DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<form
action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr"
method="post"
target="_top">
<input
type="hidden"
name="cmd"
value="_s-xclick">
<input
type="hidden"
name="hosted_button_id"
value="DKL7ADEKRVUBL">
<input
type="image"
src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif"
border="0"
name="submit"
alt="PayPal
- The safer, easier way to pay
online!">
<img
alt=""
border="0"
src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif"
width="1"
height="1">
</form>
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Conspiracy
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20868--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: guest8
Date: November 21, 2020, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: patrick jane link ---
>
>
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/120532.jpg?w=940[/img]
>
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/november-web-only/coronavirus-as-evidence-of-creation-in-freefall.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is The Coronavirus Evidence of a Creation in Freefall?
>
>
>
>
>
> How does theology explain a pandemic? Basic biology, human
sin, or the Devil?
>
>
> When I first asked whether the coronavirus is evil, the virus
was still novel and the panic not quite a pandemic. But as I
type now, almost 1.5 million people have died worldwide and the
virus proliferates relentlessly, a conflagration with plenty of
wood yet to burn as we await a vaccine and its dissemination.
What may have seemed to be a controllable fire in the beginning
now rages nearly out of control in the United States, India,
Brazil, Europe, and elsewhere. Viewing the virus as part of
God’s “good creation” presses against our theological
sensibilities. Is the coronavirus evil? How can it not be?
>
>
> “COVID-19 pandemic has wide implications for what Christians
mean by the goodness of creation,” wrote theologian Hans
Madueme, who leveraged my “hornet’s nest” of a query for an
online symposium. As this array of brilliant respondents has
written, a virus, no matter how destructive, cannot carry the
moral equivalence of human willfulness. But the mere lack of
moral willfulness does not make it good.
>
> Viruses are not free agents, but I still wonder about a kind
of created freedom in the nature of things—akin to what we know
about uncertainty in the quantum realm undergirding the reality
we experience. Inasmuch as humans are made from the dust in
God’s image (Gen. 2:7), there exists a continuity between
Creator, creation, and creature. The free will of God manifests
in the moral choices humans make, and is reflected, perhaps, in
what we perceive as the random nature of nature.
>
> John Stackhouse labels the virus “a pestilence with no place
in the messianic kingdom to come.” Katherine Sonderegger aptly
narrated the dreadful landscape wrought by this microscopic
legion, a link to Mark 5:9 and to the tyranny of Satan
persuasively argued by Gregory Boyd, a virus victim himself. The
New Testament easily attributes viral pestilence to the Devil’s
work, though God can use it for his own glory. Whether or not we
believe this is what we’re witnessing with the pandemic depends
on our theology.
>
> As Jim Stump asserted, “science doesn’t get to answer
theological questions, but it can certainly prompt us to
reconsider whether we’ve done our theology well.” Science
prompted me as a pastor to rethink certain aspects of my
theology. As Christians, “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2
Cor. 5:7), which means there’s more to reality than what we see.
But it doesn’t mean we ignore what we can see. Faith is not
fantasy. If theology is going to matter, it too must correspond
with the way things are rather than with the way we believers
want things to be.
>
> I’ve never been fully satisfied by the delineation of labor
between science explaining the how and theology the why. As
creator of all things, God authored all that science discovers.
We know death and viruses preceded humanity’s appearance on
earth, and both play an essential part in biological evolution.
“A bad thing might be a good thing,” as Stackhouse reminds.
Conversely, a good thing can become a bad thing too, as
Sonderegger allows with her mention of privatio boni (the
absence of good). I wrote a follow-up editorial in praise of St.
Augustine’s reasoning of evil as essentially nothing, a basic
nonentity with wholly derivative power. Like a virus, evil
extracts its life from the goodness it perverts. Thus evil often
gets spoken in terms of what it is not: injustice or iniquity or
ingratitude, disorder, disobedience, faith lessness, law
lessness, god lessness, and the rest.
>
> By laying the pandemic at Satan’s feet, Boyd asserts that to
“take the New Testament’s perspective seriously” is to regard
creation as “corrupted at some point by an enemy, to one degree
or another.” As for how Satan becomes the Devil, science can’t
help us. Tradition surmises he mutated through free will of his
own. Theology grants moral agency on Satan’s part, a fallen
angel before the fall who then provoked the fall of humans.
