"God did not send coronavirus, but the world’s dimming of His presence has allowed it, and once released, only His mercy will stop it."
Sounds like the metaphysical equivalent of "Heads I win, Tails you lose".
"I don’t believe God cares if we get a shot or don’t get a shot."
I no longer consider myself a Christian, so take the following with that in mind. However, I do think that if you believe in a Just God, that God must care whether one gets the shot or not. Not because God wants Pfizer et al. to become rich, but in my lifetime, there's been NO simpler test for whether you care about the people around you than your willingness to get the vaccination. As much as you're doing it for yourself, you're also doing it for your friends, family, and all the people you interact with throughout the day whose name you may never have the good fortune of learning.
Maybe instead of there being a single David figure to whom God is paying attention to in order to grant mercy to others, instead each of us are being asked to be David in our own right and make a sacrifice and get over whatever personal hang-ups we have on behalf of all of those around us. I can't think of a better action that I've been able to demonstrate to friends and strangers around me that I care about them, and vice versa.
I care if someone gets a shot for their own good. I care for my own good. However I wrote that God isn’t going to use that as a test of faith. If someone gets the shot or not, I resolve to show them mercy, grace and kindness.
Why wouldn't God use taking the shot as a test of faith? What makes the vaccines any less the product of Divine Will than the Omicron variant?
This reminds me of a joke I saw on Reddit[1]:
A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.
"Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast."
"No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me."
Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.
"Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute."
Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through."
After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone.
"Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance."
Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him.
And, predictably, he drowns.
A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?"
God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."
~
Given the pain and suffering that the vaccine helps people avoid both on a personal and collective level, I have a VERY difficult time believing that a Just God would be indifferent to whether his creations take advantage of the shot. That's not to say that we should be jerks to people who don't take it, in the same way we shouldn't be terrible to drug addicts. However that also doesn't mean that we (and Just Gods) should ALSO be indifferent and refuse to guide people down what is clearly a more optimal fork in the road.
Guiding and forcing are 2 different things. One requires moral authority, and the other merely requires power. I am fine with guiding here but not with forcing, as in coercion. It’s going to be harder and harder for the unvaccinated to function in America for strictly business and practical reasons. I resolve to be kind either way. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with faith.
I am still a practicing Christian. The dismal way the church as a whole has responded to its biggest opportunity to demonstrate the love of Christ in a century has been profoundly disturbing for me. God may not have directly sent the virus,, but he has certainly allowed it. Think of Satan needing to get God's consent to torment Job. Christianity is already on the decline and has been for awhile, but destroying our collective witness first with politics, and then with the response (or lack thereof) to covid will further damage the church for a generation or two. We already see a more rapid descent than pre 2016. It will be even more due to covid and our failures. Reminds me of the OT that whenever a generation lost their way, they were destroyed with only a remnant remaining for another generation to rebuild with. But I digress.
To my point, Daniel tells us that God sets up and also deposes all kings and leaders for His purposes. We are then told repeatedly in the OT to obey civil authorities. Jesus comes, and the Jews do not accept him primarily because he is not overthrowing the governmental oppression of Rome as they expected the coming Messiah to do. No, Jesus had larger issues to address. Indeed, he also taught us to obey civil authority (whether we like it or not, whether we think it is right or wrong, slave or free). The only exception is if it violates the commands of God, in my understanding. Jesus even went so far to say Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God what is God's. (Paraphrasing here because you know this.) His very last act on Earth was to submit to sinful civil authority by giving up his life unjustly, when he had all power to stop it.
Whether you like our leaders or not, voted for them or not, is irrelevant. God set them there. We are to obey their authority, unless they violate a command. A mandated vaccine is does not break a Godly command that I am aware of. Maybe if you are a Messenic zealot. Idk. (I personally think the vaccine is a gift from God himself to a sinful world who does not deserve this mercy.) Whatever your political sense of "rights" are, Christians have not a leg to stand on in regards to disobeying civil laws from any leader that God has placed. Masks, vaccines, taxes, traffic laws make no difference.
As for non-Christians, Christians seem ok with making them follow Christian teachings with, check notes, their abortion laws to be destroyed merely because it is a Christian value. Civil mandates for the good of all seem very "Christian" in that context. Being a so called Christian nation and all that yippity yap. Be of the world but not in the world.
It's like the sermon on the mount never happened with you. Jesus on multiple occasions called for Christians to care for and serve others. What exactly do you think getting vaccinated is for? The selfishness in you is mindboggling.
And God made the virus. You even agree but have the classic abuser retort of "you made me do it" ready to go.
.
Thank you again for another perfect example of why I'm no longer a christian.
Tell me what part of Matthew 5 (the Sermon on the Mount) I have missed? If you say God made the virus, without us, then God can cure it, without us, right? Forcing people to do things "for their own good" has never been a tenet of Christianity. If you agree that God made the virus, then he made you and me also, correct?
"Forcing people to do things 'for their own good' has never been a tenet of Christianity."
This is simply inaccurate. Infant baptisms continue to be a practice that still occurs today:
"Similarly, we know what is good for our children spiritually. Since spiritual realities are just as true as physical realities, parents have to be prepared to guide their children into the Truth, the Way, and the Life. The first step in doing so? Baptism. As I asked before, how could I possibly deny my children the gift of salvation, especially if I knew the truth of the matter: baptism saves. To consciously withhold that grace from my child, when I know it will remove original sin and incorporate my child into the Church, making him or her a son or daughter of God, would be to betray the very duties a parent has to the wellbeing of their child."[1]
Furthermore there are a TON of historical figures who would like to have a word with you about their forced conversions:
"Is this a product of Christian theology—an insistence on Jesus Christ as the truth—or of political strength—Christians finally have the military force to insist on their way?"
"Both. On the theological side, there is an unprecedented emphasis upon the humanity of Jesus Christ, especially upon his sufferings. Coming closely behind is a feeling of enmity toward those who were identified as his persecutors, especially the Jews, and by extension, all those who were perceived as not fully Christian. Though Christians lived peaceably with Muslims in the Holy Land for centuries, during this era, Muslims become identified as the enemies of Christ who must be booted out of the Christian holy places."
"Yet we should also emphasize the sheer power of Western Christendom, which blossoms during this time. There is an upsurge in technology, in military organization, in state power, in the ability to raise taxes and hire armies. This put Western European states at a decisive advantage over the remaining pagans in the Baltic, for example. Given the climate of intolerance, it’s irresistible to use the power at your disposal to clobber pagans and make them Christian."[2]
~
"Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, United, and Presbyterian churches all participated. These churches gave many theological justifications for this system, but all were undergirded by the Doctrine of Discovery. Rooted in 15th century papal statements, it said that when European explorers found “unoccupied lands”—meaning unoccupied by Christians—they claimed that land for their Christian ruler. European conquerors were given permission from Christian authorities to completely ignore the rights and ancestral heritage of indigenous people. While the doctrine is centuries old, it has been used to deny rights to aboriginal people by the Supreme Court of Canada as recently as 1990, and by the Supreme Court of the US as recently as 2005. Of course, when Europeans arrived in Canada the land was occupied, and problems quickly arose. Indigenous peoples resisted the destruction of their way of life; they refused to convert to Christianity or assimilate into European culture. Canadian colonialists thought residential schools could change this. They had failed to destroy native ways of life in adults, so they tried to do so by separating children from their parents to stop indigenous culture, language, and religion from being passed on from parent to child. As Duncan Campbell Scott of the Bureau of Indian Affairs said in 1920: 'Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed.'"[3]
Now, you can either "No True Scotsman" this OR argue that the forced conversions were primarily done primarily for the good of the Christians (and not the pagans), but neither seems to be a sufficient rebuttal about what was an acceptable tenant of Christianity for centuries (and is STILL active in settings like gay conversion therapy camps).
Mostly chapter 7 and how we should treat others or be good neighbors. I didn't say that you did. If God is in control of all then this is his doing. There is no way around that and all that's left to decide is whether you are going to preface it with the "you made me do it" excuse.
And like Chris said below, christianity the religion has 2000 years of history of forcing people to do things. Although I will give you that its not really in the bible, just another example of the abject failure of christians.
The fact is christians should have been the first in line to get the shot. God gave you all the perfect situation in which to show neighborly love and compassion. And yet, here you are defending the people who spit in the eye of God and their neighbors.
"God did not send coronavirus, but the world’s dimming of His presence has allowed it, and once released, only His mercy will stop it."
Sounds like the metaphysical equivalent of "Heads I win, Tails you lose".
"I don’t believe God cares if we get a shot or don’t get a shot."
