Jesus’ Answer To President Trump’s Immigration Ban

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sep 3, 2016
1,483
41
48
#1
By Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier

A great many people, religious and otherwise, affirm the fundamental goodness of helping people in need. But how far does this obligation to show compassion extend? When Donald Trump put in place his ban on refugees from predominantly Muslim countries, his action left many Christians wondering whether there is any religious duty to provide sanctuary and compassion to adherents of a foreign faith. Some Christian political and religious leaders have voiced support for Trump’s ban, suggesting that the Christian duty to care for the needy does not apply in this particular situation.

The Gospel of Luke recounts an episode where Jesus himself addresses this very same question about the limits of compassion. In Luke’s account, Jesus and a conversation partner, who is an expert in religious law, both quickly agree that loving our neighbors is a bedrock principle of religious faithfulness. But after agreeing on the duty to love our neighbors, the legal expert asks Jesus the very question that the president’s ban raises for American Christians: “But who is my neighbor?” How far does this obligation to show compassion extend?

Jesus responds to the lawyer’s question by telling a story, which we have since come to know as the Parable of the Good Samaritan. At the center of Jesus’ tale is a man who has been the victim of a violent attack: A band of robbers has stripped a traveler of his clothes and possessions, beaten him senseless, and left him lying half dead on the side of the road.

In Jesus’ story the first person to happen upon the unfortunate traveler is a respected religious leader—a priest—who sees the man lying in the ditch but chooses not to get involved. The same thing happens a bit later when a Levite—another respected religious leader—happens upon the suffering stranger. In describing how these religious leaders pass by on the other side of the road, it almost seems as if Jesus was looking ahead in his story to our own time, when respected religious leaders would also be telling us to ignore the plight of refugees and victims of violence from today’s war-torn countries!

The story does not end on such a grim note, however. Jesus goes on to describe the actions of a Samaritan man who, coming across the robbery victim, acts with great compassion towards him.

The Samaritan binds up the man’s wounds, places him on his horse and carries him to an inn, where he pays for the innkeeper to look after him while he recovers. The Good Samaritan stands as a shining example across the centuries of the care and compassion that Jesus teaches his followers to practice.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is not just a tale of a man who shows exemplary kindness, however. A deeper dimension of Jesus’ story comes to light when we understand who the Samaritans actually were. In the eyes of Jesus’ fellow citizens, the Samaritans were a tribe of hated foreigners who practiced a rival, heretical faith.

Jesus’ outrageous decision to lift up a despised Samaritan infidel as the moral hero of his story leaves no doubt that the love of neighbor Jesus has in mind is one that reaches out to people of foreign nations and foreign religions. Jesus’ type of neighbor-love does not stop at national or religious borders, and for this reason Jesus’ teaching stands in sharp opposition to the closed door and the clenched fist that characterize our president’s current policy.

Of course many Americans who support the immigration ban are not thinking so much about religious faithfulness; their support is more the product of simple fear. We live in a dangerous world, and people want to feel safe. Slamming the door on our Muslim neighbors may seem like a viable way to reduce the anxiety we live with from day to day, but practicing the kind of far-reaching neighbor-love which Jesus teaches may actually do a better job of helping us feel more secure.

Not many of us, it seems, are finding that the president’s ban makes us feel less anxious. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that less than one third of Americans feel the least bit safer as a result of the president’s action. The New Testament draws on Jesus’ teaching to suggest a very different remedy for our anxiety: “Perfect love casts out fear” is how Jesus’ disciple John puts it.

It is a question we Americans would do well to ponder: Does it really make us feel safer to hide behind walls and bans, to turn our backs on suffering and struggling peoples, to reject and despise those whose origins and beliefs are different from our own? Does turning our back on compassion really give us a greater sense of security?

Or is the path to a greater peace found in the kind of neighbor-love that reaches across dividing lines, that provides help to the refugee and the victim of violence, that binds up the wounds of the suffering and works to build an encompassing community of compassion and mutual help? Building friendship and community and common ties with people seems a better way of preventing them from harming us than does withholding compassion and erecting walls and bans against them.

