"Jesus Christ did not try to appropriate the power of the state to impose His views on everyone (as do today's right-wingers who profess to be His followers). Authoritarianism of any kind was never part of His message".

...followed by...

Finally, "Amen" to Don Firth's post of 7:10 last night. Whoever said it, or paraphrased it, that one little sentence which triggered all this debate IS undeniably true.

The above is true. I said it way-the-heck back in this thread -- that not even a conservative Christian would argue with that statement (the one that begins with JC...).

The reason we are still left with an issue however, is because the world into which Jesus was born and lived and taught was not a world that allowed for the self-determination brought on by democracy.

In Jesus' day you could obey or not. That was, essentially, your two options. And Jesus taught, essentially, the former. Curiously, several of his closest followers believed the latter -- and that only put further emphasis on just how strongly Jesus was teaching the former.

But that doesn't mean that Jesus would, in today's world, require that the faithful not vote -- not participate in the political process.

Surely there is a HUGE range of posibility left between "authoritarianism", on the one hand, and the expression of what one believes to be the proper (moral) course of government for civilized, well-meaning, thoughtful people to vote toward in a democracy.

When you vote for a pro-choice candidate are you being "authoritarian"? When you vote for an anti-war candidate are you being "authoritarian"? When you vote for a candidate who promises to expand programs for the poor are you being "authoritarian"?

Why then, when one chooses to vote the other way, is it suddenly "authoritarainism"?