Why do Republicans idolize a liberal socialist (Jesus)?

[T'Chenka]

I could never quite wrap my head around this. I can understand the warling of the meaning of the Bible to suit the needs of the conservative movement, but why the love for Jesus? I mean, sometimes he got tough and angry, but a lot of the time he was making Bernie Sanders look like a Republican by comparison.

[TJ in Oregon]

Not sure if this is serious, but I'll try to give an answer.

The basic story of Christianity is that humanity fell in original sin and continues to sin. Since the offense is beyond our ability to repair, God himself provides the payment in the form of himself: Christ being crucified for our sins. This is fundamentally the story of the Gospel: the good news of salvation.

At first pass, this doesn't have any obvious relationship to American politics and is entirely outside the context of the American political spectrum. Of course, however, Jesus does clearly provide for us an example of how we ought to live that has ramifications for all facets of our lives. Some aspects of his example are what we would consider "liberal" (e.g. helping the poor) and some "conservative" (e.g. divorce, lust). But these descriptors are mostly culturally dependent and would have made no sense to early Christianity.

Jesus was not a political revolutionary. Many of his contemporaries longed for a political messiah who would build his kingdom right there in ancient Israel as an earthly kingdom, but that is not the kind of messiah Jesus was. Jesus's command wasn't to be a "good person"; it was to give up everything and follow him. Of course he also had some messages about what a person ought to do along the way that are specific and generally applicable. Jesus (sounding perhaps like what you would call Bernie Sanders like) commanded us to help the poor. Notice the command is always a personal obligation rather than a command to support a political movement. He told us to give our money to the poor, not to campaign for increased taxes on landlords. His commands on sexuality were likewise our own condemnation for failing to comply, not political commands. The question of politics is of secondary, minimal importance. The primary importance is always repentance and conversion.

So how ought we to live in a political society like modern democracy? Well, first and foremost by following Jesus's commands. To ask of others what we refuse to do ourselves is to be like the Pharisees who are condemned most severely. Now, alongside of that is the role we play in our political decisions to vote for candidates who will work best for the good of society: for its conversion, for the poor, for moral social norms, etc. In this is often a fair criticism of many Republicans. Some of us may believe the government should do more to help the poor but that the Democrats are worse for a variety of reasons, some may earnestly believe the government was never desired to be the avenue for welfare spending to begin with, some may think the government does more harm than good, some may not give a crap and want to virtue signal. The world is full of complicated people with mixed motives. If you want a simple answer, you will never get one that is true for a question like this.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I know this is pedantic, but I don't




(I'm Jewish)

[T'Chenka]

Not sure if this is serious, but I'll try to give an answer.

Thanks. It was both serious and non-serious. Your post is pretty good.

Jesus was not a political revolutionary.

I guess it depends how you define "political" and "revolutionary". His words, actions and disciples re-defined government policy in christian theocracies for nearly 2000 years.

Jesus's command wasn't to be a "good person"; it was to give up everything and follow him. Of course he also had some messages about what a person ought to do along the way that are specific and generally applicable.

Oh right. That akward christian thing when you can be a terrible person and even a monster, but if uyou accelt Jesus into your heart as your Lord, you go to heaven. Forgot about that.

Jesus (sounding perhaps like what you would call Bernie Sanders like) commanded us to help the poor. Notice the command is always a personal obligation rather than a command to support a political movement.

Jesus also defended the poor and minorities from persecution, or at least tried. His Father (he?) actively punished the Egyptian opressors and helped emancipate the jews. In those times, in those places, God and Jesus were taking sides between political "movements". If we follow their example and read between the lines of the bible, should christians not want Amazon to start paying taxes and giving the seniors that work in their warehouses bathroom breaks? Are you claiming the message was "do as I literally say but do not follow my non-verbal example"?

He told us to give our money to the poor, not to campaign for increased taxes on landlords.

Liberals / progressives / "socialists" would want to leave the majority of the lardlords' taxes alone mostly, and focus on the wealthiest 1%'s taxes. Unless the landlord owns dozens if properties, this isn't quote right.

His commands on sexuality were likewise our own condemnation for failing to comply, not political commands. The question of politics is of secondary, minimal importance. The primary importance is always repentance and conversion.

