The New Apostasy

[IcyChain]

Relevance to our government?

Our government has no obligation to Scripture.

Only I have that obligation, and under a government where freedom of religion is guaranteed, I am able to obey Scripture.
My obligation to Scripture does not create a governmental obligation to Scripture.
It is self-evident that a Christian is obligated to Scripture, which does not create a problem for our government.

Scripture states "You shall not murder."

So, in your view, the government has no obligation to follow that? The government may murder?

Scripture also states "You shall not steal". May the government steal since it has no obligation to follow Scripture?

 

[Clare73]

In my view the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Jim Crow laws in the southern United States were clearly immoral, and not in keeping with Christian principles.

Government is not obligated to Christian principles, only Christians are.
Slavery is immoral only if Scripture declares it so.
Scripture authorizes slavery (Lev 25:44-46, Ex 21:20-21).
Scripture forbids man-stealing. Only legal slaves can be bought and sold.

If either of those things are re-enacted during my lifetime I will not submit to them.

No problem. . .there never were, nor will there be, laws requiring you to own slaves.

I suppose I will then see if our blessed Lord views my that as sin when I appear before his judgment seat. I am farily confident that the Jesus I know views those laws as immoral.

I suspect the Son of God does not disagree with his Father's own laws (Lev 25:44-46, Ex 21:20-21).

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men."

The fact that your intepretation of Scripture has led you to conclude that a Christian is obligated to adhere to immoral laws

Sraw man. . .

like those enabling the trans-atlantic slave trade, and the Jim Crow laws in the south that discriminated against men based on the color of thier skin,

Hebrews themselves were slaves to Hebrews by God's authorization (Lev 25:39-43, Ex 21:2-11).

does not give you the slightest reason to pause and think that perhaps your interpretation of Sacred Scripture could be off-base?

Does your failure to deal with the plain OT and NT word of God in Le 25:44-46, Ex 21:20-21, Eph 6:5-8, Tit 2:9, 1 Pe 2:8 not give you the slightest pause and think that perhaps your view is contra-Bibilical?
Keeping in mind the Biblical mandate to Christian slave-owners (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1).

It appears that your view is that an immigration policy that prohibits all immigration into a country is consistent with Christian principles. Is my understanding of your view correct?

My view is that
1) it matters not, to a government wherein the laws are made by the people, whether those laws do, or do not, conform to the principles of any particular religion. All that matters is that law conform to the will of the people, democratically determined.
2) There is no divine prescription giving non-citizens any Biblical right to violate the laws of another country, as in illegal immigration.

Are you aware that at least 12,000,000 now have illegally immigrated to this country?
Are you aware that many are given airline tickets, that all are given a cell phone and ATM card with $5,000 on it which they can withdraw, which is one of the first things they do?
Are you aware that middle-class, well-dressed with nice luggage, young single men from China, from our Middle-East enemies, etc. are being admitted in the thousands without any check on who they are, including terrorists, drug smugglers, and criminals?
Are you aware that the majority of the press do not report on these things?

Do you have any idea what you are in for down the road, with the "defunding" of the police?
Do you think the "reparation" looting will stop at just businesses? Are you even aware that it is going on?

 

[Clare73]

This thread is not about the USA's government. It is about how the gospel influences Christians in their actions and thinking about
how governments act.

So "governments" excludes the USA's government?

 

[Clare73]

Scripture states "You shall not murder."

So, in your view, the government has no obligation to follow that? The government may murder?

Scripture also states "You shall not steal". May the government steal since it has no obligation to follow Scripture?

Does our government not have laws against murder and stealing, as well as violence to others?

 

[IcyChain]

Government is not obligated to Christian principles, only Christians are.
Slavery is immoral only if Scripture declares it so.
Scripture authorizes slavery (Lev 25:44-46, Ex 21:20-21).
Scripture forbids man-stealing. Only legal slaves can be bought and sold.

OK. Please allow me to me clarify my initial question now that we recognize a distinction between the unique forms of "slavery" that we see in Biblical times, and the modern forms of slavery that existed in the southern United States and elsewhere.

