I don't think we disagree all that much.
I do believe we should help people not starve to death as they
wait outside our border.
But even aid programs have a practical limit.
We are trillions of dollars in debt and it is getting worse.
Both the Catholics and Muslims encourage large families
even when there are no good jobs and little water or food.
Get real.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

There's really only one religious side to the discussion. OT and NT and church teachings are all pretty unanimous about how we should treat immigrants, foreigners, and travelers. All the counterarguments are either practical or political, not religious. Territorial defense and integrity, whether home or country, isn't a Christian religious concept.

---

Working for a living or selling yourself into slavery and leaving behind your religion and customs sure is, though. How much of this OT/NT lense are we going to look through?

---

That was not a value judgement, just pointing out a pet peeve of mine. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christian teaching because it isn't prudent or it isn't pragmatic or it doesn't fit the situation. My pet peeve is people trying to make those arguments religious. Whether it is foul language, dress codes, alcohol use, or immigration, people who are contrary to the basic and fundamental Christian teachings on the subject like to think their principled disagreement is divinely inspired in way, shape or form. It's not. There is only one Christian teaching on the issue.

I think it's a legitimate point to say that we can't afford to take care of a horde of foreigners coming into our country, but there is no Christian religious basis for that argument

---

If you cannot bring them in with those expectations and responsibilities, is it really out of bounds, religiously? People are brought into the community with obligations placed on them. Todays migration is nothing of the sort.

---

I would point out that Christian love, mercy, compassion, and generosity don't come with upper boundaries. Doing all of those things to the point of self detriment is an quintessentially Christian as anything can be. Any limitations on this are worldly, not religious

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

There's really only one religious side to the discussion. OT and NT and church teachings are all pretty unanimous about how we should treat immigrants, foreigners, and travelers. All the counterarguments are either practical or political, not religious. Territorial defense and integrity, whether home or country, isn't a Christian religious concept.

---

Working for a living or selling yourself into slavery and leaving behind your religion and customs sure is, though. How much of this OT/NT lense are we going to look through?

---

That was not a value judgement, just pointing out a pet peeve of mine. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christian teaching because it isn't prudent or it isn't pragmatic or it doesn't fit the situation. My pet peeve is people trying to make those arguments religious. Whether it is foul language, dress codes, alcohol use, or immigration, people who are contrary to the basic and fundamental Christian teachings on the subject like to think their principled disagreement is divinely inspired in way, shape or form. It's not. There is only one Christian teaching on the issue.

I think it's a legitimate point to say that we can't afford to take care of a horde of foreigners coming into our country, but there is no Christian religious basis for that argument

---

Is it imprudent or isn't it? There's no tension at all between perfect Prudential judgement and God's mercy.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

There's really only one religious side to the discussion. OT and NT and church teachings are all pretty unanimous about how we should treat immigrants, foreigners, and travelers. All the counterarguments are either practical or political, not religious. Territorial defense and integrity, whether home or country, isn't a Christian religious concept.

---

Working for a living or selling yourself into slavery and leaving behind your religion and customs sure is, though. How much of this OT/NT lense are we going to look through?

---

That was not a value judgement, just pointing out a pet peeve of mine. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christian teaching because it isn't prudent or it isn't pragmatic or it doesn't fit the situation. My pet peeve is people trying to make those arguments religious. Whether it is foul language, dress codes, alcohol use, or immigration, people who are contrary to the basic and fundamental Christian teachings on the subject like to think their principled disagreement is divinely inspired in way, shape or form. It's not. There is only one Christian teaching on the issue.

I think it's a legitimate point to say that we can't afford to take care of a horde of foreigners coming into our country, but there is no Christian religious basis for that argument

---

If you cannot bring them in with those expectations and responsibilities, is it really out of bounds, religiously? People are brought into the community with obligations placed on them. Todays migration is nothing of the sort.

---

I would point out that Christian love, mercy, compassion, and generosity don't come with upper boundaries. Doing all of those things to the point of self detriment is a quintessentially Christian as anything can be. Any limitations on this are worldly, not religious

---

Actually they do. Israel required it.

