Are there any theological arguments against refugees?

Are there any theological arguments against refugees?

As far as I can tell wealthy countries ARE morally obligated to completely ruin themselves trying to feed and house migrants because God is kind of a prick like that.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/the-argument-from-truth/
youtube.com/watch?v=7j5vFxOM1L8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

protestant have predetermination so yes

No, there are none, and there are also none in favor.

are you required to wear a helmet at all times?

>Moral obligation
Religion became a cancer when morality was separated from what is best for society.

They wouldn't do the same for us.

We have to look after our own people first, and at a certain point you can only take so many before major downsides come into play (France, Germany).

Taking in these people also doesn't even put a single dent into the worldwide issue of poverty, hunger, and disease. Even if every 1st world country took in as many people as they could before there was a major tipping point, it wouldn't cover 5% of the world's starving population.

Better to help them where they are than bring them here.

Fuck it, watch this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

>They wouldn't do the same for us.
That one's definitely not a factor. You're obligated to be kind and generous to assholes that are nailing you to a fucking plank or tossing you to lions.

>Better to help them where they are than bring them here.
That viewpoint's pretty good, though.

orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/the-argument-from-truth/

>You're obligated to be kind and generous to assholes that are nailing you to a fucking plank or tossing you to lions.

Uh, no, nobody is obligated to do that.

Well if you're not Christian, sure. I'll agree that it sucks but there's a ton of "btw being a Christian is going to be really hard and counter-intuitive" passages in the New Testament.

As a Christian it is against the teachings of Jesus to actively admit a people who you KNOW are going to cause harm and problems for others. Simple fact is Jesus never had to deal with Muslims

>“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Notice Jesus says this right after talking about judging others and hypocrisy. Cuckolics will say "you can't judge them, not all migrants are bad," or, "you would want to be treated good if you were in that situation, so you need to treat them good."

We can already safely determine that the migrants are pretty much "pigs," having ideals that oppose Christian and western values, and they have already started to "tear us into pieces."

>Well if you're not Christian, sure.

Correct, and even Christians are not "obligated" to do so when it will lead to their own destruction and end of self-preservation, which everyone has a right to.

>I'll agree that it sucks but there's a ton of "btw being a Christian is going to be really hard and counter-intuitive" passages in the New Testament.

Letting in your ideological enemy that you know for a fact will never change their ideology to match yours is literal suicide. I don't believe the Bible asks for that, and if it did, I wouldn't expect Christians to follow it.

Now this is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for, thanks.

Same goes for dusting off your shoes and walking away from unbelievers, I guess.

>"theological"

No one needs to embarass themselves by going for a leap of logic to support a yea or nay position on the rapefugees.

All you need to do is say that this policy of the Argentine Pope's is not actually an act of charity but an act of greed and irresponsibility - greed on the part of these "refugees" and the government agents who administer their colonisation, and irresponsibility on the part of any cuckservative who thinks "muh charity" supports this policy.
Even if one thought people from one country were obligated to be taxed to throw money at a shitty country because they blow up their cities and kill their children, that doesn't justify bringing in these people and destroying what little social cohesion and genetic-national continuity Europe has left after the "enlightenment", which is where this corruption of the Christian moral sense comes from.

TLDR: You don't need theology to explain that an idea with bad results will have bad results.

I've heard rumors that the Catholic Church's standpoint is a lot simpler and a lot more cynical than most would suspect - that they don't care about or even rather dislike the refugees but that they own a lot of vacant real estate that European governments are reimbursing them to use to house and serve refugees.

If the Church is looking for money first and then a theological justification afterwards, well that wouldn't be unprecedented would it?

Well i have to sadly admit, that picture was taken in our shitty country, but we are so fucking backwards and poor the immigrants didnt want to stay here, they all wanted to go to germany or sweden, But we still deserve to be nuked for letting them pass.

youtube.com/watch?v=7j5vFxOM1L8

I doubt it unless evidence is provided.

It would undermine them greatly beyond the current generation, perhaps fatally in Europe.
The Muslims kill their priests, the leftist governments demolish their churches.

And while corruption isn't unprecedented in the RCC (and what the major Protestant state churches are founded on), corruption that directly undermines the survival (forgetting about integrity) of the church makes no sense for an honest set of leaders of the RCC and other churches to set as their deliberate policy.

I think it's more likely they're similarly cucked/cuckservative the same way the establishment and the "politically active masses" across the west are.

The Vatican own a lot of real estates in Italy.
Big historical palaces in almost every cities.
Many of them host hospitals, retirement homes or monasteries.
Do you really think that putting a bunch of savages in an ancient an precious building will increase the value of the property?

Well, the 'refugees' would be the first to burn the pope on a stake if they could get away with it.

But i guess that is not really a """""""""scientific""""""""" argument.

>Jesus never had to deal with Muslims

holy shit this. When Christians first encountered Muslims, we fought them, and the pope sanctioned it

Though shalt not steal.

The current invation of non-whites would not be possible without the systematic extortion of whites by communist traitors through the western tax systems.

>thinks he gets points for adding difficulty to his own life and that of others
Sheer faggotry.

>increase the value
No, but for instance hoteliers have been eager to take refugees in exchange for thousands of dollars per night in gibs, so I thought there might be something similar

Its not morally obligeable to invite your enemies at your doorsteep

I live in a touristic spot, hoteliers literally pay you to live in a free room during low season, in fear the government will force them to accept immigrants.
Once your hotel get niggered you'll be sure no paying guest will want to stay.

The only one who benefit are the one-star hotels, and even them will strip each room of furnitures before handling the room to a state funded "refugee"

Maybe you have heard of "centri di accoglienza", these are emergency shelters for not-yet-registered immigrants.
They are run by local mafia and is very possible that some vatican priests is involved too.

Why. You think two wrongs make a right? You have to keep what you have and fix the other places. Don't ruin it for everyone, makes no sense.

Non-whites weren't considered humans until some time in the 19th century, so..

>morally obliged to invite a culture of rape and murder into your country

Americans are morally obligated to feed and house migrants since you keep supporting islamic coup againts rightful ruler of Syria and breaking the societies in Iraq and Libya. Having the best ally is not free, you know.

>Implying your degenerate morals are the same as mine.

Fucking retard. I hate how libtards love to take other people money and give it away.

Make your fucking own money and give it away if you actually think you're obligated to that.

You apparently think theft is fine.

>Are there any theological arguments against refugees?
Against refugees? Probably none

Against migrants -> Ordo caritatis. You can't practically love the world as a whole