In the case of an an African man, who had been kidnapped from Africa and brought to the United States against his will and held in slavery in the American south, who then fled captivity and escaped to the North, would a Christian Judge in the North have been morally bound to submit to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1973 and to return that man back into slavery?

Or should the judge have refused to submit to the law as unjust because the man was kidnapped, and Scripture forbids man-stealing?

No problem. . .there never were, not will there be, laws requiring you to own slaves.

OK. But there were certainly laws that required whites to discriminate against black Americans. For example, if a white person was the owner of certain land, there were laws that would have prohibited him from selling or renting that land to a black person.

Should the white landowner have discriminated against black people and refused to rent his property to them simply because the government was not obligated to follow Scripture (in your view) and because Christians are to submit to authority?

I am not sure if we really disagree here. Just because a law has been enacted does not, by itself, make that law moral or require us to submit to it, correct?

I suspect the Son of God does not disagree with his Father's own laws (Lev 25:44-46, Ex 21:20-21).

Sraw man. . .

Hebrews themselves were slaves to Hebrews by God's authorization (Lev 25:39-43, Ex 21:2-11).

Does your failure to deal with the plain OT and NT word of God in Le 25:44-46, Ex 21:20-21, Eph 6:5-8, Tit 2:9, 1 Pe 2:8 not give you the slightest pause and think that perhaps your view is contra-Bibilical?
Keeping in mind the Biblical mandate to Christian slave-owners (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1).

Briefly, as I alluded to above, there are marked differences between the forms of "slavery" that existed in Biblical times and the modern forms of slavery that everyone denounces today (and that practically all Christians believe are inconsistent with Christian morality). There is much online that has been written about that topic. I am sure that you can find it.

Just to clarify - is your view that the modern enslavement of people of African descent that occurred in the American South and elsewhere was morally permissible under Christianity?

There were plenty of Southerners in the past who used the Bible to attempt to justify that moral abomination, but I have never actually met a person alive today who has attempted to do so . . .

My view is that
1) it matters not, to a government wherein the laws are made by the people, whether those laws do, or do not, conform to the principles of any particular religion. All that matters is that law conform to the will of the people, democratically determined.
2) There is no divine prescription giving non-citizens any civil right to violate the laws of another country, as in illegal immigration.

Thank you.

If a majority of Americans came together and democratically passed a law prohibiting the entry of all foreigners into this country, regardless of circumstances, would that law be consistent with Christian principles?

My answer to that question would be "No, it is not in keeping with Christian principles".

Are you aware that at least 12,000,000 now have illegally immigrated to this country?
Are you aware that many are given airline tickets, that all are given a cell phone and ATM card with $5,000 on it which they can withdraw, which is one of the first things they do?
Are you aware that middle-class, well-dressed with nice luggage, young single men from China, from our Middle-East enemies, etc. are being admitted in the thousands without any check on who they are, including terrorists, drug smugglers, and criminals?
Are you aware that the majority of the press do not report on these things?

Well, for the sake of argument I will assume that all of those things are true.

I think that it is reasonable and acceptable to have immigration laws, to run criminal background checks, to have standards concerning who can and cannot enter this country, etc.

But I do not think that a blanket prohibition on all foreigners would be consistent with Christian moral principles, merely because a group of people came together and decided to democratically pass a law that mandates that. I think that there is a general moral obligation to assist the poor, to assist the stranger, that forbids us from claiming this land as "our own" and refusing other people from coming here to attempt to make a better lives for themselves.

That is especially true if we consider how this land came into our possession by killing off the original inhabitants.

Do you have any idea what you are in for down the road, with the "defunding" of the police?

I think that defunding the police is a terrible idea, as you also do apparently.

Do you think the "reparation" looting will stop at just businesses? Are you even aware that it is going on?

Nor do I advocate for theft. People who steal should go to jail or be given another appropriate penalty.

 

[IcyChain]

Does our government not have laws against murder and stealing, as well as violence to others?

Yes, our government has laws against those things.

