Covid 19 virus plus vaccine was meant to kill us.

[RedPill]

From the OP:

But something strange is happening , if you mention it to a vaccinated person they call you a conspiracy theorist , or they change the subject or just tell you their not interested in talking about. I have never seen anything like it , why are people refusing to see..?

...the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not (2 Cor. 4).

- and it only goes downhill from there -

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (Rom. 1:28).

 

[Free]

From the OP:

...the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not (2 Cor. 4), and it only goes downhill from there...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (Rom. 1:28).

This is ignorant and irrelevant.

 

[Free]

It was striping everyone of there basic freedoms yet if people comply they will be rewarded with there freedom back. Labelling everyones basic freedoms a privellege and reward.

As it should have been. If people are unwilling to do what is best for everyone and look only to their own interests, then they shouldn’t be allowed to be among others. That is why we put people in prison, for example.

It’s a conflict of rights and someone’s rights have to win out.

 

[RedPill]

This is ignorant and irrelevant.

You'd do better to elaborate, with scripture.

And, "If people are unwilling to do what is best for everyone...", as determined by who?

"It's a conflict of rights..."; it most certainly is!

 

[Corn Pop]

As it should have been. If people are unwilling to do what is best for everyone and look only to their own interests, then they shouldn’t be allowed to be among others. That is why we put people in prison, for example.

It’s a conflict of rights and someone’s rights have to win out.

If the jab was to protect the vulnerable and keep them safe and was also open to everyone after that and there was a choice given, then that's it. How can you hold the jab against some people who willingly chose not to take it for there own personal reasons claiming its conflicting with others peoples rights?. The jab was freely available to all who wanted it, you could also wear a mask if you chose, you could even stay home if you wanted or until you got a jab.

What conflict of rights was there?. A complete bs excuse that the jab somehow did not feel safe around the unjab, when they were apparently the most protected as the jab was supposed to protect people from the virus. Makes no sense.

It was nothing to do with conflicting rights or science, it was a tool used to try push jab rates even higher even they got there 80% or 90% double jab quotas.

 

[RedPill]

What conflict of rights was there?. A complete bs excuse that the jab did not feel safe around the unjab, when they were apparently the most protected as the jab was supposed to protect people from the virus.

Well, that socially-conditioned norm/excuse was manufactured as just another part of the "hoax to coax" everyone down the road to further oppression... When one is being subjected to trauma-based mind control, it doesn't have to make sense.

It was nothing to do with conflicting rights or science,

It is a rights issue only to those who are looking to the godless State for their welfare (which, admittedly, is the majority).

 

[Corn Pop]

There is no such thing as a conflict of rights as everyone has the same equal rights. Not some people have more rights than others causing division and different classes in society.

The jab was available to all who wanted it, you could even wear a mask as well for added safety, and you could even stay home if you want, yet to say "those who are jab want to feel safe" implying they dont want to be around those unjabed in society so they can have more rights, when all the safety options were available, to use that as an excuse to create 2 classes of people with more rights for some that others is just crooked.

 

[Free]

If the jab was to protect the vulnerable and keep them safe and was also open to everyone after that and there was a choice given, then that's it. How can you hold the jab against some people who willingly chose not to take it for there own personal reasons claiming its conflicting with others peoples rights?. The jab was freely available to all who wanted it, you could also wear a mask if you chose, you could even stay home if you wanted or until you got a jab.

What conflict of rights was there?. A complete bs excuse that the jab somehow did not feel safe around the unjab, when they were apparently the most protected as the jab was supposed to protect people from the virus. Makes no sense.

It was nothing to do with conflicting rights or science, it was a tool used to try push jab rates even higher even they got there 80% or 90% double jab quotas.

It had everything to do with conflicting rights. People have the right to not get vaccinated and businesses, institutions, etc., have the right to not have unvaccinated people on their premises which puts people at risk.

