Where some see an invasion others see hope - Page 3

Rongagin71

5:01a, 3/10/24

I don't think we disagree all that much.
I do believe we should help people not starve to death as they
wait outside our border.
But even aid programs have a practical limit.
We are trillions of dollars in debt and it is getting worse.
Both the Catholics and Muslims encourage large families
even when there are no good jobs and little water or food.
Get real.

HumpitPuryear

10:06a, 3/10/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
I disagree. We can care for our brother - we choose not to as a matter of policy. That is where politics and God's Law diverge.

Big city mayors on team blue disagree with you. It's the only reason the issue has gone from "not a crisis" to "yes, it's a crisis but it's the red team's fault." This issue is diverting and draining resources that would help the homeless citizens. Democrats are spreading misery not solving it and it's going to get worse especially if we get four more years of the same policies.

And we aren't helping anyone. We are putting thousands of women and children in peril and exposing our own citizens to cartel violence. "Caring for our brothers " isn't even the objective. If it was I could have some level of sympathy for Biden.

ramblin_ag02

1:01p, 3/10/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
There's really only one religious side to the discussion. OT and NT and church teachings are all pretty unanimous about how we should treat immigrants, foreigners, and travelers. All the counterarguments are either practical or political, not religious. Territorial defense and integrity, whether home or country, isn't a Christian religious concept.

Working for a living or selling yourself into slavery and leaving behind your religion and customs sure is, though. How much of this OT/NT lense are we going to look through?
That was not a value judgement, just pointing out a pet peeve of mine. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christian teaching because it isn't prudent or it isn't pragmatic or it doesn't fit the situation. My pet peeve is people trying to make those arguments religious. Whether it is foul language, dress codes, alcohol use, or immigration, people who are contrary to the basic and fundamental Christian teachings on the subject like to think their principled disagreement is divinely inspired in way, shape or form. It's not. There is only one Christian teaching on the issue.

I think it's a legitimate point to say that we can't afford to take care of a horde of foreigners coming into our country, but there is no Christian religious basis for that argument

If you cannot bring them in with those expectations and responsibilities, is it really out of bounds, religiously? People are brought into the community with obligations placed on them. Todays migration is nothing of the sort.

I would point out that Christian love, mercy, compassion, and generosity don't come with upper boundaries. Doing all of those things to the point of self detriment is an quintessentially Christian as anything can be. Any limitations on this are worldly, not religious

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

Bob Lee

5:12p, 3/10/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
There's really only one religious side to the discussion. OT and NT and church teachings are all pretty unanimous about how we should treat immigrants, foreigners, and travelers. All the counterarguments are either practical or political, not religious. Territorial defense and integrity, whether home or country, isn't a Christian religious concept.

Working for a living or selling yourself into slavery and leaving behind your religion and customs sure is, though. How much of this OT/NT lense are we going to look through?
That was not a value judgement, just pointing out a pet peeve of mine. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christian teaching because it isn't prudent or it isn't pragmatic or it doesn't fit the situation. My pet peeve is people trying to make those arguments religious. Whether it is foul language, dress codes, alcohol use, or immigration, people who are contrary to the basic and fundamental Christian teachings on the subject like to think their principled disagreement is divinely inspired in way, shape or form. It's not. There is only one Christian teaching on the issue.

I think it's a legitimate point to say that we can't afford to take care of a horde of foreigners coming into our country, but there is no Christian religious basis for that argument

Is it imprudent or isn't it? There's no tension at all between perfect Prudential judgement and God's mercy.

AGC

5:44p, 3/10/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
There's really only one religious side to the discussion. OT and NT and church teachings are all pretty unanimous about how we should treat immigrants, foreigners, and travelers. All the counterarguments are either practical or political, not religious. Territorial defense and integrity, whether home or country, isn't a Christian religious concept.

Working for a living or selling yourself into slavery and leaving behind your religion and customs sure is, though. How much of this OT/NT lense are we going to look through?
That was not a value judgement, just pointing out a pet peeve of mine. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christian teaching because it isn't prudent or it isn't pragmatic or it doesn't fit the situation. My pet peeve is people trying to make those arguments religious. Whether it is foul language, dress codes, alcohol use, or immigration, people who are contrary to the basic and fundamental Christian teachings on the subject like to think their principled disagreement is divinely inspired in way, shape or form. It's not. There is only one Christian teaching on the issue.

