Coronavirus

[kingcat]

Certainly..our hope, promise, and salvation.

And I personally believe that the real believers (not just claimers hedging their bets) will be taken out of the world before this comes about.

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

But hope remains for those that remain,, both those who were pretty sure Christ exists and those who are persuaded after the fact.
But they must face this ending, in a world without God's personal presence (the body of believers and Holy Spirit) to be saved.
They are considered saints regardless because they now believe wholeheartedly. Again, my personal opinion, and I believe from the Lord.

The mark itself will be in either the forehead or the hand, worldwide. And you will not be able to buy or sell without it. A few other things, foretold in a symbolic way, will also happen.

And anyone who accepts the mark, whenever and whatever it is....can be neither forgiven or saved into Gods kingdom.

No exception.

And it was given unto him (The antichrist and beast of revelation) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
--------------------------------------------------
The Beast Out of the Earth, which is the false prophet, not the beast himself

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

The Mark of the Beast

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:
for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

[ukpumacat]

The mark will be in either the forehead or the hand, worldwide. And you will not be able to buy or sell without it.

And anyone who accepts the mark, whenever and whatever it is....can be neither forgiven or saved into Gods kingdom.

No exception.

Well, then its not a chip in your phone.

[kingcat]

But, as for the point I was trying to make.

In the face of this type crisis and in the digital age, billions of Christians will be appalled by any thing resembling the prophecy of the mark. One cant compare any other time in history to this...nor any Christian response to end times events, either real or perceived

[kingcat]

Well, then its not a chip in your phone.

I certainly doubt it. Nor was it a SS card.

But there are many who thought it could be.
One has to understand the passion and concern about it, and the desire to play it safe.
And weigh in the many differing interpretations that might lead someone to do so.

I can see the dangerous scenario of it becoming a self fulfilling prophecy for some. And an equally contagious one.

[kingcat]

Also, a pestilence alone is not the indication of the literal end time. But to some it may seem as such depending on how governments deal with it..

[ukpumacat]

But, as for the point I was trying to make.

In the face of this type crisis and in the digital age, billions of Christians will be appalled by any thing resembling the prophecy of the mark. One cant compare any other time in history to this...nor any Christian response to end times events, either real or perceived

In the digital age, yes, we haven’t seen anything like this.

But as a History major I can tell you that nothing will come close to the year 1,000 as far as this belief/rhetoric/etc.
People by the thousands literally sold everything they owned in preparation for it.
We are nowhere near that.
In fact, outside of you posting it, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere else right now. And I follow a lot of Christian friends etc.
I certainly believe it’s out there. Just saying nothing compared to that. Or even 1988 for that matter.
Until we start seeing billboards and commercials declaring this the end times.

[Catonahottinroof]

Surprised this hasn’t occurred sooner. It may have, I’m just not aware of it though. May be seeing it In my newsfeed since it’s Louisville news...

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...es/2976560001/

https://apple.news/AgwFETjXaRR6h3U6JnKud4A

[kingcat]

In this area and among my several hundred facebook friends and contacts, its a relatively common theme.

Even more than 5G being the cause of the virus.

[ukpumacat]

In this area and among my several hundred facebook friends and contacts, its a relatively common theme.

I believe you. Just doubt any are selling everything they own to prepare for it.

[Catfan73]

Surprised this hasn’t occurred sooner. It may have, I’m just not aware of it though. May be seeing it In my newsfeed since it’s Louisville news...

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...es/2976560001/


https://apple.news/AgwFETjXaRR6h3U6JnKud4A

We have to wear our seatbelts to protect ourselves. We’re not allowed to drive intoxicated to protect ourselves and others. Is this really that different?

[CitizenBBN]

We have to wear our seatbelts to protect ourselves. We’re not allowed to drive intoxicated to protect ourselves and others. Is this really that different?

First off yes, it is. At least it requires a far more delicate balance. Constitutionally protected freedoms, despite popular belief, are NOT our only rights, but they are our most dear ones.

Second, seatbelt laws are easily the most clear example of unconstitutional government overreach in the US today. Why? Bc if I in my car alone don't wear my seatbelt I'm breaking the law, yet me not wearing it creates NO external loss of rights of others or in any way violates their property or liberty.

That is the role of government's internal legislation. To prevent one person's actions from infringing on the rights or property of others. It's that simple.

Drunk driving could easily infringe on the rights of others, thus is is rightly regulated. In this case with the virus we do have a certain obligation to regulate as the disease can spread through those who are irresponsible. But where it's a right like freedom of religion we do have to be careful and fair.

For example, saying "well food is necessary do drive throughs are OK for it but religion isn't so they can't have one" is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent. Those who have faith do not consider it non-essential.

Now, for a time to ask people to practice worship without being in close proximity is reasonable. But we do have to be sensitive to the fact that faith is a critical thing for many, and it must be respected.

