Democrat Gov. Hochul Says Un-Vaxxed Christians ‘Aren’t Listening To God...

Well, since everyone against abortions, and is willing to let unloved infants die off, all by themselves since they got their own circus to deal with, instead of bunch unwanted bastards.

Guess it will be up to the State, Church, or Church State invested by the power God(crickets) to force everyone to pay taxes.

a reply to: Proto88

I am a father, but divorced. Live alone when the kid isn’t staying with me. And work 40 to 50 hours a week. Donate to my churches orphanage.

I would love to take care of an unwanted baby/ child. What state is going to let me pick up a kid and take them home? It’s like the system is set up to fail….

a reply to: neutronflux

Sigh, I would too(for a little while)...more like collateral damage for the most.

Don't know, but I do think this why infidelity laws were taken seriously an usually led to some brutal forms of punishments in more crude times, as to not screw with the high weather dependent economics an limited resources.

Taxes is even one of the horsemen, or at least attributed to it.

a reply to: Proto88

Husband and I would like to, but have you any idea how many hoops you have to jump through before that state will declare you suitable and far up your butt they crawl in the process?

originally posted by: Gothmog

Democrat Gov. Hochul Says Un-Vaxxed Christians ‘Aren’t Listening To God...

Most Democrats don't even know what God is , much less what He's saying

“I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion.”—Ex. 20:5, NW.

As soon as you vote for a human being to be your president (leader), you are demonstrating you do not truly know what God is (I know, this one is going to fly right over everyone's head here, possibly even taking offense to it; couldn't resist after your comment though, but I'm not going to elaborate cause most people here don't want to hear that anyway, as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4; the mere suggestion to abstain from politics and voting for politicians and thus remain politically neutral to prove your exclusive devotion to God and that you will not put your trust "in the son of earthling man", rubs some people the wrong way, especially those who think that voting is a duty for every citizen, or has no effect whatsoever on one's devotion to God or exclusive devotion to God, that these things can be viewed seperately or that they are compatible, as in you can have exclusive devotion to God and still vote for a human politician to be your president or leader, ignoring God's Kingdom in the process).

“Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. . . . Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in Jehovah his God, the Maker of heaven and earth.” (Psalm 146:3-6)

Not to mention that God is not a Trinity or Binity. And Jesus is not Jehovah God, he is the Son of God, as he himself said over and over as recorded in the Bible.

a reply to: whereislogic

As soon as you vote for a human being to be your president (leader), you are demonstrating you do not truly know what God is

I disagree. When I place my vote for a leader, it is only because society requires a leader. If I had my druthers, I would put Jesus in every office. But, since I cannot, I vote for whoever I believe will do the best job, remembering that they are just men and therefore fallible.

On the other hand, those who seemingly support the candidate because of the party, who look the other way when their candidate lies, manipulates, or literally harms others, that sounds more like your description.

God does not admonish us for being in the world; He only admonishes us for being of the world.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

No, and probably not as far a Church in State would go up it, like they did chastising everyone.

Yes the need for abortion is bull# in most cases, but in other circumstances ether for a couple incapable of taking care of newborn, rape, or an abusive relationship it is beneficial, sadly.

Up to the parents, or the woman discretion really. Thing is, is it better to pull the plug in that sense, or let them suffer, where most would die off from ether starvation or slavery to an extent. Any woman past 5 months, is going to have that baby, any point time less could go.

And no one give me that schtick that the aborted baby could cure cancer, cause if it was Hitler, orDaimen, everyone would say kill it.

If anything, like the old days, we could just abort the parents, an make them repent. Sins of the father not affecting the son an all that jazz, more food for the little one.

a reply to: Proto88

No one knows who or what the baby will be until it happens. Hindsight is always 20/20, but you can say that you're preventing terrible things just as easily as saying you're killing the wonderful things. Either could be equally true - either one. There is just no way of knowing.

Of course, I tend to believe every human has the right to his or her life in order for us to find out, but abortion negates that right. And it's not like any woman in the world gives birth to some strange proto-being that magically metamorphs into a human after an unspecified time frame in the world. A baby is unquestionably human from birth and ultrasounds, premature babies, etc., show they're human even before their due date too.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: whereislogic

As soon as you vote for a human being to be your president (leader), you are demonstrating you do not truly know what God is

I disagree.

Yeah, like I said, this is not very welcome information. Some people may even feel like it's judgmental or in some other way malicious or disdainful when I say something like that. But the real motive for me saying that is to give people a heads-up regarding how they are being deceived by the ruler of this world, my adversary.

He's very good at making people disagree with whatever I (or others) might say that exposes his deception, control over and manipulation of mankind. Politics and religion are some of his main tools. So he easily conditions those who are unaware of his manipulative activities to resist any sort of warning or heads-up concerning those, and consequently disagree with anyone trying to warn them or make them aware of these.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, I'd like to point out that my response to you was not vitriolic like my response to another poster or to Hochul, and there's a reason for that: your post was an opinion and not blasphemous.

