Political Fun Fact: Jesus was a Liberal, Satan Set to Endorse Mitt Romney Any Day Now

Apr 25, 2012 3 Comments by Phlip

This post is not to get into the semantics of whether or not your choice is to believe that he was or not a historical figure or to incite argument as to whether he was a created fable constructed to try to teach an immoral people to not be immoral. I am more than accepting of the possibility of your choice to believe as others do, and would thankfully ask that you please miss me with that discussion today. Now, the other day, I asked on FaceBook and Twitter the following question: “Eve[r] wonder what if Jesus existed in the same context as before, but in today’s political climate? How would world leaders receive him?” The responses I got were all of similar tenor; that he would have been handled similarly to the way he was the first time around.

Of course, in 2012 (most) governments don’t just sentence a dude to death, but something similarly life-ruining for the current day would be in order. Naturally, an “accidental” murder could surely take place, but we will not go there today.

Reading the responses I did get, and knowing what I know from having actually read my bible (specifically the new testament for the sake of this post), I arrived to the conclusion that Jesus was a Liberal. I don’t care how much that last sentence will anger my Conservative friends who live to paint Jesus and their relationship with him into a role that is immediately struck as untrue if only one ACTUALLY reads what is said to have transpired in the Bible. Walk with me, here…

Let us assess the company that Jesus was known to keep. He spent time with those in need; the poor, sick, immoral and otherwise downtrodden. He helped those in need, healing the sick, giving some semblance of hope to the hopeless and feeding the poor. He interacted directly with the scourge of humanity – in fact seeking out that element – and spent his time with them, bringing a select grouping along with him on his journeys. What he did NOT do, however, was JUDGE them.

He fed the hungry; he didn’t step over him shaking his head over bad decisions that may have them penniless. He healed the sick; he didn’t turn his nose up at them telling them that their sickness was some fault of their own. I don’t recall at any point in my bible reading that “God hates fags,” especially not at any statements purportedly made by Jesus. Intolerance? Didn’t he bring someone we’re to understand was a harlot into his fold? Yeah, who are WE to judge?

Funny, the story I was taught as a child and up through adulthood was one of love, charity and generally taking care of our fellow man without judgment for what they do that we may or may not agree with personally. Judgment (or nothing at all, dependent upon what you believe) will be handled by the Supreme Being waiting at the end of the line, so let Him/Her/It handle that.
These are all VERY liberal ideals, aren’t they?

The long-and-short of it can be summed up in one image:

What Jesus WAS, however, against, was the use of God’s name as a controlling factor in the furthering of a very much for-profit situation that intermingled the “churches” of the time and the political arena. His actions against it and his “radical” message were apparently a problem and stood in the way of the more important bringing of people together to attempt to love one another without judgment and in peace. Well, apparently his Liberal agenda was not profitable to the “1%” of 2000ish years ago, so he was fasttracked through the system and quickly put to death to be gotten out of the way.

Which brings me back to 2012…

If Jesus, in his original context but adjusted for 2012 applicability, existed these days, he would be labeled a “Marxist,” a “Liberal Extremist” and demonized as a “socialist” and would be categorically treated like a terrorist because of his skin color – provided his locality – and would be quickly shunned for the actuality of his message just not being profitable.

Again, I am not here to change anyone’s beliefs, so those who choose not to can take the story as presented and intended, and the outcome would be the same. In about 30something A.D., Jesus was falsely accused, tried and sentenced to death for views that were simply “Too Liberal” for the higher-ups of his time, and nothing about how the world is nowadays suggests to me that the outcome would be any different, contrary to the ironic statements of ANYONE who seem to use his name for their own gain.

Sometimes I genuinely wonder if my buddy Rick Santorum or any of his ilk REALLY understand the story of the man they claim to have this intimate understanding of despite actions directly contrary to his own. You won’t ever catch the type of person guilty of this admitting it, but the fact(s) of the matter at hand present it that Jesus himself was a Liberal and was crucified for it.

No related content found.

Barack Obama, Democrats, Politics, Religion, Republicans, Tea Party

Phlip

About the author

32 years of age, Greensboro NC resident and father of one. Blogger at callmephlip.blogspot.com NBA contributor at thetonygrands.com If I knew what else to put here, it would be a lot more interesting than it has been thus far or will be.

http://twitter.com/BAdetiba Bab W. Adetiba

As a pastor’s child and a libertarian, I am forced to comment on this post…especially b/c I don’t agree. I only have a comment on the ‘caring for the poor’ part and you should get my drift on the other topics too.

Yes, Jesus was a liberal in a sense b/c he was forward thinking and wanted change but not a liberal in the contemporary, political sense.

This post assumes conservatives don’t care for the poor, are strictly friends with the wealthy, pass judgement, and etc., which is embarrassingly incorrect.

Libs and cons both care for the poor but have different ways of helping them. Libs want to extract from the wealthy and give to the poor; cons want to create a condition–job friendly or “pro-growth” environment like low taxes and regulations–whereby they can work for themselves.

Furthermore, Jesus did not go to Herod the Great to create programs or raise taxes to fix the various problems you mentioned. That is the fundamental difference between the two sides.

I’d like a reply. Thank you.

Phlip

As a pastor’s kid and libertarian, I might expect that one would not agree that the words “Jesus” and “Liberal” being used together in a manner that suggests any familiarity.However, the proof is in the pudding, and the fact that remains that the message we were presented of who and what Jesus was is NOT what so-called Reagan Conservatives would have us believe, and in fact often paints Christians in a bad light far too often. For example, look at those Hawking Amendment One in NC the hardest. Look at nearly EVERYTHING Santorum opens his mouth to murder the separation of church and state.
I never at any point said or suggested that Jesus wanted to implement a “tax,” but that he was never the one to carry on in the manner that those who most loudly tout his name do nowadays – most severely being the judgment passed on others – and I can understand the desire to paint your guy as being on your team, even if that happens to not be a 100% truth, but I am not one to sit by idly and let people do that.

http://twitter.com/BAdetiba Bab W. Adetiba

You are referring to personalities like Santorum, Gingrich and other social conservatives; I am referring to conservatism as the principle. Jesus would not have approached King Herod to further his values–like liberals and conservatives do–and forced the citizenry thru govt to care for the poor or etc. He would have–and did–take it upon himself to live a life others can imitate. See the difference there?