No strategy will ever be foolproof, of course. Perfect safety is an illusion that no nation can ever guarantee to its citizens, and reasonable people may disagree over the proper balance to strike between freedom and generosity on the one hand, and security and safety on the other. For those of us who aspire to follow Jesus, however, we dare not let the present situation tempt us away from the expansive type of neighbor-love to which he calls us. We simply have to lift our voices and join the marches and protest to our representatives in opposition to the president’s immigration ban.
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,702
246
0
#2
The most important rule for all health care workers is to take care of number one; after which you will be able to provide better care for everyone else.

Same thing applies regarding a nation's sovereignty; protect your own to the fullest. Meet the needs of foreigners in a manner that is uncompromising to your citizens' safety and well being.
 

Ugly

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2011
20,538
532
113
#3
So God's rule is let violent people who want to kill you for your faith freely enter your gates? Sorry, i just don't remember reading that in the bible. I do remember being told to be wise, though.
And wisdom says 'lets look at the countries that have already opened their borders'. Oh look, increase in violent crimes, rape, random assaults, particularly against women. Countries that have declared war on us for decades now want us to let in their people en masse and God's lesson is 'let them come in an kill and rape you freely and force their evil religions rules upon you? Not buying it.
 

peacenik

Senior Member
May 11, 2016
3,071
24
38
#4
MessageOfTheCross; said:
...
No strategy will ever be foolproof, of course. Perfect safety is an illusion that no nation can ever guarantee to its citizens, and reasonable people may disagree over the proper balance to strike between freedom and generosity on the one hand, and security and safety on the other. For those of us who aspire to follow Jesus, however, we dare not let the present situation tempt us away from the expansive type of neighbor-love to which he calls us. We simply have to lift our voices and join the marches and protest to our representatives in opposition to the president’s immigration ban.



Numerous local churches here in the Twin Cities have expressed great interest in doing all that and more. They invoke the Bible's teachings as motivation and justification for these actions.
 
Mar 2, 2016
8,896
105
0
#5
Not one of the do gooders is willing to take even one refugee into their own home. Pure phoniness...do as I say not as I do.
 

chootchooot

Senior Member
Apr 23, 2012
212
4
18
#6
Mark Achtemeier writes for the huffington post which should sum up what kind of person he is. He also wrote a book that says "yes to same sex marriage" what a disgrace for him to support sodomite marriage. Also over 90,000 christians were martyred in 2016 with 9 of the 10 being from majority Muslim nations. Would be better to first let in these christians that are being martyred rather than these Jewish hating racist Muslims. There are plenty of other muslim countries, if islam is so great why don't they want to go to countries with all of there brothers and sisters in their allah god? Also how many muslims did Mark Achtemeier take in to live in his home? but he expects everyone else to
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
12,205
336
83
#7
By Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier

A great many people, religious and otherwise, affirm the fundamental goodness of helping people in need. But how far does this obligation to show compassion extend? When Donald Trump put in place his ban on refugees from predominantly Muslim countries, his action left many Christians wondering whether there is any religious duty to provide sanctuary and compassion to adherents of a foreign faith. Some Christian political and religious leaders have voiced support for Trump’s ban, suggesting that the Christian duty to care for the needy does not apply in this particular situation.

The Gospel of Luke recounts an episode where Jesus himself addresses this very same question about the limits of compassion. In Luke’s account, Jesus and a conversation partner, who is an expert in religious law, both quickly agree that loving our neighbors is a bedrock principle of religious faithfulness. But after agreeing on the duty to love our neighbors, the legal expert asks Jesus the very question that the president’s ban raises for American Christians: “But who is my neighbor?” How far does this obligation to show compassion extend?

Jesus responds to the lawyer’s question by telling a story, which we have since come to know as the Parable of the Good Samaritan. At the center of Jesus’ tale is a man who has been the victim of a violent attack: A band of robbers has stripped a traveler of his clothes and possessions, beaten him senseless, and left him lying half dead on the side of the road.

In Jesus’ story the first person to happen upon the unfortunate traveler is a respected religious leader—a priest—who sees the man lying in the ditch but chooses not to get involved. The same thing happens a bit later when a Levite—another respected religious leader—happens upon the suffering stranger. In describing how these religious leaders pass by on the other side of the road, it almost seems as if Jesus was looking ahead in his story to our own time, when respected religious leaders would also be telling us to ignore the plight of refugees and victims of violence from today’s war-torn countries!

The story does not end on such a grim note, however. Jesus goes on to describe the actions of a Samaritan man who, coming across the robbery victim, acts with great compassion towards him.