I actually agree that some people fall into that category of placing politics before God... maybe a lot of people. The difference is where one's heart lies. When that politician you support says or does something that you see as against God's Word, do you call them on it, or do you try to justify it? I call them on it, just like I call Hochul on her blasphemy, and just like I called another poster on their unbridled arrogance.

I actually think even more people fall into the trap of placing money before God than place politics before God. I like to ask people this question: You're sitting in a restaurant eating. The service has been a bit slow, and the waitress looks tired. By all rights, you figure she deserves no more than 15% and maybe 10%. Nah, closer to 10... money has been a little tight lately. Then that still, small voice that you know so well speaks out of the back of your head: "$100.00." You know deep inside that was a request from God, but that's a crazy tip for mediocre service!

So do you tip the 10% or leave one of those precious C-notes on the table?

The answer determines who you serve.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Did you know that political neutrality was a position held by the early Christians? Of course, there was no voting in those days, but note the following:

“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, 1937), A. Heckel and J. Sigman, pp. 237, 238.

To me, it stands to reason that if "they would not hold political office", that if they had had the option to vote, they would also not vote. Certainly not for someone who professes to be a Christian, while aspiring a political office, or perhaps getting themselves heavily involved with politics and recommending a certain candidate for political office (as for example lobbyists or speakers regularly siding with a particular political party); in which case they would then not vote for the candidate being recommended (in these days, often as a 'Christian' candidate, as was for example the case with Donald Trump being recommended by many from the various churches in the US, in his campaign, they actually made it a big deal that he had so much 'Christian' support*). *: Pewresearch says regarding the last election: "Similar to past elections, religion played an important role in the 2020 U.S. presidential contest: Republican candidate Donald Trump continued to garner strong support from White evangelical Protestants, while Black Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated backed the Democratic candidate and eventual winner, President Joe Biden." (Most White Americans who regularly attend worship services voted for Trump in 2020 | Pew Research Center)

Since Democrat Gov. Hochul holds a political office, I would say that her behaviour or job does not reflect the behaviour and attitude towards political office of the early Christians. Or political neutrality for that matter. It's quite the opposite. The same can be said of Republicans who hold a political office while professing to be or thinking of themselves as Christians. They (both Democrats and Republicans*) either don't understand Christianity (and the God of Christians) all that well or simply don't care about it (incl. the position the early Christians took regarding politics), perhaps because it's a little inconvenient to them. They might have to give up what they've devoted their entire lives to, as well as it being their livelihood. *: to come back to what I was responding to in Gothmogs comment (with a slight focus on those who hold a political office, but alse lobbyists and speakers with an audience siding with either party, such as ministers, radio talkshow hosts, youtubers, etc.).

In case it wasn't clear from my previous comment, "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) I was referring to was this one:

The World’s Secret Ruler Exposed

...
Far from denying the Devil’s power over mankind, Jesus actually confirmed it by speaking of him as “the ruler of the world,” describing him as “a murderer” and “a liar.”​—John 14:30; 8:44; The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some 60 years after Christ’s encounter with the Devil, the apostle John reminded Christians of the Devil’s powerful influence, saying that “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” That one, John also said, “is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9) Clearly, the Bible speaks of an invisible spirit as “the ruler of the world.” But what is the extent of his influence over mankind?

The World Ruler Delegates Power to Associates

Writing about the Christians’ fight for the faith, the apostle Paul clearly identified their worst enemies. “We have a wrestling,” he candidly said, “not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12) ...

a reply to: whereislogic

Did you know that political neutrality was a position held by the early Christians?

And that was fine. If the early Christians refused to hold public office, then that was their conscience. I have no problem with that.

The only real problem in my view with a Christian holding public office is when that public office interferes with their faith. Then they have to make a choice. I know several Christians in public office in Alabama stepped down after the Supreme Court ruling forcing Alabama to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. They put their faith before their office, so I don't see any issue with their faith. In fact, I consider it a tribute to their faith that they were willing to step down rather than go against their beliefs.

We live in a world where political office is expected to come with the baggage of "giving in" on issues that may offend the politician's personal beliefs. That is simply how it works in most cases, and how we have come to believe it should work. However, I do not believe that is necessarily a requirement of the job. One may hold a public office as long as they still hold God in higher esteem than they do the office.

Your example of Trump was a good one. I never saw Donald Trump claiming to be greater than God, equal to God, or anything like that. He has quite the ego, yes, and that is a personality issue IMO... but he also praised God many, many times. I am certain that if Trump had entered office willing to "play ball" with TPTB and violate his faith behind closed doors, the vitriol against him would have been almost non-existent. The fact that he was constantly attacked over every little syllable that could be twisted out of context is proof to my eyes that he did not place his office above his faith.

