Churches increasingly feel need to offer sanctuary to undocumented migrants

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

And enough with the off-topic personal remarks bickering.
All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm not arguing biblical nuance with you.

While man's law *should* be rooted in God's law, that is oftentimes not the case; therefore, God's law is greater than man's law when it involves universal ethics, and NOT when there are "old laws" (which one could argue were not God's law) such as killing one's unborn, eye for an eye, etc, and which were, if one believes the bible, supposedly transcended by Jesus (hence the NT). As far as rendering unto Caesar, I doubt Jesus would condone clothing or feeding the poor only if, for instance, it was legal, since he kinda, ya know, broke a few laws himself.

You make some silly, although religiously valid, arguments, which is why I no longer like to argue religion (it's circular and it's futile).

God's law of universal ethics is greater than man's law.

Period.

You cannot legislate charity because then it is not truly charitable. Is it ok to break the laws just because you believe in something? Then it becomes humanism. When is it humanist and when is it God'

It is about individual choice, freedom. Our choice to do good to others will be rewarded in the afterlife. To legislate a law to be dutiful to help others takes away individual choice. This becomes Christian socialism which is really humanism in disguise.The apostles who represented what Jesus taught did not have social justice in mind when they taught the church. Lets look at the main New Testament Scriptures used for social justice in the church.

www.letusreason.org...
It seems you support breaking the law whenever you feel something you are doing is right or moral.... will you also cite the LAW when it comes to abortion? Which law are you going to support then.. God's law or human law?
Also since Progressive Humanism is against religion in secular law, how do they suddenly justify using scripture to embolden their social justice agenda?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is a good example of quote mining. Corinthians was written by Paul. They are not god's words or even the words of Jesus. They are another human's opinions to the church of Corinth. What he says there might sound good but they are not god's law.

originally posted by: queenofswords
If any church is harboring a criminal (other than illegal entry), ICE should walk right in there and take them. Then, perhaps they should consider charges against the church personnel for aiding and abetting.

Well, if they are caring for homeless Americans, they can expect to be arrested, jailed, and fined.

I know these areas, and my sister used to provide lunch for the homeless every Saturday in here local area. The majority of the people being helped were American citizens down on their luck. They were forced to stop feeding the homeless.

They have no problem executing the rule of law, where American citizens are concerned, but they expect us to be racist and treat non-Americans in a different way.

I guess equal treatment under the law doesn't matter if it doesn't fit your personal agenda.

Two ministers and a 90-year-old homeless advocate in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, face up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine for violating a city ordinance that effectively outlaws sharing food with homeless people in public. Homeless advocate Arnold Abbott, head of the group Love Thy Neighbor, has been feeding the homeless for more than 20 years.

www.rawstory.com...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is a good example of quote mining. Corinthians was written by Paul. They are not god's words or even the words of Jesus. They are another human's opinions to the church of Corinth. What he says there might sound good but they are not god's law.

Seriously ? Paul is just like Luke Matthew and John... is there somehow less credence to his sermon? Or you just don't like the quote I chose because it does not support your position?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Seriously ? Paul is just like Luke Matthew and John... is there somehow less credence to his sermon?

Correct Paul is like Luke, Matthew and John and none of them is Jesus and none of them is God. Same creedence, not the law of god.

Or you just don't like the quote I chose because it does not support your position?

The quote doesn't bother me but I am pointing out that it is just another person's opinion.

What in it do you think contradicts the topic of this thread?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Seriously ? Paul is just like Luke Matthew and John... is there somehow less credence to his sermon?

Correct Paul is like Luke, Matthew and John and none of them is Jesus and none of them is God. Same creedence, not the law of god.

Or you just don't like the quote I chose because it does not support your position?

The quote doesn't bother me but I am pointing out that it is just another person's opinion.

What in it do you think contradicts the topic of this thread?