But what if the "will of the people" becomes that stealing and murder should be legalized, and that a law to that effect is democratically enacted?

You seem to think that this would be OK because "Government is not obligated to Christian principles, only Christians are" and "All that matters is that law conform to the will of the people, democratically determined."

That is, you seem to think that any law is acceptable if democratically determined, even if the law itself is immoral, because governments are not bound to Christian principles.

Have I misunderstood what you believe?

 

[Clare73]

OK. Please allow me to me clarify my initial question now that we recognize a distinction between the unique forms of "slavery" that we see in Biblical times, and the modern forms of slavery that existed in the southern United States and elsewhere.

In the case of an an African slave, who had been kidnapped from Africa and brought to the United States against his will and held in slavery in the American south, who then fled captivity and escaped to the North, would a Christian Judge in the North have been morally bound to submit to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1973 and to return that man back into slavery?
Or should the judge have refused to submit to the law as unjust because the man was kidnapped, and Scripture forbids man-stealing?

The judge must take an oath to uphold the law of the land.
If the Christian judge feels he cannot enforce the law of the land because of his conscience, then he should not take that oath and should not be a judge.
As a judge he must abide by his oath and uphold the law of the land, or suffer the legal consequences, which include removal from office.

OK. But there were certainly laws that prohibited required whites to discriminate against black Americans.

I'm not aware of any.

For example, if a white person was the owner of certain land, there were laws that would have prohibited him from selling or renting that land to a black person.

Are you sure about that?

Should the white landowner have discriminated against black people and refused to rent his property to them simply because the government is not obligated to follow Scripture (in your view) and because Christians are to submit to authority?

No one has a right to rent anyone else's property. Placing property on the market for rental does not create a right for anyone to rent it.
It is not a sin to choose to not rent property to black people or to any other people.
Likewise, the Christian may break any civil law he chooses to break, for whatever reason. . .and to pay the consequences according to that law.
The Christian gets to decide what he wants to do.

I am not sure if we really disagree here. Just because a law has been enacted does not, by itself, make that law moral or require us to submit to it, correct?

INCORRECT!
The NT requires us to submit to civil law, unless it requires us to sin personally, and then we get to pay the civil price of our violation of the law.
And that included in NT times submitting to Nero, who was a persecutor of Christians.
You can always refuse to submit to law, which is also a choice to receive the consequences.
It's up to you.

Briefly, as I alluded to above, there are marked differences between the forms of "slavery" that existed in Biblical times and the modern forms of slavery that everyone denounces today (and that practically all Christians believe are inconsistent with Christian morality). There is much online that has been written about that topic. I am sure that you can find it.

Just to clarify - is your view that the modern enslavement of people of African descent that occurred in the American South and elsewhere was morally permissible under Christianity?

Man-stealing is not Biblically permitted.
Slavery is not Biblically immoral, though it is undesirable,
just as poverty, sickness and disability are not Biblically immoral, though they are undesirable.

There were plenty of Southerners in the past who used the Bible to attempt to justify that moral abomination, but I have never actually met a person alive today who has attempted to do so . . .

If it's not a moral abomination to God, then it is not a moral abomination, unless you are holier than God.

I defend slavery as not immoral according to the Bible.
I do not recommend nor promote slavery because it is most undesirable, not because it is immoral.
I likewise do not recommend disease and disability because they also are most undesirable, not because they are immoral.

If a majority of Americans came together and democratically passed a law prohibiting the entry of all foreigners into this country, regardless of circumstances, would that law be consistent with Christian principles?

Where do we find in Scripture this right of foreigners to another country?
Without a God-given right, there is no inconsistency with Biblical principles.

My answer to that question would be "No, it is not in keeping with Christian principles".
Well, for the sake of argument I will assume that all of those things are true.
I think that it is reasonable and acceptable to have immigration laws, to run criminal background checks, to have standards concerning who can and cannot enter this country, etc.

But I do not think that a blanket prohibition on all foreigners would be consistent with Christian moral principles, merely because a group of people came together and decided to democratically pass a law that mandates that.