Not to mention that we all have the social, and, as Christians, the biblical, responsibility to put others first, including their health whenever we are able, as long as it is feasible and within reason. Yet your position ignores this social and biblical responsibility.

So, yes, people should have the right to not get vaccinated. However, there are naturally going to be consequences for that decision, such as not being allowed into businesses, people's homes, etc., until such a time that enough people are vaccinated.

 

[jasonc]

As it should have been. If people are unwilling to do what is best for everyone and look only to their own interests, then they shouldn’t be allowed to be among others. That is why we put people in prison, for example.

It’s a conflict of rights and someone’s rights have to win out.

Then alcohol should be illegal


I can easily rattle of the problem if that being legal

Cancer ,
Associated with murder ,fights
Numerous car and boating deaths
Depression
Suicide
Liver failure

Of that only a few affects the user only .

Yet I can easily post photos of old speak easy properties of one which I use as a reference to head east on a route as it's a house now but rare as it is built to be a speak easy as it has a basement near a canal used for irrigation that if traveled takes you to a river then the inlet isn't that far north of South !

One of several that I know of .

Canada Didnt ban beer and in America until the 80s one could drink and drive and plenty did die because of it .


One can't argue logically that persons can't ignore the vaccine then argue well the prohibition on alcohol !

That drug kills

Alcohol-Related Emergencies and Deaths in the United States | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

Image

www.niaaa.nih.gov

My county was founded during this time of prohibition and the prominent person who was the face of temperance spoke on the dedication of it.you know him from the scopes trial .
Mr William Jennings Bryan

So bad was it that not even al Capone could beat the rum runner family known as the Ashley gang .he tried on their turf and they sent him packing .

My point is that laws for safety in this can't even stop the deaths
There is the bac law of .08 for a DUI
Then there is the one called buzzed driving of .02 or higher to .08

That indicates a problem .I'm hardly saying that it should be legal but if a vice makes the govt money they will then cash in on it .

It also is telling how the state is unable to protect and or correct bad behavior.im not saying it shouldn't .only that the state isn't God .

My bil nearly had to close his paint and body shop
He got No help from the state under Biden or trump

Made to much yet well reality is that a shop takes a lot on but as fast as it comes in another must come in to pay the bills .taxes ,mortgage are due plus other shop expenses .

His rule of a two week turnaround on total cars is a common thing . When that stops his has no income .plenty of local small places work that way .I saw pizza joints ,barbers and doctors fold yes doctors office do close .even under COVID .how non essential treatments .

Given that I knowing what my state does to the homeless and bankruptcy laws would ignore such lockdown and work because I will be homeless and the cops trespass me time and time again .

Seem it locally there is ministry that shows photos of those on ssdi in tents and not able to afford a place or vets .living in tent cities and often forced out of parks .

I don't know an answer but the reality is if I die .my wife would be like this if her only child can't take her in. I have some insurance but imagine if I didn't .

An elder at one time my church lost his wife and told me he would homeless if it wasn't for his kids raising the money to pay off his mortgage .

He and his wife both took the vaccine .she died from her immune related disease .if you know anything about the pitiful American safety net you will understand why I don't bash those that ignored said lockdowns .

In the u.s. as it will happen to my mom when she dies ,the state gets her house because they paid for my dads nursing home and hospice

That leaves my sister and her sons in a bind .

And in short as my wife hardly a Christian and a liberal said one can't trust the govt to take care of you .

She was oddly despite that pro vaccine .

 

[RedPill]

It had everything to do with conflicting rights. People have the right to not get vaccinated and businesses, institutions, etc., have the right to not have unvaccinated people on their premises which puts people at risk.

Not to mention that we all have the social, and, as Christians, the biblical, responsibility to put others first, including their health whenever we are able, as long as it is feasible and within reason. Yet your position ignores this social and biblical responsibility.

So, yes, people should have the right to not get vaccinated. However, there are naturally going to be consequences for that decision, such as not being allowed into businesses, people's homes, etc., until such a time that enough people are vaccinated.