Stackhouse notes the slithering serpent in Eden (and talking, no
less, Gen. 3:1) as evidence of evil’s pre-Fall intrusion.
Nevertheless, why allow an angel to become a demon? And why
allow a snake in Eden’s grass—not to mention physical death and
mosquitoes and the biological necessity of bacteria and viruses?
>
> The best I have to affirm remains the free will defense, the
logic of love. God so loves the world that he sent his Son to
save it (John 3:16), but love can’t be coerced and also be love.
Thus God, of his own eternal free will, purposely factors free
will into the system for love’s sake and for genuine
relationship with people made in his image. Allowing freedom to
love means freedom to reject love. Extrapolate this logic to
nature as a whole and you have what some see as a hint behind
the why of random uncertainty.
>
> Granted, God doesn’t desire a personal relationship with
creation the way that he does with people, but the Creator’s
relational nature still shows up in the symbiosis of nature. The
freedom we experience as humans made from the dust corresponds
to the free process wired into dust itself. But just as the free
will of people (and angels) can reject God’s love—and do wrong
and commit evil—so the free process of creation results in
mosquitoes and the diseases they carry—not to mention genetic
deformities, hurricanes, and earthquakes, all outcomes of a
creation free to evolve and become what it becomes.
>
> To the extent that such explanations remain unsatisfactory, I
remind us that theological conjecture at its best remains a
sinners’ endeavor. Moreover, as Gerald Bray rightly adds, “God
is under no obligation to explain himself to us.” We debate “the
problem of evil,” which isn’t really a problem if by problem we
mean a puzzle to be rationally solved. Among the factors making
evil so evil is its defiance of logic. Even if you blame the
Devil, how do you determine what made the Devil decide to become
the Devil? Adam and Eve, created as good, had no good reason for
choosing badly. They just did it. We do it too. By choosing
wrongly, we prove free will exists, but the tyranny of evil is
that as soon as we choose it, we are no longer free. As the
apostle Paul made clear in Romans 7, our choices set boundaries,
and our unavoidably bad choices set inescapably tight boundaries
that affect our futures not only in finite time and space but
for eternity too. Our freedom constrains to such a severe extent
that Paul could only speak of it in terms of enslavement.
>
> Whether due to the wiles of the Devil, the randomness of a
very good creation not yet fully free, or the mysterious
providence of God, this coronavirus pandemic threatens,
constrains, and destroys. It also eventually ends. Immunity and
vaccines will take hold. The God who loves us gives us agency
and creativity to overcome. But no human-generated immunity or
vaccination exists against evil. Sin infects our souls over and
over again. That the Son of God had to die to deliver us from
evil attests to its truly hideous and destructive nature. Our
only hope, thank God, is through Jesus Christ (Rom. 7:25), who
starves evil of its power with his own sinless life. “God made
him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might
become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). Into this glory,
creation groans for its own redemption (Romans 8:21) and one day
will have it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This piece, adapted, was originally published in Sapientia, a
periodical of the Henry Center for Theological Understanding, as
a rejoinder to a series on the coronavirus and the goodness of
creation.
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Harrell is editor in chief at Christianity Today.
>
--- End Quote ---
touching the title....where do we put the other viruses like
Saars that was far more deadlier.
BLade
#Post#: 20879--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: November 21, 2020, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SY78ow6Fhk
#Post#: 21081--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: November 26, 2020, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/120640.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/november/scotus-ruling-new-york-church-worship-block-barrett.html
Supreme Court Blocks New York’s Worship Service Restrictions
It’s the first time during the pandemic the high court has sided
with churches and synagogues challenging the new rules on
religious liberty grounds.
As coronavirus cases surge again nationwide the Supreme Court
late Wednesday barred New York from enforcing certain limits on
attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as
hard hit by the virus.
The justices split 5-4 with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the
majority. It was the conservative’s first publicly discernible
vote as a justice. The court’s three liberal justices and Chief
Justice John Roberts dissented.
The move was a shift for the court. Earlier this year, when
Barrett’s liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was
still on the court, the justices divided 5-4 to leave in place
pandemic-related capacity restrictions affecting churches in
California and Nevada.
The court’s action Wednesday could push New York to reevaluate
its restrictions on houses of worship in areas designated virus
hot spots, though both groups who sued are no longer in zones
subject to the strictest attendance restrictions.
