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

[ItsAChiaotzu]

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

What 2 consensual adults do in the comfort of their own bedroom should be none of the bible's goddamn business.

I disagree. It's not just some book; it's something given to us by an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being.

I'm sick of hearing people saying things such as: "God doesn't belong in..." He's God. He's everywhere. If you don't think so, fine. But I definitely disagree with you.

A sin's a sin.

Not if there's literally no evidence for said being it isn't. Until you provide me with a shred of proof it's as valid a guide as Harry Potter.

A book's a book.

 

[Faladorian]

Note that I also did not use the word "stupid" in an unqualified way. A room with less light in it is more dark. A person who is less intelligent is more stupid.

Anyway, I object to this premise regardless of these minute semantic differences.

That's my point, though. You wouldn't describe a white room full of lamps and faire as "dark" just because it's darker than the sun. It's bright, but less so. Just like people of the past were intelligent, just less so.

When I made this example up, I was thinking specifically of the Bedouin.
Anyway, the specifics of foraging aside, a person from a specific environment is going to be better equipped to survive in that environment. Every time.
Bear Grylls is great and all, but his sort of survival is short-term. The sort of stuff you do to survive in a place long enough to get rescued.
People actually permanently LIVE in some of the most unforgiving, harsh environments in the world, and they do so without the benefit of modern technology.
They know things,
That you do not know.

Fair enough, but the inverse applies also. I know a lot of things that they would not know. And you're right that they need the information they have and I need mine, and we don't necessarily need each other's. But, no matter how much I begrudge reading, I have to give books most of the credit for the compilation of knowledge. I could learn what they knew and still have a whole lot of room. Now, there's a difference between how much room there is in there and how much your psychological disposition will allow you to use. Extremely stubborn people don't tend to absorb new information, while analytical skeptics have opened their minds to much more. Maybe somebody like me, living and growing in the information age, has a psyche more well-suited to absorb information than somebody whose life is mostly based on survival, as opposed to aspiration of goals.

A LOT of arctic explorers failed because of their use of (what was at the time) "modern" methods.
Did you know that any sleeping bag, no matter how advanced, *will* fail, given enough time, in arctic conditions? I can explain why if you'd like. In detail.
You know what doesn't fail? The furs and hides that native peoples use. In this case, their technology is actually BETTER than ours. There are more examples of this.

Not to discredit said arctic explorers, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if an animal's fur is keeping it warm, it can keep you warm too. But maybe, along with your line of thinking, that's only obvious because the information was relayed to me early on because it was passed down by people like them. Who knows?

Instinct?
That's absurd. People don't innately know how to survive harsh environments. If they did, then YOU would be as capable of surviving in the arctic and sub-arctic as well as the Inuit.

I'm not so sure about that. Individual humans are actually pretty unimpressive. We're pack animals. I don't think one Inuit could survive very long on their own, either. It's the strength in numbers that helped then advance and innovate.

People survive these environments because they have developed methods to do so. Nothing less. Mathematics are a fine way of gauging intelligence, until you are freezing to death with nothing to eat.

Believe me, I've tried to tell that to all of my math teachers. Math doesn't seem like it would help, but you need math to find out how to make a fur coat, a hutch for shelter, traps for catching animals, etc. You might not need to sit there with a graphing calculator, but it's still math. That's all math was before we made numbers, anyway.

People are adapted to their environment. You are adapted to YOUR environment. If you are taken out of your element and put in someone else's, they'll think you're an idiot, because you can't do the basic things that are required to survive. Things that their children already know.

That's one possible scenario. Another is that I could use my knowledge to overcome their problems by my own volition. Even with context, I'm not sure how many poor African peoples or downtrodden lower castes would be able to understand the concepts behind, say, an atomic bomb. But, this is a flawed example, because part of the cause of the unintelligibly of peoples like that is largely due to starvation and dehydration.

I use these cultural examples because in every way that matters to our discussion, a "primitive" culture existing in our own time is no different than a "primitive" culture from the past.

Well, a primitive culture essentially is a culture from the past. To use Africa as another example, some areas are still in a sort of tribal power-struggle turf war time period. We've been past that for a while... however, our selfish needs and inherent territoriality just makes us create more sophisticated ways of saying "Mine!"

I didn't say that people were less privileged. That would be assuming many things which I refuse to assume.
See, the only reason that an ancient person couldn't wrap their head around the idea of a microchip is because they lack all of the intervening context. If you gave them the context first, they would understand.