So you're saying Jesus wants YOU to focus on your sexuality and not the government? Combined with "just not lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", I think christians should be interpreting the bible to legalize all gayness but for the LGBTQ people to personally deal with their sins in private and through prayer. I can't see how "it's a sin" leads right into "it should be illegal". Society isn't supposed to judge them, Jesus says so. Only God.

Now, alongside of that is the role we play in our political decisions to vote for candidates who will work best for the good of society: for its conversion, for the poor, for moral social norms, etc.

Politicians should not be trying to convert voters en masse to their religion, otherwise they should have pursued a religious career and not a secular one. In a secular country, in this day and age, it's not literally violating the Constituton, but IMO it's violating it in spirit.

[Sir Mohamed]

Because they are hypocrites and hijack religion for their political battle.

Reminds me of a cartoon I've seen years ago, in which GOPers want to make Jesus prez. Jesus then gets in the WH and wants to feed the hungry, take care for the sick and be mercyful to enemies. GOPers then are surprised and call for impeachment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     And Democrats would call Him a far-right bigot for condemning no-fault divorce, preaching against the dangers of sexual immorality, stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, demanding almsgiving from the poor, and preaching that salvation comes through Him alone. Doesn't stop them from idolizing Him as a "liberal socialist".

[Koharu]

    And Democrats would call Him a far-right bigot for condemning no-fault divorce, preaching against the dangers of sexual immorality, stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, demanding almsgiving from the poor, and preaching that salvation comes through Him alone. Doesn't stop them from idolizing Him as a "liberal socialist".

Three of those have no scriptural support. Jesus never had anything to say about what constitutes marriage (nor does the Bible itself, especially as there are tons of examples of marriages between more than just one woman and a man). Jesus also didn't say anything about sexual immorality: it was a few of the disciples who got into that, and it still was only mentioned a few times, nowhere near as much as people like to make out. Jesus also did not demand almsgiving from those who could not afford it. He praised the poor who did give, but nowhere did he demand it. In fact, he focused a lot on how difficult it would be for the rich to get into heaven, especially as they are unwilling to part with their money.

It's also important contextually to remember women weren't allowed to initiate divorce and Jesus being against divorce was a way of protecting women, as men could drop women whenever they wanted and leave them destitute just because they wanted the hot new model. We can't assume that he would be for or against no-fault divorce: he allowed for divorce in cases of adultery, which again, supports the theory that his reasoning was to protect those who would be injured by divorce.

As for salvation, that's a theological concern and people across the political spectrums believe different things, so trying to tie that to politics is disgusting.

So, please, stop pretending you are representing Jesus or scripture when you say these things. I've got the receipts for what I've said; how 'bout you?

[Person Man]

I think we are on to something in this thread. Christian identity politics goes like this “ If it’s something we shouldn’t do or believe, it should be illegal or something we should make everyone bend over backwards to avoid. If it’s something we should do or if it’s a call to avoid things that involves doing things (not be greedy or live a life where greed damages your health or community mostly be by sharing your things before overendulging), it’s OK if we don’t.”

[Badger]

     And Democrats would call Him a far-right bigot for condemning no-fault divorce, preaching against the dangers of sexual immorality, stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, demanding almsgiving from the poor, and preaching that salvation comes through Him alone. Doesn't stop them from idolizing Him as a "liberal socialist".

Nice revisionist take.

[Badger]

I think we are on to something in this thread. Christian identity politics goes like this “ If it’s something we shouldn’t do or believe, it should be illegal or something we should make everyone bend over backwards to avoid. If it’s something we should do or if it’s a call to avoid things that involves doing things (not be greedy or live a life where greed damages your health or community mostly be by sharing your things before overendulging), it’s OK if we don’t.”

Correct answer

[Inmate Trump]

I'm a Democrat and a Christian.

I would prefer to keep politics and religion as separate as possible (except in cases where they directly conflict or contradict each other).

That said, as a Christian I fully realize that what Trump is doing and what he represents is the antithesis of Christianity.

[Strudelcutie4427]

God is not political. Jesus never holds a gun to your head or threatens to throw you in jail saying, “bitch you better be sharing” Jesus preached compassion and being VOLUNTARILY charitable. He never once forcibly coerced anyone to give up their wealth and possessions. Socialism on the other hand does that weather you like it or not

[Inmate Trump]

God is not political. Jesus never holds a gun to your head or threatens to throw you in jail saying, “bitch you better be sharing” Jesus preached compassion and being VOLUNTARILY charitable. He never once forcibly coerced anyone to give up their wealth and possessions. Socialism on the other hand does that weather you like it or not

And He never called 16 year old girls names or withheld His miracles to the less fortunate if only they’d do Him a favor.

