How do you think your God feels about immigration?

[Rod1]

Okay, why don't you outline a precise immigration policy that you believe is Christian. And since you claim that you're not for open borders, neither am I for closed borders.

I'll say it like this- it's incredibly tactless to call Christians hypocrites because you don't agree with them on immigration. Without knowing a man's heart, you shouldn't make such a claim.

I dont think immigration policy should be based on christian values, christian values are suicidal.

But then again i dont claim to be christian, if i was christian i would be a super SJW because thats what Jesus was, since Jesus didnt gave a fuck about what happened to this world, since its a fleeting world and the only world that matters is the Kingdom of Heaven, this world is simply a trial to see who enters heaven or not.

And most christians are hypocrites, or more likely unfaithful, you are afraid of what would happen with open borders, because your faith is not that strong to believe that if you follow Jesus things will work out in the end, like Peter when Jesus asked him to walk on water with him.

Is leaving your wife, kids, selling your possessions and giving them to the poor pragmantic? because thats exactly what Jesus asked to the rich young man.

 

[dontsnitch]

I dont think immigration policy should be based on christian values, christian values are suicidal.

But then again i dont claim to be christian, if i was christian i would be a super SJW because thats what Jesus was, since Jesus didnt gave a fuck about what happened to this world, since its a fleeting world and the only world that matters is the Kingdom of Heaven, this world is simply a trial to see who enters heaven or not.

Just give me your view of what immigration policy I should personally adhere to for you to not call me a hypocrite.

 

[Ruprecht]

Utter and complete BS.

Reformists were even more fundamentalist and militant than catholics, they didnt gave up power on their own, they lost power to secular forces, but when you had towns ruled by protestants you had shit like European witch hunts, Calvinism, the Anglican Church etc etc.

In action, sure. The Anglicans were the "Church of England" after all. In terms of belief though, it started with Luther's doctrine of two kingdoms. Even with the Anglicans, the "Noncomformists" and "English dissenters" were there from the start.

 

[Rod1]

Just give me your view of what immigration policy I should personally adhere to for you to not call me a hypocrite.

Again, im not a christian, my view of immigration policy would depend on the particular country at hand and it would follow a quasi-utilitarian point of view.

But im not christian, if i was christian i would be for open borders and prioritizing the poor over others.

 

[Rod1]

In action, sure. The Anglicans were the "Church of England" after all. In terms of belief though, it started with Luther's doctrine of two kingdoms. Even with the Anglicans, the "Noncomformists" and "English dissenters" were there from the start.

Words mean nothing.

Luther's articulation of the two kingdoms doctrine had little effect on the practical reality of church government in Lutheran territories during the Reformation.[5] With the rise of cuius regio, eius religio, civil authorities had extensive influence on the shape of the church in their realm, and Luther was forced to cede much of the power previously granted to church officers starting in 1525.[8] In Geneva, however, Calvin was able, after significant struggle, to establish under the Ecclesiastical Ordinances a form of church government with much greater power. Most significantly the Genevan Consistory was given the exclusive authority to excommunicate church members.[9]

 

[Ruprecht]

Words mean nothing.

Luther's articulation of the two kingdoms doctrine had little effect on the practical reality of church government in Lutheran territories during the Reformation.[5] With the rise of cuius regio, eius religio, civil authorities had extensive influence on the shape of the church in their realm, and Luther was forced to cede much of the power previously granted to church officers starting in 1525.[8] In Geneva, however, Calvin was able, after significant struggle, to establish under the Ecclesiastical Ordinances a form of church government with much greater power. Most significantly the Genevan Consistory was given the exclusive authority to excommunicate church members.[9]

Despite that, it was the doctrine of two kingdoms which lead to independent Lutheran refugees (my ancestors) settling my state in the mid 1800's, and like I said the English had groups rejecting the Church of England from the start (Oliver Cromwell and all that). The Puritan and Quaker movements...
It all flowed out of the independence from secular authority envisaged during the reformation.

 

[dontsnitch]

Again, im not a christian, my view of immigration policy would depend on the particular country at hand and it would follow a quasi-utilitarian point of view.

But im not christian, if i was christian i would be for open borders and prioritizing the poor over others.

So according to you, in order for me to not be a hypocrite I would need to adhere to a world without any borders. That's a comically simplistic version of Christianity you've created. That would result in more suffering, not less suffering.

The Bible is clear that God himself respects nations and borders. What you're advocating is of your own mind, and not based on the Bible, and frankly, open borders is a ridiculous notion. It's intellectually offensive to even suggest it as feasible and doubly so to accuse me of being a hypocrite for not accepting it.

No offense, but it's clear you're not very familiar with Christianity or the Bible. If you're going to make claims like this, it would benefit you to research it.