...Maybe. But like I said above, it doesn't seem likely they would actually understand. It also depends on the psychology of the individual, like I said before. People in Jesus' time (at least in his area) were, for lack of a better term, sheeple. They were blind followers of what they were told to believe. This is a horrible flaw in human psychology.

I'm not sure if you've heard of the Milgram Experiment or not. It was a test mostly inspired by the Holocaust, when people ask "how could they do that?" It showed that a ridiculous percentage of people would greatly torture or even kill somebody simply because an authoritative told them too. I'd post the numbers but I'm already straying WAY off topic. You should check it out, though. Pretty interesting stuff.

Thank you for agreeing with me?
People had to develop technologies and sciences sequentially. You can't run before you can walk. It doesn't make ancient people less intelligent, it just makes them ancient.
The ONLY reason you know about the technologies that they didn't know about is because you come after them, temporally. That doesn't make you smarter.

Well, you're not entirely wrong. I'm debating; challenging your stance with my own to see what the real answer is. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I was going to simply tell you you're wrong right off the bat, that's not debating, that's being a dick.

I always find it funny when people make this distinction.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Intelligence
-capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc

Did you catch the important word there?
CAPACITY.
Intelligence is not a measure of what you DO know, it's a measure of your ability to learn.
You learned about cars and microchips, because of the environment you grew up in.
Jesus learned about carpentry, and presumably fishing. Because of the environment HE grew up in.

The "advanced" nature of the information YOU know is entirely irrelevant. It is a temporal thing, signifying nothing in regards to your ability to learn.
Jesus probably knew as much as you do, but about different things. This is operating under the assumption that he wasn't God, naturally. I could have used any person from the time period as an example.

Well, not necessarily (this is the bolded part I'm addressing. The rest I have no problem with). The complexity of an idea does matter. Jesus and I might both know that metal rusts in the rain. But that doesn't mean that we know an equal amount. I know precisely why iron rusts, what the finished product is made of, and even what it can be used for. I know the Oxygen in water as well as in the air bonds with Iron. I know that Iron has 3 valence electrons, is a transition metal, and is a lot heavier and not as strong as Titanium. Iron oxide can be combined with aluminum shavings to create thermite, and the oxygen in the rust makes it possible to have an underwater flame. Fire underwater is something that someone of Jesus' time might call magic or witchcraft, or even a miracle. I have a feeling explanations like that are the biggest catalyst of religion and superstition in general.

And nowadays people are resistant to new ideas based on hubris and skepticism. What's your point?
Look, I'm not defending the Catholic church, or trying to suggest there was anything nice about the dark ages. So yes, you do digress.

Well, a little bit of skepticism is healthy. Not believing everything you hear shows some smarts in itself. But, some people just like being contrary to the popular opinion.

Sure, but is he more intelligent because he knows those things, or is he capable of knowing those things because he's more intelligent?
Again, knowing doesn't make you intelligent. Everyone knows things. I know things about Star Wars that NO ONE SHOULD EVER KNOW. It doesn't mean I'm smarter than someone who doesn't know those things.

Well, on the one hand you do feel like you have the extra brain space to be able to remember those things and not have to not learn something else because you're "out of space." It's a totally insignificant example, but if you know as much or more about the real world while also memorizing the details of a fantastical one, that could actually show a level of intelligence, or at least memory and analysis, that they lack. I've found when trying to explain anything "sci-fi" or "fantasy" to certain people that no matter how much I break it down they just don't get it.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that the usefulness of information is a measure of intelligence.
Which is why I keep bringing up native peoples. To them, the information they have is MUCH more useful than trigonometry. Hell, trigonometry is pretty useless for MOST people.

Haha I have no place to disagree here without dipping into hypocrisy.

THIS IS A VALUABLE POINT.
Do you believe yourself to be more intelligent than those people who existed at that time but in areas that were undergoing intellectual revolutions?

For example, Leonardo Da Vinci.
He existed in the past.
You have stated plainly that people of the past are less intelligent than people of the present.
Does this mean you believe yourself to be more intelligent than Leonardo Da Vinci?

Well, he's both a good example and a bad example. He certainly shatters my previous statement as an exception, but people like Da Vinci are just... anomalies. They're incredible human beings that you only come across once in a millennium, if you're lucky. My original point is that Jesus was not one of these people.

Of course it's relevant!
If you aren't a mechanic, then you don't actually understand the mechanisms of an engine. You might have some inkling of what's making it go, but how is that useful at all? You could believe that it was driven by a gremlin on a hamster wheel, and it wouldn't impair your ability to operate it any moreso than simply not knowing the details of its function.