Actually, this is one of the most cogent pieces I've read from Free.

He raises several important issues here, to which I will post several comments that the majority are probably not going to embrace.

"Rights" are not found anywhere in scripture; they are a construct of man. The follower of Christ has no eartly-granted rights. And there is only one mention of the word "right" and it is found here:

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Rev. 22:14).

The short story is, when we render obedience to two masters (God and the godless State), then obviously there are gonna be problems when we try to serve those two masters.

Free's mention of putting others first is solid biblical doctrine all the way, and this world would be immeasurably enriched if we did that. However, the reality is that our present habit of serving two masters has put us in a hurt locker big time, as there is a form of obedience that leads to death: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Rom. 6:16).

Free mentions the "right" to not get vaccinated. Actually, that would not be a Caesarian-granted right, but the free-will choice of a man who acknowledges Christ as his Master (and not the godless State).

Finally, his comment about not being allowed into people's business and homes would not even apply if the believer was among his brethren in a community of believers. Jesus didn't tell us to settle for a bible study in the basement of the brothel; he told us to build our own city on a hill!

 

[Free]

"Rights" are not found anywhere in scripture; they are a construct of man. The follower of Christ has no eartly-granted rights. And there is only one mention of the word "right" and it is found here:

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Rev. 22:14).

Which has no bearing on the matter since we live in this world within its worldly systems where rights, based on Scripture, including God-given authority to governments, actually matter.

The short story is, when we render obedience to two masters (God and the godless State), then obviously there are gonna be problems when we try to serve those two masters.

This is not relevant either. It has absolutely nothing to do with either serving God or obeying the government, especially since obeying the government is commanded by God.

Free mentions the "right" to not get vaccinated. Actually, that would not be a Caesarian-granted right, but the free-will choice of a man who acknowledges Christ as his Master (and not the godless State).

What does one have to do with the other? You seem to be needlessly and erroneously making distinctions between the sacred and profane, as though God isn’t sovereign over all.

Finally, his comment about not being allowed into people's business and homes would not even apply if the believer was among his brethren in a community of believers.

It absolutely would.

Jesus didn't tell us to settle for a bible study in the basement of the brothel; he told us to build our own city on a hill!

How is this relevant?

 

[RedPill]

Which has no bearing on the matter since we live in this world within its worldly systems where rights, based on Scripture, including God-given authority to governments, actually matter.

John 17:16 “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Being "of this world" means following the unbelieving world's values, beliefs, and conduct. Believers are not to share in these things. Instead, we are to follow Christ's word and reflect it by our words and actions.

Obeying Godly government is commanded by God. The government is to be on God's shoulder, not Caesar's:
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder (Isa. 9:6)

Yes, God is sovereign over all, and no man can serve two masters! (Mat. 6:24)

Christ spent his entire life in a region occupied by troops of a foreign conqueror. Hence, his message was delivered in an occupied country. Still, the gospel records indicate that he never gave the slightest support to any movement aimed at a military revolution that might bring national freedom. The American culture is obsessed with salvation by politics. We as a corporate body cannot comprehend any other way of changing the culture. They do not understand that God changes cultures by the preaching of the Word. Nineveh's culture was not changed by Jonah getting elected king or arguing that Nineveh stop socialism or stealing from her citizens. It was changed when God ordered him to preach (Jonah 3).

God hates compromise and fear, as these are traits imputed to simple unbelief. He also hates insubordination and contempt of lawful authority by his people. Note well his rebuke of King Saul,

I Samuel 15:23, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.”

So what then is the purpose of man’s ungodly authority? God has always used man’s ungodly governments as his rod of correction (re: Isa. 10:5). If you’re at the wrong place, partaking of the wrong thing, God makes it a hot bed of coals there so that you will come back over to him where his burden is easy and his yoke is light (Mat. 11:28).

