Posted on 10/19/2011 5:21:41 PM PDT by wmfights
Hearing Mitt Romney’s surrogate Bill Bennett refer to me as a bigot and Jon Huntsman call me a “moron” last week after my controversial comments on Mormonism, amid calls for civility and tolerance in public discourse, reminds me of the exclamation: “We will not tolerate intolerance!” But beyond the personal insults, I am concerned that these men are attempting to prematurely marginalize religion as a relevant topic in elections. Utilizing such incendiary rhetoric against those of us who dare bring up a candidate’s spiritual beliefs cuts off discussion about religion before it begins.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Perhaps the author of Hebrews was unfamiliar with Genesis 12 - 17
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Does this mean that they are to obey the Law of the land ?
Everyone is to obey the law of the land except when it violates the law of God.
Does this mean they can be Lawless ?
Everyone is to obey the law of the land except when it violates the law of God.
Does this mean we must accept their Lawlessness ?
Everyone is to obey the law of the land except when it violates the law of God.
Does this mean they are entitled to that which they have not earned ?
If it is given to them as a gift, or if it is the result of accident, tragic need, or God's direct will.font>
Or as most commentaries suggest these are they who wish to follow YHvH.
A sojourner in the land of Israel would be exposed to the faith and practice of the people of Israel. They would have to make a decision regarding the Lord. The parallel to that in the US would be a decision about loyalty to this land or not?
Heb 11:9 - “life a stranger in a foreign land..”
I’m a peripheral visionary.
I also called both of them down for single-sourcing their Scriptural arguments without accounting for all of the Scriptural passages.
I have not even stated what my own position on this issue is because, well, I don't have one. I simply do not see a way to turn back the clock to properly secure our borders--Marlowe is right that that ship has sailed. By the same token, I recognize that continuing to offer services just continues to encourage more lawlessness. Not doing so, however, breeds a resentful under-class.
I categorically reject the notion that showing compassion to the children means not enforcing the law and the penalty of the law on the parents of the alien. I seriously doubt that argument would have gotten me out of paying that traffic ticket Monday, so why should it work for the alien?
We all recognize that sometimes children suffer when their parents are sentenced for breaking the law. That's one of the unfortunate injustices of the present world that simply cannot be avoided. A person does not have to be a hypocrite to construe that those who flagrantly disobey the law by illegally entering a country might just have to pay the penalty of not having access to public services.
I was calling for moderation of the tone, not attacking either side of the debate.
Shalom
Actually, there's an inverted parallel in the Jewish settlements issue. Jews built settlements in Judea under the understanding that they had a right to do so. The government didn't stop them at the time. However, when it was decided that those settlements were "illegal" (BS, we all know), they were uprooted and moved back over the border--by the police and military, where necessary.
Oh, btw, Marlowe tried to play the, "A Jew should understand!" card earlier. The difference is that during the Middle Ages the Jews would typically be allowed to emmigrate into a country legally, then kicked out and their assets siezed a few generations later when they had become prosperous. That's simply not parallel to the situation here.
Shalom
And the LAW in Texas is that if you graduate from High School in Texas you are eligible to get in-state tuition rates. To deny those benefits to any child who meets that criteria is to violate Texas law. There is no Federal Law which over-rides this Texas law.
The people of the state of Texas have spoken. If you don't like it, don't live there.
if you read the thread you would know that I did not call him a hypocrite because I disagreed with his interpretation of scripture, but because he was claiming to be exercising "righteous" judgment in accusing Perry of being a thief.
he could not even point to a single line of scripture to back up his self-righteous claim.
Funny, when God commanded the Israelites to treat aliens as they would native born, he seemed to play that same card.
Lev 19:34 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am YHvH your God.
God told them they needed to remember that they were also aliens in a strange land and that is why they need to treat aliens within their land with due compassion and respect regardless of the circumstances in which they found themselves in the country.
FWIW God's Law supersedes man's law. But you knew that.
(Although three lefts do.)
Shalom
So in your mind, King David was a hypocrite then?
On what Scriptural grounds would you want to repeal the Texas Dream Act.
Can you find a single verse of scripture which would indicate that the children of illegal aliens who were brought here by their parents and who have committed no crime themselves should not be treated in the manner that the State of Texas has decreed?
I earlier posted about a dozen scriptures that clearly state that we are not to treat aliens any differently than we treat our native born. So show me some scriptures that refute that.
God didn't add that, P-Marlowe did.
Indeed, David was a hypocrite, a liar, a murderer and a man after God's own heart.
Now please reference where you think I might consider David to be a hypocrite in regard to the Texas Dream Act.
Did not God command the Israelites to love the aliens as they love themselves?
Did He qualify that command to only love those aliens who filled out proper immigration papers?
I seem to recall Jews being ordered to abandon foreign wives and children. Yes, there were and are conditions about who may reside in the Land of Israel when Jews have sovereignty over it.
See also post #61, where I asked you again to answer those questions.
Shalom
I believe you are talking about Ezra. But there is no indication in the scriptures that when Ezra admonished the Israelites to abandon their foreign wives he was speaking for God. Indeed the whole of scripture would suggest otherwise.
Given how often foreign wives were a stumbling block to Israel (just look at Solomon), I would suggest that your assessment is incomplete.
Scripture makes a distinction between a foreign wife and one who becomes a proselyte. Solomon's wives were the former--retaining their Gentile ways and gods--while Ruth would be a good example of the latter.
Shalom
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.