I know that fuel is burned to release gas, which increases pressure in a chamber. Said pressure is used to push a piston, and the piston's mechanical energy is transferred to different things to make them move. I'd say that's some pretty valuable information. There are a number of things you could make if you know how to utilize physics.

That's another thing. Science has always been applicable to everything. Knowledge of science could actually be extremely beneficial to the previously-mentioned arctic explorers.

[sub]Every time we say "arctic explorers" I think of the Arctic Avengers from Counterstrike: Source[/sub]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Culture
Relevant definition: "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action"

Furthermore, your mis-definition of culture would be only one logical step away from validation of racism, which as you mentioned before, we agree is bad.
[Because if a culture is defined by it's actions, and it's valid to judge based on actions, then why can't you judge a group based on the 'compilation of regular routines' that they share? From there you can easily begin to classify cultures are 'good' or 'bad.' This is textbook ethnocentrism.

I'm not condoning racism or suggesting my culture is somehow superior. All I said is that culture is, at its core, a sum of actions displayed by a group of people. I think that one was really misunderstood.

Also, in line with defining cultures as "good" and "bad," I realize that those are totally subjective. Some people think that they're doing good by beating up gays, and they aren't. As long as people aren't being killed for arbitrary reasons, then I have no problem with a culture. I tend to find a lot of cultural rituals to be pretty silly, but that's just me.

You may have overlooked this, but a fellow up above us somewhere mentioned:
BECAUSE we are essentially immune to natural selection, our brain cavities have been getting smaller with consecutive generations. If your only definition of intelligence is the size of the human brain, we are actually definitively less intelligent than people of the past.

Well, unless the brain is cancerous, then a larger size is actually more room. And, like I said before, intelligence has a lot to do with the psychology of the individual. Some people just won't learn, others will greatly surpass the common man. With both extremes, we can find a chronological average.

Here's an article on the "Flynn Effect." [http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml] It's a study showing that intelligence increases as generations go on. This is intelligence, mind you, and not raw information. It deals a lot with IQ, which is problem solving and not raw knowledge. I'm not calling it the be all end all of my standpoint, but it might be interesting. I also admit I haven't read the entire thing yet, so it could very well prove you right as opposed to me, which I'm fine with.

Man, these posts are reaching titanic sizes... I feel a compromise coming lol

 

[Blemontea]

well now that we have had a black president, why not a mexican president with a historical referential name.

Jokes aside, i cant vote and i dont plan on it because i can never wrap my head around politics but i dont think my vote would matter because i am pretty sure even the atheist in this country would vote for him out of mere surprise that he is running for president with what he can do.

 

[Blayze2k]

You're right, this is getting pretty prodigious. I'll try to pare it down to a reasonable size.

A LOT of arctic explorers failed because of their use of (what was at the time) "modern" methods.
Did you know that any sleeping bag, no matter how advanced, *will* fail, given enough time, in arctic conditions? I can explain why if you'd like. In detail.
You know what doesn't fail? The furs and hides that native peoples use. In this case, their technology is actually BETTER than ours. There are more examples of this.

Not to discredit said arctic explorers, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if an animal's fur is keeping it warm, it can keep you warm too. But maybe, along with your line of thinking, that's only obvious because the information was relayed to me early on because it was passed down by people like them. Who knows?

I feel like you missed my point here.
I mean, yes, it's reasonably obvious that animal fur keeps things warm.

What I'm saying, which I find important and relevant, is that the simple method is actually more effective than the "modern" method. Straight-up, objectively better.

Instinct?
That's absurd. People don't innately know how to survive harsh environments. If they did, then YOU would be as capable of surviving in the arctic and sub-arctic as well as the Inuit.

I'm not so sure about that. Individual humans are actually pretty unimpressive. We're pack animals. I don't think one Inuit could survive very long on their own, either. It's the strength in numbers that helped then advance and innovate.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Inuit's survival has had a certain amount to do with numbers. People of the time definitely learned through trial and error to a certain degree, and survival has always been linked to population.
But even if it was you and six people just like you, you wouldn't survive in the arctic as well as seven Inuit.
I'll elaborate on this idea more in a moment.

I didn't say that people were less privileged. That would be assuming many things which I refuse to assume.
See, the only reason that an ancient person couldn't wrap their head around the idea of a microchip is because they lack all of the intervening context. If you gave them the context first, they would understand.

