The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Hakons]

I have a... low opinion of secularism. It has been largely destructive to Christianity as people pushed for secularism beyond its original intent, in my opinion.

It is a Christian duty to help refugees, secular nation or not. The United States is secular, yet we must push for national policy that is suggested by the Gospel. No other nation on Earth has as much capacity to do good works than we.

The gospel doesn't suggest a national policy, Christ had little interest in the affairs of state. Any national policy derived from the Gospel or Christian theology at large, would largely be open to interpretation.

Additionally you're presenting an overly simplistic problem in which the question is "do we help them or not". With no other considerations the obvious answer is A: help them. But in the course of national policy, there is no simple issue.


Consider this thought experiment. You're on a life boat that's almost almost full. There are people in the water who will drown if you do not help them. But if you help too many, the boat will sink and you'll all drown. How do you decide who to help and who not to help? And you've already got all those people on the boat, who already have the perilous task of surviving at sea i na row boat, you're potentially risking their lives to bring on more people, more mouths to feed, let alone the risk of sinking.

What do you do?

An interesting scenario

We would ask for volunteers of who would be willing to parish at sea for the sake of people in the water. Presumably, there wouldn't be very many volunteers, so the people in the water that are the smallest would be rescued. This is because they are most in peril in the water, and they also need less food and water. We would take in as many as we could fit.

Now, I don't think the United States is anywhere close to being full or almost full of refugees. Once again, it is our Christian duty to advocate for refugee programs.

[The Parkus Empire]

I have a... low opinion of secularism. It has been largely destructive to Christianity as people pushed for secularism beyond its original intent, in my opinion.

It is a Christian duty to help refugees, secular nation or not. The United States is secular, yet we must push for national policy that is suggested by the Gospel. No other nation on Earth has as much capacity to do good works than we.

The gospel doesn't suggest a national policy, Christ had little interest in the affairs of state. Any national policy derived from the Gospel or Christian theology at large, would largely be open to interpretation.

Additionally you're presenting an overly simplistic problem in which the question is "do we help them or not". With no other considerations the obvious answer is A: help them. But in the course of national policy, there is no simple issue.


Consider this thought experiment. You're on a life boat that's almost almost full. There are people in the water who will drown if you do not help them. But if you help too many, the boat will sink and you'll all drown. How do you decide who to help and who not to help? And you've already got all those people on the boat, who already have the perilous task of surviving at sea i na row boat, you're potentially risking their lives to bring on more people, more mouths to feed, let alone the risk of sinking.

What do you do?

You jump off the boat.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well it looks like the Palestinian Orthodox want their Patriarch gone. Again. Same thing as for the last one, for selling church property to Israel. The last one was defrocked.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Well it looks like the Palestinian Orthodox want their Patriarch gone. Again. Same thing as for the last one, for selling church property to Israel. The last one was defrocked.

It's a little more complicated than that, I think. IIRC, a lot were angry at him because he lost the court case against Israel about that previous land sale.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well it looks like the Palestinian Orthodox want their Patriarch gone. Again. Same thing as for the last one, for selling church property to Israel. The last one was defrocked.

It's a little more complicated than that, I think. IIRC, a lot were angry at him because he lost the court case against Israel about that previous land sale.

Yes, but now they're accusing him of selling church property to Israel and saying the books should be examined.

I think a lot of the issues would be fixed if the Greeks stopped having a monopoly on that see, and a Palestinian was appointed more often.

[Minzerland II]

Truly, if we were to do as you say we should, then we would be overwhelmed with the sheer number of the unfortunate coming to us for help. We cannot help nor welcome everyone, not always; we have our own problems to deal with without adding more to the mix. We should do as much as we can according to our teachings, of course, but not suicidally so, not at the expense of ourselves and our sense.

Magis, dude. We must always be asking "What more can I be doing for Christ?" There's always more that can be done. Always. Restricting borders just because you're able to take in an arbitrary quota is ridiculous.

