If Bush was running against Jesus.

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Mike Albrecht, Sep 25, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

  2. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Oh, don't be silly. The Jackson crowd would never let the Dems nominate a Jew.
     
  3. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Bush running against Jesus?

    I'd almost certainly vote for Bush.

    Why?

    First of all, the functions of president and religious teacher (or savior, or whatever Jesus is supposed to have been) are rather different. If being a politician doesn't qualify one to be a religious leader, then I doubt that being a religious leader qualifies one to be a politician.

    Secondly, I fear that the real-life Jesus might turn out to have been a religious fanatic. (Certainly by our contemporary standards, though perhaps not by the standards of Judea in Roman times.) Whenever the Bible speaks of him in his messianic function as ruler, he's referred to as a "king" and his rule imposed on the non-believers by the sword in a series of apocalyptic battles. That has the peculiar smell of jihad to it, a least to my modern non-Christian nose.

    Obviously, a returned Jesus could probably win me over, if he displayed love, tolerance, understanding and proposed supernaturally cool solutions to worldly problems or something.

    But he would have to respect the fundamental principle of democracy. He would have to leave it up to each of us what we think of him. He couldn't just lay down a stark top-down choice of submission or the sword.

    In democracy the electorate judges the candidate. If that relationship is ever reversed, things could get very dangerous very fast.
     
  4. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Of course, Bill, Jesus explicitly rejected any avenue of political or military power for Himself. This made Him incomprehensible to Pilate and a bitter disappointment to Judas Iscariot.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    True and that's why a number of Christian religious groups--Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc., neither vote or serve in the military.
     
  6. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Thus illustrating their defiance of Scripture in Romans 12 and 13, Jesus' non-rebuke of the centurion, etc., etc.

    Neither group is representative of any mainstream strand of Christian opinion, and the sectarianism of the Christadelphians and the--well, what would you call it?--of the J.W.'s has precisely nothing in common with the historic peace churches or pacifist impulses among Roman Catholics and "mainline" Protestants.

    I share your interest in unusual smaller religious groups, Jimmy. There is, however, a problem if you or I make reference to that interest without noting also the non-mainstream character of many of these groups. Since most posters here are not theologically trained (nor need they be!) and many are non-Christian (nor need they be!), it's easy to take a citation of a different little group as far more representative of the general run of Christian opinion than it really is. Mind, you did not claim that--but it's an easy mistake to make if qualifiers/disclaimers are omitted by you or me.
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Your point is well taken. As a matter of fact, I had initially intended to say "Christian denominations" but changed it to "religous groups" for this very reason. I thought of saying "cults" but thought that would be too judgemental.

    Thanks for the concerns about those who are not theologically trained.



     
  8. yak342

    yak342 Member


    Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. They believe in a different Jesus other than the one that is mentioned in the Bible. According to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus was a created being who is a lesser god. The Bible teaches that Jesus was not created. He has always been in existence. Moreover, the Bible says that Jesus is God, not a lesser god.
     
  9. adamsmith

    adamsmith member

    Thus illustrating their defiance of Scripture in Romans 12 and 13, Jesus' non-rebuke of the centurion, etc., etc.

    Neither group is representative of any mainstream strand of Christian opinion, and the sectarianism of the Christadelphians and the--well, what would you call it?--of the J.W.'s has precisely nothing in common with the historic peace churches or pacifist impulses among Roman Catholics and "mainline" Protestants.

    I am still trying to get over this post! I am SURE that uncle must have had his tongue in check in penning this!

    'Historic peace churches or pacifist impulses' of the Catholics and 'mainline' Protestants!!!! Wew...I have just been reading a biography of Cromwell and I yet to see any evidence of pacifism or peace among the brethern at that time, especially as they rolled into Ireland, with John Owen as Cromwell's spiritual advisor!

    I don't see JW pastors blessing warships or armies as they prepare for war or any other 'pacifist' activities such as these.

    The JW's etc may not be mainline, but maybe they are setting a better example by not bending the knee to Bail and fighting politican's wars for them. Watching a recent documentary on how Johnson was sucked into the Vietnam war by his political advisors is but one example of where politics took the front seat to right thinking and non involvement in something that had nothing to do with the US or any other Western power.

    But maybe there is a suggestion that Iraq was a holy war. Some Muslims groups see it as an extension of the Christian 'knights' fighting against the heathen Islamic hordes.
     
  10. adamsmith

    adamsmith member

    Your point is well taken. As a matter of fact, I had initially intended to say "Christian denominations" but changed it to "religous groups" for this very reason. I thought of saying "cults" but thought that would be too judgemental.

    Thanks for the concerns about those who are not theologically trained.


    Ha..ha..Jimmy boy, your tongue was definitely in your cheek! Your humour is appreciated...
     

Share This Page