[Strudelcutie4427]

God is not political. Jesus never holds a gun to your head or threatens to throw you in jail saying, “bitch you better be sharing” Jesus preached compassion and being VOLUNTARILY charitable. He never once forcibly coerced anyone to give up their wealth and possessions. Socialism on the other hand does that weather you like it or not

And He never called 16 year old girls names or withheld His miracles to the less fortunate if only they’d do Him a favor.

I wasn’t comparing him to trump you sense piece of stool

[Inmate Trump]

God is not political. Jesus never holds a gun to your head or threatens to throw you in jail saying, “bitch you better be sharing” Jesus preached compassion and being VOLUNTARILY charitable. He never once forcibly coerced anyone to give up their wealth and possessions. Socialism on the other hand does that weather you like it or not

And He never called 16 year old girls names or withheld His miracles to the less fortunate if only they’d do Him a favor.

I wasn’t comparing him to trump you sense piece of stool

I didn’t say you were.

But do you support Trump?

[Strudelcutie4427]

God is not political. Jesus never holds a gun to your head or threatens to throw you in jail saying, “bitch you better be sharing” Jesus preached compassion and being VOLUNTARILY charitable. He never once forcibly coerced anyone to give up their wealth and possessions. Socialism on the other hand does that weather you like it or not

And He never called 16 year old girls names or withheld His miracles to the less fortunate if only they’d do Him a favor.

I wasn’t comparing him to trump you sense piece of stool

I didn’t say you were.

But do you support Trump?

Yes by logic of the Democrats generally being the more bad option. I’m personally libertarian but I want lower taxes to be able to do the stuff I want to do. Social liberalism is be norm now but I need the means to live that way

[Inmate Trump]

God is not political. Jesus never holds a gun to your head or threatens to throw you in jail saying, “bitch you better be sharing” Jesus preached compassion and being VOLUNTARILY charitable. He never once forcibly coerced anyone to give up their wealth and possessions. Socialism on the other hand does that weather you like it or not

And He never called 16 year old girls names or withheld His miracles to the less fortunate if only they’d do Him a favor.

I wasn’t comparing him to trump you sense piece of stool

I didn’t say you were.

But do you support Trump?

Yes by logic of the Democrats generally being the more bad option. I’m personally libertarian but I want lower taxes to be able to do the stuff I want to do. Social liberalism is be norm now but I need the means to live that way

And therein lies the problem.

Many Christians are unable to see blatant sacrilege when it’s right in front of them. Instead they get behind it and parade on because “the left is just so bad.”

The level of brainwashing the right has done across this nation is masterful.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Three of those have no scriptural support. Jesus never had anything to say about what constitutes marriage (nor does the Bible itself, especially as there are tons of examples of marriages between more than just one woman and a man).

     Jesus makes it extremely clear in the second section where He condemns divorce that He upholds the teaching from Genesis about the nature of marriage:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 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.”

     And yes, there were polygamous marriages in the Old Testament. St. Augustine taught that that was tolerated to increase the population of the faithful, though there is no need to accept his theory for it. It is not supported by the moral teachings of the Gospels, so are you going to say they don't matter now?

Jesus also didn't say anything about sexual immorality: it was a few of the disciples who got into that, and it still was only mentioned a few times, nowhere near as much as people like to make out.

     That's completely wrong. Read Matthew 5:27-30. That is about sexual immorality. Jesus is speaking, not just some disciples.

Jesus also did not demand almsgiving from those who could not afford it. He praised the poor who did give, but nowhere did he demand it.

     Same as He praised the rich who gave. When it is convenient to the left, it is a requirement. When it is inconvenient to the left, it is just a suggestion. Doing this, you can make Jesus support any ideology you want.

In fact, he focused a lot on how difficult it would be for the rich to get into heaven, especially as they are unwilling to part with their money.

