I’m an Atheist myself, so I would never use it, but it does seem like a good passage to cite towards Christians who have taken a stand against the refugees.
I also find it rather ironic that anti gay Christians are quick to recite Leviticus 18:22 when it comes to gay marriage and the like.
The first retort would be that they aren’t in our land, and they aren’t residing with me. They’re overseas.
Understanding Leviticus in context requires understanding that some of these were instructions given to the Levites - the priestly class. Some argue that such limitations imposed in Leviticus were not meant to be applied to all people, just the Levites. And then the there is the whole Old Testament/New Testament thing.
Perhaps a better scripture would be Matthew 7:12 stating the well known Golden Rule. Heck, all of Matthew Chapter 7 would be a good start covering the not judge lest ye be judged, not taking the speck out of your brother’s eye whilst ignoring the plank in your own, watching out for false prophets, and so on.
So you really feel the intent of that biblical injunction was that a country should seal its borders so it can keep out the people it would be obligated to treat humanely if they got inside?
Hebrews 13:2 is probably better. Or Matthew 25:34-35.
I’d steer clear of [2 Samuel 10:17](2 - - Bible Gateway Samuel+10:17&version=RSV), though.
Regards,
Shodan
We Christians have been citing verses like that at the anti-refugee crowd for years, but if you want to get in on the act, hey, go for your life, you got my blessing for what it’s worth.
However, using something you avowedly don’t believe in might be seen as a bit - cynical, perhaps?
For a pro-humanity statement both you AND whoever you’re talking to ought, theoretically, to be able to get behind, may I suggest a spot of Thomas Jefferson?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Yeah, that seems like a more appropriate verse to apply to our treatment of people who are already here, not those who want to come in.
Great idea - we’ll definitely save money by not letting any women in! 
No. But it’s human nature when presented with text to see if it literally applies or not. That’s what many of the people that the OP is targeting with his message (Christians that oppose giving refugee status in the US to Syrians).
The Leviticus passage would not be the best in this situation. As Omar Little points out, it doesn’t say you have to take them in, just that you shouldn’t mistreat the ones who are here.
If I were going to cite a verse to support taking in the refugees, it would be Matthew 25:34-46. The punch line, so to speak, is
:eek: The passage linked by dracoi just above has an eye-opening (for me anyway) footnote: It says that a one talent was equal to twenty years wages of a typical day laborer.
Can that be right?
I’m imaging the conversation you guys would have with God.
God: “Treat every guest in your home with the same love and kindness you give to the members of your family.”
You: “I understand. You’re saying we should keep the doors of our house locked so nobody can get inside. That way we won’t have to treat anybody with love and kindness.”
God: “I think you missed the bigger message I was aiming for here.”
There’s no reason why we can’t help the refugees by putting them up in a nice hotel. In Saudi Arabia.
Not at all… Leviticus 25:44 states: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”
CUrrency wasn’t as standardized in Biblical times as they are today, but there were about 6,000 denarii in a talentand the denarius was one day’s wages for an unskilled worker (cf. the parable of the workers in the vineyard). So, assuming someone didn’t work on the Sabbath and holidays, that’s somewhere about 250 days a year. 6,000 / 250 = 24. In purchasing power, federal minimum wage of $7.25 * 40 hours a week for 52 weeks * 24 years = $362,000.
The closest translation is something like “it was a lot of money”.
Regards,
Shodan
In general, I think that citing passages from a religion I don’t share is not likely to be persuasive to the adherents of that religion, no matter how apt they might appear.
I prefer Deuteronomy 27:19 in situations like this: “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.”
Hey, I’m not saying that’s my overall opinion of the Bible, just that I don’t think that particular verse is creating the bigger obligation.
It’s part of why quoting any single verse is a bad way to argue. You first have to look at the passage it’s in to understand the immediate context. Then you have to make sure any conclusions you’re drawing are not contradicted somewhere else.
That changes the tenor of the story a lot. If someone buried…um, let’s say several hundred grand…in his backyard, that might be seen as socially irresponsible and a bit paranoid.
I always just felt sorry for the guy, but I’m rethinking it a little.
Wait, the Castle Doctrine says I can shoot people dead in my home. And that’s a Doctrine! That means church stuff, right? 
On the other hand, they would be in Saudi Arabia. Who would go there if not for the Hajj or the oil industry?