 11:52 AM

I’m well versed in antiquity and the differing modes of slavery. Some Greeks during the late republican period, for example, willingly became slaves to wealthy Roman nobles to improve their lot in life. But they were a minority and that doesn’t change the fact that slavery as a practice is abhorrent.

If you want to call me ‘stupid’ because I disagree with your reasoning, that’s fine, but doing so reflects poorly on you, not me.

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Actually, most of the results are wrong. Although he doesn’t believe in endorsements, I did see a S&W print against his robe. Don’t ask about what he thought about baby killing, it’s a touchy subject.

geezerintraining on July 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM

I’m well versed in antiquity and the differing modes of slavery. Some Greeks during the late republican period, for example, willingly became slaves to wealthy Roman nobles to improve their lot in life. But they were a minority and that doesn’t change the fact that slavery as a practice is abhorrent.

If you want to call me ‘stupid’ because I disagree with your reasoning, that’s fine, but doing so reflects poorly on you, not me.

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 4:15 PM

I call you stupid because it is the only alternative other than simply evil and a liar to fit the situation.

I did read your entire post. Maybe you should take more time to articulate in a fashion that isn’t so easily misinterpreted, although I’m not sure how this phrase “Slavery in and of itself is not evil…” can be misterpreted.

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Oh, look there, you said that I did not articulate it in a fashion that could be so easily misinterpreted. It was not done as such. It is easy for an evil lying sack of shit to take a few choice words out of pretty much any large enough statement to create a nefarious but ultimately out of context and thus false narrative. That does not however change what I said. It only shows poorly upon yourself and those who fall for your lies.

Call me nice, but calling you STUPID was generous of me.

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Call me nice, but calling you STUPID was generous of me.

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 4:52 PM

How generous of you to spare me your more pointed emotional outbursts, but seriously…take it elsewhere–you obviously cannot control yourself or your temper. I merely quoted your own words and then called you on it. If you had wanted to clarify what you said earlier, you could have done so, but you chose instead fly off the handle.

Why? Because you made a poor choice of words and you’re apparently too immature to handle the resulting criticism. If instead you want to refer to me as ‘stupid’ and a ‘lying sack of shit’, because I challenged a statement of yours, go ahead and do so: as I said earlier that reflects poorly on you rather than me. And to be honest, I could care less what your opinion of me is.

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM

zoyclem on July 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM

I have not had any anger at all on this. Just calling you what you are.

Yes, you did quote my words. But you quoted a partial sentence out of several paragraphs. You did this because you want people to attach to it ONLY the American version of slavery that they know easily from living in America and being beaten down by the leftist with it. You claimed that I was talking about people taking and owning other people, but my post was about all the other styles of slavery where this is not what happens. You are a liar.

I did not make any poor choice of words. Slavery, in and of itself, is not evil. Want proof, God condoned several versions of slavery in the bible. God does no evil.

Calling you stupid was a mistake I hope I will not repeat with you. You are simply a lying sack of shit.

You took my words of context and then adding your own context.

You then made a different argument when called out on that. trying to claim that it was easily misunderstood.

I showed how that was not the case… So now you are b!tching and moaning that I called you what you are.

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 5:33 PM

People who are hated by Christians, include :_____________

listens2glenn on July 8, 2014 at 9:30 AM

.
Pagans, intellectuals, gays, independent women, atheists, and (amusingly) other christians who have the slightest variations in perceptions of dogma.

Let’s face it when one of the bloodiest long ranging fights between sects comes down to the nature of freaking crackers you’re talking about people prone to flying off the handle.

Tlaloc on July 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

.
This isn’t “Northern Ireland”.
.
Can you provide some contemporary examples of “hate”, on the part of Christians here, in the U.S.?.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Pagans, intellectuals, gays, independent women, atheists, and (amusingly) other christians who have the slightest variations in perceptions of dogma.

Let’s face it when one of the bloodiest long ranging fights between sects comes down to the nature of freaking crackers you’re talking about people prone to flying off the handle.

Tlaloc on July 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Any reason you failed to mention sects of the Muslim belief?

I find it interest that you mention Christian infighting – which is usually just character attacks – and omitted those groups who would kill Christian en masse solely because they are Christians.

EdmundBurke247 on July 8, 2014 at 9:43 PM

I showed how that was not the case… So now you are b!tching and moaning that I called you what you are.

astonerii on July 8, 2014 at 5:33 PM

The only one bitching and moaning is you.

zoyclem on July 9, 2014 at 6:51 AM

Surprised Allah hasn’t posted this one yet: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

Yeah, but that can’t happen with the belief “I’m the freakin’ epitome and abiter of Rationality” can it??!!

Funny that scientists are closing on an empirical conclusion I made as an “atheist” (lacking a belief in gods).

So how would that antiseptic secular society be created again, Good Lt?

Axeman on July 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3