Don Quixote’s Thought for the Day: Jesus is a liberal?
Don Quixote on Jan 07 2010 at 7:29 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Don Quixote’s Though for the Day: Saw a bumper sticker today — “Jesus is a liberal” That’s too glib. True, in his time, Jesus was a liberal. But today, he would most certainly be a conservative. After all, most liberals don’t believe in Jesus’s God or his scripture. Indeed, many of them mock His followers. And Jesus passionately believed in his God.
Related posts:
- Liberal ickiness watch, Doonesbury style
- Exposing liberal loopiness and the media that hides it
- Jesus plus Moses equals Obama
Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “Don Quixote’s Thought for the Day: Jesus is a liberal?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Insofar as you can say anything, He was a radical.
I thought I had read some similarly-themed article recently, but I’m not sure whether Jesus the Capitalist was what I had in mind.
Well, only somebody who doesn’t really believe in Jesus would attempt to castrate him with a epithet like liberal—or conservative for that matter. To believing Christians Jesus was/is the incarnation of God on earth. I’m not aware that God is currently accepting descriptions of His politics.
Since He has none.
Why is it when the Liberals are in charge the more oppressive laws there are?
That said, Jesus was not a Liberal but a Liberator, He came to set the captives free.
The New Testament comments that “If the Son shall set you free you shall be free indeed”. Our American slaves were not set free without bloodshed and so it is for those slaves to sin, bound by the law are set free by the blood of the Liberator fulfilling the requirement of the Law. To have bonds of guilt broken where no else one can forgive, and restored relationship with the Heavenly Father, who knows me so well the hairs on my head are numbered, He was and is a true Liberator not only by proclamation of words but of deed.
When I spoke about this with DQ earlier today, I said the people spouting that “Jesus was a liberal” bumper sticker are as misguided as the people who are Progressives, yet claim political alignment with John F. Kennedy, simply because they’re both affiliated with the Democratic party. As I’ve repeatedly said to anyone who would listen, JFK would fall squarely within the Republican party if he was politically active today.
Charles Martel: Accurate, but Jesus was also human.
Insofar as Jesus had treated the issue, He believed in limited government (the whole ‘render unto Caesar’ issue), paying His way (the getting money from the fish issue), and setting God first (the whole ‘seek ye first’ issue).
Traits that are commonly associated with conservatives today.
Luke Chapter 13
23And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ 26Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ 27But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’
What? Accountability? Where is the universal tolerance? Shouldn’t there be free entry for all? Why should a privileged few enjoy benefits?
Silly Liberals.
Jesus couldn’t have been a Liberal. He was a small businessman.
Somewhat along the same line, I once read a claim that Gandhi was a liberal. When Gandhi is compared with FDR, the liberal icon of that era, the claim disintegrates like that Wicked Witch did when Dorothy accidentally threw water on her.
1) Government. Gandhi: as small as possible, with village level and self-rule emphasized. Definitely NOT a friend of big government. FDR: big government.
2) Technology. Gandhi: small scale primitive technology at the village level: every household spinning its own thread. FDR: big scale, state of the art technology: TVA and the bomb.
3) War and peace. Gandhi: pacifism . FDR: say no more.
If Jesus is a liberal, that supports my nonbeliever stance. (Consider that statement a snark at liberals, not as a theological position.)
Bookworm:
As I’ve repeatedly said to anyone who would listen, JFK would fall squarely within the Republican party if he was politically active today.
Big Daddy Joe was friends with Joe McCarthy, and got RFK a job working for McCarthy. From Wikipedia:
In December 1952, at the behest of his father, he was appointed by Republican Senator Joe McCarthy as assistant counsel of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.[2] He resigned in July 1953 but “retained a fondness for McCarthy.”[3]
I will not bother to check links, but read once that JFK did not vote on the censure against McCarthy. He used his hospitalization for his back as the reason, but he was actually physically capable of getting to the Senate to vote. Hospitalization gave him an easy out. But without links, this is mere speculation. (Recall JFK’s talking about the missile gap during his presidential campaign.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kennedy
Not much flexibility there – pretty much: “my way or the highway.” Doesn’t seem to really fit in with a liberal – at least as currently expressed – world view.
“I am come to uphold the Law.” Not re-write it. Not make it easier. Not soften it. Nor soften the penalties. Nor loosen its restrictions to make you more comfortable, or give you a break. Nor overlook “minor” transgressions. This is a law into which you fit yourself as it is, it makes no effort to fit you. Just here to uphold it. Period.
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” I don’t see a whole lot of liberality – or even tolerance or much understanding – in that.
JJ quoted Jesus “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” I would like to set the context here lest the casual reader thinks the the Christians are getting a mandate to kill. The sword that Jesus speaks of is the sword of persecution by a follower’s family and society as the cost for following Him. Here is a snippet of the context:
“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. “For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”
The balance of the context can be found in Chapter 10 of the Gospel according to Matthew.
Gkong3 said “Insofar as Jesus had treated the issue, He believed in limited government (the whole ‘render unto Caesar’ issue), paying His way (the getting money from the fish issue), and setting God first (the whole ’seek ye first’ issue).”
Comment on limited government. Rome was the government at the time I doubt very much that He supported it for its “limited” size and/or adherence to biblical principles – yet He paid His taxes. He did teach (or His followers did) to obey the government (save for preaching hte Gospel) it is an instrument of God. This is a great mystery for me. I have often wondered about what that means. Think of all of the oppressive things that Rome did in the life and times of Christ was engaged in and yet He paid his taxes to Caesar and as far as I know did not slander him either. We now live in a time far different than His time and He was not living under a Republic where He got a say. What would He say?
Luke13 is the closest that I can find to a slander:
31 Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.’ 33 “Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. 34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! 35 “Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’”
But that was to the Jewish King Herod and not to Caesar sort of the difference between the Pope and the President. Still no lack of respect for Caesar.
“I am come to uphold the Law.” I’m not familiar with that verse. He came to fulfill the law. The law required continual sacrifices. Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice for all who believe, once for all, ending forever the need for blood sacrifices.
“In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.
Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” Hebrews 9:22-28 (NIV)
We can’t be saved by keeping the law, in fact, Romans makes it clear that the law makes us aware of our inadequacy before God.
“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Romans 3:20-26 (NIV)