In the end, it comes down to that personal relationship a true Christian has with God. There is nothing in the Bible that says "thou shalt not run for public office." Therefore, while it may be difficult for a Christian to do so and maintain their allegiance to God, it is not expressly forbidden. That which is not forbidden is acceptable.

As an example, the early church did not allow women to speak in church. That was even mentioned by some of the apostles, and if memory serves, I think Jesus Himself mentioned it. However, women speaking in church was a custom, handed down from the Law of Moses. Jesus said he fulfilled that law, meaning the law had accomplished its purpose by allowing Him to be born without sin. We now live under grace, not law, and therefore the custom is not forbidden. Women can speak in church. Women can have the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We've come a long way, baby.

In the end, God is not interested in politics, save that His plans come to fruition (and that much is certain anyway). God does not care if one is a Democrat or a Republican, rich or poor, male or female, black or white or in between, slave or free, or any of those man-made divisions. God cares about each person's heart: who they serve, how well they will serve Him, and how strong their faith is. That's the bottom line.

TheRedneck

a reply to: whereislogic

Part of holding Roman political office was upholding the Roman emperor who was to venerated as a god though which would definitely be a blasphemous position to take. It would be like running as a Christian and upholding certain political positions that are definitely antithetical to what you know your Christian beliefs are/should be. Even if you say you don't personally hold those beliefs but won't go against those who don't believe like you, by running for those positions under that bit of fancy speak, you are tacitly supporting them and agreeing with them.

So for a Roman Christian to run for office would be to tacitly imply they venerate the Roman emperor as a god.

It seems like the majority that are getting vaxed without questioning what is going into their bodies, are the low information voter types that do zero research. I could be wrong I suppose. It also seems those that have a ton of time on their hands are always worried about what the next guy is doing and never minding their own business.

As far as Covid, I had it back in Oct 2020. Man created Covid, and my God given immune system sorted it out. Now, I have natural immunity from my God given immune system. I won't take the vaccine. Never going to happen.

a reply to: ketsuko

Semantics an probabilities, yes no one would or could know until the deeds are done.

Maybe so, but someone would have to take care that baby if the mother didn't want it or is unfit to able too. I just think that it is more merciful for the baby not live through the suffering of an incapable, or drug addict parent.

Plus acts of rape and in the extreme cases, incest, I'd think most women would be willingly to part with it.

And Children Abduction Society ain't much better, might as well throw the infant to pack of wolves...which there are stories about # like that.

Sure, you could adopt a baby or two, but that doesn't stop more from being born, by babies themselves.

a reply to: Klassified

I don't see how they can logically play a 'religion-card' - I already pondered about vaccination being a Godless or even satanic act..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: detroitnative

Man created Covid, and my God given immune system sorted it out. Now, I have natural immunity from my God given immune system. I won't take the vaccine. Never going to happen.

I explored this viewpoint in the thread I linked in my previous post - however, it doesn't matter what or who 'created' 'Covid', all that matters is, do we have faith or not.

Without faith, what's the point of a religion, spirituality or 'God'? With faith, why would we take anything governmental, when we have been told Our Father knows what we need, and since he takes care of birds and flowers, wouldn't he care even more about us, etc..

You can't serve two masters, you know.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I disagree on the premise that "God is not interested in politics."

I have faith that my Gaod is interested in politics.

And the only god that D.J. Trump worships is the almighty dollar.

a reply to: whereislogic

So how do I convince my FOX NEWS brainwashed, elderly, Jehovah Witness brother to take the COVID-19 vaccine? Where his most recent politized comment, is he's not taking the COVID vaccine because the "pharmaceuticals are making too much money over the COVID-19 vaccine."

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Klassified

Only those who claim to have gotten a message directly from God to speak

Oh, I see! If only Gov Hochul had said "God told me he wants Christians vaccinated", then it would be okay.

Yeah, okay....LOL

That's not even close to what I just explained, but have it your way.

You claim to be totally heathen, but you can't stop with the "apologetics" arguments.

Yeah, that's what you said, but you added a lot of apologetics bull snip!

It's really basic. Gov. Hochul said that she believes God wants Christians vaccinated, so get your "apostle" on and go preach!

No blasphemy. No vying for God's job. Just some political posturing to her Christian base.

See it however you wish then.

Apologetics? That's funny. You do have a sense of humor after all. I think there are a fair few Christians on ATS that might disagree with you. If the Devil exists, I've probably offended him too, because he at least believes in God.

Don't mistake my willingness to explain some things occasionally as agreement with them, or excuses for them.

However, I am a constitutionalist, and strongly believe in freedom of religion. Theirs, yours, and mine.

What were your thought when Trump stomped across the street to hold a bible aloft in an attention seeking rant?