Elon Musk is an undemocratic disgrace

[Octavious]

Arguably closer to Christian ideals on a "thou shalt not kill", perspective. His enthusiasm for warfare is certainly lower than most of his contemporaries. He also scores well on the "honour thy father" vibe, and his stance on abortion and LGBT issues is more closely aligned to biblical teachings than the Democrats. One recalls the Pope's message to Americans to choose the lesser of two evils in the election, showing that the Vatican saw both Trump and Harris to be extremely flawed from a Christian perspective.

In that light it isn't too much of a surprise that a lot of Christians voted for Trump, depending on what sort of weighting they give to what Christian teachings. And, of course, Christians are not motivated purely by religion by any stretch of the imagination.

[CaptainFritz28]

I hope US Christians figure some of this out. History suggests that even an ostensibly Jesus-focused church is not a panacea for good politics or policymaking, but it's hard to think of a weirder outcome than Christians egging on a president whose entire persona is predicated on taking advantage of the weak and seeking retribution on his enemies.

I really don't understand at a practical level how Christians balance scriptural guidance against their personal preferences. What would Jesus' southern border policy look like? How might his teachings shape foreign aid? I'm sure an adept theologian could elaborate upon some surprising nuances, but I doubt if that wiggle room could get you to Deporter-in-Chief and haphazardly shutting down USAID.

At what point did Trump seem like the more Christ-like candidate to you? The Biden years were indeed bad for a lot of reasons. Harris was an uninspiring candidate. But if the substance of Christ teachings are things like help the poor, don't promote retribution, etc., it seem inescapable that Trump is further from this ideal than basically anyone on earth.

For one thing, when a candidate hears "Christ is King," from the audience during their speech and responds with "you're at the wrong rally, go to the one down the road (being the other candidate's)"... well, it speaks for itself.

What Oct said is certainly true, as while Trump's character is certainly not Christlike, his policies are definitely more aligned with the Bible. What Vance had to say about the principle of Ordo Amoris in a relatively recent interview is one example of this.

Also... Harris's character is no better. Manipulation and corruption are abundant just as much within her administration as within Trump's, if not moreso. She demonstrated that she doesn't really care about Christ's teachings or authority, and while Trump's appeal to that is arguably no more than a front, at the very least, he's put himself in the position of having to pretend.

There's also the matter of competency... if I find that, by their prior example, one candidate will prosper a nation and one will further decline it, for the sake of the people of my nation I will vote for the former.

[Jamiet99uk]

Answer the question.

How would Jesus view the issue of immigration?

[Jamiet99uk]

Jesus taught:

Love your neighbor: Jesus taught that we should love others as ourselves, including immigrants.Welcome strangers: Jesus emphasized the importance of hospitality toward strangers.

Provide for the poor: Jesus advocated for caring for the poor.

Pursue justice and mercy: Jesus emphasized justice and mercy during his ministry.

Trump is the direct opposite of Jesus's teachings. Jesus would oppose Trump.

[CaptainFritz28]

You overlook quite a lot of the nuance both of the issue itself and Jesus's life. For one thing, if you mean what would Jesus, physically here, do, I'd presume He would do the same thing He did when He was here, going about solving the issue miraculously.

Jesus taught to love your neighbor. That includes those in neighboring countries, yes, but also those in your own nation, your physical neighbors. I don't see reason to believe that a policy of open borders or what existed under the previous administration accomplishes this for either immigrants or those already here.

Jesus advocated for caring for the poor. Are there not poor in America that could be better aided than by opening our borders and spending the money that could otherwise go to America's needy on those who don't even pay taxes?

Jesus advocated for justice and mercy. Opening the borders allows for a lot more crime to flow a lot easier. Not justice.

Opening borders allows for more crime, causes domestic problems in the U.S., doesn't help the plight of anyone in the countries of origin, doesn't address the root issues, and forces the government to allocate funds away from the plight of its own poor and needy towards those whom are not under its responsibility.

I believe that it would not be Christlike to open our borders, because on the whole that would harm many more people than it would aid.

Jesus would oppose a lot of politicians. Trump is one of them.
Yet there were worse politicians in His day which He did not oppose the rule of. He did not rebel against the oppression of Rome or the injustice of the Pharisees. He focused on the people themselves, and sought to change the nation by changing the hearts of the people. Perhaps we can learn from this. I'm not saying that we should just let the government do whatever it wants and oppress whomever it pleases, but I am saying that the most effective way to cause change is through the people themselves.

