Neither. He was a moderate.
2007-04-30 12:05:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Liberal City 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The war in Iraq- Not sure, I don't consider it a war I consider it self defence which he teaches is not good but national self defence against evil might be condoned
Against - Abortion - That's a no brainer
Against - Social Security- It devides the family and is funded by stolen money.
For- Immigration- People coming to an area of freedon and Christianity from out of the wilderness of oppression ... of course
For- Drug Policy- if you mean he would condone the state criminalizing drugs
Against - The current corruption of the justice department and the EPA etc.Dishonesty in any form, of course he would be against it
Against- Global Warming and the Environmental movement. -Global warming is a myth it's cause by a natural ebb and flow of temperature cycles and has nothign to do with man. it's made by God
Not sure - Globalizationwhat part of globalization?
For- Guns. defence of ones family only
For- Human health. -Not the theft of money to support the government providing it.
For - Literacy - Jewish tradition has always been toward more education and learning
For- Nuclear technology? Like any tool it can be used but it makes life easier and allows more time for the devotion to things that are good
These are just some issues..
Would you concider Jesus a democrat or a republican? -More of a Republican,
Why? -Republicans promote high moral value and freedom with responsibilty for ones own actions. democrats stand for all that which is immoral:drugs, abortion, theft, hatred and envy.
2007-04-30 12:25:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Homeschool produces winners 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
He would probably be neither... Some issues he would be a liberal, some issues he would be a conservatives. He was clearly anti-establishment (e.g. the Sanhedrin)
The war in Iraq - against
- Abortion - against.
- Social Security - probably for
- Immigration - for
- Drug Policy - who knows...
- The current corruption of the justice department and the EPA etc. - against of course.
- Global Warming and the Environmental movement - who knows, probably for the environment.
- Globalization - who knows.. for I suppose.
- Guns - against -- he was all about peace and love
- Human health - for, who's against human health anyway?
- Literacy - for of course, who's against literacy anyway?
- Nuclear technology? - who knows-- nuke tech is not a moral issue.
God helps those who help themselves-- conservative
The Beatitudes - liberal
Loaves and Fishes - liberal
Healing the sick, embracing of those who society hated-- liberal.
Render to Ceser that which is Cesars, render to God that which is God's.... Clearly separating political from religion.
2007-04-30 12:15:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by dapixelator 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I do not desire to second guess the Almighty. Anyone who does must have an huge ego. Since there are over 500 different Christian denominations existing because of disagreements do you seriously think there would be any kind of consensus on what the Lord would say or how He would think about issues of today. He rarely commented on the workings of the Roman Empire of his own time so why would He be especially interested in today?
2007-04-30 12:09:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus is Lord.
He is apolitical, because he is King of Kings.
If you look in the Bible at Matthew 5:3-12 and Matthew 25:40 you will have an answer to all of those questions.
2007-04-30 12:13:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Me ponders that:
Jesus would despair of all political parties in all parts of the world.
He would then go about collecting followers and setup a new political party, open to all of mankind sinners or not and set about saving the human race yet again.
2007-04-30 12:18:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus would be independent.
I know he wouldn't be happy with many in the Republican party, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in particular.
2007-04-30 12:13:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by brian2412 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
He would probably say: "to hell with politics".
Jesus would never be a Democrat since the Democrats hate Christians.
I'm sure he wouldn't kill little babies by abortion.
"Jesus cast the Liberals to the Swine. The Liberals contaminated the Swine, and Jesus therefor Forbid The Eating Of Pork"
Socialists have murdered approximately 100,000,000 people since 1917.
I don't think Jesus would be a drum-beating Socialist.
2007-04-30 12:07:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by wolf 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Read and understand.
2007-04-30 12:16:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus would be apolitical.... he said "..render unto Cesar..." Politics wasn't the reason He came here. But if one follows the principals of His teachings the answers to your question would be clear.
2007-04-30 12:09:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by lordkelvin 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Jesus did not concern himself with politics or government and I think you know where he would stand on all of these issues. he taught people to be respectful to the government but to not serve them in the way that you would serve God. give back Cesar's things to Cesar's, paraphrasing his stance on taxes.
2007-04-30 12:13:28
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