I think it's a legitimate point to say that we can't afford to take care of a horde of foreigners coming into our country, but there is no Christian religious basis for that argument

If you cannot bring them in with those expectations and responsibilities, is it really out of bounds, religiously? People are brought into the community with obligations placed on them. Todays migration is nothing of the sort.

I would point out that Christian love, mercy, compassion, and generosity don't come with upper boundaries. Doing all of those things to the point of self detriment is a quintessentially Christian as anything can be. Any limitations on this are worldly, not religious

Actually they do. Israel required it.

AGC

5:48p, 3/10/24

In reply to PabloSerna

PabloSerna said:
I disagree. We can care for our brother - we choose not to as a matter of policy. That is where politics and God's Law diverge.

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. But having the government do it isn't the same as the Christian doing it. How many you got in your home? How many do you just expect everyone else to pay for? What are the limits to what you can afford and how can you judge others for prioritizing the poor we already have over new immigrants?

ramblin_ag02

7:23p, 3/10/24

In reply to AGC

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

Rongagin71

7:57p, 3/10/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:
PabloSerna said:
I disagree. We can care for our brother - we choose not to as a matter of policy. That is where politics and God's Law diverge.

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. But having the government do it isn't the same as the Christian doing it. How many you got in your home? How many do you just expect everyone else to pay for? What are the limits to what you can afford and how can you judge others for prioritizing the poor we already have over new immigrants?

This is realism, it works.
Idealism is good for setting goals,
and sometimes for manipulating people.
Our set goal is about 1million legal immigrants per year.
I think that is plenty and allowing huge numbers more
than that has no real basis in Christian ideology.
If you want to devote your life to helping the poor,
feel free to go do that without wrecking my country.

AGC

8:30p, 3/10/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.

Bob Lee

10:57p, 3/10/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

Is it loving and compassionate in every context to allow immigration?
It's not those things to do anything someone wants you to do all the time as long as it personally benefits them. What is the compassionate thing when you're caught in the middle of a battle of wills where person A wants you to do one thing, and person B wants you to do a mutually exclusive thing? You're bettering someone's situation to the detriment of the other guy's.

The question is what are each person's rights and obligations in that scenario. What you're doing is isolating Godly attributes from other attributes like justice and prudence. They're not competing notions in Christianity. Things can be superficially loving and compassionate, but actually wrong.

ramblin_ag02

8:46a, 3/11/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.

You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

AGC

10:07a, 3/11/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.
You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.

ramblin_ag02

11:43a, 3/11/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.
You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.

I'd argue that you are 100% focused on worldly things. The ideal of Christianity is self sacrifice of everything we have, including our lives. Because this life is only worth the good with can do with it. Our life, our time, our money, and our happiness are only important as long as we use those to make the world better and show love for our fellow man. That's a hard ideal, and most of us fall short. I certainly do.

But I still don't understand Christians criticizing other Christians for being too charitable or too merciful, and I certainly don't understand Christians persecuting other Christians for these things. Especially to defend worldly concepts like borders or states, and even more vague concepts like politics or strain on social services. It reminds me of the lady that got arrested for giving food to the homeless. As Christians, we should believe that some things are good whether they are legal or not

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/woman-arrested-feeding-homeless-1.6632153

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

Bob Lee

12:21p, 3/11/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.
You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.
I'd argue that you are 100% focused on worldly things. The ideal of Christianity is self sacrifice of everything we have, including our lives. Because this life is only worth the good with can do with it. Our life, our time, our money, and our happiness are only important as long as we use those to make the world better and show love for our fellow man. That's a hard ideal, and most of us fall short. I certainly do.

But I still don't understand Christians criticizing other Christians for being too charitable or too merciful, and I certainly don't understand Christians persecuting other Christians for these things. Especially to defend worldly concepts like borders or states, and even more vague concepts like politics or strain on social services. It reminds me of the lady that got arrested for giving food to the homeless. As Christians, we should believe that some things are good whether they are legal or not

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/woman-arrested-feeding-homeless-1.6632153

You have a disordered view of love and charity. Love is not reckless abandon. We don't need to toss out our inhibitions. Associating self sacrificial love with the loss of your family, peace, and stability as a natural byproduct is nuts. That's what you think is required of us? Love so much it costs you your family! Huh?! Christians don't criticize Christians for being too charitable. We're saying it's superficially charitable, but it's NOT in reality. Once these organizations have crossed the line into facilitating illegal immigration, it's not charitable.