It seems you think non-citizens have a right, which transcends civil law, to enter another country
Were do you find this right in Scripture?
In absence of such a right, there is no basis for this notion.

So the good doctor with a good practice and a good income living in an underprivileged neighborhood of 150 people, must respond to the needs of all 150 neighbors to be consistent with Christian principles?
So the U.S. must take on the personal needs of the whole world to be consistent with Christian principles?
Not in God's economy.

I think that there is a general moral obligation to assist the poor, to assist the stranger, that forbids us from claiming this land as "our own" and refusing other people from coming here to attempt to make a better lives for themselves.

For which "general moral obligation" there is no prescription, neither in Biblical nor civil law.

So tell me, how much of your time and resources do you devote to the poor?
Is there not more that you can do?
If so, then why are you not doing it?
Physician, heal thyself.

That is especially true if we consider how this land came into our possession by killing off the original inhabitants.

Or it came into our possession by its inhabitants not wanting to share it with us, fighting to remove us, and dying in the fight.
Nor all they all gone, we have native Americans living here.

Seems you are the subject of some "revised history."

I think that defunding the police is a terrible idea, as you also do apparently.

Nor do I advocate for theft. People who steal should go to jail or be given another appropriate penalty.

And yet you advocate policy that creates such.
You are in favor of admitting all without exception to enter here (ignoring the Biblical testimony to the sinful nature of men)--the lawless, the terrorist, the criminal, as though there will be no adverse ramifications of such an insane policy, that all will be lawful, peaceful, and happy ever after.

Unless you are an octogenarian, you will be living in the coming nightmare that is being created now.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, our government has laws against those things.

But what if the "will of the people" becomes that stealing and murder should be legalized, and that a law to that effect is democratically enacted?

Your inadequate notion of reality is showing.
Nevertheless, if the people want to be robbed and murdered, why should they not be?
Who's complaining?

You seem to think that this would be OK because "Government is not obligated to Christian principles, only Christians are" and "All that matters is that law conform to the will of the people, democratically determined."

That is, you seem to think that any law is acceptable if democratically determined, even if the law itself is immoral, because governments are not bound to Christian principles.

Have I misunderstood what you believe?

I'm thinking such unawareness of the principle of self-preservation may disqualify one to opine on morality here.

 

[Laodicean60]

I don't think that Christians in the US need to "choose the lesser of two evils". There are pro-life Christian parties like the ASP that would have a chance if Christians actually supported them, instead of saying "voting for the Republicans is my only option because only the Democrats or the Republicans can win."

I agree, that choosing the lesser of two evils can have a tribal bias. I think that's why we are locked in; It's strong distrust between people. I still wonder how the media did this to us, through half-truths? But we have become what we are. Praying

 

[IcyChain]

The judge must take an oath to uphold the law of the land.
If the Christian judge feels he cannot enforce the law of the land because of his conscience, then he should not take that oath and should not be a judge.
As a judge he must abide by his oath and uphold the law of the land, or suffer the legal consequences, which include removal from office.

Let's say that you took the job of a judge in the North in the year 1790, a few years before the first Fugitive Slave Act was enacted in 1793.

What would you have done in the year 1793 then? Would you have sent the man back to the south into slavery, or would you have refused to enforce the law because it is inconsistent with Christian principles, and resigned from your office?

I'm not aware of any.

Are you sure about that?

Well, perhaps you were sick that day during history class. Yes, there were plenty of laws like that. They are generally referred to as Jim Crow, the Black Codes, etc. Some of these laws made it illegal to even teach a black person to read or write. In many places, for example, if you owned a restaurant, the law would require you to have separate sections for black and whites to eat separately.

No one has a right to rent anyone else's property. Placing property on the market for rental does not create a right for anyone to rent it.
It is not a sin to choose to not rent property to black people or to any other people.
Likewise, the Christian may break any civil law he chooses to break, for whatever reason. . .and to pay the consequences according to that law.
The Christian gets to decide what he wants to do.

Well, choosing not to rent to a person simply because of the color of his skin, would generally fall under the category of racism.

It is your view that Christians are free to be racist?

