ANSWERS: 27
  • short answer: No. read the New Testament to find out more
  • No he would not be. He would be to busy preaching to how much of a failure humanity is. Also hopefully useing that brimestone and fire stuff to bomb the conservatives into subbmisson.
  • Of course he would. Or at least the Bible Belt Jesus would.
  • Why do ppl have to diss Christians and republicans? We have different morals than you, accept it. You believe what you want to believe in and we believe what we want to do believe in. Why do liberals have to get nasty when they find out somebody is not a liberal or a democrat? It goes both ways.
  • Of course he wouldn't, but religious conservatives seem to be more hypocratic by nature. It's a quite an oxymoron. Jesus wouldn't like these modern christians.
  • what about the Christians who are Democrats? would Jesus had been in favor of abortion rights? of legalized homosexual marriage? of refusing to allow religious freedoms?
  • Jesus never met a democracy and never actually registered as a Democrat or Republican. He was so much an Independent that he formed his own party and it wasn't a political party, it was a ministry. Had he been born in a democracy it is possible that he would have chosen to vote but he wasn't really about running this world. He was about making sure people could go to the next one. . He was mocked as the 'King of the Jews' but he never claimed the title nor did he attempt to influence government policy. Presumably God could have sent him to become King but that wasn't the plan. . Jesus preached individual responsibility for helping the poor but never spoke of governmental programs for for doing so. With regard to taxes Jesus said that you should pay them. He was silent regarding the correct amount for rich people or poor people to pay, only that they "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". . Jesus' position on war of any kind is debatable. But I'm not really interested in debating it. . The closest you can come to Christ's position on universal healthcare is that he healed lepers despite their frequent lack of health insurance. But this is not the same thing as compelling a citizenry to pay for healthcare for all people. . The most important thing to remember is that Jesus told people what the right thing to do was: love your neighbor as yourself. He wanted people - individuals - to take care of the poor. He did not tell us to go forth and enact laws forcing some people to pay for other people's healthcare. . Most people like puppies and would agree that puppies are good. Jesus is supposed by many to have been the embodiment of goodness. . It does not follow though that if Jesus were here today would endorse a 5% budget increase for the Government-run Animal Shelter of Nazareth to improve infrastructure and address anticipated cost overruns for the fiscal year 2010.
  • Both Christians and Republicans are prone to being delusional.
  • The impression I always had of Jesus was that he was the original socialist.
  • ...uh...I think you got to take into consideration of the term "christianity"...There are people who claim "christianity"...and then there are people whos actions show christianity. Just becuase a person claims it doesnt mean they are it. Sure sure, there are republicans out there who are christian...but all in the same those reasons arnt the only reasons they are republican. But then again alot of them arnt really christians who are republicans... *coughs* most of them in office *coughs* Look at the actions, not the titles.
  • Well, it SEEMS that way, because the most politically outspoken (who tie their religion and politics) in the last several decades have been what is known as the Religious Right. This movement is not so much about Christianity as it is about preserving social tradition, and justifying that preservation through the Bible. In fact, its roots are in the segregationist movement (look up Falwell's history if you disbelieve me), which expanded to include opposition to women's and gay rights. And, no, assuming Yeshua (Jesus) existed, the writings about Him show an opposition to the concepts you've given. The writings show that the group contributed their wealth to a pool, which was distributed by need. This is closest to communism.
  • 1 John 3:10-12 says: “The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother. . . . We should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother.” The Bible is clear. True Christians love one another, no matter which nation they live in. Thus, they would never be found killing their own spiritual brothers or anyone else for that matter. That is why Jesus could say of his followers: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.”—John 17:16. True Christians pay their taxes and do not participate in the politics of this world. They pray for God's Kingdom to come, and they tell others about it.
  • Ba ha ha ha ha......Isn't it cute how the liberal brain works...
  • Good question.
  • I know He would be against abortion and gay marriage.
  • Wow. This question was derogatory towards both someones religion and political affiliation. How American of you to use your freedom of speech to degrade something that's also protected by the constitution. Liberal hypocrisy at it's finest.
