all states should accept refugees without exception
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
17
@georgia Sure, as long as they're White refugees from South Africa.
@ChristiJunior sorry about your rich white farmers
@georgia Sorry about your mud monkey rapists.
@ChristiJunior "Christi" and yet so un-christlike
Goal𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓴𝓮𝓻 
Titus 1:14-16 cunt.
@Goalkeeper @ChristiJunior I havent read titus or much of the Pauline epistles but ive recently read the gospels, acts, the johanine literature, and james. I ask you, is whatever quotation you cite more important than "love one another as I have loved you?"
john 13:34-35
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
john 13:34-35
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
Yes, other devout poious Christians and people of Good Character. But of course you take it out of context to mean 75 IQ murderous niggers.
@Goalkeeper @ChristiJunior the commandment is love as Christ loved. if you think Christ only loved people who werent sinners youre reading a different bible.
Loving someone !== enabling their actions. Christ was not a hippie.
Also he condemned nonbelievers, REPEATEDLY.
Titus 1:15
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and UNBELIEVING is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
@Goalkeeper @ChristiJunior @matty jesus ate and forgave criminals and publicans. jesus said that you should love like he loves. you harp on a single insignificant quotation to argue that paul, who is not divine, who was engaging in a manner of polemic, would say that unbelievers are not worthy of your love.
here's a paul quote I just found.
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Corinthians 13:13.
do you know what charity meant? it doesnt mean "giving money to the poor". it means "love". the original word is agape, which is the greek word for divine love. if you look at any concordance agape is the same love that God showed for humanity by dying on the cross. paul literally says that the commandment to (divinely) love one another is more important than faith here. https://biblehub.com/greek/26.htm
"Rather, it denotes a holy, self‐giving disposition that originates in God, is displayed perfectly in Jesus Christ, and is implanted in believers by the Holy Spirit. The frequency of the term in the writings of John and Paul underscores its centrality to apostolic theology and ethics."
here's a paul quote I just found.
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Corinthians 13:13.
do you know what charity meant? it doesnt mean "giving money to the poor". it means "love". the original word is agape, which is the greek word for divine love. if you look at any concordance agape is the same love that God showed for humanity by dying on the cross. paul literally says that the commandment to (divinely) love one another is more important than faith here. https://biblehub.com/greek/26.htm
"Rather, it denotes a holy, self‐giving disposition that originates in God, is displayed perfectly in Jesus Christ, and is implanted in believers by the Holy Spirit. The frequency of the term in the writings of John and Paul underscores its centrality to apostolic theology and ethics."
>jesus ate and forgave criminals and publicans...
zombie jesus heresy...
zombie jesus heresy...
They never tell you he forgave those who accepted the salvation he offered and condemned those who cursed him. YOU HAVE TO LOVE EVERYONE.
@Goalkeeper @ChristiJunior @matty @Frondeur he literally forgave the people who crucified Him, except Judas
> he literally forgave the people who crucified Him
Yes, he forgave the Romans who crucified him "...for they know not what they do." Did he forgive the Pharisees who were responsible and did know what they were doing?
Yes, he forgave the Romans who crucified him "...for they know not what they do." Did he forgive the Pharisees who were responsible and did know what they were doing?
@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur he didnt just forgive the romans lol. he said "them", meaning the whole multitude.
Replies
8
> he didnt just forgive the romans lol. he said "them", meaning the whole multitude.
No. He was explicit. "...for they know not what they do." The Pharisees knew exactly what they were doing. Saying otherwise is a lie.
No. He was explicit. "...for they know not what they do." The Pharisees knew exactly what they were doing. Saying otherwise is a lie.
@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur just want to say that I appreciate you engaging with me in a serious manner instead of being actively cruel and just calling me a jew or saying refugees should be murdered. I dont believe this interpretation though, that the jews (besides Judas and others who knew jesus personally) all knew exactly what they were doing and that jesus only referred to the romans. they didnt believe that jesus was God, if they knew He was God they likely wouldnt have been involved in his death. many of the romans were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out the movement of a man who many thought was a dissident king, and many of the jews were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out what they thought was a man who committing a grave sin by claiming to be I AM, God. in the bible unintentional sins are treated much more leniently than intentional sins, and jesus saying "forgive them father" is an extension of that. of course, for judas, he was not only betraying a friend, but committing to death the man who he knew to be God himself, holy and perfectly sinless.
