Churches increasingly feel need to offer sanctuary to undocumented migrants

originally posted by: Liquesence
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.

You have a right to your personal opinion. With the rise of Progressivism I feel passionate about opposing the Nanny State. I find it quite interesting that so many here use the term "TPTB" and yet are totally on board with the elitist program. I'm
Sorry you feel that my trying to warn people about the impending NWO is so bothersome to you.
It's a fact that Marxism has infected the Church and that there are elements of it spurring the sanctuary movement. It's about as spontaneous and grassroots as the Occupy movement and the pussy hat brigade all supported by Soros.
I've been observing the encroachment by Big Brother for some years.

originally posted by: daskakik

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.

You are using faulty ideas promoted by the abortion industry. Even some of the leaders in pro choice know that the Pill is an abortifacient and they know a fetus is not just a bunch of tissue lining but they still promote the lie anyway.
Did you not understand my point of how people justify breaking the law on one hand and use the law to justify themselves on the other? The ends justify the means.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Illegal aliens

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

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

No I'm just tired of the guilt tripping the Left uses to trap people into thinking their agenda is the morally righteous one when it's nothing but propaganda. But I'm sure you'll be feeling so proud when some Syrian refugee getting sanctuary in a church goes on a rampage like in France.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
You are using faulty ideas promoted by the abortion industry.

I don't know what you are talking about.

People have the right to kill their babies and, according to your book, god will judge them. The abortion industry didn't come up with that.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
You are using faulty ideas promoted by the abortion industry.

I don't know what you are talking about.

People have the right to kill their babies and, according to your book, god will judge them. The abortion industry didn't come up with that.

Whatever! This whole argument is whether churches have a moral
Imperative to break our laws by harboring illegal aliens. The Left thinks apparently that breaking immigration law is justified and argues its because God. So whatever. It's sickening how this stuff is justified by a bunch of Marxist Progressives. I didn't make up the Marxist infiltration, anyone can find it with a typical search. There's tons of links on this Wallis guy
romanticpoet.wordpress.com...
www.google.com... That one even talks about him quoting the Bible out of context to
Promote the agenda
www.google.com...
Michelle Malkin on it.www.truthrevolt.org...
So ok I'm done with this

edit on 25-2-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


Just my opinion...


But you are rambling with page long posts ranging on a whole spectrum of crazy..


All I did was quote THE BIBLE...


You were triggered by THE BIBLE...


You might have jumped the shark when....?

Leviticus 19:34



You shall treat the foreigner who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.


TAKE IT UP WITH GOD...


I am with the Priests that know their God is more important than the Angry Ooompa Loompa Trump...

You can sort out who you chose to worship when your own reckoning comes due.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Actually anyone can have any moral imperative. It's a personal thing.

The reality of a Marxist infiltration has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

In the end you want the state to enforce your moral imperative.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


Just my opinion...


But you are rambling with page long posts ranging on a whole spectrum of crazy..


All I did was quote THE BIBLE...


You were triggered by THE BIBLE...


You might have jumped the shark when....?

Leviticus 19:34



You shall treat the foreigner who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.


TAKE IT UP WITH GOD...



I am with the Priests that know their God is more important than the Angry Ooompa Loompa Trump...

You can sort out who you chose to worship when your own reckoning comes due.

Taking bible quotes out of context. It's what Pastor Wallis does too.
I definitely go to the altar. Do you ?
If you mean you are with these people ....

The unholy alliance between church leaders and the open-borders lobby extends from the Vatican to Rev. Jim Wallis' Faith in Public Life (FPL) network, the Los Angeles-based Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) and the George Soros-tied Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ). It's a web of nearly 100 interfaith committees, campus agitators and "workers centers" steeped in the organizing tactics of Saul Alinsky on behalf of millions of illegal aliens filling the pews and coffers of their abettors.

www.truthrevolt.org...
Then I don't envy you one bit

a reply to: Indigo5

Take this up
With God

But the Soros-funded Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has high-level connections of its own. The Treasurer-Secretary is Francis Xavier Doyle, a former top official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Executive director is Victoria Kovari, a former organizer for the Gamaliel Foundation, the same group that helped launch Barack Obama’s career as a community organizer in Chicago. The chairman is Alfred M. Rotondaro, a senior fellow at another Soros-funded group, the Center for American Progress.

