Vaccination?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

If a Christian gets vaccinated for the covid Is this a lack of faith?

  • Getting the vaccination means the Christian lacks faith.

  • Getting the vaccination demonstrates love thy neighbor.

  • Other,I will explain.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
AandW said:
We said it was not Pfizer!

This comes from your own Article:


1 Vaccine in Clinical Trials in Ukraine




Your OWN Article claims it is J&J, not Pfizer!
Click to expand...
Dear Lord, give me patience with these people:

UKRAINE
Last Updated 24 September 2021.
4 Vaccines Approved for Use in Ukraine
ALL of the above vaccines have been approved for use in Ukraine.
 
Gideon300 said:
mRNA does not affect the gene. Whoever told you that is either a liar or passing on a lie without bothering to check the facts. And you just repeat the lie yourself. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

We know FORBES is Conservative and backs the Republican Party!

Here is their APPROVED Article concerning this Topic:


Covid-19 Vaccines Can't Alter Your DNA, Here's Why - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com › victoriaforster › 2021/01/11
Jan 11, 2021 — A common myth circulating on social media sites falsely claims that the mRNA vaccines against the Covid-19 coronavirus can change DNA.


So, even RIGHT WINGED MEDIA knows that mRNA cannot [change] someones DNA!
 
  • Like
Reactions: seed_time_harvest and JohnDB
PennEd said:
Dear Lord, give me patience with these people:

UKRAINE
Last Updated 24 September 2021.
4 Vaccines Approved for Use in Ukraine
ALL of the above vaccines have been approved for use in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Interesting, it has the old list and updated list. (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnDB
PennEd said:
I guess this is about as close as I'll get to an "I'm sorry, you were right, I was wrong".

So thanks
Click to expand...
On the Topic of Ukraine and whether it was using Pfizer or not, Yeah, I was Wrong! It use to only be J&J and that's not even FDA Approved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PennEd
eternally-gratefull said:
[1. All the vaxxed people protected themselves]

[2.] From what I have seen, the Vaccine does work [...]

[3.] I know three people who had the vaccine and came down with Covid and had very minimal symptoms [...]

[4.] These same people were high risk people and ones who should have been taken down by this virus [...]

[5.] Stop listening to everything you hear on the fake news. And look at reality. [...]


[6.] I have been close contact with 4 people who have had covid. This last one I have gotten sick. But it does not appear to be covid. While I did stay home today. [...]

[7.] Neither work or anyone I know says I should go get tested.
Click to expand...

1. That's not what the CDC says. The CDC says that the efficacy of the jab diminishes over time and that it has uncertain levels of protection against Delta and other possible strains. A jabbed person may have some protection, but still will get sick, and still will transmit infection. If their protection is sufficiently diminished or if they catch an infection that the jab doesn't protect against, they are effectively unvaccinated. That's what the CDC says.

2. Why should anyone rely on uncontrolled anecdotal evidence? Snake-oil salesmen use anecdotal evidence. But even with compelling empirical evidence to vouch for its efficacy, what right does a government have to compel or punish for making a personal choice on the matter?

3. According to the CDC, people can be asymptomatic but still transmit infection. Some reports say a jabbed individual can be just as infectious as nonjabbed. If the jab reduces symptoms (pushing them towards being asymptomatic), and if asymptomatic people can be infectious, it is a reasonable conclusion that jabbed individuals pose more of a hazard in terms of transmission potential. Especially if they are more lax about maintaining distancing with other people. The way to mitigate that transmission potential is to give them the same tests as any other asymptomatic individual. (Which in my opinion is no test at all).

4. Most people that do not wish to partake are perfectly fine with other people making choices for themselves.

5. Are you proposing that CDC is fake news? I suggest that you tune out from billionaire owned media conglomerates on t.v. and radio that don't have your best interests at heart, and start reading the fine print on the publications for yourself.

6. "Does not appear to be covid". If we buy into the rhetoric, a jabbed individual may still be called an irresponsible asymptomatic spreader.