The justices acted on an emergency basis, temporarily barring
New York from enforcing the restrictions against the groups
while their lawsuits continue. In an unsigned opinion the court
said the restrictions “single out houses of worship for
especially harsh treatment.”
“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we
should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and
responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the
Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions
at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending
religious services, strike at the very heart of the First
Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty,” the opinion said.
Though the decision addresses the restrictions in New York in
particular, religious liberty expert John Inazu said on Twitter,
“I think the Court’s conclusion is correct and makes some
important observations, including that these orders cause
irreparable harm because they involve restrictions of First
Amendment freedoms, and that virtual worship is not a
constitutionally sufficient alternative.”
“In other words, worship is absolutely an ‘essential activity’
and to say otherwise is constitutionally incorrect and
politically unwise,” he added. Inazu, a law professor at
Washington University in St. Louis, said it was the first time
the high court had sided with houses of worship challenging
COVID-19 regulations, but also that as the pandemic has gone on,
Americans have learned more about the disproportionate risks of
different activities.
The opinion noted that in red zones, while a synagogue or church
cannot admit more than 10 people, businesses deemed “essential,”
from grocery stores to pet shops, can remain open without
capacity limits. And in orange zones, while synagogues and
churches are capped at 25 people, “even non-essential businesses
may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.”
Roberts, in dissent, wrote that there was “simply no need” for
the court’s action. “None of the houses of worship identified in
the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical
restrictions,” he said, adding that New York’s 10 and 25 person
caps “do seem unduly restrictive.”
“The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also
might not. And it is a significant matter to override
determinations made by public health officials concerning what
is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly
pandemic,” he wrote.
Roberts and four other justices wrote separately to explain
their views. Barrett did not.
The court’s action was a victory for the Roman Catholic Church
and Orthodox Jewish synagogues that had sued to challenge state
restrictions announced by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on October 6.
The Diocese of Brooklyn, which covers Brooklyn and Queens,
argued houses of worship were being unfairly singled out by the
governor’s executive order. The diocese argued it had previously
operated safely by capping attendance at 25 percent of a
building’s capacity and taking other measures. Parts of Brooklyn
and Queens are now in yellow zones where attendance at houses of
worship is capped at 50 percent of a building’s capacity, but
the church is keeping attendance lower.
“We are extremely grateful that the Supreme Court has acted so
swiftly and decisively to protect one of our most fundamental
constitutional rights—the free exercise of religion,” said Randy
Mastro, an attorney for the diocese, in a statement.
Avi Schick, an attorney for Agudath Israel of America, wrote in
an email: “This is an historic victory. This landmark decision
will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions
will be protected from government edicts that do not treat
religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution.”
Two lower courts had sided with New York in allowing the
restrictions to remain in place. New York had argued that
religious gatherings were being treated less restrictively than
secular gatherings that carried the same infection risk, like
concerts and theatrical performances. An email sent early
Thursday by The Associated Press to the governor’s office
seeking comment was not immediately returned.
There are currently several areas in New York designated orange
zones but no red zones, according to a state website that tracks
areas designated as hot spots.
#Post#: 21084--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: November 26, 2020, 5:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/120641.png?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/november/scotus-gets-it-right-religious-liberty-church-is-essential.html
SCOTUS Gets It Right on Religious Liberty: Church IS Essential
But the right outcome here doesn’t mean all restrictions are
invalid or that churches should reopen.
Last night, the Supreme Court issued injunctive relief to houses
of worship challenging New York City’s COVID-19 restrictions on
in-person gatherings, the first time it has granted such relief
during the pandemic. I have mixed views about the decision and
early reactions to it.
First, I don’t think this decision is as momentous as
commentators are suggesting. It is fairly fact-specific
injunctive relief, and the nature and scope of pandemic orders
vary greatly around the country. It’s hard to generalize much
from this decision, and I’m concerned that public messaging
about it will fuel a broader culture wars narrative from
religious leaders like John MacArthur who insist “there is no
pandemic” and continue to hold services for 7,000 unmasked
people. An injunction against a 25-person cap is not a green
light to return to regular worship. Given the current state of
the pandemic, it’s not even a yellow light.
