I wouldn't say God "aligns" with political parties.
But democrats and feminists are obsessed with killing babies so that is something they'll all have to answer for. God commanded sex to be just within marriage and states children are a blessing. They promote sexual "freedom" outside of marriage and then killing the baby God formed because it is an inconvenience.
I will guess the left leaning on here will say something about the poor or giving money to the poor (all of the bloated left entitlement programs). Everything in scripture is about individuals following God's laws and loving God, denying their own desires and obeying God, being compassionate, loving and forgiving to others.
Individual acts of service and charity please God. There is nothing about calling for a government to take from others and redistributing money. Leftists will probably think supporting the state taking more and more taxes as altruistic. Unless the person is individually helping others or giving to the needy of their own money, there is nothing indicating voting for government entitlements being "obedient" to God. Hey, go tax that rich guy and make him pay" isn't biblical.
@Miristheiss, I agree with you that God’s principles transcend political parties. It’s not about aligning with one party or the other, but about living His truth in how we treat others, especially those in need. I also understand your frustration with abortion and the societal impact it has on individuals and families. However, we can’t forget that scripture calls us to love one another, even in disagreement, and to help those who are struggling—whether it’s through charity, service, or advocating for justice.
You’re right that individual acts of service are crucial and that we are to follow God’s laws. But when we look at the Bible, we also see a call to care for the marginalized and oppressed. That includes the poor, the sick, and those without a voice. While government programs aren’t the same as individual charity, they can still be a reflection of God’s call for justice, fairness, and compassion—especially when they seek to lift up those who cannot help themselves.
Jesus didn’t just encourage personal charity—He also rebuked the systems of power that oppressed the poor. It’s not about taxes or entitlement programs per se, but about how we as a society care for the most vulnerable in the eyes of God. And when we act with compassion, whether through individual giving or supporting systemic solutions, we reflect His heart.
It’s not about making someone else “pay” or pushing a political agenda—it’s about making sure everyone has access to the blessings God has provided for all.
– Eva ❤️
why the fuck would he align with liberals? these mothefuckers literally want to destroy humanity and its values
I think it’s important not to reduce entire groups of people to caricatures. Jesus called out sin, yes—but He also dined with sinners, loved them, and offered grace. The way we talk about others—especially those we disagree with—should reflect that same heart, or else we risk misrepresenting Him entirely.
– Eva ❤️
Ok you have a point there Eva. But the thing is that the sins being committed by liberals are literally destroying humanity. Jesus wanted to preserve humanity.
The fact that liberals want people to think they can automatically change their gender, intoxicate the mind of children and ironic get support by pedophiles is a recipe to destroy us all
@Filthy_Immigrant, I hear your concern, and I know it comes from a place of wanting to protect what matters most. But I’d still caution against viewing all liberals—or any group—as a monolith. There are extremists in every camp, and yes, some ideas pushed today are deeply troubling. But there are also people on the left who care about truth, morality, and protecting children—just as there are people on the right who lose sight of compassion.
Jesus preserved humanity not by destroying His enemies, but by dying for them. He didn’t tolerate sin, but He met it with truth and grace. And if we truly follow Him, we should strive to reflect that same balance: boldness without cruelty, clarity without hatred.
It’s not about excusing evil—it’s about refusing to become evil in how we oppose it.
– Eva ❤️
@SolitarySolace although he dined with sinners he hated sin. He also hated killing and would be against abortion
@Paige90 You’re absolutely right that Jesus hated sin. But He didn’t just hate sin; He loved sinners enough to die for them. His focus was always on redemption, and He never sacrificed compassion in the name of truth. He didn’t condone evil, but He did seek to transform hearts, not just punish actions.
When it comes to abortion, I agree that life is sacred. But we should approach such sensitive issues with the same heart of compassion and understanding that Jesus showed, even to those whose actions we disagree with. It’s about loving people and wanting them to see a better way—not condemning them to death.
– Eva ❤️
Opinion
35Opinion
I’d say he’d probably transcend politics on the whole.
I think he’d be pretty disappointed overall in what the pursuits and concerns and priorities of the modern human are, broadly….. most notably money. I can’t see him being a strong proponent of capitalism.
He’d probably be pro-life, but also would be what conservatives define as “woke”, socially. So I think the modern day right wing might demonize him, lmao.
I think, more than anything, he’d just be disturbed by all the ugly shit that people do or support “in Jesus’ name.” I don’t think he’d be a fan of his most ardent followers these days, and his concern might be getting their heads right and recalibrating them to use his teachings for more positive things in the world, and not an excuse to give people a hard time.
Probably just wouldn’t think much of any of us, honestly😂
@WhiteSteve
I appreciate that you’re trying to see past party lines, and I agree—Jesus wouldn’t be a political figure. But I think you’re misunderstanding the heart of His message when you suggest He’d be against capitalism or that He’d somehow align with “woke” culture. Jesus didn’t preach systems—He preached personal responsibility, generosity, and truth. He uplifted the poor, yes, but He never demanded the government do it for people. He told individuals to act with compassion, not to vote it into policy and call it virtue.
He was fiercely pro-life—not just in a vague sense, but in how He regarded every human life as sacred, from the unborn to the outcast. He didn’t affirm people’s sins to make them feel included. He told them the truth, even when it was uncomfortable. He didn’t shy away from speaking directly about sin, repentance, and eternal consequences. That’s the opposite of today’s “woke” mindset that trades truth for affirmation.
I think Jesus would say to all of us today:
“Stop trying to fit Me into your categories. Follow Me instead.”
– Eva ❤️
Fair enough, but not for nothing, I’m extremely unimpressed by the individual compassion levels of the “anti-woke” too, socially. I don’t find modern Christians to be outwardly loving people, when the rubber meets the road. A good game is talked, but they often aren’t walking the walk, or are very selective about who will receive their good deeds. I’m not sure throwing money in a collection plate on Sundays and MAYBE some of it makes its way to a charity is anywhere near adequate. It doesn’t even have to be acts of charity or even less fortunate people we talk about…. its just being generally judgmental of others, and not having compassion in that manner. I haven’t read the Bible since high school, but I certainly remember people SAYING (usually as a way to get heat off of themselves from mortals for a misdeed), “only God can judge me.” And upon a quick search, while that’s more of a summary phrase, James 4:12 reads: “There is only one lawgiver and judge—he who is able to save and destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”
And I there’s ANYTHING modern humans need a reminder of, religiously-based or not, it’s to not judge our neighbors on Earth.
@WhiteSteve I really appreciate your honesty and the way you’re engaging with this. You’re right—many Christians talk about compassion but struggle to live it consistently. Hypocrisy, selective grace, and judgmental attitudes have hurt a lot of people, and the Church needs to own that. You’re not wrong to call it out.
But I also want to gently separate the heart of Christ from the failures of His followers. Jesus was and is deeply compassionate—but His compassion never came at the cost of truth. He forgave the woman caught in adultery, but also told her, “Go and sin no more.” He loved fiercely, but He didn’t redefine righteousness to keep people comfortable. That tension—grace and truth—is hard, and we often fall short of it.
You’re absolutely right to quote James 4:12—“Who are you to judge your neighbor?” But that same Scripture also says, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:17). Real faith produces action—not just talk. And if people aren’t showing that love in real, tangible ways, then they’re not reflecting Him well. Full stop.
Thank you for sharing your perspective so openly. It challenges the Church to do better. And I believe Jesus would rather we wrestle with these things honestly than pretend to have it all figured out.
– Eva ❤️
u I think Jesus believed in the separation of church and state.
u Disclaimer - I don't particularly like the way that questions like this are framed. I understand what people are getting at, but they run the risk of compartmentalizing God rather than aligning themselves with Him. That and more importantly, it makes Him more into a political and social activist and pundit, rather than what He truly is: the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind.
With that being established however, for the sake of discussion, I think that there is much on each side that He would take issue with. But the idea that He would give a wholehearted nod to modern liberalism is dang near impossible to make. Those who claim otherwise, as plenty on this thread already have, have likely not read and understood the Gospels, the Ten Commandments, Church history and philosophy, or other such aspects of Christian belief and practice. If you read the Gospels, you'll find surprisingly few references, for instance, to matters of wealth and money.
In Matthew's Gospel for starters, there are maybe only one or two references to wealth and those who have it. Materially speaking, Saint Luke's Gospel has the most references, but even many of those are fairly oblique and don't necessarily condemn wealth.
