Posted on 03/23/2006 1:48:05 AM PST by GiovannaNicoletta
In this case, it would be to teach you a well needed lesson.
You don't think that the law of the land back then allowed them to enslave and persecute immigrants/strangers/aliens? I understand that we are told to obey our government and those put above us, but I also find it "quaint" that so many are adamant that the laws of Man trump the Word of God and His implied intent.
That said, if we don't allow people like the Prez to start the first baby steps of starting to document those living here illegally, instead of insisting on wholesale rounding up of them, we might actually make a little progress. It took decades to get to the point it's at and it will take a long time to straighten it out. All things happen in His time, if we let them happen.
God Bless
how about checking out exodus 23...
31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. 32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33 Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you."
sounds pretty straightforward.
We'll have to agree to disagree then.
There were rules about trespass even back then. If you killed an intruder by night in your house, it was okay.
No, you would soon have drug operations in your back yard, bumfights, and all that jazzy stuff.
Let (s)he who is without sin, cast the first stone...
What a disingenuous witch.
There can be NO voting for this woman. Period.
Stay tuned.
That's quite different than advertising that you have programs for illegals.
The whole tone of this thread is that we are morally obligated to help illegals. That requires knowledge that they are, in fact, illegal. If there's no reason why someone would know, then they shouldn't be held accountable.
Render to Ceasar...
L
Oh, dear God, hasten the day when the Clintons either have genuinely repented and come to saving faith, or have vanished like the fading memory of some ill-timed diarrhea.
Dan
Perhaps you midunderstood my post. What H. Clinton said is not a serious argument. It is emotional pandering. It cannot be right. It can be effective.
On the ports deal, the Congress listended to the constituency. That's the way it's supposed to be. Bush was right on the substance, but not on the politics of the issue.
If the bill outlaws the Catholic Church from giving Holy Communion, Hillary (for once) is right on substance too, regardless of her intent to pander or not.
Off-topic, but why do you think the politics of every other prior CFIUS approval was O.K.?
Well we obviously disagree on what the Church should be required to do. If you keep reading in Romans 13 (of course, we should all obey the law and pay our taxes), the GREATER obligation is to love our neighbor:
"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."
Romans 13:8-10
It doesn't say I will love my neighbor...it says I will love my neighbor as myself. Wouldn't you say that dramatically changes the meaning of the scripture?
Not if you know Scripture. I have to go, our we could discuss forever what level of "love" God requires of us.
Doesn't the New Testament report Jesus as saying that people should "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"
Hasn't that been interpreted as a respectful admonition to follow the laws of the State in areas of human endeavor where the State properly sets forth laws?
Do I want Hillary as my religious advisor?
When we're asked to do this, most Sunday School Christians take it to mean that we will exert ourselves for others to the degree we would for ourselves. So, darn right emotion in this case implies action.
It means more...it means we wish the best for our neighbor. We show concern and compassion for his physical needs, but just as our Lord was more concerned for the spiritual well-being of our brothers, so should we.
Would I want someone to encourage me to break the law? Do I encourage myself to do so? Most definitely not, lest I become a stumbling block, or gain the world (but lose my soul.) How, then, can I love my brother as myself and encourage him to do so? I can't.
Jesus is not asking for your dollars here. Even as he stopped the crowd from stoning the woman, he told her, "Go...and sin no more."
Should we help our brother? Yes, but not at the cost of his soul, and not at the cost of America. Turning America into the third-world hellhole that he came from does not benefit anyone.
Your admonitions for others do not impress me, nor does ray's. The trials of illegals are not due to what happens to them here, but what happens to them on the south side of the river. Show your faith then...gird your loins, wrap your robe tightly around you, and pick up your staff...walk to the Rio Grande, hold your staff out, and command the waters to part...find Vinny Fox, and give him the command..."Set my people free!!!"
After all, if your mission is of God, then how can it but prosper?
Take your dashboard Jesus, and run along now...
Oh...and BTW...if you are in fact a Christian...REPENT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.