The dire rates of transmission we’re seeing all around the
country, the Thanksgiving holiday travel, and our growing
awareness that indoor, in-person gatherings are a major cause of
transmission all increase the likelihood that even more
restrictions may be coming. That’s another reason it’s best to
view this order as limited and fact-specific.
That said, I think the Court’s decision is correct and offers
some important observations. One of the most important is that
these shutdown orders cause irreparable harm because they
restrict First Amendment freedoms—and that virtual worship is
not a constitutionally sufficient alternative. In other words,
worship is absolutely an “essential activity” and to say
otherwise is constitutionally incorrect and politically unwise.
The New York City order and others like it should not be
classifying worship as non-essential. Of course worship is
essential.
That doesn’t mean worship may not be restricted. Earlier this
year, the Court denied injunctive relief to a challenge against
California’s restrictions affecting houses of worship. Chief
Justice Robert’s concurrence supporting California’s
restrictions seemed largely correct to me. In many cases,
limitations on houses of worship will be constitutionally
permissible policy decisions.
The New York City order is an example of policy overreaching.
The constitutionality of other orders will depend upon local
context and the degree to which restricted activities share
comparable characteristics. Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in
last night’s decision gets too cute, comparing worship services
to bike shops and liquor stores:
[T]he Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on
certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out
the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware
stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops,
certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance
agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the
Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always
fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or
spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians.
Picking up a bottle of wine and attending a lengthy worship
service are not comparable activities when we consider where
people are located, how they’re moving, and what they’re doing.
We would need to know a lot more before buying into Justice
Gorsuch’s closer: “Who knew public health would so perfectly
align with secular convenience?”
Justice Gorsuch rightly notes that we are past the pandemic’s
early stages and we know much more about the virus today. But
it’s not clear which way that cuts. On the one hand, many houses
of worship are taking precautions that appear to be effective
(as noted by the evidence presented in this case), and certainly
better than activities like in-person dining. On the other hand,
the pandemic is getting worse.
The elephant in the room is all of the latitude given
restaurants and bars, whose gatherings seem far worse for the
pandemic than limited-number, masked, indoor worship. As Amanda
Mull observes in The Atlantic:
Why can’t a governor or mayor just be honest? There’s no help
coming from the Trump administration, the local coffers are
bare, and as a result, concessions are being made to business
owners who want workers in restaurants and employees in offices
in order to white-knuckle it for as long as possible and with as
many jobs intact as possible, even if hospitals start to fill up
again.
She’s right. That’s bad news for the pandemic, but it also
weakens governmental responses to constitutional claims by
houses of worship. Keeping Home Depot open while limiting houses
of worship might make sense. Keeping restaurants and bars open
while restricting houses of worship at the level of NYC’s order
is much harder to defend.
Of course, questions of law and governmental policy speak only
to what houses of worship may do, not what they should do. At a
time when much of the country is sick and suffering and much of
the country is partying and dining, many houses of worship
continue to comply voluntarily even when orders have exempted
them. That’s a tangible sign of loving one’s neighbor, even at
great cost.
John Inazu is the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of
Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis. He is
the author of Liberty’s Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of
Assembly (Yale University Press, 2012) and Confident Pluralism:
Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference (University of
Chicago Press, 2016), and co-editor (with Tim Keller) of
Uncommon Ground: Living Faithfully in a World of Difference
(Thomas Nelson, 2020).
#Post#: 21714--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: December 8, 2020, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AslfvcvpzXM
#Post#: 22065--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: December 11, 2020, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/120971.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/december-web-only/should-pastors-speak-up-about-covid-19-vaccine.html
Should Pastors Speak Up About the COVID-19 Vaccine?
With Christians split on the issue, some urge vaccination as a
form of neighborly love, while other leave it up to conscience.
About half of US Protestant adults don’t plan to receive the new
COVID-19 vaccine, according to a recent Pew Research Center
survey.
While confidence in the vaccine has actually risen since
September—three companies announced viable vaccines last
month—50 percent of white evangelicals and 59 percent of black
Protestants say they won’t get the vaccine, while the majority
of the US population overall (60%) says they will.
For centuries, religion and medicine have collaborated for the
prevention of disease, though the relationship at times has been
complex. In more recent years, public health professionals have
relied on church leaders’ support—particularly in communities of
color—to gain trust in promoting health initiatives. The
coronavirus pandemic has become another example of the complex
relationship between faith and science.