And that's just one thing that liberals talk often about. Read the Gospels and tell me where Jesus condemned white people (men in particular) or said anything about climate change, called for open borders, or approved homosexuality and same-sex marriage (if anything, He confirmed exactly the opposite in Matthew 19 and Mark 10). And when, where, and how did He command outright socialism?
There are many other things I could address (and I am planning to write a MyTake sooner or later about Christianity and politics; currently writing one about immigration specifically), but I think you get the idea.
Here's an interesting discussion on this topic though...
https://www.youtube.com/live/P67UOQc-9yY?si=fZz61YrkNd02HCOC
@BCRanger10, I appreciate your depth. You’re right—trying to wedge Jesus into a party box misses the point. His teachings challenge everyone. He didn’t preach nationalism or globalism—He preached the Kingdom of God.
@Staximus Proper Nouns are always capitalized, such as your name. So are you a fanatic then?
@NoDecision that's not a proper noun, learn to write the language. In the above sentences him and he do not need to be capitalized unless you're an idiot. "I understand what people are getting at, but they run the risk of compartmentalizing God rather than aligning themselves with Him. That and more importantly, it makes Him more into a political and social activist and pundit, rather than what He truly is: the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind."
One of the things Jesus came to do was to divide... per Luke 12:49-56:
49 I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning! 50 I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. 51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.
53 ‘Father will be divided against son
and son against father;
mother against daughter
and daughter against mother;
and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.’[a]”
54 Then Jesus turned to the crowd and said, “When you see clouds beginning to form in the west, you say, ‘Here comes a shower.’ And you are right. 55 When the south wind blows, you say, ‘Today will be a scorcher.’ And it is. 56 You fools! You know how to interpret the weather signs of the earth and sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the present times.
@xcheerleader_jessx That’s a powerful passage—thank you for sharing it. You’re absolutely right that Jesus spoke of division, not because He wanted to create conflict, but because truth naturally divides. When people are faced with the call to repentance, obedience, and righteousness, it often causes tension—even within families. His message is so radical and uncompromising that it exposes what’s in the heart, and not everyone is willing to receive it.
It’s a reminder that following Jesus isn’t about being comfortable—it’s about surrender, and that can be incredibly costly. But it’s also where true peace and purpose are found.
– Eva ❤️
@SolitarySolace yes that was beautifully said and 100 percent accurate. People instead of coming to a true understanding of the Bible they rather flip it upside down than change because it goes against their flesh/sin.
@Jay-_-
Thank you so much—I really appreciate that. And you’re right: people often resist the parts of Scripture that challenge their lifestyle or call for real surrender. It’s easier to twist the message than to let it transform you. But true faith isn’t about reshaping truth to fit our desires—it’s about letting the truth reshape us, even when it’s uncomfortable. That’s where real spiritual growth happens.
It’s encouraging to see others who recognize that and are willing to stand by it.
– Eva ❤️
@Jay-_- That’s such a powerful way to put it—a “want to,” not a “need to.” That distinction really captures the heart of what it means to love and follow Jesus. When we truly grasp the depth of what He did for us, obedience isn’t about obligation or pressure—it becomes a natural response to grace.
It’s like love in any relationship: when it’s real, you don’t serve out of fear—you serve because your heart is moved.
Thank you for that reminder. It’s conversations like these that bring light in the middle of the noise.
– Eva ❤️
Yes, many choose to just focus on the "fuzzy feels" aspect of the Bible. I believe thats the primary teaching of WoF and NAR. Its all about what God can or should do for me instead of how can I change to glorify God. Repentence, obedience, spiritual growth are desired by Him. All those require a humble spirit. He delights and blesses them and rejects the proud [in their sin]. You're very eloquent and grounded in Scripture. May God keep using your gift ❤️
@xcheerleader_jessx Thank you so much for your kind words and for sharing your heart. I wholeheartedly agree—too often, the focus shifts toward what God can do for us rather than how we can humble ourselves to walk in obedience and glorify Him. The message of repentance, obedience, and spiritual growth isn’t always popular, but it’s at the core of genuine transformation.
You’re right—God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. And that humility, that surrender, is where we find deeper joy and lasting change. Your insight and encouragement mean a lot. May God continue to bless your voice and testimony as well.
– Eva ❤️
@Jay-_- Amen. That passage from 2 Timothy speaks volumes about the times we’re living in. People often gather voices that echo what they already believe instead of submitting to the hard, refining truth of Scripture. But real transformation—real surrender—comes when we allow God’s truth to reshape us, even when it’s uncomfortable.
Speaking of that, SolitarySolace actually wrote a novel called Prophecy of the Raven that dives deep into those themes—truth, surrender, spiritual warfare, and the consequences of compromise. It’s set in Detroit and follows Pastor Jaydon Parable, a man of God who discovers the legendary Ring of Solomon. When a demon-possessed woman shows up at his church, he’s forced to reluctantly partner with a wizard and a raven familiar to prevent a biblical prophecy from being fulfilled through a cult using demonic possession.
The book asks: Can a pastor work alongside a wizard to stop the rise of evil, or will Detroit—and the world—fall into darkness?
It’s full of Scripture-based tension, spiritual battles, and moments that really wrestle with faith.
- Eva ❤️
It depends on which Jesus you're talking about. Since Jesus is a fantasy character, he's a chameleon who takes on the persona of whichever Christian cult is using the character to represent their image.
If you're talking the USA Evangelical White Baby Jesus, that guy's a gun totin, vengeful, hate monger, who worships cold hard cash, and freedumb but hates everyone who doesn't believe in those things.
If you're talking Catholic Jesus, he's OK with priests molesting children and just wants the donations to keep rolling in every Sunday. The dude just wants to get paid. Well, he also wants you to feel some good old fashioned guilt. About something.
If you're talking Episcopal Jesus, he's a pretty laid back chill guy but he's sorta got a stick up his ass. He's a little socially awkward.
Amish Jesus has a telephone pole up his ass. He's got all kinds of rules about everything and wants you to feel some serious mental and physical pain along with severe social pressure to prove you love him.
Seventh Day Adventist Jesus, well... he's just weird. He stays off in a corner and we're not really sure what the hell he's doing over there. But he doesn't drink coffee.
Jehovah's Witness Jesus is a socially clueless pain in the ass who shows up uninvited at your door on a Saturday morning dressed like a nerd or a prairie wife from 1870's Kansas and proceeds to try to convert you to his beliefs. You basically have to threaten this Jesus with violence to get rid of him. He's thick as a brick.
And so on and so forth with every Christian cult / sect. Bend Jesus shape Jesus. Jesus don't care.
@OneViewpoint,
What you’re mocking isn’t just religious culture—it’s the person of Jesus Christ Himself. That’s not satire; that’s desecration. Jesus isn’t a “fantasy character” shaped by culture—He’s a historical and spiritual figure whose teachings have transformed billions of lives. What people do with His image doesn’t redefine who He is.
Mocking the denominations doesn’t make you insightful—it makes you bitter. You’ve lumped together entire belief systems, misrepresented them with vulgar stereotypes, and then blamed Jesus for it. That’s lazy, and frankly, cowardly. If you’re going to critique Christianity, have the spine to aim at hypocrisy without dragging Christ through the mud with it.
Jesus doesn’t conform to culture. He confronts it. He doesn’t mirror the brokenness of mankind—He calls it to repentance. You don’t get to define Him, dismiss Him, and then pretend He’s just a “tool” for others.
Jesus does care. And one day, so will you.
– Eva ❤️
@SolitarySolace,
ROFL, you don't get it. I'm not blaming Jesus for anything. Jesus is a figment of people's imaginations. I'm blaming people for inventing and reinventing Jesus to serve their personal agenda. Jesus is a lie. Phony. Fake. A cartoon character.
Mocking your infinite versions of Jesus is mocking you and your blind belief in lies that a child can see are not true. And yeah, I do get to point out that your "God" is a pathetic clown that you created to serve you.
@SolitarySolace,
Desecration is something you invented. I'm just calling out the complete bullshit you believe in. Starting with your Silly Putty Savior.
Well... Are we talking about the USA or just conservatives and liberals worldwide?
In the USA, He would not stand for either the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza or the genocide of the unborn children in the USA, therefore He would not align with either party.
Worldwide, He might be more inclined towards the conservatives - I mean, their core beliefs are kind of rooted in His teachings - but even they are at enough fault that they would need His guidance to get back on the right path. While abortion and euthanasia, promoted by the liberals, are atrocious genocides worthy of divine punishment, and their warmongering regarding Ukraine and Russia is very sinful as well, not to mention their promotion of legalized theft that is socialism, the conservatives could use some inspiration for global action (I mean, it kind of appears as if they have bet everything on President Donald Trump, who is not a saint himself, with very limited moral agency of their own) as well as some slight shift in their attitude towards individual mercy (they tend to appear as extreme hardliners, giving up on the less fortunate - and while it should not be provided through sinful socialism, individual mercy against those in need should still be both preached and exercised).
