By The Right Scoop


An excellent Zonation that dispels any idea that Jesus would have been a big government socialist Democrat:

NOTE: I’m not sure I buy his explanation of “render back unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” given the verse that preceded it where Jesus asked the pharisees whose face and inscription was on the coin. But aside from that it is fantastic.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • clockwindingdown

    Go Zo! Very good!!!

  • FutureOnePercent

    Jesus is an anarchist… in the proper use of the term.

    http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

    • Steve Angell

      I will not vote this down though I really disagree with it.

      Jesus is the ruler of the Universe. That is so much bigger than just a country on this puny planet we call earth. He ruled us before we were born and the day we die he rules over us once again. Thus he famously said “Today shall I be with thee in Paradise”,

      He tried to be clear on this but the Jews and Christians for the most part do/did not pay much attention.

      Jesus Christ rules all that really matters. He is no anarchist. He just allows us to wickedly use our free agency for a short period of time on earth. He supports anarchy on earth but he is not an anarchist.

      • FutureOnePercent

        I would say that ascribing earthly attributes to Jesus, to be a model example for us, is a huge reason why God sent him to Earth in the first place.

        I don’t find it disrespectful in any way to apply these qualities to Jesus, just as I would not have any issue saying he was compassionate. His actions and his deeds were compassionate and I don’t think it is detracting from him Supremacy to say that he was.

        To intepret those in any other way would be strange to me. To say that God was compassionate not because we should be compassionate, but because “in all his glory he decided to let us peons live here” would certainly take away from his love for us.

        We are not pets or insects to him, we were made in his image and he desires a relationship with us.

        “29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
        30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
        31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

        • Steve Angell

          Jesus proved it was possible to live a perfect life on earth. He obtained for each of us the free gift of Resurrection into his kingdom on earth when he will be reigning. In addition he died for our sins making it possible to be forgiven of our sins.

          He prayed for us to become one with God and he was one with God. I believe that totally possible as I believe in Jesus. I know I will live with him either surviving into his reign or being resurrected into it.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA Booker

      Nope. He would a monarchist (King of Kings) as well as the Chief Justice of a 3-member Supreme Court.

      • FutureOnePercent

        You still have judges in market anarchy. In fact 80% of legal matters in the US are handled outside of the government court system through either settlements or arbitration so it’s something that already exists on a large scale. Another example would be international business where there is no overarching legal framework, yet they still work out the differences.

        And from a property rights perspective, He would be the only person with an actual claim on all of us to rightly decide legal matters. So he absolutely would be the Chief Justice on a 3 member court, to do with his creation as he sees fit. He has earned that right in my opinion.

        • Rshill7

          What do you think of this? Some folks see the Trinity as 1+1+1…which equals three (3). Three separate members. They then wonder how three can be one. Mathematically, it can’t.

          I see the Trinity as 1x1x1, which as you know, equals one(1).
          Mathematically sound truth.

          Discuss :-)

          • Insert_Cool_Username

            Well, if we’re going to be technical, the Trinity would be best represented by 3A=B; where A is the number of Persons and B is the number of Gods.

            But really, trying explain the Most Holy Trinity using our fallen, human logic will always be woefully inadequate. It’s like explaining dawn to someone who has been blind since birth: nothing will really ever capture the totality of it’s splendor.

          • FutureOnePercent

            I think that our limited perception of the universe may make it that we can’t really understand it yet, but that’s as good of an anaolgy as I’ve heard before… The concept of time, as we perceive it, and how it actually is (not linear) just blows my mind… The implications of time not being linear is just crazy… Imagine if you perceived time all at once… or more like a destination on a map… It certainly means that free will and omniscience aren’t mutually exclusive.

            • Rshill7

              God’s foreknowledge is not causative. That will also make one’s head hurt :-)

              It seems to me, that to God, time is more like a plane rather than a line segment. He can vector anywhere he wants to in any time and back again. He can answer anyone and everyone’s prayer at anytime, seemingly simultaneously. He can be directing the creation moment and on the Cross, as well as exist outside of time.

              It’s the height arrogance for men to try to understand all that he is and all that he does. They attempt to ascribe human frailty to him, even at those times where he chose to take that frailty on himself, and try to use human reasoning to say what he would or would not do.

              He became Christ and dwelt among us to more perfectly speak it to us in ways we could understand.