...Maybe. But like I said above, it doesn't seem likely they would actually understand. It also depends on the psychology of the individual, like I said before. People in Jesus' time (at least in his area) were, for lack of a better term, sheeple. They were blind followers of what they were told to believe. This is a horrible flaw in human psychology.

People now are not better in that regard.
I mean, seriously. Glenn Beck.

Furthermore, Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was actually a radical political figure, who defied the authorities of his time, and completely ignored many social norms.

Besides, revolutions were a common occurrence in the past. That's an inherently unsheepish event.

I'm not sure if you've heard of the Milgram Experiment or not. It was a test mostly inspired by the Holocaust, when people ask "how could they do that?" It showed that a ridiculous percentage of people would greatly torture or even kill somebody simply because an authoritative told them too. I'd post the numbers but I'm already straying WAY off topic. You should check it out, though. Pretty interesting stuff.

I've never heard of it by that name before, but yes, I've heard of the experiment.
...it seems like it kindof reinforces my point that people now are no less subject to blindly following things.

Thank you for agreeing with me?
People had to develop technologies and sciences sequentially. You can't run before you can walk. It doesn't make ancient people less intelligent, it just makes them ancient.
The ONLY reason you know about the technologies that they didn't know about is because you come after them, temporally. That doesn't make you smarter.

Well, you're not entirely wrong. I'm debating; challenging your stance with my own to see what the real answer is. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I was going to simply tell you you're wrong right off the bat, that's not debating, that's being a dick.

Was that a concession? =D

The "advanced" nature of the information YOU know is entirely irrelevant. It is a temporal thing, signifying nothing in regards to your ability to learn.
Jesus probably knew as much as you do, but about different things. This is operating under the assumption that he wasn't God, naturally. I could have used any person from the time period as an example.

Well, not necessarily (this is the bolded part I'm addressing. The rest I have no problem with). The complexity of an idea does matter. Jesus and I might both know that metal rusts in the rain. But that doesn't mean that we know an equal amount. I know precisely why iron rusts, what the finished product is made of, and even what it can be used for.

Alright, but I think you're disregarding a lot of complexity in the ideas and practices of the time.
I work in a shipyard, and I'm constantly struck by the DEPTH of the knowledge of the people there who are actually boat-builders. They have to know how to identify numerous different kinds of trees, the properties of those trees, various structures within a boat and how to achieve them, and LOADS about the physics of constructing something in a solid way. And that's not even counting lofting.
And this is a VERY old art.

Jesus was a carpenter, not a chemist, so I can't claim that he knew a whole lot about oxidization, but to suggest that his knowledge was uncomplicated is simply not looking at the whole picture.
I mean, ancient peoples often spoke several languages.

And nowadays people are resistant to new ideas based on hubris and skepticism. What's your point?
Look, I'm not defending the Catholic church, or trying to suggest there was anything nice about the dark ages. So yes, you do digress.

Well, a little bit of skepticism is healthy. Not believing everything you hear shows some smarts in itself. But, some people just like being contrary to the popular opinion.

I'm not opposed to skepticism on principle. I just think many people overdo it because they view it as a self-contained virtue.

THIS IS A VALUABLE POINT.
Do you believe yourself to be more intelligent than those people who existed at that time but in areas that were undergoing intellectual revolutions?

For example, Leonardo Da Vinci.
He existed in the past.
You have stated plainly that people of the past are less intelligent than people of the present.
Does this mean you believe yourself to be more intelligent than Leonardo Da Vinci?

Well, he's both a good example and a bad example. He certainly shatters my previous statement as an exception, but people like Da Vinci are just... anomalies. They're incredible human beings that you only come across once in a millennium, if you're lucky. My original point is that Jesus was not one of these people.

Once in a millennium? I bet I could make a list. =P
[Unfortunately, I'm terribly lazy.]

But examine with me: What, objectively, makes Da Vinci so much smarter than other people of his time?
Yes, he conceived of many things that people of his time had never thought of, but in a previous example, you said that understanding an internal combustion engine makes you more intelligent than ancient people.
Leonardo Da Vinci didn't know about the internal combustion engine.

Of course it's relevant!
If you aren't a mechanic, then you don't actually understand the mechanisms of an engine. You might have some inkling of what's making it go, but how is that useful at all? You could believe that it was driven by a gremlin on a hamster wheel, and it wouldn't impair your ability to operate it any moreso than simply not knowing the details of its function.

I know that fuel is burned to release gas, which increases pressure in a chamber. Said pressure is used to push a piston, and the piston's mechanical energy is transferred to different things to make them move. I'd say that's some pretty valuable information. There are a number of things you could make if you know how to utilize physics.

