Religious Exemption, Covid

[DadSmith]

I merely said it is the lefts (should have said satans) favorite tactic to throw at Christians. That the biblical admonitions to love others (usually defined as whom the left wants to force christians to love) just supersedes all others.

Who gets to define “neighbor“?

Also a lot of those laws are directed towards brothers in the faith only if you read Acts and beyond.

I also believe I read without holiness no one will see Christ.

 

[wtburnette]

By quoting Jesus?

How dare Christians be held to that standard.

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

We can debate about what this means, certainly, but let's not pretend that setting aside one's own rights for others is absent from the Bible. What that means to each person? As long as it does not conflict with the Bible explicitly or implicitly, that's up to each individual.

Are you saying that taking the vaccine is somehow important for my fellow man? I call BS on that. The Left wants you to think that, but has offered no proof that taking the vax helps anyone at all, possibly not even the person getting the jab. We're already getting weaker variants come out, which is kind of the way nature works. If you want the jab and think it's safe, by all means take it. Shaming other people into getting it "for the greater good" is nothing but a lie and pretty F'n pathetic.

 

[HoughMade]

Are you saying that taking the vaccine is somehow important for my fellow man? I call BS on that. The Left wants you to think that, but has offered no proof that taking the vax helps anyone at all, possibly not even the person getting the jab. We're already getting weaker variants come out, which is kind of the way nature works. If you want the jab and think it's safe, by all means take it. Shaming other people into getting it "for the greater good" is nothing but a lie and pretty F'n pathetic.

I didn't say anything about the vaccine.

 

[HoughMade]

I merely said it is the lefts (should have said satans) favorite tactic to throw at Christians. That the biblical admonitions to love others (usually defined as whom the left wants to force christians to love) just supersedes all others.

Who gets to define “neighbor“?

It is defined in Scripture. Luke 10:29-37.

 

[wtburnette]

I didn't say anything about the vaccine.

Then what exactly did you mean by this?

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

We can debate about what this means, certainly, but let's not pretend that setting aside one's own rights for others is absent from the Bible.

What rights are we not setting aside for our neighbors by getting a religious exemption?

 

[HoughMade]

Then what exactly did you mean by this?



What rights are we not setting aside for our neighbors by getting a religious exemption?

This started as a discussion on the religious exemption and then branched off in to general responsibilities of Christians. Context is everything.

I would never tell anyone that it is their "Christian duty" to get vaccinated or not or file for an exemption or not. Not my call. However, I think when we deal with "what should a Christian do" generally (not specific to vaccines), there seems to be an awful lot rights discussion, not so much self-sacrifice or responsibility talk. Maybe that has nothing to do with vaccines specifically, but it has a lot to do with Christianity not being a religion of looking out for #1.

[ETA] if a person is a Christian, I would hope their beliefs in that regard would pervade every decision.

 

[wtburnette]

Context makes a difference, thanks.

 

[Ingomike]

It is defined in Scripture. Luke 10:29-37.

Yep. Just not the same definition satan uses…

 

[ancjr]

Going forward I'm throwing fewer pearls about vaccines, masks, etc so that I'm not rent by the swine.

 

[jamil]

Serious question.

If Christians believe that prophecies are truth based upon God inspiring the writers to write the prophecies...what exactly do they think they can do to keep the prophecy from being fulfilled and what do they base that upon?

It's one thing to say: "this is mark and I'm not going to take it." It's quite another thing to say: "we need to keep the mark from being a thing in the future."

Personally, I believe that whatever the mark is, people will know it is a rejection of God. It won't be stealth in that regard.

Far be it for me to comment on these kinds of things, but just from a logical position, should people just usher in such things just because they believe a prophecy foretold it? I think people would tend to be resigned to their belief that the thing foretold would come about and still resist the thing coming about.

 

[jamil]

Fauci, politicians, celebrities - I expect them all to flip around in social winds. I don't expect a pastor who should be sticking to an immutable source of morality to be sticking up his finger to see where his tribe wants to go.

So you think that this guy's viewpoint has changed with the wind?

Yes, I expect people to embrace new information and change their their stance. That's good thing. And that's also why taking a hard black and white stance isn't a good thing - it often prevents you from accepting new information.

No disagreement there.

in Wilson's case, it's clear that his change isn't based on theology but social politics. And haven't I heard over and over again that politics shouldn't be involved in this?

