Pope Francis slams poland for not taking refugees

[procne]

No, the invaders need kicked out, but since so many among you are like this...

Who exactly are those "invaders"? Like... every muslim? Every non-white? Everyone without citizenship?

[Incredibale]

Who exactly are those "invaders"? Like... every muslim? Every non-white? Everyone without citizenship?

Why are you asking questions you know the answers to? Stop it

[primalmatter]

Who exactly are those "invaders"? Like... every muslim? Every non-white? Everyone without citizenship?

Answered it with the last one to be honest. This isn't some kind of trick question.

[Pantupino]

As an argentinian I'm ashamed of the pope. He's poking his nose where he shouldn't.

[spinner981]

And let's not forget liberals..
And Merkel with the rest of the left even though she's right-winged because apparently it's #2016 and your entire political label is based on your stance on helping war-refugees.
They should be locked up and/or executed.
At least, that's what people were saying in another thread

Like I said earlier. No country is under moral obligation to just take in refugees. Don't want to take them in? That's perfectly fine. Take them in and those refugees end up raping your women so much that your nation's rape statistic goes up by a multiple of 20? Well, that's one of the risks you should have considered.

You can call everyone a cuck if you want to.
But I will have to warn you what happened last time I called someone a cuck (as an experiment):
"You have been infracted for minor flaming. Dont post to insult others"

I once got infracted for calling somebody 'thick'. It really doesn't have anything to do with the words, and everything to do with whether or not they like or agree with you.

Also, why do people take the pope seriously when he says something they agree with, but hes just a religious nut at all other times?

[Deleted]

Who exactly are those "invaders"? Like... every muslim? Every non-white? Everyone without citizenship?

I'd answer. Invaders are people from backward countries that neither want to integrate nor respect values & customs of their host country.

Then answer to yourself how muslim immigrants match to such definition.

[procne]

Why are you asking questions you know the answers to? Stop it

I honestly don't know the answer. In the last couple of months I have seen people openly calling for extermination of all muslims, all non-whites, or at least getting rid of all people who don't have citizenship yet, including non-muslim people from bordering countries who have legally lived and worked here for years.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd answer. Invaders are people from backward countries that neither want to integrate nor respect values & customs of their host country.

This I can agree with. I have always been of an opinion that "refugees" should take mandatory courses in language, history, law and culture of the country they ended up with and get declined if they don't pass tests. And then keep them on probation period. But that would be too expensive, it's much easier to just dump them in one place and hope for the best, or just kick them altogether.

Then answer to yourself how muslim immigrants match to such definition.

Some do match it, some don't. Can't put everyone in the same bucket.
Surely it would be against christian values to kick all of them out, even if only 1% of them were "good". Whether it would be good or bad for security is another matter.

[spinner981]

They do have the moral obligation, just not the legal obligation so they can be as immoral as they want.
"exaggeration", Google the word.

Which moral obligation is this? A country is in no way morally obligated to just let anyone into their borders. If you think that then you are astronomically naive. Do you just let any stranger walk into your house? Do you ever lock your doors?

Ok you got me. It's not 20 times. It's more like 15 times: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

It's flaming. Just because the other side isn't pathetic enough to make up insults doesn't mean it's any less flaming.

Are you implying that nobody ever insults me on these forums?

Can you show me the post where I don't take the Pope seriously?
He's the religious leader of 1.3 billion people.. Not taking him serious would be a stupid thing to do.

It wasn't about you specifically. I just see people either say the pope is just a religious nut when he says things they disagree with, but when he says things they agree with they are like "See! Even the pope agrees!".

[Meszkozaur]

After reading all that stuff I think its better to stay here in Poland and look how all lefite countries are sentencing themselves for destruction by taking more and more "migrants" Have fun guys

[procne]

Which moral obligation is this? A country is in no way morally obligated to just let anyone into their borders. If you think that then you are astronomically naive. Do you just let any stranger walk into your house? Do you ever lock your doors?

We're in a thread about pope, a religious leader, talking to followers of this religion, and a government which claims to follow and protect christian values. The moral obligation comes from those values.

It wasn't about you specifically. I just see people either say the pope is just a religious nut when he says things they disagree with, but when he says things they agree with they are like "See! Even the pope agrees!".

Are you sure it's the same people in both cases?

[Gsara]

I wonder if the pope understands just how irrelevant he is now a days.

[spinner981]

We're in a thread about pope, a religious leader, talking to followers of this religion, and a government which claims to follow and protect christian values. The moral obligation comes from those values.

Where in the Bible does it say that a nation is morally obligated to let anyone into their borders? Where in the Bible does it say that a nation cannot have immigration laws?

Are you sure it's the same people in both cases?

Yes, I actually have seen people who both condemn the pope for what he says and at other times bring up the pope's opinion to try and better support their argument. One is actually a friend of mine, the other was somebody in /2.

That said, that's anecdotal. Not ALL people who condemn the pope will also reference his opinion, but it does happen. If you are going to use the pope's opinion on something to support your argument, while also refusing to consider his opinion in other areas, that seems a bit silly to me.

[Deleted]

This is officially Fascist-Champion now.

[spinner981]

The rise in rapes is so high because they changed the laws on it.
Everybody knows that.

Ya, sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...d_crime#Sweden

"The report found that male immigrants were four times more likely to be investigated for lethal violence and robbery than ethnic Swedes. In addition, male immigrants were three times more likely to be investigated for violent assault, and five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes"

They are manly enough to use the REAL words.

