I really have to do this again don't I ? Okay, let's get started point by point.
Yes, Jesus was peaceful BUT, Jesus was not 100% anti-violent. This is NOT to say that Jesus went around preaching violence, HOWEVER John 2:14-25, Jesus drove heathens out of the Temple. Now, how exactly did Jesus do this? He used a WHIP! It's right there in The Bible, check it out. Jesus attacked them with a Whip. Now you might be asking yourself, Why did Jesus do this? Well, because the heathens were defacing his Father's house. The Jews even noticed this and asked Him what authority did he do this under. This doesn't mean go out and attack people with a whip BUT this does mean that Jesus did react physically against morally corrupt practices going on in His father's house. So much for your non-violent angle. Oh and insult to injury here, Jesus in Luke 22:36 tells His followers to "sell your cloak and buy a SWORD". Which means that Jesus was NOT against self-defense, and understood the need for such things. To support the non-violent aspect though, Jesus did react negatively when Peter cut the ear off of The Roman soldier who arrested Jesus, Luke 22:49-51. However Jesus wasn't having it and healed the soldier's ear. Why ? Because Jesus understood what needed to be done and was willing to go peacefully. So yeah wrong there Mr. Fugelsang. Also, you'll notice I'm using citations to validate point.
"Hung around with lepers, hookers and criminals"
Yep. Jesus did all those things. Note, He did NOT advocate their activity though.
"Never spoke English and not an American citizen."
"Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Wealth"
WRONG! Jesus never taught any exact political system (mostly because Christianity can work in any political system that will allow it to work). Jesus may have not taught capitalism BUT Mr. Fugelsang's words were "ANTI-CAPITALISM" which means He was AGAINST Capitalism. Now where would we find Jesus teaching against Capitalism? Nowhere. Jesus and The Bible do speak a lot about sharing though, Romans 12:10-13, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Tim 6:17-18, Hebrews 13:15-16. So The Bible teaches sharing...but ANTI-CAPITALISM?! Not at all. First of all in order to SHARE something you'd have to OWN something to begin with. Furthermore let's take a look at Acts 5:1-11, specifically verse 4 where Peter reveals Ananias OWNED the land. Therefore Peter was attempting to BUY some land, Buying implies that someone OWNED the land in order to sell it. Now, IF Peter was a follower of Jesus (and if Jesus was ANTI-CAPITALISM as Mr. Fugelsang said) then Peter would have had to rebuke the man and shun him for being selfish with the land that was rightfully everyone's. But no, Peter even told Ananias that if he didn't want to sell the land, he didn't have to! So obviously Jesus was HEAVY on sharing but was NOT anti-capitalism by ANY stretch of the imagination.
This anti-rich part makes me laugh A LOT. For someone who claimed to have a pretty exclusive Christian background (Catholic...not the same thing) he really doesn't know much about the teachings of Jesus. Let's start at the beginning shall we? Jesus is God in the flesh (this is what Christians believe John 8:48...I could go on). So Jesus is God in The Flesh. In The Old Testament there was a man who was called a man after God's own heart, this man later became King. I'm talking about David. David was King...King equals rich. David was very rich and VERY blessed by God (keep in mind Jesus came from David's lineage)., So what does this tell you about rich people and their relationship to God? God is NOT ANTI-RICH, THEREFORE JESUS ISN'T EITHER! Jesus is against THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Why can't anyone understand this? Just to be redundant let's review the little scene in Luke 18:18-25 (crack open your Bibles, NOW!).
The Rich Ruler calls Jesus "Good.". Jesus answers this with a VERY important question that The Rich Ruler does NOT catch, nor respond to BUT this is a VERY critical part of understanding this text. Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God.". If The Rich Ruler were paying attention he would have heard the subtext of the question, just in case you missed it, allow me to clean it up for you. Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler if he was calling him God (once again Jesus is God in the Flesh). Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler this question because He wanted to make this guy knew who he was talking to (and apparently he didn't). So Jesus lists the bottom 5 commandants and ignores the top 5 (I'll explain why in a bit). The Rich Ruler confirms that he has kept those commandants and then Jesus tells him to SELL EVERYTHING he owns and join Him. The Rich Ruler is OBVIOUSLY disheartened by this answer and leaves.