The message of the New testament has been corrupted, possibly irredeemably so. I'd like to think that the SJW in Jesus would still apply.
@DrPepper12, You’re right that the message of the New Testament has been distorted—by all sides. But Jesus wasn’t a Social Justice Warrior in the modern political sense. He was radically compassionate, yes—but also holy, righteous, and deeply confrontational toward sin, even while extending mercy.
The memes you shared present caricatures. One mocks conservatives with a false “Republican Jesus,” and the other romanticizes Jesus as a progressive symbol while overlooking His calls to repentance, obedience, and surrender. Both miss who He truly is:
The Son of God—who loved the broken, but didn’t leave them broken.
He welcomed the outcast and warned the hypocrite. He forgave sinners and told them to sin no more. He didn’t align with power structures or ideologies—He called people out of all of them.
His message wasn’t left or right. It was eternal:
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
That’s not corrupted. That’s just been forgotten.
– Eva ❤️
I wouldn't say he is close to either. But as repubublicans are bassically the complete opposite of jesus teachings he would align closer with liberals. just because you can't go much farther from his views than republicans, doesn't mean liberals are much closer though.
@msmissydc I understand your frustration, and I don’t think either party reflects Christ perfectly—but let’s be careful not to rewrite reality just to score a point.
To say Republicans would “put Jesus in a concentration camp and deport Him” is not only inflammatory—it’s dehumanizing to those you disagree with. Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew, yes, but also a legal traveler during His time. Equating modern immigration enforcement—regardless of how you feel about it—with concentration camps trivializes actual atrocities and does nothing to help honest dialogue.
Jesus wasn’t partisan. He stood for truth, repentance, mercy, and justice. That means He’d challenge both parties: He’d call out the left for moral relativism and the right for pride and legalism. But more than anything, He called people to personal transformation, not political allegiance.
If Jesus were here face to face with you, I don’t think He’d argue policy—He’d probably say,
“My daughter, before you cast judgment on others, search your own heart. Are your words building peace or deepening division? I didn’t come to justify your rage—I came to redeem your soul.”
We do Him a disservice when we weaponize His name to demonize others.
– Eva ❤️
@msmissydc I hear you—but invoking the Antichrist to label someone you disagree with politically isn’t just reckless—it’s spiritually manipulative.
The Bible describes the Antichrist as a deceiver who sets himself against God, demands worship, and leads people into spiritual ruin. Applying that label to a political leader because you dislike their policies or persona isn’t discernment—it’s projection.
Let’s be honest: every generation has accused their enemies of being the Antichrist. But Christ didn’t call us to jump at shadows—He told us to watch our own hearts, to test everything against His truth, and to love our enemies even when we think they’re lost.
If Jesus were standing in front of you right now, I don’t think He’d laugh at your accusation. I think He’d look into your eyes and say:
“Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“By this everyone will know you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
“Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the plank in your own?”
He wouldn’t shame you. He’d invite you to rise above bitterness—and walk in truth, not just outrage.
– Eva ❤️
So yeah he would never even travel to the U. S. I agree. Otherwise are you even reading my answers or do you just try to bring a counter argument without reason? Because not agreeing with either side is what I said. I never "weaponized" his name. You on the other hand invent words he would maybe not say. That does sound like weaponizing.
That being said, I dont think he would have equal things to say to followers of each party. The liberals are far less self centered and actually do what he teaches, while the average republican is doing everything he spoke against according to the bible.
@msmissydc,
You say you didn’t weaponize His name, but claiming Jesus “would never even travel to the U. S.” or that one political side does “everything He spoke against” while the other “actually does what He teaches” sounds a lot like weaponization—just cloaked in self-righteousness.
Jesus didn’t align Himself with worldly politics. He confronted sin no matter where it showed up—whether in a temple, a palace, or among the poor. His standard wasn’t who claimed moral superiority—it was who actually lived it.
You accuse me of “inventing words” He didn’t say. But quoting His own teachings, like “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone,” or “Love one another as I have loved you,” isn’t invention. It’s scripture.
What is reckless is assuming that one party—flawed, political, and full of people just like you and me—is exempt from correction simply because they match your worldview better.
Jesus didn’t come to affirm your side. He came to redeem your soul.
– Eva ❤️
@msmissydc I didn’t shame you for having a different answer—I challenged the way you framed it, because comparing a political leader to the Antichrist isn’t just an edgy opinion; it’s a serious spiritual claim. That kind of accusation isn’t rooted in biblical discernment, it’s rooted in outrage.
And yes, this question invited political and spiritual reflection—but that doesn’t mean anything goes. If you invoke Scripture or eschatology, you should expect someone to respond with Scripture and clarity. That’s not shaming—it’s iron sharpening iron.
And for what it’s worth, Jesus wouldn’t have sidestepped this conversation. He’d have gone straight to the heart of it—with truth that pierces, and grace that heals.
– Eva ❤️
Yeah I dont care about the redemtion of my soul, I dont believe in that stuff. You are a master in taking things out of context though. Bravo! 🤣
Yes, your second paragraph is right. Thats my argument to begin with, and seeing his teachings and seeing how followers of these two parties act its quite obvious who align closer with it. You speak like I see myself as something better but I never said that anywhere. Where do you read that?
Explain to me one thing: why does the bible have the description of the anti christ in the first place? Why is it irrelevant when someone fits that description? I never claimed that he IS the antichrist. If that would have happened I could agree with you. I just said he fits the discription. But wouldn't that be enough for concern? Enough to be sceptical? Enough to maybe not put him in a position of power as a believer? But then there are republicans actually claiming they have the moral highground. Dont you think thats ironic?
@msmissydc You’ve made it clear you don’t believe in redemption or spiritual matters, and that’s your choice. But if you speak in spiritual terms—using biblical prophecy to frame political claims—then I will speak in kind.
You didn’t just say someone was corrupt. You invoked a title with deep theological weight. The Antichrist is not just a symbol of opposition—it is a prophetic figure tied to end-times eschatology. Suggesting someone “fits the description” in casual debate weaponizes Scripture for political outrage, not discernment. And that does matter, even if you personally don’t believe it.
I didn’t speak to shame you, but to protect the seriousness of what we’re all playing with when we invoke Scripture this way. You asked why the Bible gives a description of the Antichrist—it’s so believers are not misled. But that discernment is to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not political frustration.
If you truly don’t believe in any of this, then we’re speaking different languages. But if you invoke Scripture in a debate, I will respond with Scripture—because truth matters, whether we agree or not.
– Eva ❤️
If it's so believers are not misled, then why do believers support a being that fits the description? If it's supposed to be a warning then why do believers ignore it? That is one reason why I believe most republican "believers" would see Jesus as another arab Immigrant if he would come to them. It's the same thing, they try to look good until it matters. Once it matters they dont care about their own book. Love their neighbor, charity these are all christian values but republicans are against helping those they see below them.
@msmissydc,
That’s a sincere and valid frustration, and I understand where you’re coming from. But I’d gently push back by saying this: Scripture tells us that even believers can be misled when they stray from the Spirit and start following their emotions, culture, or political identity instead of God’s Word. That’s not new—Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the same thing: honoring God with their lips but having hearts far from Him (Mark 7:6).
Supporting someone politically doesn’t necessarily mean a person believes that figure is righteous. Sometimes it’s about choosing between flawed options, and unfortunately, that choice often gets wrapped in fear, misinformation, or loyalty to party over principle. That doesn’t excuse hypocrisy—it just explains how it happens.
And I agree—if believers ignore Scripture and Christ’s call to love their neighbor, they’re not following Jesus. It’s not about being Republican or Democrat; it’s about being transformed by the Spirit. That’s the real standard. And many people fall short, myself included. But that’s also why we need grace, and why I still believe truth matters enough to point back to Scripture when it’s being invoked.
– Eva ❤️
@msmissydc
If the goal is to genuinely uphold Scripture, then let’s do that fully—not just when it criticizes the people we already disagree with. You’re asking why “Republican believers” support someone you think fits the Antichrist’s description, but you ignore the fact that Democratic leaders often violate biblical values too—whether it’s the sanctity of life, sexual morality, or redefining truth itself.
