Covidiocity
Hi Pastor Doug! I apologize if you’ve already made this joke before, but if not, it would make me extremely happy if you signed off on an article where you discuss breaking COVID laws with the name “Thug Wilson.”
Braden
Braden, thanks for keeping me in mind. But I don’t think Nancy would go for it.
I keep thinking, what if I die or a family dies because I didn’t take the vaccine. It seems more probable than getting it from the vaccine. I don’t have evidence of that. But, I do know if I make the decision to not get it, and someone dies, does that mean I should not have listened to the vaccine naysayers or maybe the ones that say wait for studies? I really don’t know what to do. I don’t trust anyone, either because they don’t have credentials or because they do. What if I don’t take it because of what I read here?
John
John, this is a problem with life generally. What if you turn left and get in a car wreck, one that would have been avoided had you turned right? And on this one, the tables can be turned right around. One family doesn’t get the vaccine, and somebody gets COVID and dies. Another does get the vaccine, gets a blood clot, and also dies. This is why we have to trust God, make the best decision we know how to make, leaving the results to God.
Don’t Take the Bait
Re: Three Chess Moves Ahead Trenchant observations, indeed. Thank you for your ministry, as always.
However, regarding the last line: “May all of your rabbits die, and may you be unable to sell the hutch.” I feel that if meant it to sting, you ought to have said so.
David
David, I actually meant for it to get a laugh, but apparently it didn’t do that either.
Thank you for warning Christians not to be provoked into sin (Three Chess Moves Ahead). This is a timely warning. As a people, we are prone to being provoked, and our shepherds are prone to being cowardly or lazy.
I am concerned that there is some type of ignorance, or perhaps sloth, in our shepherds, which contributes to a serious disease amongst the sheep.
For example, I am encountering some of God’s people who are firmly convinced that, for example, companies are procuring new abortions in order to make the COVID vax. Or, for example, that Black Rock company’s choices to invest in big pharma, whilst simultaneously choosing to invest in about a thousand other dodgy things, represents some sort of proof that Pfizer deliberately engineered a killer vax. Or, for example, that big media’s idolatrous, fawning focus on the vax, to the detriment of news about other therapies, also somehow represents some sort of proof that Pfizer deliberately engineered a killer vax.
I know, I know. The conclusions sound overblown, but when the “vax hesitant” refuse to actually state firm conclusions, but prefer to just leave the premises dangling in midair with big scary question marks, they seem to be inviting overblown conclusions.
We have a tangle of problems, I think. One problem may be that we have taken a very narrow, self-serving view of the Ninth Commandment. We don’t understand that the Bible informs Anglo jurisprudence to the effect that existence of a possible motive by itself is not enough to convict someone; actual proof also has to exist.
Another problem may be that, as biblical, Reformed Christianity continues to take off, due to their backgrounds our newly zealous parents find themselves lacking any training in logic or spotting fallacies, while they are sending their kids to classical school for the first time, where the kids will get it. So, there’s hope the kids may have enough training to avoid the errors of the parents.
But that will take time, right? And, by your warning, time is not something we have a lot of. After all, issues such as simple logic and understanding VAERS statistics versus other common, accepted types of risk are “milk” issues. Child’s play, compared to the theories of republican government, civil liberties, etc. which are meat.
Our shepherds are pretty good at meat, but we are dealing with a hollowed out church where the kids are going to exceed the parents mightily. But the parents are currently the moral agents in society; the ones taking dominion. And a lot of them are clueless or misinformed with respect to the history of vaccines and the proven dynamics of them in populations.
I’ll cut to the chase. Biblical, Reformed, “uppity” shepherds have focused so much on arming for bellowing bears, that they have, I think, almost completely failed to arm themselves against snakes in the grass.
The Bears are the threats against civil liberties by the magistrate. Real threats, requiring real shepherding.
The Snakes—they are the endless temptations to the thrill of gnosis which comes from watching something on bitchute which was banned on Youtube. They are the endless temptations to believe that existence of a motive is proof of wrongdoing.
I cannot tell you how many strained conversations I have had with fellow sheep where this pervades everything.
Then, there are the other threats to the sheep. I’ll call them trees. The flock could just simply amble peaceably into a tree in the pasture and knock themselves out.
The trees are the threats of the flock being unable to do simple math. Such as, understanding that the number of harmful events in VAERS requires a denominator in order to mean anything.
You may not agree with me that the threat of snakes, or trees, is as significant as the threat of bears.