[Jamiet99uk]

Yeah you could change them into people who don't support Nazis.

[CaptainFritz28]

If you don't want to engage, please just say so. It wastes less of my time, and given that I have a great deal to do most days, that would be highly appreciated.

[Octavious]

Jesus, in the CofE traditions common in Blightie, very much gives off hippy socialist vibes. One suspects that he'd find the concept of borders between Christian nations somewhat irritating as a matter of principle. Having said that he never seemed particularly enthusiastic about telling politicians how to do their job, so I doubt he'd invest his efforts to changing the state of affairs. Spread his teachings to the people, and the politics of nations will follow naturally and look after itself.

As an aside I've never been a massive fan of the what would Jesus do philosophy. Generally speaking what Jesus would do is something rather different

[Jamiet99uk]

A horrible thing just occurred to me.

If Donald Trump died in office, J.D. Vance, who has an IQ of around 40, would become president.

Terrifying.

[Octavious]

Well, would you look at that. Jamie is no longer wishing Trump harm. Progress, of a sort

[CaptainFritz28]

A horrible thing just occurred to me.

If Donald Trump died in office, J.D. Vance, who has an IQ of around 40, would become president.

Terrifying.

Only just now? I am rather surprised.

[Jamiet99uk]

I am amused that Fritz thinks Jesus would prioritise poor white Americans over other poor people.

Fritz, Nazi billionaires are ransacking your country. Doesn't that bother you?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If “love your neighbor” means prioritizing your own nation, why did Jesus make a Samaritan—the ultimate outsider—the hero of his parable?

If caring for the poor means prioritizing Americans/your co-natinoalists first, why didn’t Jesus do the same? He healed Samaritans, praised the faith of a Roman centurion, and ministered to those outside his own people.

If open borders are to blame for crime, does that mean mercy should be conditional? Jesus never made safety a prerequisite for compassion. If crime were a reason to turn people away, would he have shared meals with tax collectors and prostitutes?

If Jesus avoided political resistance, why did he confront the temple authorities, condemn hypocrisy, and ultimately get executed by the state? If his mission was purely about changing hearts, why did those in power see him as a threat?

I’m not a Christian, but if anything proves Fritz’s own point about US Christianity’s vulnerability to politically-motivated heresies, it’s the way he’s contorted Jesus into endorsing Trumpism.

[DougJoe]

Jesus never made safety a prerequisite for compassion.

This. This *so* much.

I don't know if this is a *completely* applicable story (and I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but E.B's post reminded me of this) so...

A few years ago, my wife and I were watching TV on a Saturday night (say around 9 or 10 PM, it was dark out) when we heard a loud noise outside. We look outside and there's a car with its hazard lights on the other side of the road from my house (it's just a field over there, I live in a fairly rural area.) So we figure they've hit a deer and it's not exactly warm outside (low 40'sF) so I go outside to see if I can help. My memory of exactly what happened next was a little vague, but there ends up being a slightly older couple in the car, and, yes, they did whack a deer. In any case, police get called, and I'd have invited them into the house (since it's cold out) but they basically have to wait outside for someone to show up. They're both dressed for a formal occasion. We get to talking and I learn that they're from the other side of the state (couple hours away, a place I know) and they were in town for their child's wedding. The conversation goes something like this:

"Does your child live around here?"
"No, they won the wedding from the venue (a few miles down the road to the west)."
"Oh, were you planning on driving back home tonight?"
"No, we're staying at a hotel in town."
"Is there someone who can come and get you?"
"They left the wedding before us and we can't get a hold of them."

Now, the car is beat up pretty bad and doesn't look like it's drivable... which leads to...

"I can drive you to your hotel if that would help?"

To which the couple is amazed that I would even offer and agree. So cops/tow truck shows up, do their thing, cop asks if they need help, we tell him about Doug's Chauffeur Service, it's all hunky-dory. I tell my wife what's up, drive them to their hotel, and everthing turns out okay (at least as okay as it can) in the end.

Now, I didn't have to go outside at all to help. There was potential risk there (even though I will admit it was probably pretty low) but there *could* have been someone truly dangerous in the car. The wise thing would have been to stay inside and not get involved... but that would not have been the compassionate thing.

And, funnily enough, during the drive to the hotel the wife made a comment about the couple being "Good Christians" and being relieved that they'd found another one to help them in their time of need... I didn't have the heart to tell them I was an atheist.

