“I have taken Becky Riley’s article below from The Christian Left’s website (thechristianleft.org) I chose this article not because it is particularly good or particularly bad. I chose it simply because it was the first to appear when I opened their site. Had some other essay appeared, I would have chosen to refute it instead. Her words are in boldface type and in quotation marks. Mine are not.
“Biblical Quotes Supporting the Belief that Jesus Is A Liberal” — By Becky Riley”
Riley does not tell us what she means by the word “liberal,” but if she is a conventional leftist, it means she thinks that Jesus was a big-government, collectivist, egalitarian, redistributionist, pacifist, or something very close, which is exactly what emerges from her text subsequently.
“Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right… cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]”
Although the Biblical text Riley quotes does not mention anything about war making, she herself includes it. By including it on her own authority, she has transgressed the important difference between peacemaking and pacifism. One can make peace without being a pacifist. Thus, Jesus commends the peacemakers here, not the pacifists. He commends those who proceed to peace, not those who proceed by peace. By reading as she does, Riley overlooks several important points:
(1) Peacemaking can be accomplished in many ways, one of them by ending war quickly. If you want to make peace, then you must learn how to end war quickly. In that sense, we have three peace academies in the US: West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs, where they produce military folks who are the best the world has ever seen at ending war swiftly and thereby making peace. But, conversely, if you proceed by means of pacifism toward peace, you will not end war quickly. Rather, you will invite more war because tyrants will move upon you with all speed and purpose. From you they fear nothing. No nation was ever attacked because it was too strong and could defend itself and its neighbors. But many nations, whether weak or pacifistic, have been attacked because they were unwilling or unprepared to deal strongly and swiftly with tyrannical opponents. Military weakness invites war. Pacifism invites war. If you cannot fight, or if you will not fight, you eventually will have peace, but it will be the peace of surrender, of slavery, and of death, which is not the peace of justice, which alone is the peace of God. Pacifists need to consider not only the qualities of a just war, but of a just peace. Not all peace is just, not remotely.
(2) Jesus Himself is not a pacifist, and neither is His Father. Jesus, we recall, is the One in charge of Armageddon, and Armageddon is no peace march — far from it. Armageddon is so enormous a battle that it brings the entire world to heel. War of this sort wasn’t something Jesus Himself cooked up. He got it from His Father. Jesus said that He did what He saw His Father do and He said what He heard His Father say. In the Hebrew Scriptures, He saw his Father tell the Israelites to go into battle frequently. He heard his Father command total war of His people and punish them if they did not do it. Jesus saw, in short, what is obvious to any careful student of Scripture: Yahweh is a warrior.
(3) Peace is by no means the bottom line for Jesus. That is not why He came. Nor is it the means by which He proceeds: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matt. 10: 34), He said.
(4) The context of the verse Riley quotes is the Sermon on the Mount. That sermon was directed to the disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5: 2), not to congresses, politburos, or parliaments. It deals with personal Christian ethics, not with national defense policy. What is required of government by God and what is required of Christians by God are not the same. While it might be required of Christians to turn the other cheek, governments cannot and must not work that way. If someone hits you, you might do well not to retaliate, and to practice self-sacrifice instead. But the government must not and cannot do that. If your enemy flies jetliners into your skyscrapers in New York, you must not say to them that we have skyscrapers in Chicago too, and that they are free to attack them as well and to do so without fear of retaliation because we are turning the other cheek. That’s because while individuals can practice self-sacrifice, governments cannot. What is being sacrificed when governments turn the other cheek is not themselves but others, perhaps many thousands of others. You cannot self-sacrifice others. Jesus’ teaching here is not about national defense, but about his disciples’ personal lives and personal obligations.
As before, the command not to resist evil and to love your enemies is directed not at governments but at Christian disciples. Governments cannot love, nor are they directed here to do so. But Christians are. They are the ones whom Jesus addresses in this famous sermon. Further, governments exist precisely in order to resist and restrain evil (Romans 13: 3). Unless Riley wants to pit Jesus against both His Father and His apostles, her reading of these verses is sadly inadequate and distortively imprecise. This is a matter of individual self-sacrifice, not public policy.
Nothing Jesus says here makes Him a liberal.”
Dr. Carson is under attack for saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim for president. I’d like to see how some of the Democrat candidates would answer if asked if would they would support an evangelical for president.
Here’s a quote from my Facebook friend, David, which I shared on Facebook…
“I’m enjoying all those who are bothered by Dominionists, Pre-Millennialists, Zionists, and ‘people who hear a disembodied voice talking to them’ suddenly outraged that Ben Carson would take someone’s religion into account when voting.
