The debate "In the words of jesus help others as long as it comes at no risk to you" was started by
January 31, 2017, 10:40 am.
By the way, PoliticsAsUsual is disagreeing with this statement.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
MrShine posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 10 arguments, MrShine posted 3 arguments, Christian posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
SharpHost, slipknot, human and 1 visitor agree.
Najam1, MrShine, thereal, PoliticsAsUsual, Your_dad, Christian, neveralone, ProfDoke and 2 visitors disagree.
Jesus said it is better to lay down your life for someone else
we are still a group but also individuals. I think we are going to see a re of reform with everyone soon . or the fall of America. I pray for the first.
with a good screening process Im happy to take in the ones that need our help. idk on how ours is right now but will check it out.
ww2 Pearl harbor we rounded up Japanese people. it was tense. then right after we went into isolation because the people wanted nothing to do with the outside world. much like now. it worries me.
to add to the real information requirement.
real information is not enough. shine used real information, just an overly simplified, undetailed version that skipped any nuance or real time line of events.
I'm not going to generalize about you from one post as you are usually quite informed, but do try to work on spotting missing details and ask questions of your news when it looks like info is missing or overly simplified.
There are some subtle differences that you seem to have missed when you decided to equate the two. I understand you difficulty since Trump wasn't bright enough to see them either.
Obama slowed down processing of refugees due to a real threat. He didn't ban people from entering.
Trump banned people from those countries, even people with green cards. He then started backpedaling when it was realized how big the backlash was and how many people had been already on planes and at airports. People nominated for Oscars can't go since they are banned from entering the country.
Try again but this time use real information.
linking a cite confirming something about Trump's ban when being accused of lying about Obamas ban is also dishonest.
green card holder are legal residents, they shouldn't have been included to begin with, and weren't at, at all.
Trump banned them all. he was forced to allow Greenland holders in after every legal mind in the nation pointed out it was ILLEGAL to ban them.
besides green card holders ALL OTHERS ARE BANNED, NO EXCEPTION, NO CASE BY CASE.
and rather alternative news claim against you was not about Trump's ban, but Obamas not a ban, in which not a single category was banned completely and only 1 type of visa was limited to case by case.
my alternative news (about the Obama accusation, quit twisting) accusation still stands, and your ludicrous and dishonest comparison leaves much to be desired.
limiting 1 category vs banning all categories is nowhere near the same thing and is completely dishonest.
Do you like CNN or doing research? Or does the alternate facts claim give you endless firepower? These cases you've listed are going through a sorting issue, dual citizenships can be under review just as German dual citizenships can be revoked (and there's nothing to worry about if there's no red flags).
Many officials have been released. If Obama didn't do a ban, neither did trump. Pick one.
Obama never issued a ban. he slowed the acceptance of applications for a CERTAIN TYPE of visa, and refugees don't use visas.
so that is one of those "alternative facts"
and a key point is that there was still case by case review (your words) whereas trump even tried to ban green card legal residents. no case by case, foreign diplomats, European dual nationals, students including one trying to finish his studies in Harvard but went on break to his mom, and all other categories. complete freeze, no case by case.
there are threads about this, I am just addressing your completely false assertion and would request we keep this to the contradictory overall Christian reaction.
@neveralone, note the overall.
My reference to the last time this happened was when Obama established a ban for Iraq in 2011, and similarly has let very few in on a case by case basis.
I'm not referencing the ban. I'm referencing the right's resistance of taking in any refugees for months now.
I'm not sure what "last time" you are referring to.
it's absolutely not all christians, in fact I've heard from many Christians congregations who oppose this, particularly the many congregations that actively helped and sought out refugees to take into their communities.
there was also a response from the Christians in Syria who told trump he can take his Christian exemption and shove it.
I'm not talking about individuals, or even congregations, I'm talking about the greater Christian community across the nation, and the people who speak/represent them. and they are overwhelmingly against it.
I do highly suspect that they are fake Christians only doing this to get votes, but i also suspect many of the "christians" here are on the anti refugee side. I'm pretty certain most of the prominent right wing debators here, aside from yourself, are anti refugee as well.
whoops, wrong color. Don't use the blue.
Agreed with never alone, but on some nuances, the ban is a temporary one to revise the screening process, so what if the screening proves much more effective? There have been incidents based on the influences, as well contact with Isis.(Bernardino 'home grown', the bombers, Florida) If we look at Europe, there have been numerous issue beyond terrorism, rape pits and closed areas for example.
Not that America wouldn't take risks, but the risks shouldn't be larger than they have to, and 'Christian'? Not everyone in the US is going to default on a majority for a risk, and the Christians can't exactly decide for the nonChristians that disagree. The risks still do exist, and the risk isn't one solved with a majority vote. The smartest thing to do is to provide the refugees with areas like Saudis Arabia, which match the culture and have plenty of space.
I agree with taking in refugees, and we should be smart about it too. The ban was too soon, untimely, but those grievances can also be addressed to what was done in 2011. Wouldn't this topic also have gone well in the previous thread I created?
If that is what you think Jesus taught, you have obviously never read the Bible.
For some verses that might be of interest to you;
Mathew 19:21 or mark 10:21 or Luke 12:33
(same story, different gospels)
And if you ignore all else and don't bother to look them up,
1 John 3:16-18
We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth
Jesus did not teach caring at no personal risk. He taught to help others no matter the cost. By bastardizing his teachings, you show that you don't want to flow scripture so much as justify what you want to do.
also this is more about scares people more than Christians. we need to calm them down without hurting our Reliance's with other nations. remind them about the last time we did this we almost went bankrupt till we stopped.
not all of us. I think we might consider a better screening process but there are people there that need our help and we need to help them. I don't think this banning of countries is in any way a good idea.
or at least that seems to be the claim the Christian right is making as far as refugees go.
despite the fact that no outside Muslim has carried out a single attack on our people in almost 2 decades, the mere existence of a possibility of a threat is enough for many of the so called "Christians" to say: "f*** the needy."