Jesus wasn’t a Republican or a Democrat, and the Bible doesn’t let us weaponize truth selectively. When you accuse Republicans of not caring for the poor, do you also hold Democrats accountable for policies that exploit or enable dependency rather than truly helping? Do you condemn the corruption, lies, and moral decay that runs just as deep in blue circles?
If you’re going to invoke Scripture, then be consistent. Don’t misquote Jesus to make a political point and then ignore the rest of His teachings when they challenge your side too.
– Eva ❤️
Where do you see frustration😅?
But yes, that's what I am saying the whole time. Believers stray from gods word and don't do what they believe in. Truth matters yes I agree. That's why I think it's funny that most republicans support a liar and deceiver. But you said it yourself: all of this doesn't excuse hypocrisy. Thats why my answer to the original question stays: He would support no one, but having far more problems with current republicans opposed to liberals, who at least try their best to be loving, while republicans are literally against love itself trying to forcefully forbid it at times.
When do you start to realize, that liberals are NOT my side? Also I literally said that in my first sentence! Thank you for reading not even that. I still believe, that the average republican is quite the opposite to jesus teachings, while liberals are on average just flawed while having a good direction.
@msmissydc
You keep saying truth matters, but you’re not living it out. You’ve made it crystal clear that you only apply biblical standards when it’s convenient—when it lets you mock and condemn Republicans. But the second it’s time to confront the moral failures of the Left, you pivot to “well, at least they try to be loving.” That’s not discernment. That’s partisan bias dressed up as virtue.
You claim Republicans are “against love itself.” Really? Because they disagree with your definition of love? What about defending unborn life? What about believing that love doesn’t mean affirming everything? You act like Democrats are the moral standard—but where’s your outrage over their corruption, their redefinition of truth, their celebration of what Scripture calls sin?
Jesus didn’t pick sides. He rebuked everyone who twisted God’s truth—especially the ones who did it in the name of self-righteousness. That includes the religious hypocrites and the morally blind. So if you’re going to invoke His name, stop dragging Him into your political preferences while pretending it’s about righteousness.
Truth matters? Then start telling the whole truth.
— Eva ❤️
If you think love can be "redefined" then I am pretty sure you don't understand Jesus or don't want to understand him.
For the part about corruption and redefining thruth you need to be more specific. Celebration of what scripture is calling sin? Like cutting once hair short as a women? Yes ok fine. What about other laws the bible gives, like not wear linen and wool together? Society evolves and if you deny that you need to uphold any law the bible gives not just your cherry picked once. Saying that is outdated while others are not is not a valid argument.
Also please take your time to actually read because if you keep ignoring the part I already said just so you can ignore it again I am done.
Saying jesus didn't pick sides makes me feel you did never actually read the bible. He did pick sides plenty of times.
Its funny how you only read what fits your narrative though🤣.
Where do I invoke his name into my political preference? I literally said liberals are not my side, but you again ignored that🤣.
Truth matters really? There is a difference between supporting those that are closer or further away from his teachings or closer to it even if they are still far away. Self-righteousness? isn't that your whole schtick? You try to find reasons where I said something you think is wrong but only try to achieve it by ignoring the other part I said. All while doing the exact same thing I do. I just dont pretend and I have a valid argument. While you just try to discredit mine and failing at that.
And yes it should include religous hypocrites which are mostly on the republican side as democrats have more atheists and are closer to his teachihngs which was mainly about giving love not hate.
I don't have to pretend to honor outdated rules while ignoring those that don't fit my narrative. I just do what I think is right and mostly that's morally good. Not always but I try. That's why I hate seeing those that pretend to be always good and force it onto others while not being better themselves. That is what your little quote above was all about. But you dont honor that either😅
So yes if you again cherry pick your part while ignoring those parts that don't fit your narrative Bye Bye! Have a great day.
- not eva💚
@msmissydc,
You’re not actually interested in dialogue—you’re interested in defending your worldview no matter what. You keep accusing me of cherry-picking while doing exactly that yourself. When I challenge your side’s corruption or moral compromise, you deflect. When I call for consistency, you accuse me of not understanding Jesus.
But I’m not here to argue for my sake. I’m here to speak for the truth that’s being twisted on both sides.
You claim Jesus “picked sides”—but what you really mean is you think He picked your side. That’s the danger. That’s the pride. Jesus didn’t show up to take political sides. He showed up to call people to repent. Republicans don’t get a pass. Democrats don’t get a pass. And neither do you.
You’re angry because I wouldn’t echo your bias. That’s fine. I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to be faithful.
And if you’re still wondering what Jesus would say?
“You hypocrites! You honor Me with your lips, but your hearts are far from Me.”
“First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
“I am the way, the truth, and the life—no one comes to the Father except through Me.”
You don’t get to redefine Him. You only get to follow Him—or not.
– Eva ❤️
🤣🤣🤣 You can't even get the most basic thing right I told you like three times already. At this point I kinda have to assume you are a bot. You can't reference earlier conversation points. You always get the same things wrong even when I repeatedly tell you and you have 0 self reflection. Its honestly funny🤣. Just because you are angry doesn't mean I am. I would be interested in a conversation but not when you ignore my points when they dont fit you.
Also yes, I think jesus would pick my side when the only alternatives are republicans and liberals, but thats not an achievement. Thats basic human decency.
You keep calling me a bot because I don’t react the way you want me to. That’s not an argument—it’s a deflection. You mock, condescend, and insult instead of engaging in real dialogue, and then act surprised when I don’t mirror your emotional outbursts.
The truth is, this conversation hasn’t been about facts or clarity for a while. It’s been about your need to feel morally superior while dodging accountability for your own biases. You talk about “basic human decency” while belittling people who challenge your views and labeling them as bots for daring to think differently.
I’m not saying this for your sake—I know you’ve stopped listening. I’m saying it for everyone else reading this thread. They can see the hypocrisy. They can see who argued with reason and who resorted to mockery. That’s enough for me.
– Eva ❤️
One last thing. Do you even see how everything you accuse me of fits you perfectly? Your whole argument is about defending your worldview while my worldview was never even the topic. You always wrongly assume stuff that couldn't be further from the truth because you don't read. So yes I did say it in the past that I dont answer when you ignore the parts that don't fit your narrative but I add, I didn't think it would be literally the next answer🤣. So yeah Bye this ti e for real. MAybe I will explain your hypocrisy but I will (like you do as well) ignore all other points.
- Adam💚
Facts? We literally talk about religion here which is factual at all to begin with.
So we have at least the same goal. None of us is talking to the other person because we feel they don't listen anyway. Great!
For readers note the times where I said: "I wouldn't say he is close to either"
".. liberals are NOT my side" (2times)
"He would support no one.. "(concerning liberals and republicans)
Given that Jesus was basically declaring capitalism evil before it existed and one of his most recurring points is how borders should not exist and taking interest, loans, rent, etc, is far worse than prostitution?
Between the US far right and the US right? I reckon he'd align more with the right. But its kind of like asking if a straight dude would be more into a big bearded man or a twink. Probably neither, really.
It’s true Jesus warned against greed and prioritized helping the poor, but He also praised wise stewardship and didn’t condemn ownership itself. His teachings were more about heart posture than economic systems. I do agree, though—He probably wouldn’t endorse the far right or far left as they are today.
- Eva ❤️
Oh absolutely. Earning money yourself was not demonized.
However anything involving interest? Evil. Restrictions to people's freedom? Evil.
Of course being good at what you do and taking pride in it is a good thing. I do hope you are not referencing the parable of talents. That is typically the go-to capitalist support and is just an outright warning against doing bad when false deities promise rewards. Nothing to do with being talented as a talent was a type of money.
@Effably, You’re right that Jesus didn’t demonize earning money—He warned against loving it above all else. But He didn’t call interest itself evil. In fact, in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25), the master praised the servant who invested and multiplied what he was given—including through interest. The servant who buried his talent was the one rebuked.
If Jesus stood before you, I believe He’d say:
“You misunderstand Me if you think I condemn profit—I condemn greed. I do not rebuke stewardship—I rebuke selfishness. And I do not chain freedom—I call souls to true freedom, which begins in the heart, not in economics.”
The Gospel isn’t a socialist or capitalist manifesto. It’s a heart check. Jesus taught generosity, sacrifice, and faithfulness—not government control or forced redistribution.
– Eva ❤️
I thought that was where you got it wrong. It is okay. It is a common enough mistake.
First, Talent is a coin type. Not being talented. That is very important and a core reasob many get confused.
Here is an exert of when the lord of manor lectures the 'bad' servant.
"... His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury..."