“I wonder if they listen to themselves, or ever have a self-reflective thought?”
Chas – Maybe his point didn’t come through well enough in that quote. He’s saying that all those liberals who say they won’t vote for various Christians are hypocrites for their outrage over Ben Carson saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim for president.
Carson also later said if a Muslim were to disavow Sharia Law, that would change his position. But Islam’s religious law is interwoven with the faith — and the concept of separation of church and state isn’t part of their view, typically. (Thus, yes, it’s foundationally incompatible with our system of government and so I understand what Carson was saying).
But as soon as I heard the clip, I know everyone would be all over him. And they are.
One of my friends posted something that said that anyone who believes in the Rapture is not qualified to be president. And yet, she was probably horrified by Carson’s statement.
Have I missed it or do the Democrats ever talk about how to secure the border anymore? It seems to they’ve abandoned that entire idea of even some border control and are now, at least de facto, in favor of an essentially open border.
______________________________
“The United States is taking in more immigrants than at any time in our history, while at the same time making little or no effort to assimilate them. No one can know what the consequences of this experiment will be. … One of my frequent email correspondents keeps asking: when did we vote for this? The United States is being rapidly transformed, in ways that appear negative to most Americans–environmental degradation; increased burdens on schools, hospitals, and social services; low wage competition; and cultural fragmentation. So to repeat: when did we vote for this? …”
The elephant in the room that is that Democrats want more immigrants voting because they will vote D and Republicans want them controlled for the same reason.
Wandering Views 
Jesus was not a liberal. Good read from Dr. Bauman.
http://theburkean.blogspot.com/2012/09/jesus-is-not-liberal-correcting.html
“I have taken Becky Riley’s article below from The Christian Left’s website (thechristianleft.org) I chose this article not because it is particularly good or particularly bad. I chose it simply because it was the first to appear when I opened their site. Had some other essay appeared, I would have chosen to refute it instead. Her words are in boldface type and in quotation marks. Mine are not.
“Biblical Quotes Supporting the Belief that Jesus Is A Liberal” — By Becky Riley”
Riley does not tell us what she means by the word “liberal,” but if she is a conventional leftist, it means she thinks that Jesus was a big-government, collectivist, egalitarian, redistributionist, pacifist, or something very close, which is exactly what emerges from her text subsequently.
“Peacemaking, not War Making: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right… cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]”
Although the Biblical text Riley quotes does not mention anything about war making, she herself includes it. By including it on her own authority, she has transgressed the important difference between peacemaking and pacifism. One can make peace without being a pacifist. Thus, Jesus commends the peacemakers here, not the pacifists. He commends those who proceed to peace, not those who proceed by peace. By reading as she does, Riley overlooks several important points:
(1) Peacemaking can be accomplished in many ways, one of them by ending war quickly. If you want to make peace, then you must learn how to end war quickly. In that sense, we have three peace academies in the US: West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs, where they produce military folks who are the best the world has ever seen at ending war swiftly and thereby making peace. But, conversely, if you proceed by means of pacifism toward peace, you will not end war quickly. Rather, you will invite more war because tyrants will move upon you with all speed and purpose. From you they fear nothing. No nation was ever attacked because it was too strong and could defend itself and its neighbors. But many nations, whether weak or pacifistic, have been attacked because they were unwilling or unprepared to deal strongly and swiftly with tyrannical opponents. Military weakness invites war. Pacifism invites war. If you cannot fight, or if you will not fight, you eventually will have peace, but it will be the peace of surrender, of slavery, and of death, which is not the peace of justice, which alone is the peace of God. Pacifists need to consider not only the qualities of a just war, but of a just peace. Not all peace is just, not remotely.
(2) Jesus Himself is not a pacifist, and neither is His Father. Jesus, we recall, is the One in charge of Armageddon, and Armageddon is no peace march — far from it. Armageddon is so enormous a battle that it brings the entire world to heel. War of this sort wasn’t something Jesus Himself cooked up. He got it from His Father. Jesus said that He did what He saw His Father do and He said what He heard His Father say. In the Hebrew Scriptures, He saw his Father tell the Israelites to go into battle frequently. He heard his Father command total war of His people and punish them if they did not do it. Jesus saw, in short, what is obvious to any careful student of Scripture: Yahweh is a warrior.
(3) Peace is by no means the bottom line for Jesus. That is not why He came. Nor is it the means by which He proceeds: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matt. 10: 34), He said.
