What is the topic? Romans 13:1-7. The object of this series is to consider the practical problems posed by Romans 13:1-7.
- HE IS QUOTING SCRIPTURE AT ME! NOW WHAT DO I DO? — PART 1 introduced the topic.
- HE IS QUOTING SCRIPTURE AT ME! NOW WHAT DO I DO? — PART 2 examined this question: How do we know when those who claim authority over us as our governmental leaders have been appointed by God?
Here we will consider the following question:
What is the difference between the obedience we owe to the governing authorities and the obedience we owe to God?
Most Christians are familiar with this verse.
Matthew 22:21New King James Version (NKJV)
21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
And He said to them, “Render[a]therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
How do we decide what things belong to Caesar and what things belong to God? Unless we are familiar with Bible, we cannot know. However, if we are familiar with the Bible, then Jesus’ question makes more sense.
Matthew 22:15-22 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Pharisees: Is It Lawful to Pay Taxes to Caesar?
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. 16 And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not [a]regard the person of men. 17 Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
18 But Jesus [b]perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? 19 Show Me the tax money.”
So they brought Him a denarius.
20 And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”
21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
And He said to them, “Render[c]therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.
Why did Jesus ask whose image was on that denarius? Whose image is on you, me, and every other human being?
Genesis 1:27 New King James Version (NKJV)
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Because God’s image is upon us, we owe God our love with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength. Caesar? Him we owe a coin.
So why is this an issue? Some worship government. Instead of God, they would give their heart, their soul, their mind, and their strength to the state. They would give themselves to some Caesar who fancies himself as a god. Why would they prefer to worship a man instead of God? Consider this passage.
Hebrews 4:11-13 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Word Discovers Our Condition
11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
The Bible is a mirror. It shows us to ourselves as we are. That is frightening and humbling enough, but God knows us better than we know ourselves. Until we begin to understand just how much He loves us, that is terrifying. Until we see our Lord as a loving Father, we cannot endure believing in an infinitely powerful God.
With respect to God and government, how does our disobedience to God manifest itself? When we reject God, we reject the truth in favor of what we want. To get what we want, we worship government. That is, we support those leaders who make the grandest promises regardless of the truth, and we attack those who don’t support our leaders. How? Tammy Bruce puts it this way.
Yet, the organized nature of the attacks, combined with liberal political and legacy media rhetoric, makes clear this is not some sort of organic turn of events. Having come from the left, I can tell you everything liberals do is organized around the principle of personalizing, punishing and polarizing; it’s the only thing they know how to do and is a required skill when you can’t persuade people on the details of the issues and have no actual policy solutions. (from here)
Hence, from the perspective of many Liberal Democrats our president, Donald Trump, is illegitimate even though there is no evidence he has done anything illegal. He is just not their guy.
Consider Trump’s signature issue, immigration. Why do Liberal Democrats think it “immoral” for Trump to send illegal immigrants, especially the children, back to their home countries? Do Liberal Democrats actually care about these people? Perhaps some of them do, but most I suspect just want the votes of the illegals. Furthermore, I suspect many can’t stand the sight of government telling anyone they cannot have what they want.
What is ridiculous is when Liberal Democrats try to use the Bible against believers. Consider this passage.
Leviticus 19:33-34 New King James Version (NKJV)
33 ‘And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as [a]one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Does that passage mean we are supposed to have open borders? Some think it does (see here (washingtonpost.com), here (mercurynews.com), and here (cheatsheet.com)). To correct these people, cites Old Testament scholar and Wheaton College Professor James Hoffmeier.
“What I learned in my study is that there are three relevant terms used in Hebrew [for the word ‘stranger’] (ger, zar, nekhar). [Some translators] render them all as [simply] ‘foreigner.’ That is misleading and incorrect.
“Zar and nekhar, indeed, refer to foreigners or visitors passing through a foreign land. [But], Ger refer[s] to foreign residents who live in another land with the permission of a host The law is clear that ger is not to be oppressed but they were also obligated to live in accordance with the laws just like the Israelites.” (from here (washingtontimes.com))
Nothing is easy. Understanding the Bible is not easy. Look around. It is just like the Bible says. We have been cursed (see Genesis 3:13-19). To accomplish anything worthwhile, we have to work for it. There are no magic fixes. So what are we to do for all those illegal immigrants coming from Central America? We need to send back home and help them to make their own countries productive. See Fixing Central America (washingtontimes.com) by . That may not be the easiest solution, but it is a wiser solution.