Although CACG describes itself as “a lay Catholic organization that works to promote the common good and the broad spectrum of Catholic social teaching,” Frank Walker of the conservative Pewsitter website labels it a religious and political Trojan Horse designed to mislead Catholics and produce votes for the Democratic Party. One purpose of the Soros money, Walker says, is to play down the importance of the abortion issue to Catholics and even make abortion rights a “respectable” Catholic position. Walker notes that “The CACG is run and advised by powerful Democrats. Their board, staff, and advisory committee include top fundraisers and strategists as well as major labor union representation.” He adds, “Catholic Church Leadership from the Sisters of Mercy, the Jesuit order, the government-funded Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services are also represented at CACG. Catholic academia has a strong presence.” Indeed, the CACG advisory council includes figures from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO, Catholic University of America, Georgetown University, and Boston College.

romanticpoet.wordpress.com...
This is a conspiracy website. At least Ive posted a conspiracy theory.
Good day

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No I'm just tired of the guilt tripping the Left uses to trap people into thinking their agenda is the morally righteous one when it's nothing but propaganda

Well, I'm not progressive, In real life I usually spit when someone speaks the term. I'm not even left. My "brand" of conservatism is best modified by the adjective "Medieval". I supported Trump and continue to do so, but not in lock step.

I've acknowledged that some of these Church's may not be acting out of sincere Christian compassion, that some of them may be limited to a social gospel. Hell, maybe all of them referred to in the OP fall into those categories.

But some of the arguments here have gone well past that, attempting to dogmatize the one and only true Christian response as:

No aid or assistance to these people because it's THE LAW and being a Christian means ALWAYS following the law. Further even any feelings of compassion for these people are suspect and suggest corruption.

Well, I don't speak for God. But it seems to me that always following man's law is a non-starter for Christians, that all of us could imagine a time when our relationship with God would demand that we violate mans laws. So, "It's the law" isn't sufficient to deny people in need and hardship what assistance and comfort we can provide. Your argument is incomplete and needs to be completed in order to stand logically.

OR your position on this situation wasn't arrived at through careful reflection on what God would want of you, but instead you reached your position by other means, and now that you have, are trying to justify/elevate it by adding some sort of Christian gloss to it.

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No I'm just tired of the guilt tripping the Left uses to trap people into thinking their agenda is the morally righteous one when it's nothing but propaganda

Well, I'm not progressive, In real life I usually spit when someone speaks the term. I'm not even left. My "brand" of conservatism is best modified by the adjective "Medieval". I supported Trump and continue to do so, but not in lock step.

I've acknowledged that some of these Church's may not be acting out of sincere Christian compassion, that some of them may be limited to a social gospel. Hell, maybe all of them referred to in the OP fall into those categories.

But some of the arguments here have gone well past that, attempting to dogmatize the one and only true Christian response as:

No aid or assistance to these people because it's THE LAW and being a Christian means ALWAYS following the law. Further even any feelings of compassion for these people are suspect and suggest corruption.

Well, I don't speak for God. But it seems to me that always following man's law is a non-starter for Christians, that all of us could imagine a time when our relationship with God would demand that we violate mans laws. So, "It's the law" isn't sufficient to deny people in need and hardship what assistance and comfort we can provide. Your argument is incomplete and needs to be completed in order to stand logically.
P
OR your position on this situation wasn't arrived at through careful reflection on what God would want of you, but instead you reached your position by other means, and now that you have, are trying to justify/elevate it by adding some sort of Christian gloss to it.