[CaptainFritz28]

I am amused that Fritz thinks Jesus would prioritise poor white Americans over other poor people.

Fritz, Nazi billionaires are ransacking your country. Doesn't that bother you?

Huh?

[CaptainFritz28]

First off, I don't see what them being white, brown, or chartreuse has anything to do with anything. The fact that you reduce my point to that is telling that you didn't actually consider what I said before assigning your own assumptions to it. 'Tis a mark of irrationality in your thinking.

The point is that those here are citizens of the United States. The government of the United States has a responsibility to them first, just as a father has a responsibility first to his family. Otherwise you're implying that every government is fully responsible for the well being of everyone everywhere on earth.

Even if we disregard that, the fact of the matter is that more people suffer from open borders than do from enforcing our laws. American or not, overall, more people suffer. On a purely number of people affected scale, open border policy fails.

I'm not sure what your latter question has to do with the first, but the answer to it is yes. I don't know what sort of guilt you're trying to lay on me, but it doesn't change anything.

[CaptainFritz28]

If “love your neighbor” means prioritizing your own nation, why did Jesus make a Samaritan—the ultimate outsider—the hero of his parable?

If caring for the poor means prioritizing Americans/your co-natinoalists first, why didn’t Jesus do the same? He healed Samaritans, praised the faith of a Roman centurion, and ministered to those outside his own people.

If open borders are to blame for crime, does that mean mercy should be conditional? Jesus never made safety a prerequisite for compassion. If crime were a reason to turn people away, would he have shared meals with tax collectors and prostitutes?

If Jesus avoided political resistance, why did he confront the temple authorities, condemn hypocrisy, and ultimately get executed by the state? If his mission was purely about changing hearts, why did those in power see him as a threat?

I’m not a Christian, but if anything proves Fritz’s own point about US Christianity’s vulnerability to politically-motivated heresies, it’s the way he’s contorted Jesus into endorsing Trumpism.

What you've done is conflated the responsibility of the government and the Church.
As a Christian, I have a responsibility to aid any and all in need. Whether they're Americans or not. Whether they have money or not. Etc., etc. the responsibility of the individual is to love all unconditionally, sacrificially.

The role of the government is slightly different. The government is instituted to do justice to those under its authority. Particularly, this is done by punishing evildoers. That is the primary role of government.

Christians have a responsibility to everyone. A government has a responsibility first to those under it. A Christian government has a responsibility first to its citizens, then to all, to do justice by punishing evil and also promoting the aiding of the poor and needy.

So no, caring for the poor doesn't mean prioritizing your co-nationalists. For the individual, it means giving any and all aid. For the government, it means protecting those underneath it from injustice. A government prioritizes its own, because that is whom it has been given authority over.

Mercy shouldn't be conditionally based upon citizenship. But within the context of governance, justice should not be withheld from a nation's own citizens for the sake of those outside of its authority.

Safety is not a prerequisite for compassion. But a government which neglects to do what is just in the name of this is a poor one. What you are advocating for is that the government should force its people to be "compassionate" by making them sacrifice their own well being for the sake of what is called compassion. This is not, in fact, compassionate.

Let's take an example. DougJoe was compassionate to the couple he met. This is a good thing, it was done out of compassion for those in need and to his own sacrifice. If, however, a man like Doug had come along to the same scenario and kicked his wife and kids out of his car and left them sitting on the side of the road in the cold to help the couple, this would not be good. He would be doing an injustice to those under his direct authority in order to carry out his act of compassion, forcing them to be "compassionate" while neglecting his responsibility as a husband and father.

Crime is no reason to turn people away from my kindness. Let them rob me. Let them beat me. If I can show them the love of Christ through this then I say so be it. Forcing others, especially if they are people I am charged to protect, to be robbed and beaten to accomplish this is another matter entirely.

Jesus confronted the temple authorities and condemned hypocrisy because the governing authorities were doing injustice to their people. He sacrificed of himself, to the point of dying by crucifixion, to do so. So what should I do? I should sacrifice of myself, even to that point. But if I have a responsibility to do justice to those under me, and my actions cause them injustice, then whatever good comes of it is counterbalanced by that neglect and that injustice

The American government can do more good by helping those in need, under its authority, than it can opening its borders and forcing injustice on its own people in order to help those outside of its responsibility.