But consider this. What if your premises in “Three Chess Moves Ahead” is completely true; i.e. that the elites want to provoke us into doing something stupid?
But what if they already succeeded . . . by provoking us to remain unvaxxed?
Because, from what I’m seeing, most of the resistance is not coming from informed consciences. It’s coming from reactionary consciences . . . I dare say . . . PROVOKED consciences.
Thanks for reading.
Affectionately,
Judson
Judson, thanks for writing, and I hope I can reply with equal affection. You are exactly right that the existence of a motive doesn’t prove anything, and I tracked with a bunch of your letter. But while I don’t know that the big drug companies are trying to kill me, which I think is absurd, I do know that the modern globucorporateworld is trying to take away all my liberties. And if we have to look at the denominator when evaluating the deadliness of the vaccine (and I am right with you on that one), why aren’t we allowed to look at the denominator with regard to COVID fatalities? Have we really gotten to the point where a disease with a less than 1% fatality rate is being treated with a vaccine that has a less than 1% fatality rate?
In the middle of your excellent work declaring the need for our nation to repent and decrying the evil of our dystopian progression, would you consider allowing for the reality of an actual health crisis? Used and abused as that term is, there is an actual virus running around that is killing people, though I am in agreement with you about the relatively low risks, comparatively speaking.
I’ve been working as an intensivist and surgeon for the last two years on these people, and at its peak last winter and spring, laid 2-3 people to rest daily for several months in a row. We are nearing that peak again in parts of the south.
God seems to be using a sub-microscopic virus to upend multiple nations, our public school system, our supply lines, our politics—in summary, our worldly idols. The crisis has not gone to waste, as the saying goes, for the progressives in their power grabs. Your writing in the last few weeks seems to suggest your drifting into the crew of COVID-deniers. Might I suggest you allow for the actuality of a lot of dying people, and not waste the crisis by downplaying its severity (despite its being overplayed frequently)?
NS
NS, thanks for the question, and the opportunity to make my position on this clear. No, I am not a COVID-denier. Many thousands have died from it, and it is a genuine and deadly threat. I believe that the governmental response has made it far worse than it had to be, but it was really bad all by itself.
Forgive me in advance for bearing my heart so candidly. I’m a shaken bottle and my fizz has been restrained by the cork of discipline as I endeavor to bring glory to God in all areas of my life. But I think it’s about to get a little foamy in here . . .
A friend shared your blog with me last summer after we had a rather serious disagreement about mask mandates (She was pro-mask, pro-Romans-13-means-loving-your-neighbor and I was all “The tyrants are taking over! We need to burn our masks in the streets!”). So, um, er, when she sent me your blog, I didn’t want to read it because I thought you were another “hide-from-the-virus-in-your-house loony.” I have read your son’s books (100 Cupboards) and am connected through The Rabbit Room, so I was seriously gun-shy as they are all pro-mask, pro-vaccine over there (per their Facebook posts). It feels like my entire Christian network has been corrupted by worldly propaganda–to the extent I had to leave my mask/vaccine-loving church while being reprimanded by decades-long friends about how I was sinning because I was an “anti-vaxxer.” I stayed and tried to reason with them because God called me to speak the truth. They chewed me up and spit me out along with others who think like me. I praise the Lord I found a more reasonable church in my area, but establishing new relationships is . . . challenging.
I have found deep, personal satisfaction reading your blog. It makes me feel less alone. I appreciate the blended use of truth and humor. i used to write a blog but depression, anxiety and distrust of people have caused a horrible void in my creative muscle. The corona-hoax stole my purpose—which used to be evangelism via my blog. I feel like I have failed the Lord. He created me for a purpose and I blew it. And no matter how much I pray and read my bible (every day, most days) I have struggled to regain a sense of purpose and hope. Because God certainly didn’t create me so I could sit on my thumbs worrying about the future. But I’m tired of arguing with friends and family who believe the mainstream media—especially those who beg me to get the vaccine or threaten to cut me out of their lives if I don’t. It’s painful. It feels like everyone has lost their minds.
So today I was especially thankful for your blog post, “The Angels are Moving Their Beds.” I needed that gentle reminder. God is sovereign. We can trust Him. I pray for you and your family. Thank you for being willing to pursue truth and share it with humble readers like me. Our God is faithful. I will not stop hoping in Him.
Margaret
Margaret, thanks. Stay strong.
Don’t Take the Bait
I don’t disagree that something akin to Jan 6 is on the horizon, but I think you’re omitting the rising temperature in the frog pot. Time to relearn about Cloward-Piven.