> just want to say that I appreciate you engaging with me in a serious manner instead of being actively cruel and just calling me a jew
Give me time.
> or saying refugees should be murdered.
You are aware that the only "refugees" we should accept are from Mexico and Canada, are you not? That's the international definition of who should accept refugees. The last I saw neither Mexico nor Canada were overflowing with people who had to flee for their lives.
All others have the option of leaving peaceably or, yes, they can be shot.
> I dont believe this interpretation though, that the jews (besides Judas and others who knew jesus personally) all knew exactly what they were doing and that jesus only referred to the romans.
I don't care what you believe. You've already demonstrated your interpretation of Scripture is not to be trusted.
> they didnt believe that jesus was God,
They had no excuse for not believing, especially after he himself told them he was (before Abraham was, I am). They knew exactly what he meant.
> if they knew He was God they likely wouldnt have been involved in his death.
And if they knew but refused to believe they would have done exactly what they did.
> many of the romans were doing what they thought was right
The Roman soldiers were following lawful orders. Pilate was doing what he thought was right and avoiding a revolt that would have killed hundreds or thousands of jews and possibly dozens of Roman soldiers.
Which is why Christ forgave them.
> and snuffing out the movement of a man who many thought was a dissident king,
Pilate knew better. But he didn't want a revolt on his hands, see above.
> This is f and many of the jews were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out what they thought was a man who committing a grave sin by claiming to be I AM, God.
In spite of his meeting every single one of the biblical requirements for meeting that claim. Requirements they knew and knew he had met. They knew. They refused to believe anyway.
> in the bible unintentional sins are treated much more leniently than intentional sins, and jesus saying "forgive them father" is an extension of that. of course, for judas,
His crucifixion was not "unintentional". They carefully planned it out and had the Romans do it because the feared the populace if they killed him themselves.
> he was not only betraying a friend, but committing to death the man who he knew to be God himself, holy and perfectly sinless.
The same arguments you make for the Pharisees could also apply to him. They knew as much as he did. Yet he was not forgiven.
Whether he would have been if he had repented and asked is another matter.
Give me time.
> or saying refugees should be murdered.
You are aware that the only "refugees" we should accept are from Mexico and Canada, are you not? That's the international definition of who should accept refugees. The last I saw neither Mexico nor Canada were overflowing with people who had to flee for their lives.
All others have the option of leaving peaceably or, yes, they can be shot.
> I dont believe this interpretation though, that the jews (besides Judas and others who knew jesus personally) all knew exactly what they were doing and that jesus only referred to the romans.
I don't care what you believe. You've already demonstrated your interpretation of Scripture is not to be trusted.
> they didnt believe that jesus was God,
They had no excuse for not believing, especially after he himself told them he was (before Abraham was, I am). They knew exactly what he meant.
> if they knew He was God they likely wouldnt have been involved in his death.
And if they knew but refused to believe they would have done exactly what they did.
> many of the romans were doing what they thought was right
The Roman soldiers were following lawful orders. Pilate was doing what he thought was right and avoiding a revolt that would have killed hundreds or thousands of jews and possibly dozens of Roman soldiers.
Which is why Christ forgave them.
> and snuffing out the movement of a man who many thought was a dissident king,
Pilate knew better. But he didn't want a revolt on his hands, see above.
> This is f and many of the jews were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out what they thought was a man who committing a grave sin by claiming to be I AM, God.
In spite of his meeting every single one of the biblical requirements for meeting that claim. Requirements they knew and knew he had met. They knew. They refused to believe anyway.
> in the bible unintentional sins are treated much more leniently than intentional sins, and jesus saying "forgive them father" is an extension of that. of course, for judas,
His crucifixion was not "unintentional". They carefully planned it out and had the Romans do it because the feared the populace if they killed him themselves.