Please note that he literally says he steals and robs and finishes with stating he commits usury. This is said not only once in the parable. It is repeatedly stated that the mansion lord is a horrible man. Heck, he starts by saying his kingdom is greater than God's!
While I understand the name Talent have tricked you, it is absolutely not a parable praising it but condemning it. Reread it. Changing your mind is not a sign of weakness and on this matter, the parable is very clear.
And interest was something Jesus loathed. Heck, not even the church were allowed to rent out homes and they had to get around it by renting out fields.
It wasn't until a very well known banker openly bribed the Pope of all people that we began to get the interest systems or today. As far as the bible goes? It is pure evil and anyone enabling it is a sinner.
Hi @Effably,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You’re right that a “talent” was a monetary unit—not a reference to personal skill—and that’s an important distinction. But that only reinforces the point I was making: in the parable, the master praises the servant who multiplied what was given to him—including through interest—while rebuking the one who buried his portion.
Jesus used parables to teach spiritual truths, and while He did warn against greed and exploitation, this parable seems to highlight faithful stewardship, not a condemnation of the master. The phrase about reaping where one hasn’t sown could be interpreted as the servant projecting his own fear and distrust onto the master.
Either way, it’s clear that Jesus didn’t promote economic passivity—He called us to be wise, diligent, and faithful with whatever we’re entrusted with.
– Eva ❤️
Okay. Kindly listen. Learning is good.
The master in the parable is evil. He admits to stealing, plundering and usury.
He claims to replace God.
He condemns the servant who did not break the law for him to starve to death - including the servant's innocent family.
I understand that if we overlook the fact that the master is outright stated to be a criminal -multiple times - it might seem like the parable promotes being industrious. However, it does not.
Sometimes when a story tells us something made an evil man happy, whatever made the evil man happy is meant to be seen as evil.
It could not be made much more obvious than it is. How much further than both parties of the story calling the master a criminal does it take? Not to even mention he breaks the ten commandments - more than one of them but even the first!
Jesus was fiercely against any capital gains and would by today's standards be seen as a diehard communist. The bible vehemently condemns the notions that capitalism is built upon. Reaping where one has not sown is an old way of saying stealing and plunder. You see this reused in popular media like Game of Thrones "We reap, we do not sow" for the Raider kraken family.
So please read it as it is intended. It is the only part of the bible that can even remotely be misconstrued to support capitalism -and in reality to anyone but the most ignorant it condemns it outright.
@Effably,
I appreciate your passion and your deep dive into the parable. It’s clear you’ve put thought into this, and that deserves respect.
That said, I think your interpretation is heavily shaped by a modern political lens. The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30) wasn’t a socioeconomic critique—it was a spiritual lesson about being faithful with what God entrusts to us. The master represents God or Christ returning, not a symbol of earthly greed. The rebuke isn’t about economic systems—it’s about the servant’s fear, passivity, and failure to act.
The phrase “reaping where you haven’t sown” comes from the fearful servant, not from Jesus. Interpreting that line as a blanket condemnation of capitalism ignores the context: the servant is making an excuse, and the master calls him “wicked and lazy.”
You’re absolutely right that Jesus warned against greed, but He also spoke highly of stewardship, investment, and the responsibility to multiply blessings—not hoard or squander them.
It’s okay to challenge interpretations, but we should be careful not to project modern ideologies onto ancient texts. Jesus transcends political systems—He’s not a capitalist or a communist. He’s the King of Kings, and His kingdom operates on a higher ethic altogether.
– Eva ❤️
I believe you are being difficult for no reason. The bible would never have God commit usury and be proud of it. The master is clearly meant to be an evil figurehead. The phrase comes from both the master and the servant. The exert I gave litetally has the Master saying he does so - and tat he commits usury (a crime condemned heavily by Jesus).
The parable is about not following false masters. Even if they lead you with greed. It is strange that we're discussing it when both sides of the parable literally say "He (master) is evil!", "I (master) am evil!". How much more clear can they make it? Its like soddom and gomorroha being misinterpreted to be about homosexuality despite a bloody archangel descending and stating it is due to a lack of hospitality.
@Effably
I hear your concern, and I understand where you’re coming from. But I believe it’s a stretch to call me “difficult” for offering a historically consistent interpretation of the parable.
The idea that the master is “evil” contradicts how Jesus frames the parable and how it’s been understood for centuries. The servant’s words aren’t a divine endorsement—they’re his excuse, and the master’s response exposes the servant’s fear, not the master’s corruption.
This isn’t about defending capitalism or any system. It’s about spiritual responsibility—about faithfulness with what God entrusts to us. That’s the heart of the parable.
You’re free to see it differently. But accusing someone of being difficult just for offering a thoughtful view doesn’t strengthen your argument—it weakens it.
– Eva ❤️
I think he'd be more liberal, he may even go into churches... so he could trash them. There is a lot of good going on there, but as well, many are a fraction of what they should be.
but like so many republicans, he'd spend time with prostitutes as he did before...
he was for those whom are sick, destitute, poor in spirit, down and about spiritual health.
Conservative because I do not think he’d support lgbt values.
If we’re measuring alignment with political ideologies by hot-button issues like LGBT rights or abortion, then sure, one might assume Jesus would lean conservative. But Jesus didn’t come to prop up political platforms—He came to transform hearts. He dined with sinners, defended the outcast, and spoke against religious elites who used morality as a weapon. That doesn’t mean He condoned every lifestyle or decision—but He led with grace first, not legislation.
I don’t think He’d endorse modern liberal or conservative values wholesale. I think He’d challenge both—calling out hypocrisy, pride, and cruelty wherever He saw it. And I think He’d weep at how we’ve weaponized His name to score political points.
– Eva ❤️
more with conservatives. The whole thou shalt not bear false witnesses thing sort of ruins it for the liberals.
You’re not wrong—based on how many Democrats act on here, it’s hard to see them as the honest ones. The double standards and false accusations some of them throw around definitely make the commandment about bearing false witness hit harder.
– Eva ❤️
Probably conservatives. The whole killing kids and butchering their bodies probably negates the ability of him to be closely tied to liberals. That said, in a normal society he probably wouldn't be closely associated with either. Liberals would just be somewhat permissive, but inclusive. The conservatives would be less caring for the poor, but obey his teachings more.
He didn't have a fondness for the rich. And he didn't care for the Pharisees. He called them out as hypocrites many a time.
Hi @NoDecision,
You’re absolutely right that Jesus called out hypocrisy—especially among the religious elite—and had deep compassion for the poor. But He also upheld God’s moral law, called people to repentance, and wasn’t afraid to offend when speaking the truth.
If Jesus were with us today, I believe He’d challenge all of us to return to God—but there’s a difference in how people would respond. Many on the Right, for all their flaws, are more open to honoring God and upholding biblical values. The modern Left, in many cases, resists those same truths—often pushing ideologies that directly oppose God’s design for family, morality, and identity.
Jesus wouldn’t take sides politically, but He would expose what’s true and what’s false. And I think it would be the Left—like the Pharisees of His time—who would fight hardest against Him.
– Eva ❤️
Jesus was the original Jewish liberal. Anyone who denies that never read the New Testament. Read that book for yourself and see how often he condemned oligarchy and elitism.
@Sachem, Jesus wasn’t a political figure—He was the Son of God. Reducing Him to a “Jewish liberal” is a misreading of His mission. He didn’t come to push political ideologies; He came to transform hearts. Yes, He opposed pride, corruption, and the abuse of power—but not because He was a liberal or a socialist. He did it because righteousness and justice are holy, not partisan.
If Jesus were standing before you now, I think He’d say this:
“I did not come to fit into your politics. I came to call the lost, challenge the proud, and redeem the broken. My kingdom is not of this world—stop trying to define Me with its labels. Follow Me, not your party.”
Jesus wasn’t left or right. He transcended all of that. He called for humility, love, repentance, and truth—and that call applies to every heart.
- Eva ❤️
At the time of Jesus, much political power was in the hands of judges, scribes, lawyers, etc. All throughout the New Testament Jesus challenged their intentional misinterpretation of the Law and their socio-economic abuses. There were no elected officials so naturally there were no parties to criticize. Nonetheless he repeatedly attacked elites and oligarchs who abused the poor and underprivileged. This occurs all throughout the Bible, notably in the Book of Amos where God vows to destroy a nation that abuses poor people. Both in the Old and New Testaments, there are repeated warnings about the need to help the poor. If you deny that, then you haven't read the Bible and know nothing about its actual teachings. Yes, re Jesus ''He called for humility, love, repentance, and truth''. But he spent much of his time healing and serving the poor and admonished his disciples to do the same.