Oh pardon me for not understanding which parts of the bible represent Gods law and which parts do not.... so let me get this straight.... only Jesus' words as quoted by his disciples or whoever wrote the gospels are the Law but other parts of the bible are not... ok so Jesus said he came not to change the law but to fulfil it. What Law was that?

You just tried to tell me that only Jesus' words are the Word of God. But some people suggest that the entire scripture is the Word of God. You have asserted that only Jesus' words reflect the Word of God, but Jesus said the scripture is the Word of God. Which parts of the bible are the Word of God and which are not? Which represent Gods Law and which do not? You have asserted to me that only Jesus words are the Word of God and that Luke Matthew and John are only human opinion.... and therefore Pauls sermons also are only opinion.

If the Bible contains the word of God but is not the word of God, then we must ask which parts of the Bible are the Word of God and which are not?  The problem in answering this question is that the one who seeks to do so inadvertently places himself as the judge of what is and what is not inspired and without error.  But by what standard would such a person make such judgment?

carm.org...

You have also asserted that only the OT testament can contain the laws of God and therefore any law made after Jesus made his ascension are to be considered human laws. By extension no human law can contain God's law??? Is that why Progressives insist that the Ten Commandments be removed from public places especially our courts of law? because ultimately Progressives only believe in human law???

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
What Law was that?

Logically it would not be anything written after his death. Certainly not immigration laws of the US.

It would also be logical to assume that he means the laws of god written in the OT. Of course he was also the guy who asked about pulling an ox out of a well on the sabbath.

So, what in the scripture that you posted contradicts the topic of the thread?

a reply to: daskakik

People of every age have agreed the Bible is the Word of God. Paul plainly said that the words he spoke and wrote were the commandments of God: If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37). He wrote to the Thessalonians: And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Paul also wrote to the church at Ephesus that ...by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ (Ephesians 3:3-4).

truthfortheworld.org...

My point is that there is no basis in scripture for the Nanny State taking over the responsibility of every man to bear his own karmic burden.
There is perhaps a reason why authorities do not go into the churches to make arrests....but should churches go out of their way to flout the rule of law?
Heres an interesting article which gives both sides of the issue fairly I think.
acton.org...

So now tell me do you feel that churches defying the rule of law in giving sanctuary is according to scriptural law but the Supreme Court giving women the right to abort their unborn children is adhering to God's law?
Seems like Progressives really like to pick and choose here.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
My point is that there is no basis in scripture for the Nanny State taking over the responsibility of every man to bear his own karmic burden.

I can agree that there is no basis but isn't that the opposite of what you are advocating here?

The choice to help illegals is an individual choice and a Nanny State would be one that limits you in your choice.

So now tell me do you feel that churches defying the rule of law in giving sanctuary is according to scriptural law but the Supreme Court giving women the right to abort their unborn children is adhering to God's law?
Seems like Progressives really like to pick and choose here.

I think giving sanctuary is according to scriptural ideals (not laws) and the right to abort is against scriptural law.

I'm an atheist so I like a separation between laws and religion and therefore I can say this and still be alright with the laws as they stand.

Also, going back to your point, why should the Nanny State take over the responsibility of bearing the karmic burden of women who chose to abort?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
My point is that there is no basis in scripture for the Nanny State taking over the responsibility of every man to bear his own karmic burden.

I can agree that there is no basis but isn't that the opposite of what you are advocating here?

The choice to help illegals is an individual choice and a Nanny State would be one that limits you in your choice.

So now tell me do you feel that churches defying the rule of law in giving sanctuary is according to scriptural law but the Supreme Court giving women the right to abort their unborn children is adhering to God's law?
Seems like Progressives really like to pick and choose here.

I think giving sanctuary is according to scriptural ideals (not laws) and the right to abort is against scriptural law.

I'm an atheist so I like a separation between laws and religion and therefore I can say this and still be alright with the laws as they stand.