> he was not only betraying a friend, but committing to death the man who he knew to be God himself, holy and perfectly sinless.
The same arguments you make for the Pharisees could also apply to him. They knew as much as he did. Yet he was not forgiven.
Whether he would have been if he had repented and asked is another matter.
@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur I'll not address your initial threat to me with more than this, but I must direct you to acts 3:17 "Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers". jesus forgave the jews, except obviously judas, who certainly resides in hellfire.
your statement that the romans were uniquely ignorant and thus blameless is unrealistic. you know pilate was said in luke to have mixed the blood of murdered jews with their animal sacrifices right? all contemporary sources about him show he was a very evil man. you are interpreting the romans as upright but thats just not true. they were a powerful empire, they were not likely browbeat into executing anyone. the roman guards humiliated and beat jesus, the soldiers divided his clothes. pilate is only made partly sympathetic in the bible to appeal to the new roman converts according to nearly all historians, and I'm interested in what happened to the actual jesus, a man who lived, died, and was ressurected.
as far as the guilt of the pharisees goes, most jews werent lawmakers and scribes, but were lay-believers.
here's more reading for you:
https://biblehub.com/q/Why_did_Jesus_forgive_His_crucifiers_2.htm
your statement that the romans were uniquely ignorant and thus blameless is unrealistic. you know pilate was said in luke to have mixed the blood of murdered jews with their animal sacrifices right? all contemporary sources about him show he was a very evil man. you are interpreting the romans as upright but thats just not true. they were a powerful empire, they were not likely browbeat into executing anyone. the roman guards humiliated and beat jesus, the soldiers divided his clothes. pilate is only made partly sympathetic in the bible to appeal to the new roman converts according to nearly all historians, and I'm interested in what happened to the actual jesus, a man who lived, died, and was ressurected.
as far as the guilt of the pharisees goes, most jews werent lawmakers and scribes, but were lay-believers.
here's more reading for you:
https://biblehub.com/q/Why_did_Jesus_forgive_His_crucifiers_2.htm
> I'll not address your initial threat to me
You have a strange view of what constitutes a threat.
> jesus forgave the jews, except obviously judas, who certainly resides in hellfire.
But Judas was no more guilty than the Pharisees who paid him, which is one of two reasons I don't accept that as the case. The other being what Jesus told Pilate in John 19:11.
> your statement that the romans were uniquely ignorant and thus blameless is unrealistic.
My statement is that they had no idea Jesus was the Son of God. They didn't even believe in his Father.
> you know pilate was said in luke to have mixed the blood of murdered jews with their animal sacrifices right? all contemporary sources about him show he was a very evil man.
You are judging evil by modern standards. He was a man of his time and a pagan.
> you are interpreting the romans as upright but thats just not true. they were a powerful empire, they were not likely browbeat into executing anyone.
At the very least Pilate would have been removed from his post if he had allowed an uprising he could have easily prevented. At worst he would have been responsible for the deaths of dozen or hundreds of Roman soldiers and possibly executed. In either case he would have failed in his duty to Caesar. It was an easy decision for him to make.
> the roman guards humiliated and beat jesus,
The were ordered to scourge him. What do you think that involves, exactly?
> the soldiers divided his clothes.
As was their right under Roman law.
> pilate is only made partly sympathetic in the bible to appeal to the new roman converts according to nearly all historians,
The Gospel wasn't written to appeal to new Roman converts. That was Paul's job. And Pilate doesn't come across as sympathetic unless you understand his role as a Roman and what it involved. In which case he is more to be pitied than sympathized with. He was trapped by circumstances far beyond his control. That's why Christ didn't blame him.
> as far as the guilt of the pharisees goes, most jews werent lawmakers and scribes, but were lay-believers.
Most jews accepted Christ after the resurrection. The Pharisees and their ilk didn't.
You have a strange view of what constitutes a threat.
> jesus forgave the jews, except obviously judas, who certainly resides in hellfire.