  • No Jesus would not have been in favor of Pre-emptive war, cutting welfare programs and tax cuts for the wealthy. I am neither Republican or Democrat, I am independent, and if i am going to vote i will choose the person based on my values not based on a party. I have voted for Both Republican and democrat before. If i like none of them i dont vote, simple as that.
  • Good question. It's also a very complex question. But I'll give a simple answer: the majority of politically active/vocal American Christians today are Republican although I believe Jesus was a radical proto-socialist.
  • Abortion: Jesus spoke of not committing murder, which would be the intentional killing of another life ... the Bible clearly states that the unborn child is a life, ie when the mother of John the Baptist met with Mary while both were pregnant that the baby jumped in the womb at the presence of Jesus Homosexual marriage: Jesus clearly condemns sin of all types, while encouraging those involved to stop their actions and repent ... There are no references to him admonishing those who would rape children, but it is beyond a doubt something he would never advocate John ends his gospel with "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
  • Some Christians are confused. They aren't sure what to believe. Christianity itself is a story passed on from generation to generation with no absolute proof in its legitimacy. So all they have to rely on is someone else's word. So if you are a particular Christian that is led by a priest or other spiritual advisor that advocates for the things you mention, then that person will be more likely to advocate for those things also.
  • I have wondered the same thing myself. They often ask "what would Jesus do"? I don't know what answers they get. Happy Thursday to you! :)
  • 30% of individual applicants for private insurance are denied due to pre-existing conditions. i ask you: "who would Jesus insure?" i feel quite certain that Jesus would only feel love for and insure those others who are white, Christian, war mongers, and self-centered! oh no, what's that you say, Jesus was Jewish, middle-eastern / semitic, taught peace and love and reaching out to help our brethren? they don't teach me that in my church, so i won't believe it. ha! (sarcasm, seeing that we've become so much different from the loving Jesus).
  • Today it's difficult to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are self-serving, dishonest, and tax happy. I'm a Christian but am not Republican, Democrat or any other party. I study and investigate all of the candidates, their histories, and what they stand for then vote for the person I feel will do the best job all around. And frankly because of that, I found I couldn't trust either Obama or McCain in this last election so I opted out of voting this time. And today, I trust Obama even less. As far as Jesus being in favor of this or that, take a look at Scripture and you will see that He didn't get himself involved in the politics of His day. He simply traveled among the people teaching them the Word, healing the sick, raising the dead and bringing salvation. On the other hand, He did read the riot act to the religious leaders on a regular basis.
  • I believe Jesus was asked should we build a bridge or give money to the poor. His reply was "the poor shall always be with you" as if to say in my interpretation the poor cannot always take front seat before other problems are solved.
  • Unfortunately no political party has a platform in line with Catholic moral and social teaching. The Catholic Church is pro-life in the widest sense. This is often called a "Consistent Ethic of Life." This pro-life stance stresses the highest regard for dignity of human life including that of: • All people in objecting to unjust war and nuclear arms. (closer to Democratic platform) • The unborn in objecting to to abortion, in vitro fertilization, frozen embryos, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning (closer to Republican platform) • The elderly, sick and dying in objecting to assisted suicide and euthanasia (closer to Republican platform) • Prisoners in objecting to the death penalty (closer to Democratic platform) • The poor and minorities in supporting social justice issues (closer to Democratic platform) Some Catholics are enthusiastically anti-abortion and align themselves with the Republican party. Some Catholics align themselves with the Democratic party which supports the "Catholic" issues that effect the most people. Neither party follows all Catholic teachings. For more information, see "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility" http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf And the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2259 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2259 With love in Christ.
  • Jesus wouldn't concern himself over these matters. His message was one of personal transformation. One person finds the "love of God" and it is so real to him that others cannot help but noticing why he is so joyful in all situations. That is the whole idea of being a witness. To try and change the world through politics is to be "in the world and of the world." Those who really understand the message really could care less what the government is doing. That is being "in the world but not of the world." I believe Mother Theresa called it holy indifference.
