robertv3

I read this strange thing today:

' "How many AR-15s do you think Jesus would have had?" {Colorado Representative Lauren} Boebert asked a crowd at a Christian campaign event in June. I'm going with none, honestly, but her answer was, "Well, he didn't have enough to keep his government from k*****g him." '

( from: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/05/opinion/e******n-republican-greene-vance.html )

( The nytimes columnist provides a link to this source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/20/lauren-boebert-republican-dinner-jesus-second-coming )

( That Guardian article links to a youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOIgcSz2RLM&t=3783s in which you can watch and hear when Boebert said it. You can see she smiles when she says it (and also makes an attribution to "trolls" just a bit earlier), which blurs exactly what her intention is with saying it. But then she references "Shadrack, Meschach, and Abednego", saying "King Nebuchadnezzar tried to cancel them" and then "How many trials have been put in front of you, to cancel you?" And that's as far as I've listened. She lined up the AR-15s, Jesus, Nebuchadnezzar, "cancel", and "you" all in rapid succession, apparently linking them together with some meaning. Or at least I think she intended linking them together with some meaning.

I admit to having an opinion about that. But I want to see what you think of it. The part that interests me is the part about "Jesus" not having "enough {AR-15s} to keep his government from k*****g him." What exactly do you make of that? And if you watched that part of the youtube video, what do you think Boebert's intention was with that?

I'm thinking of what I've heard in Christian churches and what I've read in the Bible. I was in a little play in church, about 15 years ago, about Jesus and his disciples in the garden, when the "chief priests and captains of the temple and elders" and at least one "s***e" came. (Part of the story involves a question about a sword. And so on.) (Luke 22:47-54)

I'm curious about what each of you think of all of the above.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Do you not recognize a metaphor when you see one?

If you have an opinion about that, why don't you share it?
Why must you wait until someone else makes something of it?

Smedley_buzkill

Grammar is no longer taught. It is going the way of cursive writing in our rush to national dumb ass.

rebelwidacoz Loc: Illinois

The Romans were not his Government,A king ( he was known as the king of the Jews) would not concede letting another kings government be his government.
As the son of God,what would he need with
AR- 15's

archie bunker Loc: Texas

If Jesus had a Ford F-250 burning diesel, he could have escaped his captors. Even a Ford can outrun a donkey.

Smedley_buzkill

Watch that Ford stuff, Chevy boy.

robertv3

What you say could be literally true; but I think it leaves out some important factors.

You say: "The Romans were not his Government,A king ( he was known as the king of the Jews) would not concede letting another kings government be his government."

Yes, Jesus was governed primarily by a spiritual government rather than a secular government. That's if we consider that Jesus was primarily spiritual rather than secular (or even primarily spiritual rather than physical).

But in a secular way Jesus did submit to secular (or worldly) government. According to Matthew 22:21, he said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". And he did find a way to comply with the secular law, with a coin from a fish in Matthew 17:27. Jesus also submitted his physical body (for crucifixion) to people who did not share his spiritual orientation. It looked like maybe he didn't have a choice in that, but I think he did have a choice, from way back before when he started his ministry: he knew (or may have known) that it would end like this but he did it anyway.

You say, "As the son of God, what would he need with AR- 15's".

Possibly we are in agreement about that.

My interpretation is that for Jesus, force was not the point.

I think that Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert is misrepresenting what Christianity's about. She thinks she can get away with it by pretending the part about AR-15s was a joke, or even something that somebody _else_ said. But she speaks in such a way as to link together, for a gullible audience, (a), (b), (c), and (d):

(a) AR-15s or physical weaponry and violence in general,

(b) wh**ever "trials" or stress they are having,

(c) Christianity and righteousness,

and:
(d) "cancel" which is a reference to "cancel culture", by which she is pointing out which cultural or political side the audience is to be against.

I don't know much else about her, so maybe I shouldn't guess what she herself actually thinks internally. She could be sincere, or not.

_I_ think that Jesus would prefer Boebert's audience to know that force is not the point.

And I think Boebert is just one more "Trumpist" (Trump-like or Trump-supporting) Republican stirring up public unrest for the purpose of seizing power whether they (Republicans) win e******ns or not (no matter how true their e******n losses might be). If that kind of Republicans succeed, the effect is to (sooner or later) shunt aside the entire U.S. American project of a democratic republic, and replace it with a combination of mob rule, autocracy, and maybe theocracy. It would overall be a big step backward to how things were a few centuries ago when kings ruled with impunity and claimed "divine right".

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

What "spiritual government" are you talking about?

"My kingdom is not of this world."

robertv3

rebelwidacoz had earlier written: "A king ( he was known as the king of the Jews) would not concede letting another kings government be his government."

What he wrote doesn't exactly _say_ that there _is_ a "his government", but I decided to interpret it that way: that Jesus had/has a government (or a "way") which is not "another king's government".

I'm using the word "government" to mean a system that guides or "governs" what a person does (as opposed to the absence of any guiding system of thought, which would lead to more random behavior).

Since Jesus was very spiritual, I say that wh**ever his system of thought is which guides his actions, that's the thing that's his government.

If I had to name it, I'd call it "Jesus's government" or even just Jesus's Way (which to me is roughly the same thing); or Jesus's God's government, or Jesus's God's Way.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You just don't have a clue, do ya?

robertv3

Some things are more subtle than merely guns or boasting. Maybe you just don't appreciate those things. So far I'm not convinced that you can explain better.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

We are talking about your ridiculous idea that Jesus formed a government.

robertv3

I explained what I meant by "government". I had borrowed the word from rebelwidacoz, who had brought it up in a short discussion about Jesus. It looks like you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that a system of thought could guide actions. If you're really interested enough to write here, why don't you explain what you think the word "government" means? Go ahead, commit yourself to a thought in writing. Then people can comment on _your_ thought.

Rowdy Yates

On the night he was betrayed Jesus told his desciples to sell their cloaks to get enough money to buy 2 swords to defend themselves. Jesus was arrested before they could. At least his death forgives my sins, I hope St. Peter has a comphy chair.

robertv3

Is all of that a joke? If it's for real then please give a reference.