INCORRECT!
The NT requires us to submit to civil law, unless it requires us to sin personally, and then we get to pay the civil price of our violation of the law.
And that included in NT times submitting to Nero, who was a persecutor of Christians.
You can always refuse to submit to law, which is also a choice to receive the consequences.
It's up to you.

I think we may be talking past each other here. You indicated that a Christian does not have to submit to a moral law that requires him to sin. So that means that if an immoral law is enacted that requires you to sin, then you do not have to submit to it.

I think the only substantive point on which we disagree is whether or not certain laws like that exist (or existed in the past).

Man-stealing is not Biblically permitted.
Slavery is not Biblically immoral, though it is undesirable,
just as poverty, sickness and disability are not Biblically immoral, though they are undesirable.

If it's not a moral abomination to God, then it is not a moral abomination, unless you are holier than God.

I defend slavery as not immoral according to the Bible.
I do not recommend nor promote slavery because it is most undesirable, not because it is immoral.
I likewise do not recommend disease and disability because they also are most undesirable, not because they are immoral.

So you do think that God does not abhor the form of modern slavery that existed in the southern United States. Thank you for clarifying your view on that.

Where do we find in Scripture this right of foreigners to another country?
Without a God-given right, there is no inconsistency with Biblical principles.

I think you scan find support for the principle all over Scripture. Much has been written about it. The author of this thread posted some verses. Here are some other verses:

22 Bible Verses on Welcoming Immigrants

‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’

sojo.net

What Does the Bible Say About Immigration?

Bible verses about Immigration

www.openbible.info

What does the Bible say about immigrants and refugees? - Saint Mark's Episcopal Cathedral

READ MORE: Saint Mark’s Pledges Support for Immigrants and Refugees | White Paper from the Church Council of Greater Seattle: Sanctuary in Faith Community (PDF) Love Refugees As Yourself When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must...

saintmarks.org

How should Christians view refugees? | GotQuestions.org

How should Christians view refugees? What does the Bible say about refugees? What should be the Christian response to the refugee crisis?

www.gotquestions.org

It seems you think non-citizens have a right, which transcends civil law, to enter another country
Were do you find this right in Scripture?
In absence of such a right, there is no basis for this notion.

I think that men have a natural right to go where they please, and to do as they please, as long as that activity is not sinful and does not harm other people. All throughout the Bible (see the verses above, for example) you see men traveling to different locations, and you see that God commands people to welcome the stranger and to treat him fairly. To me, it seems a rather logical conclusion that man has a right to travel. It is a bit difficult to love the stranger and to treat him fairly if the first thing we say is "Get away from us. We will not allow you to enter or even be on the same continent as us".

You seem to adhere to that principle of freedom yourself. You even went so far as to say that a person can refuse to rent to people simply because they are black.

So the good doctor with a good practice and a good income living in an underprivileged neighborhood of 150 people, must respond to the needs of all 150 neighbors to be consistent with Christian principles?
So the U.S. must take on the personal needs of the whole world to be consistent with Christian principles?
Not in God's economy.

For which "general moral obligation" there is no prescription, neither in Biblical nor civil law.

Yes, generally I believe that more fortunate people, or wealthy people if you will, have a moral obligation to help the poor. Have you noticed anything in the Bible instructing us to help the poor?

Now, does that mean that a doctor or a country, must bankrupt itself to take care of others? No, of course not. There is a thing called prudence and moderation. A person, of course, may attend to his own needs first before helping others. But that does not mean that the wealthy billionaire is free to do nothing to help the poor, just because "it is my money, I earned it the good old fashioned American way, and I can do what I want with it."

So tell me, how much of your time and resources do you devote to the poor?

I would say roughly 50 hours a year and perhaps around 5% of my annual income.

Is there not more that you can do?

Yes. There is.

If so, then why are you not doing it?

Because I am a sinner. Because of greed. Because of my inability to totally rely on the Lord. Because of fear. Because of things like that. I certainly am not a perfect person, nor do I expect others to be perfect. But we should do what we can.

Physician, heal thyself.

