Inspired by Abs.

WWJD? I often think this is a good question. I often look at it and think I am viewing a certain demographic of our country driving by me (or getting driven by) on the road.

I think Judeo-Christian ethics a fine standards but in practice we seem to admire Machievelli more.

Simply put would Jesus have been a good national leader. Economic policy? moneylenders Political policy? Social policy? Foreign policy?

Eeyore:"Simply put would Jesus have been a good national leader?"

Economic policy: Considering the insignificance of money to Jesus I wouldn't think there would be much of an economic policy, so much as there would be some sort of pervasive socialist philosophy asking and encouraging everybody to support one another. I'll be curious to see other perspectives on this one, if anybody can come up with any kind of system he might have theoretically applied.

Political policy: Honestly I can't really see Jesus as a political leader. As such I have a hard time imagining him having any discernable political policy. It seems Jesus would rather have served as a teacher and guide for others, encouraging them to think and act for themselves, but in a manner conducive for peace and harmony.

Social policy: To sum it up: The Golden Rule.

Foreign policy: Again to sum it up: The Good Samaritin. I imagine Jesus would seek to dissolve the borders and other barriers that stand between people living peacefully with one another in spite of remaining personal differences.

There will be those who will probably say none of these strategies, or any others proposed by people on this thread, could ever work. And yet so many people proclaim themselves to be followers of the Christian faith. Indeed, isn't such a world or system what many people view the afterlife to be? But they can't be bothered with it here where brand names and entertainment come before people and compassion.

Jesus was presumably crucified for his beliefs and such crucifixions only continue today. Those who would like to see such a vision pursued in this mortal realm are labeled as dreamers or crazy. Were any political leader to take up such a path they would likely find themselves removed from office or worse...

It's strange how so many proclaimed followers of Jesus can simultaneously behave so much more like the Jewish citizenry and Roman officials who sought his blood to begin with.

Edited to add:To directly answer the question, I don't think Jesus ever would have been so much a national leader as a national teacher. In either case I think the principles that would have been promoted would have been good and beneficial, but that he probably would again be put to death by those blinded by self interest and hungry for power.

[Also:I ANSWER THIS ASSUMING THE PERSON OF JESUS DID EXIST AND THAT THE ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE PRESENTED IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS MORE OR LESS ACCURATE -- I WILL LIKELY DISCUSS AND DEBATE TOPICS PERTAINING TO JESUS ON SEPERATE THREADS IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FASHION THAN WHAT IS PRESENTED HERE]

LOL! I didn't know that's what it stood for. I thought it was 'What world jurisdiction?' Which would also be appropriate for that particular post.

I think Christ would've made a terrible leader. He was an inspirational speaker, but his closest followers wouldn't defend him, or admit they knew him, until he actually rose from the dead.

I guess it depends on whether you would like a theocracy. There would no longer be a separation of Church and State.

One good thing would be that Jesus would know who the people on his side were as opposed to the ones who said they were on his side.

Another issue would be term limits....

His wisdom and integrity would be very refreshing. And if you believe in omnipotence and omniscience, he would know who was responsible for everything that went on. I believe he would be fair and compassionate, too.

Whether I would be happy about it or not depends upon my own goodness (or lack).

Jesus would not have been a good leader. Why, you ask? (I'm gonna pretend you all asked, so bear with me here )
This isn't because he's a bad person, but because of all the atheists (such as myself) and all the other people with different religions, who wouldn't believe in him, or would refuse to listen to him, or even attack him due to his obviously strong religious "stances and connections."

I must agree with my friend, although I am a Christian, and my family is very involved in the church, what would the other religions think? They would consider it like a forigen ((i know i can't spell)) king coming and saying "I am your ruler, obey NOW." Many people would not listen, and Jesus wouldn't be able to make them listen, just like the romans.

-The Grand Puba

If Jesus would not be a good leader, why have so many proclaimed Him theirs for over 2000 years? And make so many problems over select issues surrounding the wisdom and teachings.

Are the people hypocrites who somewhat embrace an ideal, ( or usage of specifics, not the whole) however in their hearts and minds know that the big picture REALLY DOESNT WORK in the real world?

Then whats the point of all the damn preaching if one really doesnt believe it all as an entirety? Not a sign of true faith, I imagine, but simply convienience and manipulation of others.

"Then whats the point of all the damn preaching if one really doesnt believe it all as an entirety?"

I feel the best answer to this question is another question: What's in it for me?