But Judas was no more guilty than the Pharisees who paid him, which is one of two reasons I don't accept that as the case. The other being what Jesus told Pilate in John 19:11.
> your statement that the romans were uniquely ignorant and thus blameless is unrealistic.
My statement is that they had no idea Jesus was the Son of God. They didn't even believe in his Father.
> you know pilate was said in luke to have mixed the blood of murdered jews with their animal sacrifices right? all contemporary sources about him show he was a very evil man.
You are judging evil by modern standards. He was a man of his time and a pagan.
> you are interpreting the romans as upright but thats just not true. they were a powerful empire, they were not likely browbeat into executing anyone.
At the very least Pilate would have been removed from his post if he had allowed an uprising he could have easily prevented. At worst he would have been responsible for the deaths of dozen or hundreds of Roman soldiers and possibly executed. In either case he would have failed in his duty to Caesar. It was an easy decision for him to make.
> the roman guards humiliated and beat jesus,
The were ordered to scourge him. What do you think that involves, exactly?
> the soldiers divided his clothes.
As was their right under Roman law.
> pilate is only made partly sympathetic in the bible to appeal to the new roman converts according to nearly all historians,
The Gospel wasn't written to appeal to new Roman converts. That was Paul's job. And Pilate doesn't come across as sympathetic unless you understand his role as a Roman and what it involved. In which case he is more to be pitied than sympathized with. He was trapped by circumstances far beyond his control. That's why Christ didn't blame him.
> as far as the guilt of the pharisees goes, most jews werent lawmakers and scribes, but were lay-believers.
Most jews accepted Christ after the resurrection. The Pharisees and their ilk didn't.
@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur
>But Judas was no more guilty than the Pharisees who paid him, which is one of two reasons I don't accept that as the case. The other being what Jesus told Pilate in John 19:11.
I mean, youre disregarding what peter said in acts, he said that the Israelite leaders were also ignorant. I dont believe that the chief priests (who weren't pharisees but were probably saducees, I could be wrong though) who paid judas were quite as guilty as he, and i dont think many commentators would argue this, judas was unique in his degree of guilt and of sin, though they were certainly guilty also. judas intimately knew jesus and was treated with divine love by him. he had no excuses.
>My statement is that they had no idea Jesus was the Son of God.
neither did the sanhedrin. jesus more or less told him he was in the synoptics, but they didnt believe and they werent in the intimate position judas was in to know this. I still think this constitutes ignorance.
>You are judging evil by modern standards. He was a man of his time and a pagan.
murdering worshippers of God and mixing the blood of sacrifices with their blood is evil, period. its strange of a christian to be morally relativist here.
>Most jews accepted Christ after the resurrection. The Pharisees and their ilk didn't.
many many hellenized jews converted to christianity, actually, including many pharisees.
>But Judas was no more guilty than the Pharisees who paid him, which is one of two reasons I don't accept that as the case. The other being what Jesus told Pilate in John 19:11.
I mean, youre disregarding what peter said in acts, he said that the Israelite leaders were also ignorant. I dont believe that the chief priests (who weren't pharisees but were probably saducees, I could be wrong though) who paid judas were quite as guilty as he, and i dont think many commentators would argue this, judas was unique in his degree of guilt and of sin, though they were certainly guilty also. judas intimately knew jesus and was treated with divine love by him. he had no excuses.
>My statement is that they had no idea Jesus was the Son of God.
neither did the sanhedrin. jesus more or less told him he was in the synoptics, but they didnt believe and they werent in the intimate position judas was in to know this. I still think this constitutes ignorance.
>You are judging evil by modern standards. He was a man of his time and a pagan.
murdering worshippers of God and mixing the blood of sacrifices with their blood is evil, period. its strange of a christian to be morally relativist here.
>Most jews accepted Christ after the resurrection. The Pharisees and their ilk didn't.
many many hellenized jews converted to christianity, actually, including many pharisees.
>it's pic related: the thread
@gucciloafers @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur @James_Dixon except I love jesus and have nothing but respect for people who follow him