Trump's Executive order: How do Pro-Life Christians defend rejecting Refugees?

[Angel4Truth]

REfugees by and large have no home to return to.

The differences between refugees and immigrants:

Refugee: a person who has been forced to leave their country or home, because there is a war or for political, religious or social reasons

Weird that a ton of men would leave their wives and kids in that situation without a home?

Immigrant - A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country

The order was against LEGAL immigrants.

You show again you dont know the differences and no country has to allow refugees, did you forget your own op? Also one doesnt have to be allowed entry or status because they migrated somewhere.

We also don't live in a theocracy.

Which renders your thread moot.

 

[Alate_One]

Refugee: a person who has been forced to leave their country or home, because there is a war or for political, religious or social reasons your own op? Also one doesnt have to be allowed entry or status because they migrated somewhere.

When you make a law and allow people in you should follow the law, not negate it magically with an executive order. Also I'm talking about the Christian's MORAL obligation. You do understand that there are still Christian moral obligations absent a theocracy right?

Weird that a ton of men would leave their wives and kids in that situation without a home?

Most of the Syrian refugees are women and children.

Which renders your thread moot.

You're incapable of having a rational discussion. Here's the logical problem:

full accounting here

 

[rexlunae]

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.

It's true that "white man" and "Muslim" aren't mutually exclusive. But the point still stands. People still process the perception of threats from both separately. In the US, if you are shot, the greater likelihood is that it will be by a Christian, a man, and/or a white person. And yet, there's all this fear-mongering about Muslims, whereas we don't even tend to call it "terrorism" when the suspect is white.

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.

Well, I was referring to mass shootings, which are decided by body count, not race, or religion, or "gang activity". It is blind to events where large numbers of people are shot and not killed, but it's neutral on questions of demographics.

 

[Danoh]

So we find here a man whose opinion has been rejected by so many God fearing Americans, so he doubles down on his hate and intolerance. Danoh, you are getting worse every single time I read one of your posts. Get over it, dude. Your pride has taken a hit and you've become like the other lib tantrum throwers.

Fact of the matter is that Grace is by its' very nature: centrist - by virtue of "the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (neither strictly for the Jew, nor strictly against the Gentile).

Neither so called Right (an extreme) nor so called Left (just another extreme).

And since the extremist can not but right away go there - no, I am not referring to some Centrist "Party."

 

[musterion]

So sad to watch such a surreptitiously vile poster play the grace card.

 

[musterion]

So we find here a man whose opinion has been rejected by so many God fearing Americans, so he doubles down on his hate and intolerance. Danoh, you are getting worse every single time I read one of your posts. Get over it, dude. Your pride has taken a hit and you've become like the other lib tantrum throwers.

Argues just like a Leftist, doesn't he.

 

[Danoh]

Argues just like a Leftist, doesn't he.

That's just how incompetent at looking at a thing objectively your extremism has rendered you and your kind :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

So sad to watch such a surreptitiously vile poster play the grace card.

Grace is centrist; you extremist.

Case by case basis - not who you and yours "one size fits all" your extremes against.

Its' time you got a clue to the "grace" in the "gospel of grace" your kind only talk about.

:doh:

 

[glorydaz]

Argues just like a Leftist, doesn't he.

That's just how incompetent at looking at a thing objectively your extremism has rendered you and your kind :chuckle:

Grace is centrist; you extremist.

Case by case basis - not who you and yours "one size fits all" your extremes against.

Its' time you got a clue to the "grace" in the "gospel of grace" your kind only talk about.

:doh:

Yes, Musty and I call it "hypocrite speak". I never can find any grace in it.

 

[ok doser]

you have to work at it

 

[musterion]

Yes, Musty and I call it "hypocrite speak". I never can find any grace in it.

Does Paul strike you as being particularly centrist?

 

[rexlunae]

Does Paul strike you as being particularly centrist?

Jesus was extremely compassionate. That's one kind of extremity.

 

[ok doser]

Jesus was extremely compassionate. That's one kind of extremity.

he sure dint seem all that considerate to those pesky pharisees

 

[rexlunae]

he sure dint seem all that considerate to those pesky pharisees

He called out thier hypocrisy. Which, I suppose, could be kinda harsh.

 

[glorydaz]

Does Paul strike you as being particularly centrist?

Well, not as I understand the term. When I think of a centrist, I think of someone who espouses situational ethics.

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus was extremely compassionate. That's one kind of extremity.

Hmmm... I don't see being compassionate as extreme. People can be compassionate and enable someone....not for their good, or they can be compassionate and refuse to enable someone....for their own good.

 

[glorydaz]

He called out thier hypocrisy. Which, I suppose, could be kinda harsh.

Yes, and that was one proof of his compassion for them. Tough love, if you will.

 

[Danoh]

Yes, Musty and I call it "hypocrite speak". I never can find any grace in it.

Don't be so hard on Musti/on yourself :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

Yes, and that was one proof of his compassion for them. Tough love, if you will.

His was righteous judgment.

Ours is ever questionable - every one of us.

 

[rexlunae]

Yes, and that was one proof of his compassion for them. Tough love, if you will.

Matthew 23:23-24
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

So...justice, mercy, and faithfulness are the requirements of the law?