Democrat officials angry Samaritains purse allowed to set up hospitals for Covid-19 in NYC

a reply to: Graysen

Matthew 11:7-11

7 As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. 9 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written:

“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’[c]
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Seems more about not trusting people ostentatiously dresses. Trust a prophet humbly dressed.

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ColoradoJens

No whataboutism. Like I said, I think it's fair to question motives (watch reactions here if it was the muslim brotherhood.) Im not saying don't do it, but its ok to be leery.

Question what motives? Are you suggesting that Samaritan's Purse is setting up these field hospitals in the hopes that they can let all the undesirables die? Do you really think that's their motive?

Can you provide any quotes or statements from Samaritan's Purse officials that they will not treat LGBTQ patients? Or that they will provide substandard care? Or anything else?

Better yet, can you provide any real life examples -- from anywhere in the world -- that this has happened?

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. I said its ok to question the motive. You also want Muslim Brotherhood running a hospital? Thats fine. I think it would be fair to say most would question it. Evangelicals are not there just to help - they by definition are there to covnvert you. n Edit to add - real world examples of religious organizations hurting people with faith based "cures"? Too many to post.

Guess you missed reading this, so I will have to repeat since you did.

I would have no issue and actually welcome it, if a Muslim charity organization with a very long history of helping non-Muslims, in non-Muslim countries, and a long history of not trying to convert the people they give medical care to, with a history of care regardless of sexual orientation, gender, religion, or political affiliation were to assist by setting up a hospital.

Samaritans purse has a long history of helping non-Christians, in non-Christian countries, and doesn't try to convert patients, and helps patients regardless of their sexual orientation or political affiliation.

I would especially welcome an Ismaili Muslim medical organizations assistance. They are persecuted and hunted/killed when possible, by the Muslim Brotherhood, by the Suni's and Shia's, because they believe in live and let live when it comes to other religions. They believe that Islam needs to move away from the 14th century and into the 21st century when it comes to treatment of and equality for women. They believe killing non-Muslims does NOT send one to paradise and harms the faith of Islam and defiles Allah.

How do I know about Ismaili? I, a awful, horrible, no good Christian know this? Our second Muslim foreign exchange student is Ismaili, and no we haven't tried to convert her, nor did we try to convert or first Shia Muslim exchange student. (Seems I'm not quite the monster you paint Christians to be, am I, or am I bwwaaahhahhaaa - we've welcomed 2 Muslims students into our homes and hearts and didn't try to convert them. We are as bad as Franklin Graham and his hospital. We learned from them, for example our Shia student was a woman and not allowed to attend mosque in her town except on holidays because she is a female, we knew more about the religion than she did as we studied up before she came.)

I would more than welcome any Ismaili Islamic medical organizations assistance them setting up a tent and helping anyone regardless of their sexual preference, religion or political affiliation.

Does that answer your biased and entrapping question? Seems you have a real issue with a well known Christian state of the art medical team helping people with COVID-19, rather let people die huh?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Graysen

Matthew 11:7-11

7 As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. 9 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written:

“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’[c]
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Seems more about not trusting people ostentatiously dresses. Trust a prophet humbly dressed.

Thats the best part of religion. You can never be wrong. I interpreted that passage to mean "If you are going about your business as a carpenter, you don't need to wear Givenchy."

a reply to: The2Billies

Hyperbole. Calm down. I've never said anything close to that.

a reply to: Graysen

You

Luke text

και ειπεν αυτοις πορευθεντες ειπατε τη αλωπεκι ταυτη ιδου εκβαλλω δαιμονια και ιασεις επιτελω σημερον και αυριον και τη τριτη τελειουμαι

alopexis is greek for fox, peki feminine ending.

Luke 11:13?

“Luke 11:13 ►
NASB Lexicon

biblehub.com...”

I didn’t see anything about fox in the lexicon?

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

originally posted by: The2Billies

New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who tweeted a statement berating the development: "Franklin Graham has a long history of spewing anti-LGBTQ hate speech, and I find it extremely troubling that he and his organization are involved in our relief efforts in any way. New York City is known around the world for its embrace of diversity, and Franklin Graham has spent his career standing against these values. I will be monitoring this situation closely and making sure that our city's values are being represented at all times.

New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who tweeted that "it's a shame that the federal government has left New York with no other choice but to accept charity from bigots." In a statement on his official Senate page, Hoylman called Graham a "notorious anti-LGBTQ pastor" and said he put Graham "on notice" that Samaritan's Purse must "treat all COVID-19 patients equally at the new medical tents." Here's Hoylman's full statement: COVID-19 doesn't discriminate, and neither should Franklin Graham. It's unacceptable that a New Yorker infected with COVID-19 could be subjected to discriminatory treatment from an organization whose leader calls us "immoral" and "detestable."

Note that Samaritans Purse does medical assistance all over the world, for people of all faiths, and asks for nothing in return. That is how awful Christianity is according to the leftist liberals.