We should do as much as we possibly can without the expense of ourselves and our sense. This foolishness will only make the situation of our people and theirs even worse, untenable even. As I said, we cannot help everyone. We will help more people in the long term, in fact, if we don't go so overboard.

[Pasong Tirad]

Magis, dude. We must always be asking "What more can I be doing for Christ?" There's always more that can be done. Always. Restricting borders just because you're able to take in an arbitrary quota is ridiculous.

We should do as much as we possibly can without the expense of ourselves and our sense. This foolishness will only make the situation of our people and theirs even worse, untenable even. As I said, we cannot help everyone. We will help more people in the long term, in fact, if we don't go so overboard.

If you're American, I don't think you're even close to having done as much as you can. I can think of very few countries who have done as much as they realistically can. The problem is, we CAN help everyone. Many nations out there just aren't willing to. Imagine if V4 were willing to take in their fair share of refugees, for example. Saint John Paul II would be weeping now for what Poland is doing (unless I'm mistaken and they've already taken in a good amount of refugees).

[Pasong Tirad]

To a much lesser extent than the other protestants at the time. The KJV reads fairly similarly to a more awkwardly poetic douay-rheims. Both are fairly good translations liberal Christians randomly demonize because of who uses them, albeit complicated by the difference in vocabulary between the seventeenth century and modern day.

They demonize the translations precisely because they are accurate. Liberal Christian translations tend to be...liberal.

Okay I have to ask, what the hell is a "liberal Christian translation?" I use NABRE same as everybody else here.

[Bari]

They demonize the translations precisely because they are accurate. Liberal Christian translations tend to be...liberal.

Okay I have to ask, what the hell is a "liberal Christian translation?" I use NABRE same as everybody else here.

I use Douai-Rheims, Challoner revision, almost exclusively. But I guess you weren't speaking on my behalf.

[Pasong Tirad]

Okay I have to ask, what the hell is a "liberal Christian translation?" I use NABRE same as everybody else here.

I use Douai-Rheims, Challoner revision, almost exclusively. But I guess you weren't speaking on my behalf.

Apologies. By "same as everybody else here," I meant my country, where if you're not using the Filipino translations, NABRE is the go-to translation for Catholics.

[Minzerland II]

We should do as much as we possibly can without the expense of ourselves and our sense. This foolishness will only make the situation of our people and theirs even worse, untenable even. As I said, we cannot help everyone. We will help more people in the long term, in fact, if we don't go so overboard.

If you're American, I don't think you're even close to having done as much as you can. I can think of very few countries who have done as much as they realistically can. The problem is, we CAN help everyone. Many nations out there just aren't willing to. Imagine if V4 were willing to take in their fair share of refugees, for example. Saint John Paul II would be weeping now for what Poland is doing (unless I'm mistaken and they've already taken in a good amount of refugees).

I am not American, but Americans are among the most generous and charitable people in the world, along with my very own country of Australia. They are not lacking in either charity or generosity. No you cannot, that is literally logistically impossible; countries and organisations already have difficulty feeding, housing and caring for their own populations, no doubt it would be much harder to do the same for every unfortunate person in the world. You would do well not to drown in your compassion.

[Pasong Tirad]

If you're American, I don't think you're even close to having done as much as you can. I can think of very few countries who have done as much as they realistically can. The problem is, we CAN help everyone. Many nations out there just aren't willing to. Imagine if V4 were willing to take in their fair share of refugees, for example. Saint John Paul II would be weeping now for what Poland is doing (unless I'm mistaken and they've already taken in a good amount of refugees).

I am not American, but Americans are among the most generous and charitable people in the world, along with my very own country of Australia. They are not lacking in either charity or generosity. No you cannot, that is literally logistically impossible; countries and organisations already have difficulty feeding, housing and caring for their own populations, no doubt it would be much harder to do the same for every unfortunate person in the world. You would do well not to drown in your compassion.

And I believe you can, people just aren't willing to inconvenience themselves for the convenience of the suffering.