7. Workplaces toe the line to keep compliant with government mandates. This comes back to the appropriateness of the mandates. If you feel like you're immune because of the jab, and those that haven't partaken are comfortable with the alleged risks, why have any mandates at all? Why are countries still in states of emergency if these measures work?
 
Jocund said:
1. That's not what the CDC says. The CDC says that the efficacy of the jab diminishes over time and that it has uncertain levels of protection against Delta and other possible strains. A jabbed person may have some protection, but still will get sick, and still will transmit infection. If their protection is sufficiently diminished or if they catch an infection that the jab doesn't protect against, they are effectively unvaccinated. That's what the CDC says.
Click to expand...
Thats why YOU should get the vaccine! Don’t blaim it on me if you get covid. I KNOW I can still pass it..
2. Why should anyone rely on uncontrolled anecdotal evidence? Snake-oil salesmen use anecdotal evidence. But even with compelling empirical evidence to vouch for its efficacy, what right does a government have to compel or punish for making a personal choice on the matter?
Click to expand...
Government has no right. I agree
3. According to the CDC, people can be asymptomatic but still transmit infection. Some reports say a jabbed individual can be just as infectious as nonjabbed. If the jab reduces symptoms (pushing them towards being asymptomatic), and if asymptomatic people can be infectious, it is a reasonable conclusion that jabbed individuals pose more of a hazard in terms of transmission potential. Especially if they are more lax about maintaining distancing with other people. The way to mitigate that transmission potential is to give them the same tests as any other asymptomatic individual. (Which in my opinion is no test at all).
Click to expand...

again, Another reason fr YOU to go get vaccinated. You can;t blame me if you get sick. I went out and protected myself.

4. Most people that do not wish to partake are perfectly fine with other people making choices for themselves.
Click to expand...
I am perfectly fine if you want to get it or you do not. We should be abl;e to make choices

But again, DON’T blame me if I get covid and pass it to you. Thats nnot my fault you did not protect yourself in case
5. Are you proposing that CDC is fake news? I suggest that you tune out from billionaire owned media conglomerates on t.v. and radio that don't have your best interests at heart, and start reading the fine print on the publications for yourself.
Click to expand...
Media? I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY.

You need to learn to read my friend..

6. "Does not appear to be covid". If we buy into the rhetoric, a jabbed individual may still be called an irresponsible asymptomatic spreader.
Click to expand...
So if I do not get the flu shot and I spread the flue virus am I being irresponsible?

come on man, Your hurting your own case. And making mine for me

7. Workplaces toe the line to keep compliant with government mandates. This comes back to the appropriateness of the mandates. If you feel like you're immune because of the jab, and those that haven't partaken are comfortable with the alleged risks, why have any mandates at all? Why are countries still in states of emergency if these measures work?
Click to expand...

I DON’T BELIEVE IN MANDATES.

If you had read anythign I have said you would know this.. Back offf. Slow down. Ready what I have said in this chatroom so you KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE.
then after you have all your information about me. Come talk to me

I am neither pro or anti-vaxx.
 
AandW said:
On the Topic of Ukraine and whether it was using Pfizer or not, Yeah, I was Wrong! It use to only be J&J and that's not even FDA Approved.
Click to expand...

I'm sort of not on either side but I look at it like this,,,,if the vaccine is killing people I would want to know,,, but if not I would want to know also. In the case of V. Salo(and the others) it's best to just go straight to their local papers and see what they said https://112.international/society/student-dies-after-covid-vaccination-in-kyiv-region-65066.html which states that they wont know the cause of death for at least another month.
In the case of Brian A. Wilkins(owner of thecovidblog.) he is an young man who searches the www looking for anyone who died who had taken the vaccine who lives in an RV off grid six months out of the year(nothing wrong with that) but he's not any different from us in his speculations. https://brianwilkins.org/about-brian/ It is not the first time that people have been presented with the post with the faces of those who died on the internet after taking the vaccine by Wilkins but the same pattern is emerging in that Wilkins doesn't go back after the autopsy on any of the deaths he post and say what they found they actually died from https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-warped-world-of-covid-vaccine-death-hunters (there are other articles if you search Brian A. Wilkins). Anyway until Wilkins does follow up on these and post what their autopsies proved were the reason these people died none of us will know if they died because of the vaccine(whichever one) or if there was another cause of death.
 
eternally-gratefull said:
Lining their pockets. By giving free vaccines...(even if the govt is giving them some money, which I am sure they are, its nothigh like what they could get by charging for each vaccine)

smh
Click to expand...

