Matthew 9:36 - Harassed And Helpless

[Ransom]

As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

My country doesn't claim to be Christian. Is it OK if we don't take in thousands of refugees of questionable origin and chracter?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Obama just slammed Republicans for being afraid of widows and orphans.

So... does that mean the TSA is going to stop screening widows and orphans at the airports now? 

 

[Ransom]

Obama just slammed Republicans for being afraid of widows and orphans.

No problem. Let's admit loads and loads of widows and orphans.

At least then, no one can be accused of breaking up families by turning away, say, able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 30.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Obama just slammed Republicans for being afraid of widows and orphans.

No problem. Let's admit loads and loads of widows and orphans.

At least then, no one can be accused of breaking up families by turning away, say, able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 30.

Yes, but we should accept widows only when it comes to women.  Last night, a woman, said to be Abaaoud's jihadi bride, fired an AK47 at police before blowing herself up with a suicide belt.  I'm sure she would never have done this if French police killed Abaaoud and she was a widow. 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/620191/French-Police-Paris-Stade-de-France-heavy-gunfire-St-Denis-North-Paris-Terror-Attacks

Update:  Her husband was killed.  If he was killed before she blew herself up, then she was a widow for that period of time. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'm not denying the possibility probability a terrorist gets through posed as a Syrian refugee. As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

Love takes risks. I understand that there is a 'battle of loves' here; love for our own countrymen vs. love for refugees. But if we want to claim to be a Christian country (as many Republicans claim), then by refusing to help the refugees, our country is trusting in 'horses and chariots', i.e. our military defense system instead of our God to protect us. That (Republican stance) by refusing to help those we can help to save our own hides is as anti-Christian as abortion.

Aren't you one of those who claim this isn't a Christian country?

His point is that those who claim that it is (or at some time was) are the very ones who put country before faith/obdience. Or so it would seem.

You mean, like Obama, who emphatically stated that we are not a Christian country, but wants to import Syrian refugees?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

My country doesn't claim to be Christian. Is it OK if we don't take in thousands of refugees of questionable origin and chracter?

As a country, it would be expected. As an individual Christian, moral questioning of your personal responsibility is between you and God.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I'm not denying the possibility probability a terrorist gets through posed as a Syrian refugee. As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

Love takes risks. I understand that there is a 'battle of loves' here; love for our own countrymen vs. love for refugees. But if we want to claim to be a Christian country (as many Republicans claim), then by refusing to help the refugees, our country is trusting in 'horses and chariots', i.e. our military defense system instead of our God to protect us. That (Republican stance) by refusing to help those we can help to save our own hides is as anti-Christian as abortion.

Aren't you one of those who claim this isn't a Christian country?

Yes.

And my issue is more with those who DO claim it to be Christian or want to lead the country with conformity to 'Christian values' who defy Christlike behaviors and commands.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I'm not denying the possibility probability a terrorist gets through posed as a Syrian refugee. As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

Love takes risks. I understand that there is a 'battle of loves' here; love for our own countrymen vs. love for refugees. But if we want to claim to be a Christian country (as many Republicans claim), then by refusing to help the refugees, our country is trusting in 'horses and chariots', i.e. our military defense system instead of our God to protect us. That (Republican stance) by refusing to help those we can help to save our own hides is as anti-Christian as abortion.

Aren't you one of those who claim this isn't a Christian country?

His point is that those who claim that it is (or at some time was) are the very ones who put country before faith/obdience. Or so it would seem.

Correct.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I'm not denying the possibility probability a terrorist gets through posed as a Syrian refugee. As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

Love takes risks. I understand that there is a 'battle of loves' here; love for our own countrymen vs. love for refugees. But if we want to claim to be a Christian country (as many Republicans claim), then by refusing to help the refugees, our country is trusting in 'horses and chariots', i.e. our military defense system instead of our God to protect us. That (Republican stance) by refusing to help those we can help to save our own hides is as anti-Christian as abortion.

Aren't you one of those who claim this isn't a Christian country?

His point is that those who claim that it is (or at some time was) are the very ones who put country before faith/obdience. Or so it would seem.

You mean, like Obama, who emphatically stated that we are not a Christian country, but wants to import Syrian refugees?

No, like the Republican presidential candidates and Republican governors who aim to 'live by Christian principles' who reject the abused, hungry and homeless refugees.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'm not denying the possibility probability a terrorist gets through posed as a Syrian refugee. As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

Love takes risks. I understand that there is a 'battle of loves' here; love for our own countrymen vs. love for refugees. But if we want to claim to be a Christian country (as many Republicans claim), then by refusing to help the refugees, our country is trusting in 'horses and chariots', i.e. our military defense system instead of our God to protect us. That (Republican stance) by refusing to help those we can help to save our own hides is as anti-Christian as abortion.

Aren't you one of those who claim this isn't a Christian country?

Yes.

And my issue is more with those who DO claim it to be Christian or want to lead the country with conformity to 'Christian values' who defy Christlike behaviors and commands.

