Because Jesus had authority at temples and beat people.

I 100% can’t tell if you’re joking here but he actually did chase people out of a temple at least once for using religion for their own selfish gains, complete with literal table flipping and improvised whips

So really it’s not that he would have trump thrown out as much as he would storm in and accuse him of turning his father’s house into a den of thieves before upending a table on his head

Dude, Jesus not only chased them out, he broke stuff they were selling, let loose all of their animals, and fucking flipped all the money-changing tables.

Jesus 100% would have been chasing Trump out with a table leg.

I’m gonna go pray really hard for Jesus to come back right now

Man Jesus wouldn’t like any of the squares in Washington.

No, He probably wouldn’t.  But He’d care about them anyways.

“President of the United States” isn’t like “temple money changer,” even if the people involved are both greedy and corrupt.  I’m pretty sure the “prosperity gospel” folks bilking people out of their money are more “temple money changers.”

But I get the feeling that Jesus would have sat down to lunch with our corrupt politicians and talked with them and tried to convince them to stop screwing people over, and then most of the people here would be like, “JESUS SUCKS, HE HANGS OUT WITH DONALD TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS!”  Remember, they accused Him of being “a friend of sinners and tax collectors (i.e., corrupt government officials).”

I think it’d be a bit more like “Jesus spends a day with Trump and before you know it, Trump is giving half of his money away to charity.”  `Cause that’s how Jesus do.

Or maybe not.  But who knows? 

Oh, you’ve noticed that too?

No kidding.  It’s been done to death.  At this point, having your Holy Church of the Supreme Light (or whatever your Roman Catholic knock-off is) being a benevolent group in service to a benevolent supreme being would be the real twist.  No one would see it coming.

All but one of his friends were killed, too.

And they expected it.  They knew it was coming.  They preached all the same.

have you considered that building a system that does that on a large national scale would be the best way to help the poor and helpless

Like welfare?

It’s not charity if you don’t have a choice, taxes aren’t optional.

And if you can vote for a welfare state but you don’t pay taxes then you are essentially voting to take someone’s money and have the government give it to you.

Also putting large sums of money into the hands of a few people who control how that money is spent can breed corruption.

It’s better for charity to be private and locally controlled so it can be responsive to the problems that a particular town or county is facing.

Here’s the thing, though:

There are a ton of people who talk about how America is a Christian nation (or “founded on Biblical principles!”, whatever that means) and want big shows of public piety, or to make things illegal based on if they’re “sinful” according to their interpretation of the Bible.  And these will, almost without fail, be the same ones making this argument.

If we’re a Christian nation making Christian laws based on Christianity and the Bible, then “take what you have and give it to the poor” is absolutely something we should be voting on the government to do.  If we’re not willing to do that - if Christian charity is something separate from what we expect from our government - then how the fuck are we going to expect them to support other laws regarding the Christian religion, like banning gay marriage or putting the Ten Commandments outside of courthouses?

How are we going to say that the government is supposed to be representative of the collective will of a Christian society and should pass laws reflecting that, and then say it’s wrong for that government to collect money from that society to give to the poor, something that Christians are supposed to do?

For my part, I’m in favor of separation of church and state in all those regards.  If you think that gay marriage is sinful, then don’t get gay married; that’s not the government’s business.  If you think the Ten Commandments should be in front of a courthouse, then Muslims have every bit as much right to say that the Five Pillars of Islam should be there too.  I’d rather have neither.

Here’s the thing, though:

There are a ton of people who talk about how America is a Christian nation (or “founded on Biblical principles!”, whatever that means) and want big shows of public piety, or to make things illegal based on if they’re “sinful” according to their interpretation of the Bible.  And these will, almost without fail, be the same ones making this argument.

If we’re a Christian nation making Christian laws based on Christianity and the Bible, then “take what you have and give it to the poor” is absolutely something we should be voting on the government to do.  If we’re not willing to do that - if Christian charity is something separate from what we expect from our government - then how the fuck are we going to expect them to support other laws regarding the Christian religion, like banning gay marriage or putting the Ten Commandments outside of courthouses?

How are you going to say that the government is supposed to be representative of the collective will of a Christian society and should pass laws reflecting that, and then say it’s wrong for that government to collect money from that society to give to the poor, something that Christians are supposed to do?

For my part, I’m in favor of separation of church and state in all those regards.  If you think that gay marriage is sinful, then don’t get gay married; that’s not the government’s business.  If you think the Ten Commandments should be in front of a courthouse, then Muslims have every bit as much right to say that the Five Pillars of Islam should be there too.  I’d rather have neither.