Citizen Tom 
“Some worship government. Instead of God, they would give their heart, their soul, their mind, and their strength to the state.”
I really am unfamiliar with this state idolizing religion. It sounds like a trumped up straw man. The problem with some people is that they (I think irrationally) don’t worship anything but reason. The problem with others is that they try rationalize Jesus into their own tribalistic, prosperity worshiping ideological likeness rather than trying to humbly remake themselves into the selfless God of Love.
The motive for justifying cruelty at the border is to worship one tribe over another and to worship the tribe’s coin rather than giving the love and compassion that God expects to be rendered to the desperate stranger. Which is worse: your fanciful Church of State or a Church of Tribe? Either way, there seems to be a lot of false idolatry going on around here.
@Tsalmon
Cruelty at the border? We solve the problem your way, or we must be cruel, tribalistic, and fit only to be labeled with any other pejorative Democrats wish to fix on us.
When people worship an idol, what is the point? Idol worshippers see themselves as pragmatic. They worship their idol because they think they can get what they want from it.
How do we worship our idols? We sacrifice to it. We give of ourselves and others to it. Those less principled prefer to sacrifice others.
Separating children from their parents and incarcerating them simply for being disparate is sort of the definition of cruelty, and all for the sake of idolizing our own tribe over what we consider a lesser tribe. What did you call them: “dirty” and “ignorant”?
Jesus is not a tribal God. He is the God of all of us, even the desperate dirty child and her ignorant parents.
@Tsalmon
You are putting words into my mouth. If you cannot quote me accurately on my own blog, why bother?
We have people mistreating children and using them as an excuse to jump our border. We don’t whether they are the children’s parents or not, but your heart is bleeding, and you hate Trump. So appearances are all that matter.
“You are putting words into my mouth. If you cannot quote me accurately on my own blog, why bother?”
So it’s your position that you have never on your blog called imigrants “ignorant” and “dirty”?
“We have people mistreating children and using them as an excuse to jump our border. We don’t whether they are the children’s parents or not…”
If I’m desparation for their future and their lives, you flee to safety with your children, then you would consider that as “mistreating” them? Sure, and we put Japanese Americans in camps for their own safety. Sounds like a convenient hand washing exercise to ignore our own cruelty. Overinflating the notion that all of them are child traffickers is more of the same.
“…but your heart is bleeding, and you hate Trump. So appearances are all that matter.”
No, I don’t hate Trump. That would be just another tribalism to justify tribalism.
This is a form of projection – using tribal hatreds to just justify tribalistic hatreds of Trump’s trumped up boogeymen: “foreigners, liberals and Democrats, Oh my!”
Jesus is often depicted with a “bleeding heart”. Thanks for the compliment brother, but but I am undeserving.
@tsalmon
Ignorance is a state, not good or bad. I didn’t say anything about anyone being dirty. However, hard work often involves contact with dirty and sweat. So good people do need a bath from time to time.
What you are doing is characterizing me, not discussing the issue. Here is a discussion of the issue.
https://citizentom.com/2018/07/12/would-you-just-hand-a-child-over-to-a-stranger/
And yes, you do hate Trump. You have made that so obvious it is not debatable. So don’t expect me to bother with one over that. It is a personal problem, anyway.
LOL Tom,
You accuse me of mischaracterizing you and avoiding the issue (our pure tribalistic cruelty against immigrants) because I simply quoted what you have said in the past, and then you falsely chose to characterize me as hating Trump just so that you can avoid that real issue.😏
@Tsalmon
The party that obsesses on identity politics, accuses everyone else of tribalism, cannot talk about anything but divisive issues, insists on making acusations the only issue that can be discussed, portrays itself as so loving. Jesus like, of course. Yep, that’s worth a
😆
I’m not a Party (or any other tribal leader or member). I’m just me, remember, your little brother.