 

[Corn Pop]

It had everything to do with conflicting rights. People have the right to not get vaccinated and businesses, institutions, etc., have the right to not have unvaccinated people on their premises which puts people at risk.

Not to mention that we all have the social, and, as Christians, the biblical, responsibility to put others first, including their health whenever we are able, as long as it is feasible and within reason.

Business did not have a right to chose there customers becuase they were forced to refuse the unjabed and only accept those who were jab. I know alot of jab people who had no problem being around the unjabed they believed they were protected so they didnt care, a couple did but not the many. It was just a made up rule using an assumption to try push jab rates higher. The vaccinated want to know they are safe so only vaccinated allowed at venues.

I have never heard of someone having to take a jab to protect others, usually people get a jab to protect themselves, i dont know any people who get flu jabs every year just to protect others, I know some people who are vulnerable and take responsibility for themselves and get flu jabs as they believe it could maybe help protect them more. I dont know how many got the jab to protect others, people were told if they got it that it would protect them from the virus.

I don't know anyone who got the jab to protect others because they believed it was there social responsibility. I think they either got it because they believed it could protect themselves, or, they felt forced or pressured, especially no jab no job. I know some who only got it to keep there job but otherwise they said they would not have.

 

[Corn Pop]

Not to mention that we all have the social, and, as Christians, the biblical, responsibility to put others first, including their health whenever we are able, as long as it is feasible and within reason. Yet your position ignores this social and biblical responsibility.

If I am sick I stay home, if im sick I will not go to work, if i am sick I will not go out for dinner, and so on. That is respect and responsibility. I think that is within reason.

If i am not sick or starting to feel sick then there should be no problem and I should be able to carry on with my daily life without interference.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The fact of the matter is that your programming won't allow you to process the information. Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.

It's not cognitive dissonance. The issue is you are not meeting your burden of proof/evidence. You made the claim that a mass of people died from the covid vaccines. The evidence you provided is that people died after receiving the vaccine, but the percentage of people who were injured was less than a tenth of a percent, and those that died from a direct vaccine injury is lower than that. You then posted a paper that roughly 90% of people who died had the Vax withen a 30 day period. The issue is that what they died of is not listed and considering that the first round of people that recieved the vaccine in both the US and UK were the elderly it makes sense that it could be from age or other medical complications. Since we don't have a total death sample size the roughly 90% number is worthless. Especially after the vaccines were made widely available the total deaths leveled then started comming down.


If the vaccine was meant to kill us the numbers would not have fallen. We are reaching 4 years post vaccines. Nothing has happened.

 

[Free]

John 17:16 “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Being "of this world" means following the unbelieving world's values, beliefs, and conduct. Believers are not to share in these things. Instead, we are to follow Christ's word and reflect it by our words and actions.

That verse is clearly speaking of things that are anti-Christ, which has no bearing on this subject.

Obeying Godly government is commanded by God. The government is to be on God's shoulder, not Caesar's:
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder (Isa. 9:6)

Yes, God is sovereign over all, and no man can serve two masters! (Mat. 6:24)

Those two verses are not relevant as you're making a distinction the Bible itself doesn't make, or at least failing to make the proper biblical distinction. We are commanded to obey all governments, unless they ask us to go against God.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
...
Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (ESV)

1Pe 2:13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,
1Pe 2:14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
...
1Pe 2:17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (ESV)

The latter passage was likely written during a time of persecution.

Christ spent his entire life in a region occupied by troops of a foreign conqueror. Hence, his message was delivered in an occupied country. Still, the gospel records indicate that he never gave the slightest support to any movement aimed at a military revolution that might bring national freedom. The American culture is obsessed with salvation by politics. We as a corporate body cannot comprehend any other way of changing the culture. They do not understand that God changes cultures by the preaching of the Word. Nineveh's culture was not changed by Jonah getting elected king or arguing that Nineveh stop socialism or stealing from her citizens. It was changed when God ordered him to preach (Jonah 3).

