I Can’t Bring Myself to Call Them Christians
Adherents of Christianity like to call themselves “Christians.” I would love to call them that, too, except that too many of the “Christians” I know act nothing — not even close — to the way that Jesus Christ told them to act. (It was more of a recommendation, with some very painful consequences if said recommendation wasn’t followed.) Worst yet, their way of thinking is becoming infectious. More and more people are acting un-Christian and justifying their deplorable actions as somehow following the teachings of Jesus.
For example, when it comes to immigration, these people are being xenophobic at least and white supremacists at worst. I mean, look at Kevin Sorbo, actor and producer of “Christian” movies:
In this “Christian’s” mind, immigrant refugees escaping unimaginable violence — and most of them adhering to Christianity, by the way — are “the world’s longest welfare line!!!” The answer to his question is simple. People didn’t work in their violence-ridden country because it’s hard to work when bullets are flying left and right. They didn’t work on their way up here because, you know, they were on their way up here. And, once they do get here, all the evidence shows us that work.
In fact, illegal/undocumented immigrants cannot receive “welfare” after a law signed by Bill Clinton back in the 90s, a law he signed as a compromise with “Christian Conservatives” who wanted to shut down the government if something wasn’t done about the budget. So it’s a bogus premise to say that illegal/undocumented immigrants are going to receive welfare instantly.
To prove my point, all you need to do is look at the parable of the Good Samaritan, as explained by Jesus:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”Luke 10:25-37 New International Version (NIV)
Jesus did not equivocate on this at all. He didn’t make special conditions under which the Samaritan agreed to help. The Samaritan just did it. Jesus didn’t have the Samaritan check for papers, take into consideration the race and ethnicity of the victim or ask for anything in return. The Samaritan just did what was right, something a priest and a Levite did not do.
Oh, by the way, Samaritans and Jews were not on the best of terms at the time. Weird how Jesus picked a Samaritan to be the good guy, huh? I’d like to think that Jesus would today use a Muslim in this story.
This all makes me very sad because I’ve seen this contagion of christians with a lowercase C spreading in my own extended family. People who act very piously and go to church every Sunday are being outdone in the good deeds department by people who have very loudly and very proudly proclaimed themselves to be Agnostic or Atheist. That right there has given me pause as to what being religious really is all about. Is it about belief or action? And, if it is about belief alone, then why do those beliefs not translate into action? Or why do actions (and words) counter those beliefs?
I’m not going to be one who points out the mote in another’s eye, especially without taking care of my own mote. I know that I am very, very far from being the epitome of a Christian. It’s been years since I’ve been to church. But I work hard to make sure that people don’t have any doubt of where I’m coming from. What you see is what you get. I don’t say I’m one thing and act a different way. And, if I do, and you call me on it, I’ll own it.
None of us is perfect, but we do have the power to make our actions match the labels we apply to ourselves.
I did reply to him. Matthew 25:35 – 36.
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Couldn’t fit 37 onward and well, it’s late.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:…
There’s so much that goes over their head. They call themselves Christian and can’t even answer basic bible questions, either. Sigh.
And now they’re trying to justify a 2 year-old and her father drowning on the Rio Grande because “Liberals,” or something.
Just another example of torturing data, in this case, their religion, to fit their theories, rather than adjust the theory to fit the facts.
I learned a long time ago, the current GOP “conservative” doesn’t want a Constitution or rule of law, they just want to do whateverinhell they want and call it right by might. When forced to obey the law, they threaten violence, as was recently observed in the Northwest, when GOP legislators refused to attend their legislative session, preventing a quorum and hence, blocking all legislative activity. So, the legislature asked the Governor to invoke a law that forces them to attend or be arrested *and* pay a $500/day fine. Their response? Ask for militia help, said militia then committing sedition by threatening the state government.
Had they actually attended the capitol, their offense would have then been treason, which can be punished at the federal level with a needle in their arm.
It’s only a matter of time until these loose nuts do act on their fever dreams and try to attack our government and learn the hard way, an AK or AR is a lousy weapon against a B-52, howitzer, MLRS system or an AC-130 gunship.
I’ll agree that calling the migrant caravan nothing more than a big welfare line is seriously lacking in empathy, but you’re overlooking an important point, which is that there’s no reason why they need to come to the US. There are other places in Central America where they could go. You present the situation as black-and-white: “Come to the US or suffer.” Considering we have a standard of living higher than every South and Central American country, that could be used as argument to let tens if not hundreds of millions into the US.
Also, illegal immigrants do receive welfare benefits, directly or indirectly.
[Link to unreliable news article removed by blog owner.]
Thanks for reading.