Interesting that the left and Democratic Party elected officials would rather not allow a Christian medical organization assist with the epidemic, but feel they have no choice but to accept tainted assistance from Christians. But that is the way of socialists, what is best for the entire society is paramount, accepting help from other political/religious ideologies is only done holding ones nose in a time when their is no other choice.

www.theblaze.com... -get-smacked-right-down

In principle I agree with you but having an Evangelical anti LQBTQ running a field hospital its ok to question if they will actually help everyone. Based on your post you would then have absolutely no problem if the Muslim Brotherhood was running it?

Can you show me all the times they have done that in the past and only helped people they agreed with? If you can show they routinely do this, I agree it's ok to question it. If you can't, then it sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black.

originally posted by: The2Billies
I would have no issue and actually welcome it, if a Muslim charity organization with a very long history...

What about one that due to the current situation decided to begin right now?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

originally posted by: The2Billies

New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who tweeted a statement berating the development: "Franklin Graham has a long history of spewing anti-LGBTQ hate speech, and I find it extremely troubling that he and his organization are involved in our relief efforts in any way. New York City is known around the world for its embrace of diversity, and Franklin Graham has spent his career standing against these values. I will be monitoring this situation closely and making sure that our city's values are being represented at all times.

New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who tweeted that "it's a shame that the federal government has left New York with no other choice but to accept charity from bigots." In a statement on his official Senate page, Hoylman called Graham a "notorious anti-LGBTQ pastor" and said he put Graham "on notice" that Samaritan's Purse must "treat all COVID-19 patients equally at the new medical tents." Here's Hoylman's full statement: COVID-19 doesn't discriminate, and neither should Franklin Graham. It's unacceptable that a New Yorker infected with COVID-19 could be subjected to discriminatory treatment from an organization whose leader calls us "immoral" and "detestable."

Note that Samaritans Purse does medical assistance all over the world, for people of all faiths, and asks for nothing in return. That is how awful Christianity is according to the leftist liberals.

Interesting that the left and Democratic Party elected officials would rather not allow a Christian medical organization assist with the epidemic, but feel they have no choice but to accept tainted assistance from Christians. But that is the way of socialists, what is best for the entire society is paramount, accepting help from other political/religious ideologies is only done holding ones nose in a time when their is no other choice.

www.theblaze.com... -get-smacked-right-down

In principle I agree with you but having an Evangelical anti LQBTQ running a field hospital its ok to question if they will actually help everyone. Based on your post you would then have absolutely no problem if the Muslim Brotherhood was running it?

Can you show me all the times they have done that in the past and only helped people they agreed with? If you can show they routinely do this, I agree it's ok to question it. If you can't, then it sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black.

Where have I said they refused to help anyone? How would anyone know if they didn't question and look into them? You take their word for it?

a reply to: ColoradoJens

Language is funny too. One man’s goddess is another man’s brick house (she’s mighty mighty, let it all hang out), in return is another man’s fox?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ColoradoJens

Language is funny too. One man’s goddess is another man’s brick house (she’s mighty mighty, let it all hang out), in return is another man’s fox?

Yeah, and I think that is why there is always going to be this argument. I would go one step further and say whatever religious texts you are interpreting were written by man, changed to fit their narrative, and presented as the words of Christ and or whomever . That makes any interpretation some what moot. This is just my opinion.

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ColoradoJens

Language is funny too. One man’s goddess is another man’s brick house (she’s mighty mighty, let it all hang out), in return is another man’s fox?

Yeah, and I think that is why there is always going to be this argument. I would go one step further and say whatever religious texts you are interpreting were written by man, changed to fit their narrative, and presented as the words of Christ and or whomever . That makes any interpretation some what moot. This is just my opinion.

Totally agree with your right to take it or leave it.

I can even see someone making an argument from emphasis, that Jesus says things that sound ill-liberal to modern ears, but that its only a couple of passage. That, and the driving out moneychangers with a whip thing. Oh, and the other thing about pedos deserve to have a millstone tied around their necks.... other than that, Jesus is a great big teddy bear. Oh and the hellfire stuff, too. Could a loving savior actually believe in a literal coming judgment....


Anyway, the book only matters if it speaks to you.

What matters is how you behave, not what you were thinking the whole time. When that cantankerous Jew is talking about sending the unbelievers to hell like separating sheep from goats in Matthew 25, it's based on what they DID FOR OTHERS, not what they said, or whom they slept with. It's all "when did we see you thirsty and not give you a drink?" and "when did know you were in prison, and not visit you..."

Maybe Jesus doesn't spend more time giving out dictionary definitions of the various sexual paraphilias because he's focused on what people do with their money rather than their privates.

just sayin

a reply to: Graysen

What matters is how you behave, not what you were thinking the whole time.

