Opinion of people who think Jesus of Nazareth would be a "......." today

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

The Democrats do have a monopoly, though. A good gage of the social justice scene is tumblr and when tumblr only supports one party it is the social justice party. There are no republican demisexuals for a reason.

Does the fact that there are (one assumes) few or no genderqueer cardinals then also mean that the Catholic Church doesn't talk about something that it calls 'social justice', even though it manifestly does all the time and you implicitly admitted as much several posts ago?

Also, a lot of people on tumblr are what we on this forum call True Leftists. Such people almost invariably consider the Democratic Party, or at least its leading figures, insufficiently left-wing to be worth bothering to vote for.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

what is this

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

The Democrats do have a monopoly, though. A good gage of the social justice scene is tumblr and when tumblr only supports one party it is the social justice party. There are no republican demisexuals for a reason.

Does the fact that there are (one assumes) few or no genderqueer cardinals then also mean that the Catholic Church doesn't talk about something that it calls 'social justice', even though it manifestly does all the time and you implicitly admitted as much several posts ago?

Also, a lot of people on tumblr are what we on this forum call True Leftists. Such people almost invariably consider the Democratic Party, or at least its leading figures, insufficiently left-wing to be worth bothering to vote for.

All of that is true, but my argument is that everyone from Catholics to Otherkin have the same basic desire, social justice, but it is simply manifested in different forms. The facts on the ground, like the catholic church often being anti-queer, are simply artifacts of mass politics. I would say a similar comparison to this social justice group would be the fact that Democrats and Republicans are all classical liberals but each are morphed into different shapes by mass politics.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

The Democrats do have a monopoly, though. A good gage of the social justice scene is tumblr and when tumblr only supports one party it is the social justice party. There are no republican demisexuals for a reason.

Does the fact that there are (one assumes) few or no genderqueer cardinals then also mean that the Catholic Church doesn't talk about something that it calls 'social justice', even though it manifestly does all the time and you implicitly admitted as much several posts ago?

Also, a lot of people on tumblr are what we on this forum call True Leftists. Such people almost invariably consider the Democratic Party, or at least its leading figures, insufficiently left-wing to be worth bothering to vote for.

All of that is true, but my argument is that everyone from Catholics to Otherkin have the same basic desire, social justice, but it is simply manifested in different forms. The facts on the ground, like the catholic church often being anti-queer, are simply artifacts of mass politics. I would say a similar comparison to this social justice group would be the fact that Democrats and Republicans are all classical liberals but each are morphed into different shapes by mass politics.

I understand and agree with that claim but I'm trying to explain why I think that it directly contradicts your other claim that Democrats are the singular 'party of social justice' and we can tell this because tumblr leftism. If anything, you're making an argument for the third option in this poll.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

The Democrats do have a monopoly, though. A good gage of the social justice scene is tumblr and when tumblr only supports one party it is the social justice party. There are no republican demisexuals for a reason.

Does the fact that there are (one assumes) few or no genderqueer cardinals then also mean that the Catholic Church doesn't talk about something that it calls 'social justice', even though it manifestly does all the time and you implicitly admitted as much several posts ago?

Also, a lot of people on tumblr are what we on this forum call True Leftists. Such people almost invariably consider the Democratic Party, or at least its leading figures, insufficiently left-wing to be worth bothering to vote for.

All of that is true, but my argument is that everyone from Catholics to Otherkin have the same basic desire, social justice, but it is simply manifested in different forms. The facts on the ground, like the catholic church often being anti-queer, are simply artifacts of mass politics. I would say a similar comparison to this social justice group would be the fact that Democrats and Republicans are all classical liberals but each are morphed into different shapes by mass politics.

I understand and agree with that claim but I'm trying to explain why I think that it directly contradicts your other claim that Democrats are the singular 'party of social justice' and we can tell this because tumblr leftism. If anything, you're making an argument for the third option in this poll.

I think this is a question of degree. I don't think that the pro-republican 'social justice' types are significant enough that Jesus would consider them an acceptable enough part of the party that he would join them. The Democrats are far closer to the Jesus ideal, so I think that Jesus would be a Democrat if only by "choosing the lesser evil."
I do certainly see the merit in the third option and can't really refute it. I just think of Jesus being a proto-democrat as a Moorean truth.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I do certainly see the merit in the third option and can't really refute it. I just think of Jesus being a proto-democrat as a Moorean truth.

Oh okay! That makes a lot more sense. I think it's ridiculous but it makes a lot more sense.

[The Mikado]

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil.

As one would expect for any itinerant preacher in 1st century Judea.  If there were actual "evidence" that'd be far more suspicious than the lack.  In an era with no birth certificates, baptismal records, death certificates, marriage licenses, tax returns, etc. why would we have any evidence for anyone's existence except top political, cultural, and military figures, and not even all of them?  As late as the 14th century no name was attached to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, should we just assume that it popped into existence magically and the anonymous author is fictional because we have no proof of his/her existence?

[King]

Jesus would be arrested on drummed up child molestation charges today