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

[rutger5000]

First off neither the old or new testament ever said homosexuality is a sin. That's the work of later nutjobs that starting writting letters to different nutjobs. Jesus is known as a very progressive person. Personally I'm convinced he would support gay marriage rights. It's really a thing American homosexuals should know. It doesn't matter if they care for the bible themselves. They should known that people who hold the bible against homosexuals saying it's God's words are wrong, and use that against those people.
Would I vote for him? Depends is Ghandi running as well? In that case I'm going for Ghandi, otherwise Jesus sounds like a good deal.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ? Mere Christianity, pages 40-41.

C.S. Lewis

So no I would not vote for Jesus

 

[rutger5000]

I was shocked to see how many people wouldn't vote for him. Over two thirds? What's the matter with you people, can't you separate your feelings about a religion with your feelings for a person?
Whether you believe in Jesus or not, when you read the bible you'll most likely find that Jesus is a really cool guy. Granted he screwed up once killing a husband and a wife because they didn't gave all their money away while saying that they did. But otherwise he really is a cool guy.
It's said that over the course of 2000 years his words have been constantly misused, but that isn't his fault.
For me Jesus is an intelligent, kind, loving and capable leader. Don't see why he would make a bad president. Also having an all powerful semi-deity as president would be kinda cool.

 

[octafish]

A Jewish president? Despite Obama's success I don't see the U.S. voting in a Jewish Socialist president.

 

[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.

Here I'll have to totally and complete disagree.

Science has the potential to rid the world of starvation, disease and almost all physical needs and a lot of psychological needs, science is the reason we are able to have this discussion and the reason we are not out tilling the land for measly payback.

Religion can sometimes, make people feel better in their own heads, but it can also be life debasing and depressing, teaching that this life doesn't matter and that you shouldn't work to make it better because what's really important is the next life.

Science is the key to actual understand, religion is the veil to cover it.

First of, science will never ever be able to get rid of all those terrible things. People will be poor, people will starve and people will die in the streets just as poor as they were born. That is the truth. Sure, science may be able to give of the technology needed, but we will never be able to apply it ike you say. Not everyone can live be European standard. Our world is buildt upon the principle if people using and people being used.

Dos, religon has many times actully done good things believe it or not. I live in a not-all so good town where diffrent churces help poor people. That is not in their heads, that is not tales of a life beyond this. That is charity based on good will and love.

Lastly, I would like to question one thing. What in actual understand? We both know that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God but what about everything else. Does understanding atoms and Molecules bring us closer to this "actual understand" that you are talking about. Is our lives happier because we can calculate when Halley's Comet is going to come next time?

Religion can be used, and has been, used as a veil to cover facts sure. But it can be so much more than that and I think that you fail to see that.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

 

[matt87_50]

don't mix religion and politics...

I'm fairly certain you couldn't break that rule harder if you tried...

 

[Nova Helix]

-snip-

It drives me crazy when people use Einsteinian for a god quote. What ever his beliefs were they were not traditional religion and you can quote mine for either side.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

[bbad89]

You do realize that Jesus really did exist, right? The debate is whether or not he is God's son, but saying he doesn't

I'm pretty sure that "gays are bad" wouldn't be in his speeches. Outside of that, I really don't think I can fill in fictional characters in a voting ballot.

Except for that fact that Jesus was real. The debate is whether or not he is God's son.

 

[EboMan7x]

Would he be republican? I thought yes at first but I saw a bumper sticker that was very informative about his stance on the party. Would he toe the party line like all resurrected deities when faced with decisions? Vishnu screwed that shit up in the 70's, and Amaterasu didn't fare so well during the Sarin attacks in the 90's.

Would the Vatican sponsor his campaign? I don't know if Jesus has much of a personal fortune anymore, though I suppose the accrued interest on a sandal left behind 2000 years ago might put him on stable financial ground. Maybe he could get the republicans to foot the bill?

You win this thread.

 

[babinro]

Yes, you could trust that he would not go corrupt or lie.

However, everything he says would be in metaphor, so you'd never get a clear answer either. Sounds like a born politician to me.

 

[Shycte]

-snip-

It drives me crazy when people use Einsteinian for a god quote. What ever his beliefs were they were not traditional religion and you can quote mine for either side.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

Did I ever claim that his beliefs where traditional-anything?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Unless he promises to throw all the money lenders (Congress/Civil Service) out of the "church", then he's as impotent as all the other puppets.

 

[BioHazardMan]

Jesus doesn't have enough lobbyists to fund his campaign. Plus, he wasn't even born here. I demand to see a birth certificate.

This. I mean come on, we all know Obama wasn't born here, why vote in another foreigner!

(/end satire)

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

No...I believe too strongly in secularism. Religion corrupts the state and the state corrupts religion.

Still...if we were to cut out the Old Testament and scrape that into the dustbin, I might be tempted.

thats what jesus did. Didnt he preached he was bringing a new law? If christians were to follow the old testament they would be sacrificing animals every week and stoning sinners on town squares and promoting holy wars on the infidels. Oh, wait...

 

[Gigano]

Not sure I'd trust a man whose knowledge and world view was formed in the Middle East anno 30 with leadership of contemporary politics.

I'd appreciate it if he reined in the more discriminatory of his followers though, and kicked them from the party.

And as Iran and Saudi Arabia shows, religion and state don't mix all too well.

 

[GBlair88]

No.

Firstly because I don't believe in Jesus and secondly because I'm not American.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

You should have linked this instead http://einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

However he's not a big fan of personal gods or souls. And was not keen on superstition. And generally wants to take religion out of the emotions they envoke:

"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind."