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

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

No. This country has a separation between church and state for a reason. Religious dogma should never be the basis for secular law.

I'm not a Christian, but I have to correct you on this one. He once said: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar?s", and unto God the things that are God?s?. Sounds like he supports keeping the State and Church seperate to me.
OP: Why not? At least we know he wouldn't participate in off-the-record shenanigans.

 

[Buccura]

Sure why not. I'm not religious but hell I'd take him over most the others who would run for office.

 

[Purple Shrimp]

yep, Jesus was a kool dude

(I'm assuming that some of his beliefs would change to those more suitable in a modern context)

 

[ISawAFish]

Only if he wore a tuxedo tee-shirt and had eagle wings. And he has to do vocals for Lynard Skynard whilst I'm in the front row hammered drunk!

 

[Jonabob87]

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.

When you say "politically convenient" I assume you mean convenient for basically everyone of wealth and power all the way up to the 18th and 19th centuries.

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.

If, by "local lords", you are referring to the people that wrote the Bible in the first place I completely agree.

Those points aside, arguing the semantics of this one line is unnecessary. The Bible's view on slavery is quite clear. It gives detailed instructions on how you can acquire slaves, who you can have as slaves, how much you should pay for them, how badly you can beat them, and more. Now, before you pull the "but that's the Old Testament" argument, you should know that Jesus quite clearly stated that every word of the OT is still completely true and binding. Therefore, he supports slavery.

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

 

[dday4you]

i love jesus ^^

but isnt the second coming suppose to an apocalype?
OT:well his decisions would have to be made for the good of the world.
running forr president? i'm not sure, but i'll vote for him anyway

 

[Purple Shrimp]

yep, Jesus was a kool dude

I do believe that it's spelled "Keewl"

sorry babe

 

[Shirokurou]

No.
It's like asking me whether I want the Pope to be president.

 

[Meestor Pickle]

Well, yes as people are saying Jesus is well...a softie but when I compare him to politicans the choice is pretty clear.

 

[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.

 

[Murray Whitwell]

Biblical depiction of Jesus, Yes.
Conservative, right-wing American idiot's depiction of Jesus, No.
Original Jesus was great. ?What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.? ?It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth." etc.
It's only jerks like Phelps and idiot conservatives who ruin such a good character.
Jesus comes second in my list of awesome fictional characters, bested only by Hagrid

 

[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'.

He managed to get a solid fanbase though

Then half of that fanbase kept on killing and spreading missery in his name, instead of following his way of living. At least he tried, eh?

Did he write the bible? Cause theirs a lot of things in their that encouraged that horror it seems.

Eh, I don't really want to go into this. I can appreciate he brought faith, a lot of people need in this cruel world.

 

[Shycte]

Okay, I have to admit it, I chuckled, a lot.

Anyway, I don't have anything against Christians (well i have a problem some Christians, but that's not because they're Christian, that's because they're assholes.)

I do, however, have something against Christianity, actually i have a lot of things against Christianity.

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?

 

[Denamic]

I've come to enjoy secular society.
So no.

 

[Snowpact]

You have to be born in the US to be President. Bethlehem is not located in the US.

(Not an American, btw, so I wouldn't be eligible to vote anyway).

There is a town or two called Bethlehem in the US.

I would definitely vote for Jesus, once BP opens up another interdimensional gate to a world made out of oil, he could walk to it over water and turn all the mess into wine.

Also, once a hurricane comes a-blowin', he'll just tell it to calm the hell down.

I would love to see that