It was a cancer diagnosed maybe a year after being "fully vaxxed".
The man professes to be a Christian, and I will not speak in judgement on his salvation. He may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign.
Might very well be the mark of the beast or the abomination of MRNAs effect on human DNA causing the loss of the souls connection. This is a spiritual war that's being waged, they didn't do all of this just to depopulate. They could have depolulated anyway.
The vaxxed are going to be spending some time in purgatory for injecting aborted baby parts, if they are lucky. OP doesn't subscribe to purgatory, so I wouldn't know his take.
Also, nobody knows if they are going to heaven or not until they meet the Grim Reaper and have their personal judgment.
I don't believe in the whole heaven and hell story but I think this is a very reasonable response and respect your opinion on the matter. I also leave room for you to be correct.
I clearly said "he may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign."
The Bible is clear that those who take the mark of the beast are not saved. So assuming this isn't that mark, if someone is taking something very similar to the final mark that's a bad sign, dontcha think?
Claiming that "he may be saved", is a back handed way of saying that you have already judged him.
The man professes to be a Christian
This expresses doubt on your part.
, and I will not speak in judgement on his salvation.
Normally this goes without saying, so why have you stated it?
But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign."
This is a judgment. And you have shared it with us.
I clearly said
Yes, you clearly have.
If I recall, you are a preacher are you not?
I can not express to you the paradoxical feelings I have for people who claim to both speak for God and not do so simultaneously. One can not be humble in such a position. In a profession that concerns itself with donations and engagement, and not doctrine, and morality.
In this instance, I can think of no reason to mention his religion, or speculate on his salvation. Not even assuming he were acting in bad faith.
Assuming good faith on his part however. His own good intentions have been used against him.
No. Because the Bible was passed down by word of mouth for generations then written by man. It is flawed, as man is flawed, and changed countless times in the past 2000 years.
No? The Bible isn't clear about the Mark of the Beast? Then either show me the earliest manuscript of the Book of Revelation that somehow doesn't mention the Mark of the Beast, or admit you're making absurd arguments to rationalize indulgence in your own sins.
Imagine how bad it would've been if he hadn't been vaxxed.
To anyone who thinks this is heartless: They had the same information you did, and most of them continue to double down on it.
Oh no!
He trusted the science.
May God have mercy on his soul.
It was a cancer diagnosed maybe a year after being "fully vaxxed".
The man professes to be a Christian, and I will not speak in judgement on his salvation. He may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign.
So it's his 'lack of discernment' that will exclude him from salvation? Are you certain that you have put enough thought into this statement?
Might very well be the mark of the beast or the abomination of MRNAs effect on human DNA causing the loss of the souls connection. This is a spiritual war that's being waged, they didn't do all of this just to depopulate. They could have depolulated anyway.
I clearly said "he may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign."
Is the implication here is what....that the vaxed don't get into heaven?
The vaxxed are going to be spending some time in purgatory for injecting aborted baby parts, if they are lucky. OP doesn't subscribe to purgatory, so I wouldn't know his take.
Also, nobody knows if they are going to heaven or not until they meet the Grim Reaper and have their personal judgment.
I don't believe in the whole heaven and hell story but I think this is a very reasonable response and respect your opinion on the matter. I also leave room for you to be correct.
I clearly said "he may be saved. But his lack of discernment on this issue isn't a good sign."
The Bible is clear that those who take the mark of the beast are not saved. So assuming this isn't that mark, if someone is taking something very similar to the final mark that's a bad sign, dontcha think?
Claiming that "he may be saved", is a back handed way of saying that you have already judged him.
This expresses doubt on your part.
Normally this goes without saying, so why have you stated it?
This is a judgment. And you have shared it with us.
Yes, you clearly have.
If I recall, you are a preacher are you not?
I can not express to you the paradoxical feelings I have for people who claim to both speak for God and not do so simultaneously. One can not be humble in such a position. In a profession that concerns itself with donations and engagement, and not doctrine, and morality.
In this instance, I can think of no reason to mention his religion, or speculate on his salvation. Not even assuming he were acting in bad faith.
Assuming good faith on his part however. His own good intentions have been used against him.
DAMN! 🫳🎤
You're free to over-analyze and draw whatever conclusions you like. Enjoy arguing with yourself though.
We're in this together now.
No. Because the Bible was passed down by word of mouth for generations then written by man. It is flawed, as man is flawed, and changed countless times in the past 2000 years.
No? The Bible isn't clear about the Mark of the Beast? Then either show me the earliest manuscript of the Book of Revelation that somehow doesn't mention the Mark of the Beast, or admit you're making absurd arguments to rationalize indulgence in your own sins.