 

[Rod1]

Despite that, it was the doctrine of two kingdoms which lead to independent Lutheran refugees (my ancestors) settling my state in the mid 1800's, and like I said the English had groups rejecting the Church of England from the start (Oliver Cromwell and all that). The Puritan and Quaker movements...
It all flowed out of the independence from secular authority envisaged during the reformation.

I thought it was because of religious persecution and shit like the Salem witch trials doesnt makes these refugees look good.

The fact remains that those that enshrined separation of church and state were not devout christians, Voltaire wasnt a christian.

 

[Rod1]

So according to you, in order for me to not be a hypocrite I would need to adhere to a world without any borders. That's a comically simplistic version of Christianity you've created. That would result in more suffering, not less suffering.

The Bible is clear that God himself respects nations and borders. What you're advocating is of your own mind, and not based on the Bible, and frankly, open borders is a ridiculous notion. It's intellectually offensive to even suggest it as feasible and doubly so to accuse me of being a hypocrite for not accepting it.

No offense, but it's clear you're not very familiar with Christianity or the Bible. If you're going to make claims like this, it would benefit you to research it.

1.- No, my point is that you cant call yourself a devout christian while being completely opposite to the teachings of Jesus because you are afraid that you will lose your worldly possessions, it clearly means you value this world more than the promise of eternal life. You are afraid that if you follow Jesus to the letter you may lost your worldly country.


2.- Funny how to justify borders and turning on foreigners you require to find extremely contextual and obscure passages that directly contradict fundamental new testament ones, including the very words of christ.


3.- I was actually raised in catholic school and took classes of christianity since pre-school.

 

[Ruprecht]

I thought it was because of religious prosecution and shit like the Salem witch trials doesnt makes these refugees look good.

The fact remains that those that enshrined separation of church and state were not devout christians, Voltaire wasnt a christian.

The non-Christians took it further of course, but the various Protestant groups leaving for new territories typically shared the same views on the separation of Church and State and the perspective that it was one of the corruptions of the faith introduced by Catholicism. The persecution was almost always because they wouldn't conform to secular power on issues of faith.
I don't have much depth of knowledge on US history, but I'm pretty sure the Quakers played a large role in the separation of Church and State in the US.

 

[dontsnitch]

1.- No, my point is that you cant call yourself a devout christian while being completely opposite to the teachings of Jesus because you are afraid that you will lose your worldly possessions, it clearly means you value this world more than the promise of eternal life. You are afraid that if you follow Jesus to the letter you may lost your worldly country.


2.- Funny how to justify borders and turning on foreigners you require to find extremely contextual and obscure passages that directly contradict fundamental new testament ones, including the very words of christ.


3.- I was actually raised in catholic school and took classes of christianity since pre-school.

National sovereignty is not completely opposite to the teachings of Jesus, that's just absurd. But that's not even the worst part. You're not even a Christian, yet you're proposing that only your view of the Bible is right and that everyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite. I don't even care if that's what you believe the Bible says (it doesn't) but for you to claim the definitive interpretation makes you look like an ass. Many of my fellow Christians interpret things slightly different, and I don't consider them hypocrites. You see, you can be a Christian and believe in a sensible immigration policy. And if you were a Christian, I wouldn't call you a hypocrite, because that is a judgment on your heart, not your brain.

And don't talk about me like you know me and know what I fear, it makes you look childish. And I'm not against immigration nor am I turning on foreigners. My parents are immigrants, and I've lived as a foreigner.

 

[Rod1]

The non-Christians took it further of course, but the various Protestant groups leaving for new territories typically shared the same views on the separation of Church and State and the perspective that it was one of the corruptions of the faith introduced by Catholicism. The persecution was almost always because they wouldn't conform to secular power on issues of faith.

Again, the early colonial period of the english colonies was utterly dominated by religion, what you are claiming is false, the Salem witch trials was the epitome of puritanism in America, after that point enlightment ideas which rose in Europe to fight back the influence of religion made their way to America, it was not an organic American view, it was the result of modernism taking over religion.

Even to this day in bible thumping states you see christians trying to dominate politics.

 

[Rod1]

National sovereignty is not completely opposite to the teachings of Jesus, that's just absurd. But that's not even the worst part. You're not even a Christian, yet you're proposing that only your view of the Bible is right and that everyone who doesn't agree is a hypocrite. I don't even care if that's what you believe the Bible says (it doesn't) but for you to claim the definitive interpretation makes you look like an ass. Many of my fellow Christians interpret things slightly different, and I don't consider them hypocrites. You see, you can be a Christian and believe in a sensible immigration policy. And if you were a Christian, I wouldn't call you a hypocrite, because that is a judgment on your heart, not your brain.