I've argued with at least three of these posters here about the same stuff for years so don't presume to understand my motive. I don't give in just because some OP here thinks they have the high road.
I have not said all churches or Christians have bad motive
in this. I'm sure that many if not most think
They are doing the right thing. Maybe they are. Or maybe some are misguided. Only God knows the full extent of everything. But I know one thing.... the extent of evil on the planet is hideous and I don't stop challenging it just because some people on a website don't like me or get bored and say I just say the same old things. I'm not going to stop challenging the darkness and I'm
Not going to stop discussing things like
Agenda 21 just because some people don't care about it. I actually do talk about a wide variety of subjects including Agenda 21, the Club of Rome, depopulation, climate Change, skull and bones, Hegelian dialectical materialism, Bill Gates involvement in Common Core standards, Occupy movement, George Soros and his wide array of front groups, fallen angels. It's just that it's all related and I see the big picture. I mean when I was 14 I was reading Nineteen Eighty Four and when I was 19 I was reading The Secret Doctrine, and Esoteric Astrology.
Nowadays I read stuff like like Behind The Green Mask and The Shadow Party. What do
You read William?
Actually if you really read through all my arguments here, I've asked a lot of questions and brought up some deep subjects such as the interfacing of Gods law and mans law, which parts of the Bible are Gods Word. Speaking of the Law, remember Thomas More was done away with for his stance on
The Law. So I don't think any discussion on
The Law is unimportant.
Here's a hint for you. I never said being Christian means always following the Law. I queried whether they should follow Gods Law or mans law.
Let me ask you this William. Do you think it is a moral
Imperative to hide criminals from the authorities when there is a court order to deport them? Is your argument for giving them food and water or is it to
Stop deportation? And is your argument to stop deportation because they will
Be persecuted for their religious ideals or such? How about the Yazidis in
Iraq or Christian Syrians being persecuted ? Glenn Beck
Has a charitable organization to rescue some of those people which I support. many people here ridicule Glenn Beck but he has worthy causes and he did expose The communist roots of Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones. At one time he thought G Edward Griffin was over the top and he changed his opinion. I'm
Guessing he still doesn't accept shape shifting reptilian though.
I also have a lot of tech books William and I once got into a discussion about the merits of net neutrality.
I love Hindu philosophy and once in a blue moon talk about how long one day in the life of Brahma is. I've been known to talk about Tertullian, Origen and the Council of Nicea and the concept of the pre existence of the soul.
But to some here, all they see is my talk of Progressivism.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The Law is unimportant.

Yet you were told to give unto Caesar. You have used that in favor of your argument.

What does it actually tell you? What do you think it means if you extend it to the question you keep bringing up about abortion?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

. . . don't presume to understand my motive.

You, and others, have put forward an argument in a public forum. I get to evaluate that argument, ask questions about it and decide if I think it's convincing or not. That's the way forums work. If that troubles you, some people are better suited to blogging, maybe that's something you should consider. In any case, my interest isn't in the motives of those putting forward this argument, rather it lies in the structure and starting premises of the argument, an argument that I think is invalid, a statement that doesn't necessarily involve a judgement on the truth value of the conclusion.

I see the argument as broken as it stands now and I've already pointed out what questions I think would need to be addressed in order to make it valid, if it can be made so.

OR another possibility is that the Christian elements are merely an afterthought and played little to no role in the journey to this position, that a desire to do the will of God played no role in arriving at the conclusion. Obviously, that would also explain why the argument from Christianity is incomplete, since it wasn't the actual argument that got one to the position.

Why is the difference important? Because it touches on the integrity of a thought process/line of reasoning that leads to a position that will have significant consequences.

But I know one thing.... the extent of evil on the planet is hideous

I'm not arguing that it isn't.

I don't stop challenging it just because some people on a website don't like me or get bored and say I just say the same old things. I'm not going to stop challenging the darkness

I'm not suggesting that you should.


ETA: Having posted my response to your original thread I see that you've added substantially to it while I was responding. Actually everything south of asking "what I read" is added, essentially doubling your post. That's bad form, Horus.

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

. . . don't presume to understand my motive.

You, and others, have put forward an argument in a public forum. I get to evaluate that argument, ask questions about it and decide if I think it's convincing or not. That's the way forums work. If that troubles you, some people are better suited to blogging, maybe that's something you should consider. In any case, my interest isn't in the motives of those putting forward this argument, rather it lies in the structure and starting premises of the argument, an argument that I think is invalid, a statement that doesn't necessarily involve a judgement on the truth value of the conclusion.

I see the argument as broken as it stands now and I've already pointed out what questions I think would need to be addressed in order to make it valid, if it can be made so.

OR another possibility is that the Christian elements are merely an afterthought and played little to no role in the journey to this position, that a desire to do the will of God played no role in arriving at the conclusion. Obviously, that would also explain why the argument from Christianity is incomplete, since it wasn't the actual argument that got one to the position.