So what you're saying, is that not only you admit you were wrong to claim that nobody insults me, but you think they are justified in doing it because... why? Is that what you are saying? If not then please explain, with an explanation that isn't so cryptic and misleading.

It's almost like different people have *gasp* different ideas.
Or are you saying that they agree with the Pope when they do, and disagree with him when he says something they disagree with.. Now that is shocking!

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about using the pope's opinion as an argument (ie: "The pope agrees with this! How can you disagree?!") and then refusing to consider the pope's opinion in other areas. It's acting like the pope's words are somehow weighty when they favor your opinions, but that they are negligible when they don't.

@spinner981 this is also relevant for you: Protestant vs Catholics.
In connection with papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, "from the chair") has been defined as meaning "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (the Bishop of Rome) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Christians follow Christ, not the pope or bishops. It's literally in the name.

Where in the Bible it says you shouldn't drink bleach? Is that question enough to make it stop looking like supreme guidebook to every single thing you do, wheter believer or not?

The Bible doesn't say "Don't drink bleach." therefore Christians aren't morally obligated to drink bleach.

The Bible also doesn't say "No nation shall have immigration laws." therefore nations aren't morally obligated to not have immigration laws.

The Bible doesn't command nations to let anyone in. So there is no moral obligation to a nation that claims to be Christian to let in whoever wants in for whatever reason regardless of their country of origin.

[spinner981]

Cool, Wikipedia!
Now if you took that additional one minute:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_i...ape_statistics

The combined effect of these "make it safe to contend that the Swedish rape statistics constitute an 'over-reporting' relative to the European average", according to a study by Hanns von Hofer, Professor of Criminology at Stockholm University, published by The European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research.

1. Your quote has NOTHING to do with your first claim.
2. The high amount of rapes in Sweden is because they work with a different system to report them.

Which totally refutes my argument that these immigrants are causing Sweden to have a higher rape statistic by being significantly more likely to commit rape? Five times more likely, and you think just letting in more of these immigrants is a good idea when they literally murder people 4 times more often, assault people 3 times more often and commit sexual crimes 5 times more often? What argument are you trying to make here?

No, I said they don't really make up insults like "cuck".
They usually use the old fashioned insults, because they care about their culture! /s

I've never called anybody cuck. I called somebody thick once, and got infracted. Meanwhile I've been called a nut, a zealot and an idiot to name a few. I've even been flamed by mods (you know who you are).

And we have Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians. They are not all the same.
If the Pope says that we have a moral obligation than Catholics have a moral obligation.

The pope has also said things that straight contradict the Bible. (do Catholics still follow the Bible?)

I don't see how anyone serious enough to call themselves a follow of Christ (ie: Christian) would then choose to ignore the teachings of Christ and instead favor the opinions of the latest old dude in a pointy white hat. That just doesn't make sense to me.

[procne]

Where in the Bible does it say that a nation is morally obligated to let anyone into their borders? Where in the Bible does it say that a nation cannot have immigration laws?

Bible says that if a hungry or thirsty person comes to you then you are supposed to give them food and drink. It also says that if someone wants to take your coat then you should just give it away. And if someone wants to assault you then you should just let him and not fight back. Do you really want to start discussions about the bible? If a government claims to follow and protect christian teachings (and that's what polish government claims) then they have no excuse for not taking care of refugees who come seeking help, unless there is 100% certainty that those people are not refugees and do not need help.

Yes, I actually have seen people who both condemn the pope for what he says and at other times bring up the pope's opinion to try and better support their argument. One is actually a friend of mine, the other was somebody in /2.

That said, that's anecdotal. Not ALL people who condemn the pope will also reference his opinion, but it does happen. If you are going to use the pope's opinion on something to support your argument, while also refusing to consider his opinion in other areas, that seems a bit silly to me.

Ok, so you were just sharing your feelings without actually referring to anyone here or relating to anything said here.

[Powerogue]

Fears run deep in the strongly Catholic nation that Muslim refugees could endanger its security and erode its Christian traditions.

Well they're completely right in that regard, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't admit any, it just means you should control the flow and make sure the refugees you have are well integrated into society rather than just opening the floodgates and letting them press their society on you.

[procne]

And so they do. Ukrainian refugees. Why are they less important than middle-east ones? Or maybe did Bible tell you to giva away your coat even if you already gave it away to someone else and have no coat left? Stop treating it as some kind of ultimate oracle.

Stop treating what as ultimate oracle? Bible? I'm not.

But christians do (or at least should).

What do Ukrainian refugees have to do with this? There are lots of Ukrainians coming to and living in Poland, although not as refugees.

[Jarilo1]

what a hypocrite, has the Vatican done shit? No? Figured.

[spinner981]

Bible says that if a hungry or thirsty person comes to you then you are supposed to give them food and drink. It also says that if someone wants to take your coat then you should just give it away. And if someone wants to assault you then you should just let him and not fight back. Do you really want to start discussions about the bible? If a government claims to follow and protect christian teachings (and that's what polish government claims) then they have no excuse for not taking care of refugees who come seeking help, unless there is 100% certainty that those people are not refugees and do not need help.

These things are spoken to individuals, not nations. Similarly, it would also be unrealistic for a nation to enforce a law against lying, coveting and disobeying parents.

Ok, so you were just sharing your feelings without actually referring to anyone here or relating to anything said here.

So, you're saying that nobody on here who would use the pope's statements as arguments for one belief or another would also accept the pope's words as valid arguments involving other issues?