On the one hand, I grant that it’s open to interpretation. People clearly (and frequently) get it wrong. On the other hand, what pleases God is actually fixed and doesn’t change because someone fails to understand it. If you say something in a crowded restaurant and I perceive you to have said something you didn’t, that doesn’t change what you actually said. You said what you said.

Someone who’s a believer should be living his or life, in all areas, in a way that’s pleasing to God. If you’re a sanitation worker you should collect trash in a way that pleases God. Likewise if you’re a legislator. Likewise if you’re Ilhan Omar.

That doesn’t imply I must support every person who’s endeavoring to please the God of the bible, or Allah, or any other God, since that person may be severely mistaken about what actually pleases God. This is almost surely the case with Drollinger.

From my reading of the bible, the set of policies that are pleasing to God are largely the ones we categorize as “progressive” (with the one big exception being abortion). The over-arching principle is to support policies that maximize human flourishing, care for the poor, sick and old, care for creation, recognize citizens of other countries as equally valuable in God’s sight, and curtail freedom only when necessary to protect us from directly harming one another.

Per those principles, here are some things I think are *not* pleasing to God:

* mistreating would-be immigrants and asylum seekers
* excessively limiting immigration due to fears of cultural change
* making gay sex a crime
* making porn a crime
* imposing the Christian understanding of marriage on a secular nation
* weak laws that allow corporations to pollute the environment
* allowing (some) hard-working citizens to struggle to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living
* allowing incarcerated individuals to be abused in all manner of ways
* punishing Americans (and particularly those of color) for using, possessing or selling a substance that’s not significantly more dangerous than alcohol
* so-called “blue laws” that, e.g., prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays
* empowering public school teachers to proselytize their students and/or lead them in faith-specific activities during class
* refusing to account for biological differences related to child-bearing that disproportionately impact women in the workplace

On the one hand, I grant that it’s open to interpretation. People clearly (and frequently) get it wrong. On the other hand, what pleases God is actually fixed and doesn’t change because someone fails to understand it. If you say something in a crowded restaurant and I perceive you to have said something you didn’t, that doesn’t change what you actually said. You said what you said.

Someone who’s a believer should be living his or life, in all areas, in a way that’s pleasing to God. If you’re a sanitation worker you should collect trash in a way that pleases God. Likewise if you’re a legislator. Likewise if you’re Ilhan Omar.

That doesn’t imply I must support every person who’s endeavoring to please the God of the bible, or Allah, or any other God, since that person may be severely mistaken about what actually pleases God. This is almost surely the case with Drollinger.

From my reading of the bible, the set of policies that are pleasing to God are largely the ones we categorize as “progressive” (with the one big exception being abortion). The over-arching principle is to support policies that maximize human flourishing, care for the poor, sick and old, care for creation, recognize citizens of other countries as equally valuable in God’s sight, and curtail freedom only when necessary to protect us from directly harming one another.

Per those principles, here are some things I think are *not* pleasing to God:

* mistreating would-be immigrants and asylum seekers
* excessively limiting immigration due to fears of cultural change
* making gay sex a crime
* making porn a crime
* imposing the Christian understanding of marriage on a secular nation
* weak laws that allow corporations to pollute the environment
* allowing (some) hard-working citizens to struggle to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of living
* allowing incarcerated individuals to be abused in all manner of ways
* punishing Americans (and particularly those of color) for using, possessing or selling a substance that’s not significantly more dangerous than alcohol
* so-called “blue laws” that, e.g., prohibit alcohol sales on Sundays
* empowering public school teachers to proselytize their students and/or lead them in faith-specific activities during class
* refusing to account for biological differences related to child-bearing that disproportionately impact women in the workplace

Pentateuch God, wisdom books God, Paul’s God, Jesus’ God are (IMO) all the same God, so…

A pro-slavery position would not be pleasing to God, no. Granted, people have been (and are) mistaken about this, as they are for a great number of positions.

You seem to be arguing against the concept of supporting policies that please God by pointing out people who are wrong about what pleases God. That’s like arguing Muslims shouldn’t seek to live their lives in a way that’s pleasing to Allah *in general* by pointing out that *some* Muslims think it pleases Allah for them to harm infidels. It doesn’t follow.

God of the Bible. If you’re a believer who is also an elected official and you become convinced that a particular policy is pleasing (or displeasing) to God, then you should act accordingly.