“…but you’re overlooking an important point, which is that there’s no reason why they need to come to the US.” Yes, there are plenty of reasons. You accuse me of black-and-white thinking, but you yourself have given us another binary option: either there is a reason to come here or there isn’t.
Washington Examiner stopped being a reliable source of information for me when they started peddling conspiracy theories on everything from vaccines to anti-immigrant lies about alleged mass murders in Virginia by gangs. So I’ll have to give it a pass.
We’ll have to agree on a definition of “welfare” and “directly or indirectly” before any further discussion.
Finally, you missed the point of the post, which was not about immigration. It was about the lack of Christian-like behavior in people who identify as Christian. That was my beef in this. That’s where I want the discussion to go, not whether or not the ridiculous idea of letting in “tens if not hundreds of millions.”
I acknowledged the point of your article, actually: Kevin Sorbos lacks empathy. Does that preclude me from making the entirely relevant point that the migrant caravan doesn’t need to come to the US?
The Examiner articled linked to the author’s claims, so your amendment to my comment might as well say [Link to information that contradicts me removed].
“Does that preclude me from making the entirely relevant point that the migrant caravan doesn’t need to come to the US?”
Yes, yes it does. Because making the discussion about the politics of immigration derails the main gist of the post. And the main gist is not just about Kevin, it’s also about self-professed Christians behaving like animals.
I do find it odd that there are mythical, unnamed places that the asylum seekers can go. Odd, in that you entirely failed to name them.
Meanwhile, we have a duty under ratified treaties, to admit them to apply for asylum. Indeed, it’s a requirement, not the other mythical “go to a US embassy”, as an embassy lacks the authority to begin any asylum process, per the ratified treaties.
And for the record, ratified treaties are the law of the land, so ordered by no lesser authority than our Constitution.
You seem to be as bad as the non-Christian, self-proclaimed Christians, in that your highest laws should be ignored because you dislike them. Would you also abandon Constitutional law, just to have an emperor?
Both were things that the founders feared as much as religious rule, as all of the above had caused mighty free nations to fall in the past.
As for the hypocritical christians, who deserve no capitalization in the term, due to the hypocrisy, I do wonder if they failed to comprehend the word suffer, as used in the phrase, “suffer the children to come unto me”. Suffer in that context involves tolerate or permit.
I once read a highly entertaining article on how English isn’t a language, but a weapon designed to cause madness in those attempting to learn it. I wholeheartedly concur.
Just yesterday, I had some dude chastise me because I wrote that the vaccine was recommended for people up to 26 years of age and not “through” 26 years of age. He said “up to” meant “up to” 25 years of age. Odd? I wanted to reply to him that when a fine is mentioned on speeding signs, it reads “up to $1,000,” so does that mean I’d pay only $999.99? Should they write “through” $1,000, which in my head means “up to” $1,000.99. But I didn’t. I thanked him for reading what I wrote and moved on. There are some drive-by commenters not worth the effort.
“I do find it odd that there are mythical, unnamed places that the asylum seekers can go. Odd, in that you entirely failed to name them.”
I did state where they would go: other places in Central America. And even if I had not stated Central America, where do you think they would go? Indonesia? If we were talking about Syrian refugees, would me not mentioning that most Syrian refugees ought to go to Jordan make Jordan a “mythical place”?
Can you give me a reason why the migrant caravan must come to the US? I can give you a reason why they should not: multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is probably second only to outright war in terms of strife caused worldwide; you’d think we’d be interested in avoiding it unless necessary. According to the past thirty years of the European Union, “necessary” means “we badly need cheap labor because we’re not reproducing”. But the US doesn’t badly need cheap labor, is reproducing, isn’t the only place they can safely relocate, and doesn’t match their culture and isn’t the culturally, so why should we let them in?
“I did state where they would go: other places in Central America. And even if I had not stated Central America, where do you think they would go?”
I asked that question, you turned it back to me. Let me guess, you can’t name the nations in Central America, as you obviously cannot name a safe one to seek asylum in.
As for the reason to seek to immigrate to the US, the ancient and false “the streets are lined with gold”, indicating plentiful jobs would be priority #1, as my paternal grandparents did.
Or do you think this nation sucks so badly as to not be worthy of immigrants seeking admission, let alone asylum seekers, who you conveniently ignored, along with rule of law and that entire Constitution thingie.
Multiculturalism is bad? Then please define the one true American culture. Is it the culture of the South? The big city? The small Midwest town? Is it the culture of the White man?
Europe itself is made up of many different cultures within cultures. Homogeneity in culture is a white supremacist’s dream. It doesn’t exist.
You’re using white supremacist language, and that wraps it up for you commenting on here.