(4) The context of the verse Riley quotes is the Sermon on the Mount. That sermon was directed to the disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5: 2), not to congresses, politburos, or parliaments. It deals with personal Christian ethics, not with national defense policy. What is required of government by God and what is required of Christians by God are not the same. While it might be required of Christians to turn the other cheek, governments cannot and must not work that way. If someone hits you, you might do well not to retaliate, and to practice self-sacrifice instead. But the government must not and cannot do that. If your enemy flies jetliners into your skyscrapers in New York, you must not say to them that we have skyscrapers in Chicago too, and that they are free to attack them as well and to do so without fear of retaliation because we are turning the other cheek. That’s because while individuals can practice self-sacrifice, governments cannot. What is being sacrificed when governments turn the other cheek is not themselves but others, perhaps many thousands of others. You cannot self-sacrifice others. Jesus’ teaching here is not about national defense, but about his disciples’ personal lives and personal obligations.
As before, the command not to resist evil and to love your enemies is directed not at governments but at Christian disciples. Governments cannot love, nor are they directed here to do so. But Christians are. They are the ones whom Jesus addresses in this famous sermon. Further, governments exist precisely in order to resist and restrain evil (Romans 13: 3). Unless Riley wants to pit Jesus against both His Father and His apostles, her reading of these verses is sadly inadequate and distortively imprecise. This is a matter of individual self-sacrifice, not public policy.
Nothing Jesus says here makes Him a liberal.”
LikeLike
In depth article about ISIS which has convinced even one of my most liberal relatives that this group and many Muslims may actually be a danger to civilization: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
LikeLike
Dr. Carson is under attack for saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim for president. I’d like to see how some of the Democrat candidates would answer if asked if would they would support an evangelical for president.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KBells, that question has been asked in a poll. Most of them would not support an evangelical Christian.
LikeLike
Here’s a quote from my Facebook friend, David, which I shared on Facebook…
“I’m enjoying all those who are bothered by Dominionists, Pre-Millennialists, Zionists, and ‘people who hear a disembodied voice talking to them’ suddenly outraged that Ben Carson would take someone’s religion into account when voting.
“I wonder if they listen to themselves, or ever have a self-reflective thought?”
LikeLike
Your friend Davi0d doesn’t understand Islam, and sounds like he doesn’t understand anything else.
LikeLike
Chas – Maybe his point didn’t come through well enough in that quote. He’s saying that all those liberals who say they won’t vote for various Christians are hypocrites for their outrage over Ben Carson saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim for president.
LikeLike
His “enjoying” them is from kind of a sarcastic, humorous point of view, not that he actually agrees with them.
LikeLike
Karen, I have it now.
Interesting, amusing, but scary.
That’s the reason we have people like Obama. and the Clintons.
This is what happens after a whole generation is not taught American History (or even Civics) in our schools, while pop-culture is one-click away.
http://safeshare.tv/w/oHbxeOtsOP
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carson also later said if a Muslim were to disavow Sharia Law, that would change his position. But Islam’s religious law is interwoven with the faith — and the concept of separation of church and state isn’t part of their view, typically. (Thus, yes, it’s foundationally incompatible with our system of government and so I understand what Carson was saying).
But as soon as I heard the clip, I know everyone would be all over him. And they are.
LikeLike
And kbells is right, there are many on the left who today would argue that evangelicals should not be president.
LikeLike
One of my friends posted something that said that anyone who believes in the Rapture is not qualified to be president. And yet, she was probably horrified by Carson’s statement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jerry Brown wants Californians to live like North Koreans. Obama, Clinton and their ilk are satisfied to make all Americans live like Mexicans.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-lower-u-s-living-standards-1442876463
LikeLike
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/our-unprecedented-immigration-experiment.php
Have I missed it or do the Democrats ever talk about how to secure the border anymore? It seems to they’ve abandoned that entire idea of even some border control and are now, at least de facto, in favor of an essentially open border.
______________________________
“The United States is taking in more immigrants than at any time in our history, while at the same time making little or no effort to assimilate them. No one can know what the consequences of this experiment will be. … One of my frequent email correspondents keeps asking: when did we vote for this? The United States is being rapidly transformed, in ways that appear negative to most Americans–environmental degradation; increased burdens on schools, hospitals, and social services; low wage competition; and cultural fragmentation. So to repeat: when did we vote for this? …”
_______________________________
LikeLike
I’m pro legal immigration in a big way.
But allowing people to come in at will like this is simply not sustainable.
LikeLike
The elephant in the room that is that Democrats want more immigrants voting because they will vote D and Republicans want them controlled for the same reason.
LikeLike