Would Jesus be a liberal or conservative?

[CrossofChrist]

According to the Bible Jesus did not have any political opinions at all.

“Render unto Caesar…”

The Church has gotten a lot out of that statement when it comes to politics.

 

[triumphguy]

You can’t say that Jesus was a liberal - but you can say he has a preferential option for the poor:

John Paul II:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html

1. The Church does not have technical revolutions to offer for the problem of underdevelopment as such, as Pope Paul VI already affirmed in his Encyclical.69 For the Church does not propose economic and political systems or programs, nor does she show preference for one or the other, provided that human dignity is properly respected and promoted, and provided she herself is allowed the room she needs to exercise her ministry in the world.

… the option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods.

John Paul II
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

Drawing from Mary’s heart, from the depth of her faith expressed in the words of the Magnificat, the Church renews ever more effectively in herself the awareness that the truth about God who saves, the truth about God who is the source of every gift, cannot be separated from the manifestation of his love of preference for the poor and humble, that love which, celebrated in the Magnificat, is later expressed in the words and works of Jesus.

Pope Benedict:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080221_gesuiti_en.html

As I was able to reaffirm to the Latin American Bishops gathered at the Shrine of Aparecida, “the preferential option for the poor is implicit in the Christological faith in the God who became poor for us, so as to enrich us with his poverty (cf. II Cor 8: 9)”. It is therefore natural that those who truly want to be a companion of Jesus really share in his love for the poor. For us, the option for the poor is not ideological but is born from the Gospel.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You can’t say that Jesus was a liberal - but you can say he has a preferential option for the poor:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

The problem is, what does “liberal” really mean? It all depends on your perspective, since all of the following can be considered liberal:

big government
small government
Mixed economy, free market, Communism
Christianity
Atheism
etc etc

Of course, if you asked me Jesus has exactly the same political opinions as me.

 

[triumphguy]

The problem is, what does “liberal” really mean? It all depends on your perspective, since all of the following can be considered liberal:

big government
small government
Mixed economy, free market, Communism
Christianity
Atheism
etc etc

**Of course, if you asked me Jesus has exactly the same political opinions as me. **

You too

 

[Joseph73]

Jesus was a very strong moralist, which puts him firmly into the modern conservative camp, which holds all of the Church’s teachings on abortion, birth control, etc. as opposed to the modern liberal camp which teaches the opposite.

But He would be a very radical, “give to the poor”, blessed are the meek and etc. conservative. He would introduce radical new elements.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

God was only known and only revealed as one God in the OT.

Same God different person.

Jesus Christ was not born until the Old Testament prophets had been dead for hundreds of years.

You think that ONLY the Father acted in the OT? Really? You think that Jesus Christ True God and True Man only came into existence in approximately 4 BC? So where was the SECOND person of the Blessed Trinity until then?

As I said, God is Three Persons in One. In the time of the events spoken in the OT, The Father, Son, and Spirit all acted as ONE. The Second Person, who is Jesus, acted 'as God" in the OT.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jesus is fully human and fully divine.

The Son of God BECAME human at the incarnation.

The Second person of the Trinity was not Jesus until the incarnation.

But the SECOND PERSON of the Trinity still was/is God, and acted (along with the Third Person) along with the First (the Father). The Second Person of the Trinity before His Incarnation is still ‘the same God’. That’s why I was careful to say that the SECOND PERSON of the Trinity (and the Third) were active with the Father prior to the Incarnation. So while God-made-Man (Jesus Christ) did not ‘time travel’ back to Sodom in His Incarnate human/God form, the Second Person of the Trinity did in fact destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. You can’t say that “Jesus” didn’t act as God before His Incarnation because you would be denying His Godhead. You can say that the same Second Person who became incarnate as Christ was fully God both before and after the Incarnation, and acted as such.

 

[triumphguy]

You think that ONLY the Father acted in the OT? Really? You think that Jesus Christ True God and True Man only came into existence in approximately 4 BC? So where was the SECOND person of the Blessed Trinity until then?

As I said, God is Three Persons in One. In the time of the events spoken in the OT, The Father, Son, and Spirit all acted as ONE. The Second Person, who is Jesus, acted 'as God" in the OT.