The Samaritan binds up the man’s wounds, places him on his horse and carries him to an inn, where he pays for the innkeeper to look after him while he recovers. The Good Samaritan stands as a shining example across the centuries of the care and compassion that Jesus teaches his followers to practice.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is not just a tale of a man who shows exemplary kindness, however. A deeper dimension of Jesus’ story comes to light when we understand who the Samaritans actually were. In the eyes of Jesus’ fellow citizens, the Samaritans were a tribe of hated foreigners who practiced a rival, heretical faith.

Jesus’ outrageous decision to lift up a despised Samaritan infidel as the moral hero of his story leaves no doubt that the love of neighbor Jesus has in mind is one that reaches out to people of foreign nations and foreign religions. Jesus’ type of neighbor-love does not stop at national or religious borders, and for this reason Jesus’ teaching stands in sharp opposition to the closed door and the clenched fist that characterize our president’s current policy.

Of course many Americans who support the immigration ban are not thinking so much about religious faithfulness; their support is more the product of simple fear. We live in a dangerous world, and people want to feel safe. Slamming the door on our Muslim neighbors may seem like a viable way to reduce the anxiety we live with from day to day, but practicing the kind of far-reaching neighbor-love which Jesus teaches may actually do a better job of helping us feel more secure.

Not many of us, it seems, are finding that the president’s ban makes us feel less anxious. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that less than one third of Americans feel the least bit safer as a result of the president’s action. The New Testament draws on Jesus’ teaching to suggest a very different remedy for our anxiety: “Perfect love casts out fear” is how Jesus’ disciple John puts it.

It is a question we Americans would do well to ponder: Does it really make us feel safer to hide behind walls and bans, to turn our backs on suffering and struggling peoples, to reject and despise those whose origins and beliefs are different from our own? Does turning our back on compassion really give us a greater sense of security?

Or is the path to a greater peace found in the kind of neighbor-love that reaches across dividing lines, that provides help to the refugee and the victim of violence, that binds up the wounds of the suffering and works to build an encompassing community of compassion and mutual help? Building friendship and community and common ties with people seems a better way of preventing them from harming us than does withholding compassion and erecting walls and bans against them.

No strategy will ever be foolproof, of course. Perfect safety is an illusion that no nation can ever guarantee to its citizens, and reasonable people may disagree over the proper balance to strike between freedom and generosity on the one hand, and security and safety on the other. For those of us who aspire to follow Jesus, however, we dare not let the present situation tempt us away from the expansive type of neighbor-love to which he calls us. We simply have to lift our voices and join the marches and protest to our representatives in opposition to the president’s immigration ban.


So many holes can be poked in this ,its not even funny.What annoys me most is chiding that those who disagree with him disagree with the Bible.smh
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,337
113
#8
The good Samaritan helped a person in need who was right under his nose. He did not go searching the world for people to help, nor did he invite people from other countries, in need due to their own corrupt governments, to come and avail themselves of his generosity of spirit.
 

Tommy379

Senior Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,235
248
63
#9
Why not help them where they are at? We don't need to bring them here.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,337
113
#10
Looking after them where they are would certainly be a lot more cost efficient, not only because the Muslim population in jails far outstrips the overall Muslim population of the countries they migrate to. For instance, France has a Muslim population of between 8% and 11% while the Muslim population of their jails is closer to 70%. People who say that Muslims want to integrate into society are ignoring history.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.


Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works.


As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:


United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%


At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:


Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%


From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:


France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%


At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.


When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%


After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:


Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:


Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%


From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:


Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%


After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:


Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%


100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrases are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:


Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%


Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.


‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’


It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrases. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.


Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.


Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

This is scary. Here is some serious reading for serious thinkers.
Now that you know, what we will do with this knowledge?

- See more at: Muslim Behavior/Terrorism Correlated With Population Size - Common Sense Evaluation

 
Sep 3, 2016
1,483
41
48
#11
Looking after them where they are would certainly be a lot more cost efficient, not only because the Muslim population in jails far outstrips the overall Muslim population of the countries they migrate to. For instance, France has a Muslim population of between 8% and 11% while the Muslim population of their jails is closer to 70%. People who say that Muslims want to integrate into society are ignoring history.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.


Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works.


As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:


United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%


At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:


Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%


From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:


France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%


At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.


