tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post1140857417955314879..comments2023-05-28T11:33:45.579-04:00Comments on Who Will Lead?: How Would Jesus Vote? Collectivist or Objectivist?Who Will Lead?http://www.blogger.com/profile/03743247788371223606noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-36369492889167386182012-09-13T09:10:24.682-04:002012-09-13T09:10:24.682-04:00Without the fundamental "Right to Life",...Without the fundamental "Right to Life", no others rights can exist. Jesus would vote for the candidate that support this most basic of rights. <br />Posted by David Koch <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-43421335581540406982012-09-12T08:23:31.250-04:002012-09-12T08:23:31.250-04:00Judging him by how the gospel authors Matthew and ...Judging him by how the gospel authors Matthew and Luke described him, Jesus wouldn't vote nor write petitions or take up arms. Jesus would move to the woods, start his own commune and ask his fellow man to join him in non-violent resistance as Gandhi did. It seems that like Gandhi, Jesus was a rebel who fought for justice against a corrupt political and religious system by resisting obedience to their rules and holding on to their own principles instead. So to conclude, my position is that Jesus was a rebel using non-violent resistence who could rightfull be called the Gandhi of his era and region.<br /><br /><br />Matthew 21:12 : " And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves "<br /><br /><br />Matthew 10:34–39 : " Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. "<br /><br /><br />Luke 12:49–53 : " I am come to send fire on Earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. "<br /><br /><br /><br />Now, consider the words of Mahatma Gandhi :<br /><br />" I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life. "<br /><br />" What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? "<br /><br />" An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. "<br /><br />" When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always. "<br /><br />" Hate the sin, love the sinner. "<br /><br />" A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. "<br /><br />" It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. "<br /><br />" A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave. "<br /><br />" I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill. "<br /><br />" Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is. "<br /><br />" I believe that a man is the strongest soldier for daring to die unarmed. "<br /><br />" Let us all be brave enough to die the death of a martyr, but let no one lust for martyrdom. "<br /><br />" Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good. "<br /><br />" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. "<br /><br /><br />See also http://www.theatheistconservative.com/tag/real-jesus-a-rebel-leader/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi . <br />Posted by John Slegers <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-34179415582055320532012-09-12T08:20:50.481-04:002012-09-12T08:20:50.481-04:00@BR. Thanks for your comment. Very well said. @BR. Thanks for your comment. Very well said. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06450950497954468546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-12953279053873734132012-09-12T08:20:01.280-04:002012-09-12T08:20:01.280-04:00I'd say Objectivist. The readings that start w...I'd say Objectivist. The readings that start with the Sermon on the Mount and arrive at Collectivist conclusions seem to be playing fast and loose with context, audience, and purpose, in my opinion.<br />In no imaginable way should any leader argue that mooching from future generations to support contemporary largesse is somehow moral. <br />Posted by Christopher Smith <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-66126185735068146172012-09-12T00:03:47.796-04:002012-09-12T00:03:47.796-04:00Objectivism is much more than you've portrayed...Objectivism is much more than you've portrayed it to be. It's as much about making decisions based on concrete reality as it is about being pro capitalism. It's not really about "self sufficiency" at all, but more about trading with others freely for each contributors beneficence. It's about maximizing your rational long-term self interest. That said, did Jesus ever advocate stealing from one group to give to another? I don't think Jesus would vote for either major party candidate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-29200067520941768802012-09-11T17:01:42.710-04:002012-09-11T17:01:42.710-04:00The problem as I see it is that Jesus does not hav...The problem as I see it is that Jesus does not have a vote or place at the table with the current administration. If he did, then there would be a different agenda. I agree, deciding how Jesus would vote is way above my paygrade, I am pretty sure that he would not vote for what is going in our country right now. <br />Posted by Ken Mayeaux <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-26254326835003534262012-09-11T16:26:55.427-04:002012-09-11T16:26:55.427-04:00Far be it from me to berate anybody for being cyni...Far be it from me to berate anybody for being cynical. My goal in writing the piece was to be a bit provocative. A discussion about collectivism vs. objectivism is a bit too dry even for me. <br /><br />However, the real point I am trying to make is that successful communities blend the collective will with a framework for capitalist success. One without the other does not often succeed. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06450950497954468546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-51830493572972815112012-09-11T16:24:01.263-04:002012-09-11T16:24:01.263-04:00I know I'll get berated for my irreverent cyni...I know I'll get berated for my irreverent cynicism, but I would like to ask, rather than poring over the details of what Jesus may or may not have thought about such-and-such an issue, whether it wouldn't be far more pertinent (and time-efficient) to simply study the subtleties of these political issues in and of themselves as they arise, and then decide based on the merits of the arguments, rather than on an appeal to authority (and merely "plausible" authority at that, since we can only conjecture about Jesus plausible opinions on x, y and z if he didn't actually speak about x, y and z)? <br />Posted by Ewan Neeve <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-57395308678566777282012-09-11T16:08:36.494-04:002012-09-11T16:08:36.494-04:00"Thoughtful. Jesus was interested in souls, s..."Thoughtful. Jesus was interested in souls, soul by soul. However, souls were healed simultaneously by individual commitment to God; and through community in God's grace with others."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-77540906833491462402012-09-11T09:51:24.918-04:002012-09-11T09:51:24.918-04:00Bill
Two responses, one light and one heavy.