In a scenario where a guy with 7 kids was using his family's grocery budget to setup a soup kitchen for the homeless in his garage, is that charitable?

I say it clearly is not. Because you're taking away something that your children have a right to, and you have an obligation to provide them. And giving it away irresponsibly. And you're endangering your family and the people in your neighborhood by inviting a bunch of really volatile and crazy people, and statistically a high percentage of violent criminals into your neighborhood. But I guess that's the embodiment of God's love in your mind?

ramblin_ag02

1:11p, 3/11/24

In reply to Bob Lee

Quote:
Associating self sacrificial love with the loss of your family, peace, and stability as a natural byproduct is nuts.

Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[c]
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Luke 12:52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

Yep. Completely nuts, and also exactly what we are called to do as Christians.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

AGC

1:25p, 3/11/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.
You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.
I'd argue that you are 100% focused on worldly things. The ideal of Christianity is self sacrifice of everything we have, including our lives. Because this life is only worth the good with can do with it. Our life, our time, our money, and our happiness are only important as long as we use those to make the world better and show love for our fellow man. That's a hard ideal, and most of us fall short. I certainly do.

But I still don't understand Christians criticizing other Christians for being too charitable or too merciful, and I certainly don't understand Christians persecuting other Christians for these things. Especially to defend worldly concepts like borders or states, and even more vague concepts like politics or strain on social services. It reminds me of the lady that got arrested for giving food to the homeless. As Christians, we should believe that some things are good whether they are legal or not

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/woman-arrested-feeding-homeless-1.6632153

Bob gets my point. You have many overlapping obligations. To choose one over the other is not necessarily wrong, but must be analyzed in the context of all things. Likewise love and charity, if given excessively, cease to be love and charity at some point. There is a boundary at which what you call love becomes disordered. We argue that starving your own children to feed others crosses that line. You think it's worldly to be a good father? These are the choices immigrants force us all to make - they're paid for with tax dollars, not charity, and hoping people come here but not personally housing and sheltering them but pushing it on the populace as whole isn't love.

747Ag

1:49p, 3/11/24

An immigration policy based on the Gospel is more than just welcoming the foreigner. We would do well to study citizenship and immigration. What are my duties as a citizen? What are the duties of the immigrant coming to a new land?

We would also do well to recall the hierarchy of goods/duties/responsibilities/goods to our neighbor. This is applicable not only at the personal level but the each level of government. My duty/responsibility to my children is higher than my parents which is higher than my next-door neighbor and so on. This is not to say we can't multitask, but it's relevant in light of various issues in our states and nation. Moreover as another example, I shouldn't welcome someone in need to my home if there's a danger (moral, physical, or otherwise) to my wife and kids.

We also need to understand who is coming and why are they coming. Who is involved and facilitating this migration? The standard answers from the lame Rep vs Dem paradigm are facile and wanting. It's not just people seeking a better standard of living. It's not just people seeking to undermine our sovereignty.

Lastly, we would do well to consider what other policies we could enact, other than increasing numbers of immigrants, to improve the lot of the people desiring to come here.

I wrote the above in a different thread on this same topic, but it bears repeating. Radical love of neighbor, yes. But not to the detriment of others to whom I have a higher obligation. Finally, the salvation of souls is the supreme law; not that everyone can live in a first world nation.

Bob Lee

1:56p, 3/11/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
Quote:
Associating self sacrificial love with the loss of your family, peace, and stability as a natural byproduct is nuts.
Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[c]
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Luke 12:52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

Yep. Completely nuts, and also exactly what we are called to do as Christians.

This is so bad. When I saw this, my first thought was "oh no!" Best argument against the perspicuity of scripture I've ever seen.

ramblin_ag02

2:46p, 3/11/24

In reply to 747Ag

Quote:
I wrote the above in a different thread on this same topic, but it bears repeating. Radical love of neighbor, yes. But not to the detriment of others to whom I have a higher obligation. Finally, the salvation of souls is the supreme law; not that everyone can live in a first world nation.