The COMMON misconception here is that Jesus literally wanted this man to sell everything and join Him, and why wouldn't that be a misconception, that's EXACTLY what Jesus said is it not? Yes, but here's where the topic of those missing 5 commandants come into play. The 10 Commandants are divided into 2 sets. The first 5 are man's responsibility before God, the second 5 are man's responsibility to each other. The Rich Ruler was doing great on his responsibilities to his fellow man but his responsibilities before God were LACKING VERY MUCH SO. How do I know this? Because Jesus was able to see into the man's heart (once again Jesus is God) and Jesus saw that The Rich Ruler loved his money more so than God. If The Rich Ruler DID love God, he would have been more than willing to sell his possessions. Jesus wasn't condemning the man for being rich, he was condemning the man for his unwillingness to part with his riches for eternal life (which to be fair it was The Ruler who asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life). Basically if The Rich Ruler REALLY wanted eternal life, he would have agreed. I doubt Jesus would have made him sell everything BUT the willingness of The Ruler would have shown Jesus that The Rich Ruler was down for the cause all the way, instead The Rich Ruler exposed his true nature. JESUS IS NOT AGAINST PEOPLE BEING RICH! DAVID WAS RICH! SOLOMON WAS RICH! ESTHER WAS RICH! JESUS IS AGAINST THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Matt 6:24,Luke 16:13,1 Tim 6:10, Hebrews 13:5! Once again, citations.
Seriously? Wow...this is a MAJOR swing and miss Mr. Fugelsang...so far you just got a few right. But this is just sad. Okay, let's look at Matthew 6:5 because that's the ONLY one He gives a citation for...and didn't research it completely, so leave it to me to come in and clean things up. Let's get started. Jesus was instructing His disciples to not be like hypocrites who pray for show. Jesus was NOT ANTI-PUBLIC prayer. Now Jesus DID preach to pray in private, Matthew 6:6-14. But Jesus is mostly discouraging making a spectacle of prayer. If a massive gathering of people decide to pray on the beach or at a camp site or event at school, Jesus isn't going to shake a finger at them. Jesus makes that clear when He says "so that they may be seen by men". Once again Jesus is God and He's talking about the intent of their actions, (ie, hoping people see how "holy" they are by praying in public). Jesus discourages this because their intention is NOT to seek an audience with God but rather to make a spectacle of themselves.
Not true in a broader sense of the term, because Jesus is pretty much the invocation of The ULTIMATE DEATH penalty, (John 8:24). So was Jesus for the electric chair, lethal injection, ect. ect.? No, BUT He will bring judgment and a LOT of people are going to die, not only physically but eternally in Hellfire. But this is a broader sense of the term. However in The Old Testament who do find a Death penalty in effect. Death penalty is a societal issue and each society will judge if they choose to have one. Jesus made no pro or con about a death penalty for murders ect. ect. Death penalties are NOT about punishment, rather they're about justice. They are not meant to be cruel, they are meant to serve justice to those who have taken a life. For those who are anti-death penalty, you might as well be anti-war and anti-police as well because both of these jobs require you to kill when necessary (NOT out of punishment, out of justice and/or defense). God did not condemn David for killing Goliath, which shows that God understands the meaning of war and all that entails. So is Jesus anti-death penalty? No, but He wasn't exclusively pro-death penalty either...not making a very strong case here Mr. Fugelsang.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Okay, let's go to The Bible to Matthew 19:4-6. Here we see Jesus outlining what a marriage is. Notice, He says MALE AND FEMALE! And how wonderful is it that the text put those in all caps so I didn't have to. Don't give me that face as if homosexuals weren't as popular in that day as they are now (The Romans pretty much perfected homosexuality). Jesus makes it very clear, MALE AND FEMALE. Still not convinced? Okay, let's go to Leviticus 18. Specifically Lev 18:22. Once again, Jesus is God in the flesh (so if God says it Jesus agrees with it). Oh Ugo, that's the OLD testament! Okay, let's look at the new, specifically Romans 1:18-32. Very clearly there's a major anti-homosexual message here. Now Mr. Fugelsang, I have to GREATLY question your admiration of Jesus at this point. You claim to admire Him and Jesus affirms The Bible as His inspired word...so when Jesus' inspired word preaches a message that is clearly anti-homosexual, you claim that Jesus was never against it. So obviously you're picking and choosing what you want to believe about Jesus instead of who Jesus actually IS. This is NOT admiration. Furthermore 1 Cor 6:9.
"Didn't mention abortion."
If you mean Jesus used the word "abortion" no, He did not. BUT Jesus does state that "Thou shall not commit murder!" Matthew 19:18. I am 100% we can all agree on what murder is, right? Murder is the unlawful taking of someone's life. Prime example:
If a police officer is chasing a criminal and the criminal prepares to shoot a civilian in order to escape and the police officer shoots the criminal and kills him, we do not call that a murder. The Police officer was acting in the defense of a civilian. This is echoed in several other instances. As I've stated before David killed Goliath in the setting of war. In these cases not even God calls that murder. These are simply killings. Murder would be the aforementioned criminal shooting a civilian. There was no law or infraction made upon the criminal to shoot the civilian. Can we all agree on that? Good. So if Jesus commands us not to commit murder, and very clearly God makes a distinction between murder and killing, I ask you a very important question: What law did an embryo break in order to be killed?
But you're already saying that abortion is NOT murder, okay so in order for it NOT to be a murder there MUST be a lawful reason WHY you're killing someone...otherwise it's murder. And I have done my research, embryos develop heartbeats as soon as 6 weeks! And as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and you actively seek to STOP that heartbeat, that in my mind is murder. And consider this Ex 21:22-23. Please note that this does NOT specify AT WHAT TERM this is acceptable. Now there are people who will argue the following:
This was a comment in response to "180 The Movie" found on Youtube. The username has been blurred out to protect the innocent and the section I am arguing has been highlighted.
A fetus will GROW into a person, so it may not be a person YET but it will grow to be one. In a similar fashion a seed is NOT an apple tree YET, but it will GROW to be one (this is not a disputable fact). So saying that a fetus is not a person is to deny the fact that it will be a person. As far as not having thoughts, feeling, self-awareness or complex interpersonal relationships...first of all, coma patients don't have feelings (how can they? They're in comas). Self-awareness, most mentally retarded children aren't self-aware and once again, neither are people in comas. And interpersonal relationships, the fetus's FIRST interpersonal relationship is with THE MOTHER, so that's a foolish argument to make on all accounts. And considering the logical conclusion I've drawn here, Jesus is against abortion, He just never used the word "abortion".
"Didn't mention premarital sex"
So that whole thing about looking at a woman lustfully in Matthew 5:27-28 had NOTHING to do with premarital sex. Considering that Jesus emphasized marriage Matthew 19, and condemned fornicators in Matthew 15:19-20. Furthermore, Jesus' points are echoed in Acts 15:29, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and in Hebrews 13:4. It's PAINFULLY obvious that Jesus taught against premarital sex. Once again, I've got citations, all you've got is well..pretty much your word and so far it's not looking very reliable.
"Never justified torture."
You're 100% right. Jesus was not pro-torture.
"Never called the poor lazy."
"Never asked a leper for a co-pay."
"Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthy Nazereans."
"Long haired, brown skinned, homeless Middle Eastern Jew."
Okay, quick issue. Although I won't deny that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, going to Revelation to support this is NOT the best way to go and here's why. Revelation is an EXTREMELY coded book FILLED with Jewish iconography and symbology of the day that only The Jews of that time would understand. The verse Mr. Fugelsang is referring to is Rev 1:12-14. HOWEVER, you have to understand that "Wool" and "Bronze" were not straight forward terms like they are today, whether they meant something different in that time. Consider the visions in Daniel 2. Each material and animal was reflective of 4 rising empires. It's all very hard to explain so I suggest pulling out a Bible a research it for yourselves. Long story short, a LOT of Revelation is symbolic language. ONCE again, I am NOT denying that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, I'm just saying Revelation ain't to place to go proving that. Gun to my head, if I HAD to guess what Jesus MAY have looked like, I'd immediately pick:
I'd go so far as to Jesus was probably just as built as Naveen Andrews to, considering Jesus was a carpenter and all.
"Of course that's only if you actually believe what's in The Bible."
Well Mr. Fugelsang, I suggest you stick to comedy as your knowledge of The Bible and Jesus is pretty flawed, which amazes me because you said you admire Him. I think you just admire the image you made up of Him in your mind, because the TRUE Jesus would rebuke you for distorting His word to suit your own political alignment. Now, I'll leave the case to you, the reader, which one of us made a more clear case for our position? The person offering citations, references and logic to support their position or the person who was merely making statement after statement without context? The choice is obvious. I suggest YOU read your Bible Mr. Fugelsang and believe what's in there. Thank you all and God bless.