              “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’ (Isaiah 55:9 KJV)

              :-)

              • FutureOnePercent

                I 100% agree! The arrogance that people have, when on a cosmic scale we are intellectual infants, is astounding!

                Someone saying they don’t believe in God because they haven’t found any evidence is like me walking into a medical research lab and saying, “Well, I dunno guys, I’ve looked over your research for about 5 minutes, and I just don’t think that cancer will ever be cured. If I can’t figure it out, I’m just sure it can’t be done at all.”

                And people saying “Well even Stephen Hawking doesn’t believe in God!” as if he is at the limit of all knowledge. Again, on a cosmic scale, we are infants. If I tell a two year old not to play in the street, and their response is, “Well a three year old told me that it would be fine” that doesn’t make it true…

      • FutureOnePercent

        I truly believe that the 1000 year reign on earth will be one of market anarchy with Christ as the perfect judge. We won’t be perfect during those 1000 years, but with the abolition of governments and God taking His place as the perfect judge to enforce rules, humanity will experience a new Age of Enlightenment.

      • FutureOnePercent

        As far as him being a monarchist, I think that Jesus in his time on earth showed submission to God. “Not my will but thine be done.” So I can see the symantics of your argument. He was surrendering to the King of Kings, which would make him a monarchist, but I guess the point the article was trying to make is how he felt towards earthly governments.

        • Galatiansch2vs20

          The article if they think he was an anarchist was wrong. He proved that when the question was put to him about the coin. He was not an insurrectionist.

    • Galatiansch2vs20

      You may want to look at Romans chapter 13.

      • FutureOnePercent

        You didn’t actually read the link I sent did you? It discusses Romans 13 in detail, but I don’t want to copy it here.

        • Galatiansch2vs20

          I confess I hadn’t looked at the link. But Romans 13 does contradict your statement.

          Israel did reject the Lord as their King and God let them know they did wrong but God did allow even His rejecting chosen people Saul, then David.

          Also, the page you site starts out calling Jesus a libertarian. However, from what I know of what libertarians believe, I strongly believe He would not be .

          Here’s why-
          For those made in the image of God, though we are fallen image-bearers, to be in favor of the freedom to abuse the body with drugs and be mastered by them goes against Christ’s teaching to His own in Scripture as to how He desires His own to treat our bodies, the temple of God. Further, drug addiction which often happens with the freedom is destructive in society. People have been robbed, people have been killed, and relationships adversely affected in direct relationship to illegal drugs.

          Further, abortion is murder and is always wrong by God’s law, and ought to be illegal regardless of whether a state still thinks it’s okay.

          Marriage being a picture of Christ and the church, and Christ being the Author and Definer of marriage, He does not recognize any state’s right, if they so choose, to redefine what cannot be redefined. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is recognized only as sin by Christ and it is an abomination to Him.

          • FutureOnePercent

            So I’ll go point by point.

            The article mentions that Jesus doesn’t have much to say about drugs, there is one verse in passing, but not talked about directly. I believe that when the Bible says, “Be ye not drunk with wine, wherein is excess…” it is specifically talking about the destructive and addictive nature that some things have on the human body. He doesn’t say, don’t drink, he says don’t be a slave to alchohol. Another verse for this would be, “Wherefor use not your liberty as an occasion to the flesh.” You have free will, but you are not to be bound by these things. Also, “your body is the temple…” shows that God does not confuse things that should be made illegal by mans laws, and the natural consequences of hard drugs.

            God is one of personal responsibility, he doesn’t suspend the law of gravity because someone changes their mind after jumping off a bridge and starts to pray. He expects a level of common sense from us. So for drugs, God and his laws of nature are our authority, not arbitrary laws by fallen men who can use them as an excuse to invade your privacy and take away your freedoms.

            It’s about 50/50 on Libertarians who believe in abortion, and the 50% who agree with it are wrong. The basis of most Libertarian theory is the application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). This states that it is immoral to INITIATE violence or the threat of violence against any INNOCENT person. I believe that a fetus is a person, and has a different DNA than the mother, therefore, it is wrong for a mother to use violence against that other person. So many Libertarians would never help pass a law that legalized it. It would be the ethical equivilant to us legalizing murder.

            For marriage, I think the point of the article is to show that God is our only true authority, and that includes marriage. You can legalize gay marriage all day long, but it’s nothing more than a property contract to God. So I think you understand that man’s laws are meaningless to God’s laws, and we should be following Him rather than these “earthly rulers.”