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

---

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

---

Is it loving and compassionate in every context to allow immigration?
It's not those things to do anything someone wants you to do all the time as long as it personally benefits them. What is the compassionate thing when you're caught in the middle of a battle of wills where person A wants you to do one thing, and person B wants you to do a mutually exclusive thing? You're bettering someone's situation to the detriment of the other guy's.

The question is what are each person's rights and obligations in that scenario. What you're doing is isolating Godly attributes from other attributes like justice and prudence. They're not competing notions in Christianity. Things can be superficially loving and compassionate, but actually wrong.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

---

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.

---

You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

---

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.

---

You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

---

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

---

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.

---

You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

---

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.

---

I'd argue that you are 100% focused on worldly things. The ideal of Christianity is self sacrifice of everything we have, including our lives. Because this life is only worth the good with can do with it. Our life, our time, our money, and our happiness are only important as long as we use those to make the world better and show love for our fellow man. That's a hard ideal, and most of us fall short. I certainly do.

But I still don't understand Christians criticizing other Christians for being too charitable or too merciful, and I certainly don't understand Christians persecuting other Christians for these things. Especially to defend worldly concepts like borders or states, and even more vague concepts like politics or strain on social services. It reminds me of the lady that got arrested for giving food to the homeless. As Christians, we should believe that some things are good whether they are legal or not

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/woman-arrested-feeding-homeless-1.6632153

Quote:

---

Associating self sacrificial love with the loss of your family, peace, and stability as a natural byproduct is nuts.

---

Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[c]
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.


Luke 12:52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'


Yep. Completely nuts, and also exactly what we are called to do as Christians.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Associating self sacrificial love with the loss of your family, peace, and stability as a natural byproduct is nuts.

---

Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[c]
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.


Luke 12:52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'


Yep. Completely nuts, and also exactly what we are called to do as Christians.

---

This is so bad. When I saw this, my first thought was "oh no!" Best argument against the perspicuity of scripture I've ever seen.

Quote:

---

I wrote the above in a different thread on this same topic, but it bears repeating. Radical love of neighbor, yes. But not to the detriment of others to whom I have a higher obligation. Finally, the salvation of souls is the supreme law; not that everyone can live in a first world nation.

---

The Gospels hammer this home again and again. No one is more important than anyone else. If you are starving your children to feed strangers, then you are wrong. If you are starving strangers to feed your children, then you are equally wrong. Our first responsibility is to God, ie being humble, honest, fair, and good. Our second responsibility is to love one another like we love ourselves (or our children, or our parents, or our friends, or our countrymen). All other responsibilities are inferior to these. That's the ideal. That's Christian perfection.

Everything else that prevents someone from helping someone else in need is just worldly noise. Unfortunately, a lot of American Christians are entirely of the world, obsessed with greed, ambition, and politics. It blows my mind that any of this is controversial in the slightest. It's Christianity 101

Wonderful word salad. What does it mean in regards to the border?
You do know that solidarity has long been a favorite term of socialists, particularly those doing union organizing?
The current leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is...well, not surprised they use the term.

Edit to add this video which improved my opinion of Catholic defined solidarity.

Relax, there's lots of bacon in that salad. It was an answer to questions/criticisms of one of my earlier points. I'm sorry if I didn't quote/reply them, bro. Not the best at internetting. And look up the Polish solidarity movement and its roll against communism in the 80s/90s.

Read the whole transcript of his interview and he is saying the very same thing the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have already written.

He does add in that he is in favor of a wall, which the RCC has not weighed in on- but the RCC has always- always stated for a safe and orderly process for migrants at any border. So "No" to an open border and "No" to a closed border. Why? Because God made the world not man. We are stewards. When man thinks this land belongs to him and him alone- selfishness and greed can replace mercy to welcome the stranger in a new land.

Chip Roy has been outspoken on this issue.

You know why crime in Venezuela is down?

Because international gangs like Tren de Aragua are flocking to the United States.