And don't talk about me like you know me and know what I fear, it makes you look childish. And I'm not against immigration nor am I turning on foreigners. My parents are immigrants, and I've lived as a foreigner.

No, national sovereignty isnt, but turning down those in need is quite frankly.

31When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on His glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will place the sheep on His right and the goats on His left.

34Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For 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 took Me in, 36I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.’

37Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’

40And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’

41Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44And they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

45Then the King will answer, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’

46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[DevilsLettuce]

Veronica Belmont
shes a fem nazi

All hail Cthulhu!!

 

[dontsnitch]

No, national sovereignty isnt, but turning down those in need is quite frankly.

31When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on His glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will place the sheep on His right and the goats on His left.

34Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For 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 took Me in, 36I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.’

37Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’

40And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’

41Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44And they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

45Then the King will answer, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’

46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Yeah, we should feed the hungry.

I have food in my fridge. Does that mean I'm a hypocrite? After all, there are hungry people right now and they could eat it. You're interpretation of the Bible is a reduction to absurdity. Until I give away every cent, I can help others and unless I'm broke and homeless, I'm a hypocrite as per your argument.

So yeah, we are commanded to help so let's erase all borders. No doors, on your house, no checkpoint at the border. That's what the Bible teaches...

 

[Ruprecht]

Again, the early colonial period of the english colonies was utterly dominated by religion, what you are claiming is false, the Salem witch trials was the epitome of puritanism in America, after that point enlightment ideas which rose in Europe to fight back the influence of religion made their way to America, it was not an organic American view, it was the result of modernism taking over religion.

Even to this day in bible thumping states you see christians trying to dominate politics.

The Puritans didn't separate Church and state as far as the Quakers, but they still considered them separate institutions. Most of the current strain of dominionism arose from various strains of revival theology in the '60s and '70s. It wasn't persistent.

 

[Rod1]

Yeah, we should feed the hungry.

I have food in my fridge. Does that mean I'm a hypocrite? After all, there are hungry people right now and they could eat it. You're interpretation of the Bible is a reduction to absurdity. Until I give away every cent, I can help others and unless I'm broke and homeless, I'm a hypocrite as per your argument.

So yeah, we are commanded to help so let's erase all borders. No doors, on your house, no checkpoint at the border. That's what the Bible teaches...

Because the Bible itself is absurd it was a book compiled from the writings of ancient authors which was translated multiple times and its a collection of non-sense.

And why are you asking me? im merely quoting passages of the Bible that are clear cut.

Why did Jesus asked the rich young man to follow him if thats not what he meant? didnt he asked to give up all and follow him? Why did Jesus said to love thy enemies?

 

[Rod1]

The Puritans didn't separate Church and state as far as the Quakers, but they still considered them separate institutions. Most of the current strain of dominionism arose from various strains of revival theology in the '60s and '70s. It wasn't persistent.

They considered them separate institutions but didnt believed that christianity ought to be optional, they still believed in rooting heresy and using law to enforce christian morality.

Modern understanding of separation of church and state is the byproduct of the enlightment not reformation.

 

[ncordless]

Again, the early colonial period of the english colonies was utterly dominated by religion, what you are claiming is false, the Salem witch trials was the epitome of puritanism in America, after that point enlightment ideas which rose in Europe to fight back the influence of religion made their way to America, it was not an organic American view, it was the result of modernism taking over religion.

Even to this day in bible thumping states you see christians trying to dominate politics.

That's an overly simplistic view of early American colonialism. Sure, puritans fled to colonial Mass. to flee religious persecution and almost immediately set up their own forms of religious persecution. But the story the puritans is hardly the complete story of colonial America. Even within New England, Roger Williams fled the Mass. colony and formed his own colony based upon majority rule and religious freedom in Rhode Island. Pennsylvania, though founded by Quakers, was founded with ideals of religious tolerance that were among the most liberal of their day. Carolina, though it had medieval-like political and economic conditions, was also founded on ideals of religious tolerance. Most of the rest of the colonies, such as New York, Virginia, etc. were not hard line religious settlements but rather economic ventures.

 

[dontsnitch]

Because the Bible itself is absurd it was a book compiled from the writings of ancient authors which was translated multiple times and its a collection of non-sense.

And why are you asking me? im merely quoting passages of the Bible that are clear cut.

Why did Jesus asked the rich young man to follow him if thats not what he meant? didnt he asked to give up all and follow him? Why did Jesus said to love thy enemies?

I don't know how clearer I can be, you're using reductio ad absurdum to interpret the words of Christ. But like I said, that's not even the most egregious part of your argument, as wrong as you are, but it's you claiming that your interpretation is the only correct one and that everyone who doesn't adhere to it is a hypocrite. The fact that you're not even a Christian yourself is just the cherry on top.