Colbert nails it. What else is new.

[CBWx2]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/368914/december-16-2010/jesus-is-a-liberal-democrat?xrs=share_copy

[dalbuc]

Dear god is this guy still on the air being unfunny?

[Morgan]

Colbert isn't funny, imo.  Jon Stewart is.

[dalbuc]

Colbert isn't funny, imo.  Jon Stewart is.

Never much liked Stewart either. I can handle snark but he's just not funny doing it.

[John Galt?]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

[CBWx2]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

I think the point is that if you are going to govern under the notion that we are a Christian nation then you should govern by all of the implications of that. Putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses or having kids say "one nation under God" in classrooms, or saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holiday's, or declaring Christianity as a national religion are all things that bring about no actual change. They don't help the poor, sick, or needy. Jesus' whole gospel was based on the premise that actions mean more than symbolic gestures. If the government is going to be in the business of governing by the Bible, then they should actually do that, and what that means is that you don't favor tax cuts for the rich over social programs that help the poor.

I didn't take it as being about taxation or big government JG?. I took it as being about admitting the true nature of your agenda. Don't hide behind the Bible on social issues and then act contrary to it's teachings on fiscal issues.

[OneTruth]

Jesus also stated "My kingdom is not part of this world ... if it were then my disciples would have fought so that I would not be captured." This was said when Peter attacked with the sword to fight physically...the army.
Money is of men - it has nothing to do with heaven or the kingdom of heaven. It is a man's number...

[Morgan]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

I think the point is that if you are going to govern under the notion that we are a Christian nation then you should govern by all of the implications of that. Putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses or having kids say "one nation under God" in classrooms, or saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holiday's, or declaring Christianity as a national religion are all things that bring about no actual change. They don't help the poor, sick, or needy. Jesus' whole gospel was based on the premise that actions mean more than symbolic gestures. If the government is going to be in the business of governing by the Bible, then they should actually do that, and what that means is that you don't favor tax cuts for the rich over social programs that help the poor.

I didn't take it as being about taxation or big government JG?. I took it as being about admitting the true nature of your agenda. Don't hide behind the Bible on social issues and then act contrary to it's teachings on fiscal issues.

Outstanding/interesting comment.

[Biggs3535]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

Well, that's an easy one - he didn't say that.  As much as the Social Justice crowd is trying to turn it into a Big Government march, that isn't what it's about.

[John Galt?]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

I think the point is that if you are going to govern under the notion that we are a Christian nation then you should govern by all of the implications of that. Putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses or having kids say "one nation under God" in classrooms, or saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holiday's, or declaring Christianity as a national religion are all things that bring about no actual change. They don't help the poor, sick, or needy. Jesus' whole gospel was based on the premise that actions mean more than symbolic gestures. If the government is going to be in the business of governing by the Bible, then they should actually do that, and what that means is that you don't favor tax cuts for the rich over social programs that help the poor.

I didn't take it as being about taxation or big government JG?. I took it as being about admitting the true nature of your agenda. Don't hide behind the Bible on social issues and then act contrary to it's teachings on fiscal issues.

My point was Jesus's message was that one should choose to help the less fortunate. That one should willingly give. Everything about Christianity is about "choice" and "freewill". Giving at the point of a gun is NOT charity, it is robbery. A truly Christian nation (which is irrelevant to the US, per 1st Amendment) would encourage charity, but would also realize that if it is mandated or forced, it loses all meaning. In fact, the very notion of a "Christian Nation" is flawed and heretical. The only way anything can become Christian is if he/she/it chooses to freely and without duress accept Christ. For a Nation to be Christian, it would have to be composed entirely of people that freely chose Christianity without one single abstention or exception.

