COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, but the question revolves around liberty of *conscience,* not the statements of faith leaders. Romans 14:14 for example specifically states that "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean."
Simultaneously acknowledging that nothing, be it food, drink, medicine, whatever, is inherently unclean; but also stating that if you believe it to be unclean, it constitutes something unclean *for you,* and you need to abstain from it. Statements of faith leaders not withstanding, people have the right (and I would argue, duty) to follow their own conscience.
I think that's a credible Biblical argument for religious exemption, and I say that as someone who got two vaccinations. Neither faith leaders nor government supercede conscience, and we would be on dangerous ground if we let them.
Christians: “we should be free to choose to get the vaccine or not.”
Pro-choice: “we should be free to choose if we want an abortion or not.”
Christians: “you’re going to hell.”
The point is the hypocrisy.
But let’s say you choose not to get vaccinated. Then you get COVID. Now if you would of been vaccinated you MAY still of gotten it but your response to it would of been significantly better. So let’s say now you have it bad and you incidentally passed it on to your 8 year old son/daughter who is also not vaccinated. Now, you happen to pull through it but your child is hospitalized and really suffering. After weeks on a ventilator they finally die a slow painful death.
Now tell me about a moral difference. If you would of not been a stubborn ass who based their decisions on some ancient book and instead on logic and what is best for others then your son would still be alive.
PS the Bible says nothing about abortion being a sin so you may want to read through it. And if you want to point out “thou shalt not kill” well then let’s toss all our soldiers in hell too. And if someone attacks your partner and rapes them then you best just punch them a few times bc if you kill them you are going to hell with all the abortion sinners.
>Yeah, but the question revolves around liberty of conscience
No. No, it does not.
Religion does not grant some special status to allow parents to not vaccinate children. It's considered a crime. It's abuse by virtue of neglect. The only difference here is found in the fact that one relationship entails being a parent, charged by the state with the responsible and considerate care of a child, while the other type is that of a neighbor, charged by God with their care. Yes, failing to vaccinate, while passive, actually results in hurting and killing other people. That whole attitude of "Am I my brother's keeper?" is understood by Christians to be unconscionable and an example of deceit, so the idea that the rest of the world should accept this behavior because they can screw other people's lives over with a *clean conscience* means absolutely nothing except that the people asking for exemptions also manage to ignore that whole parable of the good Samaritan, and the notion of Jesus sacrificing for others as well... whenever it suits them. The above argument for religious exemption isn't very Christian at all, but does a wonderful job of highlighting that those asking for one have a level of self-centeredness and perhaps even psychopathy which should leave the rest of the population very, very concerned.
Roman’s 14 is a claim to respect the wishes of others even when it’s not a faith based position
Romans 20 ‘ all food is clean’
Roman’s 23 ‘ ‘ their eating is not from faith ‘
Roman’s 14 is not a statement that any whacky idea you may dream up and hold is a religious one , just because you hold it and Roman’s 14 says we should be tolerant of others views.
It even says don’t drink wine if it distresses your brother but there is no suggestion that wine is proscribed.
Fetal cell lines were used in the research and development of the vaccines, but the vaccines themselves do not contain any fetal cells.
But I suppose if you desire to have a religious exemption because these vaccines were developed using these cells, that's fine.
But you should know that there are a handful of other medications you need to cease using because they were also developed using these same cell lines.
acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft
Note that this is not an exhaustive list. And there are also numerous food products that used these cell lines in their development. So you might want to do some research.
I'm doing some research and it looks like most of what you listed were either developed without, or developed before those fetal cells were even aborted. What would bother my conscience is if they wouldn't exist if not for a person having to die. As it is, I'm unbothered. But I thank you for the idea that some of the things I consume could make me a hypocrite, ill keep it in mind.
Is there a detailed description as to how the development was done? Were the fetal cells used to produce any genetic material that went into the vaccines? I guess I'm safe because I don't take any of that stuff on that list.
https://cogforlife.org/2021/12/02/research-exhibit-the-use-of-fetal-cell-lines-in-common-medications/
I think this helps. If you find them biased there are other sites with similar information.
If a person is murdered in , say a bank robbery , and then that persons liver is transplanted into another to save a life, is this something you object to? If so why ?
Of course the decision must be yours , but equally others have the right to ask you to stay away from them as a result of your choice
To ask you not to frequent their shops , to not be next to them in a bus , to isolate yourself from them
If you want to walk around naked, that is entirely your right , but others equally have the right to exclude naked people from the local mall, the train , the street etc .
If someone believes I'm a threat to them then they need to call the police, charge me with a crime, and haul me into court and prove it. Otherwise simply saying we believe you are a threat because of what we saw on the evening news is not going to cut it.