"Free vaccines"

Why would you assume vaccine makers aren't receiving compensation through our taxes? Painting the vaccine industry as altruistic is demonstrably wishful thinking.

eternally-gratefull said:
Thats why YOU should get the vaccine! [...] I am neither pro or anti-vaxx.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

eternally-gratefull said:
Don’t blaim it on me if you get covid. I KNOW I can still pass it.. [...] You can;t blame me if you get sick. I went out and protected myself. [...] DON’T blame me if I get covid and pass it to you.
Click to expand...

If you follow the chain of this thread, you will see that it wasn't about blaming anyone for getting sick, it was about fairness and accountability for the hypocritical position that unjabbed individuals should get tested regularly out of their own pocket and that jabbed should be exempt. If testing is mandated for asymptomatic carriers, it follows that both jabbed and unjabbed should fall into the same category. Either test both or test neither.

eternally-gratefull said:
Government has no right. I agree [...] I am perfectly fine if you want to get it or you do not. We should be abl;e to make choices [...]
I DON’T BELIEVE IN MANDATES.
Click to expand...

Then you agree that the governments ought not mandate that unjabbed individuals require frequent testing to check if they are asymptomatic carriers? You agree that governments ought not mandate masks, distancing and shutdowns of businesses?

eternally-gratefull said:
So if I do not get the flu shot and I spread the flue virus am I being irresponsible?
Click to expand...

If you sincerely feel that unjabbed individuals should test regularly because they might be asymptomatic spreaders, and that unjabbed people that don't test are irresponsible, it follows that a jabbed individual that doesn't test is also irresponsible.

eternally-gratefull said:
If you had read anythign I have said you would know this.. Back offf. Slow down. Ready what I have said in this chatroom so you KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE.
then after you have all your information about me. Come talk to me
Click to expand...

You replied to me first, why didn't you follow your own advice and wade through the sea of comments before posting? Clearly that's not how a flowing conversation works. We should be open to reiterating what we feel and think, and through the course of time acknowledge that our opinions and positions might change.
 
eternally-gratefull said:
Lining their pockets. By giving free vaccines...(even if the govt is giving them some money, which I am sure they are, its nothigh like what they could get by charging for each vaccine)

smh
Click to expand...


oh for pete sakes eg

the covid shot manufactures could lend money back to the government at the rate they are making it

Pfizer forecasts $26bn of Covid-19 vaccine revenue after first-quarter success
According to the first-quarter results published by Pfizer this week, its coronavirus jab has reaped revenues of $3.5bn for the biopharma giant in the first three months of 2021.

keep in mind that is the companies own forecasting and reporting...not some right wing nut job

has nothing to do with whether or not to get the vaccine...it's all about the moolah and the fact that no one can hold them accountable for any side effects

what? you thought they were doing this for the love of their fellow human beings? :LOL::ROFL::LOL::ROFL::LOL::ROFL::LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy-Pevensie
Aidan1 said:
No I dont agree. [On one hand the government has a] the responsibility to protect [its] citizens. [On the other hand, the citizens don't have the right] to misuse the protection from the government.
[E.g.] the social system. The vaccines are [given in order] to protect the people [as best] as possible. If people reject this, they have to bear the consequences.
[Profit from pharmaceuticals] is normal in the [globalist market] we have. [Pharmaceutical companies] bear the risk and have to invest.
[Whether politicians] are bought [by Big Pharma or not, you will find black sheep everywhere], even [among Christian organizations], but they are called [wolves].
Click to expand...

