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

[Pyode]

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;"
(Ephesians 6:5 NAB)

I'm not really gonna get in an argument over this, but I'm pretty certain it's "servants obey your masters". It is in the King James (most famous) and American Standard (most relevant for an American election?)

I dunno. I think that's an important distinction.

The majority of the English translations that I looked at use the term "slave."

You can see for yourself here.

It seems to me that some people chose to change the word to "servant" to make it sound less horrible.

 

[alzwded]

To be honest, I don't know. One the one hand I wouldn't want him president 'cause he's way to forgiving for the amount of jerks in authority, and given that the Bible says that one basically does whatever he wants on Earth only to be punished upon death, then, no. He'd be bad in this regard.

On the other hand were He the vengeful righteous unforgiving version of the Second Coming, then yes, 'cause He'd punish any evil corporate dude on the spot with a vengeance.

On the third hand, having Jesus Christ as president would pretty much turn the state into a theocracy which ain't all that democratic, so... looking at it like that, he'd be something of a Big Brother taking care of us.

So yeah, it's more like how you look at it. Also, given that He'd come down to Earth in human form and that all humans are sinners regardless (for so does the Bible tell us), he'd still pretty much be like any other candidate -- seemingly all fine and competent, until proven wrong.

Now, if there's one deity whom I'd like as a ruler, that'd be Thor, because Thor's a metalhead.

 

[Wintermoot]

no, I don,t want to follow rules of a religion I am not part of (I,m Atheist).
In Holland they have parties that use Biblical teaching as their way of governing (there is even a party that refuses woman as members).
PS the bible never said anything about being Gay being bad (maybe homosexual sex but not the idea of being gay) it also never said anything about abortion or drugs keep that in mind when you answer.

 

[infohippie]

Well, to start with I don't believe he ever existed. However for argument's sake I will assume that he did, in fact, exist and was reasonably accurately depicted in the bible.
In that case, yes I would vote for him, despite being an atheist myself.
The principles he championed are, essentially, care for each other, don't be a hater, be kind, be honest, be accepting, forgive, and try to make sure everyone is treated well. Almost the exact opposite viewpoint to that espoused by most of the more vocal "Christian" groups. And certainly the exact opposite to today's politicians. Jesus was a peace-loving, hippie liberal, and TBH I think he'd be pretty unhappy at an awful lot of the things that are said and done in his name.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
- Mahatma Ghandi.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

I don't know any of his policies. So no.

Also, Jesus was born in a country that is no longer in existence...so legally he can't lead any country.

 

[evantrees]

figuring out all the absentee ballot nonsense, bah!

but really would you want him wasting his time running a country?

 

[Naheal]

Only way is to kill their human controllers

This is a bit of a silly situation, but I'll give it a shot.

If humans are controlling the beasts, then there are obviously some form of transmissions taking place in order to to issue said commands. Unless we're talking about a direct neural interface involving a human that's obviously right there (which is unlikely), we'd be dealing with the possibility of jamming said communications. Further, if we're being forced into violence and Jesus has been in command for any period of time, it'd be logical to assume that research would have been conducted to perfect LTL weaponry. Unfortunately, without any other course of action available, rendering your enemies unable to fight would be the only possible solution.

They are inside the dragons, fused together. Only way is to pry open the dragon and kill the human inside.

Sorry, im really bored. Next lecture in 30 min...

This is bordering on dumb, now.

Hence the apology

Don't worry about it. I tend to analyze situations like that in a (relatively) reasonable and realistic manner. Really, unless we did something to seriously screw something up, I'd put money that we'd be a western hemisphere Switzerland with him as pres.

Yeah. Because Switzerland doesn't use aaaany money on their army.

Stop strawmanning my argument. It doesn't make you look smart.

How would you cut the guarded supply lines without weapons? How would you disarm the squads of deathtroopers? how the FUCK do you stop an ARMY without violence?

A diplomatic solution might be found... In a while, but for now their troops/dragons are in the streets killing women and children.

How about not being a complete strategic idiot? How about stopping the situation before it became a problem in the first place? How about cutting off travel routes?

I am a little curious as to why this situation even came up in the first place. Countries don't just randomly attack one another, they're usually after something and there's usually some form of a warning beforehand.

Also, Egypt.

Cutting of travel routes?

This is America we are talking about, the coastline is pretty fucking big.

And in this problem the war is already started, it's evilnesia, they're evil they want to invade us to harvest baby tears or some crap.

This is where all logic of this situation gets thrown out the window. Nations just don't do that. They don't. War is a stupidly heavy tax on a country's resources. Why would you start one? "I want to harvest the baby tears of your populous" only works if you can get your people behind that, which is kind of a tough thing to do if your country isn't in some sort of a desperate situation in the first place.

Also, you really, really need to consider strategic thinking if you want to discuss war. Including situational planning prior to a war. Why is this war starting? Is the leader psychotic? How are they crazy? Why aren't the people doing something about it?

This situation isn't even remotely realistic. Hell, a random "LOLWE'RE INVADING" line can be countered with a "You're looking for something. What do you need? Would you be open to trade?" in a heartbeat.

 

[Steven True]

You might want to double check your bible, the whole hate and murdering people thing was old testament.

You might want to check your bible,

"Not One Jot Or Tittle Will Pass Away From the Law Till All Is Fulfilled" - Matthew 5:17-18

As far as JC is concerned the old testament still applies.

 

[thiosk]

Jewish president?

Not likely in america, no sir.

 

[Scout Tactical]

The majority of the English translations that I looked at use the term "slave."

You can see for yourself here.

It seems to me that some people chose to change the word to "servant" to make it sound less horrible.

I personally believe that the reason it was translated as "slave" in some editions is that it was politically convenient at the time to have religious backing for slavery. This is well documented in American history, so I don't know why it wouldn't be in Europe.

Really, I think we'd need an expert in translation to know for certain, but you cannot seriously assert that it WASN'T politically beneficial for the local lords to be able to restrain their slaves by telling them it was god's will.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

Yes.

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

Someone in the bible said 'if a man lays with a man both shall be put to death' ... pretty sure it was that Jesus guy. May have been someone else, but same book.

 

[BENZOOKA]

No. He'd be a way too big of a fanboy of that book they wrote some hundred years ago after he died.

All his knowledge would be outdated by about 2000 years anyway.

 

[Nopodop]

Depends, if it's super jesus, or cyborg-pirate-ninja-jesus, then yes. If not, no.

 

[Nova Helix]

You might want to double check your bible, the whole hate and murdering people thing was old testament.

You might want to check your bible,

"Not One Jot Or Tittle Will Pass Away From the Law Till All Is Fulfilled" - Matthew 5:17-18

As far as JC is concerned the old testament still applies.

So I assume you stone rape victims?
" If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." -Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Or do you just force the victim to marry the attacker?
" If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

Do many have died in his name already. Don't trust that character.

That's kinda silly. People could kill while claiming to follow anything and that'd be considered a good reason to hate that ideology, according to your logic.

And jesus running for president isn't silly? Pfft. Consider the silly nature of the question. I do believe you forgot your sense of humor at the door.

 

[Naheal]

Jewish president?

Not likely in america, no sir.

He's Arab, too.

Also, Jesus H. Christ. Clearly the H is for Hussein.