Actually to be able to utilize any of that you have to know how to work a forge, at the very least.

I'm not condoning racism or suggesting my culture is somehow superior. All I said is that culture is, at its core, a sum of actions displayed by a group of people. I think that one was really misunderstood.

No, I know you're not being racist. I was just showing you the logical extension of your statement.

I DO believe you are suggesting your/our culture is superior, though. Specifically in the realm of intelligence.

You may have overlooked this, but a fellow up above us somewhere mentioned:
BECAUSE we are essentially immune to natural selection, our brain cavities have been getting smaller with consecutive generations. If your only definition of intelligence is the size of the human brain, we are actually definitively less intelligent than people of the past.

Well, unless the brain is cancerous, then a larger size is actually more room. And, like I said before, intelligence has a lot to do with the psychology of the individual. Some people just won't learn, others will greatly surpass the common man. With both extremes, we can find a chronological average.

I don't see your point?
If larger brains are the measure of intelligence, then we are less intelligent than people from Jesus's time.

Here's an article on the "Flynn Effect." [http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml] It's a study showing that intelligence increases as generations go on. This is intelligence, mind you, and not raw information. It deals a lot with IQ, which is problem solving and not raw knowledge. I'm not calling it the be all end all of my standpoint, but it might be interesting. I also admit I haven't read the entire thing yet, so it could very well prove you right as opposed to me, which I'm fine with.

Interesting!

Flynn's Hypothesis

"The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence." (Flynn, 1987). Based on the presence of the effect on nonverbal tests such as the Raven's Matrices, Flynn believes that the increase is actually an increase in abstract problem solving rather than intelligence. Flynn (1994, 1999) favors environmental explanations for the increase in test scores.

I would tend to agree with this conclusion.



Alright, so in summary,
If you define intelligence as the capability to learn, you have no basis to claim that modern people are more inherently intelligent than ancient people. [I mean, for one thing, they were never given IQ tests]

If you define intelligence as accumulated knowledge, you have no basis to claim that modern people know more than ancient people, only that our knowledge is more complex, which is a subjective claim which disregards the big picture.
If you gauge the value of knowledge based on its usefulness instead, then you hit the roadblock that usefulness is completely subjective, and that often our modern methods are inferior to older ones.

If you define intelligence as the size of the human brain, then it's actually as likely to be the opposite of what you claim.

It's been a pleasure debating with you sir.
Apologies if I offended early on.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

If Jesus held all the views in the Bible, I'd have to say no, schizophrenics rarely make good presidents.

If he only held the views that Jesus stated in the Bible...eh? Depends on his economic plan, really. And if he would even run, which I sorta doubt.

 

[Faladorian]

Alright, so in summary,
If you define intelligence as the capability to learn, you have no basis to claim that modern people are more inherently intelligent than ancient people. [I mean, for one thing, they were never given IQ tests]

If you define intelligence as accumulated knowledge, you have no basis to claim that modern people know more than ancient people, only that our knowledge is more complex, which is a subjective claim which disregards the big picture.
If you gauge the value of knowledge based on its usefulness instead, then you hit the roadblock that usefulness is completely subjective, and that often our modern methods are inferior to older ones.

If you define intelligence as the size of the human brain, then it's actually as likely to be the opposite of what you claim.

It's been a pleasure debating with you sir.
Apologies if I offended early on.

That's really what needed to happen XD those posts were getting really long.

And you didn't offend me. We both started off kind of nasty, but that always happens at the beginning of a disagreement; it's just a defense mechanism.

This was actually kind of fun, and I intended to respond to each of your quotes but, at the risk of sounding like an unworthy opponent, I really don't feel like it right now haha

Good day, sir

Side note: took a little while to realize that whole ordeal was based on one little bullet of mine... wow lol

Let me just change that:
-He probably wasn't all that smart.

Better? XD

 

[FernandoV]

He's too idealistic; and he'd get assassinated pretty quickly I think :\ Plus I don't think he has a good grasp on foreign relations and economic policy, etc, etc.

EDIT: and @ OP; the Bible was created by people with views that differed greatly from what Jesus taught. Jesus was more "free-love, good-will" and then some not so much about restricting everything you want to do.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Probably not, no. He's a social leader, not a political one. It would be like electing Martin Luther King Jr. to the executive desk, which is fine for social change, but means he would be pressured to influence other nations into accepting his reforms as well. Besides, a figure of tolerance and equality should not be on the ballot for supreme executive office. It rather sends the wrong message.