And I question when a pastor is doing more politicking than pastoring; I can do that - it's my tribe.

The guy was sure he was right. Then he was sure that was wrong, but now he's right? What makes you sure that he's right today, and won't change with a new president?

Oh, there's no doubt that it was pure politics. And that is the context of what I posted. I wasn't aware that pastors, no matter how ****ed up, can't have political positions. I suppose if he's preaching that nonsense (both positions you say he's held are bat **** crazy) from the pulpit, I suppose people could get a little upset about that. But again, the immediacy of his turnaround isn't the thing indicating his untrustworthyness. People can change their minds. But there is WAY more red flags about that dude than that he went from one extreme to the other.

Wait, come'on, are you really trying to erect a gate for things being INGO worthy? And who else are you gatekeeping? The thought of that alone is laughable. Go read the title of this thread.

I don't agree with mandates. Not at all. But as a Christian I have the imperative to follow the law, most certainly not forge papers and lie.

Gate keeper? No. I don't care that you posted it. I didn't tell you you can't post it. That would be gatekeeping. But I really don't get the point of why you posted it. Maybe there's a vague relevance to this thread.

 

[jamil]

THIS!

Christians aren't going to get tricked my a good faith action or forced into it.
I think it's going to be plainly obvious and not tied to a blood moon rising.

Couldn't it be more subtle than you suspect?

 

[jamil]

Who said they are trying to stop it? The last days prophecy should inspire Christians because it means a coming to an end of evil on earth. Christians are supposed to pray for Gods will to be done.

The bible says to watch and be aware of the times. The bible says that many will be deceived in the last days and, they will take the mark.

The difference is stark enough between trying to stop the thing you believe is foretold and actively trying not to participate in the thing you think foretold to be evil.

 

[jamil]

The "body is a temple"... Does anyone know what that really means? In my fundamentalist Baptist school it meant no tattoos and no alcohol. Vegans tell you it means no meat. Bodybuilders tell me my temple is weak and flabby. (They're right)

Curiously, the claims almost always line up with what someone is already convinced of.

I guess if I want to follow this line of reasoning, I can say, "the body is a temple and I want to keep COVID from closing it's doors."

who's right?

Question: what's more important, the quality of the temple or what it is used for?

My body is also described in scripture as a tent that will be abandoned some day.

If a kid is trapped in a burning building an I really going to stop - "Can't. This temple might get burnt."

Of course the claims line up with what someone is convinced of. It's not curious at all. That's the whole nature of belief.

If people are free to believe then the baggage that comes with that freedom is that people get to believe things you don't. And I'm not talking just generally speaking. I'm saying the people in the church will have common beliefs, but they'll diverge with the diversity of personality, upbringing, experience, etcetera. They will prioritize what faith means to them, what love means, who their neighbor is, and how they should be treated, and even what the book of Revelation means to them.

From an evolutionist position, the purpose of "belief" is to inform intuition so that reactions to circumstances can be immediate. And then the rational mind takes over and tries to make sense of it, but mostly tries to protect the belief.

 

[jamil]

By quoting Jesus?

How dare Christians be held to that standard.

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

We can debate about what this means, certainly, but let's not pretend that setting aside one's own rights for others is absent from the Bible. What that means to each person? As long as it does not conflict with the Bible explicitly or implicitly, that's up to each individual.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting. Given the topic, you and JK seem more like you're dancing around an idea with out saying it explicitly.

Okay, so how does the idea that setting aside one's own rights and deferring to others apply to this topic. As a reminder, the topic is (kinda) how to successfully get a religious accommodation for the vaccine mandates, which morphed into the mark of the beast. So as it pertains to that, what is the relevance and application of these two commandments to this topic?

Do you think Christians should set aside their rights and get the vaccine for the benefit of others? Because it's not hard suspect that given the context, it seems to underlay your sentiment at least a little. I'm okay with being told I'm wrong about that as long as it's honest.

 

[jamil]

I merely said it is the lefts (should have said satans) favorite tactic to throw at Christians. That the biblical admonitions to love others (usually defined as whom the left wants to force christians to love) just supersedes all others.

Who gets to define “neighbor“?

I do. It varries. One of my neighbors is really a good guy and I'd do anything for him. The other is an *******. I can't say I turn the other cheek.