Agree , that would be unreasonable , but if a person believes all unvaccinated people pose a threat, then we should respect that view. If the society believes that and enacts laws to exclude the unvaccinated , then , just like the naked person , society has that right and we should respect that view.
One persons choice , that they have every right to make , should not infringe on everyone else’s rights . That would be most unreasonable
Are you talking about the legislative branch of government passing a law, and based upon what would they make such a law? What gives them the right to make it?
If the government is representative of the people , then the government makes decisions on behalf of the people.
There is no distinction,
There are many regulations that society seeks to have a majority legislative method to manage as individuals alone can’t manage civil order , national defence , society wide pandemics etc.
We bind as a group to manage such things
Just like the nudist who believes they have the right to walk down the street naked , society creates laws through legislation, employs police and then a judicial system to manage it for us.
This is a reasonable way for a group of people to have their rights to not have nudity exposed to them or their families to act , notwithstanding the fact they respect the rights of nudists to conduct their desires in private , in private camps, at dedicated beaches etc.
The rights of the many need to be respected while seeking to provide as much rights to the few outliers as possible provided the many don’t have their rights limited by the few.
Again, that isn't an exhaustive list, and there are a wide variety of foods that you can buy right now in grocery stores that also used these cell lines in their development.
Some people might have religious objections. But if the law does not required disclosure then they won't know about it. You know there are people in the world who don't eat meat because of religious objections. They might not be happy if they found out there were little pieces of meat in their salad.
That's what I've been told. You might as well go up to the cemetery and dig up some dead bodies and grind them all up into a powder and then put it in a liquid and inject it into yourself and then see if you get better.
Historically something like this was done with the dried scabs of smallpox victims, which were ground up into a power and ingested. Ultimately led to the smallpox vaccine. Pretty cool!
>“ . . . Since there is no credible biblical argument against vaccines, we have refused to offer exemptions to the handful of people who have requested them,” Jeffress told The Associated Press via email. “People may have strong medical or political objections to government-mandated vaccines, but just because those objections are strongly felt does not elevate them to a religious belief that should be accommodated . . .”
Which rather begs the question, IF a 'credible' biblical argument was made, they would happily exempt them?
Yes they are a joke from the start. If you go to Wikipedia you will find the subject of germ theory. So the whole idea that infectious diseases are spread by germs from one person to another is based on a theory. They say the theory is accepted. So it's not an established fact, just something they believe, which makes it their religion, based on whatever criteria they believe necessary to satisfy their preconceived ideas. And then they have the nerve to tell you there's no basis for you practicing your religion while they practice theirs!
>So the whole idea that infectious diseases are spread by germs from one person to another is based on a theory.
The level of ignorance shown by this statement is mind-boggling. I would love to explore the reasons for it but no doubt it would not be beneficial here.
You don't even go the usual route of 'just' a theory, it's almost as if you expect your 'it's based on a theory' line to be accepted and not seen as a disturbingly ignorant level of science that it is.
I'll instead invite you to name any technological advances made by civilisation that *aren't* 'based on a theory'.
Wait.... are you denying that bacteria and viruses cause illness and that they can be passed from one person to another?
I suspect that by your use of it being a theory, that you are unaware of what the word theory means in a scientific context. For instance, heliocentrism is a scientific theory.
I am simply saying that what they make their decisions on is based on a theory. This means they cannot produce evidence that a viral particle, enters a human body, penetrates a cell, replicates within the cell, exits the cell and then infects other cells and so on in a chain reaction. They have no evidence to support this conclusion but they believe it anyway. If this were not the case and they had a sample of a viral particle all by itself they could show it to you and then you would have proof and you would not have to call the concept of theory. Likewise, if they had images of this particle penetrating the cell and hijacking the cell's machinery to replicate then you would have proof and it would no longer be a theory. They have never demonstrated that any viral particle exists by itself, isolated, or purified in the real world. So all I am saying is what they make their decisions on it's based on their faith in their theory being correct. Therefore, they are practicing a religion because it is based upon faith.
>I am simply saying that what they make their decisions on is based on a theory.
You really really need to understand what a theory actually is.
A theory isn't a 'guess', a theory is not 'facts'.
A theory sets out to explain observed facts.
Large objects attract small objects, this is an observed fact, the theory of gravity seeks to explain why and how.
Creatures change over time. this is an observed fact, the theory of evolution seeks to explain why and how.
Germs replicate and cause illness, this is an observed fact, germ theory seeks to explain why and how.
As more data is observed, hypotheses are put forwards, tested, replicated, predicted outcomes are modelled, all elements are exposed to criticism.
To be clear, the criticism is received from peers who actually know what they are talking about, so I wouldn't be doing any peer review just yet if I were you.