I would prefer that God heal me, though the graces won by our blessed Lord by his death on the cross.

Or it came into our possession by its inhabitants not wanting to share it with us, fighting to remove us, and dying in the fight.
Nor all they all gone, we have native Americans living here.

In the same way that they did not want to share the land with us, it seems that some of us do not want to share it with others, and are fighting to remove them.

Is it fair for us to have come to this land, say "we as foreigners have a right to come to this land and live here" and then once we have the land turn around and say "you as foreigners have no right to come to this land and live here?"

And yet you advocate policy that creates such.
You are in favor of admitting all without exception to enter here (ignoring the Biblical testimony to the sinful nature of men)--the lawless, the terrorist, the criminal, as though there will be no adverse ramifications of such an insane policy, that all will be lawful, peaceful, and happy ever after.

I am not sure where you are getting that from. To be clear - I am in favor of immigration laws. I am in favor of things like checking the backgrounds of people, to screen out criminals and terrorists, and other bad people. If you are a terrorist you have forfeited your right to travel freely. I think that should be rather obvious to everyone.

But I do think that it would be improper to have a blanket prohibition on all people who want to come here. There are plenty of good people who come here, work hard, integrate themselves into society, pay taxes, and become good citizens who contribute to the well-being of everyone. I think that such a person should be able to come here and live among us.

Unless you are an octogenarian, you will be living in the coming nightmare that is being created now.

Well, I live in Virginia. Several generations ago my ancestors were slaves right here in Virginia. And my parents and grandparents grew up under the Jim Crow laws right here in Virginia. I will take the "coming nightmare" over those conditions personally, but I can see how you would have a different perspective on the direction in which you think society is moving.

 

[IcyChain]

Your inadequate notion of reality is showing.
Nevertheless, if the people want to be robbed and murdered, why should they not be?
Who's complaining?

Well the way that democracy works is that the majority can enact a law, even if there are a minority of persons that are against it. The people who would be complaining are those that are in the minority.

I'm thinking such unawareness of the principle of self-preservation may disqualify one to opine on morality here.

I am not sure why you think I am unaware of the principle of self-preservation. Love toward oneself is a fundamental principle of morality. It is right there at paragraph 2264 of the Catholic Catechism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Government is not obligated to Christian principles, only Christians are.
Slavery is immoral only if Scripture declares it so.
Scripture authorizes slavery (Lev 25:44-46, Ex 21:20-21).
Scripture forbids man-stealing. Only legal slaves can be bought and sold.

Shocking perspective to take as a present tense proposition.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So "governments" excludes the USA's government?

The above comment is completely irrelevant.

 

[IcyChain]

Shocking perspective to take as a present tense proposition.

This forum never ceases to amaze.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you aware that many are given airline tickets, that all are given a cell phone and ATM card with $5,000 on it which they can withdraw, which is one of the first things they do?
Are you aware that middle-class, well-dressed with nice luggage, young single men from China, from our Middle-East enemies, etc. are being admitted in the thousands without any check on who they are, including terrorists, drug smugglers, and criminals?
Are you aware that the majority of the press do not report on these things?

Please document the sources for the claims.

 

[IcyChain]

Please document the sources for the claims.

Arizona GOP candidate says migrants given $5000 gift cards

Sheriff Mark Lamb, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate, claimed that "our government" is handing migrants generous gift cards.

www.newsweek.com

Someone said it on Twitter. Therefore it must be true.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Arizona GOP candidate says migrants given $5000 gift cards

Sheriff Mark Lamb, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate, claimed that "our government" is handing migrants generous gift cards.

www.newsweek.com

Someone said it on Twitter. Therefore it must be true.

I see, so it is very likely not true.

I wonder if it is exaggeration, what if one particularly destitute family of refugees were given $5,000 - either by a government agency or by a private charity - but the open claim, which appears to imply that every refugee receives a $5,000 gift, is false.