I don’t remember accusing you specifically of anything, however, all the arguments you are making have to do with advancing or protecting our tribe (Republicans, Americans, Christians, etc.) against some supposed enemy tribe (Democrats, “dirty” and ignorant immigrants, nonbelievers, etc.) now aren’t they?
@Tsalmon
I don’t apologize for defending the legitimate interests of my family, my community, or my country. That is in fact the main reason government exists, to help us achieve a just resolution of our differences.
What you call tribalism occurs when people reduce others to less than human. I don’t have less than human expectations for blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Muslims, or whoever. When people break the law, even if the are not white Protestant males, I expect them to be held to account.
Instead of defending your so-called solutions, all you want to talk about is what is wrong with anyone who disagrees, or don’t realize that “tribalism” is just another word for bigot?
Let’s see where we may agree. I agree that both political parties, in different ways, use identity politics. Democrats utilize minority grievances regarding race, gender, and sexuality (to name only a few) to unite those minorities under their single party banner. Republicans utilizes power majority grievances including race, gender, and religion (to name a few) in order to unite those historic power majorities under a single party banner. Neither Party is innocent of such divisive tribalistic behavior.
Your using tribalistic, identity politics language to attack the other side for using identity politics and tribalism makes for an absurd argument against identity politics and tribalism.
Because we disagree, it cannot be that one of us is more morally wrong or right than the other on an issue. Instead, we must choose a tribal team or be forced onto a team. No matter what horrendous thing our tribe does, it must not be judged or defended on its own merits but instead ONLY with regard to whether it is opposed by the other team.
Jesus was not tribal and neither were His famous apostles, included Paul. Elsewise, Christianity would not have spread to so many cultures, races, ethnicities and languages around the world. Let us, like Paul, therefore set aside identity politics and tribalism and welcome the stranger as Jesus taught us to, or at least let us discuss the moral and practical difficulties of that issue with regard to common Biblical Christian standards of love and without the all party propaganda and demagoguery.
@Tsalmon
The old moral equivalence argument. And what do we have to do to solve our differences? We just have to apply Tony’s version of the Bible and practice “Christian” Socialism. Sigh!
Whatever my Conservative Republican sins may be, I advocate limited government. So I have far less interest in using the government to make anyone do anything they don’t want to do. That is why your moral equivalence argument flops.
Check out => https://citizentom.com/2008/04/22/the-advantage-of-a-republic-over-a-democracy. The way you are using the word, factionalism and tribalism are more or less the same thing.
And when did I claim to be a “Christian Socialist”, whatever that is? Rather than deflecting to some odd new enemy straw man, why not instead state the issue in terms of our shared truth, our shared following of Jesus as our redeemer.
Do you believe that Christianity is a tribal religion or instead do you believe that Christianity transcends the tribalism of nationalism, ethnicity, language, race and gender? Do you believe that every human being should be treated with love, understanding, openness and welcoming, without regard to these various forms of tribe and tribalism?
If your answer is that Christianity transcends tribalism, then how can we as Christians countenance our government on our behalf treating our brothers and sisters and their children desperately fleeing to our nation any differently than we would hope to be treated if we were in their same desperate circumstances? Pragmatism demands that we cannot offer open borders, but our shared Christian values demands that we also cannot offer cruelty. Where does it say in the Bible that being a follower of Christ is easy?
@Tsalmon
Do you think your argument something new? It is not. Also note: (1) you still are not talking about the actual problem, and (2) you are trying to use the Bible without bothering with what it says.
The Bible uses marriage as an example of what our relationship with Jesus Christ should be. Just as Jesus loved His church men should love their wives. As members of His church, we should love Jesus just las we expect wives to love their husbands.
Marriages form the basis of families. Families form into tribes.
How does the Bible portray charity? I suggest you do some research. What you will find is that we take care of those closest to us first.
Anyway, I am pleased that pragmatism has finally forced you to admit open borders are impractical. Instead trying to convince me that I am cruel because I want the border enforced, would you like to talk about humane border enforcement? Or is it too much fun poking holes in other people’s ideas?
Check out Matt 12:46-50 and 1 John 4:20.