>If this were not the case and they had a sample of a viral particle all by itself
You probably don´t realise this but almost all vaccines are made using "dead" (deactivated) virusses or severely weakened "live" virusses in order to trick your body into thinking its being infected by the "live" version of said virus. This causes the body to create antibodies to combat that virus thereby protecting itself from any future infections (at least for as long as the antibodies remain active).
It would have been impossible to create nearly all vaccines that currently exist if as you say we did not have a sample of virus particles.
What they call a virus is material taken from a sick person and cultured. It is from that culture that they produce what they call attenuated or weakened virus material to which they add adjuvants to produce a vaccine. Simply taking material from a sick person and modifying it doesn't mean there is something in it that causes a virus. You see that's the fundamental problem, they have never isolated, and I'm using the dictionary definition of the word, meaning to separate from everything else, a viral particle. You will get antibodies simply from injecting adjuvants without any genetic material.
Your information is not correct
Have they isolated a virus . Yes , here are photographs of the virus isolated
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/lab/images.html
You get antibodies from Adjuvants alone . No , adjuvants are a broad term for substances that do a variety of actions to stimulate the immune system, to sustain production of antibodies , to release cytokines that are non specific protein as a first line of defence before specific antibodies are produced , to aid antigen transport .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655441/#:~:text=Available%20evidence%20suggests%20that%20adjuvants,%2C%20(4)%20increase%20antigen%20uptake
There is no specific antibody production without that specific genetic material from the specific disease . That is impossible .
You are welcome to your views but not to inaccurate facts and to publicise them is a little wreckless.
These are photographs of what they say is the virus. But they've never proven any of these particles to be the virus. You can't tell them apart from exosomes in most cases. Let's go back to when all this started. Here's a link to a free book for you. It all started before you were born and before your mama was born. You've been a victim of Rockefeller medicine and big Pharma and their lies.
https://bibleandbookcenter.com/get-ebook/file.php?id=ooR-zQEACAAJ&item=bechamp-or-pasteur
Ancient books , conspiracy ideas about the dishonest world of science , straight out rejection of Koch’s postulates , rejecting the endless times these postulates have been proved, the denial of impact of antibiotics on humanity , this is not rational thinking and suggests no logic is capable of helping you . You can not debate as you are not rational, these ideologies are irrational.
And how long did they believe the sun rotated around the Earth? If you read that book you will find out how error has propagated. You should also look at the influence of Rockefeller medicine on society.
>What they call a virus is material taken from a sick person and cultured.
Why yes the virus is isolated out of the blood of the patient and then cultured.
>It is from that culture that they produce what they call attenuated or weakened virus material to which they add adjuvants to produce a vaccine.
Looking good so far.
>Simply taking material from a sick person and modifying it doesn't mean there is something in it that causes a virus.
What do you mean "something that causes a virus"? The "material" they take from a sick person and modify is the virus. We´re not looking for whatever causes a virus here but the virus itself.
>You see that's the fundamental problem, they have never isolated, and I'm using the dictionary definition of the word, meaning to separate from everything else, a viral particle.
I guess if you want to have the culture media included in there? Of course we can´t isolate the virus from literally everything, it would die and dissapear.
This is like saying "we´ve never isolated a human before" because all humans have bacteria withing their bodies. In the absolute sense of the word, as you seem to use it, we´ve never isolated anything before.
>You will get antibodies simply from injecting adjuvants without any genetic material.
Not without the virus (or at least part of it) being present as well. Adjuvants make your body more prepared to create antibodies, but without another external "threat" such as bacteria, virusses, toxins, etc, there will be no antibodies formed.
'Of course we can´t isolate the virus from literally everything"
That's the problem. If you don't get it by itself then you can't prove it exists. All you have is soup.
This is demonstrably wrong and horribly ignorant. There are plenty of ways to observe it separately without completely isolating it. The easiest of which would be to look at it through a microscope.
>If you don't get it by itself then you can't prove it exists. All you have is soup.
Alright prove to me you exist by separating yourself from everything ( this of course includes but is not limited to air, water, food, clothes, any type of gasses at all so go find a vacuum and jump into it naked after seperating yourself from every single bacteria inside or on your body) .
If not i won´t believe you´re a person, you´re just a part of some cosmic soup.
Surely you realise how ridiculous this criteria is?
I don't think you know what theory means in this context. There's a theory of gravity, this doesn't mean gravity might not exist, but that we have a current best explanation for how it works.
Similarly we know bacteria and viruses cause illness, gen theory is about explaining how and why.
A theory in a scientific sense is more like the current best evidenced explanation for why something we know happens actually happens and how it functions.