Haiti is next - the Biden Admin is not prepared for what’s coming and does not respect the rule of law pic.twitter.com/nqQ3NZSV4K

— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) March 14, 2024

this type of demagoguery goes against all of the data for long periods of time.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/01/undocumented-immigrant-crime-rate-not-higher/72788637007/

The truth is not demagoguery.
The lie is that after laying off massive numbers of cops,
the crime rate went down.
Certainly not all illegals are gang members,
but many are welfare recipients, and an unknown number are terrorists.
We really don't know how bad its going to get.

What do you mean by "welfare"?

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-FINALupdated.pdf

And estimates are that undocumented immigrants pay around $11 to $12b in taxes each year which has been widening the gap between what they pay in and what they take out.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I heartily disagree, but it's worth discussing. So what are the upper boundaries for a Christian when it comes to love, mercy, charity, and compassion? When is enough love enough?

---

You haven't defined any of those terms or applied them to our situation. Let's take someone who turns an eight year old girl over to a cartel to come to our country. Is it love to let her come in and not know what happens to her once she's here? Is it love to take responsibility for the horrors she endured getting here, sent by parents who wanted a better life?

Apply your ideas to the actual people coming over the border and their reality.

---

You're the one who was suggesting a limit to these things, so I'm not sure why the onus falls back on me to set scenarios. Our doctrine and example is clear. Love others, including your enemies and those that hate you, to the point of complete self sacrifice and to the point that is costs you everything, including peace, wealth, stability, and family. That's the example of Jesus, the Apostles, and any number of Saints and saints throughout the history of Christianity.

I don't get the point of your example. From the perspective of the Catholic charity, they see that scared and helpless 8 year old and provide food, water, shelter and support. I find it hard for any Christian to take issue with that. As far as her parents, I have no answers. I can't think of a specific example that corresponds to your thought experiment, so there may not be any families sending 8 year old girls alone to cross the border. That would certainly be atypical behavior. As said above, young men are usually the expendable ones in any group, and they are also the ones with the greatest chance of success and least chance of being kidnapped and enslaved. If there are actually parents sending 8 year old girls alone to the cartels, then I shudder to imagine who bad their life must be. It must be truly terrifying and horrible for that to seem like the better option.

---

I'd argue you're negating basic necessities for every day life and taking emotional hostages under the guise of Christianity. Borders and boundaries exist because without them there is only chaos; nothing has form if you cannot distinguish between yourself and others, your family and theirs, the church and those outside. So number one, yes, there are natural and meaningful limits on all things, even love and charity because without them those concepts don't exist.

To follow your logic, starving your children is good and commendable by God if immigrants are fed.

Culturally we all live very different lives. I don't assume anything about someone who sends that child. Illegal immigration is being rewarded right now so they could just be using the system as it is, or hoping for another dreamer act.

---

Wait, is the argument that the border crisis is taking food away from our own U.S. children and giving it to immigrants? I believe we have to seriously curtail the immigration problem. But sometimes it sounds like we are looking to scenarios that don't exist to support extreme measures. I don't think anyone would disagree that the U.S. is a country of extreme excess. Shortage of food is never now, nor will likely be in the near future a problem. What is a problem is the management of the excess and then delivery. Obviously the U.S. tried to feed other nations for a long time and it was fraught with corruption.
So arguing about immigration based on just offering the basics for survival is one thing. Arguing the potential crime and chaos that ensues with unfettered illegal immigration is another.
I want to be prudent about the borders and stop the flow. I also want to be able to stand before God and explain why I wasn't willing to help children be fed that were starving when there was an opportunity. Our politics should end when they oppose the love and service to other God commands of us.

God does not command us to do stupid things that risk our own health.
The Dems have hopes that this open border policy (or whatever you want to call it) will make their controlled voting block so large that they will become the one ruling party in America.
The Catholics want a government that will work hand-in-hand with them.
The multi-national corps want cheap workers and countries to be blocked up like the EU so that laws will not vary so much, and taxes can be controlled more easily than by engaging in constant expensive elections.
I just want the America that I knew as a child.
I don't really have any chance, but I'm going to make noise anyway.

No, you need to read the argument that's being posted: that love and charity have no boundaries or limit for the Christian.