The Gospel text (Lk 17:11-19), for this last Sunday told us the parable of the ten lepers whom Jesus cured. And of the only one who turned back to praise Him for having cleansed him, a foreigner, a Samaritan...
And this example makes me wonder whether I do really believe in God.
As an outcome of the economic crisis that has been spreading all over the world since 2008, we, in Europe and specially in Spain, are starting to worry a lot about the problems the inmigration (legal and illegal) are posing to our rather delicate and sick economies. The percentage of jobless people is justt too high and thus, many consider immigrants as an additional threat to
The local people who are looking for a job without success.
The close to 5 million immigrants we welcome since 2006 during our economic boom now we are starting to believe, as an aftermath of the present situation, they should be sent back to their own countries...
I am sorry to say that more often than not I also share that opinion.
My question, however, is whether this attitude, which right now is spreading all over the European Union, is what Jesus Christ is expecting of us. As the lepers of the parable we are expecting Jesus to cure us of our sickness, but those who really are prepared to acknowledge His help are the foreigners from Latin America, whose faith seems to be stronger than ours.
Cardinal J.H. Newman says that «nothing is too difficult to believe in if referring to He, whom nothing is too difficult for».
QUite possible, as a priest friend of mine writes, "if do not see more miracles is because we do not really “obligate� our Lord, lacking confidence and obedience to him. As St. John Crysostom said, «little faith can achieve a lot».
If we would really believe in God we should be prepared to understand that, as human beings, ALL immigrants have the same rights as we all believe we are entitled to, for they are, as we are, God's children.
Or am I wrong?
Gromitt82

You ask a most difficult question. Certainly the Bible exhorts us to show hospitality to the foriegner in our midst, but beyond loving our neighbour as ourself it offers no advice as to what to do with an excess of foriegners that many nations find themselves swamped with, because it wasn't contemplating the circumstance of an invasion.

There are two ways you can share with foriegners, you can invite them into your home or you can give aid to them in their own. Many nations provide such aid, but apparently it is insufficient because wars and famine displace many and cause them to migrate.

In Europe and other places the church is divorced from state policy and so church leaders should be conscious of what they are actually asking for when they begin preaching faith and social justice. What you need to decide is does an immigrant have the right to decide to come and settle in your country without consulting your country. I suggest to you that they do not. Does an immigrant who arrives uninvited have the right to expect that your nation will assume the burden of looking after that person. I suggest the answer is no, however once the person has been accepted, should they be turned away and again I suggest the answer is no. You cannot exploit the labour of these persons and then send them away, and I don't doubt that Jesus would expect you to accept them.

So what have we decided? In the absence of the government helping these people, the church assumes the obligation. A very difficult position to be in in times of declining membership. Voluntary repatriation is something your nation might think about and the church might foster

Of course it is difficult! We are actually talking of following Jesus’ messages irrespective of its consequences, or adapting what the Bible says to our own convenience.
You point out in your answer what it is called the 11th commandment, i.e. to love our neighbor as ourself and then you say that the Bible does not contemplate the circumstance of an invasion.
But precisely in these two aspects is where I think my question properly stands up.
Do we really believe in God or do we think we do because we do not kill, steal and go to the Sunday service every week?
The 11th commandment is very clear and needs no further explanation. Our neighbor is not supposed to be our friends next door, but ALL human beings irrespective of color, race and/or belief. I will speak for myself. I most certainly do not comply at all with that commandment. For instance, I am of the opinion that Mr. Sarkozy did well by trying to banish the gipsies out of France. And I would probably resent my grandson marrying a black girl, even if she was the best girl in the world.
Can I say I’m fulfilling the 11th commandment. I would say I am not!