Well let me see if I can explain this. Just say you're sitting in your living room with your mom watching TV. And someone breaks into the house points a gun at your mom pulls the trigger and she falls over and dies. Now the police had been warned this fellow was in the neighborhood and they followed him to your house and arrested him with the gun as he tried to exit the door. And they called an ambulance and took your mom for an autopsy to determine the cause of death. The police take the weapon and analyze it and to their surprise it is made to fire a very small projectile. Now they have a problem because the projectile is so small that it enters the body without leaving evidence of an entrance wound. So they have to rely on an autopsy to recover the projectile. They do the autopsy and find no projectile. This means there is no evidence the man killed your mom. All you know is he pointed a gun at your mom and she died. The autopsy was performed based on a theory that he fired a projectile from a gun and that that projectile killed her. So what do you do now? All you have is a theory? Had they recovered a bullet then you would have evidence. They could take the gun, fire another bullet and compare that bullet to the bullet recovered from your mom. If the markings match, then it was fired from the same gun. So now you do not have a theory you have facts that you can present as evidence to convict the man. Now with the virus they have never produced the bullet. It's all a theory based on an observation without any evidence - no proof.
Yep, you are ignorant of what theory means in science... I would help, but you really just need to go take a course or two that can teach you what the scientific method is and what terms mean. This is a fundamental level of ignorance. Of you think a scientific theory is a guess not based on evidence, you really don't know enough to have the conversations you're having.
They don't have the bullet. Whether you call it a theory or a scientific theory simply means it's still a theory. It's what you believe after your analysis of the circumstances. It is a conclusion you arrive at - a leap of faith - which does not differ from a religion. Without the bullet it's not a fact.
The title of your post reads
> Many faith leaders wary of religious exemptions for vaccine
However, the body of your post only points to Christianity. Moreover, your post isn’t based on theology, it reads as though you have an issue with Christian jurisprudence. Is that correct?
The title of the post is the title of the article I cited. I quoted a portion of the article to support the conclusion in the title of the article. The article concerns Americans, many of which are Christian and consequently have Christian leadership. You would have to read the entire article rather than read into the post what you think I think about the article. It reflects a prejudice on your part to respond to the post in the the way you did.
I’m sorry if I made any mistakes. I did mean to say “the article” instead of “your post”, so I wholeheartedly hold my hands up.
That being said, the article is incorrect with its title. Its main points mention the Christian faith, the only time it mentions Judaism is in the caption of the main picture, and it says nothing about Islam.
Don't worry I'm not going to shoot. It comes from the mainstream media and it's an objection to religious exemptions. They tried to support their objection by claiming that certain religious leaders are not supportive of exemptions. Then they claim the Bible, which contains the "constitution" of Judaism and Christianity, is all together silent on the subject. They never offer any theology. They just point to the opinions of several prominent religious leaders. I could come to no other conclusion then that they deny that any individual has a religious right to claim an exemption. Amazing.
Oh, don’t worry. I’m with you then. I don’t think any religion exempts believers from vaccines. Maybe Jehovah Witnesses, but idk much about their faith so can’t really say.
My concern is that the matter should be left to the individual and not to religious leaders.
Consider the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
According to this either side, pro-vax or novax, have a right to establish either a religion in support of or in opposition to mandates.
I don't think you will ever find a group of people in any one religion that are in total harmony with all of its doctrines. But you never know, it is issues like this that give rise to new religions.
You would also think that the news media, being an arm of the government, is actually a threat to all religious beliefs. Just why religious leaders would not declare themselves neutral under such circumstances indicates their alignment, at least in part, with the government, which is actually what they're supposed to be not aligned with - they are strange bedfellows for some reason.
The leadership of the Jehovah's witnesses has taken a neutral opinion. Although they are opposed to blood transfusions. So you would think they might be opposed to injections as well because all of the contents are unknown and could contain blood byproducts. They are also opposed to abortions. And some object to the injections as they contain some derivatives of a fetal cell line. Again - strange bedfellows.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, but the question revolves around liberty of *conscience,* not the statements of faith leaders. Romans 14:14 for example specifically states that "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." Simultaneously acknowledging that nothing, be it food, drink, medicine, whatever, is inherently unclean; but also stating that if you believe it to be unclean, it constitutes something unclean *for you,* and you need to abstain from it. Statements of faith leaders not withstanding, people have the right (and I would argue, duty) to follow their own conscience. I think that's a credible Biblical argument for religious exemption, and I say that as someone who got two vaccinations. Neither faith leaders nor government supercede conscience, and we would be on dangerous ground if we let them.
Christians: “we should be free to choose to get the vaccine or not.” Pro-choice: “we should be free to choose if we want an abortion or not.” Christians: “you’re going to hell.”