"We cannot be Christians who continually put up “do not enter” signs, nor can we consider that this space is mine or yours alone, or that we can claim ownership of something that is absolutely not ours. The Church is not ours, brothers and sisters, she is God’s; he is the owner of the temple and the field; everyone has a place, everyone is invited to find here, and among us, his or her nourishment. Everyone"

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco ... ellin.html

[Minzerland II]

I am not American, but Americans are among the most generous and charitable people in the world, along with my very own country of Australia. They are not lacking in either charity or generosity. No you cannot, that is literally logistically impossible; countries and organisations already have difficulty feeding, housing and caring for their own populations, no doubt it would be much harder to do the same for every unfortunate person in the world. You would do well not to drown in your compassion.

And I believe you can, people just aren't willing to inconvenience themselves for the convenience of the suffering.

"We cannot be Christians who continually put up “do not enter” signs, nor can we consider that this space is mine or yours alone, or that we can claim ownership of something that is absolutely not ours. The Church is not ours, brothers and sisters, she is God’s; he is the owner of the temple and the field; everyone has a place, everyone is invited to find here, and among us, his or her nourishment. Everyone"

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco ... ellin.html

Exactly, not everyone is willing to inconvenience themselves, their families, their friends, their countries, their countrymen, etc.; they choose to prioritise them, as do I, not some foreigner in need of help somewhere far away, who may not even help them if they were ever in need. Not everyone is Christian in America or Australia, either. This all ignoring the fact that I cannot see any feasible way in which to help everyone, as you suggest we do. I think your proposition is rather shortsighted and unrealistic, instead of alleviating the problem you'll exacerbate it so much so that it becomes untenable, as has been said previously by another poster, leading to even more suffering.

EDIT: Spelling

[Pasong Tirad]

And I believe you can, people just aren't willing to inconvenience themselves for the convenience of the suffering.

"We cannot be Christians who continually put up “do not enter” signs, nor can we consider that this space is mine or yours alone, or that we can claim ownership of something that is absolutely not ours. The Church is not ours, brothers and sisters, she is God’s; he is the owner of the temple and the field; everyone has a place, everyone is invited to find here, and among us, his or her nourishment. Everyone"

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco ... ellin.html

Exactly, not everyone is willing to inconvenience themselves, their families, their friends, their countries their countrymen, etc.; they choose to prioritise them, as do I, not some foreigner in need of help somewhere far away, who may not even help them if they were ever in need. Not everyone is Christian in America or Australia, either. This all ignoring the fact that I cannot see any feasible way in which to help everyone, as you suggest we do. I think your proposition is rather shortsighted and unrealistic, instead of alleviating the problem you'll exacerbate it so much so that it becomes untenable, as has been said previously by another poster, leading to even more suffering.

It's not about you. It's not about whether or not they will return the kindness. That doesn't matter. They need help now. You, have the capacity to help but choose not to. Firefighters don't ask people in a burning building if they're Muslim, if they voted Liberal or if their house is insured. They just go in.

[The Parkus Empire]

They demonize the translations precisely because they are accurate. Liberal Christian translations tend to be...liberal.

Okay I have to ask, what the hell is a "liberal Christian translation?" I use NABRE same as everybody else here.

I refer to liberal Protestant translations.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The gospel doesn't suggest a national policy, Christ had little interest in the affairs of state. Any national policy derived from the Gospel or Christian theology at large, would largely be open to interpretation.

Additionally you're presenting an overly simplistic problem in which the question is "do we help them or not". With no other considerations the obvious answer is A: help them. But in the course of national policy, there is no simple issue.


Consider this thought experiment. You're on a life boat that's almost almost full. There are people in the water who will drown if you do not help them. But if you help too many, the boat will sink and you'll all drown. How do you decide who to help and who not to help? And you've already got all those people on the boat, who already have the perilous task of surviving at sea i na row boat, you're potentially risking their lives to bring on more people, more mouths to feed, let alone the risk of sinking.

What do you do?

An interesting scenario

We would ask for volunteers of who would be willing to parish at sea for the sake of people in the water. Presumably, there wouldn't be very many volunteers, so the people in the water that are the smallest would be rescued. This is because they are most in peril in the water, and they also need less food and water. We would take in as many as we could fit.