No Jesus is the Son of God incarnate.

He, Jesus, was not conceived until Mary said “fiat.”

The Son of god, the Word always existed. Jesus did not.

I’m right -(not 'cos I’m right, but because it’s in the creed) think about it.

Anyway the Mod asked us to get back on track.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In conclusion, Jesus did not rain down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore you can’t use this to prove that Jesus was no liberal.

But God did, and Jesus is God. Right?

 

[triumphguy]

Jesus was a very strong moralist, which puts him firmly into the modern conservative camp, which holds all of the Church’s teachings on abortion, birth control, etc. as opposed to the modern liberal camp which teaches the opposite.

But He would be a very radical, “give to the poor”, blessed are the meek and etc. conservative. He would introduce radical new elements.

The strongest moralists I know are inmates in jail.

Morals are merely the choices we make.

Everyone has morals. They might not agree with yours because their ethical basis might differ.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No Jesus is the Son of God incarnate.

He, Jesus, was not conceived until Mary said “fiat.”

The Son of god, the Word always existed. Jesus did not.

I’m right -(not 'cos I’m right, but because it’s in the creed) think about it.

Anyway the Mod asked us to get back on track.

no problem with getting back on track. I think we’re both right if you understand that Jesus was not Jesus Christ like John Smith or Mary Jones. Christ was not His last name, it was His title.

CHRIST (the title, the Messiah) always existed. Jesus (the human nature) came into existence at the incarnation. So Jesus Christ has always existed as the Second Person (Christ) but was born a man (Jesus).

Liberal and conservative are political terms and as King of the Universe I think Jesus transcends politics!

 

[Brendan]

In conclusion, Jesus did not rain down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore you can’t use this to prove that Jesus was no liberal.

So are you saying that the 2nd Person of the Trinity did not rain down fire on S&G, or are you saying that Jesus Christ is not the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

 

[triumphguy]

So are you saying that the 2nd Person of the Trinity did not rain down fire on S&G, or are you saying that Jesus Christ is not the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

Your question falls into the …

Are you saying that half a loaf is better than nothing, nothing is better than heaven, and therefore half a loaf is better than heaven.

…variety.

I’m saying that Jesus the Christ poured no fire down on anyone.

Luke 9:51-56

**Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition **

51 And it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, that he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.
52 And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him.
53 And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem.
54 And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?
55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.
56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.

And as the mods says get back on track we should do so.

 

[The_Walrus_1]

I’m interested in hearing all points of view.

Who goes first?

He was neither. Christianity is not a political party. Truth, beauty and goodness are not Communist or Capitalist. Remember, Our Lord’s third temptation in the desert was the replacement of theology with politics. Instead he chose the cross.

 

[Brendan_64]

By trying to justify our own personal political positions by pigeonholing Jesus as being left or right, conservative or liberal, we are attempting to make Jesus subject to earthly political ideologies. Next we’ll be posing the question, “If Jesus was alive today, which political party would he vote for?”.

Remember, Our Lord’s third temptation in the desert was the replacement of theology with politics. Instead he chose the cross.

That says it all really.

By holding up political ideologies as some sort of part of our core identity, as something good, we are forgetting who offered this temptation to Jesus in the dessert.

 

[The_Walrus_1]

I thought it would be worth reproducing here Peter Kreeft’s “PHONEY” schema that characterizes the decadence addling Catholics today:

P for Politicization

H for Happy-Talk

O for Organizationalism

N for Neo-Worship

E for Egalitarianism

Y for Yuppiedom

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Liberal

 

[The_Walrus_1]

media.screened.com/uploads/0/1572/425389-1691244_not_sure_if_troll_super_super.jpg

 

[triumphguy]

Let’s flip the whole thing upside down:

the closer liberals and conservatives get to being like Jesus the better.

 

[TEPO]

Our Lord’s third temptation in the desert was the replacement of theology with politics. Instead he chose the cross.

…which is why I’m considering dropping my interests in politics and news. I’ll replace one theatre with another -sports. Besides, there is nothing I can do to stop the democrats and republicans from running the U.S. I’ll just let them handle it then.

I wonder what Jesus’ favorite sport would be? .