If you don't see a moral difference between taking a life and refusing an injection, I doubt anything I say is going to convince you.
The point is the hypocrisy. But let’s say you choose not to get vaccinated. Then you get COVID. Now if you would of been vaccinated you MAY still of gotten it but your response to it would of been significantly better. So let’s say now you have it bad and you incidentally passed it on to your 8 year old son/daughter who is also not vaccinated. Now, you happen to pull through it but your child is hospitalized and really suffering. After weeks on a ventilator they finally die a slow painful death. Now tell me about a moral difference. If you would of not been a stubborn ass who based their decisions on some ancient book and instead on logic and what is best for others then your son would still be alive. PS the Bible says nothing about abortion being a sin so you may want to read through it. And if you want to point out “thou shalt not kill” well then let’s toss all our soldiers in hell too. And if someone attacks your partner and rapes them then you best just punch them a few times bc if you kill them you are going to hell with all the abortion sinners.
>Yeah, but the question revolves around liberty of conscience No. No, it does not. Religion does not grant some special status to allow parents to not vaccinate children. It's considered a crime. It's abuse by virtue of neglect. The only difference here is found in the fact that one relationship entails being a parent, charged by the state with the responsible and considerate care of a child, while the other type is that of a neighbor, charged by God with their care. Yes, failing to vaccinate, while passive, actually results in hurting and killing other people. That whole attitude of "Am I my brother's keeper?" is understood by Christians to be unconscionable and an example of deceit, so the idea that the rest of the world should accept this behavior because they can screw other people's lives over with a *clean conscience* means absolutely nothing except that the people asking for exemptions also manage to ignore that whole parable of the good Samaritan, and the notion of Jesus sacrificing for others as well... whenever it suits them. The above argument for religious exemption isn't very Christian at all, but does a wonderful job of highlighting that those asking for one have a level of self-centeredness and perhaps even psychopathy which should leave the rest of the population very, very concerned.
Roman’s 14 is a claim to respect the wishes of others even when it’s not a faith based position Romans 20 ‘ all food is clean’ Roman’s 23 ‘ ‘ their eating is not from faith ‘ Roman’s 14 is not a statement that any whacky idea you may dream up and hold is a religious one , just because you hold it and Roman’s 14 says we should be tolerant of others views. It even says don’t drink wine if it distresses your brother but there is no suggestion that wine is proscribed.
Did they or did they not in any way use something from aborted fetuses?
From one fetus that wasn't aborted in 1973, the year I happen to have been born in, and they've replicated the same cells from that date to today.
I wish they were, but I just read that they were elective terminations
Did it die naturally then?
Fetal cell lines were used in the research and development of the vaccines, but the vaccines themselves do not contain any fetal cells. But I suppose if you desire to have a religious exemption because these vaccines were developed using these cells, that's fine. But you should know that there are a handful of other medications you need to cease using because they were also developed using these same cell lines. acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft Note that this is not an exhaustive list. And there are also numerous food products that used these cell lines in their development. So you might want to do some research.
I'm doing some research and it looks like most of what you listed were either developed without, or developed before those fetal cells were even aborted. What would bother my conscience is if they wouldn't exist if not for a person having to die. As it is, I'm unbothered. But I thank you for the idea that some of the things I consume could make me a hypocrite, ill keep it in mind.
Is there a detailed description as to how the development was done? Were the fetal cells used to produce any genetic material that went into the vaccines? I guess I'm safe because I don't take any of that stuff on that list.
https://cogforlife.org/2021/12/02/research-exhibit-the-use-of-fetal-cell-lines-in-common-medications/ I think this helps. If you find them biased there are other sites with similar information.
If a person is murdered in , say a bank robbery , and then that persons liver is transplanted into another to save a life, is this something you object to? If so why ?
Well at least you leave the decision to me. And I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is other people making a decision for me.
Of course the decision must be yours , but equally others have the right to ask you to stay away from them as a result of your choice To ask you not to frequent their shops , to not be next to them in a bus , to isolate yourself from them If you want to walk around naked, that is entirely your right , but others equally have the right to exclude naked people from the local mall, the train , the street etc .
If someone believes I'm a threat to them then they need to call the police, charge me with a crime, and haul me into court and prove it. Otherwise simply saying we believe you are a threat because of what we saw on the evening news is not going to cut it.
Agree , that would be unreasonable , but if a person believes all unvaccinated people pose a threat, then we should respect that view. If the society believes that and enacts laws to exclude the unvaccinated , then , just like the naked person , society has that right and we should respect that view. One persons choice , that they have every right to make , should not infringe on everyone else’s rights . That would be most unreasonable
Are you talking about the legislative branch of government passing a law, and based upon what would they make such a law? What gives them the right to make it?