If I have paraphrased what you have said correctly, is your position essentially that it is a civic duty to follow the instructions and directives of government? And that the consequence in failing that civic duty is ostracization and financial punishment?

If that is your position, it is an admirable idealism, but requires great faith in the concept that the governments which establish those civic duties have your best interests at heart. One would have to ignore the histories of the governments to allow that kind of trust to flourish. Coexistence is acceptable, but blind obedience is a questionable approach for most.

Certainly, first and foremost we give God what is God's and after that, then give to Caesar what is Caesar's. If a Christian has a fervent belief in their faith that they should not partake of a civic duty set by Caesar, but what right does Caesar have to punish or ostracize that person for their faith? For the many governments that speak of diversity, inclusion, and love of minorities, it appears that many governments are either dishonest or double-minded. These authors of confusion are not of God, as God is not the author of confusion. How should one address this conflict except by giving to God that which is God's? We should fight evil with good, to fight falsehoods with truth. Certainly as Christians, falsehoods should not be helped or encouraged, even if it is an identified civic duty. I think that is why these discussions are so important.

If you think civic duties are more important than Christian conscience, I don't think we have much more to talk about within the scope of this.
 
Jocund said:
If I have paraphrased what you have said correctly, is your position essentially that it is a civic duty to follow the instructions and directives of government? And that the consequence in failing that civic duty is ostracization and financial punishment?

If that is your position, it is an admirable idealism, but requires great faith in the concept that the governments which establish those civic duties have your best interests at heart. One would have to ignore the histories of the governments to allow that kind of trust to flourish. Coexistence is acceptable, but blind obedience is a questionable approach for most.

Certainly, first and foremost we give God what is God's and after that, then give to Caesar what is Caesar's. If a Christian has a fervent belief in their faith that they should not partake of a civic duty set by Caesar, but what right does Caesar have to punish or ostracize that person for their faith? For the many governments that speak of diversity, inclusion, and love of minorities, it appears that many governments are either dishonest or double-minded. These authors of confusion are not of God, as God is not the author of confusion. How should one address this conflict except by giving to God that which is God's? We should fight evil with good, to fight falsehoods with truth. Certainly as Christians, falsehoods should not be helped or encouraged, even if it is an identified civic duty. I think that is why these discussions are so important.

If you think civic duties are more important than Christian conscience, I don't think we have much more to talk about within the scope of this.
Click to expand...

Then I will you an example. Roadrules are made for what? Controle the people or protect the people? I know many Christians which have no problem to ignore the roadrules and driving much faster and become a risk for others and themself.
Will you tell me that the christian consience is more important?
It is then more important, if the goverment will force me to do something what is clear against Gods will, which is expressed in the word of God.
We cant expect from godless people in the goverments a godly behaviour.
But we living in countrys which constitution is based on the word of God/the ten comentments. The situation is different in China or russia or india.
So of course I expect that their is an interest from the goverment to respect the law which is given in the constitution and according this the goverment has to do the best for his citizens.
To try to protect from a worldwide acting virus is in my eyes a quit normal thing. Doesnt matter which Party is ruling.
We had last sunday election. The Party which i would think supports at best christian values lost. So the new goverment will be more liberal and christian values will go down.
This has in my eyes nothing to do with the vaccines against covid. This are 2 pair of shoes.
 
Jocund said:
"Free vaccines"

Why would you assume vaccine makers aren't receiving compensation through our taxes? Painting the vaccine industry as altruistic is demonstrably wishful thinking.



Interesting.



If you follow the chain of this thread, you will see that it wasn't about blaming anyone for getting sick, it was about fairness and accountability for the hypocritical position that unjabbed individuals should get tested regularly out of their own pocket and that jabbed should be exempt. If testing is mandated for asymptomatic carriers, it follows that both jabbed and unjabbed should fall into the same category. Either test both or test neither.



Then you agree that the governments ought not mandate that unjabbed individuals require frequent testing to check if they are asymptomatic carriers? You agree that governments ought not mandate masks, distancing and shutdowns of businesses?