I no longer consider myself a Christian, so take the following with that in mind. However, I do think that if you believe in a Just God, that God must care whether one gets the shot or not. Not because God wants Pfizer et al. to become rich, but in my lifetime, there's been NO simpler test for whether you care about the people around you than your willingness to get the vaccination. As much as you're doing it for yourself, you're also doing it for your friends, family, and all the people you interact with throughout the day whose name you may never have the good fortune of learning.
Maybe instead of there being a single David figure to whom God is paying attention to in order to grant mercy to others, instead each of us are being asked to be David in our own right and make a sacrifice and get over whatever personal hang-ups we have on behalf of all of those around us. I can't think of a better action that I've been able to demonstrate to friends and strangers around me that I care about them, and vice versa.
I care if someone gets a shot for their own good. I care for my own good. However I wrote that God isn’t going to use that as a test of faith. If someone gets the shot or not, I resolve to show them mercy, grace and kindness.
Why wouldn't God use taking the shot as a test of faith? What makes the vaccines any less the product of Divine Will than the Omicron variant?
This reminds me of a joke I saw on Reddit[1]:
A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.
"Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast."
"No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me."
Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.
"Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute."
Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through."
After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone.
"Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance."
Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him.
And, predictably, he drowns.
A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?"
God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."
~
Given the pain and suffering that the vaccine helps people avoid both on a personal and collective level, I have a VERY difficult time believing that a Just God would be indifferent to whether his creations take advantage of the shot. That's not to say that we should be jerks to people who don't take it, in the same way we shouldn't be terrible to drug addicts. However that also doesn't mean that we (and Just Gods) should ALSO be indifferent and refuse to guide people down what is clearly a more optimal fork in the road.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/67ouq5/two_boats_and_a_helicopter/
Guiding and forcing are 2 different things. One requires moral authority, and the other merely requires power. I am fine with guiding here but not with forcing, as in coercion. It’s going to be harder and harder for the unvaccinated to function in America for strictly business and practical reasons. I resolve to be kind either way. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with faith.
I am still a practicing Christian. The dismal way the church as a whole has responded to its biggest opportunity to demonstrate the love of Christ in a century has been profoundly disturbing for me. God may not have directly sent the virus,, but he has certainly allowed it. Think of Satan needing to get God's consent to torment Job. Christianity is already on the decline and has been for awhile, but destroying our collective witness first with politics, and then with the response (or lack thereof) to covid will further damage the church for a generation or two. We already see a more rapid descent than pre 2016. It will be even more due to covid and our failures. Reminds me of the OT that whenever a generation lost their way, they were destroyed with only a remnant remaining for another generation to rebuild with. But I digress.
To my point, Daniel tells us that God sets up and also deposes all kings and leaders for His purposes. We are then told repeatedly in the OT to obey civil authorities. Jesus comes, and the Jews do not accept him primarily because he is not overthrowing the governmental oppression of Rome as they expected the coming Messiah to do. No, Jesus had larger issues to address. Indeed, he also taught us to obey civil authority (whether we like it or not, whether we think it is right or wrong, slave or free). The only exception is if it violates the commands of God, in my understanding. Jesus even went so far to say Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God what is God's. (Paraphrasing here because you know this.) His very last act on Earth was to submit to sinful civil authority by giving up his life unjustly, when he had all power to stop it.
Whether you like our leaders or not, voted for them or not, is irrelevant. God set them there. We are to obey their authority, unless they violate a command. A mandated vaccine is does not break a Godly command that I am aware of. Maybe if you are a Messenic zealot. Idk. (I personally think the vaccine is a gift from God himself to a sinful world who does not deserve this mercy.) Whatever your political sense of "rights" are, Christians have not a leg to stand on in regards to disobeying civil laws from any leader that God has placed. Masks, vaccines, taxes, traffic laws make no difference.
As for non-Christians, Christians seem ok with making them follow Christian teachings with, check notes, their abortion laws to be destroyed merely because it is a Christian value. Civil mandates for the good of all seem very "Christian" in that context. Being a so called Christian nation and all that yippity yap. Be of the world but not in the world.
Well Said, Chris.
It's like the sermon on the mount never happened with you. Jesus on multiple occasions called for Christians to care for and serve others. What exactly do you think getting vaccinated is for? The selfishness in you is mindboggling.