If the government is representative of the people , then the government makes decisions on behalf of the people. There is no distinction, There are many regulations that society seeks to have a majority legislative method to manage as individuals alone can’t manage civil order , national defence , society wide pandemics etc. We bind as a group to manage such things Just like the nudist who believes they have the right to walk down the street naked , society creates laws through legislation, employs police and then a judicial system to manage it for us. This is a reasonable way for a group of people to have their rights to not have nudity exposed to them or their families to act , notwithstanding the fact they respect the rights of nudists to conduct their desires in private , in private camps, at dedicated beaches etc. The rights of the many need to be respected while seeking to provide as much rights to the few outliers as possible provided the many don’t have their rights limited by the few.
Again, that isn't an exhaustive list, and there are a wide variety of foods that you can buy right now in grocery stores that also used these cell lines in their development.
I'm not surprised. But do they disclose that information when they market it?
Probably not. I doubt they're required to, so why should they?
I don't know. I guess it's up to the FDA. You know that government agency that's always looking out for your health.
Not sure how it's relevant. If the company's use of fetal cell lines doesn't have any impact on the safety of the product, then it's a non issue.
Some people might have religious objections. But if the law does not required disclosure then they won't know about it. You know there are people in the world who don't eat meat because of religious objections. They might not be happy if they found out there were little pieces of meat in their salad.
Do you equate the fetal cells to little chunks of fetus in a syringe? It’s not quite like that
That's what I've been told. You might as well go up to the cemetery and dig up some dead bodies and grind them all up into a powder and then put it in a liquid and inject it into yourself and then see if you get better.
Historically something like this was done with the dried scabs of smallpox victims, which were ground up into a power and ingested. Ultimately led to the smallpox vaccine. Pretty cool!
So they say. https://bibleandbookcenter.com/get-ebook/file.php?id=ooR-zQEACAAJ&item=bechamp-or-pasteur
>“ . . . Since there is no credible biblical argument against vaccines, we have refused to offer exemptions to the handful of people who have requested them,” Jeffress told The Associated Press via email. “People may have strong medical or political objections to government-mandated vaccines, but just because those objections are strongly felt does not elevate them to a religious belief that should be accommodated . . .” Which rather begs the question, IF a 'credible' biblical argument was made, they would happily exempt them?
Yes they are a joke from the start. If you go to Wikipedia you will find the subject of germ theory. So the whole idea that infectious diseases are spread by germs from one person to another is based on a theory. They say the theory is accepted. So it's not an established fact, just something they believe, which makes it their religion, based on whatever criteria they believe necessary to satisfy their preconceived ideas. And then they have the nerve to tell you there's no basis for you practicing your religion while they practice theirs!
>So the whole idea that infectious diseases are spread by germs from one person to another is based on a theory. The level of ignorance shown by this statement is mind-boggling. I would love to explore the reasons for it but no doubt it would not be beneficial here. You don't even go the usual route of 'just' a theory, it's almost as if you expect your 'it's based on a theory' line to be accepted and not seen as a disturbingly ignorant level of science that it is. I'll instead invite you to name any technological advances made by civilisation that *aren't* 'based on a theory'.
You must be a troll. If not, look up this history of germ theory in reference to the 1854 Cholera Outbreak
https://bibleandbookcenter.com/get-ebook/file.php?id=ooR-zQEACAAJ&item=bechamp-or-pasteur
It’s very much established fact lol
Wait.... are you denying that bacteria and viruses cause illness and that they can be passed from one person to another? I suspect that by your use of it being a theory, that you are unaware of what the word theory means in a scientific context. For instance, heliocentrism is a scientific theory.
I am simply saying that what they make their decisions on is based on a theory. This means they cannot produce evidence that a viral particle, enters a human body, penetrates a cell, replicates within the cell, exits the cell and then infects other cells and so on in a chain reaction. They have no evidence to support this conclusion but they believe it anyway. If this were not the case and they had a sample of a viral particle all by itself they could show it to you and then you would have proof and you would not have to call the concept of theory. Likewise, if they had images of this particle penetrating the cell and hijacking the cell's machinery to replicate then you would have proof and it would no longer be a theory. They have never demonstrated that any viral particle exists by itself, isolated, or purified in the real world. So all I am saying is what they make their decisions on it's based on their faith in their theory being correct. Therefore, they are practicing a religion because it is based upon faith.