I’m curious, do you see any possibility of treating children at the border in a more loving way and still meet your goal of not letting them into the US?
It seems to me that people are saying to be more Christ-like in our actions with the children. You don’t have to let them into the US to be more Christ-like with them.
Do you think being more loving to the children at the border is a bad thing for maintaining the safety of the US?
Just read this and thought I’d share.
Very very good idea.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/05/hhs-performing-dna-tests-confirm-relationships/
@anon
Good find. When people encourage this sort of behavior, using children to get into the USA, I just wonder what they are thinking.
Just an aside Tom…thank you, I read what you said, got it and just did it… and I hope I did it right so now it’ll work…and the conehead will go away!!!
Don’t kind me, Tom.. still setting up my WordPress. Sorry.
Good post Tom. It’s interesting how many of those tossing bible verses as arguments for open borders have never actually opened the good book themselves. They just parrot what others have said, having not a clue what the author of said scripture represents, in fact not even believing He exists. I’m talking about atheist friends I know, not the commenters here.
@Tricia
Frankly, I don’t think the Atheists who have read the Bible understand it. Why? I suppose it depends to some degree on the Atheist, but the basic problem is that they refuse to believe.
When we approach any subject, we digest the information we have about it based upon preexisting assumptions. Those assumptions work like enzymes. If we don’t have the right enzymes, we don’t receive any nourishment.
How do we fix this problem? We have to both examine ourselves and our assumptions.
Tom, Mike
Micheal has a good point to be careful how we use scripture. I have seen King Solomon verses used to justify abourtion.
Old idiom,
“Consider the source.””
Regards and good will blogging.
Well said Tom, All good points pertaining to those who use the Bible to justify the USA to accept illegal immigrants.
Two points in your post are pertinent.
The first is your statement of many politicians regarding Trump,” He is just not their guy. “
The second is using the Bible to manipulate believers that God wants illegal immigrants to be allowed to immigrate to the USA.
The problem is every nation has to have law and order same as the Bible teaches us to obey Gods laws and order for our Universe.
In my opinion, the Democrats are on a mission to use any means to achieve their goals.
As you know, I keep asking them what are their goals to end the 35-year-old problem of illegal immigration and never hear a long-term solution.
As for the problems in South America driving immigrants to want to come to the USA, how are the countries ever going to solve the problems in their countries if they all come into the USA?
Instead of marching into the USA, they need to march into their own countries government legislators offices in a peaceful manner same a Mahamat Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. did to effect the changes needed. All I remember in a course about South Amerca is they have a history of revolution to solve problems and Dictators, super rich, and crime.
In case anyone for open borders is not aware, they should check into the numbers of jailed illegal immigrants now incarcerated for criminal acts.
While Chicago and other cities deadly shootings do not match South American countries, most of the illegal drugs flowing into the USA are from South American countries.
In other words, both the Bible and Law and Order are tools needed in every country to guide to survival both spiritually and physically in our Universe.
Notice I said Universe because somehow the Universe created by God seems to have physical and scientific laws and order.
Regards and good will blogging.
@Scatterwisdom
Thanks for your comment.
One other thought to add to what you said. It starts with a question. Why do those countries south of our border want those illegal immigrants to go north? Two reasons. They send money home. If they stayed they would be trouble.
Sadly, some send money home after working for slave wages and are paid under the table, free for taxation.
Others send home drug profits or criminal acts. Not all, but one is too many in my opinion,
Others, like the guides who help the immigrants travel through USA borders and cities are making a good buck too.
Regards and good will blogging.
Excellent defense and explanation, Tom! Thank you!
“Why do Liberal Democrats think it “immoral” for Trump to send illegal immigrants, especially the children, back to their home countries?” Strawman. The issue of immorality is the separation of children from their parents. No one who believes that the family was a community established by God, dependent upon Him for its constitution, and created by the compact of one man and one woman in matrimony can declare this policy of separation to be moral without immense hypocrisy that even a Pharisee would balk at.
“Do Liberal Democrats actually care about these people?” Irrelevant. If a man fears hell and that is why he tries to lead a blameless life, his motive does not change whether he did a good thing.