Why is the difference important? Because it touches on the integrity of a thought process/line of reasoning that leads to a position that will have significant consequences.

But I know one thing.... the extent of evil on the planet is hideous

I'm not arguing that it isn't.

I don't stop challenging it just because some people on a website don't like me or get bored and say I just say the same old things. I'm not going to stop challenging the darkness

I'm not suggesting that you should.


ETA: Having posted my response to your original thread I see that you've added substantially to it while I was responding. Actually everything south of asking "what I read" is added, essentially doubling your post. That's bad form, Horus.

so it's duly noted that you are of the opinion that I may not be interested in doing the Will of God because I don't subscribe to the argument that illegals should be taking advantage of church sanctuary to avoid deportation. You are like everyone else here entitled to your opinion. You imagine that I brought up Christian that ideals as some kind of cover(I can only imagine what you REALLY meant here) and that I don't really subscribe to true Christian traditions. I don't subscribe to secular or religious humanism, Christian socialism, or the Jesuits. I also question people who are NOT Christian but who arm themselves with ammunition from Progressive Christian activities and quote religious scriptures without true conviction but as a method of defending a Progressive ideal they have that they use to clobber conservatives over the head with. There are people here who have a severe dislike for Christians yet suddenly think that a church breaking laws for a Progressive ideal is a good thing.
You tell me what is the Will of God here William. I contend that Marxism communism and socialism are not the Will of God and that they are faulty systems. I contend that the NWO and One World Government is anti Christ and therefore to support any avenue of that would be doing less than the Will of God. But that's just me. You can decide for yourself if you want to support the beast of World Communism and call it compassion. Read revelation over a few times while you're contemplating.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
so it's duly noted that you are of the opinion that I may not be interested in doing the Will of God because I don't subscribe to the argument that illegals should be taking advantage of church sanctuary to avoid deportation.

That isn't what was said. He said that the idea that the churches should not be aiding illegals did not take god's law into account. You decided it was wrong for totally un-religious reasons.

I also question people who are NOT Christian but who arm themselves with ammunition from Progressive Christian activities and quote religious scriptures without true conviction but as a method of defending a Progressive ideal they have that they use to clobber conservatives over the head with. There are people here who have a severe dislike for Christians yet suddenly think that a church breaking laws for a Progressive ideal is a good thing.

And continuing from the above, at this point god got dragged into it.

Seems like a valid observation to me.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No I'm just tired of the guilt tripping the Left uses to trap people into thinking their agenda is the morally righteous one when it's nothing but propaganda.

But I'm sure you'll be feeling so proud when some Syrian refugee getting sanctuary in a church goes on a rampage like in France.

what? !!!!!

What are you talking about?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not going to stop discussing things like
Agenda 21 just because some people don't care about it

What about if people stopped discussing it because it isn't really very important?

THEN, would you relax?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

you are of the opinion that I may not be interested in doing the Will of God because I don't subscribe to the argument that illegals should be taking advantage of church sanctuary to avoid deportation. You are like everyone else here entitled to your opinion. You imagine that I brought up Christian that ideals as some kind of cover(I can only imagine what you REALLY meant here) and that I don't really subscribe to true Christian traditions.

I'm listening.

I don't subscribe to secular or religious humanism, Christian socialism, or the Jesuits.

Why not?

REALLY - WHY NOT?

I also question people who are NOT Christian but who arm themselves with ammunition from Progressive Christian activities and quote religious scriptures without true conviction but as a method of defending a Progressive ideal they have that they use to clobber conservatives over the head with.

So, we keep ripping off the bandaid, and tearing out the stitches?

There are people here who have a severe dislike for Christians yet suddenly think that a church breaking laws for a Progressive ideal is a good thing.

People like whom?

Me? Are you talking about me? Because, I'd be more than happy to explain to you where the line in the sand is drawn.

Oh wow.

Oh my goodness......

I have a question, for everyone reading this.

Here we go:

WHY DOES IT MATTER IF I AM "CHRISTIAN" OR NOT?
What difference does it make?

If I am an agnostic (which, yes I am) does that devalue my contributions to world peace? To making it known that I disapprove of and do not want to fund WAR? To admitting that I value education, and a basic security for all residents, and caring for people who have come here to just have a chance?



(answer: no)