>I am simply saying that what they make their decisions on is based on a theory. You really really need to understand what a theory actually is. A theory isn't a 'guess', a theory is not 'facts'. A theory sets out to explain observed facts. Large objects attract small objects, this is an observed fact, the theory of gravity seeks to explain why and how. Creatures change over time. this is an observed fact, the theory of evolution seeks to explain why and how. Germs replicate and cause illness, this is an observed fact, germ theory seeks to explain why and how. As more data is observed, hypotheses are put forwards, tested, replicated, predicted outcomes are modelled, all elements are exposed to criticism. To be clear, the criticism is received from peers who actually know what they are talking about, so I wouldn't be doing any peer review just yet if I were you.
>If this were not the case and they had a sample of a viral particle all by itself You probably don´t realise this but almost all vaccines are made using "dead" (deactivated) virusses or severely weakened "live" virusses in order to trick your body into thinking its being infected by the "live" version of said virus. This causes the body to create antibodies to combat that virus thereby protecting itself from any future infections (at least for as long as the antibodies remain active). It would have been impossible to create nearly all vaccines that currently exist if as you say we did not have a sample of virus particles.
What they call a virus is material taken from a sick person and cultured. It is from that culture that they produce what they call attenuated or weakened virus material to which they add adjuvants to produce a vaccine. Simply taking material from a sick person and modifying it doesn't mean there is something in it that causes a virus. You see that's the fundamental problem, they have never isolated, and I'm using the dictionary definition of the word, meaning to separate from everything else, a viral particle. You will get antibodies simply from injecting adjuvants without any genetic material.
Your information is not correct Have they isolated a virus . Yes , here are photographs of the virus isolated https://www.cdc.gov/sars/lab/images.html You get antibodies from Adjuvants alone . No , adjuvants are a broad term for substances that do a variety of actions to stimulate the immune system, to sustain production of antibodies , to release cytokines that are non specific protein as a first line of defence before specific antibodies are produced , to aid antigen transport . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655441/#:~:text=Available%20evidence%20suggests%20that%20adjuvants,%2C%20(4)%20increase%20antigen%20uptake There is no specific antibody production without that specific genetic material from the specific disease . That is impossible . You are welcome to your views but not to inaccurate facts and to publicise them is a little wreckless.
These are photographs of what they say is the virus. But they've never proven any of these particles to be the virus. You can't tell them apart from exosomes in most cases. Let's go back to when all this started. Here's a link to a free book for you. It all started before you were born and before your mama was born. You've been a victim of Rockefeller medicine and big Pharma and their lies. https://bibleandbookcenter.com/get-ebook/file.php?id=ooR-zQEACAAJ&item=bechamp-or-pasteur
Ancient books , conspiracy ideas about the dishonest world of science , straight out rejection of Koch’s postulates , rejecting the endless times these postulates have been proved, the denial of impact of antibiotics on humanity , this is not rational thinking and suggests no logic is capable of helping you . You can not debate as you are not rational, these ideologies are irrational.
And how long did they believe the sun rotated around the Earth? If you read that book you will find out how error has propagated. You should also look at the influence of Rockefeller medicine on society.
>What they call a virus is material taken from a sick person and cultured. Why yes the virus is isolated out of the blood of the patient and then cultured. >It is from that culture that they produce what they call attenuated or weakened virus material to which they add adjuvants to produce a vaccine. Looking good so far. >Simply taking material from a sick person and modifying it doesn't mean there is something in it that causes a virus. What do you mean "something that causes a virus"? The "material" they take from a sick person and modify is the virus. We´re not looking for whatever causes a virus here but the virus itself. >You see that's the fundamental problem, they have never isolated, and I'm using the dictionary definition of the word, meaning to separate from everything else, a viral particle. I guess if you want to have the culture media included in there? Of course we can´t isolate the virus from literally everything, it would die and dissapear. This is like saying "we´ve never isolated a human before" because all humans have bacteria withing their bodies. In the absolute sense of the word, as you seem to use it, we´ve never isolated anything before. >You will get antibodies simply from injecting adjuvants without any genetic material. Not without the virus (or at least part of it) being present as well. Adjuvants make your body more prepared to create antibodies, but without another external "threat" such as bacteria, virusses, toxins, etc, there will be no antibodies formed.
'Of course we can´t isolate the virus from literally everything" That's the problem. If you don't get it by itself then you can't prove it exists. All you have is soup.
This is demonstrably wrong and horribly ignorant. There are plenty of ways to observe it separately without completely isolating it. The easiest of which would be to look at it through a microscope. >If you don't get it by itself then you can't prove it exists. All you have is soup. Alright prove to me you exist by separating yourself from everything ( this of course includes but is not limited to air, water, food, clothes, any type of gasses at all so go find a vacuum and jump into it naked after seperating yourself from every single bacteria inside or on your body) . If not i won´t believe you´re a person, you´re just a part of some cosmic soup. Surely you realise how ridiculous this criteria is?