The Gospels hammer this home again and again. No one is more important than anyone else. If you are starving your children to feed strangers, then you are wrong. If you are starving strangers to feed your children, then you are equally wrong. Our first responsibility is to God, ie being humble, honest, fair, and good. Our second responsibility is to love one another like we love ourselves (or our children, or our parents, or our friends, or our countrymen). All other responsibilities are inferior to these. That's the ideal. That's Christian perfection.

Everything else that prevents someone from helping someone else in need is just worldly noise. Unfortunately, a lot of American Christians are entirely of the world, obsessed with greed, ambition, and politics. It blows my mind that any of this is controversial in the slightest. It's Christianity 101

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

Bob Lee

3:56p, 3/11/24

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:
Quote:
I wrote the above in a different thread on this same topic, but it bears repeating. Radical love of neighbor, yes. But not to the detriment of others to whom I have a higher obligation. Finally, the salvation of souls is the supreme law; not that everyone can live in a first world nation.
The Gospels hammer this home again and again. No one is more important than anyone else. If you are starving your children to feed strangers, then you are wrong. If you are starving strangers to feed your children, then you are equally wrong. Our first responsibility is to God, ie being humble, honest, fair, and good. Our second responsibility is to love one another like we love ourselves (or our children, or our parents, or our friends, or our countrymen). All other responsibilities are inferior to these. That's the ideal. That's Christian perfection.

Everything else that prevents someone from helping someone else in need is just worldly noise. Unfortunately, a lot of American Christians are entirely of the world, obsessed with greed, ambition, and politics. It blows my mind that any of this is controversial in the slightest. It's Christianity 101

No one is more important than anyone else in the sense that we all have the same capacity to share in God's divinity. That does not imply that our obligations to everyone are the same. We owe our children things we don't owe strangers or even other relatives. For example, A child's right to his mother's womb implies that his mother has an obligation to allow her child to gestate in her. But no such obligation exists to her sister's child. Clearly there are things we owe to our children and parents and spouses, that we don't owe to anyone else.

Rongagin71

6:23p, 3/11/24

This thread as a whole can be taken as a warning NOT to let border policy be in any way affected by stupid people, unfortunately a majority of Democrat voters are below average intelligence and easily manipulated.
The Dems are working hard on importing even more of this class of voter with the goal of becoming the one ruling party that can be as corrupt as it wants.

747Ag

6:55p, 3/11/24

Solidarity and subsidiarity. I think we've done a good job at delineating the need as disciples of Jesus Christ to take care of the needy and vulnerable in obedience to the second greatest commandment. We, at least in Catholic circles, call this principle solidarity.

The other necessary foundational principle is subsidiarity, where we default to the most local unit feasible to address these needs. This principle is often forgotten. On one hand, it's easier to pass the buck up to some larger entity because it seemingly absolves us from getting our hands dirty. It's hard and we're a society ruled by convenience and effeminacy (avoiding the correct, hard things). We'll send some money rather than roll up our sleeves. We'd rather cheer or jeer Biden or Trump and have no clue about our city councils and school boards. And Pope Francis said this, can you believe it?! Yet how do we care for our own diocese and bishop?

Following subsidiarity is practical in that the bonds of charity and other commonalities drive deeper connections in charity. It's my responsibility to care for my family, not yours. It's my responsibility to help my neighbors, not yours to the same degree. My local St. Vincent de Paul serves my community, not Gainesville, TX. It's run by local Catholics, not the state of Florida.

Subsidiarity is one of the key drivers towards this sort of localism. The logical extreme to acting without subsidiarity xan drive our resources and efforts too thin and thus ineffective.

Solidarity and subsidiarity. It's both/and.

Rongagin71

8:01p, 3/11/24

In reply to 747Ag

Wonderful word salad. What does it mean in regards to the border?
You do know that solidarity has long been a favorite term of socialists, particularly those doing union organizing?
The current leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is...well, not surprised they use the term.

Edit to add this video which improved my opinion of Catholic defined solidarity.