But none of this is like seatbelt laws, which should be stricken from the books. Yes they save lives, and so would us having "internal passports" as being suggested now or go with AOC's Green new Deal where travel has to be approved. ALl would reduce the number of people on roads and thus save lives, but, and here's the big thing:

America was founded b/c we chose liberty over safety. The Founders accepted, and we should continue to accept, that it means some will do foolish things that will cause themselves harm, and sometimes even cause others harm, but we are not willing to lose the rights of the many unless there is more than a small loss of life.

Otherwise we'd ban private swimming pools, bungee jumping for fun, etc. We don't bc we believe people have a right to pursue their happiness too.

[KSRBEvans]

There are free exercise issues, and the city was also enforcing the idea of social distancing preferentially. They said they were wanting to ban drive-in church because some people still got within 6 feet of one another. Well, there was video of golfers breaking the 6 foot rule on the city golf courses but they didn't shut the courses down. Instead the mayor asked the golfers "Pretty please" but kept the courses open so the city could make that sweet, sweet money.

I'm somebody who probably won't be back in church for a while even after the bans go away, but the Mayor overreached on this one and the judge was right to issue the order IMHO.

[Catonahottinroof]

The bigger issue with this particular item if it were to fly unquestioned, what would the next one be? Because there would be a next time, and next issue. There always is.
The first amendment is pretty explicit about government CAN’T do. Yet, it did it today to churches except On Fire which filed the suit. Fisher is playing with fire here....

[kingcat]

As for the right to worship and the legality of preventing it in a national emergency. I would ask them that, if in a black out during wartime would the constitution also guarantee them the right to disregard it? That is, if such light and the gathering were to have been visible from the air or sea as it were?

[KeithKSR]

We have to wear our seatbelts to protect ourselves. We’re not allowed to drive intoxicated to protect ourselves and others. Is this really that different?

The first amendment doesn’t address those issues.

[Catonahottinroof]

I believe a Martial Law declaration would remove constitutional rights in this situation.

As for the right to worship and the legality of preventing it in a national emergency. I would ask them that, if in a black out during wartime would the constitution also guarantee them the right to disregard it? That is, if such light and the gathering were to have been visible from the air or sea as it were?

[Catfan73]

Is this really infringing on anyone’s ability to practice the religion of their choosing though? The 1st amendment also says we have the right to free speech but you can’t walk into a crowded theater and start yelling Fire! because people will get hurt in the ensuing rush to get out.

[Catonahottinroof]

You’re leaving out the “peaceably assemble part....”

Is this really infringing on anyone’s ability to practice the religion of their choosing though? The 1st amendment also says we have the right to free speech but you can’t walk into a crowded theater and start yelling Fire! because people will get hurt in the ensuing rush to get out.

[CitizenBBN]

Is this really infringing on anyone’s ability to practice the religion of their choosing though? The 1st amendment also says we have the right to free speech but you can’t walk into a crowded theater and start yelling Fire! because people will get hurt in the ensuing rush to get out.

Wow. I never thought I'd hear something like "freedom of religion doesn't require you to go to a house of worship, so it's OK to restrict it". that's something you hear in totalitarian states as they slowly erode constitutions.

American citizens are born with ALL of their rights. We collectively turn over the very minimum required to government for a basic governance of the social contract. We retain everything else.

Your argument is incredibly dangerous. We may need to temporarily restrict gatherings, but the idea that is somehow constitutional to do so is dangerous beyond belief. It's not constitutional, but we do sometimes have to suspend those rights in times of absolute crisis. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War in some cases, etc.

But to start to make those rights fungible and to argue that it's ever not a right is horrifying. We need to know this is absolutely a Constitutionally guaranteed right, that we are only very temporarily suspending that right due to the current crisis, but that the government has no authority whatsoever to do anything about it other than in the most dire of circumstances.

[Doc]

Is this really infringing on anyone’s ability to practice the religion of their choosing though? The 1st amendment also says we have the right to free speech but you can’t walk into a crowded theater and start yelling Fire! because people will get hurt in the ensuing rush to get out.

So one must go to a church to practice your religion?

Personally I have no feelings on this one way or the other but IMO restricting any groups ability to congregate/assemble does not restrict their ability to practice or believe in anything. It prevents them from congregating. Closing bars isn't prohibition. Closing restaurants does not prohibit me from eating. Closing churches/mosques/synagogues does not prohibit me from being religious. It just restricts the number of people who can gather in a location.

[MickintheHam]

Surprised this hasn’t occurred sooner. It may have, I’m just not aware of it though. May be seeing it In my newsfeed since it’s Louisville news...

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...es/2976560001/

https://apple.news/AgwFETjXaRR6h3U6JnKud4A

Fisher is an effing dork!!

Hell, people at Walmart, the Grocery Store, and Lowe's are within 6 feet of each other. He could put cops and cameras in every store and see the same things he claims he saw at this church. A true leader knows in these times discretion is the better part of valor. The Federal and State Governments know that they have established rules that can't be evenly or fairly enforced. The intent is to slow the spread of the virus, not kill the spirit of the American people. Those that voted for this clown should be concerned. He's an embarrassment to Louisvillians everywhere. He manages the minutia and ignores the city's overwhelming problems.

[Doc]

Fisher is an effing dork!!

