Christian Radio Commentator: Bible Supports Concept of Secure Borders
Steve Marr's online commentaries are called "Business Proverbs." His syndicated radio program by the same name is heard on 1,000 radio outlets worldwide. According to Marr, the Bible supports the idea that nations have the right and responsibility to secure their borders.
I agree whole-heartedly. You can still be compassionate while insisting that laws get followed. The bible is very clear about submitting to the ruling authorities on matters of law:
Titus 3:1 Remind them to be in subjection to rulers and to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
1 Peter 2:13 Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme; Peter's Second Letter
Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
8 comments:
Daniel, while cogent arguments supporting the rule of law are interesting, the folks who practice moral equivalence and/or relativism (those would be secular progressives to you lefties lurking out there) are not likely to care about reason when they can't get past the question...."What about illegal don't you understand?"
Sometimes I forget that I am arguing against people whose usual respones is: "bigot"
BTW, happy Father's Day, MR. Daniel!!
I suppose it's my place to submit the obvious: the Bible cannot be used to justify an act of Congress. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Kaelri, name the ONLY two nations in the world that were founded on Biblical principles.....(time's up)...Israel and the U.S.A.. If you are in disagreement with or offended by those principles, feel free to live somewhere that suits you. Don't try to deny our heritage, let alone impose socialist nonsense on us. The arrogance of the left is stunning.....sheesh.
Slow down a bit. What I said was that we shouldn't make a law based on a religion, and why I said it is because the Constitution mandates it. Surely you don't disagree there?
or prohibit the free excercise thereof."
Why don't you include that last part?
Because it's irrelevant here.
Post a Comment