747Ag

8:31p, 3/11/24

In reply to Rongagin71

Relax, there's lots of bacon in that salad. It was an answer to questions/criticisms of one of my earlier points. I'm sorry if I didn't quote/reply them, bro. Not the best at internetting. And look up the Polish solidarity movement and its roll against communism in the 80s/90s.

RAB91

8:53a, 3/12/24

Mr Hewitt speaks accurately of three essential principles of Catholic Social Teaching which are being distorted or simply ignored. We must return to sanity and implement these principles for the sake of our nation and our world. https://t.co/CkN3KgzOkR
— Bishop J. Strickland (@BishStrickland) March 12, 2024

PabloSerna

11:02a, 3/12/24

In reply to RAB91

Read the whole transcript of his interview and he is saying the very same thing the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have already written.

He does add in that he is in favor of a wall, which the RCC has not weighed in on- but the RCC has always- always stated for a safe and orderly process for migrants at any border. So "No" to an open border and "No" to a closed border. Why? Because God made the world not man. We are stewards. When man thinks this land belongs to him and him alone- selfishness and greed can replace mercy to welcome the stranger in a new land.

Rongagin71

4:18p, 3/12/24

In reply to PabloSerna

The border is open to about a million legal immigrants per year.
Those not selected to be among that number should NOT be receiving assistance to cross the border and especially not assistance to organize massive caravans to attack the border.
Assist them with food, water, training, etc. - but it is illegal to help them invade our country.

Rongagin71

9:54a, 3/14/24

Chip Roy has been outspoken on this issue.

You know why crime in Venezuela is down?

Because international gangs like Tren de Aragua are flocking to the United States.

Haiti is next - the Biden Admin is not prepared for what’s coming and does not respect the rule of law pic.twitter.com/nqQ3NZSV4K
— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) March 14, 2024

Macarthur

10:14a, 3/14/24

In reply to Rongagin71

this type of demagoguery goes against all of the data for long periods of time.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/01/undocumented-immigrant-crime-rate-not-higher/72788637007/

Rongagin71

11:16a, 3/14/24

In reply to Macarthur

The truth is not demagoguery.
The lie is that after laying off massive numbers of cops,
the crime rate went down.
Certainly not all illegals are gang members,
but many are welfare recipients, and an unknown number are terrorists.
We really don't know how bad its going to get.

Macarthur

11:41a, 3/14/24

In reply to Rongagin71

What do you mean by "welfare"?

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-FINALupdated.pdf

Macarthur

11:56a, 3/14/24

And estimates are that undocumented immigrants pay around $11 to $12b in taxes each year which has been widening the gap between what they pay in and what they take out.

BluHorseShu

3:47p, 3/14/24

In reply to AGC

AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
AGC said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.
You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.

Wait, is the argument that the border crisis is taking food away from our own U.S. children and giving it to immigrants? I believe we have to seriously curtail the immigration problem. But sometimes it sounds like we are looking to scenarios that don't exist to support extreme measures. I don't think anyone would disagree that the U.S. is a country of extreme excess. Shortage of food is never now, nor will likely be in the near future a problem. What is a problem is the management of the excess and then delivery. Obviously the U.S. tried to feed other nations for a long time and it was fraught with corruption.
So arguing about immigration based on just offering the basics for survival is one thing. Arguing the potential crime and chaos that ensues with unfettered illegal immigration is another.
I want to be prudent about the borders and stop the flow. I also want to be able to stand before God and explain why I wasn't willing to help children be fed that were starving when there was an opportunity. Our politics should end when they oppose the love and service to other God commands of us.

Rongagin71

4:36p, 3/14/24

God does not command us to do stupid things that risk our own health.
The Dems have hopes that this open border policy (or whatever you want to call it) will make their controlled voting block so large that they will become the one ruling party in America.
The Catholics want a government that will work hand-in-hand with them.
The multi-national corps want cheap workers and countries to be blocked up like the EU so that laws will not vary so much, and taxes can be controlled more easily than by engaging in constant expensive elections.
I just want the America that I knew as a child.
I don't really have any chance, but I'm going to make noise anyway.

AGC

4:41p, 3/14/24

In reply to BluHorseShu

No, you need to read the argument that's being posted: that love and charity have no boundaries or limit for the Christian.