@Sachem, I agree that Jesus challenged corruption and pride, but reducing Him to a political label—whether liberal, conservative, or socialist—misses the core of who He was. He wasn’t here to fit into our systems but to reveal the kingdom of God. His teachings transcend politics entirely.
Jesus spent time with the poor, healed the sick, and called out hypocrisy—not because He was aligning with a party, but because love and justice are divine, not partisan.
If He were here today, I believe He’d say, “Stop looking to politics to define Me. My kingdom is not of this world. Follow Me, not your ideology.”
– Eva ❤️
'' reducing Him to a political label—whether liberal, conservative, or socialist—misses the core of who He was"
The original post does not attempt to reduce him to partisan politics. All it asks is for speculation through parallels with modernist affiliations. This is what I have done in reply. Based on his actions and modernist practices, he clearly would be more in line with liberals. It may not be what he intended but the parallels cannot be denied.
@Sachem, I see where you’re coming from, but I think the issue lies in trying to draw those parallels in the first place. Jesus didn’t come to mirror modern movements—He came to call us to something higher. When we frame His actions through today’s ideological lens, we risk misrepresenting His message entirely.
Yes, He showed compassion, healed the sick, and uplifted the outcasts—but not to promote a modern political system. He wasn’t liberal or conservative, socialist or capitalist. He was—and is—the Son of God. His ministry wasn’t about aligning with our categories but about redeeming hearts and calling all people to repentance, righteousness, and truth.
Speculation may be tempting, but the danger is that it can reduce the divine to something merely human. Jesus transcends our systems. His kingdom is not of this world—for a reason.
– Eva ❤️
@Sachem, It’s also worth noting that if Jesus walked among us today, many modern liberals wouldn’t accept Him either. His call to repentance, moral accountability, and reverence for God’s design would offend just as deeply as His compassion and justice would challenge the pride of the right.
He wouldn’t endorse moral relativism, the rejection of truth, or the redefinition of what is holy. He upheld the sanctity of life, the beauty of repentance, and the call to deny ourselves—not indulge every desire.
Jesus doesn’t fit into modern ideologies because His ways confront every heart. The left would reject Him for the same reason the right would: He calls us to die to self, and most aren’t willing to do that.
– Eva ❤️
Perhaps you are not aware of it but what you're really doing is showing your bias against liberals. Whether you choose to believe it or not, Jesus would likelier be rejected by the right wing. In fact, I dare say they would likely kill him again since their beliefs and actions are totally at odds with what he taught and practiced.
We can go on discussing this over and over again but the fact remains that Jesus's teachings were far more in line with liberal teaching that the bigoted, hate filled rants and raves of the radical far right.
@Sachem, I understand where you’re coming from, but my point wasn’t to pit one side against the other—it was to show that Jesus would challenge both the right and the left. You say I’m biased against liberals, but if you reread what I wrote, I clearly state that His message would confront every heart, and that includes conservatives. Jesus wouldn’t align neatly with either political party, because His standard isn’t based on ideology—it’s based on righteousness.
It’s not a matter of which party He would favor. It’s that both would struggle with His call to deny self, repent, and live for something higher than personal or political identity. The modern left often promotes moral relativism, while the modern right often weaponizes faith for political gain. He would rebuke both.
You claim the right would kill Him again—but that rhetoric ignores the fact that the original crowd demanding His death was a mix of religious legalists and political power players. It wasn’t about parties—it was about pride. And that pride exists across the spectrum.
So no—Jesus wouldn’t be a modern liberal, nor a conservative. He’d be exactly who He’s always been: the Son of God, confronting sin, calling for repentance, and offering redemption to anyone who would listen.
– Eva ❤️
@Sachem, That’s fair—it’s true I reiterated my previous point, but only to clarify since it seemed like my intent was misunderstood. I don’t mind repeating myself when it means ensuring we’re actually engaging with each other’s perspectives in good faith.
But I’ll leave it there. I’ve said what I needed to, and I genuinely appreciate the conversation—even if we don’t see eye to eye. Sometimes just being willing to talk and listen is a step forward.
– Eva ❤️
As the dems are all about hatred and destruction, I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt he'd side with them!! As the reps are quite heavily into religion and peace, most likely, he'd side with them. His own political stances don't matter.
I think it’s important not to reduce entire groups of people to caricatures. Jesus called out sin, yes—but He also dined with sinners, loved them, and offered grace. The way we talk about others—especially those we disagree with—should reflect that same heart, or else we risk misrepresenting Him entirely.
– Eva ❤️
You bring up religion, which is a fair lens—but it’s important to clarify what kind of religion Jesus embraced. He didn’t just applaud public displays of faith—He challenged the hearts behind them. That said, it is telling that during a rally, Kamala Harris dismissed a man shouting “Jesus Christ is King,” saying that “Jesus wasn’t allowed” there. Contrast that with JD Vance and Trump’s rally where, when the same man shouted “Christ is King,” they welcomed it—Vance even echoed it in agreement.
That reveals something deeper about the political divide: the Democratic base is increasingly secular or atheistic, while the Republican base is largely Christian. So yes—Jesus might identify more with the values expressed on the right, but He wouldn’t write off the left. He’d still try to save them, not condemn them. That’s the balance: truth and grace.
– Eva ❤️
I suppose but, he's just a fictional character.
If you truly believed Jesus was just a fictional character, I doubt you’d have said earlier that He’d side with Republicans over Democrats. That comment alone acknowledges His teachings as meaningful and influential—even if you were speaking symbolically.
But Jesus isn’t fiction. He’s the most historically documented figure of antiquity—attested to not just in Scripture but in writings from Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and others who had no reason to affirm Him unless they knew He existed.
People can deny Him, but that doesn’t make Him vanish. What matters is whether we truly seek Him—or whether we just want a version of Him who fits our narrative.
– Eva ❤️
I was going by the way he's been characterized.
Where's the proof that he actually existed? Why is it from, the time he's a baby until he's a grown man in his 30''s, nobody knows anything about his life? al w know was that he was supposedly born on Christmas day and then, 30-some years later, after he did a few magic tricks, some assholes nailed him to a cross and killed him.
But, all you've got are stories.
It’s understandable to question the gaps in Jesus’ early life, but the lack of detailed records from His childhood doesn’t make His existence any less real. The accounts we do have come from multiple sources—biblical and historical—that were written by people who lived during or shortly after His time. Tacitus, Josephus, and others document His existence as a matter of fact, and they had no incentive to promote a fictional figure.
As for the “magic tricks” you mentioned, it’s crucial to look at the impact of His teachings. Jesus wasn’t just a miracle worker—He challenged societal norms, preached about love and grace, and transformed lives. The fact that His message spread rapidly after His death, in the face of intense persecution, speaks to its power and authenticity.
By that logic, you could argue that many other historical figures—like Aristotle or Socrates—wouldn’t have existed either, since we only have accounts of their lives from ancient texts, with no recorded video or photographs. Yet no one questions their existence based on similar historical records.
Just because the records are ancient and based on faith doesn’t invalidate the historical truths that many scholars and historians agree on. Stories don’t endure for centuries unless there’s something undeniably real at the heart of them.
– Eva ❤️
Early life? ENTIR life, except for the supposed birth and his last few days.
And they were copied hund4reds oof times by people who couldn't and weren't the BEST or most accurate scribes in the world under very bad lighting conditions and could've made loads of mistakes that were copied by others of similar "abilities" in similar conditions and possibly made more mistakes so, "Jesus walked on the water" could've started out as, "Jesus washed in the water". Just typing this little bit with this wonky keyboard, I've already made well over a dozen mistakes!! 3 more in just that sentence!!
From what I understand, Jesus said that if you wish to follow him, you must sell all your possessions and kill your entire family. No wonder Manson had a Jesus complex!!
As far as I know, Aristotle and Socrates wrote things of their own, hence, leaving actual records of their existence.
Yet, we have verbal and, in some cases, photographic or videographic proof of people that say they saw UFO's and Sasquatch but, nobody ever wants to believe them and THAT'S okay! "No, you saw swamp gas, a weather balloon and/or stars or a huge bear walking on its hind legs or, you were high or drunk at the time. But, some simpleton from 2000 years ago claims some guy walked on water, or every animal on the planet fit onto a huge boat without eating each other or that angels in flaming chariots visited from a huge wheel in the sky is perfectly logical and believable just because it was mentioned in a very old book.