If you sincerely feel that unjabbed individuals should test regularly because they might be asymptomatic spreaders, and that unjabbed people that don't test are irresponsible, it follows that a jabbed individual that doesn't test is also irresponsible.



You replied to me first, why didn't you follow your own advice and wade through the sea of comments before posting? Clearly that's not how a flowing conversation works. We should be open to reiterating what we feel and think, and through the course of time acknowledge that our opinions and positions might change.
Click to expand...
1. I do not believe anyone should be forced to test (unless you have symptoms or have been exposed
2. I do not think people who have been vaccinated should be required to be tested just to be tested.
3. Your comment was you believe faxed people should be tested/ I do not agree with that comment. Hence why I responded.

My point still stands.

Don;t blame me because you do not want to get vaccinated if I get it, am asymptomatic. And pass it on to you. THATS YOUR FAULT NOT MINE
 
Gideon300 said:
Virtually every word spoken against COVID vaccination. Simple one: lethal injection. I'm alive to prove that statement false.
Click to expand...

Lol, that's a real funny but ignorant conclusion :-) You take an experimental injection where the trial cut off date is March 2023 but you already know it's outcome in September 2021...1,5 year before of this worldwide experiment finishes?

In the end the question is this: does lethal means instant death... or could it take it's time? How long did asbestos take before it became lethal? My uncle inhaled a lethal dose decades ago and it took another 40 years before the cancer showed up in his lungs. All that time his immune system controlled the apoptosis correctly but, as he got older, his immune system became weaker and could not control it anymore. Same with many other illnesses. You know were are making 10.000 cancer cells every night right? If not, then I am really wasting my time here. The assumption that illness or side effects (VAERS) show up instantly; overnight or over a short period is of course incorrect. All the time while people "claim" that they are "okay and healthy" and then suddenly get sick overnight, they don't reaiize that they have been unconsciencly working to get that particular disease through bad diet and/or living in an environmentally bad place for years. Pharmaceuticals always have risks; anything in life really :-) Ever read the pharmaceutical insert?

So far, Big Pharma has been fined a fair few times (praise God) because of it's fraudulent studies and practices. It's a real choice to trust your life to such a corrupt industry. I remember my Catholic friend Fokker from the Congo who said when he had cancer, that he trusted white men for his health and his priest for his salvation. He did nothing himself, let alone take ownership of his health and spiritual life; seek God and/or doctor himself. Three years later after his death when my wife got cancer, we reversed it naturally. after a 14 months battle. It took ten months before we went to see a specialist who was an official GP but also had studied orthomoleculair health.

In the end, any industry that is given indemnity obviously doesn't have to stick behind them to provide a good and safe product and therefore cannot be trusted. If Ford Motors would have a fault in one of it's new cars and it blew up and killed four, the entire range would be shut down and the company fined to the hilt. Not so with the Disease Management Mafia or Phamakeia. They get away with virtually anything . Why? Because big industries like Big Oil have their foot up the government's ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PennEd
Aidan1 said:
Then I will you an example. Roadrules are made for what? Controle the people or protect the people? I know many Christians which have no problem to ignore the roadrules and driving much faster and become a risk for others and themself.
Will you tell me that the christian consience is more important?
It is then more important, if the goverment will force me to do something what is clear against Gods will, which is expressed in the word of God.
We cant expect from godless people in the goverments a godly behaviour.
But we living in countrys which constitution is based on the word of God/the ten comentments. The situation is different in China or russia or india.
So of course I expect that their is an interest from the goverment to respect the law which is given in the constitution and according this the goverment has to do the best for his citizens.
To try to protect from a worldwide acting virus is in my eyes a quit normal thing. Doesnt matter which Party is ruling.
We had last sunday election. The Party which i would think supports at best christian values lost. So the new goverment will be more liberal and christian values will go down.
This has in my eyes nothing to do with the vaccines against covid. This are 2 pair of shoes.
Click to expand...
Sadly our country has left its own constitution.

It is meaningless today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 49 and planitsoon
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back