If you are advocating for Christians (or just individuals in general) going to the nations from which immigrants come, doing good to those in those nations, helping those in need, and sacrificing of themselves in order to do so then I'm all for it. The Christian university at which I am presently studying supports many such organizations and send some of their own. My family supports many such organizations, and once I have an income of my own I will do the same. I'm considering using my degree to do work in such a field once I graduate. If you look into Christian missions you'll find that it's not just a bunch of preachers going and doing nothing to help the locals while telling them about Jesus. It's people that sacrifice their whole lives to aid the poor and needy, showing them the love of Christ by demonstration. This is the love that Jesus showed, it is what I am in favor of, and it is what I want to live for.

Again, I stand resolved: open border policy is not a Christlike choice for the American government.

[CaptainFritz28]

I’m not a Christian, but if anything proves Fritz’s own point about US Christianity’s vulnerability to politically-motivated heresies, it’s the way he’s contorted Jesus into endorsing Trumpism.

If you're going to call me a heretic, I'd like a full Biblical backing of that claim, with the specifics of what I've said that are heretical and what heresies they are (doesn't have to be formal names of heresies but if you can find that that'd be better for specificity), evidence from the Bible that they are such, and logical reasoning throughout.

I don't throw around the word heretic willy-nilly. When I say that many American Christians ascribe to heresy I have specific doctrine in mind with specific Biblical backing and rationale. I'd like to see you do the same.

If you can't do that, then don't use the term, because that would indicate that you don't know what it means.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If Jesus commands us to love the outsider, care for the poor, and reject fear are binding on individual Christians, why do they become optional for the state? If the state operates by different moral rules, and you support the state in its non-Christ-like activities, aren't you just using government to shield yourself from the personal cost of discipleship? You talk a big game about how you'd sacrifice yourself for a downtrodden person, but you're sure to vote in a manner that ensures such a situation will never happen. If a Christian would be called to help an illegal migrant face to face, why should they feel justified in supporting policies that deny that same person mercy from a comfortable distance?

If justice demands protecting one’s own, how should Christians weigh the supposed injustice of increased immigration against the far clearer injustice of denying desperate people safety and a chance at a better life? If the choice is between small inconveniences to citizens and profound harm to the vulnerable, which side of that equation aligns with Christ’s teachings? Maybe you don't think it's your place to force this trade-off on others - fair enough - but wouldn't your Christian ethic demand that you at least try to convince others to be more Christ-like and compassionate in this respect?

And if a theological defense of nationalism requires selective parsing of scripture, shouldn’t that be a red flag? If what one supports contradicts the plain meaning of "be not afraid" and "love thy neighbour as thyself"—central pillars of Jesus’ teaching—does it really matter how many verses can be twisted to justify it? If scripture is being wielded to excuse fear and exclusion rather than to challenge them, isn’t that the definition of politically motivated heresy?

[CaptainFritz28]

If I am a Christian politician, and the policy I pass takes resources away from the poor and needy under my government's authority and gives them to someone else, while allowing those under me to suffer, then I have failed in my duty to the people that elected me. I have sworn to protect them and done what is contrary to it.

Sure, I'll be in a favor of helping the poor and needy elsewhere, but if that comes at the expense of justice for the people whom I am directly responsible, then I am harming my neighbor just as much as I am loving my other neighbor.

It doesn't take a parsing of scripture, as it is entirely consistent with the doctrine of loving your neighbor. It seems that you forget that the people under one's authority are their neighbors, too. If loving one neighbor requires doing evil to another neighbor, then you're doing just as much evil as good. Add to that that you have failed your responsibility to protect those under your authority, and you're doing more evil than good.

I notice that in all this y'all have disregarded my points that open borders don't actually provide a permanent solution to the underlying issue. Perhaps it might be a decent idea to spend money and resources trying to fix the nations from which the immigrants are coming, to actually make people's lives better so they don't have to watch their family die on a thousand mile trek through the desert, in caravans amongst whom are drug dealers and violent criminals. Open borders don't solve anything.

But the solution you propose is to let the caravans in, with their drug dealers and violent criminals (and obviously they aren't all that, many are just in need, but the fact is that many such people do come with those in need, often trafficking those in need for their own purposes) give them aid at the expense of our own needy, watch as crime far exceeds law enforcement's ability to stop it and injustice is done both to those arriving and our own citizenry, all the while doing nothing to solve the root issue causing the immigration, only patching a bandaid on a gushing wound, and then sit back and say we've done our Christian duty to love our neighbors. That's ridiculous.