/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Letting a culture as…toxic would be the go to word here but I do not want to use that…*shit, can't use "problematic" either**…vile as the one currently invading Europe is not Biblical. Infact you could probably make a case against it on Biblical grounds, with how punishment from God because of Jewish behavior was usually letting another culture take them over.

The question skips out of Religion and heads into Politics too though. There's no rational political reason to do something like this either.

Definitely not a clear cut case.

The Bible is pretty explicit, especially the New Testament about the christian's duty to help those in need, even when its detrimental to him. The "worth" or christian credentials of the prospective recipient seem to be pretty irrelevant. You could make an argument using logic and reason about why letting in people like these is a bad idea; after all, if Christendom falls, who will spread the message and fulfill all these things?

You could also argue that its not the christian's job to "defend christendom", an abstract concept, not from straight aggressors but from beggars and refugees. That that's God's job and your job is to be nice, love your brother and deal with whatever negative consequence that entails, not be the judge of when the commandments are valid and when you ought to kill people or neglect your duties instead.

There's also the argument that the Muslims could be God's punishment for the sins of Europe; there is a precedent of God using pagans to achieve this end. Cases could be made for both fighting back and meekly accepting God's judgement.

TL;DR Do what you think is best and hopefully God will forgive you if you choose the wrong choice.

>>9076

I think I was high went I wrote this…I contradicted myself all over the place.

Forget I said anything.

>>9070

No. It's imperative that we help those less fortunate, but letting in this garbage just hurts the weak that are already here. They say they want to destroy us. So let us love them and send aid and missionaries… While they stay in their countries.

No. Have you read the story of the Tower of Babel?

A total absolute open borders?

no.

God is a God of order, and such thing have been proven to only hurt the nation, not oly economically but logistially. For example, in sweaden they tried to give each refugee an id, and they refused and protested because they didt wanted to be treated like cattle even tho everybody else is treated the same. That cannot work.

>>9087

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

>>9093

Are your material possessions holy? Your home, your lands? Are communal tax resources holy? That would be hard to defend I think

What makes the migrants swine and undeserving of this aid? More specifically, I'm not asking what makes these people undeserving of salvation or anything like that, that God's business. I'm asking what makes it so that the commandments previously mentioned do not apply to a Christian in this context?

While all scripture has multiple interpretations, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the position of a refugee would be unwilling or unappreciative of material aid. I would argue this refers to the sharing of ideas.

>>9095

> it would be hard to argue that anyone in the position of a refugee would be unwilling or unappreciative of material aid

would it now

http://news.yahoo.com/finlands-no-good-disappointed-migrants-turn-back-152042061.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/29/refugees-refusing-leave-bus-too-cold-sweden-removed

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/refugees-in-sumte-germany-complain-about-food-boring-village/article/448544

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4_vCNrCXUg

>>9096

That's a good point, although that would still not warrant a case for denying aid to refugees in general (or target based on race or religion) simply because these specific people chose to reject aid.

Essentially, the actions of the recipient, as long as they aren't actively trying to kill you, don't free the christian from the moral responsibility of helping a person, any person, in need, especially when wealth is in relative abundance.

>>9095

Well the "refugees" we let in are the ones who fucking hate us a.k.a Islam. Also The greatest charity a christian can do is get them back on their feet and self sufficient. You know give a man a fish you feed him for a day. teach a man to fish you feed him for the life time. Currently we are doing part one and the fish is running out and they are complaining the way it is cooked

>>9097

The problem with this is that it will inevitably turn into a debate about consequentialism. Perhaps you are right in saying that the actions of the recipient against yourself don't free you from your moral responsibility—but what of their actions towards others? Take the Cologne sexual assaults. It may be our duty to help those who flee from conflict assuming that they are all refugees lol, but if they then commit harm to others would it not be our duty to help them by turning their aggressors away in the first place?

>>9087

>white supremacists always bring this one up

That's because when it comes to hubris, white supremacists pretty much fit the definition.

>>9098

Yeah, because when the multitudes went to Christ and only had 2 fishes and 5 loaves of barley bread, Christ said, "Pull thyself up by thy bootstraps!"

Oh … no wait … he fed the multitudes without question.

And that "teach a man to fish" blah blah blah? Not Christian. It was said by Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon), a Sephardic Jewish philosopher and physician.

>>9116

he fed them because he had the means for it.

Do you think that countries with broken economies can feed them?

Would you receive them in your house even if you didnt had with what to feed them or clothe them?

>>9118

this

>>9116

Also the people were originally going to go the surrounding towns to collect food but Jesus offered to provide it because he wanted them to stay and listen to what he was going to teach

>>9118

Its not about the practical concern anyways, its about the hypothetical moral scenario. IF you can take them in, even at your own discomfort and expense, are you obligated to do it? This is also an individual Christian concern, we can safely assume the secular European governments do not care what Jesus said about any of this, so we shouldn't think of it in terms of States and economies and debt and welfare especially not in terms of "races" and "peoples", but a hypothetical average joe, maybe middle-class or poor, someone you can be, who happens to believe the Bible is a divine document.