Hell, people at Walmart, the Grocery Store, and Lowe's are within 6 feet of each other. He could put cops and cameras in every store and see the same things he claims he saw at this church. A true leader knows in these times discretion is the better part of valor. The Federal and State Governments know that they have established rules that can't be evenly or fairly enforced. The intent is to slow the spread of the virus, not kill the spirit of the American people. Those that voted for this clown should be concerned. He's an embarrassment to Louisvillians everywhere. He manages the minutia and ignores the city's overwhelming problems.

I think the idea of a "drive in" service is great. Yet another example of people doing what is needed in the face of this disease. Not sure why anybody would have butt hurt over a drive in service. Its outdoors, which is great, is adequate distance between individuals and their is a method to allow interaction and still be safe.

[KSRBEvans]

There's a kind of implied social contract here. Government will only take action that's reasonably related to the safety of the public, and the public will more or less comply. But when Government starts to overreach (shock!), people become less likely to comply and civil disobedience becomes more likely.

[Catfan73]

I’m mostly just playing devil’s advocate here. I did see an article though about a Pentecostal congregation in Illinois that had a revival where 43 out of 80 attendees fell ill afterward, with 10 already testing positive.

Does government have a responsibility to help its citizens protect themselves? Or just to keep them from endangering others? Some here seem to think neither....

[MickintheHam]

Yes, church services funerals, and other public gathering have caused the spread. But would you like to wager whether or not the Long Island Railroad or the 6 train contributed to the massive spread of the virus in Queens and Elmhurst. Subways are still running. The spread in churches and funerals was not malicious. People learn. People adjust. They shouldn’t be punished with malicious intent.

[kingcat]

So one must go to a church to practice your religion?

Personally I have no feelings on this one way or the other but IMO restricting any groups ability to congregate/assemble does not restrict their ability to practice or believe in anything. It prevents them from congregating. Closing bars isn't prohibition. Closing restaurants does not prohibit me from eating. Closing churches/mosques/synagogues does not prohibit me from being religious. It just restricts the number of people who can gather in a location.

This is exactly right. personally I think it's fine that they attend, providing they are quarantined in that house of worship for whatever amount of time deemed appropriate.
And then they should spend that time reflecting on their relationship to God and desire to tempt Him to prove they actually have the faith they claim.

The problem isn't the believers, it is the false leaders within Christianity who have control over them and a percentage of their wallets.

And if God does not perform a miracle and protect all who do so from the virus and its spread, they play a huge part in damaging the commission given them by Christ himself.
No unbeliever will be saved by such actions. But will be appalled and convinced otherwise.

And if their faith is so strong they can call on God to heal and protect them....proceed to the homes of the poor and sick and go into the streets to pray for them until such faith is rewarded. or demand to stand outside the hospitals while healing the sick within those walls.

Have you great faith?, have it to yourself before God and do not use it to offend the weaker ones of the faith.

These folks seek to prove their faith in the same way snake handlers have tried to do in the past, and care nothing about the rights or well being of citizens or fellow man in the least. Nor those of any other "churches".

..but are convinced to go about hoping to prove they can walk on water and take up serpents to prove their own holiness. And then hope to leave God within those walls as they go back out into the world.

"Where two or more are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst"
------------------------------------------
“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
See, I have told you beforehand.

“Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.

For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together"
-----------------------------
"It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
..refering to the commandment
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

[CitizenBBN]

I’m mostly just playing devil’s advocate here. I did see an article though about a Pentecostal congregation in Illinois that had a revival where 43 out of 80 attendees fell ill afterward, with 10 already testing positive.

Does government have a responsibility to help its citizens protect themselves? Or just to keep them from endangering others? Some here seem to think neither....

There's a huge, massive difference between suggesting we may need to restrict certain liberties temporarily in the face of a crisis and suggesting that those rights do not really exist or are tremendously fungible, which is the nature of your prior posts.

There is zero doubt that restricting a church service in any way is a violation of the constitutionally protected rights of religion and assembly. It absolutely is a violation. Suggesting it is not is incredibly dangerous b/c those same arguments could be used at any time to restrict those liberties.

The answer is that we are temporarily violating those rights due to a temporary crisis, but we cannot long accept such violation or accept it for indeterminate amounts of time and we cannot ever take such restrictions lightly and try to justify them as acceptable or reasonable in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

[Catonahottinroof]

I got this from a friend of mine who lives in Shelbyville...his Jeep and about 15 other vehicles had their catalytic converters cut off and stolen in Kroger’s parking lot this morning....
We are starting to see societal breakdown.....

[kingcat]

Anything that directly threatens the very lives of our children (and theirs) better dang well be regulated in a civilized society.

And yes, that would include some abortions.

[kingcat]

I got this from a friend of mine who lives in Shelbyville...his Jeep and about 15 other vehicles had their catalytic converters cut off and stolen in Kroger’s parking lot this morning....
We are starting to see societal breakdown.....

Its been going on for the last few months all around the country. Increasing a lot lately with the lack of police patrols. More rampant than car theft.

People working under a vehicle aren't usually questioned since its assumed they have car trouble.