This occurred to me while pondering the notion (we can only wish our media gave us facts), that the evacuating planes have contained more Afghans than Americans. Think about the economic impact of that in the coming months and years. Add to that the hordes that have come and are coming over the border, the trillion plus “infrastructure”, the aftermath of hurricane Ida, the sour fruit soon the be borne by the vax mandates, etc, etc, etc. Please explain Cloward-Piven for those who might not know it.
Steve
Steve, thanks for the reference. Another straw in the tornado.
There will be people who take the bait because they have not read your admonition. They may be urged on by FBI or other government infiltrators. I have no connections to the people who would take the bait. How do I find them and persuade them they are being lead into a trap?
Caleb
Caleb, I wrote this so that a number of us could help make it a talking point in our ranks. So if the new guy at your Bible study suggests kidnapping the governor of Michigan, you have a response at the ready.
“Always remember how the responsible voices like to coo to us. First they tell us that situation x will never happen. Then they tell us that it might happen, but that it is too soon to act on it. To act now would be premature and irresponsible. And then they tell us, once it has happened, that it is too late to do anything about it now.” To your credit, I believe you have warned us that situation x will indeed happen, but I’m trying to reconcile your call to wait and not take the bait with what you say in the quote above. Why is it too soon to act? Why not head it off now rather than let them implement their little trap? Asking for a friend.
JPH
JPH, if there were a way to head it off now, I would be all for that. But given our resources and the way they are deployed, I don’t think we would head anything off, but rather would be walking into an ambush.
A Word With My Past Self
I’ve heard some grumblings about this 2015 post of yours. My guess is that you were assuming a wise and competent government acting on honorable motives, which is wholly unlike what we have before us today. Any comments?
James
James, yes, I was assuming a government that was not engaged in a massive power grab, but I still expressed it poorly, especially at the end. I don’t think the government should have the power to lock up the unvaccinated. I should have said they have the power to quarantine the contagious.
I’m not a hater. Your posts have informed my thinking a lot on certain things, especially as of late. I’m facing unemployment and a lost career because of an employer vaccine mandate that I refuse to comply with. Your posts have been encouraging to me as I try to navigate through these difficult waters. So I was very surprised when I was sent a February 2015 blog post titled “and now a word on vaccines.” In the blog you seem to defend the governments jurisdiction to quarantine healthy people from a contagion. This seems to contradict your current stance. Maybe you would just consider the you from yesteryear wrong, or perhaps there was a context missing, or a nuance to the argument. I can see several possible explanations—but I thought I would reach out to ask. Thank you and God Bless.
Scott
Scott, thanks for asking. I expressed myself poorly. I believe that governments have the authority (from God) to quarantine the contagious, or the likely to be contagious. See above, and I am going to try to post a Retractions post in addition to that.
A Wife With a Gun
My wife is interested in carrying a handgun. On a pragmatic level, neither of us are opposed to it—we see the value in her being equipped to defend herself, especially when she’s out with the kids. However, we’re both concerned about whether or not this would be a violation of Deut. 22:5 (wearing that which pertaineth to a man). Can you offer us any more advice?
Nathaniel
Nathaniel, I don’t see any problem with a woman being armed, and being ready to defend herself and her kids. But I would see a problem with Dt. 22:5 if she were swaggering around in an open carry sort of way, with a huge gun on her hip.
Bitcoinery . . .
I am very thankful for your blog and podcasts in the past year—it’s so encouraging to see the Bible’s truth applied in a robust and real way. We really do need “theology that bites back” and “all of Christ for all of life.” I keep coming back to those 2 slogans and I have to say, a lot of scales have been falling off my eyes. I do have a rather large in scope question and I’ll try to be as brief as I can while providing the context that may be necessary.
I’ve been thinking about money quite a bit in the past year. And not maybe in the typical ways such as how to get more of it. I’ve been thinking about what money fundamentally is, why it exists, and what the Bible teaches us about it. And the more I’ve done that, the more I’ve become aware of just how unbiblical and immoral the current monetary system is. Its incentives are perverse. It is an extremely complex form of an “unjust scale” and “silver that has become dross.” And it defrauds the “widow.” Add to this that within the next 5 years, it almost seems guaranteed that Central Bank Digital Currencies will exist and that it’s likely they will be increasingly required for many aspects of society. I can only assume you’d feel as good about that as you do vax passes. Now of course this monetary dumpster fire isn’t completely new. Monetary systems have been bad in the past as well, but they always fail, and sometimes, they are replaced by a more just system, at least for a time.