When you speak of invasions, do you realize that our world has constantly been submitted to invasions of all types…
We Spaniards invaded and dominated practically the entire Central and South America casting off the actual primitive inhabitants and owners of the land, exactly as the English did in the USA plus all the other primitive emigrants like Irish, Swedes, Polish, German, Italian, etc.
But now we Spaniards feel we are been invaded by Latin American emigrants and Americans are building a metal wall along a third of the Mexican border and step up their surveillance under a so called Operation Guardian…
And what about Australia? Wouldn’t you say that it has been invaded and the aborigens pushed away to their reserves?
I think that we, whites of this world, have a tendency to complaint about other populations getting into our territories, while forgetting that we have also and previously invaded someone else’s property, with the excuse we were going to bring our civilization to them. Could we call that “love thy neighbor”?
Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

Of course it is difficult! We are actually talking of following Jesus’ messages irrespective of its consequences, or adapting what the Bible says to our own convenience.
You point out in your answer what it is called the 11th commandment, i.e. to love our neighbor as ourself and then you say that the Bible does not contemplate the circumstance of an invasion.
But precisely in these two aspects is where I think my question properly stands up.
Do we really believe in God or do we think we do because we do not kill, steal and go to the Sunday service every week?

Gromitt82

---

Hi gromitt82,

I would go along with paraclete. It is very difficult when we decide to take into account consequences.

What you have above is a problem in ethics which has been around for 3,000 years. Unfortunately there appears to be no satisfactory explanation.

www.moralphilosophy,info/euthyphrodilemma.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

When you speak of invasions, do you realize that our world has constantly been submitted to invasions of all types…
We Spaniards invaded and dominated practically the entire Central and South America casting off the actual primitive inhabitants and owners of the land, exactly as the English did in the USA plus all the other primitive emigrants like Irish, Swedes, Polish, German, Italian, etc.
But now we Spaniards feel we are been invaded by Latin American emigrants and Americans are building a metal wall along a third of the Mexican border and step up their surveillance under a so called Operation Guardian…
And what about Australia? Wouldn't you say that it has been invaded and the aborigens pushed away to their reserves?
I think that we, whites of this world, have a tendency to complaint about other populations getting into our territories, while forgetting that we have also and previously invaded someone else's property, with the excuse we were going to bring our civilization to them. Could we call that “love thy neighbor”?
Gromitt82

---

You cannot take one part of the Bible and look at that in isolation. Even Jesus has enemies. You are correct that in history no one is free of guilt. Past generations actually thought they were doing native populations a kindness rather that stealing continents, but empire brings with it responsibility.

Australia was invaded and is being invaded. Our problems are small in comparison to Europe and the US, but the principle is the same. A nation does have the right to determine who lives within its borders, whether that is Roma in France, Palestinians in Israel, Hispanics in the USA, Africans in Europe, or Asians in Australia, Europe or even other parts of Asia. The aborigine are free to live wherever they want, this doesn't mean they are welcome unless they come to assimulate in the society and work as the rest of us do. I perceive that the Roma represent the same problem in France, or the Muslims in Europe

Jesus has set us a standard but remember he spent no time trying to convience those who didn't receive the message. Neither did he give us an eleventh commandment but summarised all the commandments into two aspects, our relationship with God and with Man. Let us look at this in another way. Are those who are forcing themselves into our society being neighbourly, demonstrating concern for us? No, they are not, they are not behaving as neighbours, in fact they want to take not only that which is given but that which is not given. The world has not learned the principles that Jesus gave us. So to be neighbourly we have to gently say, return home. Even Jesus acknowledged the poor are always with us and left their welfare in the hands of God. Stop trying to make a Law out of one Scripture and focus on making one response well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi gromitt82,

I would go along with paraclete. It is very difficult when we decide to take into account consequences.

What you have above is a problem in ethics which has been around for 3,000 years. Unfortunately there appears to be no satisfactory explanation.

www.moralphilosophy,info/euthyphrodilemma.html

---

Hi TUT317,
What we have above is not, in my opinion, a problem in ethics. Jesus' message has not really much to do with ethics but with love and faith.
If we would really believe in The Word, as Jesus transmitted to us, and if we would really believed in His ethernal Kingdom as our unique and final reward, we should abide by His commandments irrespective of the consequences.
But this is why my initial question stands up. The problem, I think, is that our Faith in God is too weak and frail and, consequently, we are too much dominated by our Earthly interests and servitude to actually keep only in mind what rally matters, i.e. the Kingdom of God.:)
Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

