refugees to wear wristbands in cardiff

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, other one said:

if standing by while someone rapes your wife and kids and then kills you all is what you call love, we really have so little in common why even talk to one another...    your stand on this is sort of like throwing an arm full of rattle snakes in your babies crib and expecting God not to let the snakes hurt the Baby........             Have you not read that we should not tempt the Lord....   or as some versions say we should not put Him to the test...

I don't know exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish with your pacifism teachings, but that thought process will destroy western civilization, and what will replace it is right out of the pits of hell hand delivered by Allah himself.

That's really uncharitable.

 

[ladypeartree]

charity begins at home ..... lots of publicity for people being told to wear bands on their wrists how much for those murdered by terrorists posing as refugees ????

[other one]

45 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

That's really uncharitable.

 

reality often is.

[ayin jade]

Im curious. For those who think people are terrible for not welcoming these refugees because its not "loving". Do you show love towards the citizens who face increased crime? Where is your love towards women when you welcome the refugees who tend to attack women?

[Guest shiloh357]

18 hours ago, junobet said:

 

That was my first association, too. They may not even have been meant that way, but the linked guardian-article, which reports that refugees suffered abuse and humiliation due to those wristbands, shows that they fostered a similar mindset to that of my Nazi-grandfather.

So I’m glad authorities got wise and abandoned them. We should really learn from history.

That is not a fair comparison, at all. Nor, is an intelligent one.   

The reason for the Star of David was to mark who was a Jew for the purpose of eliminating them from society.   A Star of David marked you for death and eventual extermination, in addition to other forms of persecution.   It was the result of a mindset that sought to dehumanize the Jews.

The red wristband is to identify refugees, to keep track of them, not to persecute or humiliate them.    Refugees are not immigrants.   It is a temporary status and given the immense numbers of refugees coming from the Muslim world, and given the threat of ISIS infiltration, there needs to be way to keep track of them.    While no one things that refugees should be persecuted, they should not be allowed to roam freely across the country. 

Refugees are only refugees until the conditions in their country of origin changes and they can go home.   In order to provide for them properly, they need to be identified and that means we need a means of identification for them.   They need to stay in the camps where they are safe and where they can be cared for until they can be sent back.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

Im curious. For those who think people are terrible for not welcoming these refugees because its not "loving". Do you show love towards the citizens who face increased crime? Where is your love towards women when you welcome the refugees who tend to attack women?

Exactly....   That's the short sidedness of the liberal attempt to apply "love"  to the refugee crisis.  It is what Europe is facing now.    The Liberal approach to "love"  in this kind of situation forces you to choose between the attacker and the victim.    It even requires a person to ignore the threat that many of the refugees who are terrorizing their host countries, pose to the citizenry.

It's like the classic dilemma for a pacifist when it comes to defending one's family.   They claim we can't respond violently the attacker because that would not be "loving your enemy."   Yet they cannot really provide a satisfying response to who you should love more, your family members who are being attacked or the attacker?  

It shows what happens when verses of the Bible are cherry picked to suit a particular agenda without regard to context.   Pacifism isn't "love."   It is moral indifference to evil.   It is even worse than hate.   Pacifism enables and emboldens evil and leaves innocent people defenseless.   Pacifism is an evil ideology.

This issue in Europe is showing the failure of liberal "multiculturalism."  It's a complete joke.

[Guest shiloh357]

19 hours ago, junobet said:

 

Christ left us here having shown us that the way of God is love, asking us to follow in His footsteps rather than clinging to our worldly ideas of power, mammon, selfishness, hate and envy. We are to be the light of the world and the salt of the world by emulating Christ’s love for us in our love of neighbor, and clearly that includes love for refugees.

“So be perfect,as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt. 5:48)

People like you only serve to pervert what Jesus meant.   All you seem to have to offer is Liberal slop.

[MorningGlory]

5 hours ago, other one said:

if standing by while someone rapes your wife and kids and then kills you all is what you call love, we really have so little in common why even talk to one another...    your stand on this is sort of like throwing an arm full of rattle snakes in your babies crib and expecting God not to let the snakes hurt the Baby........             Have you not read that we should not tempt the Lord....   or as some versions say we should not put Him to the test...

I don't know exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish with your pacifism teachings, but that thought process will destroy western civilization, and what will replace it is right out of the pits of hell hand delivered by Allah himself.

Yes.  Pacifism is an anti-Christian teaching.  You can love your enemy while keeping a constant eye on him. 

[MorningGlory]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Exactly....   That's the short sidedness of the liberal attempt to apply "love"  to the refugee crisis.  It is what Europe is facing now.    The Liberal approach to "love"  in this kind of situation forces you to choose between the attacker and the victim.    It even requires a person to ignore the threat that many of the refugees who are terrorizing their host countries, pose to the citizenry.

It's like the classic dilemma for a pacifist when it comes to defending one's family.   They claim we can't respond violently the attacker because that would not be "loving your enemy."   Yet they cannot really provide a satisfying response to who you should love more, your family members who are being attacked or the attacker?  

It shows what happens when verses of the Bible are cherry picked to suit a particular agenda without regard to context.  

This issue in Europe is showing the failure of liberal "multiculturalism."  It's a complete joke.

Shiloh, you put it into words!  I've been trying to figure out why pacifism is so appalling to me and there it is.  Good post.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Davida said:

Another hollow comment , tossing in a word from the Bible to "have the appearance of righteousness"  using it as a false accusation.

 

Kinda like the kiss of Judas, isn't it?