Given the split among Christians, how should pastors engage with
their congregants about the COVID-19 vaccine? Should they
encourage church attenders to receive the vaccine?
CT heard from five pastors about how factors like race,
theology, and congregational makeup affect their approach to the
issue.
Jeff Schultz, pastor of preaching and community at Faith Church
in Indianapolis
Our church been praying for vaccine research and development,
but taking a vaccine is not something we would direct people on.
Our congregation has a number of doctors, nurses, medical
researchers, and people in pharmaceutical development. We
believe that God works through miraculous intervention, but more
commonly through our work, gifts, and wisdom applied in service
to others. We’ve encouraged people to wear masks and practice
social distancing. We have members who won’t return to in-person
worship until a vaccine is available. But I don’t think we would
say anything formally about taking a vaccine (except to give
thanks for their existence).
At an individual level, I will encourage people to consult with
their physician on making that decision. I see masks and social
distancing as extremely low-risk interventions that help us love
our neighbors. A COVID-19 vaccine is another important way to
stop the spread of a deadly disease, but I don’t believe that as
a pastor I have the medical qualifications to direct people on
medical treatments that may have side effects or long-term
health impact. I want to help people see the good of a vaccine
while asking us all to respect others’ decisions.
Luke B. Bobo, director of strategic partnerships at Made to
Flourish, a pastor’s network based in Kansas, and visiting
professor at Covenant Theological Seminary
Abortion, film, music, guns, cartoons, medical science—pastors,
as cultural exegetes, must discuss these topics because such
things are not benign. These cultural artifacts mediate messages
that are often contrary to the Christian life and worldview, so
engaging their congregants about the COVID-19 vaccine is no
exception. I believe pastors must engage in vaccine discourse
biblically, wisely, and Christianly.
Of course, for African American pastors, engaging their
congregants about this vaccine will be more complicated, as many
abuses have been inflicted on black persons for the sake of
medical progress. Who can forget the Tuskegee syphilis
experiment and the infamous “HeLa” cells, cancerous cells stolen
from Henrietta Lacks without her family’s consent? So pastors
must engage this topic historically as well.
Pastors must teach their people how to think critically about
this COVID-19 vaccine. If they are asked whether they plan to
take the vaccine, they should state their answer and follow with
a statement like, “That is my decision; you must do the hard
work and make your own decision.” In other words, pastors must
not think for their congregants; rather, they must equip their
people with the necessary tools so that they can think and
decide for themselves.
Mandy Smith, pastor at University Christian Church in Cincinnati
I have no problem with vaccines on a philosophical or
theological level and will defer to the medical professionals in
my congregation who know more about such things than I know. The
church I lead is on what’s sometimes called “Pill Hill”—we have
four hospitals in our immediate neighborhood, and so we have
quite a few medical professionals. At the same time, since we’re
in a diverse community, we also have quite a few folks
interested in alternative lifestyles, which leads them to be
wary of vaccines.
As Christians, we need to have space for difference of
opinions—unity in essentials, liberty in nonessentials, and in
all things, love. On a philosophical level, our opinion about
vaccines is nonessential—we won’t lose our salvation and
shouldn’t split with other Christians over it.
At the same time, on a practical level, with a vaccine the
decisions we make affect one another. While we might have
differences of opinion where we can agree to disagree, if our
children are playing together, and we’re sharing potluck meals
and Communion, the choices we make about vaccines are not for
our own personal sake but for the sake of our entire community.
If there’s one thing that the pandemic has shown us, it’s that
our lives, bodies, and health are interwoven.
Stephen Cook, senior pastor of Second Baptist Church in Memphis
COVID-19 has claimed the lives of more than 283,000 of our
neighbors in the United States, more than 1.5 million of our
neighbors around the world. With the hope of a vaccine on the
near horizon, pastors have the opportunity to call Christ’s
people in our congregations to neighbor-love in a way that
embodies Christ’s command to love one another.
When Jesus is questioned by a lawyer who wants to know who
counts as his neighbor (Luke 10), he responds with the story of
the Samaritan who stopped to provide for the needs of the one
beaten and left for dead. Notably, the Samaritan whom Jesus
points to as an exemplar of merciful service lives out the call
to neighbor-love through an act of healing.