            • Galatiansch2vs20

              Here’s the problem. My understanding is that libertarians long for drugs to be legal even though some may say they are bad for you. The reasons they were made illegal in the first place I believe are many. People killed by impaired drivers under the influence of drugs (others affected by those doing the harmful drugs), children being neglected (heard of a case where a child drowned in a tub while parents smoked mj), people robbed by people in want of a fix and can’t afford it, people killing themselves by overdose or damaging their brains, their vital organs, causing aging much faster, people murdering over drugs, etc., etc.. Jesus would not be for people abusing their bodies and sinning against others as a result of drugs. People should expect the government to protect them from activity that causes bodily harm, invasion of homes, and property harm to people. I hope you will take time to read Romans 13 including the warning in verse 2. If you are a believer, it sounds to me like someone has led you astray.
              Regarding abortion, for example, Ron Paul, I believe looks through rose-colored glasses thinking all the states would outlaw it. But if you look at liberal dominated states, that may not be so. It out to be outlawed nationally, because it’s murder, which is against God’s law and this country was founded as a Christian nation.
              We ought to follow God’s laws rather than man’s if man’s law orders you to do something that would be against God’s law. And people are having their liberties trampled upon in this country who are obeying God rather than man when it comes to their marriage catering type businesses and when they are forced to allow homosexuals to rent their private property if they put a for rent sign out, etc.. You are incorrect that it is no more than a property contract to God. To call sexual immorality marriage is an abomination to God and a sin of rebellion against the Creator.

              • FutureOnePercent

                Drivers are impaired by cell phones, lack of sleep, alchohol, and a million other things, yet I hope you don’t favor bringing back Prohibition, because the problems it created far outweighed what it was supposed to fix.

                Bottom line, you can’t legislate morailty into people, it takes a change of heart.

                I’m also not talking about abortion being a states rights issue. That would be on par with saying I think murder should be a states rights issue. Murder is murder and should be punished.

                It stil seems like you didn’t take the time to read what I linked to. Were Joseph and Mary led astray because they disobeyed King Herod? Was Paul led astray because he kept preaching God’s word, even after the Roman government explicitly forbid him to? How about when Jesus specifically said there would be those in this world who would call themselves rulers over you, but were not given that authority from God?

                If you won’t take the time to actually read it, I don’t want to spend the time continually responding to each objection that is already addressed.

                • Galatiansch2vs20

                  Yes, they are and driving is a privelege, not considered an automatic right in this country. Recklessly endangering the lives of others by driving under the influence is illegal. Texting and cell phones while driving have proven deadly and caused accidents and ought not to be allowed. Drinking while driving can be deadly also. But you only addressed one aspect, not the robbing, the child endangerment, the killing that happens in relationship to drugs- harm to many others.
                  You are absolutely dead wrong saying you can’t legislate morality. Without legislated morality, this country would be in absolute chaos BECAUSE men and women’s hearts are evil and desperately wicked. It is owing to the legislating of immorality that so many killings of babies has taken place, for example. Do you really believe there should be no law on the books saying murder is a crime? Is it okay if I wanted to rob you and did so? Or wouldn’t you rather that be against the law?
                  Regarding abortion- I’m glad you part ways with Ron Paul on that point.
                  Joseph and Mary obeyed God rather than man because Herod gave a law that if followed would have been disobedience to God on Joseph and Mary’s part. They were not to have Jesus murdered. Paul, Peter, etc. kept on preaching and teaching the Word of God because they were to obey God, and to not do what God commanded them to do would be to disobey God. Regarding your last question, do you have a Scripture reference? Because that claim sounds foreign to anything I’ve read in the Bible. I really would prefer to read God’s Word to what some false teacher is saying. And so far, what you’ve argued to me for anarchy does not line up to the Standard of Truth.

                • FutureOnePercent

                  I don’t think you understand what “anarchy” really is… it means no rulers, not no rules… so to say I don’t think there should be laws against murder is to misunderstand the very premise of this argument. For all the rest of it, the child abandonment, the robbery, etc those are the crimes, not the distraction that led to them.

                  There was a mother who was playing World of Warcraft while her child was starving to death, do I think we should ban World of Warcraft? It doesn’t matter the reason why someone was negligent, the crime is the negligence.

