Lol, I see you still take your misread into another's words as being said other's intent.
That aside, welcome back; hope all is well with you.
Trump's Executive order: How do Pro-Life Christians defend rejecting Refugees?
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Lol, I see you still take your misread into another's words as being said other's intent.
That aside, welcome back; hope all is well with you.
1. forget you. you took one event and just said multiple white men commit that one act. If you wish to state acts of terror or crime are neutral in respect to herritage, cool. but your sentence format suggests all white men.
perhaps last year cop killings are forgotten but you'd have a better time argueing that there is a greater threat internally than point finger at all white men.
2. then you use another singled out act against a p.p. establishment to suggest that sort of thing happens all the time. unsure what the purpose behind it, but appears you may be guessing the person you are responding to is pro life or feeding off o.p. backwards thinking.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
No. proves that letting refugees in can help our communities and generate a positive result rather negative
I'm not. I dont have to be afraid of something, to not want it. What 'major' and evangeical organizations agree with you, and also tell me why it should matter to me.
Also explain the differences between immigration and refugee.
Oh and since you pretend to reference what the bible states on this? Most of those people from those areas wouldnt even exist today, had God been followed, they were to have been destroyed (Canaanite idolators)
I completely support immigration, legally. It doesn't exploit people like liberals allow them to be.
Do read the bible sometime on what should happen to those who refused to assimilate into the jewish theocracy you quote about and what happened to those according to Gods edict who worshipped false gods and refused to follow the jewish theocracy.
That should end your out of context false appeal to emotion, and get thee behind me, satan.
Alate_One
Well-known member
REfugees by and large have no home to return to.
There were far more people in the region than those that were intended to be pushed out in the Israelite invasion. Or did you think the whole earth was supposed to belong to the Jews? How does any of that negate commands to care for foreigners anyway? :dizzy:
The order was against LEGAL immigrants.
The point was to care for those in need. We also don't live in a theocracy. Many of the commands were also repeated in the NT where there was no theocratic system.
Not appealing to emotion here. Perhaps you're projecting?
| 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! |
musterion
Well-known member
The man who did that was the same man who locked JapAm citizens behind fences in the desert. That man was FDR, patron saint of Democrats for the past 70 years.
Alate_One
Well-known member
You know that someone can do many good things, but also do very bad things, right?
Tinark
Active member
Shouldn't we be putting all the men in concentration camps to protect everyone else from the robberies, sex crimes, assaults and mass shootings?
All of you really want to deal with their (our) trouble? Why?
Also, just because you haven't yet been raped by a man doesn't mean a rape isn't going to happen at some point. In fact, way more likely than any Muslim immigrant will commit a crime against you.
Also, vetting the men that are unlikely to rape and letting them out of the camp isn't going to work. You can never be 100% sure he won't end up raping or committing a mass shooting at some point.
All of you really want to deal with their (our) trouble? Why?
Also, just because you haven't yet been raped by a man doesn't mean a rape isn't going to happen at some point. In fact, way more likely than any Muslim immigrant will commit a crime against you.
Also, vetting the men that are unlikely to rape and letting them out of the camp isn't going to work. You can never be 100% sure he won't end up raping or committing a mass shooting at some point.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
that's a real fine pack of strawmen you erected there! :thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and we're putting a temporary moratorium on those from seven countries
all the others are unimpeded by this order/ban
Multiple events.
Since you seem a bit confused, I'll try to be real clear. You're far more likely to die from a terrorist attack committed by a white man than a Muslim. That's what I'm getting at.
I don't think anyone has forgotten those events.
Oh, so you do understand the injustice of being lumped together with a violent fringe? Can you apply that reasoning to Muslims?
Mass shootings do happen with rather frustrating frequency, and more often than not, the shooter is male and white. Frequently, they have political motives, but sometimes they just seem to want to create chaos. And yet, it's infrequently called terrorism. Why do you suppose that is?
READ!
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, no
not in philly
or chicago
or la
more often than not, they're young, black and male
but we don't call it "terrorism" or "mass-shootings", because they're young, male and black
There is a more salient issue. Many of them would be a big drag on the economy. Wonder how many realize this is a central issue?
Only a few shootings in those cities qualify as mass-shootings, not because of race, but because of body count. Maybe they should, in some cases. But the point is, the deadliest mass shootings are mostly committed by white men.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/
Matthew 25:41-46
You should be ashamed of yourself. Or at least, you should stop calling yourself a Christian.
Very much ashamed, their should be a committee to boycott me, put me down for a large contribution. Then, you do not realize you are talking to two people. (Citizen Kane)
I am saying this is the real reason, not that I personally hold to it. I do, however, think you are one of the idealistic youth. Are you a UCB student? I am on the redneck team...........
Very much ashamed, their should be a committee to boycott me, put me down for a large contribution. Then, you do not realize you are talking to two people. (Citizen Kane)
I am saying this is the real reason, not that I personally hold to it. I do, however, think you are one of the idealistic youth. Are you a UCB student? I am on the redneck team...........
You seemed to be defending the move. If I'm mistaken, then I take it back...and redirect it to the millions of "Christians" who do feel that way.
There are people with all different motives, yet what satisfies the majority has to be a safety message. My personal view is the terrorist is more an excuse for not taking on people who would require government assistance.
It is hard to believe any sane person would see it as only a terrorist and culture issue, when Trump made promises to cut taxes.
1a. who do you think a muslim is? they are not all one "race" but can share a paticular heritage. Various "spokesmen" from isiL were british.
Either way, your unquoted and not cited statistic does not reflect an accurate picture. Random attacks will always have a smaller likelihood in certain populations. Some are just lucky to live in those certain populations, unlike refugees fleeing from isiL or some unrest.
1b again, your method here is flawed. as another already points out, law and media do not share the same definitions for all acts.
two teens shot under gang affiliation is not terror attack, but if those teens were attacked just to cause pain and suffering then they can be look at that given situation as terror. however, this determines how media/law define certain acts. which reflect on how we look at things too.