  • Why does it seem like some many Christians are also Republicans, would Jesus have been in favor of pre-emptive war, cutting welfare programs, tax cuts for the wealthy, and not making sure all citizens have healthcare? Your question seems to come from a certain bias. But assuming it to be a legitimate question I will try to answer it. The first part of your question is, “Why does it seem like so many Christians are also Republicans?” It could be because many Christians share the values nominally supported by the Republican party and oppose those of the Democrat party that conflict with their beliefs. For example, consider, if you will, the support the Democrat party gives to the killing of inconvenient babies. At best the democrats will say that they want abortion to be available in cases of incest, rape, and for the preservation of the life of the mother. The latest information I have been able to find regarding the reasons for abortions I found on the following website. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html It shows that in the year 2007, the number of federally funded abortions performed for reason of incest were nine. That the number of federally funded abortions performed for reason of rape were 368. And that the number of federally funded abortions done due to the risk of the life of the mother, 81. So there were a total of 458 abortions performed with federal funds for reasons of incest, rape and the risk of the life of the mother in the entire country. All the other reasons for abortion could be summarized by the phrase, this child is inconvenient In 2004, the reasons of rape and incest were estimated to be responsible for 0.5 percent of abortions. That the mother had health problemsm, 4 percent. So a grand total of about 4.5 percent of abortions performed MIGHT be considered justifiable under the most restrictive criteria that the democrat party would consider. The rest, 95.5 percent are elective and are a form of contraception. Or put more plainly due to the killing of the children of women who do not want to have babies with the men they have sex with. In taking a look at the breakdown of abortions by race (http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp) we can see that for black people there were in 1995, 534 abortions performed for every 1000 live births. This is a ratio of greater than one in three. Think of that. If an American is conceived to a black woman, one in three of the children will be killed prior to birth. For Hispanic Americans the ratio is one in four, and for whites about one in seven. Do you condone this action? Do you celebrate abortion as a sacrament as the democrats seem to? Abortion for the reason of inconvenience or racial bias is not something that I believe Jesus would condone. Consider the biblical position with regard to homosexuality. One may assume that Jesus, as the Christ, and as member of the Trinity, would have opinions that conform to those expressed in the New and Old Testaments regarding the subject. From the following passages we can see God’s opinion with regard to homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death: Their blood shall be upon them.” Doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room there. How about the New Testament? In Romans 1:26-32 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in them that do them.” In 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 we read. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Again, not much wiggle room here. But the democrat party says that homosexuality is not a sinful condition but a natural state. God clearly disagrees. God does not change his opinion on what is right and wrong. If the democrats have a new revelation from God indicating he has changed his mind with regard to abortion or homosexuality, then they should have their anointed one, their messiah, make that announcement. Until then, the Christians have the right to believe that God has not changed his mind on the subject. Now let us examine your other specifics. Would Jesus been in favor of a pre-emptive war. I am assuming you are referring to the war in Iraq. Let us examine the situation there. Saddam Hussein was a dictator that had been killing his people at the rate of about 10,000 a year since the day he took power. He obtained and used chemical weapons both on his own people (Haditha) and on the Iranians with whom he started a war. That is not disputed by you I trust. He also invaded a third country, Kuwait, and threatened the invasion of Saudi Arabia. He supplied to the families of suicide bombers who attacked people in Israel money as a reward. He attempted to build a nuclear weapon. This is verifiable because of the more than 700 TONS of uranium yellowcake that was taken out of Iraq after the war and brought to Canada. And I am not talking about Betty Crocker yellowcake either. For more than 12 years he defied UN resolutions about having open inspections. Prior to our invasion in the second gulf war he sent 14 trucks loaded with chemical and biological weapons to Syria. Stockpiles of chemical weapons have been found and destroyed in Iraq. He made payments to Hamas to continue their terror attacks on Israel. His sons raped and tortured many people for far too many years. I am of the opinion that Jesus would approve of actions taken to stop this man and at least give the Iraqi people a chance at peace, freedom and democracy. So in this case, I think that Jesus would approve of a pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein, rather than allowing them to continue to suffer under his regime for untold years more. It is kind of like lancing a boil. It hurts for a moment and then the infection can be healed. Would Jesus have been in favor of cutting welfare programs? In Mark 14:7 Jesus himself states, “For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good:” From this we see that, if you believe Jesus, nothing we do will eliminate poverty. We will always have poor people. But how best do we serve them? Is it best done by taking money from you by threat of government force, taking a portion of it for “administration” and disbursing the rest under rules that seem almost designed to fracture the traditional nuclear family? Since the beginning of the 1960’s we have transferred literally BILLIONS of dollars from the producing to the non producing portions of the population. We have seen the black families destroyed to the point where 70.2 % of births to black women in 2006 were to unmarried women. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf) Governmental policies have virtually eliminated the father from the black family. Is THAT something that Jesus would have approved of? Instead of looking at the intentions of your programs look to the ACTUAL RESULTS. Would Jesus approve of tax cuts for the wealthy? Take out a dollar bill. Examine it carefully. Who’s picture is on it? Washington’s? Then give to Washington what belongs to Washington, and give to god, what belongs to god. What do the wealthy do with their money? Some they keep for themselves to enjoy a good life. Some they give to charity, either for the tax break or because they feel an obligation to the poor. The rest they usually invest. What do these investments do? They build companies. These companies employ people. People engaged in productive jobs. Jobs that provide the money for food on the table, a roof over your families head, all the needs of life. If the government takes away all the money that the wealthy have, and distributes it to the poor, how long will the poor benefit? No new jobs will be created by the wealthy. No new investments will be made. The pool of available money for the economy will stop growing. Government will take what it wants and keep a portion and distribute the rest to those who cannot or will not be productive. If allowed to keep a greater portion of their income the rich will, through investment and charity, allow all of us to succeed to a greater extent than government spending would allow. There is an old saying that a rising tide raises all boats. And a growing economy will raise all of our standards of living. But by draining the producers of wealth of the means of making more, the whole process stops. And in this the poorest of us suffer. Would Jesus want the poor to suffer because the rich are punished? I don’t think so. Would Jesus have been in favor of “not making sure all citizens have healthcare.” Jesus was, if nothing else, a healer. He was even able to raise the dead and give them back life. It is in the nature of God to heal us from illness. I wonder however whether Jesus would support the boondoggle that the so called healthcare legislation that is currently under consideration. It is estimated that over next ten years that this legislation will cost the American taxpayer more than 1.3 TRILLION dollars. Taxes to pay for this will start immediately, but the pay outs will not start until 2014. The United States has a population of about 305 million people. The democrat party estimates that there are about 27 million uninsured in the US. Even with this legislation not all would be covered. Let us assume that the numbers of uninsured are correct. We could take the money this plan has and give each of the uninsured 4,800 dollars a year for the next ten years to buy insurance. [(1.3 x 10^12) / (2.7 x 10^7) / 10 years]. If legislation were passed to do just this, perhaps that would receive the Lords approval. But that is not what is happening. This thing has more than 2000 pages. It won’t cover everyone. It will provide benefits not just for citizens and legal resident aliens, but for illegal aliens as well. When the republicans tried to put in language to guarantee that illegal aliens, that was voted down by the democrats. When they tried to put in language that would prevent federal monies, taken by threat of force in the form of taxes, from being used to pay for abortions, that was voted down by democrats. When they tried to remove language from the bill that would put into place a panel of 27 appointees to establish end of life protocols and to ensure that the protocols were followed, they were voted down. I don’t think over all Jesus would support this legislation. Although I am sure that he would support the idea of taking care of those in need. Another reason I think Jesus would have preferred the Republicans to the Democrats, is that he hated hypocrites. I see the democrat party filled with hateful and spiteful people. I see Sen. Byrd of WV, a former Kleagle in the KKK, elected time after time. I see their defense of a man repeatedly accused of rape and convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury, as Bill Clinton has been. I see them portraying our soldiers as murderers and terrorist in the halls of congress. Men and women who have placed themselves in harms way to preserve, protect and defend this country from all enemies. I have seen the speaker of the house reveal intelligence that prevented us from being able to continue to track Osama Bin Laden. I have seen the democrats side too many times with communists and other dictatorships to trust them with anything like our security. I think the only way you would be able to get Jesus to come to a democrat convention, is if he wanted to do a repeat of his cleaning out of the temple. Now THAT would be something to watch.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy