Poll: If Jesus ran for president, would you vote for him?

[Mako SOLDIER]

Okay, just checking. Because what some of the more radical atheists does is that the complaing about Christians hating everything, while theyself are hating on Christians. Thus creating an endless cycle of haters. Shit is worse than YouTube. No hatred is better or worse than the other.

I was going to ask if you were American, but checked your profile and saw that you're from Denmark. That suprised me bit so if you don't mind me asking, why this strong dislike for Christianity?

Actually Denmark is one of the most Atheistic countries in the world, even though we're not a secular country, which still baffles me every time i think about it, seeing as how all our churches are almost entirely empty.

But it's not that i dislike Christianity any more than any other religion, it's religion in general that i really have a problem with, even if the problem has no offensive teachings at all, i am a person that values the scientific method and critical thinking very, Very highly, and as such i am opposed to any belief that's not evidence based.

It only adds to my dislike when a religion has/still does also fucked/fuck a lot of shit up, as christianity certainly has/does.

Disclaimer: No personal offense is intended, but since forums can be such volatile places I point out that this post is intended in the spirit of healthy debate.

Anyhoo...

The problem is, modern atheism deifies science in the same manner that the Egyptians deified the sun, or the manner in which the ancient Pagans deified the changes in the seasons and the growth or their crops, etc. It's just another belief system disguised as scientific thinking. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly religious and I'd say there's no proof of any deity (although polytheistic religions utilise prayer as an interesting psychological tool to get in touch with character traits that one would like to display, but that's for a different conversation). However, even Stephen Hawking, irrefutably the greatest scientific mind on the planet, refuses to rule out the concept of religion, probably because the origins of the universe are still shrouded in mystery and there is nothing to disprove the idea of a greater power. Maybe it will get disproven one day, but it hasn't been yet. And, of course, this leaves any hypothesis concerning the existence of deity flawed and incomplete, because we do not yet understand the universe or physics well enough to have all the necessary evidence to come to a fully informed conclusion. When someone like Hawking is willing to stay open minded, then I don't care what Dawkins (nasty bullying little man that he is) or anyone else says, the rational, logical and above all scientific thing to do is to stay open minded until there is conclusive proof either way.

To be honest, most belief systems have screwed things up at some time or another, whether it's the crusades, small town xenophobia, or a dispute over the colour of a flag. When something challenges something that a person has a strongly held belief in, they will usually defend the belief before they will choose to change the belief. Strong, set beliefs with no flexibility to consider an outside viewpoint are the problem, not religion per se. After all, is there anyone in their right mind that actually believes that Dawkins would hesitate to set up concentration camps for religious people if he had the power to do so and get away with it? Despite the fact that there are many excellent scientists that also hold religious beliefs? Again, it's inflexibility of belief, not the belief itself that causes problems.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

You should have added a poll option: "What? Jesus wouldn't run for President, even if he was alive right now and had the possibility!"

 

[Fanta Grape]

I definitely would. No doubt about it.

Also, the Bible doesn't teach that gays are bad; it teaches that gay acts are bad.

Outside of that, I really don't think I can fill in fictional characters in a voting ballot.

That really wasn't necessary. You're just trying to cause trouble. Obviously (even if you don't believe in Him) - for the sake of the hypothetical situation of Jesus running for president - we're saying that He is real (even though I already believe that He is real).

Corinthinas 6:9

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Homosexuals don't go to heaven

Wait, my bad. Didn't memorise that correctly. Pardon me. I am wrong

 

[somonels]

I thought G. W. Bush did what Jesus told him to do, so, where's the difference?

 

[Jonabob87]

Jesus was a kind, honest, loving and wise man... So he has no place in American politics. Yeah, I'd vote for him.

I'd love to see what the other guy running would do. Try running a smear capaign against freakin' JESUS?

If this was Australian politics then Yes, that is exactly what would happen, and it would be hilarious because of how badly it would fail.

As for whether I would vote for Jesus I would have to say no. I mean I didn't vote liberal in the 2010 election because he said a backwards sounding comment about virginity in a women's magazine in February (elections held in October).

So a politician (regardless of who they claimed to be) sold his campaign on the idea of abolishing the no fault divorce, necessitating all of family law to be rewritten, and women's rights probably being set back 100 years is not getting m vote.

It would be interesting to see whether Jesus actually won the election though.

No. Because jesus is pure, and all politicials are crooked. So thus, either:
a) it is not jesus running
b) the fabric of reality would be torn asunder
.

Also this.

Yeah, Jesus was pure except for advocation of slavery and the introduction of hell which wasn't present in the OT.

The place of the dead (Sheol) is mentioned 31 times in the old testament, Jesus merely elaborated.

 

[Nazulu]

No, he failed miserably last time he tried to bring peace to the world.

EDIT: Take that as trolloling if you like, but I think it hasa valid point.

Agreed, never looked for justice and happiness in the 'dark ages'.

In fairness the dark ages were hundreds of years after his death. It's kinda the equivilent of blaming the Iraq war on Abe Lincon.

I don't agree, it was for the belief of this or that so many tragedy's happened.

Anyway, what did you mean then?

 

[Jonabob87]

Read this: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

>gotquestions.org

HAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHA

OH WOW!!!

No but seriously that page is totally morally reprehensible and who ever wrote it should be ashamed of them selves for trying to justify slavery.

The "BUT IT WAS DIFFERENT TIMES" argument, does not hold water, because the bible is supposed to be a perfect book, and any rational modern person knows that slavery is reprehensible, even if it is "more a matter of social status"

No book can be perfect without the words morphing as time goes by, we're expected to use the brains God gave us not dumbly read it and try to 1:1 copy what it says because that doesn't work. The Bible comes in two halves, one is basically a history book/holy book of the Jews. The other is the fulfillment of the first half and what came afterwards.

Given that the first half was written various mixtures of years ago (all having "thousand" in the number of years) by all different people (apparently mostly Moses). People who lived in a time very different from this one. People who, while having been chosen by God to write this book, were still people. For this reason the argument that it was a different time holds water very VERY well because, well, it was a different time.

That doesn't change that it supports slavery, a completely morally reprehensible act, and it doesn't matter if the slaves are treated well or if they sold them selves. The act of slavery is not acceptable and any book that supports it should be lugged in the bin along with any other outdated crap.

So you're saying that if someone gets in huge debt then what? If they choose tell give themselves into slavery to pay off a debt what's wrong with that? The other side of it was to be put in prison until you could pay your debts. How is that better?

And considering it is somewhat voluntary slavery, the fact that there are principals on how you are allowed to treat such a person give the impression that compassion is expected. After 7 years you MUST let your slave go along with his family, unless they choose to stay. If choosing to stay is mentioned then I can guess that it was a fairly regular happening.

But then given that Jesus said he'd come to free slaves and sinners, the laws on slavery are also covered by that sacrifice and are treated the same way as the law on stoning homosexuals and adulterers. Get out of slavery/death free card.

 

[JokerCrowe]

I'd listen to what he would do if he became president, and then vote for him if I liked it. Like I would any other candidate. I don't see why simply being Jesus would give him a free ticket into the Oval Office. But then again, I'm not American...

 

[Nova Helix]

The problem is, modern atheism deifies science ... It's just another belief system disguised as scientific thinking.

If there is no evidence for something then there is no reason to believe in it. That is not defying science it is science. No evidence, no conclusion.

After all, is there anyone in their right mind that actually believes that Dawkins would hesitate to set up concentration camps for religious people if he had the power to do so and get away with it?

Considering Dawkins is a Humanist is there anyone in their right mind that would suggest that he would set up a concentration camp? Because Dawkins bases his world view on facts if there was actual evidence for a god he would most likely consider it.

 

[Jonabob87]

The problem is, modern atheism deifies science ... It's just another belief system disguised as scientific thinking.

If there is no evidence for something then there is no reason to believe in it. That is not defying science it is science. No evidence, no conclusion.

After all, is there anyone in their right mind that actually believes that Dawkins would hesitate to set up concentration camps for religious people if he had the power to do so and get away with it?

Considering Dawkins is a Humanist is there anyone in their right mind that would suggest that he would set up a concentration camp? Because Dawkins bases his world view on facts if there was actual evidence for a god he would most likely consider it.

Given that he vehemently labels everyone who disagrees with him as a "Christian" like it's a swearword, he most definitely would wipe it out in any way he could.

 

[A Free Man]

Jesus was in for the separation of Church and State - "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Give unto God what belongs to God."
quote]

This seems to me like kind of a silly statement. If Jesus was for the seperation of Church and State wouldn't he be against himself running for presidency. Thus making anyone who follows Jesus essentially be against him getting into power. Just thought this was an interesting note.

 

[k-ossuburb]

You could easily rephrase this question into asking "would you vote for the WBC?"

Jesus did say (or was at least recorded to have said) that God's word is eternal, thus EVERYTHING in the old testament applies eternally just as much as it applies in the new testamant. There's no cherry picking allowed here, if you're going to vote for religion then you're going to have to vote for all of it, not just the bits you like.

So, would you like to be stoned for working on a Sunday, stoned for not honouring your parents, get sold into slavery, lose womens' rights, lose gay rights, make all other religions illegal (including non-religions like atheism), the halting of all scientific progress (that includes medicine, seriously, do you want to cure people by sprinkling the blood of one bird on another bird?), burning people for being witches and, essentially, throwing your entire nation back into the Dark Ages?

Also, your particular church (out of the 30,000+) could be one of the wrong ones that interpreted the Bible incorrectly, so your entire belief system will have to be entirely rethought since there can't be any argument against the man himself. He knows what he meant when he was quoted in that book, if he thinks that your particular version is incorrect then how are you going to say it's not?

I'd also think that the founding fathers of your nation would be pretty damn appalled by something like that, take a look at the constitution and the treaty of Tripoli, both state very clearly that religion has no place in politics.

Take a look at places like Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq and other theocratic nations, is that really what you want?

You won't be voting for a president, you'll be voting for a dictator.

 

[snagli]

only if Jesus would fix the utterly failed healthcare system in the US

 

[Shycte]

I guess i've never personally suffered from religion, but then i've never really personally suffered from much of anything, i've lead a relatively problem free life, which is something i want for everyone.

And i see science as the first and foremost player in making that happen, which is another reason i don't like religion, because religion retards science.

No, retards retard science. Important diffrence. You know, science or nor science, religon or no religon, people is still going to have to eat shit. In some place of the world, people are going to suffer. Science can make that better for some of them sure, but for some it is going to make shit worse. Nuclear waste, child labour to produce diffrent things etc etc. The funny part is that the exact asme goes for religon. It can make some lives better, and it can make some worse.

Science and religon are diffrent sides of the same coin my friend. The diffrence is only which side you choose to bet your money on.

 

[Nova Helix]

-snip-

Given that he vehemently labels everyone who disagrees with him as a "Christian" like it's a swearword, he most definitely would wipe it out in any way he could.

What are you talking about? If you are a christian he would call you a christian, if you were muslim he would call you muslim.

Besides that, you are making a huge logic jump from him calling people "christian" to wanting to wipe it out with concentration camps. Argumentative ass does not equal wiping a group of people out.

Instead of just saying that he would wipe people out why don't you quote him or find a video where he talks about wiping a group of people out.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

That is the humanism mission statement, Richard Dawkins is the Vice President of the British Humanist Association. Doesn't really sound like a statement that would lead to concentration camps does it?

 

[maddawg IAJI]

He's incredibly under qualified for the job don't ya think? And he's not an American Citizen who was born in the States. Also, no matter who it is, I don't think the American populace would be willing to elect a Middle Eastern native to the presidency.