     That is a clear example of lefties reading what they want to read. Jesus says that the rich will have a hard time entering the Kingdom of Heaven:

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

     The disciples clearly understand this is a commentary on how hard it is for anyone to enter Heaven: 'The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” '. The rich man fell away because he loved his possessions, and we all love what we have. Jesus then assuages their fears in Mark 10:27 and says 'Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” ' Nobody can enter Heaven, except by the grace of God. Liberals really want Him to be condemning the wealthy, but it doesn't work that way.

It's also important contextually to remember women weren't allowed to initiate divorce and Jesus being against divorce was a way of protecting women, as men could drop women whenever they wanted and leave them destitute just because they wanted the hot new model. We can't assume that he would be for or against no-fault divorce: he allowed for divorce in cases of adultery, which again, supports the theory that his reasoning was to protect those who would be injured by divorce.

     I'm sorry, but Jesus made it clear why He is against divorce. I quoted it above. It pulls apart what God has put together. For someone attempting to accuse me of saying things without scriptural support, it is hypocritical of you to then inject your own fan-fiction explanation for why Jesus did what He did.

As for salvation, that's a theological concern and people across the political spectrums believe different things, so trying to tie that to politics is disgusting.

     I bring it up because saying that is something the left does not want to hear. I've had people argue earnestly with me that all religions are true, but Jesus utterly refutes that claim.

So, please, stop pretending you are representing Jesus or scripture when you say these things. I've got the receipts for what I've said; how 'bout you?

     I will stop claiming to represent the Bible when people stop claiming that He was basically Bernie Sanders. It is disgusting for Democrats to act like they they are the ones representing His will when they simply ignore all of His teachings that are inconvenient to them. The same is naturally true of Republicans, but when someone starts acting like Jesus would somehow be at home in the modern day Democratic Party, that is a falsehood that needs refuting.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I wrote this religion and philosophy,  the Pope is the stand in for Christ return; consequently, the Pope is conservative, and they both judge sinners.  It the secular philosophy now, that says that, since Judgememt day havent come, at the turn of Y2K, it will never will; thus, there will be reincarnation,  until, science, not God, by some meteor, will cause Judgement day, ending the world, officially. Since ST.PaulII death, more are moving away, not from religion,  but tradtl form of religion

[MasterJedi]

God is not political. Jesus never holds a gun to your head or threatens to throw you in jail saying, “bitch you better be sharing” Jesus preached compassion and being VOLUNTARILY charitable. He never once forcibly coerced anyone to give up their wealth and possessions. Socialism on the other hand does that weather you like it or not

He never demanded it, he just told them if the Rich didn't follow his teachings they would all go to hell. So to be good Christians they should do it.

[BP🌹]

He was Palestinian too

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Liberalism and Socialism are modern constructs, and it would be as much a mistake to attribute them to Jesus* as it would to attribute neoconservatism, supply-side economics, or American exceptionalism to Jesus.

Christianity has lasted nearly 2000 years for a reason. It is very malleable and adaptable to multiple cultures.

*Whether we are talking about the historical Jesus or the mythological Jesus of the canon evangelists, the point is the same.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Lots of revisionism going on in this thread in general.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Lots of revisionism going on in this thread in general.

I'd say it's more presentism than revisionism.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The use of Jesus to promote opposite ends of the political spectrum also goes back centuries. In the 17th century, Absolutists invoked divine right, claiming that since Jesus was "king of kings," monarchs of the time were only answerable to him, and he granted them secular authority on earth. To them, Christ denoted regal splendor and majesty. Radical reformers like the Puritans, who - and I'm going to engage in my own bit of presentism - were in some ways the forerunners of the republican revolutionaries, anarchists, socialists, and communists in the centuries that followed, saw Jesus much like the religious left does today: primarily concerned with the welfare of the poor and sick, and a critic of the political establishment and the elite.

Having spent a lot of time in Evangelical churches, I know a little about how this culture thinks. To them, Christians are a light in the darkness. This darkness is due to human sin, and promoted by the "authorities and powers of the world." It's why conspiracy theories about shadowy "new world orders" are so popular in this group. Of course, John's Revelation throws fuel on this fire. It's also why so many of them love Trump. Jesus, to them, is the humble country boy who spoke truth to the powerful. While they have no illusions of Trump as a country boy (or even a great guy) they see him as a non-politician punching the entire political establishment in the face, like Jesus overturning the money changers' tables in the Temple.