 

[Tanfastic]

Lol @ people saying he didn't exist. He was a real person, whether he did all the stuff that is written about is up for debate.

OT: Sure, he's Jesus and stuff.

Well, if you don't believe in God, you can't believe in Jesus, either, since he is God.

Jesus was a person just as much as Muhammad was. What people don't believe is if they were gods and prophets, only ignorant people don't believe the historical evidence of a person named Jesus, claiming to be a god/prophet, didn't exist. He was a person, just his godliness is what may or may not be true.

 

[Trolldor]

Lol @ people saying he didn't exist. He was a real person, whether he did all the stuff that is written about is up for debate.

OT: Sure, he's Jesus and stuff.

Well, if you don't believe in God, you can't believe in Jesus, either, since he is God.

Jesus was a person just as much as Muhammad was. What people don't believe is if they were gods and prophets, only ignorant people don't believe the historical evidence of a person named Jesus, claiming to be a god/prophet, didn't exist. He was a person, just his godliness is what may or may not be true.

He existed, huh?

Evidence plz.

 

[instantbenz]

he's too humble, it must be the antichrist

also just to rattle more cages ...

The Bible: The World's Longest Game of Telephone!

 

[Nosense]

Yes.

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

What the hell is your avatar 0_0 !?!

Anyway, I don't see Jesus as the kind of guy who would even seriously consider being POTUS. An adviser perhaps, but never a political leader.
(ps- What you said was true)

 

[icame]

*Puts mind into a state in which it can believe in jesus*

No. Isn't this the guy that got a ton of people to kill him? That doesn't sound like someone who can get citizens to follow his cause. Also the beard is creepy. And so is jesus. BECAUSE HE'S SECRETLY MICHEAL JACKSON AND WANTS TO TOUCH YOUR CHILD. He also created the double rainbow causing a new internet meme made up of pure EVIL.

So no. I would not. And yes, I am in fact drunk.

 

[Trolldor]

I'm wondering why people are so hung up on the whole OT thing...

Jesus is probably the most vile character in all of the bible.
It is with him we find the introduction of eternal torment for anyone who refuses to adopt complete submission.

At least in the OT once they've killed you that's it.
In the NT they may not kill you in life, they'll just watch you burn for eternity in a lake of fire.
How loving.

 

[Snotnarok]

No because I believe in separation of church and state. Wouldn't be fair to those other religions out there now would it? Besides he'd be assassinated so quick by extremists he'd embarrass Henry Harrison.

 

[BlueCollarTweaker]

this question oh jesus fuck shit I don't know

SURE WHATEVER, WHO CARES

 

[Nosense]

If the OP's intention was to spark a flamewar......Mission Complete!

 

[UrbanCohort]

He'd at least know what He was getting into, which is a lot more than we can say about our last two Presidents.

I said yes because He fuckin' God, and He'd probably be more normal than not normal. Iunno. Anything to postpone my country's inevitable doom.

 

[Sprinal]

Considering that his education would be on a level of non-existent to primary school level at best.(this is not trolling as the level of education of conqured lands under Roman rule was low at the time to prevent uprising. Also he started life as a peasent.) I do not think it would be a wise desision to make.

His ethics would be decent but it would be impossible to rule out the lack of education for me. Also he would force a Theocracy which in my opinion is not a good thing. It could damgae other religions in the US and could also start many wars killing many people.


SO NO

P.S he probably would get in anyway dispite not being an American Citizen

 

[Korolev]

If Jesus really did exist and if his portrayal in the Bible was accurate... still, no.

Jesus (if he did exist) was waaaaay ahead of his time. There was still a whole bunch of problems with the New Testament, but it was a rather progressive document for the age it was written. But Jesus was a very religious figure, who made repeated declarations that God was supreme. I strongly doubt that he would approve of a secular government that fully respected the rights of all religions. He'd probably allow other religious to exist, but he would make it his job to introduce religion into government, which is always a bad thing.

Plus, Jesus never said the Old Testament was incorrect, which gives me the sinking suspicion that if he really did exist and he really did come back, he would try to bring a whole chunk of that bronze-age nonsense into practice.

So on the off chance that Jesus, as he was portrayed in the Bible, really did exist and really did come back, I wouldn't vote for him. Yes, that would mean that God would send me to hell, but I will not let my morals be warped by fear. I honestly disagree with a lot of what is in the Bible, and if God really acts has he does in that book, that's a god worth FEARING, but not worshipping.