Churches increasingly feel need to offer sanctuary to undocumented migrants

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

How did your spell go last night. I noticed you were absent from your thread.

whut?

We had a friend over and were enjoying the evening. Was I supposed to be checking in with you?

What "spell"?

Oh good. You didn't join the mass witch spell. I'm pleased to hear it. Heres the link to the current ATS thread on it.... now what were you saying about current events and being up to date???? www.abovetopsecret.com...
And more to the point of why I question the motives of some

Wallis- reflecting on Jesus’ counsel regarding the relationship between treating a ‘stranger’ and treating Jesus, suggested that pastors allow their churches to become sanctuaries to protect illegal aliens from deportation
..... However, there’s little truth to Evans’ suggestion that evangelicals who voted for Trump sold out “marginalized” groups for political power. How is she in a position to know the minds, hearts or reasoned intentions of voters who sided with Donald Trump? The charge is not only silly but it isn’t true. It’s meant to dismiss as evil her fellow (white) Christians by projecting a social pox (sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.) upon those who voted against her preferred candidate. Framing it in a simple moral dichotomy that dismisses nuance, and that divorces Christian support for Trump from caring about “marginalized” groups allows Evans and her sympathizers to claim a superficial unmerited moral purity to dismiss everyone who disagrees with them as not only wrong but immoral.
Voting for Trump, directly or indirectly, doesn’t mean the voter is against “marginalized” people and Evans knows this.
.

derryckgreen.net...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

erm....yeah. I saw the title. I saw who the author was (the OP). I skipped past it.

Why would you presume I would click on such a ridiculous title posted by that member? I learned long ago to avoid such ....

such.....

wastes of time.

Immigrants are fine. Buddhists are lovely, peaceful people.

Keep the Muslims in the deserts riding their camels.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

ooookay. you clearly have not managed to insert all of your ammo into the magazine of your point yet.


I do that all the time, too!
I just 'speak', and then I go back and think of more stuff to say about my point....


So by all means, go ahead and carry on with that member's threads and sources. It's obvious we will never see things eye to eye.

Just know what train (of thought, or of consciousness) you are taking. I'm thinking it's not looking real healthy for you.

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.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

erm....yeah. I saw the title. I saw who the author was (the OP). I skipped past it.

Why would you presume I would click on such a ridiculous title posted by that member? I learned long ago to avoid such ....

such.....

wastes of time.

of course, because you never said on previous threads.... oh well... my mistake....
you are current but I am not .... ok as you will....

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

erm....yeah. I saw the title. I saw who the author was (the OP). I skipped past it.

Why would you presume I would click on such a ridiculous title posted by that member? I learned long ago to avoid such ....

such.....

wastes of time.

dbl post. I do get impatient with the speed of this connection.

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.

They imagine they are pointing out hypocrisy because they feel it backs up their position. I suggested that it was merely using Alinsky rules of holding people to their own standards thus using their own standards against them. Ive seen this done the last few years with people who use scripture to back up their social agendas. It is disingenuous at best.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
What "spell"?

Ahhhhahahahahaha!! LMGSAO

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

ooookay. you clearly have not managed to insert all of your ammo into the magazine of your point yet.


I do that all the time, too!
I just 'speak', and then I go back and think of more stuff to say about my point....


So by all means, go ahead and carry on with that member's threads and sources. It's obvious we will never see things eye to eye.

Just know what train (of thought, or of consciousness) you are taking. I'm thinking it's not looking real healthy for you.

ok but I'm remembering another thread many moons ago..... perhaps you are not as involved .... as some other people in this world using other worldly powers against a hated politician.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
They imagine they are pointing out hypocrisy because they feel it backs up their position. I suggested that it was merely using Alinsky rules of holding people to their own standards thus using their own standards against them. Ive seen this done the last few years with people who use scripture to back up their social agendas. It is disingenuous at best.

I don't think it is disingenuous at all.

You claim something as your standard then you should be held to that standard. If you don't want that then stop using it as the standard of your own agenda.

What a disturbing thread.

Someone here, (I can't remember who and I apologize to whoever you are for not crediting you for it), mentioned that the assistance being offered to illegal immigrants by some of the Churches was politically motivated, rather than done out of a sincere sense of Christian compassion.

ThirdEyeofHorus, I believe, has brought up how some, (myself included), believe that on various occasions, Marxism has subverted Christians and Christian thought, over emphasizing the social elements to the exclusion of all else.

Their criticism/characterization is likely apt for at least some of the Churches referenced in the op and for the larger Christian community as well.