When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%


After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:


Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:


Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%


From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:


Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%


After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:


Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%


100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrases are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:


Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%


Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.


‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’


It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrases. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.


Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.


Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

This is scary. Here is some serious reading for serious thinkers.
Now that you know, what we will do with this knowledge?

- See more at: Muslim Behavior/Terrorism Correlated With Population Size - Common Sense Evaluation

FAQ about 9/11 - Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%, United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%; Why did President Trump give these countries a free pass to enter the country? Is it because he does business in these countries? The CIA, FBI, NSA, MI6, said Russia hacked the USA elections. Why does Russia get a free pass (Exxon)? President Trump has not paid taxes for 20 years. Why does he get a free pass?
 

Tommy379

Senior Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,235
248
63
#12


FAQ about 9/11 - Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%, United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%; Why did President Trump give these countries a free pass to enter the country? Is it because he does business in these countries? The CIA, FBI, NSA, MI6, said Russia hacked the USA elections. Why does Russia get a free pass (Exxon)? President Trump has not paid taxes for 20 years. Why does he get a free pass?
You're right. That's why when you vote for me, I will stop all refugees and immigration to the United States.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,497
161
63
57
#14
10 But into whatsoever city ye enter,
and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,


11
Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you:
notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.



16
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me;
and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.


17
And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord,
even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
 
Sep 3, 2016
1,483
41
48
#15
FAQ about 9/11 - Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Lebanon, and one was from Egypt.

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%, United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%; Why did President Trump give these countries a free pass to enter the country? Is it because he does business in these countries? The CIA, FBI, NSA, MI6, said Russia hacked the USA elections. Why does Russia get a free pass (Exxon)? President Trump has not paid taxes for 20 years. Why does he get a free pass?
Revelation 18:23 says it like this, "Satan has deceived and led astray every nation by sorcery and black magic."
 

ROSSELLA

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2017
539
11
0
#16
By Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier

A great many people, religious and otherwise, affirm the fundamental goodness of helping people in need. But how far does this obligation to show compassion extend? When Donald Trump put in place his ban on refugees from predominantly Muslim countries, his action left many Christians wondering whether there is any religious duty to provide sanctuary and compassion to adherents of a foreign faith. Some Christian political and religious leaders have voiced support for Trump’s ban, suggesting that the Christian duty to care for the needy does not apply in this particular situation.

The Gospel of Luke recounts an episode where Jesus himself addresses this very same question about the limits of compassion. In Luke’s account, Jesus and a conversation partner, who is an expert in religious law, both quickly agree that loving our neighbors is a bedrock principle of religious faithfulness. But after agreeing on the duty to love our neighbors, the legal expert asks Jesus the very question that the president’s ban raises for American Christians: “But who is my neighbor?” How far does this obligation to show compassion extend?

Jesus responds to the lawyer’s question by telling a story, which we have since come to know as the Parable of the Good Samaritan. At the center of Jesus’ tale is a man who has been the victim of a violent attack: A band of robbers has stripped a traveler of his clothes and possessions, beaten him senseless, and left him lying half dead on the side of the road.

In Jesus’ story the first person to happen upon the unfortunate traveler is a respected religious leader—a priest—who sees the man lying in the ditch but chooses not to get involved. The same thing happens a bit later when a Levite—another respected religious leader—happens upon the suffering stranger. In describing how these religious leaders pass by on the other side of the road, it almost seems as if Jesus was looking ahead in his story to our own time, when respected religious leaders would also be telling us to ignore the plight of refugees and victims of violence from today’s war-torn countries!

The story does not end on such a grim note, however. Jesus goes on to describe the actions of a Samaritan man who, coming across the robbery victim, acts with great compassion towards him.

The Samaritan binds up the man’s wounds, places him on his horse and carries him to an inn, where he pays for the innkeeper to look after him while he recovers. The Good Samaritan stands as a shining example across the centuries of the care and compassion that Jesus teaches his followers to practice.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is not just a tale of a man who shows exemplary kindness, however. A deeper dimension of Jesus’ story comes to light when we understand who the Samaritans actually were. In the eyes of Jesus’ fellow citizens, the Samaritans were a tribe of hated foreigners who practiced a rival, heretical faith.

Jesus’ outrageous decision to lift up a despised Samaritan infidel as the moral hero of his story leaves no doubt that the love of neighbor Jesus has in mind is one that reaches out to people of foreign nations and foreign religions. Jesus’ type of neighbor-love does not stop at national or religious borders, and for this reason Jesus’ teaching stands in sharp opposition to the closed door and the clenched fist that characterize our president’s current policy.