Lig...Bill<br /><br />Two responses, one light and one heavy.<br /><br />Light first. I read the NY Times, the WSJ and the Washington Post. I also get newsletters from John Mauldin, Stratfor and PIMCO to say nothing of the other stuff I read all the time. I don’t remember where I found the “circle”. If I was forced to point a finger, I might say it was David Brooks or quotes from Paul Ryan where I got the notion. <br /><br />Now Heavy. In limiting myself to 1000 words or less, the greatest challenge is never the development of the initial concept for the blog. It’s in the re-write. I sometimes find myself on the defensive because I haven’t developed a full exposition of my thinking in a short piece. In one of my re-writes for this piece, I deleted a paragraph where I made mention of Bill Gates, a wealthy successful capitalist who has given away most of his fortune. However, I think I was pretty clear that, in the real world, it’s a marriage of collectivism and objectivism that has proven to work best:<br /><br />“Whether it's a successful capitalist who feels he has a responsibility to his country and his employees or government leaders who achieve real results for their communities, the marriage of objectivism and collectivism works in the 21st Century just as it did for the Mayflower settlement.”<br /><br />Indeed, that was my point.<br /><br />The ideal that Jesus set for mankind has never been achieved in my experience. There may have been monks in a monastery somewhere who achieved something close to it. But, there is no doubt about what is written in the new testament. Jesus did not suggest one should not work to be wealthy. He simply had a different idea than most people about what they should do with their money. <br /><br />JC<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06450950497954468546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1174301114218706899.post-87613994848110957042012-09-11T09:50:45.779-04:002012-09-11T09:50:45.779-04:00John,
Two comments, one light and one heavy.
Lig...John,<br /><br />Two comments, one light and one heavy.<br /><br />Light first. “The battle between Democrats and Republicans has, in some circles, been portrayed as collectivism vs. objectivism.” Please let me know what “circle” has elevated the discussion to that level of intellectualism – it would be refreshing to tune in. I too have had enough.<br /> <br />Now heavy. Your thought process and argument development lead me to conclude that you believe objectivism excludes charity and the “benefit of the community.” I strongly disagree. I believe the correct discussion is does collectivism or objectivism deliver the greatest charity and benefit to the community. Are the residents of our poorest ghettos best served by “…a Christian ethic of hard work and sacrifice…” or by the government’s redistribution of wealth (I’m using the words objectively, not emotionally or politically)? Then add in the concept of charity. Using these concepts for collectivism or objectivism, the Mayflower settlement was not a “…marriage of objectivism and collectivism…”, and your conclusion that “…the marriage of objectivism and collectivism works in the 21st Century…” is not the only path to attain the proper level of “benefit of the community.” I believe that your definitions/assumptions regarding collectivism and objectivism are too narrow.<br /><br />One political anecdote, in addition to 70+% of personal income taxes being paid by conservatives, almost 80% of charitable giving is by conservatives. The “benefit of the community” is alive and well within objectivism.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com