But when Ante writes:

The question I would argue is really not one of if churches should ever defy the state but when.

I think he's correct and that Christians should take notice.

Can you not imagine a time when your relationship with God would demand that you break man's laws? If you can, then does "Its the law" standing on it's own, sufficiently warrant withholding aid or condemning those that do provide aid and comfort; don't you need to answer questions like "Why not now?" "Why not them?" or the like?

If you can't imagine a time when your relationship with God would demand that you break man's laws, I ask you, are we meant to be Pharisees?

And some of you, do you honestly believe that a Christian's heart can't be touched by genuine compassion for these people? Do you believe that somehow that compassion needs involve some sort of corruption? Do you really believe that a Christian that acts on that compassion, even to the extent of breaking U.S immigration law, is somehow placed outside of communion with God and/or should be placed outside of the community of believers?

I think some of you need to consider how exactly it was that you've arrived at the position you have on this issue, rather than justifying it, now that you find yourself there.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
They imagine they are pointing out hypocrisy because they feel it backs up their position. I suggested that it was merely using Alinsky rules of holding people to their own standards thus using their own standards against them. Ive seen this done the last few years with people who use scripture to back up their social agendas. It is disingenuous at best.

I don't think it is disingenuous at all.

You claim something as your standard then you should be held to that standard. If you don't want that then stop using it as the standard of your own agenda.

Sure I get that. and so should Progressives be held to their own standards.
The question is.... do Progressives who use bible scripture really understand what the meaning is?

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.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
They imagine they are pointing out hypocrisy because they feel it backs up their position. I suggested that it was merely using Alinsky rules of holding people to their own standards thus using their own standards against them. Ive seen this done the last few years with people who use scripture to back up their social agendas. It is disingenuous at best.

I don't think it is disingenuous at all.

You claim something as your standard then you should be held to that standard. If you don't want that then stop using it as the standard of your own agenda.

Sure I get that. and so should Progressives be held to their own standards.
The question is.... do Progressives who use bible scripture really understand what the meaning is?

The question is: do religious people, do Christians, really understand the meaning of some of the # they, too, quote?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Sure I get that. and so should Progressives be held to their own standards.

No doubt.

The question is.... do Progressives who use bible scripture really understand what the meaning is?

What makes you think anyone who uses bible scripture really understands what the meaning is?

originally posted by: imwilliam
What a disturbing thread.

Marxism has subverted Christians and Christian thought

Karl Marx was not a true logical thinker. His opposition to class distinctions was idiocy. When you see low class white people on the cover of your local who got busted by the police magazine, or people like David Koresh and Joseph Smith Jr. starting their own religions and killing people for their new religions then CLASS DISTINCTIONS are a NECESSARY function of a society.

There needs to be separations to protect those who respect others rights under the law from those who do not.

a reply to: imwilliam
Ive deliberately pointed to the fact that Marxism has invaded the Church, and that the Church is used to sway people into doing what is presented as a higher law when it is a social justice agenda.
Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing is a most poignant scripture and one must go into one's heart sometimes to divine the truth and the error.
I met a delightful Christian pastor recently who has his own charitable organization for helping poor people in Cambodia. I was duly impressed as it is entirely based on private donations. I always question the motives of people who use government means to force charitable causes on masses of people.
Most true Christians I believe do understand the difference between true charity and forced redistribution.
classic

1 Corinthians 13:1 Context Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

Again one has to go within ones heart to find the truth, but we cannot disregard the forces at work which seek to use the Church for its own purposes. Communism was always against the Church but now uses it for its own purposes.
I'm sure many people believe in what they are doing as God's work.

Churches here in Hawaii are doing it too.
Kinda pisses me off though.
Why harbor / feed/ protect illegals instead of our homeless residents? I deal with these people in my town on a daily basis. Some are veterans, some have mental illness...etc
I always say, take care of yours first before trying to take care of others.

This is one reason I worship on my own instead of going to church.

In the case of mexican illegals, "leaving everything behind", what exactly are they leaving behind? bad economy? poverty? Yeah those are really hard to leave behind!
Imagine being "forced" to give up those wonderful things for free housing, free medical insurance, and free food! All on our dime.

Want american benefits? Come in legally. Like my grandparents did. Dont dare cheapen their citizenship.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Sure I get that. and so should Progressives be held to their own standards.

No doubt.

The question is.... do Progressives who use bible scripture really understand what the meaning is?

What makes you think anyone who uses bible scripture really understands what the meaning is?

An interesting point you make.
I will give you credence for that.