Reaping the whirlwind: CT, part 2

[seanD]

If one looks at the entire context of scripture and its admonitions not to neglect the poor and the suffering, it is fairly obvious context does not negate JimL's point.

From this point on till the 26th of December, my only posts on TWEB will be in the Christmas Truce thread.

The scriptures also give admonitions about countries going into debt (Deuteronomy 28:12). Long story short, if a country is in debt, it can't care for its own poor, much less foreigners. That's why we don't acknowledge quote-mining atheists lecturing to us about scripture.

[Terraceth]

The scriptures also give admonitions about countries going into debt (Deuteronomy 28:12). Long story short, if a country is in debt, it can't care for its own poor, much less foreigners. That's why we don't acknowledge quote-mining atheists lecturing to us about scripture.

Deuteronomy 28:12 isn't an admonition about countries going into debt. The context is that it's talking about how blessed Israel would be if it follows God's decrees. One of the blessings would be that Israel would be so prosperous it would only be lending and wouldn't need to borrow. To read that as some kind of admonition about countries going into debt requires one to divorce it entirely from its context.

[seanD]

Deuteronomy 28:12 isn't an admonition about countries going into debt. The context is that it's talking about how blessed Israel would be if it follows God's decrees. One of the blessings would be that Israel would be so prosperous it would only be lending and wouldn't need to borrow. To read that as some kind of admonition about countries going into debt requires one to divorce it entirely from its context.

Well, then the same could be said for the passage that instructs the Israelites to take in foreigners. It's all about context. The context that command shows up is typically Israel being blessed with prosperity for following God's commands, thus they can afford to care for foreigners. Not only does US not follow God's commands because it's secular for the most part, but it obviously isn't being blessed since the criteria of being blessed from the passage I cited is not being indebted to other countries.

[JimL]

Fixed. You need new material.

One needn't be reigious to be compassionate, but the argument should work on christians, because they are christians, and profess to believe in the biblical teachings of Jesus.

[JimL]

As a general admonition to the individual, you are correct. But as it applies to government policy, no.

As an individual opposed to a government that would apply that scriptural principle in its policy, you are opposing the scripture itself.

[JimL]

His post was either a troll or a cynical manipulation attempt. He's not interested in exegesis and logic, how 'do not mistreat the foreigner among you' does not mean open the borders wide or that you can't punish illegals according to the law.

Nor did I say that, so lets not put words in my mouth, please.

[demi-conservative]

One needn't be reigious to be compassionate, but the argument should work on christians, because they are christians, and profess to believe in the biblical teachings of Jesus.

Nor did I say that, so lets not put words in my mouth, please.

[JimL]

What, no more love affair between your dear leader Putin, oops, I mean Trump, and K. J. Un?

[Mountain Man]

As an individual opposed to a government that would apply that scriptural principle in its policy, you are opposing the scripture itself.

If I'm opposed to government "charity", it's only because I don't trust the government to do the job that is best done by the individual.

[JimL]

If I'm opposed to government "charity", it's only because I don't trust the government to do the job that is best done by the individual.

So what you call charity is throwing immigrants, children who've grown up in this country, out of the country and closing the border to the poor and destitute. got ya!

[simplicio]

If I'm opposed to government "charity", it's only because I don't trust the government to do the job that is best done by the individual.

But it boils down whether individuals are willing to take on the burdens if charitable works.

Can it be left to the private sector?

[Rushing Jaws]

Most liberal websites don't allow for open comments. They're cowardly that way.

A fair number of Christian Youtubers don’t - presumably to avoid spam.