If so much immigration is illegal the first true humans who were in Africa wold still be there. The various precursors to humans (homo sap) like the Neanderthals wold never have met the humans. The Puritans might have recognized that they had no right to come to The New World, and they might have stayed in England to have changed much of England’s history. I am a secular Jew who regards this mucking around in Hebrew to be bloody irrelevant.

Drollinger also states

“People who are illegals are a threat to the welfare of those who are citizens. It is out of an inherent desire imbued by their Designer, that governments want to protect their citizens as a mother does her child — and if they don’t, they should. In terms of immigration, for a government to be pleasing to God and receive His blessing, it has no option but to protect its citizenry from illegal immigration per Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14. It must always protect its borders and punish those who enter illegally.”

Just stating this or even what you stated doesn’t mean the Bible words Drollinger used refer to people entering a country illegally. He isn’t just referring to people who are criminals. Nobody wants to allow criminals into the country. Nobody. This is a deflection tactic. People who are refugees from other nations have a right to claim asylum and if they are found to be criminals that claim would be denied. There is no debate about that. Drollinger conflates criminals with those who enter illegally. He says they all must be punished. In fact, the Bible word he says requires such a thing doesn’t require it at all and in fact is used in a passage which anticipates people will want to come to Israel.

There is nothing in the link stating that Drollinger’s views are simply based on what Trump thinks is illegal immigration. We all know that for the past 40 years, US government would not generally allow anybody with a criminal record, especially felony, to immigrate into the country. This is how Drollinger defines illegal immigration and then correlates it with his proposed immigration policy and theology:

Note in this regard Romans 13:4:

. . . for [Government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

In this passage, Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, is addressing believers who are citizens of the Roman Empire living in the capital city of Rome. Not only does he state here the need for citizens to abide by the rule of law, which includes immigration law, but in addition, he implies what the motive should be behind the legislators’ (ministers [diakonia], meaning “servants”) lawmaking: to look out for the welfare of citizens; i.e., such laws are intended to you for good.

It is not overreaching to reason from this passage that immigration laws, like all of a nation’s laws, should stem from a desire to protect the nation and its citizenry.6 That protection should deter a myriad of intrusions by illegals: weapons of destruction, disease, property and job theft, the importation of illegal drugs, and the like, which could result from illegals who have never pledged their allegiance to the nation and its laws, but rather have broken the laws of the land by entering the country illegally.

Why do you have to be Trump to see somebody doing such things mentioned above as a threat to a society thus would want to prevent such people from entering the country? I think any person with a common sense would do that.

A: Foreigners should not be allowed unregulated entry into a country. Borders and oceans should be impenetrable so as to discourage illegals entrance.

B: Foreigners should not be able to partake of any governmental entitlements. (Governments should not be in that business to begin with.) Nor should they be allowed to have any licenses, legal identification, or enrollment in any institutions.

C: Foreigners who can help advance (not detract) should be afforded sojourner/ immigration consideration. It follows then that foreigners who are already in the country seeking citizenship should have citizen-sponsors who can testify to their past value, productivity, present character, and loyalty.

D: Foreigners should be required to pay taxes similar to those paid by citizens, both present and past due.

E: Illegal entrants, whether headed toward citizenship or expulsion, should be justly punished.

F: Not all of the responsibility of illegal immigration should be placed on the shoulders of each illegal immigrant because of the simple fact that the institution itself, the Government of the United States, has continually violated the biblical principles associated with immigration. The repeated, long-term violations of the institution itself in specific regard to having fostered and prolonged illegal immigration need to be taken into consideration in working out the problem.

Weren’t Clinton, Bush, and Obama also toting around similar concerns regarding immigration policies?

Look, I understand that some people have a dislike for both Trump and Drollinger, but there is no need to create a sensation about them for more than they actually deserve. My only problem with Drollinger is that he seems to be more concerned with influencing Trump but hardly other politicians. As far as I understand, if you a pastor, you are supposed to minister to as many people as possible, so why is he is not reaching out to prominent members of the Democrat flock, like Sanders and Pelosi? It appears that these people’s souls are as or even more lost than of Trump’s.

No, that is completely false. You are spreading misinformation. Drollinger doesn’t require that for a person to be banned from the country, just that they entered in a manner that the current administration deems to be illegal.