My intro: The whole point of your article is an attempt to make Christians not vote for Trump simply because you find his views distasteful and attempt to draw comparisons with Jesus. As I’ll point out, your arguments are invalid for two reasons. 1) Nobody is perfect. 2) It is absolutely impossible, for you or anyone, to know for whom Jesus would vote because Jesus is not alive to tell us. So, right away, your declarative statement in your title is fallacious. During my rebuttal, I fully admit that I’m assuming the implication of the article is that Clinton is the viable alternative to Trump. If not, the arguments against Clinton can be removed without damaging the remainder of my arguments.
1st paragraph rebuttal — Of course Jesus was a child of the region. But he was Jewish, not just a child of Jews, and by no means was he a refugee. Your attempt to parallel him with the crisis in Syria is laughable. But to be honest, does it really matter? Seems like you’re just trying to shock people into thinking, “I didn’t know Jesus was brown-skinned or a Jew. I like Jesus much less now that I know that.” You’re really not going to win any arguments regarding what is essentially a WWJD comparing our Lord and Savior to Spiderman. Some probably even view it as borderline sacrilege.
2nd paragraph rebuttal — He did those things as an individual. He called on other individuals to care for one another. I don’t ever recall Jesus trying to force other people or government to provide free healthcare.
3rd paragraph rebuttal — Your not-so-subtle attempt to draw a direct line comparison between what were “conservatives” back then and conservatives now is, at a minimum, disingenuous. Jesus was indeed “liberal” for his time, but so were the founding fathers who believed in classical liberalism (i.e. limiting the power of government as much as possible). Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic party, would be considered extremely conservative by today’s standards given his writings expressing his political opinions and his opposition to the Federalist party that believed in centralizing power. Given that Jesus was opposed to the police state, his views line up more with conservatives these days especially considering it’s conservatives who protest against giving too much power to a central government and make far more charitable donations than liberals (see Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks).
4th paragraph rebuttal — It’s true, he was not. But words like “liberal” and “conservative” only have significance against the social background of the timeframe surrounding the person in question and therefore require local and historical context to have meaning. To say Jesus was not a conservative and thereby imply that he would be a liberal today is misleading. By literal standards, Mohammed was a liberal. He too wanted things to change from the way they were. To “progress.” So did Karl Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky. All technically “liberals” on the liberal/conservative spectrum.
5th paragraph rebuttal — Not going to argue this one. I agree. Christians, as individuals, run the gamut from very liberal to very conservative. I cannot speak to the leaders of other churches, but I can tell you right now that the current pope is likely the most “progressive” pope (certainly from a political standpoint) to lead the Catholic Church in a long time. But what is your point about mostly men editing the Bible? I honestly have no idea where you’re going with that. The Bible has always been used by people in power on all sides to prove their point, but it’s when they use the Bible to do evil, that is sin. Which is why God included the 2nd Commandment (or 3rd if using the original Talmud) saying that using the name of God to do evil is an unforgivable sin.
6th paragraph rebuttal— I agree that Jesus would be doing everything he could to help the poor, but this argument is not really an argument at all. You’re simply saying that Jesus wouldn’t vote because he wouldn’t be in the correct geographical area to vote in the US presidential election. To your second point, the left seems to use the argument all the time that rich are evil to “prove” that Romney, Trump and other candidates are not pure. First, just to eliminate the possibly implied argument that Trump is the only rich candidate in this election, Hillary Clinton is by no means poor either. Also, search “Clinton Haiti Gold Rush.” But in the end, I’m not asking that any candidate be exactly like Jesus (which is impossible). I’m not really even asking a candidate be charitable. I’d like for them to be, but I don’t feel it’s absolutely necessary. However, the Trump Foundation works with a number of charities already. And to be frank, in this election of the lesser of two evils, Hillary is far, FAR more akin to Lucifer than Trump ever thought about being.
7th paragraph rebuttal — You’re switching back and forth here. You’re questioning for whom Jesus would vote, but then you switch to pointing out that Trump is not Jesus. Again, I’m not asking any candidate to be Jesus. While Trump may have said some crude and horrible things, he has apologized for saying them, and he has always denied ever actually doing them. The many other things he has said were taken out of context or improperly paraphrased, he has no need to apologize for saying. Meanwhile, Hillary has never apologized for slut-shaming the countless women abused by her husband. Also, Hillary has never apologized for saying the following: “That God damned nigger,” “fucking Jew bastard,” and “stupid kikes.” Nor do I think Jesus would support a woman who knowingly takes money from countries that suppress women as a matter of policy and a country that supports a terrorist organization (ISIS). Nor would he support a candidate that supports abortion when the fetus presents no threat to the life of the mother.
8th paragraph rebuttal — On a personal note: I like how you label anyone with a differing opinion as being racist, xenophobic, stupid, unreasonable, angry, and sexist just because they might have a different opinion than yours. It has to be that way, right? It couldn’t possibly be that your opinions are just that, opinions. Not facts. And the fact is this: Both of our assertions are pointless as it is impossible for humans to comprehend the “mind” of God.
Post script paragraph rebuttal — Your implied assertion here is that evangelical conservatives are somehow ignorant of the facts that: 1) Catholics read the Bible. 2) That there are multiple translations and interpretations of Biblical texts. However, I suspect that you’re not so much making another argument here as you are trying to insult Christians and get a wink-wink-aren’t-they-stupid-nudge-nudge moment with readers who already agree with your position.