                • Galatiansch2vs20

                  I was replying to your statement that you can’t legislate morality when I was speaking of laws against murder and robbing. Now, you cannot make a person moral inside, and if that’s what you meant, I’m sorry I mistook what you said.
                  Governing authorities can legislate a moral code the governed must live up to in society, which has to be based on God’s Word, as He is the standard, the One Who writes His law upon the hearts of all mankind.

                  Regarding anarchy, meaning no rulers- from God’s Holy Word:

                  ‘And He changeth the times and the seasons: He removeth kings, and setteth up kings: He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:’
                  -Daniel 2:21

                  ‘Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
                  Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.
                  Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
                  Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.’
                  -Romans 13:1-6 NAS

                  The little child who drowned in the bathtub was not abandoned exactly- she was in the same house and ordinarily was well cared for. But because of the effects of the marijuana, the parents (who were very defensive of their use of the drug to law enforcement as they sat smoking it on their sofa) were not aware she had drowned and when they learned it, they were devastated. There are also people who endanger others’ health by their meth labs on their property or leaving drugs lying around that their kids get into, which can lead to overdose.

                  Regarding robbery, it’s not to do with a distraction that led to it, it’s to do with needing another fix, wanting another high, and not having the money to buy the drugs- perhaps because they can’t seem to stay employed owing to their addiction or because they already spent it all on drugs. So, a store will be robbed, for example, to get money for the drug habit.
                  Illegal, addictive drugs are destructive to the lives of those who take them and detrimental to society in that their effects lead to further crimes beyond that which the taker does to their own person.

                  Your example of the mother playing a game and neglecting feeding her child…. the mother should be arrested and her child taken away from her until such time, if ever, she can be deemed to be someone who would live as a responsible parent. So the end result should be similar.

                  The laws against illegal drugs are because they are known to lead to crimes against others and crimes against one’s own self (in the case of the latter, kind of like the police would try to rescue someone if they were about to jump off a bridge/tall building).

                  The police motto- to protect and to serve- is true in the case of the outlawing of drugs harmful to themselves and to others as it is to take away a starving child from a mentally imbalanced mother and placing the mother into some kind of mental rehabilitation program or something.

                • FutureOnePercent

                  The portion about Jesus saying that people call themselves rulers, but are acting without his authority was in my first response to you.

                  Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.”

                • Galatiansch2vs20

                  Looked a bit at context, and see that God is speaking of His chosen people Israel. God chose Saul, then David, but later, they had not only rejected God as King over them, but they were not having Him pick out their kings. So, God promised judgement upon them.
                  In the New Testament, submission to authorities taught by the Lord in Romans was during the time of the oppressive Roman government.

                • FutureOnePercent

                  My point is that it IS possible for our chosen leaders to not have their authority from God. Regardless of the situation, you can’t say that “all authority is given by God” when the Bible directly contradicts this. We need to be discerning about what is Biblical authority, and what is oppression.

                • Galatiansch2vs20

                  Not I say, but the Bible says, ‘;Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.’ (in the book of Romans, chapter 13)
                  This was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, spoke from God, through the apostle Paul, it didn’t come from me. And it was during a time of oppressive and tyrannical rule in the Roman empire.
                  As the Bible does not contradict itself, please consider the Biblical historical context of the verses talking about the Israelites in the Old Testament.

      • FutureOnePercent

        Here’s the quick version:

        Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.”

    • jdbaird

      I think he would have been a theocrat.

      • FutureOnePercent

        LOL, I admit it’s a baited title, but the article points out through the life of Jesus what his view of earthly governments was. So yes, he’s a theocrat, but would be considered an “anarchist” by the Harry Reids of his time.

  • deTocqueville1

    Great monologue.

  • Rshill7

    Yes Scoop, it was fantastic.

    Oh boy. I really enjoyed that. Great addition to the Scooparium. This gentleman has a quality headpiece and thinks things through. What a valuable asset he is to this country.

    I like him more and more each time I listen.

    Thanks Zo! Looking forward to your next bit of brilliance. Bring it!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA Booker

    Chipmunks! Ha-ha!!

  • nibblesyble

    I got my “Zo fix”…thanks Scoop!

  • Taurnil Oronar

    That was awesome!.

    The ending summarized Democrats, progressives, liberals and communists to a tee.

