Trump Burns 500 Tons of Food Meant for the Hungry

[Bradskii]

The 49.8% have spoken!

More like 20%: Majorities of Americans Support Several – But Not All – Types of Foreign Aid

'Around eight-in-ten Americans say the United States should provide medicine and medical supplies, as well as food and clothing, to people in developing countries.'

And the views of that 20% have been adequately represented in this thread. They'd rather see it burn.

 

[Hentenza]

You've made your position crystal clear. No attempt to help those in need will be considered.

‘Forget them. Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean.’

Oh lookie more emotional political drama.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh lookie more emotional political drama.

Your small chuckling emoticon sums up your position quite well.

 

[Hentenza]

Your small chuckling emoticon sums up your position quite well.

That from the out of country guy that has no horse in the race.

 

[Bradskii]

That from the out of country guy that has no horse in the race.

I'm sorry. I didn't know I had to be a US citizen to care about people. My bad.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Hang on. Are you saying that Afghanistan was wrong AND burning food and destroying medical supplies is also wrong? You are trying your best to compare them so I guess that's what you actually mean.

Yes I am. Wrong is wrong and always will be. No side is 100% wrong 100% of time, neither is either side 100% right 100% of the time.

Both actions are hurtful and unnecessary

One action resulted in the loss of $800,000 of food and The U.S. left approximately $7.12 billion worth of military equipment and ammunition in Afghanistan

Which is worse? You judge.

 

[Larniavc]

It's not "sentiment," it's legal fact.

I try to deal in realities rather than wishes, and to exercise my right to vote in a pluralistic society where I don't get everything I believe in or want.

Ah, okay. Sentiment should not be involved; correct. So if abortion is a legal fact you would deal in realities than wishes?

 

[Larniavc]

Meh, I merely hunt them for sport. I mean, none of us are getting out of this alive so... Why not?

Makes me wonder about why abortion gets people all bent out of shape; no non-aborted foetus gets out of this alive so who cares?

 

[Hentenza]

I'm sorry. I didn't know I had to be a US citizen to care about people. My bad.

Exactly what I implied.

 

[DaisyDay]

Thanks for not calling them stupid.

Can facts be stupid?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh lookie more emotional political drama.

An emotional response to the suffering of millions is not only acceptable, but is an indication of having a healthy moral compass. What does it mean when we look at evil and suffering in the world, and our response is ?

How will we stand on the Last Day when we are before the Great Judge?

"And the King will say to those on His left, 'Go away from Me you damnable* people, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" - Matthew 25:41

*The Greek word here is often translated to "cursed", but this is not merely an observation that these people are cursed, they are being cursed, being damned, it is an imprecatory word. They are being damned, being condemned, being cursed by the King here. He finds the people on His left utterly detestable and contemptable, and they must be away from Him and are fit only to share in the same fate as the devil.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

I guess that treating the matter flippantly is one way to avoid addressing it.

Sorry you regard the legal process as flippant. . .which I guess is one way to avoid the reality of the matter.

 

[Clare73]

Wait...hang on a minute. I'm not following this line of argument. Are you actually saying that because Trump won the election then it's therefore OK to burn food and destroy medical supplies meant for those in need? That makes no sense whatsoever, but I can't see any other way of reading it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did Christians who hid Jews in their homes during Nazi occupation sin because they were not obeying the governing authorities?

Did Rahab sin when she refused to obey the Canaanite authorities when they were searching for Joshua and Caleb?
Did Elijah sin when he refused to obey King Ahab?

If we must surrender our conscience to whoever happens to wear the crown, no ifs, ands, or buts--then the one who wears the crown must be obeyed no matter what they demand; and we must always forfeit our conscience to the temporal authorities of this fallen age in all circumstances. Which apparently is what you are advocating for. This means Rahab and Elijah were the bad guys in their stories, and that anyone who resisted the Nazis by protecting the lives of their Jewish neighbors were also the bad guys.

Moses defied Pharoah, perhaps Moses should have done differently. Actually, come to think of it, the Bible is absolutely filled to the brim of examples of people doing what was right in opposition to the powers and principalities, and the Bible regards them as doing God's will. Almost as though blind allegiance to Caesar isn't what St. Paul had in mind when he spoke about the governing authorities in Romans 13. Perhaps we could learn what Paul does mean in Romans 13 if we read Romans 12 first. Instead of using Romans 13 as an excuse to hide behind a Bible verse to withhold doing what is right.

Hiding behind the law to avoid doing the law is also what Jesus railed against in His condemnation of the religious leaders of His day.

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, 'Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!' He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Torah how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.'" - Matthew 12:1-8

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

Ah, okay. Sentiment should not be involved; correct. So if abortion is a legal fact you would deal in realities than wishes?

Yes, I could work to have the law changed rather than just wishing it were changed.

 

[Clare73]

Did Christians who hid Jews in their homes during Nazi occupation sin because they were not obeying the governing authorities?

Preservation of legally innocent human life trumps all morality.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Preservation of legally innocent human life trumps all morality.

Legally innocent human life is an interesting choice of words. But I'll let that slide.

The problem, of course, seems to be that you've been arguing that Donald Trump trumps all morality. Simply because he happens to be the big cheese in the White House.

If preserving human life is what actually matters, then why are we okay with what this administration has been doing? Because human life, in this country, is currently under threat by a regime that is actively harming, both by deliberate action (sending in federal agents to terrorize communities and black bag people seemingly indiscriminately) and by withholding life-saving aid (the "Big Beautiful BIll", burning food meant for the hungry because of the defunding and gutting of USAID, the particular horror story this thread is about).

So which is it?

Do I throw up my hands and proclaim the eternal lordship of God-Emperor Trump because, oh well, that's what the election results said in November. Or do I follow Jesus, and call evil evil?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry you regard the legal process as flippant. . .which I guess is one way to avoid the reality of the matter.

The reality of the matter? You are actually accusing me of ignoring the facts of the matter? That is simply not credible by any stretch of the imagination. Your comment is akin to 'let them eat cake'. I simply don't understand how anyone can support this action from a moral point of view. It seems that a political position overrides any sense of what is right or wrong.

It's basic humanity. Feeding those that are hungry. And it's it's not just a case of turning away when you have the opportunity to help. It's actively preventing those who want to help from doing so.

 

[Bradskii]

Your trite response speaks volumes.

 

[Hentenza]

An emotional response to the suffering of millions is not only acceptable, but is an indication of having a healthy moral compass. What does it mean when we look at evil and suffering in the world, and our response is ?

The problem with the left is that everything becomes a political drama. I would suggest that you look beyond the liberal media and rely on facts rather than emotional circular logic and fallacies.