The problem is that your notion of Christlike behavior and what a "Christian country" should do is wrong.  You're so anxious to slam Republicans for hypocrisy that you've lost all rational perspective on this issue.  The irony is that you're trying to impose what you think are Christian values on everyone  (Christian or not) in the country, which is precisely the kind of thing you hate about Republicans. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I'm not denying the possibility probability a terrorist gets through posed as a Syrian refugee. As a follower of Christ, I believe it is more important for a nation that wants to claim to be Christian to show compassion and love (and with love, vulnerability and risk) to those in need than to throw up walls and refuse to help those who we KNOW are in crisis.

Love takes risks. I understand that there is a 'battle of loves' here; love for our own countrymen vs. love for refugees. But if we want to claim to be a Christian country (as many Republicans claim), then by refusing to help the refugees, our country is trusting in 'horses and chariots', i.e. our military defense system instead of our God to protect us. That (Republican stance) by refusing to help those we can help to save our own hides is as anti-Christian as abortion.

Aren't you one of those who claim this isn't a Christian country?

Yes.

And my issue is more with those who DO claim it to be Christian or want to lead the country with conformity to 'Christian values' who defy Christlike behaviors and commands.

The problem is that your notion of Christlike behavior and what a "Christian country" should do is wrong.  You're so anxious to slam Republicans for hypocrisy that you've lost all rational perspective on this issue.  The irony is that you're trying to impose what you think are Christian values on everyone  (Christian or not) in the country, which is precisely the kind of thing you hate about Republicans.

Living as Christ and having opinions as He does is not a rational perspective.

As a Christ follower, I have to support the refugees. I don't demand it of my country. I support the life of the unborn but don't demand it of my country. I support the Bible but don't protest removal of verses from governmental buildings. I support peace but don't demand my country never go to war.

I am not a politician nor in a place of governmental power. All I have is the power of my own opinion and actions. What I demand of the Republicans is they be consistent because those in power DO have the power to act like Christ but refuse to do so, unless they can use it to rally support for their own agendas and increase their personal power. I know SCOTUS is hearing an abortion-related case but it is more about states' rights. Why haven't the Republicans raided the White House with anti-abortion bills? Because the NEED abortion as a means against which they can protest and sucker garner the votes of the religious. The NEED abortion because it will cause more people to need welfare and they have to maintain the 'little government' propaganda they spew.

So yes, this is an anti-Republican agenda on my end. I won't deny it. But on a personal level, I have to be for the refugees because of Christ's teaching. I just don't expect it or demand it from my government when it doesn't claim to be acting on behalf of Christ or morality. But I should demand it of those politicians who are attempting to act on the behalf of Christ or morality and are acting with as much political power as they can muster, to reject the teachings of Jesus.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As a Christ follower, I have to support the refugees. I don't demand it of my country. I support the life of the unborn but don't demand it of my country. I support the Bible but don't protest removal of verses from governmental buildings. I support peace but don't demand my country never go to war.

Then stop saying we, as a country, should be taking in the refugees. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

As a Christ follower, I have to support the refugees. I don't demand it of my country. I support the life of the unborn but don't demand it of my country. I support the Bible but don't protest removal of verses from governmental buildings. I support peace but don't demand my country never go to war.

Then stop saying we, as a country, should be taking in the refugees.

And that is my opinion. Why should I not be allowed to express my opinion? I'm not going to mandate the government, do a political protest or even sign a petition.

So I will continue to express my opinion about what I believe the right thing for our country to do.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As a Christ follower, I have to support the refugees. I don't demand it of my country. I support the life of the unborn but don't demand it of my country. I support the Bible but don't protest removal of verses from governmental buildings. I support peace but don't demand my country never go to war.

Then stop saying we, as a country, should be taking in the refugees.

And that is my opinion. Why should I not be allowed to express my opinion? I'm not going to mandate the government, do a political protest or even sign a petition.

So I will continue to express my opinion about what I believe the right thing for our country to do.

Go ahead.  But you're the hypocrite, not Republicans. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

As a Christ follower, I have to support the refugees. I don't demand it of my country. I support the life of the unborn but don't demand it of my country. I support the Bible but don't protest removal of verses from governmental buildings. I support peace but don't demand my country never go to war.

Then stop saying we, as a country, should be taking in the refugees.

And that is my opinion. Why should I not be allowed to express my opinion? I'm not going to mandate the government, do a political protest or even sign a petition.

So I will continue to express my opinion about what I believe the right thing for our country to do.

Go ahead.  But you're the hypocrite, not Republicans.

I think we both are.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Obama just slammed Republicans for being afraid of widows and orphans.

No problem. Let's admit loads and loads of widows and orphans.

At least then, no one can be accused of breaking up families by turning away, say, able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 30.

Yes, but we should accept widows only when it comes to women.  Last night, a woman, said to be Abaaoud's jihadi bride, fired an AK47 at police before blowing herself up with a suicide belt.  I'm sure she would never have done this if French police killed Abaaoud and she was a widow. 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/620191/French-Police-Paris-Stade-de-France-heavy-gunfire-St-Denis-North-Paris-Terror-Attacks

Update:  Her husband was killed.  If he was killed before she blew herself up, then she was a widow for that period of time.