  • CalCoolidge

    Did Zo refer to the devil as “he?” Hmm.

    • tinlizzieowner

      ‘He’, in the generic sense. You know, like back in the days before the liberals took over, when ‘gay’ used to mean cheerful. ;-) ;-)

  • Kleverabevera

    As far as I am concerned the only thing close to a Caesar we have in America, is the constitution. I am all too happy to render unto it what it is due. It is the other side that has completely ignored and attempted to subvert it.

  • tinlizzieowner

    Excellent!, as usual. :-)

  • Sentinel

    Good job. I don’t know their heart… but based on their works and the evil they support, I question if they are really saved. Twisting God’s Word and acting/speaking like a Pharisee doesn’t improve your case. Nancy, Ed, and Charlie don’t have the high ground. And their phony piousness speaks volumes.

    • Patriot077

      I suspect that the politicians who intentionally twist scripture to suit their own purposes will be held to exacting judgement.

      • Sentinel

        Spot on!

    • 12grace

      Focus on the Family and the fight to
      save America

      http://tinyurl.com/mqe7sup

      THE SINS OF
      AMERICA

      you need to repent of.

      OUR PLEA TO HEAVEN

      Heavenly Father, You know the jeopardy that our nation is in the economic crisis, wars abroad, political and racial division at home, enemies working in our government and nation trying to destroy our way of life and our Christian foundations, natural and man-made calamities, political and bureaucratic mismanagement, and most of all families and our youth under assault and in crisis. Please God cause us your people to humble ourselves, confess our sins, to pray and to seek your face
      every day for the rest of our lives. God change men’s hearts to seek you and obey your word, to humble ourselves and serve you. Please intervene to save our nation to restore the old foundation of God, Country and Righteousness. Please come and heal our back sliding, our sin-broken church in America and heal our land. In Jesus Christ Name, Amen!

      (Is 1-3 all; 59: all; Joel 1:14;
      2:12-18; 2 Chr 7:14; Lk 16:15; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:16-26; Eph 5:3-7; Col
      3:3-10)

      • Sentinel

        Thank you for this! Amen!

  • CapeLady

    Anyone who believes Jesus would be a big government Democrat has replaced God with social justice and liberalism is their true religion. God deals with the human heart… not the IRS.

  • JRDF

    At that Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” (Mark 12 :13 – 17)

    Theological commentary 1 —- By adding “God’s things to God,” Jesus turns his pronouncement on paying taxes into a spiritual challenge to meet one’s obligations to God. — i.e. Our obligation, is for us (not government) to care for the poor —- Subsidiarity

    Theological Commentary 2 —- “pay taxes to state but also pay God” — acknowledges the state and accepts the necessity of the state but does not accept the state’s claim to be divine. — the state is the lesser of two evils, the worse being anarchy.

    Jewish teachings from the Torah — Mishnah Pirkei Avot — The State is Evil — Chapter 2 verse 3. – “Be careful in your relations with the government; for it draws no man close to itself except for its own interests. It appears as friends when it is to the politician’s advantage, but politicians do not stand by a man in his time of stress.”

    The State is Necessary — Chapter 3 verse 2 — Rabbi Chanina, an assistant of the high priest said: “Pray for the welfare of the government, since, but for fear of it, men would swallow each other alive.”

    James Madison – Father of the Constitution & 4th President – The Federalist No. 51 (Feb. 6, 1788) “If men were angels; no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

    Theological commentary 3 (Luke 20: 20-26) — pay taxes to state but also pay God — One interpretation seeks to interpret v. 25 within the flow of the Gospel of Luke, which has revealed a social pattern of care for the needy, which is contrary to the social pattern of mighty Rome.

    What was the social pattern of mighty Rome? Central Government Control

    What is it’s contrary? Subsidiarity

    ———

    Another way to say what Zo said — How many times did Jesus petition the government to care for the poor? How many times did Jesus petition his disciples to care for the poor?

    Render unto Caesar, Caesar’s responsibilities (national defense, border security).

    Render unto God, God’s responsibilities (care for the poor). As we are God’s disciples we stand in God’s stead & embrace “God’s responsibilities” (Subsidiarity), we do not abdicate them to the government (Socialism).