“Does that passage mean we are supposed to have open borders?” It means that nations have the obligation to recognize the natural right God gave to migrants and control their borders with justice and mercy. The policy of separation and the willful changing of the definition of asylum qualifications is not just or merciful. It is a policy enacted with the stated purpose of political power and nothing more.
“We need to send back home and help them to make their own countries productive.” Seeing as our own government has been complicit in the ruination of several nations in South and Central America, it only seems fair that migrants from those countries–especially El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras–be accepted with greater clemency due to our immoral actions in subverting their governments and societies. And yes, finally fulfilling our duties to global solidarity would be great, though unlikely with an administration bent on using foreign aid to browbeat smaller nations instead of assisting them in their development. This sort of bullish policy is common to all liberals, red or blue, going back as far as at Woodrow Wilson and his awful plan to destroy the empires of Europe for no other reason than to satisfy some ideological program of Liberal Democracy, plunging those new states into Fascism and Communism.
@Stephen
Welcome back!
Well, you guys won that one. Trump is not separating the children from their parents anymore. He is just locking them up with their parents. Of course, since most of these children are unaccompanied, keeping the children with the parents is not much of a change.
Don’t we separate lawbreakers from their children all the time? Since the Bible says we are not supposed to punish children for the crimes of their parents, why would we send their children to jail too?
The experiment of releasing illegal aliens and requesting they come back for adjudication has been tried. Virtually none come back.
You want to take responsibility for all the world’s ills? That strikes me as arrogant. I admit my sins helped to put Christ on the that cross, and that is something I regret. Still, I still think other people are largely responsible for their own problem.
Since it is administered by politicians, and they cannot be trusted, I am not a fan of foreign aid. I much prefer private charity. However, I doubt that it is realistic to believe our government will stop giving away our money any time soon. So we may as well use foreign aid as best we can.
Woodrow Wilson, btw, was not a Classical Liberal. Classical Liberals and Liberal Democrats would never be in the same party. The Democratic Party sold its soul over the issue of slavery, and it has never quite recovered. Today it is obsessed with identity politics.
Anyway, here are some articles on why the policy changed to the extent it has. What Obama was doing did not help anyone except some bad people.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/01/30/after-posttrump-decline-more-central-american-children-arriving-at-us-border
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/unaccompanied-alien-children-and-family-units-are-flooding-border-because-catch-and
https://www.cbp.gov/site-page/southwest-border-unaccompanied-alien-children-statistics-fy-2016
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/21/30-of-border-children-have-gang-ties/
Weird that, now that a Republican controls the government, you suddenly trust what comes from the administration. Its as if the party of the person in the White House determined whether you would believe the statements you made. Did you also believe that Trump could do nothing until a week later when he did do something? I mean really, if you are going to carry water for this administration, don’t try to act as if anything they say can be trusted when they blatantly lie like that. Its like John Kerry level gaslighting. “I couldn’t sign an EO, until I could.” Yeah, great track record there of either a) knowing what the president can do while presumably arguing in the SCOTUS that the POTUS has broad powers on immigration or b) deliberately lying to the public.
Anyway, the Trump EO is calculated to start a lawsuit and testimony from independent observers such as charty workers and doctors paint a different picture. “Together” for the administration is “in the same facility.” Also, fathers are taken away from their children but mothers are allowed to keep infants only. There is nothing “together” about what is happening.
And you say “we” won. The Truth won. Anyone who supported the previous policy or who supports the current practice but wants to rabbit on about family values is an abject hypocrite with the moral sense of Caligula.
Just because some states allow the separation of families domestically doesn’t make it right. That is such an obvious fallacy, it is absolutely embarrassing for the supposed “rational” conservatives employing such feeble arguments. There are other alternatives. The administration CHOSE this one because it WANTED to separate families. That was the PURPOSE of the policy. The AG and the WHCS confirmed it and the Sec DHS did as well until she said otherwise a few days later.
60% actually appeared for their hearings which is above average for the civil court appearance rate. So if the problem was that people weren’t showing up to their court dates, why not just watch them with the measures we have for people on parole? Because that would have been cheaper and wouldn’t have met the administration’s goal of extrajudicial psychological punishment on young children.
