Posted on 03/01/2018 12:16:44 PM PST by daniel1212
Oh. Ok then.
Quick primer on Gnosticism. It is an early heresy going back to biblical times. Gnostics generally believe matter is evil and spirit is good. They believe they possess secret knowledge that is only obtained through spiritual or mystical means....not simply reading God’s word.
You see some of this kind of thing trying to slide its way into evangelical churches with mystical “disciplines” being encouraged - such as contemplative prayer and others.
Not to worry. I make more mistakes!
You see some of this kind of thing trying to slide its way into evangelical churches with mystical “disciplines” being encouraged - such as contemplative prayer and others. The essence of the problem is that the subjective becomes the standard, rather than testing such by the objective, the Scriptures.
Then you have the consumed Christ of Catholicism. While within Docetism and or Gnosticism it seems they had the belief that what Christ looked and behaved like, as manifestly being incarnated with a tangible real body of flesh and blood, was not real (Christ being a sort of phantom but looking human), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) what Christ looks, feels, tastes and would test as (bread and wine), is not the reality. With Christ's body and blood only looking like and otherwise materially evidencing themselves to be bread and wine. Which had ceased to exist when the priest uttered his words of consecration, with instead the hosts being Christ, present in His entirety in each particle (even at the subatomic level) by way of transubstantiation. Until the non-existent bread or wine begin to visibly decay. At which point the "Real Presence" - the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood” of Christ - is no longer present, and at which point Aquinas also argued that the substance of the bread and wine cannot return, despite appearance. Thus it seems nothing exists at that point, despite what material tests would show, as they would of the body of the incarnated Christ. More on this fantasy, by God's grace.
Oh. I read it. And just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Their intent was to find a safe haven from persecution. They’re in one. And just because a political group says they can, doesn’t mean much to me. We also call Islam a religion, we recognize nazis to vote, we still in many places get away with mistreating black Americans, we turn loose felons everyday that the libs are trying to get voting rights back for, over the last 100 years we have invented words to categorize people so they can be controlled. And every one of those situations was created by politics, not reality.
So telling me a group of people can enter this country already over run with people who can’t pay their bills, can’t find work, and end up a taxpayer problem, when they were trying to find a safe haven they are sitting in because a group of politicians says they can, not that they have to, is not on my hot list.
rwood
I was not contending about whether they should come here, and i think many immigrants would be better off spiritually in their own country, but the premise behind your question "why can’t they stay there, get jobs,and start a new life just like they want to do here?," which was that that they could get jobs. Yet which they could not nor attend school, besides not receive government benefits while they wait for the United States to process their cases.
And we can only speculate on the chances of Austria allowing them to become citizens in their country. The problem relative to that may be related to this:
Austria Blocks 300 Refugees Trying to Get to U.S. - The Daily Beast.
Did you wonder why Austria, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland all stop the entry of immigrants. They stopped them from just walking on their country. They claim they have too many immigrants. So do we that we are limiting them by setting requirements to get into this country. Yet, the illegals from Mexico continue to cross. We can’t afford them, so we send them back as fast as we catch them. And they cross again. In Switzerland, they have helicopters with guns patrolling their borders. In the south, Mexico does to.
And you mentioned a very important issue with the thought of receiving government benefits. If they can’t stay in their country, and they can’t afford to take care of themselves, why should I, and the rest of the people in the US called taxpayers, cover their bill? I didn’t birth them, why should I support them? No one here is made of money. If you can’t not be a burden where you are going, and they are stupid enough to support you with no real end of it in sight, then that is their fault, not the immigrant. And apparently those countries I mentioned look at it that way also.
But it won’t be mine if I can stop it. I worked all my life to set myself up for retirement. Why should I set them up also? My kids are on their own doing their own lives. I don’t want to support any more.
rwood
Your objections to illegal and welfare immigration are valid, but why are you directing this at me? I never argued for welfare immigration, but simply posted an article about some people called Christians not being able to yet immigrate, and explained to you why they could not stay in Austria and work or obtain support while waiting.
But if you have a problem with people seeking freedom to worship and work rather than being persecuted, then we do have a problem, though unlike the Pilgrims and Puritans, the group at issue here are very much theologically perverse.
Why are these ‘refugees’ fleeing MUSLIM countries?
Isn’t Muslim rule supposed to be the best there is?
Spock says...
“Interesting.”
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.