  • jdbaird

    You only need one verse to prove that democrats aren’t Christians: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” 2 Thess. 3:10

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanDuckie

    Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable. I brought up in an article something along this line. Jesus rebuked Judas for his remarks about Mary of Bethany when she opened the bottle of expensive perfume and anointed Him with it. That’s when Jesus said that the poor would always be among us, but He would not.
    His point also was that He knew Judas would have taken the money if the bottle had been sold, and stolen from it.

    So Judas, much like liberals USE the poor and steal from them. Maybe not steal their money, but they use them to keep them in perpetual poverty to steal their votes, to keep themselves in power.
    Charity is not using other people’s money or forced. There is nothing charitable about liberals in government. If they really cared about the poor, they would do everything they could to help them off a system of bureaucracy and show them that they have God given talents and gifts, that they are so much more worthy as humans, not subjects.
    Of course too, Jesus said more than just what appears in red letters. If Pelosi and all the others truly believed in Jesus, they would know – as she bragged once about the WORD being her favorite word, that Jesus is the Word, and that Word tells us thou shalt not murder, yet promoting and requiring people to go against their consciences to pay for abortions makes them out to be the biggest hypocrites since the Pharisees.

    • warpmine

      No, no, no, Nancy knows the Word better than He who spoke it. Can’t believe, she hasn’t spontaneously erupted in flames.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanDuckie

        lol. no kidding!

  • Vorlath -

    Teaching them about Jesus is good. I also wish Liberals could learn of the history of their own Party and how the tactics have changed, but the goals have not.

  • toongoon

    Pelosi sounds like munchkin but looks like the wicked witch of the west.

  • 1tootall

    This is speculation and probably a fun exercise. But what is NOT speculation is what He told us to do. He was very clear about that.

  • StrangernFiction

    Yeah, something tells me He wouldn’t be a big supporter of infanticide.

  • Mark

    Good stuff.

    1. I think Democrats are confusing stories. Robin Hood thought stealing from people and redistributing money was fine. Jesus wouldn’t favor oppressing minorities. He wouldn’t think it was okay for 51 percent to steal from 49 percent.

    2. Frankly I could not care any less about what Jesus would have thought about public policy. Why would Jesus know anything about government or economics? Einstein was a socialist. Why should I care what he thought on policy issues?

    • Rshill7

      Why would Jesus know? Oh, just a little thing called Omniscience. That means he knows everything about everything.

    • Ilpalazzo

      Robin Hood also stole from the elite rulers and gave to those who have been oppressed. The scenario now is the elite rich stealing from the broke using the lie that it’s for the poor

  • Dr. Strangelove

    Is it just me or do Pelosi and Rangle sound like Porky Pig when they’re sped up?

  • HCTUB

    This guy is right on 99.9% of the time .

  • 12grace

    Zo is fantastic! The leftist idiots trying to compare obama or leftist philosophy is absurd.

    PS

    Special Forces Lt. Gen. W.G. Boykin
    Warns of Engineered Economic Collapse, Martial Law, Dictatorship

    “The Church Must Rise Up”
    by Lt. Gen.W.G. “Jerry” Boykin U.S. Army (Retired)

    Rise UP! by Major General Paul E.
    Vallely, U.S. Army (Retired)

  • stage9

    The Lord AVOIDED politics. He was smart.

    • SenatorSting

      It seems to me, he got up in their grill. You know, the pharisees? The pharisees seem to have a lot of similarities with modern liberals as well, piling law upon law upon law, trying to micromanage human behavior that is not inherently wrong or immoral.

  • DebbyX

    That was amazing and should be on the nightly (not) news coverage!
    Dream on.

  • bflat879

    I don’t think it takes a lot of deep thought to equate todays Democrats with Pharisees, in the temple, who were worried about his philosophy rocking the boat. Would he be a Democrat, someone who wanted to give Caesar everything. versus rendering unto Caesar what was Caesars, is highly doubtful.
    The Democrats neither understand our Constitution nor our Bible, so I have no clue why anyone would accept their opinion on the subject. Their whole goal is power and the more people they can convince they’re right, the more powerful they are.

  • Mike Milhollin

    The killing of unborn children is the deal breaker for Jesus being a dem.

  • Sally

    Great video! The “render back unto Caesar” explanation makes sense. Same thing as saying the government has none of its own money, only that of the American people.

  • Just Another Guy

    I think the “teach them to fish” is definitely a Conservative ideal. Giving them a fish is a Liberal one…feed them, but keep them dependent.