No, just the ones we have caused. And being presumably the most prosperous country in the world and in a supposed unprecedented, according to the administration, time of economic prosperity, why CAN’T we help people in other countries and accept migrants? Either we are doing better than we ever have before or we are damaged and hurting and can’t help anyone. Can’t have both without some Orwellian doublethink. In the countries I mentioned, the US government bears direct responsibility for destabilizing them. Honduras in particular was destabilized by the US’s support of a coup that has brutalized the people there and caused several people to flee for asylum. Too bad the country that helped legitimize the new tyrant now won’t let those persecuted come to their country.
The GOP sold itself to identity politics as well. You just don’t realize it because it panders to your specific identity. And all you Liberals, including Wilson, are part of the same rotten family tree. The infighting among your branches does not negate the commonality of your roots.
And here are some contexualized and unbiased sources for you.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/07/donald-trump/immigration-ms-13-and-crime-facts-behind-donald-tr/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2018/may/11/donald-trump/ohio-trump-misleads-blaming-democrats-catch-and-re/
@Stephen
PolitiFact is unbiased? Well, they say they are. So it must be so? I think not. Same facts. A different interpretation of those facts does not make someone a liar. That is what we call a difference of opinion.
Do I trust Donald Trump? Not especially. I support most of his policies, and I have been quite pleased with his performance. That is hardly a crime. It does not make me a bad person.
Does Donald Trump lie? I think he changes his mind sometimes. However, I think what counts is that in spite of considerable opposition he has been trying keep his campaign promises.
Will Trump’s EO be overturned? I don’t know, but it does make the point that he did not invent the problem. It predated him.
When 40 percent of illegals don’t show up for a court date, there is no point in letting them go.
Anyway, if you want to help those people, who is stopping you? “We”? No. “We” just don’t want a dictator. Nobody likes somebody reaching into their wallet and spending their money. We all have our own priorities, and that is proper.
You ask whether they are unbiased. I ask if anything they said is untrue. If not, why doubt them? And they are not the same facts. The President said one thing one week and then the next week said the complete opposite. That is not “changing his mind.” If I say, “I do not have $20” and then the next week say, “I have always had $20” that is called lying.
Seeing as most of his policies, like his predecessor erode not only the political but also the moral institutions of this nation and of Christianity, I would say his policies are evil and you are free to support what you like.
What problem? I will not have the typical shifting of the goal posts here. The “problem” is tearing children, including infants, from their parents in direct violation of the Divine and Natural laws establishing the family with a God-given an inalienable constitution. The Christian, an actual Christian who takes the order of creation found in the Bible seriously, care more for the constitution of the family than of any nation or state. Let the US Constitution burn and all its institutions crumble to dust lest we commit the national sin of destroying what God himself has established. How much worse will it be for us on the final day? Sodom and Gommorah, it is written, will look at US with disgust.
And you can hardly hold them to a higher standard than our own people. Should we abolish the civil courts because 40% of Americans, on average, don’t show up for civil hearings? I believe there are several passages relating to tying up of burdens you have no intention of carrying. In Israel, there was one law for all to follow, not one for one class and one for another.
What is it with you liberals and engaging in the illogical Tu Quoque argument? Whether I have contributed to the restoration of justice to these people–which I have by the way–it does not reduce the immorality of the action on the part of the administration. That would be like saying a murderer should not go to jail because a bystander did not intervene to stop it. How easy it is for liberals to dispense with codes of morality when there is a group of people to hate.
Yes, I said hate. For no one that loves with the love the Gospel could stand by and watch the dissolution of families and not bear some hatred. Not when it is an abomination in the sight of God as it is written.
“And you can hardly hold them to a higher standard than our own people. Should we abolish the civil courts because 40% of Americans, on average, don’t show up for civil hearings?”
That is an unusually poor argument. Illegal entry is a criminal offense. Release (with bail) for criminal trials depends on a number of things, to include flight risk. If there is reason to believe the defendant will fail to appear in court they are not permitted to be released.
You stated — “Well, you guys won that one.”
My response — I think that this concept of winners and losers when it comes to policy is destructive to the fabric of our great nation and feeds into division and tribalism.