Hi TUT317,
What we have above is not, in my opinion, a problem in ethics. Jesus' message has not really much to do with ethics but with love and faith.
If we would really believe in The Word, as Jesus transmitted to us, and if we would really believed in His ethernal Kingdom as our unique and final reward, we should abide by His commandments irrespective of the consequences.
But this is why my initial question stands up. The problem, I think, is that our Faith in God is too weak and frail and, consequently, we are too much dominated by our Earthly interests and servitude to actually keep only in mind what rally matters, i.e. the Kingdom of God.:)
Gromitt82

---

Hi Gromitt,

On this basis I guess the answer is pretty straight forward. If as you say we are weak when it comes to love and faith ( I certainly don't disagree with that) then the social, political and economic consequences of us doing what God wants is irrelevant.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

the social, political and economic consequences of us doing what God wants is irrelevant.

---

False argument there, doing what God wants is never irrelevant. What happens is we transform our society until it mirrors what God wants. Some nations are well along the road to doing this, others not so far. This colours the perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

False argument there, doing what God wants is never irrelevant. What happens is we transform our society until it mirrors what God wants. Some nations are well along the road to doing this, others not so far. This colours the perspective.

---

Hi clete,

I don't think it is.

What God wants is for us to follow his commands. This is an example of virtue ethics. If we transform society until it mirrors what God wants then this is an example of unintended consequences of following commands. On the other hand, if we want to transform society, then we do so because we see a need. In other words, we take note of the consequences.

We should follow God's commands regardless of the consequences. If God commands something then we do it is not up to us to us. If we see some bad short term consequences from following commands then this is irrelevant because God knows what its best in the long run. For example, Abraham was commanded to kill his son. Clearly this is in breach of secular laws. If we kill someone there are many bad consequences for a lot of people.

Hence we have the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is something morally right because God commands it or God only commands things that are morally right?

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

.

Hence we have the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is something morally right because God commands it or God only commands things that are morally right?

Regards

Tut

---

God takes a long term perspective. For example he told the Israelites to destroy the Cannanites because if they didn't the Israelites would be drawn into false religion and idol worship. To our perspective this was harsh call, genocide, but to his perspective, essential to maintain a purity because the Cannanites were corrupt. Bush tried to justify the Iraq war with a similar perspective. God made a moral call that those who sacrificed their children to Moloch should be destroyed, but we should not presume to be an instrument of God's vengeance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Gromitt,

On this basis I guess the answer is pretty straight forward. If as you say we are weak when it comes to love and faith ( I certainly don't disagree with that) then the social, political and economic consequences of us doing what God wants is irrelevant.

Regards

Tut

---

Hi Tut,
You have hit the right point! In order for us not to consider the social, economic and political consequences of what we normally do, as irrelevant when we have to choose between what is convenient for us down here and what we are told we should be doing instead for our convenience UP THERE, most of the time we choose the former considering, perhaps, that God's message is subject to interpretation.

And this is so at all levels and in practically all Christian religions.
This is precisely why we all admire and respect so much the examples set by some exceptional people who give up everything to consecrate themselves to help their neighbors.

What MotherTeresa started in Calcutta and/or what Vicente Ferrer built in Anantapur, southern India, are clear instances of this unconditional surrender to God's will.

On the other hand, the high price the RC Church is paying for the many cases of priestly pederasthy, sets the opposite example where my initial question prevails. Should all these priests actually had had a strong faith they should have never behaved like that.

The Middle Age crusades against Islam to recapture the Holy Land for Christianity as well as the development of the "so called" Court of the Inquisition to punish people suspected of not obeying the Church or of committing acts of heressy were, in my opinion, more the reflection of the vengeance spirit often appearing in the Old Testament.

In Deuteronomy 20:16-18, Yahweh tells Moses:

But of the cities of these peoples which Yahweh your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—just as Yahweh your God has commanded you...

Not too different from the message of hatred and odiousness the Islamic fundamentalists receive today from their Ulemas in the name of Allah.

But, in both cases, so different than the message of love Jesus Christ left by dying in the cross for all of us.