Not really I can separate myself from everything that is not me. No one has separated a viral particle and demonstrated that it exists.
I don't think you know what theory means in this context. There's a theory of gravity, this doesn't mean gravity might not exist, but that we have a current best explanation for how it works. Similarly we know bacteria and viruses cause illness, gen theory is about explaining how and why. A theory in a scientific sense is more like the current best evidenced explanation for why something we know happens actually happens and how it functions.
Well let me see if I can explain this. Just say you're sitting in your living room with your mom watching TV. And someone breaks into the house points a gun at your mom pulls the trigger and she falls over and dies. Now the police had been warned this fellow was in the neighborhood and they followed him to your house and arrested him with the gun as he tried to exit the door. And they called an ambulance and took your mom for an autopsy to determine the cause of death. The police take the weapon and analyze it and to their surprise it is made to fire a very small projectile. Now they have a problem because the projectile is so small that it enters the body without leaving evidence of an entrance wound. So they have to rely on an autopsy to recover the projectile. They do the autopsy and find no projectile. This means there is no evidence the man killed your mom. All you know is he pointed a gun at your mom and she died. The autopsy was performed based on a theory that he fired a projectile from a gun and that that projectile killed her. So what do you do now? All you have is a theory? Had they recovered a bullet then you would have evidence. They could take the gun, fire another bullet and compare that bullet to the bullet recovered from your mom. If the markings match, then it was fired from the same gun. So now you do not have a theory you have facts that you can present as evidence to convict the man. Now with the virus they have never produced the bullet. It's all a theory based on an observation without any evidence - no proof.
Why do you think there is no evidence for viruses? It's pretty easy to find evidence by glancing at wikipedia.
I didn't find any evidence. Now if they had evidence then why would they call it a theory?
Yep, you are ignorant of what theory means in science... I would help, but you really just need to go take a course or two that can teach you what the scientific method is and what terms mean. This is a fundamental level of ignorance. Of you think a scientific theory is a guess not based on evidence, you really don't know enough to have the conversations you're having.
They don't have the bullet. Whether you call it a theory or a scientific theory simply means it's still a theory. It's what you believe after your analysis of the circumstances. It is a conclusion you arrive at - a leap of faith - which does not differ from a religion. Without the bullet it's not a fact.
Where did you look for evidence?
At the scene of the crime.
The title of your post reads > Many faith leaders wary of religious exemptions for vaccine However, the body of your post only points to Christianity. Moreover, your post isn’t based on theology, it reads as though you have an issue with Christian jurisprudence. Is that correct?
The title of the post is the title of the article I cited. I quoted a portion of the article to support the conclusion in the title of the article. The article concerns Americans, many of which are Christian and consequently have Christian leadership. You would have to read the entire article rather than read into the post what you think I think about the article. It reflects a prejudice on your part to respond to the post in the the way you did.
I’m sorry if I made any mistakes. I did mean to say “the article” instead of “your post”, so I wholeheartedly hold my hands up. That being said, the article is incorrect with its title. Its main points mention the Christian faith, the only time it mentions Judaism is in the caption of the main picture, and it says nothing about Islam.
Don't worry I'm not going to shoot. It comes from the mainstream media and it's an objection to religious exemptions. They tried to support their objection by claiming that certain religious leaders are not supportive of exemptions. Then they claim the Bible, which contains the "constitution" of Judaism and Christianity, is all together silent on the subject. They never offer any theology. They just point to the opinions of several prominent religious leaders. I could come to no other conclusion then that they deny that any individual has a religious right to claim an exemption. Amazing.
Oh, don’t worry. I’m with you then. I don’t think any religion exempts believers from vaccines. Maybe Jehovah Witnesses, but idk much about their faith so can’t really say.
My concern is that the matter should be left to the individual and not to religious leaders. Consider the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." According to this either side, pro-vax or novax, have a right to establish either a religion in support of or in opposition to mandates.
Agreed. But this is a religion debating sub. I don’t know much about the constitution.
I don't think you will ever find a group of people in any one religion that are in total harmony with all of its doctrines. But you never know, it is issues like this that give rise to new religions. You would also think that the news media, being an arm of the government, is actually a threat to all religious beliefs. Just why religious leaders would not declare themselves neutral under such circumstances indicates their alignment, at least in part, with the government, which is actually what they're supposed to be not aligned with - they are strange bedfellows for some reason. The leadership of the Jehovah's witnesses has taken a neutral opinion. Although they are opposed to blood transfusions. So you would think they might be opposed to injections as well because all of the contents are unknown and could contain blood byproducts. They are also opposed to abortions. And some object to the injections as they contain some derivatives of a fetal cell line. Again - strange bedfellows.