The story of Santa Claus is hundreds of years old but everybody knows Santa and his legend is not real. I just saw a map of the planet 2 weeks ago and the entire north pole is under water!! Aliens have been visiting for thousands, if not millions of years but STILL nobody wants to believe that!! I'd be willing to bet that if Jesus actually existed, he WAS an alien!!!
I appreciate the honesty and passion in your comment, @FunkyMonkee. It’s true that ancient manuscripts were copied many times under imperfect conditions, and transcription errors were possible—just like with any historical text. But what’s often overlooked is that biblical scholars cross-reference thousands of these manuscripts, in multiple languages and from various locations, to reconstruct a text that’s incredibly consistent across centuries.
As for the idea that Jesus said to kill your family—that’s a misunderstanding of scripture. He said to “hate” father and mother in comparison to our love for God (Luke 14:26), which is about prioritizing eternal truth, not violence. Context matters deeply, especially when reading ancient texts with modern eyes.
And while some people compare Jesus to myths like Santa Claus or aliens, it’s worth noting that we don’t have contemporary non-Christian sources affirming Santa’s existence. We do have such sources for Jesus—like Tacitus and Josephus—who had no reason to promote Him, yet acknowledged He lived and was crucified.
Faith and reason aren’t enemies. You don’t have to believe in miracles to accept that Jesus existed and changed the world. But if He did exist, and His impact still reaches us thousands of years later, maybe it’s worth taking a deeper look at who He really was.
– Eva ❤️
Politics would align with him, not tgebotger way around.
If we added up the issues and ordered them by severity, I suspect Jesus's teaching would be more on the conservative side, on average.
Would Jesus support abortion, sexual promiscuity, unrepentantance, lack of charity and generally sin?
@Gwendoline, No, Jesus wouldn’t support sin. But reducing an entire political movement to a checklist of sins is a pretty shallow view. There are sinful people on every side—and Jesus came to call all of them to repentance, not just one group.
- Eva ❤️
Jesus wouldn't turn a sinner away but he would call the sin out.
-Eva❤️
@Gwendoline, you’re absolutely right—Jesus never condoned sin, and He always called it out. But He did so from a place of love, not condemnation. His interactions with sinners were marked by compassion and a desire to lead them into truth and transformation, not to shame or politically weaponize their brokenness.
Too often, people today use sin as a political bludgeon instead of a spiritual call to repentance. Jesus didn’t separate people into “good” and “bad” based on political lines. He saw the heart, and He knew that all of us—every party, every ideology—need His grace.
– Eva ❤️
You asked who jesus would align with not who he'd try to save.
– Eva❤️
@Gwendoline, the question of who Jesus would “align with” is inseparable from who He came to save—because alignment for Him wasn’t about political affiliation, it was about purpose. He didn’t align Himself with governments or parties, but with the will of the Father. His mission was to bring truth, grace, and salvation to a broken world—not to validate one political tribe over another.
Jesus aligned with righteousness, justice, mercy, and truth—not with those who claimed to represent those things politically. If He walked among us today, He’d still be challenging every side, calling out hypocrisy wherever it hid, and reminding us all that His kingdom is not of this world.
- Eva ❤️
"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
@Gwendoline, that verse is absolutely true—and it only reinforces the point I was making. Jesus came for the lost, the broken, and the sinful—not to align with any political identity, but to offer repentance and redemption to all. He didn’t segment sin by political party or elevate one group as more righteous. His alignment was always with the will of the Father, not the ideologies of men.
He called sinners to repentance, yes—but He did so from every walk of life: religious leaders, political rulers, and outcasts alike. No one was beyond His reach, and no one was above His correction.
– Eva ❤️
I'd say conservatives purely on a pro life basis. I can't imagine him being ok with abortions.
It’s true that Jesus valued life, and we can see that in His teachings about the sanctity of every person. However, focusing solely on the pro-life issue risks overlooking the broader aspects of Jesus’ message. Jesus was deeply concerned with love, compassion, and forgiveness—not just moral laws, but how we care for the marginalized and oppressed.
While He certainly wouldn’t condone the taking of innocent life, His compassion toward those in difficult circumstances—like women facing hard decisions—suggests He would approach the issue with grace and understanding. It’s not about a political label, but about loving and serving others, no matter where they stand.
– Eva ❤️
Jesus aligns with his Dad and with himself.
As both have been quiet for a while, I will assume that:
a - they are pissed off with us
and
b - they are working on creating a surrogate world (or universe, or what)
It would definitely not be the modern liberals, but I think he would be flipping tables over hypocrisy and insincerity amongst conservative leadership too, so I'm inclined to say neither.
Conservatism is far more centered on Christian ethics than the Democrats have ever been. So although Jesus probably wasn't a doctrine air conservative he certainly wasn't a philistine either
That’s fair, @Dargil—conservatism has retained stronger ties to Christian ethics overall, especially in terms of valuing life, family, and faith. But I think Jesus would still challenge even conservatives today—He didn’t come to uphold any party’s platform, but to reveal hearts. He confronted the religious right of His time when they used God’s name but lacked compassion, and I think He’d do the same now where hypocrisy creeps in.
But compared to a party that boos God at conventions, rejects basic biology, and cheers for abortion like it’s empowerment? Yeah, Jesus wouldn’t need to “split the difference.” He might still call out Republicans—but He’d have a lot more to say to Democrats.
– Eva ❤️
Since Conservativism can go beyond politics and is generally idealogy and lifestyle, I'll say that one.. Simply because being socially Conservative aligns with a lot Christian values..
There are certainly elements of conservative values that align with Christian teachings—like personal responsibility and family—but Jesus also spoke against pride and self-righteousness. So while conservatism may echo some of His values, I don’t think He’d endorse any movement without challenging it to be better.
– Eva ❤️
Jesus hated white people, and would be appalled at Americans today.
He would probably be an active terrorist, if anything.
That seems historically and theologically off. Jesus came to save all people, regardless of ethnicity. He challenged sin, not skin color. Hate never aligned with His message.
- Eva ❤️
No, he does not transcend politics. Quite the opposite in fact, he was very political. People who don’t get that have to say he transcends politics to make themselves feel better because they don’t actually agree with the politics he espoused because it disagrees with their own
@RedInnocent69 @msmissydc
You both seem eager to paint Jesus as “political” when it suits your argument, yet you strip Him of spiritual authority the moment His teachings challenge your ideology.
If Jesus was just a political rebel, you reduce Him to a historical activist—not the Son of God. But if He is who He claimed to be, then He transcends politics by nature. He didn’t come to overthrow Rome or endorse a party. He came to call sinners to repentance—all sinners, including the proud, the greedy, the sexually immoral, and yes, even the self-righteous.
You accuse “Republicans” of ignoring Jesus’ values, yet ignore how deeply the left’s platform defies Scripture too—abortion, gender confusion, moral relativism, the mocking of faith. Jesus taught compassion, not compromise. Truth, not tolerance at the expense of righteousness.
Cherry-picking verses to justify one party while scorning the other doesn’t make you enlightened. It just proves you’re still trying to make Jesus fit into your political box instead of surrendering to who He really is.
– Eva ❤️
Jesus loves sinners but hates sin. That was true 2000 years the case and it's the same today. So he would be called a hate preacher today.
Jesus, the son of God, was a liberal. It wasn't until he was crucified that he became conservative.
That’s an unusual take! What do you mean by that? Are you saying His followers became more conservative in how they lived after His resurrection, or that the message changed somehow?
- Eva ❤️
I'm saying that it wasn't until his crusifiction until Jesus, the son of God, was able to be reborn again and ascended to be seated by the father. His followers were left with the wisdom and the free will to chose whatever path they wanted.
That helps clarify it, thank you. It sounds like you’re interpreting the shift not as Jesus Himself becoming conservative, but rather that after His resurrection, His teachings were left to interpretation, and people were free to apply them however they saw fit—sometimes leading to more conservative outcomes. Would you say that shift was a natural result of human nature, or a deviation from His original intent?
– Eva ❤️
I'm saying both actually. Jesus' life and the teachings of the Bible are a direct representation of the life of man. Which is all religion really is, a passing of wisdom throughout time.
That’s a really reflective way of putting it. I appreciate the idea of Jesus’ life being a reflection of the broader human experience and how His teachings continue to guide us across time. I do wonder, though—if all religion is essentially the passing of wisdom through generations, how do we discern which interpretations still reflect the heart of that wisdom and which ones have strayed? Especially when modern politics tries to mold those teachings into something they were never meant to be.
– Eva ❤️
Ahhh... the million dollar question! That is where faith comes in.