Also, going back to your point, why should the Nanny State take over the responsibility of bearing the karmic burden of women who chose to abort?

Because the Progressive agenda is the Nanny State. They just happen to be using the Church to promote their agenda. That is why I posted that Pastor Wallis has a Marxist leaning and that he is promoting using the Church to give sanctuary to illegals. So the real motive is not helping them it is to promote the socialist agenda of Totalitarianism. I also posted the link that suggests that the end goal of this illegal thing is to gain a permanent Progressive Majority. So it is not based on true charity though some people in the churches may believe it to be so. But it seems that many of the churches involved are Progressive Christian.
Are they in the moral right or have they suddenly discovered religion in all their humanism?
www.letusreason.org...

a reply to: daskakik

Also, going back to your point, why should the Nanny State take over the responsibility of bearing the karmic burden of women who chose to abort?

Does the Nanny State have the obligation to dictate moral values? Have the people lost their collective minds in giving some kind of moral authority to the State for the killing of the unborn?
I am asking you why some laws are for breaking and some not???? What gives Progressives the moral authority to decide that the Churches should give sanctuary to illegals who don't want to be deported but that we must uphold the law allowing abortion? When they cite biblical morality on one and then just say its womens rights for the other..... How about just Natural Law?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You are promoting the nanny state by saying that people should not bare the burden of their choice to help illegals or abort.

According to the scripture you posted those who help illegals from love are doing good and those who are doing it for political reasons will "have gained nothing". Isn't that their choice to make?

That is why I asked about that scripture and how it contradicts the topic of the OP. It doesn't, it says that the reason for acting makes the act meaningful or empty.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Does the Nanny State have the obligation to dictate moral values? Have the people lost their collective minds in giving some kind of moral authority to the State for the killing of the unborn?

This isn't what happened. Women have taken the choice away from the state. Now each can choose for themselves instead of having the nanny state do it for them.

I am asking you why some laws are for breaking and some not???? What gives Progressives the moral authority to decide that the Churches should give sanctuary to illegals who don't want to be deported but that we must uphold the law allowing abortion? When they cite biblical morality on one and then just say its womens rights for the other..... How about just Natural Law?

Even in christian ideals the decision to break a law is up to the individual, free will and all that.

You don't have to uphold the law that allows abortion.

a reply to: daskakik


I thought you were trying to prove that Churches should uphold Gods laws and not human laws???? It is clearly not Gods Law that we should kill the unborn.
The Nanny State does try to dictate moral objectives.... just the ones the Nanny State approves.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Because you can't have a discussion without bringing up "Nanny State" and "progressive agenda" in the majority of your posts, you have lost credibility.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I thought you were trying to prove that Churches should uphold Gods laws and not human laws???? It is clearly not Gods Law that we should kill the unborn.

I'm pointing out how your argument is for bigger government.

The church doesn't have to uphold anything. It is up to the individual to chose. That is a christian ideal that seems to get lost when a group is involved.

The human law to allow a woman to choose is not against god's law. A woman aborting her child is against god's law.

The human law allowing you to own a gun isn't against god's law. Using the gun to kill your neighbor is against god's law.

In both cases the choice is up to the individual.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Actually, I think progressives are just pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the so-called religious people.

Just so we are on the same page. People can post things (like scripture) to make their argument even if they don't believe in it. It is merely pointing out to people who claim to believe something that contradicts their stance.

Thank you. Very much. Thank you very much.

Seriously.

If we aren't allowed to use the same textbooks when we enter a debate, then it just isn't even in any way credible.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Wow!!! Wowza! I bet you are feeling really, really good right now!

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

STILL......that's 800 actual religious institutions who realize that The Golden Rule is MOST IMPORTANT.

And those are 800 actual religious institutions that should be penalized financially, have their tax exempt status put on hold for a penalty, and should also be reviewed as to whether or not we as Americans want to have a church operating within US borders that actively defies the law of the people.

Why?