When you keep referring to your brothers and sisters in Christ as an opposing team it doesn’t lend to constructive compromise and corporation.
It’s almost like you see people you give labels as enemies rather than simply other people living in the same nation that God’s grace allows us to keep.
There are no winners if we are not working together.
@Lander7
When the subject is politics, people form into factions. That is just a fact of life. If we are honorable, we join with that faction that supports what happens to be in the best interests of our family, friends, neighbors. Whatever we do, we don’t compromise our principles.
@Citizen Tom
You stated ” If we are honorable, we join with that faction that supports what happens to be in the best interests of our family,”, “Whatever we do, we don’t compromise our principles.”
My response — Don’t you compromise (just a little) you principles when you join with an existing faction?
@Lander7
No. Sometimes a new party is necessary, but that is unusual.
Consider a bit of wisdom.
@Citizen Tom
You stated — “We can only hope to improve our political system, and the greater sin is the failure to make a serious effort.”
My response — What needs to be improved in your current party?
@Lander7
How is this related to the post?
@ Citizen Tom
You stated — “How is this related to the post?”
My response — The very same thought I had when you mentioned it so that’s why I thought if you provided more detail I could understand it better.
You were the one who said — “We can only hope to improve our political system, and the greater sin is the failure to make a serious effort.”
@Lander7
Well, then we are in agreement about something.
So again a dodge on the question of ” What needs to be improved in your current party?”
Understood. This will be the second time you can’t elaborate on your view point. You have asked me many times to elaborate on mine, and I have in detail.
I’ve talked to a number of political people who are good at talking points but don’t have any deep understanding of what they are saying. Are you one of those people?
@Lander7
This is coming from a guy who thinks he can establish his political position just by quoting a Bible verse and ignoring any counterarguments.
Frankly, I don’t think you are that stupid. I just don’t think you sincere. I just think you are trying to entertain yourself at the expense of others. When you can and do explain how your own ideas are supposed to work, maybe I will change my mind. At this point, I will just enjoy the last laugh.
So again, you have easily avoided answering any questions or providing any detail. It would seem it is easy for you to ask questions but much harder for you to answer them.
You seem to focus on just a few talking points no matter what the question asked is.
Your pattern is simple, if you are asked a tough question or one requiring a better understanding of your position you avoid answering by providing one of these three response types.
1) A back handed jab like: “Frankly, I don’t think you are that stupid. ”
2) A non-answer with a new push of your talking point like: “Whatever my Conservative Republican sins may be, I advocate limited government.”
3) A “God’s a mystery” response so you don’t have to answer like “I doubt anyone understands these verses.”
The last one is strange since you yourself seem to understand the verses when you are using them to prove your own talking points. O.o
Here are a couple more links.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/03/report-more-2000-illegal-immigrant-children-are-arriving-each-month-2015-ryan/
Most of the children back then were teen boys.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/#slide-1
The Trump administration continued the Obama policy on separation. The did not become issue until Trump became president.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/background-on-the-border-controversy/
Very well said.
Sad that quoting scripture is relegated to trying to prove a point that you have already come to a conclusion about. Also sad to hear politicians say the “God is on our side”. I would urge great caution. Jesus just might say, “I never knew you”.
Be blessed.
@Μιχαήλ (Michael) | God is in a good mood!
Go point! As Lincoln once said, our concern should be to be on God’s side.
I must admit I use scripture when I discuss politics. Since the Bible has much to say about government, that seems appropriate. However, my concern is almost always that we are trying to use the government to do something wrong. We too often use government to force people to render unto Caesar what belongs to God. That corrupts both us and our government.
As a Christian I think we have a responsibility to pray and to mediate over scripture to discern what God would have us do. If that is why we quote scripture, to explain our own motivation, I think it appropriate. If it is as you suggest, we quote scripture just to make a political point with Christians (especially if we don’t believe in Jesus), like as not we don’t know what we are talking about.
Therefore, when I quote scripture and relate my quotations to politics, I do so fearfully, knowing I shall receive a stricter judgment (James 3:1).
Amen! Let’s be on God’s side. Precisely.