And God made the virus. You even agree but have the classic abuser retort of "you made me do it" ready to go.
.
Thank you again for another perfect example of why I'm no longer a christian.
Tell me what part of Matthew 5 (the Sermon on the Mount) I have missed? If you say God made the virus, without us, then God can cure it, without us, right? Forcing people to do things "for their own good" has never been a tenet of Christianity. If you agree that God made the virus, then he made you and me also, correct?
"Forcing people to do things 'for their own good' has never been a tenet of Christianity."
This is simply inaccurate. Infant baptisms continue to be a practice that still occurs today:
"Similarly, we know what is good for our children spiritually. Since spiritual realities are just as true as physical realities, parents have to be prepared to guide their children into the Truth, the Way, and the Life. The first step in doing so? Baptism. As I asked before, how could I possibly deny my children the gift of salvation, especially if I knew the truth of the matter: baptism saves. To consciously withhold that grace from my child, when I know it will remove original sin and incorporate my child into the Church, making him or her a son or daughter of God, would be to betray the very duties a parent has to the wellbeing of their child."[1]
Furthermore there are a TON of historical figures who would like to have a word with you about their forced conversions:
"Is this a product of Christian theology—an insistence on Jesus Christ as the truth—or of political strength—Christians finally have the military force to insist on their way?"
"Both. On the theological side, there is an unprecedented emphasis upon the humanity of Jesus Christ, especially upon his sufferings. Coming closely behind is a feeling of enmity toward those who were identified as his persecutors, especially the Jews, and by extension, all those who were perceived as not fully Christian. Though Christians lived peaceably with Muslims in the Holy Land for centuries, during this era, Muslims become identified as the enemies of Christ who must be booted out of the Christian holy places."
"Yet we should also emphasize the sheer power of Western Christendom, which blossoms during this time. There is an upsurge in technology, in military organization, in state power, in the ability to raise taxes and hire armies. This put Western European states at a decisive advantage over the remaining pagans in the Baltic, for example. Given the climate of intolerance, it’s irresistible to use the power at your disposal to clobber pagans and make them Christian."[2]
~
"Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, United, and Presbyterian churches all participated. These churches gave many theological justifications for this system, but all were undergirded by the Doctrine of Discovery. Rooted in 15th century papal statements, it said that when European explorers found “unoccupied lands”—meaning unoccupied by Christians—they claimed that land for their Christian ruler. European conquerors were given permission from Christian authorities to completely ignore the rights and ancestral heritage of indigenous people. While the doctrine is centuries old, it has been used to deny rights to aboriginal people by the Supreme Court of Canada as recently as 1990, and by the Supreme Court of the US as recently as 2005. Of course, when Europeans arrived in Canada the land was occupied, and problems quickly arose. Indigenous peoples resisted the destruction of their way of life; they refused to convert to Christianity or assimilate into European culture. Canadian colonialists thought residential schools could change this. They had failed to destroy native ways of life in adults, so they tried to do so by separating children from their parents to stop indigenous culture, language, and religion from being passed on from parent to child. As Duncan Campbell Scott of the Bureau of Indian Affairs said in 1920: 'Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed.'"[3]
Now, you can either "No True Scotsman" this OR argue that the forced conversions were primarily done primarily for the good of the Christians (and not the pagans), but neither seems to be a sufficient rebuttal about what was an acceptable tenant of Christianity for centuries (and is STILL active in settings like gay conversion therapy camps).
[1] https://media.ascensionpress.com/2018/08/20/the-love-and-logic-behind-baptizing-infants/
[2] https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword
[3] https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/religion-context/case-studies/violence-peace/residential-schools-canada
I won’t argue infant baptism with you, mostly because I believe it is unbiblical on its face.
Mostly chapter 7 and how we should treat others or be good neighbors. I didn't say that you did. If God is in control of all then this is his doing. There is no way around that and all that's left to decide is whether you are going to preface it with the "you made me do it" excuse.
And like Chris said below, christianity the religion has 2000 years of history of forcing people to do things. Although I will give you that its not really in the bible, just another example of the abject failure of christians.
The fact is christians should have been the first in line to get the shot. God gave you all the perfect situation in which to show neighborly love and compassion. And yet, here you are defending the people who spit in the eye of God and their neighbors.
How can you make the argument that the author is spitting in the eye of a God in which you don't believe? A logical fallacy.