Jesus and the Political Compass

[Frank Drebin]

I may punish my children for acts they do, it doesnt mean I hate them.

no, but it means a feeling of hatred overcomes you and you lose all restraint to physically attack them.

or do you make the conscious decision to physically punish your children to teach them? that, would be quite a horrible act, but anyway, the temple scene doesnt seem to be a case of this .

 

[Algeroth]

Agree. I wouldn't go with SD 'cos the chosen people still hanging around

 

[Frank Drebin]

strongly agree on q4. he was a jew in 1ad, he almost certainly felt that way.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I don't think so Frank. Samaritan's were despised and he used one as a hero in a fable.

 

[Algeroth]

I don't think so Frank. Samaritan's were despised and he used one as a hero in a fable.

And what does it mean? How it goes aganist notion that jews had many (ok, maybe just one) superior qualities?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Strongly Disagree surely, though Old testament God would be a different story.

I strongly disagree with the bolded section. You've gotta read Ruth to get it. It wasn't because they were of foreign NATIONALITY that God didn't let them enter the temple, but that they weren't Jewish in RELIGION. There's a difference.

As for Canaan, God drove them out due to their immorality, which God has a right to do. Again, not just because they were Canaanites. As for the Children, while I often ask this question myself, the best answer I can give is that they could have grown up to be a threat, and perhaps God knew they would be (Feel free to give a better answer Mobboss, I really don't know about this one.)

I agree with the unbolded section though. Strongly disagree.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I don't think so Frank. Samaritan's were despised and he used one as a hero in a fable.

being superior and not helping your inferiors are two different things.

 

[MobBoss]

no, but it means a feeling of hatred overcomes you and you lose all restraint to physically attack them.

You obviously dont have kids. Thats not accurate at all.

or do you make the conscious decision to physically punish your children to teach them? that, would be quite a horrible act, but anyway, the temple scene doesnt seem to be a case of this .

Sure I spanked my kids, just like I was as a kid. And wow, they turned out ok, despite what you think of the practice.

Again, your're talking about things that its clearly evident you have no comprehension of.

 

[GoodGame]

I don't think Jesus was truly a humanist, and was actually pretty anti-materialist. I think he'd take a more neutral stance on the grounds that material gain is transitory.

I'd go with JC would "agree" since his message was about sharing with the poor, but I'd like to think he'd disuage people from embracing globalization in favor of eternal salvation, so I'd be inclined to say he wouldn't "strongly agree".

 

[Frank Drebin]

You obviously dont have kids. Thats not accurate at all.



Sure I spanked my kids, just like I was as a kid. And wow, they turned out ok, despite what you think of the practice.

Again, your're talking about things that its clearly evident you have no comprehension of.

sweet jesus.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The problem here is to how define entities like "country", "origin of birth" etc? As generic "Was it morally good, in Jesus' option, for people in general to be proud of their origin" or "Was Jesus proud if his origin"? Due to the, um, special circumstances of the testee, these two different approaches can provide different answers.

 

[Truronian]

I strongly disagree with the bolded section. You've gotta read Ruth to get it. It wasn't because they were of foreign NATIONALITY that God didn't let them enter the temple, but that they weren't Jewish in RELIGION. There's a difference.

As for Canaan, God drove them out due to their immorality, which God has a right to do. Again, not just because they were Canaanites. As for the Children, while I often ask this question myself, the best answer I can give is that they could have grown up to be a threat, and perhaps God knew they would be (Feel free to give a better answer Mobboss, I really don't know about this one.)

I agree with the unbolded section though. Strongly disagree.

He clearly favoured his chosen people and killed children simply to give them a one up. That's the work of a racist.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'll go with Strongly Disagree on Q4 then.

Q5: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Everyone is a friend to Jesus surely? I'm pretty sure he loved his enemies though. I'm going to say Strongly Agree here.

 

[GhostWriter16]

He clearly favoured his chosen people and killed children simply to give them a one up. That's the work of a racist.

To the Plagues of Egypt- Unfortunately Pharoah was obstenate and would not "Let his people go." While I don't personally get WHY he did this, it wasn't unfair as they:

A: Deserve Death Anyway as they are sinners like everybody else.

B: Will be given grace and go to heaven anyway.

As for the "Favoring his Chosen People" he didn't. His method was to show himself to the Jews, so they would spread his name to the people around him. And that was what Paul did, preached to the Jew first and then to the Greek (Which is a quote from scripture and a metaphor for Gentiles.)

Its not racism, however, I ask we take it out of this thread. Start a new thread. I'll be sure to comment there.

 

[GoodGame]

Everyone is Jesus's friend if they follow him.


Reminds me of (MADTV Terminator video):
Link to video.


I'll go with "Strongly Agree"

 

[Lone Wolf]

Everyone is a friend to Jesus surely? I'm pretty sure he loved his enemies though. I'm going to say Strongly Agree here.

Or will we interpret that question as "Is it morally good for people in general to use such logic?"? If we do, the issue becomes more murky.

 

[Frank Drebin]

he clearly had political opponents. not sure whether he was the kind of guy who made compromises with other political opponents to ally with them against a more imminent threat.

overall he strikes me as an idealist to the bone, so i'd go with strongly disagree.

 

[Lone Wolf]

not sure whether he was the kind of guy who made compromises with other political opponents to ally with them against a more imminent threat.

Exactly. That's what the question is all about.

 

[Truronian]

I'd say Disagree, as I don't think he would consider anyone an enemy in the first place.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'll go with Strongly Disagree on Q4 then.

Q5: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Everyone is a friend to Jesus surely? I'm pretty sure he loved his enemies though. I'm going to say Strongly Agree here.

When I read this question, I immediately thought "So Stalin was not only not at war with us, but also our FRIEND because he happened to be an enemy of Hitler?" No. As a political question its not always so, and Christ knows that, hence he would strongly disagree.

If its a personal question, you can define "Enemy" but I doubt Christ would consider someone who killed a murderer and an old lady "Good" (Quoted because it only is possible in the relative sense) just because the original murderer was trying to kill him.

Strongly disagree. MAYBE disagree, but even that's stretching it a bit.