Now, I don't think the United States is anywhere close to being full or almost full of refugees. Once again, it is our Christian duty to advocate for refugee programs.

Why would you ask people to get out of the boat? What makes their value less than the people in the water. And presumably if nobody volunteers, and you only want to take the small ones, try conveying that reality to the people already in the water.

The point is not to be an obvious parallel to the current situation, but to illuminate the point you keep seeming to over look: there's always other considerations, and it's more than just the doom and gloom considerations. There's social, economic, political, and ethical considerations. Take a look at Canada, they took in refugees and now they're facing a potential economic crisis over the cost of supporting them.

Also consider this: Saudi Arabia had facilities already in place that could house a majority off these refugeess. They could have stayed in the Middle East, instead of being transported to a foreign region, but SA didn't take any, and nobody put pressure on them too. Why should the west shoulder this burden.

Again the claim "it's our duty to take refugees" sounds good on paper, but it ignores the messy reality of governance.

[Bari]

I use Douai-Rheims, Challoner revision, almost exclusively. But I guess you weren't speaking on my behalf.

Apologies. By "same as everybody else here," I meant my country, where if you're not using the Filipino translations, NABRE is the go-to translation for Catholics.

Okay, I see what you meant. He or she may have been referring to how many mondern biblical translations aren't really translations at all, as they are more like paraphrasing of current English translations. One example is "The Message" and also the Contemperary English Bible.

[The Norgan Alliance]

oh no now i dont got an option to vote for

There's a way to fix that

Thoughts on the Westboro Baptist church?

A group that is quite similar to a cult. They claim to be Christians, yet they lack basic knowledge of the Gospel and the Apostles.

I think they are radicals. They make modern pop songs into their propaganda songs preaching their values, and more things.

Also, how do you think of Gilead from The Handmaid's Tale (I know this isn't a Handmaid's Tale discussion thread but Gilead is christian)

The Handmaid's Tale is a ridiculous attempt to portray radical Puritanism. Of course, pro-abortionists now dress up as "handmaids" to protest restricted their "healthcare."

Well, to be fair The Haindmaid's Tale is based off of the religious revolution in Iran, and the author was trying to make it more personal for Americans who know a lot more about Christianity than Islam.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

What is the difference between Catholicism and Protestanism

They are different sects of Christianity, Protestant usually are less religious and have more foreword thinking ideas.

Catholicism is usually more conservative thinking, and more strict.


I am An Episcopalian, another sect, Episcopalianism is closer in ideology to Protestantism. But some of my closest friends are Catholic.

[Angleter]

An interesting scenario

We would ask for volunteers of who would be willing to parish at sea for the sake of people in the water. Presumably, there wouldn't be very many volunteers, so the people in the water that are the smallest would be rescued. This is because they are most in peril in the water, and they also need less food and water. We would take in as many as we could fit.

Now, I don't think the United States is anywhere close to being full or almost full of refugees. Once again, it is our Christian duty to advocate for refugee programs.

Why would you ask people to get out of the boat? What makes their value less than the people in the water. And presumably if nobody volunteers, and you only want to take the small ones, try conveying that reality to the people already in the water.

The point is not to be an obvious parallel to the current situation, but to illuminate the point you keep seeming to over look: there's always other considerations, and it's more than just the doom and gloom considerations. There's social, economic, political, and ethical considerations. Take a look at Canada, they took in refugees and now they're facing a potential economic crisis over the cost of supporting them.

Also consider this: Saudi Arabia had facilities already in place that could house a majority off these refugeess. They could have stayed in the Middle East, instead of being transported to a foreign region, but SA didn't take any, and nobody put pressure on them too. Why should the west shoulder this burden.

Again the claim "it's our duty to take refugees" sounds good on paper, but it ignores the messy reality of governance.

Quite. We have an obligation to help the vulnerable, but we don't have an obligation to accept (let alone encourage) the large-scale migration of people into our countries. With the Syrian/Iraqi crisis, for instance, it's perfectly reasonable to focus on helping improve conditions in the refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan, &c. That provides safe, habitable conditions for the refugees, discourages people from trying to make the dangerous crossing into Europe, and alleviates the concerns of Western countries.

[Salus Maior]

The gospel doesn't suggest a national policy, Christ had little interest in the affairs of state. Any national policy derived from the Gospel or Christian theology at large, would largely be open to interpretation.

Not necessarily related to the refugee argument (which I largely agree with you on), but I think it's definitely possible to create a more Christian-centered state at least morally speaking.

[Salus Maior]

Why would you ask people to get out of the boat? What makes their value less than the people in the water. And presumably if nobody volunteers, and you only want to take the small ones, try conveying that reality to the people already in the water.

The point is not to be an obvious parallel to the current situation, but to illuminate the point you keep seeming to over look: there's always other considerations, and it's more than just the doom and gloom considerations. There's social, economic, political, and ethical considerations. Take a look at Canada, they took in refugees and now they're facing a potential economic crisis over the cost of supporting them.

Also consider this: Saudi Arabia had facilities already in place that could house a majority off these refugeess. They could have stayed in the Middle East, instead of being transported to a foreign region, but SA didn't take any, and nobody put pressure on them too. Why should the west shoulder this burden.

Again the claim "it's our duty to take refugees" sounds good on paper, but it ignores the messy reality of governance.

Quite. We have an obligation to help the vulnerable, but we don't have an obligation to accept (let alone encourage) the large-scale migration of people into our countries. With the Syrian/Iraqi crisis, for instance, it's perfectly reasonable to focus on helping improve conditions in the refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan, &c. That provides safe, habitable conditions for the refugees, discourages people from trying to make the dangerous crossing into Europe, and alleviates the concerns of Western countries.

Honestly, I think the best response would be to establish secured zones in the country in question itself so the people can remain in their own country and be secure.

Anyway, I feel like that's a conversation for another thread.

[Luminesa]

Exactly, not everyone is willing to inconvenience themselves, their families, their friends, their countries their countrymen, etc.; they choose to prioritise them, as do I, not some foreigner in need of help somewhere far away, who may not even help them if they were ever in need. Not everyone is Christian in America or Australia, either. This all ignoring the fact that I cannot see any feasible way in which to help everyone, as you suggest we do. I think your proposition is rather shortsighted and unrealistic, instead of alleviating the problem you'll exacerbate it so much so that it becomes untenable, as has been said previously by another poster, leading to even more suffering.

It's not about you. It's not about whether or not they will return the kindness. That doesn't matter. They need help now. You, have the capacity to help but choose not to. Firefighters don't ask people in a burning building if they're Muslim, if they voted Liberal or if their house is insured. They just go in.

You do have to bear in mind that even the CCC tells us that we are obligated to be reasonable. We who are more fortunate have the option to take-in immigrants, and we only require them to respect the laws of the country. If an immigrant comes into the country and refuses to follow the law, or flaunts their hatred of the law in some way, we are not obligated to continue to show charity. Of course, on the flip-side, those who do respect the law, and who are here because they need shelter and they want to live a decent life, should receive as much charity as possible. But it is entirely impossible to help all people at all times. Even Francis de Sales writes about that. Do what good you can at that time.

[Angleter]

Liturgical translations to be put back in the hands of people who think 'spiritu' is Latin for 'also'.

[Salus Maior]

There's a way to fix that



A group that is quite similar to a cult. They claim to be Christians, yet they lack basic knowledge of the Gospel and the Apostles.



The Handmaid's Tale is a ridiculous attempt to portray radical Puritanism. Of course, pro-abortionists now dress up as "handmaids" to protest restricted their "healthcare."

Well, to be fair The Haindmaid's Tale is based off of the religious revolution in Iran, and the author was trying to make it more personal for Americans who know a lot more about Christianity than Islam.

I don't know much about Iran, but I'm pretty sure they don't have institutionalized sex slavery.