We are imperfect and as such too much influenced by the materialism flooding our western societies. We are also shortsighted and as such, we tend to find all kind of excuses for behaving as we normally do, to the point of actually believing that we are doing what we should.
But, alas, I guess we will not find the answer down here...
Grimitt82:confused:

I don't see the parallel between curing of ten lepers and the existence of foreigners in your land.

Unless you are saying that the example of the foreigner (i.e. Samaritan) who thanked Jesus, as opposed to the other 9 who were presumably Jews is somehow extended to all foreigners of any nationality in space and time.

Which means that you would be a foreigner in my land and therefore superior to the natives of my land.

The message of Scripture is that we should treat all people, regardless of origin, as our neighbors. And we should treat those who are trespassers and criminals with justice. Just laws should be written in your land to deal with citizens and foreigners in a just manner. What those laws entail, depend on the situation in your land.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

I don't see the parallel between curing of ten lepers and the existence of foreigners in your land.

Unless you are saying that the example of the foreigner (i.e. Samaritan) who thanked Jesus, as opposed to the other 9 who were presumably Jews is somehow extended to all foreigners of any nationality in space and time.

Which means that you would be a foreigner in my land and therefore superior to the natives of my land.

The message of Scripture is that we should treat all people, regardless of origin, as our neighbors. And we should treat those who are trespassers and criminals with justice. Just laws should be written in your land to deal with citizens and foreigners in a just manner. What those laws entail, depend on the situation in your land.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

In the said Gospel it is not a question of whether the foreigner (the Samaritan) is superior or the nine others (whether Jews or otherwise) inferior. It is rather a matter of gratefulness on one side and ingratitude on the other.
Moreover, I do not think that the fact the gratitude happens to be shown by the foreigner implies in any way that “foreigners of any nationality in space and time” are better than natives. Jesus probably just wanted to emphasize how differently people may react before a given situation and that, in general, plain and humble people tend to be more thankful and appreciative for favors received than those of us who tend to look down upon others, especially if they belong to different races, cultures or their pigmentation is not the same.
And this is precisely the case with immigrants all over our most of the world.
In the particular case I was pointing out, I meant to say that most of us are sick and ailing with a disease as fatal as leprosy, i.e. the lack of an iron strong faith that is the outcome of the absurd materialism we have been living into, since the end of WWII.
We like to claim we are good Christians and most of us we probably believe in good faith that we are. However, if we want to be honest with ourselves deep inside we should have to avow that we are far from it.
Jesus summarizes the entirety of God's law in two simple commands: love God, and love your neighbour (Matthew 22:37-40). BTW, in this command there is no indication whatsoever about trespassers or criminals.
Love for our neighbor should flow naturally out of our love for God, if we should really believe in what Jesus said.
You speak about “Just Laws” but these Laws are naturally prescribed by men. And human justice has little, if anything, to do with God’s justice.
You also say “that these laws should be written in my land (and in yours) to deal with citizens and foreigners (immigrants) in a just manner. What those laws entail, depend on the situation in my land (and in yours)”.
But let me tell you something. These laws are far from coinciding with Jesus’ message and I am almost certain that we shall be reminded of that in due course, when Jesus’ law will be applied to us.
And, though convinced, as I am, of what I say, my problem still is that I hope our lack of solidarity amongst ourselves and our strong instinct to preserve and defend what we consider our own rights down here, will perhaps be understood as one of our many weaknesses and failings and eventually of leniently castigated in the Last Judgment!
And this hope is precisely the evidence that my faith is not strong enough, for if it would be, I would not run the risk of failing my Creator.
Gromitt82

Gromett

I don't doubt you have difficulty with the concept of dealing with foriegners in a Christian context after all the Biblical examples aren't about dealing with droves of foriegners and what you have is more akin to the plague of the Midianites than any other Scriptural example.

The days of miracles are not over but what has happened is the Church has resorted to secular means and so does not see miracles. The Church should use its great wealth to help these foriegners particularly in their own land and perhaps reap a harvest of souls, but when did we hear of the Church doing such a thing. Such a concept seems beyond their ken