God hates compromise and fear, as these are traits imputed to simple unbelief. He also hates insubordination and contempt of lawful authority by his people. Note well his rebuke of King Saul,

I Samuel 15:23, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.”

And, what does any of this have to do with the discussion?

So what then is the purpose of man’s ungodly authority? God has always used man’s ungodly governments as his rod of correction (re: Isa. 10:5). If you’re at the wrong place, partaking of the wrong thing, God makes it a hot bed of coals there so that you will come back over to him where his burden is easy and his yoke is light (Mat. 11:28).

It's more than that.

 

[Free]

Business did not have a right to chose there customers becuase they were forced to refuse the unjabed and only accept those who were jab.

Yes, businesses absolutely have the right when the health and safety of customers and staff is an issue.

I know alot of jab people who had no problem being around the unjabed they believed they were protected so they didnt care, a couple did but not the many. It was just a made up rule using an assumption to try push jab rates higher. The vaccinated want to know they are safe so only vaccinated allowed at venues.

I have never heard of someone having to take a jab to protect others, usually people get a jab to protect themselves, i dont know any people who get flu jabs every year just to protect others, I know some people who are vulnerable and take responsibility for themselves and get flu jabs as they believe it could maybe help protect them more. I dont know how many got the jab to protect others, people were told if they got it that it would protect them from the virus.

I don't know anyone who got the jab to protect others because they believed it was there social responsibility. I think they either got it because they believed it could protect themselves, or, they felt forced or pressured, especially no jab no job. I know some who only got it to keep there job but otherwise they said they would not have.

My wife and I did it (and do it) for both reasons--to protect ourselves and others--as any reasonable, caring person should. The same went for all the health measures. It goes to show, perhaps, just how selfish and self-centered people have become, including in the Church, that they can't consider their social (or biblical) responsibilities to others.

If I am sick I stay home, if im sick I will not go to work, if i am sick I will not go out for dinner, and so on. That is respect and responsibility. I think that is within reason.

If i am not sick or starting to feel sick then there should be no problem and I should be able to carry on with my daily life without interference.

Yes, and that's great, but it doesn't work when a person is asymptomatic with something that is contagious. A person can be spreading the virus for days prior to actually feeling sick. That is one of the main problems.

 

[RedPill]

Business did not have a right to chose there customers becuase they were forced to refuse the unjabed and only accept those who were jab.

Rather, according to their worldly master with whom they have contracted, they are legally bound to not discriminate in the way that they handle customers. Yet they do not even follow their own rules as they are written. IOW, they are lawless.

I have never heard of someone having to take a jab to protect others, usually people get a jab to protect themselves, i dont know any people who get flu jabs every year just to protect others,

lol yeah, It's a no-brainer. But because the ppl are mind-controlled, they can't see any other way but the world's way.

You then posted a paper that roughly 90% of people who died had the Vax withen a 30 day period. The issue is that what they died of is not listed and considering that the first round of people that recieved the vaccine in both the US and UK were the elderly it makes sense that it could be from age or other medical complications.

The point is: The 14,000 that had been vaccinated and then died less than 60 days later were the ones diagnosed with "covid."

We are reaching 4 years post vaccines. Nothing has happened.

That's because you haven't performed due diligence. The excess deaths are off the charts.

The number of confirmed deaths from COVID-19 is far below the pandemic’s full death toll.

Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)

Explore data on COVID-19 excess mortality across the world.

ourworldindata.org

We are commanded to obey all governments, unless they ask us to go against God.

That's the mainstream evangelical myth. If is was the truth, then it would be easy for you to post scripture that tells us exactly that. But you can't, because there isn't any.

It's a cop-out, another old wives tale without scriptural support. Compromising with temporal powers e.g. the soulless State can never lead to redemption or a stronger walk with the King. If you're not grounded in Christ in the first instance, then you will soon enough become influenced or overwhelmed by the Godless State; it's only a matter of degree.