"Mark Lamb, an Arizona sheriff who running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican, said he had learned that migrants crossing the border illegally were being given $5,000 prepaid Visa cards​

​

Federal agencies denied knowledge of such a scheme and Lamb offered no evidence to support his claim on X, formerly known as Twitter.​

​

He also did not say how widespread the alleged practice was. A $5,000 payment to each family crossing the border would cost many millions of dollars a day, a program of a scale that large would be difficult to keep under the radar.​

​

Mark, the Pinal County Sheriff, made the claim this week in a video shared to his Senate campaign account on X. Lamb claimed that "our government" was handing the migrants gift cards, cell phones and airline tickets to any domestic destination after entering the country.​

​

"When these folks come across and they're processed, they're being given a cell phone, a plane ticket to anywhere they want to go in this country—so, probably to a community near you—and a $5,000 Visa card," Lamb says in the video.​

​

"So, while this Christmas season you're struggling to keep your lights on, while you're struggling to pay your rent, put Christmas presents under the tree for your kids, we have our government giving people who came into this country illegally $5,000 gift cards," he added. "That's the truth, folks." " [Arizona GOP candidate says migrants given $5000 gift cards]​

 

[IcyChain]

I see, so it is very likely not true.

I wonder if it is exaggeration, what if one particularly destitute family of refugees were given $5,000 - either by a government agency or by a private charity - but the open claim, which appears to imply that every refugee receives a $5,000 gift, is false.

"Mark Lamb, an Arizona sheriff who running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican, said he had learned that migrants crossing the border illegally were being given $5,000 prepaid Visa cards​

​

Federal agencies denied knowledge of such a scheme and Lamb offered no evidence to support his claim on X, formerly known as Twitter.​

​

He also did not say how widespread the alleged practice was. A $5,000 payment to each family crossing the border would cost many millions of dollars a day, a program of a scale that large would be difficult to keep under the radar.​

​

Mark, the Pinal County Sheriff, made the claim this week in a video shared to his Senate campaign account on X. Lamb claimed that "our government" was handing the migrants gift cards, cell phones and airline tickets to any domestic destination after entering the country.​

​

"When these folks come across and they're processed, they're being given a cell phone, a plane ticket to anywhere they want to go in this country—so, probably to a community near you—and a $5,000 Visa card," Lamb says in the video.​

​

"So, while this Christmas season you're struggling to keep your lights on, while you're struggling to pay your rent, put Christmas presents under the tree for your kids, we have our government giving people who came into this country illegally $5,000 gift cards," he added. "That's the truth, folks." " [Arizona GOP candidate says migrants given $5000 gift cards]​

There appears to be no evidence for it whatsoever.

But yeah this thread is going off the rails. It's interesting to see where some individual interpretations of the Bible can lead.

Buy yourselves some slaves? Don't mind if I do.

Disrcriminate against black people? Go right ahead.

Feed and house the poor? Only if you feel like it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There appears to be no evidence for it whatsoever.

But yeah this thread is going off the rails. It's interesting to see where some individual interpretations of the Bible can lead.

Buy yourselves some slaves? Don't mind if I do.

Disrcriminate against black people? Go right ahead.

Feed and house the poor? Only if you feel like it.

Well, that is where the thread title and OP pointed. Some Christians treat social concern, compassion, and love expressed towards the poor, refugees, and homeless people as if it were apostasy. If one does not vote conservative, talk conservative, and act conservative as conservative expresses itself by the right leaning parties of one's nation then one is an apostate according to them.

 

[Clare73]

Let's say that you took the job of a judge in the North in the year 1790, a few years before the first Fugitive Slave Act was enacted in 1793.
What would you have done in the year 1793 then? Would you have sent the man back to the south into slavery, or would you have refused to enforce the law because it is inconsistent with Christian principles, and resigned from your office?
Well, perhaps you were sick that day during history class. Yes, there were plenty of laws like that. They are generally referred to as Jim Crow, the Black Codes, etc. Some of these laws made it illegal to even teach a black person to read or write. In many places, for example, if you owned a restaurant, the law would require you to have separate sections for black and whites to eat separately.
Well, choosing not to rent to a person simply because of the color of his skin, would generally fall under the category of racism.