Encouraging people of faith to be vaccinated against this
disease that has devastated so many is a pastoral
responsibility. It is an occasion to summon Christ’s followers
to consider the role we have to play in promoting the healing of
the world. It is an opportunity for us to recall that, at the
end of the story, Jesus lifts up the one who acts like a
neighbor in response to a desperate need.
Stephanie Lobdell, campus pastor at Mount Vernon Nazarene
University in Ohio
The directive of Christ to love our neighbor has informed the
life of the university campus I pastor in distinctive ways, from
masks to plexiglass dividing diners in the cafeteria. Moving
forward, it ought to inform our posture toward the vaccine as
well. To receive the vaccine if one is physically able is yet
another way to practice love for neighbor.
As a Christian liberal arts university in the Wesleyan-Holiness
tradition, we bring an additional impetus to the vaccine
conversation. As Wesleyans, we hold steadfastly to the
centrality of cooperative grace in Christian practice. God takes
the initiative toward us, inviting us into a relationship of
love as well as into meaningful partnership in the work of
embodying new creation. We seek to inspire our students to view
the vocation for which they are studying as an expression of
that partnership.
When scientists unravel the DNA of a dangerous virus, when
doctors work tirelessly to find more effective treatments, when
researchers formulate a shot that protects people against
infection, we do not raise a self-righteous fist in the face of
science claiming, “Faith over fear!” Rather, we rejoice. We
rejoice at the life-giving manifestation of divinely ordained
vocation. We proclaim thanks be to God, both for God’s provision
and for the holy gift of human capacity.
#Post#: 22160--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: December 13, 2020, 8:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Viruses of the mind": Fighting for Truth inside this
increasingly polluted 'meme-pool'...
Dawkins spreading his memes at Cannes 2007
43 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5IRYbzS-gs
#Post#: 22381--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: December 17, 2020, 6:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPIIMHu9ufU
#Post#: 23057--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: December 29, 2020, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-5XB2Bqds
Dr Robert Willner, author of the famous book "Deadly Deception",
proved that viruses do not cause disease. He supported the
Terrain theory and debunked the idea that sex and HIV do not
cause AIDS.
"The Bubonic plague killed half the population of Europe. The
question you must ask and must answer, if you are going to be a
rational thinking Human being is why didn't it kill the other
half?
In United States, in 1919, 18 million people died of the flu. My
question is why didn't it kill the other 92 million die?
The answer to that and every reporter owes it to their readers
is very simple, the bugs do not cause the disease, unless there
is a suitable terrain.
So the answer to all disease is not to take the shotgun and blow
a Human being apart, but to simply prevent the disease to begin
with, by living at peace and in harmony, not only with your
fellow Human beings, but every organism on this planet."
Video taken from the channel:
UnifyThePeople -
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_kvnUusdDPeJgByvgkEFAA
#Post#: 23058--------------------------------------------------
Re: CORONAVIRUS - THE PALE HORSE
DIR By: guest8
Date: December 29, 2020, 9:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: patrick jane link ---
>
>
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-5XB2Bqds
>
>
> Dr Robert Willner, author of the famous book "Deadly
Deception", proved that viruses do not cause disease. He
supported the Terrain theory and debunked the idea that sex and
HIV do not cause AIDS.
>
>
> "The Bubonic plague killed half the population of Europe. The
question you must ask and must answer, if you are going to be a
rational thinking Human being is why didn't it kill the other
half?
>
>
> In United States, in 1919, 18 million people died of the flu.
My question is why didn't it kill the other 92 million die?
>
>
> The answer to that and every reporter owes it to their readers
is very simple, the bugs do not cause the disease, unless there
is a suitable terrain.
> So the answer to all disease is not to take the shotgun and
blow a Human being apart, but to simply prevent the disease to
begin with, by living at peace and in harmony, not only with
your fellow Human beings, but every organism on this planet."
>
>
> Video taken from the channel:
> UnifyThePeople -
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_kvnUusdDPeJgByvgkEFAA
>
--- End Quote ---
He is right...
But I will go one further..... God is the one being that can
allow one to get the virus or not. Rem. He is in control of
everything. He also determines when each of us will die,
whether it be from a heart attack, car wreck, war or by a
virus........Thank Him for your good health instead of those
that will deceive you.l
Blade
*****************************************************
Page 11 of 18
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page