 

[wtburnette]

Not to mention there are plenty more religions than just Christian and even among Christians belief is varied person to person and church to church. Making any blanket statement that covers all Christians can almost immediately be disregarded as not being relevant to all. If someone holds certain things to be within the bounds of their religion, it isn't anyone else's business to tell them their wrong, at least when it doesn't impact anyone else.

The vaccines currently available do not prevent someone from getting or passing the virus. If it did, there could be some point made that it was needed to prevent the spread of the disease. Since that isn't the case, it isn't impacting my fellow man to refuse to take the vaccine. If it causes any harm at all, it would only be to myself, which is my right.

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting. Given the topic, you and JK seem more like you're dancing around an idea with out saying it explicitly.

Okay, so how does the idea that setting aside one's own rights and deferring to others apply to this topic. As a reminder, the topic is (kinda) how to successfully get a religious accommodation for the vaccine mandates, which morphed into the mark of the beast. So as it pertains to that, what is the relevance and application of these two commandments to this topic?

Do you think Christians should set aside their rights and get the vaccine for the benefit of others? Because it's not hard suspect that given the context, it seems to underlay your sentiment at least a little. I'm okay with being told I'm wrong about that as long as it's honest.

I don't know how I could be more clear. I have set forth a set of principles based upon Christian beliefs. How each individual applies that to themselves is up to them. It is their responsibility.

What I was pointing out is that if one claims to be a Christian, how we interact with the world, vaccines, whatever, is not a separate thing from our beliefs. It's not "I do or don't want to do this and being a Christian has nothing to do with it." Being a Christian should have everything to do with it. However, it's not up to me to say how a person applies that in their own life.

It's like people want me to tell them what I think they should do so we can argue. That's not what I'm about. I don't pay lip service to the principle of letting people make their own decisions. For whatever reason, a lot of people say they believe that people should be free to make their decisions, then when someone makes a different decision than them, they get defensive and accusatory.

I actually trust people to make their own decisions. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant. How a person makes a decision, particularly a person who has declared a Christian worldview, is more important to me than the ultimate decision on matters that are not Scripturally explicit. I only hope that people think more deeply about their own beliefs and principles and make their decisions based upon them rather than knee-jerking through life.

 

[jamil]

Not to mention there are plenty more religions than just Christian and even among Christians belief is varied person to person and church to church. Making any blanket statement that covers all Christians can almost immediately be disregarded as not being relevant to all. If someone holds certain things to be within the bounds of their religion, it isn't anyone else's business to tell them their wrong, at least when it doesn't impact anyone else.

The vaccines currently available do not prevent someone from getting or passing the virus. If it did, there could be some point made that it was needed to prevent the spread of the disease. Since that isn't the case, it isn't impacting my fellow man to refuse to take the vaccine. If it causes any harm at all, it would only be to myself, which is my right.

Absolutely. There are 200 Christian denominations in the US. That's because not everyone agrees on stuff. It's what I'd expect to see in a free and diverse sociaty. And this is why courts have held that religious accomodations don't have to be for members of a religion. The belief that drives the behavior just needs to be religious in nature.

 

[jamil]

I don't know how I could be more clear. I have set forth a set of principles based upon Christian beliefs. How each individual applies that to themselves is up to them. It is their responsibility.

What I was pointing out is that if one claims to be a Christian, how we interact with the world, vaccines, whatever, is not a separate thing from our beliefs. It's not "I do or don't want to do this and being a Christian has nothing to do with it." Being a Christian should have everything to do with it. However, it's not up to me to say how a person applies that in their own life.

It's like people want me to tell them what I think they should do so we can argue. That's not what I'm about. I don't pay lip service to the principle of letting people make their own decisions. For whatever reason, a lot of people say they believe that people should be free to make their decisions, then when someone makes a different decision than them, they get defensive and accusatory.

I actually trust people to make their own decisions. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant. How a person makes a decision, particularly a person who has declared a Christian worldview, is more important to me than the ultimate decision on matters that are not Scripturally explicit. I only hope that people think more deeply about their own beliefs and principles and make their decisions based upon them rather than knee-jerking through life.

I wanted you to get more at what you meant by "but let's not pretend that setting aside one's own rights for others is absent from the Bible." What rights were implied that shouldn't be set aside for others. I'm not trying to argue. Whatever you say is what it is. In matters of religion I'm not going to argue with a Christian on matters of faith unless I think it's inconsistent, which isn't relevant in this discussion. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and get at what's underlying it.