What Would Jesus Do?

[Berzerker]

I'm watching the Daily Show and they're running a clip of Mike Huckabee explaining why we shouldn't accept refugees from Syria and Iraq. Okay, I understand no governor wants to be on the hook for any crimes committed by refugees, or terrorists masquerading as refugees, they got it tough enough with pardons and commutations, but Huckabee's explanation was just too funny given his religion.

They're from a dry, warmer climate - the desert - and speak a different language, different culture, wont fit in... He's describing Jesus! No, I imagine the Syrians we'd be taking are families, orphans, widows, women, etc, not a gang leader already considered suspect by the authorities. And thats before the vetting process, the dude wants to come here and be the king of something and have us worship him!

So we know what Mike Huckabee would do, and I do find it mildly amusing that its the Bible Belt leading the charge against allowing 10,000 refugees, but what would Jesus do? Oh, I'm not talking about the obvious answer, but what would Jesus do if he was the refugee and Christians were leaving him and his friends to die at the hands of ISIS or Assad?

I bet Muhammad would take Jesus and his pals in. Anyway, our Christians are representing Jesus to the world and making him look bad. Its kinda like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the big city folk lost their compassion. If I truly believed in Jesus and his message I'd be happy to allow refugees into the country. Give us more! Dont walk one mile, walk two...

Now here's a problem though, what if some terrorists got in and killed people? Jesus said we will be rewarded if we die doing his will. But the innocent people being killed may not be Christians. Or even if they are, the act of charity got people killed. Of course, people will die without the charity. Is Jesus putting us in the position of deciding who should live and die?

Be a Christian and some of your countrymen will die, reject Jesus and refugees die instead. The latter wont convert anyone to Christianity... Didn't one of the parables show that Jesus wants converts? The rich man leaves money with his servants and the one who buried it chose wrong, the ones who turned it into more chose correctly.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Flip over tables and start whipping people?

 

[Tee Kay]

Flip over tables and start whipping people?

No, that's what he'll do to Wall Street.

Jesus (pbuh) would definitely welcome refugees, without reservations.

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was ill and in prison and you did not look after me" (Matthew 25:41-43)

 

[CavLancer]

Couldn't say, but waiting to find out.

 

[Arakhor]

Jesus hasn't returned in 2,000 years. I hardly think that he's going to return now, just because we happen to be alive at the moment.

 

[Leifmk]

Couldn't say, but waiting to find out.

My bet is he'd be pretty damn disappointed in a lot of his followers, at least.

 

[Leoreth]

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm intentionally not quoting Jesus regarding this. There's no doubt what Jesus would suggest. None. The Samaritans were the Muslims of the time, basically.

But a large part of Christian teaching is just not viable. You can't spend all your savings on the poor. You cannot 'not worry about tomorrow'. Jesus was awesome, but Christianity was only designed for a conquered people. It just wasn't designed for a democracy, where you vote for the fates of your fellow citizens.

Jesus would tell you to take in the refugee, and forgive any evil done to you as a consequence (you know, that 1 in 10,000 chance). But Christianity cannot tell you to force me to take in refugees.

Jesus might have to vote against it, and then rush to the camps to donate time and wealth providing succour

 

[Tee Kay]

But a large part of Christian teaching is just not viable. You can't spend all your savings on the poor.

... why not? If you're happy to live with very few material possessions, enough for what's required of your profession and sustainance, and especially if you live in a country with universal healthcare where large savings aren't needed for, say, a medical emergency. Then your savings might as well go help the poor, or any number of philantropic activities.

You could argue that very few people could meet that ideal. But I suppose it was also the case in Christ's time. And it's an ideal, anyway. It's supposed to be difficult.

It just wasn't designed for a democracy, where you vote for the fates of your fellow citizens.

Democracy is really just another avenue to practice "do unto others". People have been affecting the fates of fellow humans with their actions since time immemorial. The difference in a democracy is we have a say on a national scale... but then the weight of our voice also is correspondingly smaller as a proportion of the total.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well Jesus would look into their hearts and know the truth of who was:

(a) an economic migrant from somewhere else
(b) a refugee granted refuge status in the Middle East e.g. Lebanon or Turkey
(c) an ISIS terrorist masquerading as a refugee; or
(d) a helpless refugee who'd be murdered if not admitted.

We don't have Jesus's god like powers; so the question is in part a moot point.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

I would suppose the relevant texts are Matthew 25:25 and :42. (But I did that from memory. I maybe a bit off.)

 

[gay_Aleks]

Jesus hasn't returned in 2,000 years. I hardly think that he's going to return now, just because we happen to be alive at the moment.

Would you like a rename to Doubting Thomas?

 

[El_Machinae]

... why not? If you're happy to live with very few material possessions, enough for what's required of your profession and sustainance, and especially if you live in a country with universal healthcare where large savings aren't needed for, say, a medical emergency. Then your savings might as well go help the poor, or any number of philantropic activities.

You could argue that very few people could meet that ideal. But I suppose it was also the case in Christ's time. And it's an ideal, anyway. It's supposed to be difficult.

Oh, it's possible. But it's just not feasible. I'm not saying people cannot live amazingly more ascetic lives than they currently do. But one cannot divest oneself of all wealth and then expect to survive. It might be fine as a minority of the population, but it's not scalable. We live in a society where we use wealth to make money. Your consumption is someone else's livelihood. Your production is someone else's consumption.

Democracy is really just another avenue to practice "do unto others". People have been affecting the fates of fellow humans with their actions since time immemorial. The difference in a democracy is we have a say on a national scale... but then the weight of our voice also is correspondingly smaller as a proportion of the total.

It's only kinda 'do unto others'. A reasonably portion of the voting process is forcing people who don't agree with you to do what you want them to do. One can counter this in a 'do unto others' sense, but you cannot really do it to others.

Would you want to be taxed and then have the money spent on something you don't approve of? No? Well, then you cannot really vote for someone who'd do that to someone else. It just doesn't work. Voting is imposing your will on people who disagree. That's what it is. Christianity was only built to be the victim of that equation, not the perpetrator.

 

[Tigranes]

I'm intentionally not quoting Jesus regarding this. There's no doubt what Jesus would suggest. None. The Samaritans were the Muslims of the time, basically.

But a large part of Christian teaching is just not viable.

Not true. There are scores and scores of recognized and un-recognized saints who went above and beyond. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it. I have explained already elsewhere that if you are aiming for moral maximum you need to shoot for impossible. That's the ONLY viable mindset. If we settle on the teaching of the third semester guy who nevertheless cringing when it comes to kill lab mice -- this is a sure way waste your compassion and intellectual talents. Which by the way are given to you. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I wish people success at their personal journey. Christianity places an onus on people I 99% respect. There're only a couple of moral errors in Jesus's teachings, and they're mostly at the 'meh' level.

It's entirely clear what Jesus would have his followers do at the individual level. The government tells you to carry a refugee for a mile, you carry him two, etc. If someone forwards you biased memes on Facebook, don't reshare them. Chastise your fellows to be more moral, etc.

It's just really hard to do with any type of government system. A Christian cannot foist obligations towards refugees onto others. A Christian cannot force soldiers to keep refugees out. I mean, they can, but the teachings of Christ just cannot be gleaned to tell you what you should do. At the personal level? Obvious. At the social policy level? Very hard.

It's why I don't bring up Christianity when discussing things at the policy level. It was designed for a conquered people. There's no equivalent for Romans 13: 1-7 for when you're the authority.

 

[civvver]

cus christ's teachings aren't meant to apply on an entire social level and unfortunately a lot of people assume this and it turns into politics. They say well jesus said feed the poor so we're supposed to give all our money away to social programs like food stamps. That's not what he said. He said we as individuals should be charitable, not tax all our money away and then redistribute it. You see what I mean? So I agree with you, as social policy you aren't going to base it on moral teachings like that.

As far as sustainability, the idea is that jesus wants you to give what you are able or called to give, but always be willing. I think he meant that possessions should have their place and not be as important as other things. He told the rich man who said what must I do to follow you to go sell all he had and give to the poor cus he knew that man valued his possessions and following the law (look at his response initially about how he followed the law his whole life) more than he valued his fellow man and depending on the mercy of god. So many other times he says to people your faith has saved you. It's the idea that you have faith in god and jesus over your material possessions cus he also said man cannot server too masters, you can't serve both god and money. It doesn't mean having stuff is bad and you have to be a monk. It means if someone's in need you give, as much as you are able, without question and don't be selfish. People over stuff.

 

[warpus]

He would probably get up on some mound, maybe inside a baseball stadium or something, and he would try to feed 20,000 people with 1 big mac and large fries.

Then he would preach and stuff I guess? About how to be excellent to one another?

 

[El_Machinae]

It doesn't mean having stuff is bad and you have to be a monk. It means if someone's in need you give, as much as you are able, without question and don't be selfish. People over stuff.

Yeah, your first and second sentence don't necessarily conflict, insofar as it's 'bad' to have stuff. But yeah, your second sentence is the bulk of his teaching. In the modern world, with so much need, there's no way to have any material comforts AND be obeying his gist.

 

[Narz]

What do people always ask what Jesus would do? If he couldn't handle life in the 1st century he'd cop out and get himself killed way quicker in the mess of a world we have today.

 

[Borachio]

Jesus (pbuh) would definitely welcome refugees, without reservations.

Jesuswoulddefinitelyrecommendthattypistsputspacesb
etweentheirwordsotherwisethewholethingisverydiffic
ulttoread.

(I don't actually understand it. If I copy and paste text from that link it comes out OK. But the site isn't showing any spaces, for me.)

I don't know though. I'd say the Gospel Jesus would welcome refugees, too.

But that Revelations Jesus? The one with the sword instead of a tongue? Bit of an unpredictable maverick, if you ask me.