It is your view that Christians are free to be racist?

I think we may be talking past each other here. You indicated that a Christian does not have to submit to a moral law that requires him to sin. So that means that if an immoral law is enacted that requires you to sin, then you do not have to submit to it.

I think the only substantive point on which we disagree is whether or not certain laws like that exist (or existed in the past).

So you do think that God does not abhor the form of modern slavery that existed in the southern United States. Thank you for clarifying your view on that.

I think you scan find support for the principle all over Scripture. Much has been written about it. The author of this thread posted some verses. Here are some other verses:

22 Bible Verses on Welcoming Immigrants

‘Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.’

sojo.net

What Does the Bible Say About Immigration?

Bible verses about Immigration

www.openbible.info

What does the Bible say about immigrants and refugees? - Saint Mark's Episcopal Cathedral

READ MORE: Saint Mark’s Pledges Support for Immigrants and Refugees | White Paper from the Church Council of Greater Seattle: Sanctuary in Faith Community (PDF) Love Refugees As Yourself When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must...

saintmarks.org

How should Christians view refugees? | GotQuestions.org

How should Christians view refugees? What does the Bible say about refugees? What should be the Christian response to the refugee crisis?

www.gotquestions.org

I think that men have a natural right to go where they please, and to do as they please, as long as that activity is not sinful and does not harm other people. All throughout the Bible (see the verses above, for example) you see men traveling to different locations, and you see that God commands people to welcome the stranger and to treat him fairly. To me, it seems a rather logical conclusion that man has a right to travel. It is a bit difficult to love the stranger and to treat him fairly if the first thing we say is "Get away from us. We will not allow you to enter or even be on the same continent as us".

You seem to adhere to that principle of freedom yourself. You even went so far as to say that a person can refuse to rent to people simply because they are black.

Yes, generally I believe that more fortunate people, or wealthy people if you will, have a moral obligation to help the poor. Have you noticed anything in the Bible instructing us to help the poor?

Now, does that mean that a doctor or a country, must bankrupt itself to take care of others? No, of course not. There is a thing called prudence and moderation. A person, of course, may attend to his own needs first before helping others. But that does not mean that the wealthy billionaire is free to do nothing to help the poor, just because "it is my money, I earned it the good old fashioned American way, and I can do what I want with it."

I would say roughly 50 hours a year and perhaps around 5% of my annual income.

Yes. There is.

Because I am a sinner. Because of greed. Because of my inability to totally rely on the Lord. Because of fear. Because of things like that. I certainly am not a perfect person, nor do I expect others to be perfect. But we should do what we can.

I would prefer that God heal me, though the graces won by our blessed Lord by his death on the cross.

In the same way that they did not want to share the land with us, it seems that some of us do not want to share it with others, and are fighting to remove them.

Is it fair for us to have come to this land, say "we as foreigners have a right to come to this land and live here" and then once we have the land turn around and say "you as foreigners have no right to come to this land and live here?"

I am not sure where you are getting that from. To be clear - I am in favor of immigration laws. I am in favor of things like checking the backgrounds of people, to screen out criminals and terrorists, and other bad people. If you are a terrorist you have forfeited your right to travel freely. I think that should be rather obvious to everyone.

But I do think that it would be improper to have a blanket prohibition on all people who want to come here. There are plenty of good people who come here, work hard, integrate themselves into society, pay taxes, and become good citizens who contribute to the well-being of everyone. I think that such a person should be able to come here and live among us.


Well, I live in Virginia. Several generations ago my ancestors were slaves right here in Virginia. And my parents and grandparents grew up under the Jim Crow laws right here in Virginia. I will take the "coming nightmare" over those conditions personally, but I can see how you would have a different perspective on the direction in which you think society is moving.

It all boils down to two principles:
1) Biblical regulations apply only to Christians, the government is not required by God to observe Biblical regulations, nowhere in the NT do we find regulations for secular government,
2) the Christian is to observe civil laws except for any law that requires him to sin personally, and for which violation of law he is subject to the consequences.

All of the above are addressed in these two principles.

It's not complicated