Most right-wing man in history: Ghengis Khan.

 

Most left-wing man in history: Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Discuss.

Most right-wing man in history: Ghengis Khan.

 

Most left-wing man in history: Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Discuss.

 

Ghenghis Khan was a complete statist. Jesus never worked in the public sector a day in his life. Hell, he was a carpenter before there was any such thing as a guild, let alone a union.

Ah, but he advocated a communistic church wherein everyone gives up everything they don't absolutely need to give to the more needy, and he was a pacifist, and sought to demolish all differences between races, nations, and even families.

Ah, but he advocated a communistic church wherein everyone gives up everything they don't absolutely need to give to the more needy, and he was a pacifist, and sought to demolish all differences between races, nations, and even families.

 

Based on faith, not government. It would work with some interpretations of "left" I suppose.

Ah, but he advocated a communistic church wherein everyone gives up everything they don't absolutely need to give to the more needy, and he was a pacifist, and sought to demolish all differences between races, nations, and even families.

 

I don't see how an apostle's vows of poverty and charity, the ideal of civil peace and order, and lawful respect for political institutions of ones parent political affiliations equates with Marxism, pacificism and international liberalism.

Israel was already a welfare state under Mosaic law. Jesus wanted to take it farther, claiming it was essentially impossible for a rich man to get to heaven. But no, I suppose that's not forcing anyone to give up anything. Although it was a claim about Divine law, and directed at the Hebrews, who viewed earthly and Divine law as one and the same.

 

He forbade his followers to defend themselves. That's pacifism.

 

I'm not talking about respect for Roman law. I'm talking about embracing people from all races and nations in an organization that would be infinitely more important than any of those nations or races, or even, in fact, than the biological family.

This was supposed to be a playful thread, so I don't really feel like arguing with partisans and whatnot. Instead, say your own opinions of who you think deserve the titles. Yes, I realize "left" and "right" is a vast, vast oversimplification, and every answer will have problems with it. That's what makes it amusing.

Israel was already a welfare state under Mosaic law.

 

What about a society upholding Jewish law earns it the label "welfare state?"

 

Jesus wanted to take it farther, claiming it was essentially impossible for a rich man to get to heaven.

 

He said it was easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle. Whether or not that's hyperbole is something to dwell on, but considering weath in that day and age was landed perhaps it might be better to interpret "rich man" as "idle wealthy liberal."

 

But no, I suppose that's not forcing anyone to give up anything. Although it was a claim about Divine law, and directed at the Hebrews, who viewed earthly and Divine law as one and the same.

 

Really? When did Jesus ever advocate that his views be encoded into the laws of the state?

 

He forbade his followers to defend themselves. That's pacifism.

 

He forbade his disciples to defend themselves on one particular occasion. How his views on cheeks translate into pacifism requires a leap of imagination I'm not prepared to make.

 

I'm not talking about respect for Roman law. I'm talking about embracing people from all races and nations in an organization that would be infinitely more important than any of those nations or races, or even, in fact, than the biological family.

 

Which I believe is an interpretation you cut out of whole cloth.

So... have you read the Bible?

 

What about a society upholding Jewish law earns it the label "welfare state?"

 

The part about everyone being required to give up enough of their possessions to feed the homeless, widows, orphans, travellers, and recently arrived immigrants.

 

He said it was easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle. Whether or not that's hyperbole is something to dwell on, but considering weath in that day and age was landed perhaps it might be better to interpret "rich man" as "idle wealthy liberal."

 

You're ridiculous.

 

Really? When did Jesus ever advocate that his views be encoded into the laws of the state?

 

He claimed to be interpretting Mosiac Law, which was the law of the state (along with Roman law, of course).

 

He forbade his disciples to defend themselves on one particular occasion. How his views on cheeks translate into pacifism requires a leap of imagination I'm not prepared to make.

 

So were all his other commands only referring to a particular occasion, as well?

 

Which I believe is an interpretation you cut out of whole cloth.

 

How do you figure? He wants his followers to go out to all the gentiles, who should recognize the church as the most important organization. He also says to forsake one's family if they forbid you to follow his ways, because true family is the family of the church.

So... have you read the Bible?

 

Yep.

 

The part about everyone being required to give up enough of their possessions to feed the homeless, widows, orphans, travellers, and recently arrived immigrants.

 

Oh, you mean the part that doesn't exist? I haven't read the invisible chapters of Leviticus yet.

 

You're ridiculous.

 

I'm hilarious. Hill-air-eee-us.

 

He claimed to be interpretting Mosiac Law, which was the law of the state (along with Roman law, of course).

 

He claimed to be fulfilling natural law, which is just the way things are.

 

So were all his other commands only referring to a particular occasion, as well?

 

Who knows? You'd probably want to go through them on a case by case basis--you know, like a thinking man would.

 

How do you figure?

 

Because you made up the bit about Jesus being and international liberal.

 

He wants his followers to go out to all the gentiles, who should recognize the church as the most important organization. He also says to forsake one's family if they forbid you to follow his ways, because true family is the family of the church.

 

Which has squat all to do with politics or national identity.

You're ridiculous.

Avoid ad hominem.

why such un-chilledness with points that have to be forcibly Hammered home, when the Tread title clearly states "Pointless"!?

 

it`s just a bit of Fun for crying out loud.

why such un-chilledness with points that have to be forcibly Hammered home' date=' when the Tread title clearly states "Pointless"!?

 

it`s just a bit of Fun for crying out loud.[/quote']

 

What's more tongue-in-cheek than a full blown debate over an admittedly silly OP?

I'm hilarious. Hill-air-eee-us.

 

You have a point

Most right-wing man in history: Ghengis Khan.

 

Most left-wing man in history: Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Discuss.

 

I think Stalin would be a better fit for the Left.

 

Jesus would be a moderate social conservative, fiscal liberal, IMO.

Sisyphus,

Ah, but he advocated a communistic church wherein everyone gives up everything they don't absolutely need to give to the more needy, and he was a pacifist, and sought to demolish all differences between races, nations, and even families.

Jesus was pinko commie who believed in collective ownership, abolishing the myth of "private property", and redistributing goods "to each according to his need". Acts 4:32-35:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

:D

Sisyphus' date='

 

Jesus was pinko commie who believed in collective ownership, abolishing the myth of "private property", and redistributing goods "to each according to his need".[/quote']

 

1. The passage you linked to references events after Pentecost.

2. How does clerical charity amount to an endorsement of social collectivism.

3. How is "private property" a myth? I'm pretty sure it's real. I think I'm communicating with you via a piece of private property.