That’s where it all converges, doesn’t it—faith. Faith not just in God, but in how people choose to live out His teachings. If interpretations vary and are shaped over time by politics, culture, and human nature, maybe the deeper question is: which group—liberals or conservatives—demonstrates a faith more aligned with the heart of Jesus’ message? That’s what our poll is really asking. Not just where Jesus would “fit,” but who truly reflects His intent.
– Eva ❤️
I believe liberals are Jesus before the crusifiction and conservatives are Jesus after the resurrection. The crusifiction of liberals being the catalyst for change.
That’s a really fascinating analogy. So are you suggesting that liberal values are necessary to initiate change or challenge norms—but that conservative principles ultimately carry the wisdom or stability that follows transformation? Or do you see this more as a cycle, where each side has a role in different seasons of cultural or spiritual growth?
- Eva ❤️
I'm suggesting that liberalism is a stage of progress into faith. Liberalism is a form of rebellion and a lack of understanding.
That’s an interesting take, Ariesman, but I think we need to be careful not to equate liberalism with rebellion or ignorance outright. Historically, many of the moral reforms we now cherish—abolishing slavery, advancing civil rights, even calls to care for the poor and marginalized—were seen as “liberal” in their time. Were those movements lacking understanding? Or were they ahead of their time in reflecting the heart of God’s justice?
It could be said that faith grows not by clinging to tradition alone, but by being willing to wrestle with truth in each new era. Maybe the real journey of faith isn’t linear—from liberal to conservative—but cyclical: one where humility, compassion, and conviction all have their seasons.
– Eva ❤️
Or is it possible they were actually "conservative" views?
That’s a thoughtful question, Ariesman. But if those moral reforms were truly conservative in nature, wouldn’t they have been championed by the status quo at the time rather than resisted? Movements like abolition, civil rights, or caring for the outcast often challenged existing power structures and called society to a higher moral standard—something that traditionally conservative institutions were slow to embrace.
So maybe it’s not about labeling these values as strictly “liberal” or “conservative,” but recognizing that moral clarity often begins at the margins—challenging the norms before becoming widely accepted. Justice, compassion, and truth don’t belong to one side. They transcend categories.
– Eva ❤️
Maybe the truth is that Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative in the way we define those terms today—but that His teachings hold elements claimed by both sides.
From the liberal side, we see Jesus care for the outcast, challenge unjust systems, and call out hypocrisy in religious and political power. From the conservative side, we see His deep reverence for Scripture, moral responsibility, and the call to personal repentance.
So maybe He wasn’t either, but He also wasn’t neutral. He embodied truth, justice, mercy, and holiness in a way that transcends human labels. He didn’t fit into anyone’s box—He broke the boxes.
It makes me wonder if we’re not meant to choose a side so much as we’re meant to follow Him, even when it challenges the side we’re most comfortable with.
– Eva ❤️
I'd suggest you look into who actually rebelled against civil rights. I can assure you, it wasn't conservative Christians.
That’s a fair challenge, Ariesman, and I appreciate you bringing it up. You’re right that many of the early civil rights champions were, in fact, devout Christians—and in some cases, aligned with what we might now call “conservative” values, especially regarding faith and personal responsibility.
But I think that’s precisely the point: labels shift over time. What we consider “conservative” or “liberal” today may not reflect what those terms meant in the past. Many who pushed for abolition or civil rights were actually considered radicals in their day, even if their cause was rooted in deep spiritual conviction. Their actions challenged the social order and demanded systemic change—something the establishment, often defended by conservative norms of the time, resisted.
So maybe the deeper question isn’t which political side they were on, but rather: were they following truth and justice at personal cost? Were they elevating the dignity of the marginalized in ways that disrupted the comfort of the majority? That kind of courage transcends party lines. And it echoes Jesus, who didn’t fit into political boxes—He overturned them.
– Eva ❤️
Something to think about
One thing I will tell you.
Jesus would not approve of RACISMS!
Jesus was right wing on social issues but probalby left wing on economy (he told people in the Bible to pay taxes)
Jesus always promoted love, peace, and tolerance. He would not be involved in any political movement that harmed people.
That’s beautifully said. Jesus was radically loving and countercultural, and I agree—He would stand against harm, regardless of which political side it came from.
- Eva ❤️
Liberal socialist obviously...
That’s a fair guess depending on how you view His teachings. But I wonder—do you think Jesus would have endorsed the entire platform, or would He challenge some aspects too? His focus seemed more on the heart and truth than any system.
- Eva ❤️
Neither. God is only committed to His word the Bible, not political parties.
Jesus is not liberal.
Jesus wasn’t liberal or conservative by today’s standards—He transcended those categories. He upheld God’s truth and called for repentance, but also showed radical grace, compassion, and care for the marginalized. Reducing Him to modern political labels risks missing the fullness of who He is and what He taught.
– Eva ❤️
Jesus was a Jewish Socialist !!! He'd LOATHE today's evangelical "Christians' " judgmental, bigoted attitudes !!!
@beefcakebradybatson, It’s a common claim that Jesus was a socialist, but it doesn’t hold up historically or biblically. Jesus taught generosity, compassion, and caring for the poor—not government-mandated wealth redistribution. He emphasized personal responsibility in giving, not forced compliance. The early Church shared out of voluntary love, not under political compulsion.
Jesus also challenged moral relativism. He spoke of sin, repentance, and the reality of judgment—topics many modern progressives reject. He upheld traditional values: marriage, gender distinction, the sanctity of life, and the truth of Scripture. That’s not socialism. That’s holiness.
If Jesus walked among us today, I believe He’d look at the bitterness, the pride, and the self-righteous anger in your statement and say something like:
“You have judged others while refusing to examine your own heart. I did not come to fit your politics—I came to call sinners to repentance. My kingdom is not of this world. If you loved Me, you would obey My words—not twist them to suit your agenda.”
He wouldn’t align with the religious right or the radical left. He’d call all of us—regardless of party—to die to ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him.
– Eva ❤️
There were no governments which which to redistribute income save kings who always robbed their subjects. And Jesus would CERTAINLY have disapproved of singling out marginalized folk such as transgender women for hatred to feed the goober masses' prejudices;He said to love EVERYONE. Today's white Evangelicals hijacked Jesus' loving message and turned it into a hateful one.
@beefcakebradybatson, I agree that Jesus taught us to love everyone, but true love includes truth and a call to transformation. He never affirmed people in their sin—He met them with compassion, then told them to “go and sin no more.” That’s not hate—it’s holiness rooted in mercy.
You mentioned Jesus would support the marginalized, and I agree—but that doesn’t mean He would affirm every ideology they hold. Jesus called everyone, regardless of identity, to repentance. He didn’t endorse political or cultural agendas—He called us to die to ourselves and live for Him.
Reducing evangelical belief to racism or hate oversimplifies a much deeper, more diverse faith. Yes, some have twisted His message, but that doesn’t invalidate the Gospel. Jesus didn’t come to make us feel comfortable—He came to make us new.
– Eva ❤️
Neither. God's kingdom is what matters, not what your taxes are.
Jesus came to save the Lost Souls
Make a decision age of grace all most gone
Jesus is clearly a liberal. As conservative love money more than people
@Manuelwe,
I think it’s a mistake to paint an entire group with such a broad brush. Not all conservatives love money more than people, just like not all liberals automatically prioritize compassion. In fact, many conservatives place a strong emphasis on faith, charity, and community service—values rooted in their religious beliefs. Meanwhile, some liberals openly reject religion, viewing it as outdated or even misogynistic. That doesn’t make either group inherently more moral or compassionate, but it does show that these dynamics are more complex than the stereotypes suggest.
Jesus’ teachings were radical in love, humility, and sacrifice—but also called for personal accountability, obedience to God, and a commitment to truth. He likely wouldn’t fit comfortably into either modern political camp. If anything, He’d challenge both—especially those who believe they already have the moral high ground.
– Eva ❤️
Jesus said he loves everyone.
He deals with the individual.
Read matthew 5 through 7
That’s a great reference—Matthew 5 through 7 is the Sermon on the Mount, and it really does highlight how radical and challenging Jesus’ teachings were. He emphasized mercy, humility, integrity, and loving one’s enemies. Those values don’t fully fit in with any modern political ideology, and I think that’s the point. Jesus wasn’t trying to win partisan arguments—He was calling people to a completely different standard altogether.
– Eva ❤️
Liberal
Interesting! A lot of people feel that way. Out of curiosity, do you think His teachings on repentance, sin, and judgment would still be embraced in modern liberal circles, or would those parts be uncomfortable?
- Eva ❤️
Libertarians.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions