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

[DocBalance]

I understand that was the point of the New Testament...I used to be a very deeply religious Christian, and I, along with most of religious Christians I knew, just looked askance at the Old Testament and looked to the New Testament for moral guidance. My priest even said: "If we listened to the Old Testament, we can kill babies."

One of my friends put it well. The Old Testament is historical context. The problem is that a LOT of Christians don't seem to get that...so they form a Christianity based on laws and anger and damnation rather than love and sacrifice. I suppose you're always going to have a lot of people like that regardless, but cutting out the Old Testament entirely would certainly remove any chance they have of legitimizing their beliefs.

Oi, that hits pretty close to home, I couldn't have put it better myself. I'm currently involved in a homeschool speech and debate organization that has confused "religious" with "Christ-like", and I'm currently running a persuasive speech about how the whole concept of Hell and Damnation as we understand it is completely backwards, ludicrous, and as far as could as to what the Bible actually says about Hell. The reactions have been, er, mixed, to say the least.

 

[hem dazon 90]

Yes

But Mohamed would be a better, more down to earth leader.

 

[robinkom]

First of all, I am Agnostic. I have no religion and definitely don't believe in the literal Christian God or any religion's God(s) for that matter as laid out by their dogma and stories. I'd like to think that if there is a God, he/she/it is nothing like what these organized religions think. Then they're all wrong and all have to accept the truth no matter how much they hate it. I'm not above teasing them all though because, let's face it, a lot of them have forgotten how to laugh. Without humor, you get fundamentalist nut-jobs that blow shit up and cheat gullible "followers" out of their money because apparently, Heaven isn't free.

No, I would not vote for Jesus. In the hypothetical that he would run, he wasn't stingy or underhanded enough (like other Jews... shut up it's funny) to compete in a modern electoral race. Also, separation of church and state are a must, I think that rules out his validity for all that agree. I doubt his party affiliation would even enter into it. I WOULD vote for him however if he came out and said that you Christians have it all wrong and misinterpret what he said. I'd like to hear him say "Forget all that jibba-jabba, here's a Newer Testament, pay attention. I know you have computers with spell-checkers now, don't eff this up."

 

[FolkLikePanda]

No, I can't because I don't live in America. Grandad does but I don't think he'd vote for him.

 

[Lineoutt]

If Jesus, THE Jesus. Appeared EXACTLY how he was described (peaceful, loving, universally accepting) then fuck yes. But if Jesus appeared with modern christian beliefs (no gays, blablablah) then fuck no. Simple as that.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

This country has separation of church and state EXACTLY for this reason, and none other. Our founding fathers were smart as hell and clairvoyant, seeing this eventuality long ago.

Actually you're wrong. The separation of church and state was originally to protect religion from politics, not the other way around.

You hear that a lot from the religious right. I'm genuinely not sure what it's supposed to mean. Who ever said that politics needs to be protected from religion? What he's saying is that separation of church and state prevents a religion from using the government to push its will upon an unwilling populace. It's not about protecting religion. It's about protecting *people* and their free expression of religion (or lack thereof). The government is by, of, and for the people. Not just for the people of a particular religion.

 

[Feralcentaur]

I'd probably just assume that he was a crazy Homeless man who thought he was Jesus.

 

[WinkyTheGreat]

Well, given that he never said anything about gays, and that if everything he did in the bible is true, then he is the biggest socialist I know and the religious right would probably poop their pampers when he started acting as such.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

This is a poll I've been curious about; knowing that a good amount of the American population that'll vote for someone because of their religion or how often they say god bless America.

So, Jesus Christ returns and runs for president.
If you need to know anymore, his stances are based on biblical teachings. Love thy neighbor (ie Mexico), gays are bad, etc.

Very, very hard to say.

First, Jesus never mentions gay people in the Bible (not even indirectly, not even acts (I love the "it's not the group of people, but the single thing that defines the group that we're against" angle)), so who knows what he thought of that. The rest of his teachings sort of seem to suggest he would be cool with it.

Also, I doubt he would seem that religious. We built a religion around him, but most of the stuff in his teachings (especially the stuff people remember) involves rules that essentially amount to "don't be a dick".

A president with the guiding philosophy "don't be a dick" would be a refreshing change of pace.

On the other hand, I think he'd be a terrible president given that, even taking into account his own groovy morality, he was still probably a product of the times in which he lived, which are pretty far removed from the present socially, technologically, and ethically.

 

[wolf92]

Depends on his views. How does he feel about health care? The war? Education? Is he a republican? Will he do an interview on The Daily Show? Who'd he pick for VP

 

[Continuity]

yes but only if he makes an election promise to turn the city water supply into wine every Friday evening.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

If Jesus ran for president, I wouldn't vote for him. Particularly because I'm not American. But also, I find him to be one of the most bizzar people in history. He claims himself to be the son of god and people just believe him? Stupidity incarnate. No, Christianity is too corrupt, too filled with lies and selfish changes to tradition to be considered a viable judge of "purity". Hell, I'd probably be the one who assasinated Jesus.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

This'd be a whole barrel of fish. If Jesus came back, how could you tell it was Jesus and not just some new David Koresh or Charles Manson, the bible doesn't even give a metric for it and gives examples of unholy people committing miracles so that's out.

Besides, assuming the Christian bible as wholly true (which is necessary for this post), the guy claiming to be Jesus and running for world leader is supposed to be the anti-christ, so by reading the posts here the Christian's are nearly unanimously supporting the beast while the non/differently believing secularists are the last bastion against Satan.

Beyond this, democracy trumps theocracy, so assuming it is not a fake or the anti-christ, he would still dictate from a position of the Kingdom of God, there just isn't the freedom necessary for a democracy in this. God has a plan for each person sounds a lot like Commie speak for forced labor assignments, well as does the requirement to disown personal wealth, the hardliner stance against committing the same sin twice (read the book of Hebrews, after the gospels, before revelations...I know "the boring stuff" God looks kinder upon those who blatantly reject his way than those who sin after learning not to), it would pretty much be an impossibility to live up to these standards and maintain personal freedom.

Sure that personal freedom I'm talking about is largely selfishly using personal wealth, committing various sins of the flesh, not tithing, or not bowing to an abstract authority figure, etc. that'll all send me to hell according to the good book, but as a US Citizen, that's my temporal right.

 

[Marik2]

Well I can't vote for something that doesn't exist >.<

Not entirely true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

[robinkom]

...the largest terrorist organisation in the history of the world, The Roman Catholic Church.

Agreed. The Catholic Church has a lot more money than any random Colombian drug cartel and they leave a lot more bodies in the wake.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

Depends on what his policies were, his financial plans, if he supported the same sectors I support and made a reasoned and effective argument for my vote. Assuming I was American, which I'm not.

I don't think he'd need to run for any position of power within the established government, he already has unparalleled world wide support and would likely end up destabilizing governments all over the world through no fault of his own.

Also the second coming is to herald the end of the world. I'm not it'd be unfeasible to come back earlier and not be the precursor of armageddon, but people world wide would be repenting their lives away and giving everything they own to charity anyway.

Short answer: I couldn't I'm not American. For Prime Minister, maybe? Wouldn't matter.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

To answer your question no. If Jesus was real he may be a good moral leader but not a leader of nations.

I think that's the saddest thing I've ever seen. I can't imagine a more succinct condemnation of our times or maybe even our species.

How so? He would have no political experience, no international relations experience, no business experience, no qualifications to lead the country. He also insisted that you give away all of your earthly possessions, not what I want leading the country.


Also he would spend the first year in office saying nothing but "HOLY SHIT AIRPLANES"

I sincerely wish Bush had spent his first year in office saying nothing but "HOLY SHIT AIRPLANES".

Political experience, international relations experience, business experience, qualifications... we should call these things what they really are (or, more accurately, what they've clearly become): indoctrinizations. The system, as is, functions to prevent anyone from obtaining a leadership role without taking on sufficient financial/political debt to prevent him or her from effectively leading a nation. The notion that we could never trust a very intelligent and compassionate person with leadership simply because he hasn't shown us he can fail in other, similar jobs first... it makes my heart ache.

But you're right. We can't trust someone to be president unless he's run an oil company into the ground, gone to bed with Saudi Arabian royalty, and ultimately failed as head of one of the nation's biggest states.

What you're really saying, in my opinion, is that Jesus wouldn't focus on money to the extent that every single world leader seemingly does these days, so he'd obviously be a crappy world leader. I think he'd be more like an extremely bright spot on a disgustingly stained floor.

 

[mr_rubino]

Yes.

By the way, Jesus never said gays are bad. Ever. Once. And he often implied that he has an opposite view on them.

Thats why he basically nuked sodom and gorohomah right?

Jesus did that? What translation are you reading?

Anyways, the nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah had more to do with the rapes... and murders... and horrendous blasphemy... and more rapes. And murder-rapes.

I believe I remember reading that the angels where there telling that one guy to leave ( I forgot his name) a bunch of the towns people came up and demand to screw the angels (they looked like people) he offered them his daughters but the people said no thank you we would like to have intercourse with those other men, or something along those lines, I don't believe in this gibberish anyway.

Do you... often speak passionately on topics you self-admittedly don't understand? And then dismiss your mistakes my saying "It's all so stupid, I didn't care about your stupid stupidness anyway"?

 

[Marik2]

Yes.

By the way, Jesus never said gays are bad. Ever. Once. And he often implied that he has an opposite view on them.

Matthew 5:17-20 (New King James Version)

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

This is Jesus speaking during the sermon on the mount, less than one page before the "Love thy neighbour as yourself" bit. If you use that then you cannot ignore this.

And guess what?

The Law says that gays are to be stoned, and that they are an abomination.

And before you try to pull a fast one on me; The Hebrew name for the 5 books of Moses, where all those funny laws about stoning children and homosexuals are found, is Torah, or translated THE LAW.

People who believe that the bible is not completely incompatible with homosexuality are deceiving themselves.

And no this is not out of context, this bit is entirely by it self.

From what I gathered from talking to a couple of devout Jews the "abomination" part is a very poor translation and in best way to translate it would be "taboo".

And the Mosaic laws were all about Jews trying to preserve their culture from everyone else. That passage is really condemning a practice of a neighboring tribe that had gay sex in temples in order to please their gods.

And when studying the Mosaic law people have to put the oral law with it as well.

 

[tthor]

depends, will he still have his superpowers as president? peace and love are good and all, but when it comes to running a nation, superpowers definitely wouldn't hurt