People may not think living the way Jesus would have had them live is possible, or even appealing, but perhaps giving him their metaphysical vote they'll still be able to get into heaven regardless. While this won't apply to all Christians, how many people could we pick out in Sunday mass across this country whose only claim to faith is going to that Sunday mass? I'd venture to say quite a few.

A lot of people seem to want a free ride to Heaven by enrolling in Jesus's "political party," even if they don't accept in their own lives the points put forth on his platform, and even if they don't intend to actually vote for him.

Think of most of the people as wolves in sheeps clothing. They like the general idea of equality and unconditional love, but they just can't put off the hunger in their bellies. Eventually the wolf is going to come out and the sheep will no longer walk amongst 'em. And as I recall, Jesus was the Lamb.

Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" when he was questioned by Pilate. That was before the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.

Every time I go to mass I repeat with the others the same proclamation, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."
I believe what we are saying to be true. And I believe he is coming back at some undisclosed time whether we are ready or not.

Only those of us who believe the Christian dogma really need concern ourselves about how effective a leader he will be.

I believe that current government systems will be unnecessary, as I believe Christ is God Incarnate. Everything will have to change--but we're talking omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence here.

When it happens, he'll be effective. But it won't be at all like our present circumstances.

I am not attempting to offend non-believers or believers of other faiths; they have their own concepts. But I believe this to be a reasonable response for a person who is a believer.

That is reasonable.

However... in order for current government systems to be unnecessary and for people to accept a reincarnated Jesus as their leader, it would seem the people themselves would first have to accept the lifestyle put forth by Jesus, rather than the Machiavelli standards currently dominating the world stage.

If people can't first accept the lifestyle, how can they be expected to accept its founder? It would seem to reason that Jesus would have to be supported as a leader to be a leader, unless the other people don't matter or aren't under his control. And I'm assuming that they wouldn't be forced to fall in line, lest the carpenter be infringing on the gift of free will.

I guess it just seems to be that to be a good leader, he'd also need people to lead. And right now it doesn't seem as though there are many who would follow.

Abs, while I completely agree with you, I think that you and I (for example) see Jesus primarily within a human context. He was a wise man, he was a man with sublimely excellent traits, but ultimately he was human, and as such, fallible.

Paladin, however, sees Jesus in a purely divine context. While he wears the skin of a human, his fundamental nature is divine. And from that perspective, the way in which Jesus would wield the "power" of leadership would involve a radical shifting of our understanding of the concepts of "power," "control," and "leadership."

To me, this topic has two branches - I would answer one way if we were to assume that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God. Within that context, rather than debate the theology of divinity and faith, I would mostly agree with Paladin, because the incontrovertible return of Jesus in the way described by John would be cause for a fundamental shift in consciousness.

The other branch (and I personally find this branch to be a more broad and debatable question), asks what would Jesus Christ the person do as, say, the president of the United States? If the question is placed in a human context, I think Abs has hit the nail on the head.

It's fairly obvious that without the Divine super-powers to back him up, someone who espoused the philosophy which Jesus taught could never get elected. Besides the fact that I doubt he would run for office, his views on many issues would alienate a lot of people. Frankly, most people would probably think he was on drugs. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that he were our president.

He'd probably be a great diplomat, particularly in the area of peace brokering.

Would he dismantle the military? I think that one is open to some debate.

The more I think about these issues, though, the more open all these questions seem. Our interpretations of Jesus and his teachings are so varied. Conservative fundamentalists, Catholics, and Mennonites see Christ in completely different ways. Coming from a Mennonite background, I see Jesus as truly the "Prince of Peace," akin to the Dalai Lama in personality, governing an enlightened humanitarian form of socialism. Others may see him as "the Sword," bringing swift judgement upon the heathens.

We essentially tried Jesus the man as president. His name was Jimmy Carter.

He was rejected for a second term by a man who loved jelly beans and starred in a show with a primate. He was so much preferred as a leader, by comparison, he was then reelected for a second term.

These are good, well-reasoned postings.

I would agree that Jimmy Carter is the most Christlike President we have had, at least in recent times.

I do believe that there are definitely two distinct viewpoints of Jesus in the Bible: the Jesus of the Gospels who has come to save God the Father's lost creation, and Jesus the Supreme Master and Judge of the book of Revelation. The Jesus of the Gospels is the one who has my love.
The Jesus of Revelation I fear.

As Quarkhead eloquently expressed it, the Jesus who returns to earth will effect a transformation of consciousness, so that the issues which concern us now will no longer exist. Who knows what wonderful things humanity with be able to accomplish then!