[spartan]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

I think the point is that if you are going to govern under the notion that we are a Christian nation then you should govern by all of the implications of that. Putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses or having kids say "one nation under God" in classrooms, or saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holiday's, or declaring Christianity as a national religion are all things that bring about no actual change. They don't help the poor, sick, or needy. Jesus' whole gospel was based on the premise that actions mean more than symbolic gestures. If the government is going to be in the business of governing by the Bible, then they should actually do that, and what that means is that you don't favor tax cuts for the rich over social programs that help the poor.

I didn't take it as being about taxation or big government JG?. I took it as being about admitting the true nature of your agenda. Don't hide behind the Bible on social issues and then act contrary to it's teachings on fiscal issues.

You forget one thing. Jesus preached charity but railed against the Govt of the time. The Pharisees and Saducees. He called them hypocrites and giving lip service to the word of God. Kinda sounds familiar does it not?

[alldaway]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

I think the point is that if you are going to govern under the notion that we are a Christian nation then you should govern by all of the implications of that. Putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses or having kids say "one nation under God" in classrooms, or saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holiday's, or declaring Christianity as a national religion are all things that bring about no actual change. They don't help the poor, sick, or needy. Jesus' whole gospel was based on the premise that actions mean more than symbolic gestures. If the government is going to be in the business of governing by the Bible, then they should actually do that, and what that means is that you don't favor tax cuts for the rich over social programs that help the poor.

I didn't take it as being about taxation or big government JG?. I took it as being about admitting the true nature of your agenda. Don't hide behind the Bible on social issues and then act contrary to it's teachings on fiscal issues.

You forget one thing. Jesus preached charity but railed against the Govt of the time. The Pharisees and Saducees. He called them hypocrites and giving lip service to the word of God. Kinda sounds familiar does it not?

No.

Jesus Christ was apolitical for the most part where he believed the rich should distribute their wealth to their poor.  Sounds familiar?

[dalbuc]

I don't think there's anything that would constitute a distinct political theory in the Bible but of everyone here JG is the closet to what is in the text as opposed to simplistic reading of "help the poor" that had no relationship to the modern 21st century welfare state that a 1st century carpenter would have no concept of.

[CBWx2]

Maybe I am missing something but where did Jesus say we "thou shalt have thy funds confiscated by a government and redistributed to the poor. And that government shall determine who be-ith  poor and who's funds shalt get-ith confiscated by means of an intractable bureaucracy setting guidelines based on irresponsible behavior and arbitrary levels"?

I think the point is that if you are going to govern under the notion that we are a Christian nation then you should govern by all of the implications of that. Putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses or having kids say "one nation under God" in classrooms, or saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holiday's, or declaring Christianity as a national religion are all things that bring about no actual change. They don't help the poor, sick, or needy. Jesus' whole gospel was based on the premise that actions mean more than symbolic gestures. If the government is going to be in the business of governing by the Bible, then they should actually do that, and what that means is that you don't favor tax cuts for the rich over social programs that help the poor.

I didn't take it as being about taxation or big government JG?. I took it as being about admitting the true nature of your agenda. Don't hide behind the Bible on social issues and then act contrary to it's teachings on fiscal issues.

You forget one thing. Jesus preached charity but railed against the Govt of the time. The Pharisees and Saducees. He called them hypocrites and giving lip service to the word of God. Kinda sounds familiar does it not?

There is evidence that Jesus himself was a Pharasee, so his real dispute was the Saducees, who were the elite, or upper-class, so to speak. The entire New Testament is basically a doctrine designed to oppose the Saducee and their political and religious structure.

His words against the Pharasee, however, were not against all of them, just a segment of them. Jesus was believed to be from the School of Hillel, which differed philosophically with the School of Shammai, namely on the subject of gentiles. The Hillel believed that gentiles deserved to hear the word of God and be converted, the Shammai believed that they did not. Jesus was a member of the "liberal wing" of the Pharisee party, so to speak.

[OneTruth]

how could he be a Saducee when they do not believe in angels, spirits, or heaven?
On the other hand...Pharasee believe them all
Of course SINCE Jesus came from heaven AND was around long before this world was created...He would favor the Pharsees ideological concepts.