Of course many Americans who support the immigration ban are not thinking so much about religious faithfulness; their support is more the product of simple fear. We live in a dangerous world, and people want to feel safe. Slamming the door on our Muslim neighbors may seem like a viable way to reduce the anxiety we live with from day to day, but practicing the kind of far-reaching neighbor-love which Jesus teaches may actually do a better job of helping us feel more secure.

Not many of us, it seems, are finding that the president’s ban makes us feel less anxious. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that less than one third of Americans feel the least bit safer as a result of the president’s action. The New Testament draws on Jesus’ teaching to suggest a very different remedy for our anxiety: “Perfect love casts out fear” is how Jesus’ disciple John puts it.

It is a question we Americans would do well to ponder: Does it really make us feel safer to hide behind walls and bans, to turn our backs on suffering and struggling peoples, to reject and despise those whose origins and beliefs are different from our own? Does turning our back on compassion really give us a greater sense of security?

Or is the path to a greater peace found in the kind of neighbor-love that reaches across dividing lines, that provides help to the refugee and the victim of violence, that binds up the wounds of the suffering and works to build an encompassing community of compassion and mutual help? Building friendship and community and common ties with people seems a better way of preventing them from harming us than does withholding compassion and erecting walls and bans against them.

No strategy will ever be foolproof, of course. Perfect safety is an illusion that no nation can ever guarantee to its citizens, and reasonable people may disagree over the proper balance to strike between freedom and generosity on the one hand, and security and safety on the other. For those of us who aspire to follow Jesus, however, we dare not let the present situation tempt us away from the expansive type of neighbor-love to which he calls us. We simply have to lift our voices and join the marches and protest to our representatives in opposition to the president’s immigration ban.
I agree. We definitely need to have strong vetting measures set up (which thankfully we do). But we're called to help those in need. If people are violent, then no they should not be allowed to enter. But many refugees aren't violent and the nonviolent ones who make it through the vetting process should be allowed to enter.
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
12,205
336
83
#17
I agree. We definitely need to have strong vetting measures set up (which thankfully we do). But we're called to help those in need. If people are violent, then no they should not be allowed to enter. But many refugees aren't violent and the nonviolent ones who make it through the vetting process should be allowed to enter.
And the ones who are vetted will be let in the same as they always have been.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,497
161
63
57
#18
If people are violent, then no they should not be allowed to enter. But many refugees aren't
violent and the nonviolent ones who make it through the vetting process should be allowed to enter.
Even mainstream news anchor Tom Brokaw admitted the press never vetted candidate Obama.
How can people be so sure the president wasn’t influenced by a radical leftist political ideology?
Then look what the media did to Donald Trump, every part of his life and was scruntinzed.

Just come across the border and claim Obama amanisty, heres food and shelter
over here in this ilegal santuary city, then given a hearing years from now if any.


In President Barack Obama’s opening year in office, he removed a ban on hiv-positive
foreigners entering the country. At the end of March of his final year in office, he will
removed the entry ban on three more sexually transmitted diseases (stds).


Obama did not uphold the immigrations laws that where allready on the books.
 
Last edited:
S

Sully

Guest
#19
In President Barack Obama’s opening year in office, he removed a ban on hiv-positive
foreigners entering the country. At the end of March of his final year in office, he will
removed the entry ban on three more sexually transmitted diseases (stds).
How would you explain the motive behind this action?
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,497
161
63
57
#20
How would you explain the motive behind this action?
President Obama’s own bestselling 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father shows
that he was profoundly influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, and by many others who
were at least sympathetic to Marxist ideology. Barack Obama’s ideological roots
are far more radical than the general public has been led to believe.

We must consider the facts of his ideological roots if we want to understand
where the Obama administration was leading America! -He really believed-

THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE WORLD WASN’T THE SOVIET MENACE,
BUT “ANGLO-AMERICAN IMPERIALIST DOMINATION.”

Marxist thinking could sap America’s strength, pervert its morals, sabotage its education
system, wreck its social structure, destroy its spiritual life, weaken its economic power,
and demoralize its armed forces.


What do you believe the motive behind this actions really are?
 
Last edited: