Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's an interesting and (in my view) amusing proposition. Recently on PBS I came across a program about religious news, and they were talking about opposing religious viewpoints on the budget cuts.

So here it is:



Opinions?

Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

First things that spring to mind as being gotten rid of are tax cuts for the rich and the war on drugs.

I see this thread going wonderful places and not having any problems whatsoever.

The foreskin?

I think I pretty much agree with the document there.

Ahtman wrote:I see this thread going wonderful places and not having any problems whatsoever.

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

Ahtman can see the futurez!

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Indeed. If he didn't care about politics and/or worldly matters like that the first time, why would he start?

Jesus wouldn't cut, He slings his rocks pure. Dope-fiends everywhere rejoice.

Aid to Israel probably. He didn't seem to have a good relationship with them the first time around.

Jesus cared for the poor and the young, but then there's the whole "give a man a fish" thing later on.

We can't really say what Jesus really would cut because to most people Jesus was omnibenevolent. He also preached giving up worldly goods in favor of spiritual goods so he would probably want the rich, middle class, and poor to give up unnecessary items and not just the rich.

So Jesus would really be in favor of an equally poor people who received care. Everyone would be fed, treated, and taught but they would all be poor. Kind of like communism but with Jesus instead of Karl Marx.

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

malfred wrote:

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

Jesus would cut wood, he was a carpenter.

malfred wrote:

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

Aww shucks, I feel bad now.

To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

I think that they're counting on religious folks to influence their government according to the teachings of the bible. But overall I think everyone can get behind the fact that Jesus was a grassroots fellow and not into the whole government thing.

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Indeed. If he didn't care about politics and/or worldly matters like that the first time, why would he start?

That's debatable. He wouldn't necessarily care for politics, but for worldly matters he did purportedly care about the suffering of others.

halonachos wrote:

malfred wrote:

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

Jesus would cut wood, he was a carpenter.

Actually the word interpreted as carpenter can mean any kind of construction. He could have been a mason.

Melissia wrote:It's an interesting and (in my view) amusing proposition. Recently on PBS I came across a program about religious news, and they were talking about opposing religious viewpoints on the budget cuts.

How is this amusing? I certainly agree that it's interesting, but intrusive social programs are not really compatible with the idea of a limited government.

Since these programs were instituted based on a Christian worldview, does their continued existence (in your opinion) violate the establishment clause? I don't think I should have to pay for (by way of example only) Hijab factories to encourage women to dress decently. Does it matter if it's a non-secular establishment enacted for a secular purpose?

Melissia wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Indeed. If he didn't care about politics and/or worldly matters like that the first time, why would he start?

That's debatable. He wouldn't necessarily care for politics, but for worldly matters he did purportedly care about the suffering of others.

Which he took more as a spiritual matter than worldly, as he believed that you can't eliminate suffering or poverty from the world.

halonachos wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

I think that they're counting on religious folks to influence their government according to the teachings of the bible. But overall I think everyone can get behind the fact that Jesus was a grassroots fellow and not into the whole government thing.

Yeah but they are asking them to influence it in a way that I don’t think is very Christian. I have some pretty strong opinions this but I don’t think the church should rely on the government to do the church’s work. That’s more or less the vibe I get off this thing. I would consider myself one of the people they are trying to target and it turns me off. But I may be in the minority.

I always thought that trying to use the government to do your church's work was the wrong way to go.

If you were out trying to influence people on a personal level, like Jesus did and said that we're supposed to, the Government would eventually be changed by virtue of the people in it and voting for it have a Christian world view. As stated above, using the government to force feed people a religion isn't going to be warmly received.

That said, I think some people are a little extreme saying that they don't like poor people being taken care of if it's being done with a religious motivation.

If Christians want to lobby government to do foreign aid and social progammes they think are in keeping with their values, that is their democratic right.

The mixing of Christian principles and government is not a new thing anyway.

President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I think he would be too busy making millions endorsing products.

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Its all George Bush's fault!!!!

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Except for how it [abstinence sex education] doesn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its all George Bush's fault!!!!

That's just silly. It's all George W. Bush's fault!

Monster Rain wrote:But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Even without value judgments you are still least likely to get abstinence as a reality. Sexual urges are a part of our human nature. It is what drives us to procreate, a fairly primal and powerful instinct. You will never get most people not to have sex. Hell, saying abstinence is better than mature, informed sexuality is a value judgment. You can't even live up to your own criteria.

Ahtman wrote:Hell, saying abstinence is better than mature, informed sexuality is a value judgment. You can't even live up to your own criteria.

Even with mature, informed sexuality you still have a higher chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease than you do by practicing abstinence.

It might be a minute chance but it's still there. It's a fact, man. Maybe I should have said "moral" value judgment or something similar in the Pedantry Zone. Also, I wasn't talking about what was most likely to happen, I was talking about what is actually the most effective.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Except for how it [abstinence sex education] doesn't work.

That's debatable.

Either way, I wasn't talking about what would work I was talking about what is actually more effective.