Applying Jesus to the context of today, what political leaning would he be ?

Applying Jesus to the context of today, what political leaning would he be ?

Jesus didn't really care about politics because politics deal with how the world functions, and Jesus, though he loves the world, and wants it all to follow him, said many are called, few are chosen. Most people don't listen. He's not concerned with those people, at least not in this age.

numale leftycuck ass Jay or whatever the kids say these days

My ideology. He would also fight for my country and advocate for my nations, and my nations alone, best interests.

Lulz

Honestly in American politics (which is the only one I really can speak to), he'd likely be a mix of libertarian (only in the sense that churches need to get off their asses and help the poor and widows so that governmental social services don't need to exist) and fairly moderate (in the need to pay taxes on time and to follow laws). So mostly just go with the rules and do as much good as you can.
He'd probably have a lot more to say about megachurches, "prosperity gospel" assholes, and the mishandling of the sex abuse scandal with the Catholics. He'd probably affix every millstone personally

Anarcho-communism.

(((Pacifist)))

> And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

> And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.

But that's not political. That's among Christians. Even if Christ said you should not have possessions in a private way, and they should be common, he didn't advocate a political system over the whole nation establishing that.

You could argue that he wouldn't even be concerned about politics as it's 'of this world' and all that

My kingdom is not of this world

After you sell your possessions, don't forget to buy your sword.

Most importantly he didn't advocate theft.

He'd probably be a communist.
I'm not even kidding.

Communism is a law, punishable by death if disobeyed.

What you see from Christ in the new testament is a complete throwing away of the world. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, because why get into a conflict? Just give the baby his pacifier (money), everyone knows the Caesars of old and the modern Caesars will throw a tantrum if you don't give them their pacifiers.

As for His teachings on life, He was simply telling people, you may not know it, but you're loved, so have faith that you are loved. And once you allow God to show you that you're loved, you will realize that you have no reason to fear lack. No reason to fear a lack of home, money, clothes or food, because your daily needs will be taken care of.

So among the strongest in this faith, they had no problem sharing. They hand over their warm clothing, maybe their favorite t-shirt...and in their heads, they aren't worrying about if it's going to get ruined, if it's going to be returned to them, they're beyond that attachment. They have no reason to worry about their belongings.

Takes time to develop this ability to see into the eternal and lose your fear of time and fear of lack. Fear of losing time etc etc.

Which is why Christ was sent to begin with. God knows how hard it is to live in the darkness which is the cause of the constant state of question asking due to the inability to see beyond that darkness. There's a reason why the darkness is synonymous with ignorance throughout that book.

To the unwise, they'll see the darkness and think anything is possible, its all just a random mistake, good could be bad, bad could be good, the universe has no plan, its all organized chaos, nothing matters, you can do anything you want...all that anxiety and confusion caused by that darkness and ignorance of knowing the truth of everything.

That's why Christ was sent.

Only good post itt

Unironically post-scarcity gommunism.

>[COLAPSE]

Thank you.

Anarcho-pacifist

youre welcome user

>selling
Into gulag

>tfw you will never be a medieval Waldensian poorfag hiding in the mountains

He'd be an itinerant street preacher wandering from town to town telling people to repent because the end of the world is nigh. Economics and politics are irrelevant to his message.

Theocracy

I don't really think that this works. The idea I have in my head is that Jesus wasn't about politics.

So I suppose he'd be something of an anarchist, but the responsible kind. Rather than firebombing our local centers of government I'd imagine he'd encourage us to make them unnecessary by living responsibly and taking care of each other unconditionally.

>And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

Yeah, no.

>Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar

He told his fellow Jews to pay their taxes to the Romans

Sounds pretty communist

>he drove them out of the temple
>out of the temple
>the temple

Not the land, not the nation, not the country, not Rome...but the temple.

There's a difference between maintaining the integrity of the temple and causing anarchy in the nation.

The Temple was literally the center of Jewish government. Do you forget that the Jews had their own "king" and were largely self-governed under the Romans?

Jesus drove out the moneychangers not because moneychanging is evil but because using the temple for commerce is disrespectful / sacrilegious. Given that the temple is now gone, there's no reason to think Jesus would have any animus towards modern-day moneychangers (bankers) beyond his general "give up everything you own and follow me if you want to live (forever)" schtick.

I hear what you're saying but you're forgetting the original purpose of the temple, which is why Christ was offended. He literally stated to remove the markets from the temple, not the entire land. Just His Fathers house.

But that's not what you said.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not the very first user you replied to.

What I was saying was Jesus was focused on removing the market and money changing from the temple alone, not the entire land. Just the temple. That there's a difference between causing anarchy and maintaining the integrity of the temple.

Monarchist/Theocrat. The people of his time, New and Roman, wasted a lot of time trying to place some form of political mantle onto his shoulders for one self-serving reason or another. But I think the Kingdom of God (and how people might enter it) was his true focus. The only political ideology that would set things right is the kind that put his father, and his commandments, in the forefront. And even then, it's God putting things right, not the correctly arranged hierarchy of men.

>i fulfil so u dont haf 2 oby hlf teh comendments bb
>lelelelelel