Agreed. It is how you live your life. I am of the belief that one can behave, with compassion, caring etc, all of the same human traits Christians claim, without being religious. Thanks for the respectful dialog!

a reply to: ColoradoJens

I for my part, can treat people with respect even if I think they are making sexual choices that bring them a lot of harm and prevent them from maturing emotionally. There is a disconnect in popular culture, that if you disagree with someone, that means you are trying to kill them. To quote a conservative Christian friend,

"I disapprove of ugly people, too. But I don't throw rocks at them or refuse to rent to them."

When I was young I got involved with a lot of advocacy for the homeless and helpless. Reagan had made a speech where he used the term "the deserving poor." That really pissed me off, although I later became a Reagan voter. A lot of the homeless and prostitutes and publicans and sinners got there because they are NOT deserving. When you give someone help they don't deserve, there's a word for that. It's pronounced "mercy."

And because I rely on mercy from God, I cannot effort to be stingy with mercy toward other people. People who may in fact deserve mercy more than I do.

The same with speaking the truth. You say it once, and if people don't want to hear about it, you're supposed to shake the dust off your feet at that house and go somewhere else. Punish them by removing the blessing of your presence. My boss said so.

And now my song is done. (shaking dust off of my shoes).

Sorry for the double post.

Apparently my texts will echo in history...

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: The2Billies

When someone is starving and are offered food do they care whose hand it comes from?

When someone is sick, possibly dying, do they really care whether or not that caregiver prays and to whom?

If a person would rather die than receive help based on personal beliefs then that is their own fault.

You are so right here!

It appears many on this thread would rather die and see people die than receive help from Christians. OR at least that is what they purport to say/speak for all liberals/progressives/Democrats.


That is ok, and their right, I appreciate them making this so very open and plain. That they would rather see thousands die before they would want a Christian to help any US citizen. Good for them and their honesty.

It is good for the citizens of the US to see this truth - or is is really being spread by Russian and Chinese trolls? The great purpose of the Chinese and Russians is the destruction of the US from within by fomenting distrust and hatred. One can only hope those are the voices of hate I hear and challenge to and urging of hate for Muslim US citizens I also hear.

Yes, I am pointing out those of you who are fomenting hatred for Christians and Muslims as well. Shame on you - you know who you are - we know who you are by what you write. Keep in mind you are also aiding and abetting, actually colluding with the Russians and Chinese to destroy the nation. Good job, many of you are it quite well.

a reply to: Gandalf77

It's fine to think that's disgusting, immoral, etc. It's NOT OK to discriminate against them, deny them rights, etc., due to those beliefs.

Yeah no Sh** sherlock. What gave you or anyone else the idea that that would happen with Samaritan's Purse? You people are thick!

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ColoradoJens

You do understand that being Muslim pretty much means anti-LGBTQ+Whatever Other Letters We're Adding This Week, right? They do tend to toss gays off of buildings in the Middle East or force them to get a sex change if you're Iran.

Yes, orthodox Christianity counts homosexual sex as a sin, just like sex out of wedlock is a sin. Since marriage is between one man and one woman in orthodox Christianity it means that homosexual behavior is pretty much always sinful.

Of course, we are taught to hate the sin (the behavior) and love the sinner meaning the act is the problem, not the person. Part of the issue is that modern society has decided that gays must identify as their behavior and allow it to define who they are. They are their sin, so they choose to believe that means we hate them.

Hate the sin love the sinner is one of the most overused absurd lies that religious people contend themselves with in regard to being LGBTQ, in my opinion.

Opinions are like @ssholes.

Basically what it comes down to is that there are things that people do that are wrong that some people just don't want to think are wrong. Fine. Whatever. I'm not here to stop you doing things that are wrong.

I just find it interesting that phrase, "hate the sin not the sinner" is used in describing LGBTQ people specifically.

I have never heard it used when describing illegal immigration, or in defense of some inner city kid who just robbed someone or even people who commit adultery.

It's selective shaming and self righteous.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Confused:
It's NOT OK to discriminate against them, deny them rights, etc., due to those beliefs. Discrimination is not religious freedom.

But it is alright for the Democrat officials to be angry/discriminate against Samaritans purse for their beliefs. Why?

Anyhow at the end of the day if some one is trying to save a life just because the life needs to be saved regardless of the sexual preference of the person who are the democrats to say they can't do it because they don't believe in F-ucking Freedom?

Pretty sure that if a person needs saving they are not going to allow themselves to die rather than be saved on a principle.
But we can always hope.

2. So the husband of a child bride is dying but you could save him, are you going to discriminate against him because of his religious beliefs or because of yours or are you going to save him?

a reply to: The2Billies

And the governor who is a democrat said anyone that can help he thanks God for.

Look there are always going to be haters.

Times like this brings them out of the woodwork.

Just so you know thats not all liberals and its not fair to insinuate that this is a broadly applicable attribute.

I think most people are doing the best that they can in this situation.