There is only one lawgiver (James 4:12). This one lawgiver is the Lord (Isaiah 33:22). Man does not have authority to make laws, but only the authority to make ‘ordinances’ which enforce Laws already in existence, which are the Laws of God. To obey the so-called ‘laws’ conjured up by the worldly governing authorities is to set aside the gospel of our Lord, and place oneself under a separate government, other than his.

Bondmen of Christ are not citizens of any country on this earth, our citizenship is in heaven, and so our first loyalty is to God, not "our" country (Ephesians 2:19, Philippians 3:20). Ours is a better, heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16).

And, what does any of this have to do with the discussion?

Light has no fellowship with darkness. We're not to settle for a bible study in the basement of the brothel, but to build our own city on a hill. Again, compromising with temporal powers can never lead to redemption.

It's more than that.

Then cite scripture and enlighten us all rather than posting mere opinion.

Yes, businesses absolutely have the right when the health and safety of customers and staff is an issue.

They can do whatever their worldly master tells them they can do - they signed on to his program!

My wife and I did it (and do it) for both reasons--to protect ourselves and others--as any reasonable, caring person should.

That's what you were told to do by those running the show for a season. But you were lied to.

A person can be spreading the virus for days prior to actually feeling sick. That is one of the main problems.

There is no virus, only radiation poisoning/toxicity.

 

[Corn Pop]

"It's a conflict of rights..."; it most certainly is!

When they were opening back because state leaders were given emergency powers like a dictator some made a generalisation and said "The vaccinated want to feel safe" to make a rule only the vaccinated are allowed at venues when it was really just to boost and try get more people jabbed. Thats why they said the vaccinated want to feel safe and be around other vaccinated people, and also called the basic freedom to enjoy a meal at a restaurant or a coffee at a cafe is somehow a reward. A reward?.

I don't see how that is justified going on a generalisation to lock people out and force business to comply and refuse customers based on someone's generalisation that "the jab want to feel safe".

The only person i agreed with was the Leader of one country when he said at the start essential services only and then said everyone who has a job is valued and essential service, so that could basically keep everything open, so there was never really any hard lockdown. Yet some state leaders went power triping, but where I was was not as bad.

I was in 2 countries over covid. One was too powertip for me so I fled to more freedom, and the other was not too bad the state I chose and went to.

 

[RedPill]

Corn Pop, I get it; you're upset. And I know why. It's because what the corporation i.e. the godless State is doing is not in line with what our Master has told us we should be doing. And we're frustrated because of it. We're reaping the rewards of trying to serve two masters.

These covid clowns have no Godly position -- never did. Like the Holy Bible says, they "set themselves" (Psa. 2:2). They offer you deceptive benefits packages, and so you go ahead and buy into it and strike hands with these heathen (that's disobedience) and then cry when their "duty" hammer comes down.

It truly breaks my heart -- sometimes it's too much to bear -- to see God's people being destroyed for lack of knowledge. Covid forums are full of frustrated posts, and they always cry out for justice, but none will be forthcoming because virtually no one is willing to do what it takes to be in obedience to the King.

So now the so-called Christians are vacillating in a holding pattern, trying to hold out before they too lose their very lives, twisting scripture to justify their selfishness while living their remaining time in fear. Yet, there is always hope. God always makes a way where there seems to be no way. It is the essence of faith. Trust him, seek him out, and he will guide your path.

With OP's like this, what's to discuss -- other than to commiserate about the pickle we're in? Well, yes, there is hope -- IF we REPENT, God will restore, and he will heal our land (2 Chron. 7:14). That’s all it would take. Let’s say, the people at USA take one day off, just one day, from the president/”prime minister” all the way down to the street sweeper, we all agree to take just one day off and repent. How likely do you think that is gonna happen? Well, then, you’d better prepare for the coming persecution, because, as we’ve seen with the OP, it is even at the door.

Make no mistake, God’s judgment is about to fall on the children of disobedience (Eph. 2 & 5; Col. 3). Do not be found among them.