In your recent blog, “Assuming the Center,” you made a brief reference to blockchain innovation and so it made me think you were not totally in the dark on Bitcoin. In my study of money, I’ve become fairly active in the Bitcoin space and I do absolutely want to differentiate that from “crypto” which largely is just a casino. What has been surprising to me (though also quite encouraging) while engaging in this space is how many Christians I’m seeing, many of them theologically conservative, drawn to Bitcoin as “moral money.” They are choosing to earn it, save in it, use it where possible, push forward it’s development and implementation, and they are doing it because they see it as a form of bottom-up resistance to the immoral nature of our current monetary system. It only makes sense that once the government starts handing everyone dollars for free, people who know that you can’t get something for nothing want to earn something that you can’t get for nothing. Looking outside of America, we can already see countries with even worse currency and governance situations using Bitcoin out of pure necessity. I don’t claim to know the future of Bitcoin and I don’t think that it’s wise to pursue it purely for the purposes of great riches but, and this is my question for you, do you think that Bitcoin actually might be an opportunity to reinstitute “biblical money” that force functions a separation between money and government (that used to exist) and that Christians should (voluntarily of course) increasingly begin educating themselves on it as a way to bring about a more just and righteous world?
In case it is helpful or of interest, here are a few resources that have helped me understand both the technology and the implications.
https://vijayboyapati.medium.com/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoin-6ecc8bdecc1
https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-not-blockchain/
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-and-the-printing-press
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-is-a-trojan-horse-for-freedom
I’d personally love to hear your thoughts on the topic in a blog or podcast, though I will warn you, it can be humbling to learn about it in public if you go that route :D In my experience, Bitcoin seems to be “Everything you don’t know about money AND everything you don’t know about computers.”
Always looking forward to your writing and thank you again for your faithful service to the church!
Caleb
Caleb, thanks for the nudge. I am in favor of any medium of exchange that the government can’t print, or which is difficult for them to manipulate. My perspective is roughly where George Gilder is on this in The Scandal of Money.
I Don’t Really Know a Guy
Thank you for delivering outstanding teaching, wisdom, and challenging topics to consider. My family of four lives in Boise, ID and I travel the Pacific Northwest for work. So I’m taking you up on your suggestion to check with you because you know a guy. Thanks!
Luke
Luke, my apologies. A number of people took me up on my joke that “I know a guy,” but that was just a joke. But having made it, it turns out that I might know a guy, but this sort of thing should be handled locally with people you know and trust.
I’m checking with you. Do you know a guy? :)
Peace in Christ,
Ryan
Ryan, sorry, no. See above.
Is there a way to find out who your ” I might knowa” guy is for fake vaccine cards from your article defending them, and a way to contact him? I totally agree with you, there are times when it is right to deceive. Rahab comes to mind.
Sandra
Sandra, sorry, no. Ditto.
More on Masks
I just found videos of yours on YouTube and I am so thankful for your perspective! Thank you so much for speaking the truth in such an intelligent, researched, and thorough way. My husband and I attend a PCA church and it looks like your theological beliefs and eschatology are probably the same as ours. Our church is wonderful and does a fantastic job preaching the gospel. An issue has come up lately, though, that has to do with masks and vaccines and we are totally confused by it and feel betrayed a bit, and are planning to talk it over with the pastors soon. We would love your take on it, though. First, we think masks are 100% ridiculous and (per the mask manufacturer’s comments on the box) not even meant to keep out germs except the N-95 ones or whatever. In addition, I have highly reactive skin and any masks give me an awful rash (two huge reasons not to use masks . . . their ineffectiveness and my skin issue). Also, we are typically fine with vaccines but wouldn’t take this one if our lives depended on it.
Our church leaders met with the presbytery and decided that, because the Delta variant is “more dangerous to children” and there are apparently some people with immune issues in the congregation, they are asking everyone to wear masks. Also, the place where the church meets is a community center that asks people to be vaccinated or else wear masks, which originally (before this recent decision by the presbytery) caused us to have to decide if we wanted to show up to church without masks on the “honor system” (which tacitly says we’re vaccinated even though we’re not) or else wear the masks to make a point that we are not vaccinated and don’t think anyone should take the vaccine. We decided to just not wear masks. Then, though, the Delta variant appeared, leading to the presbytery meeting, asking everyone to wear masks. The reasoning is that 1) there are doctors on the board (or session or whatever they are called) who are seeing more kids in the hospital and 2) that the CDC recommends masks so we should follow their guidelines.
Here’s the problem for us (other than that masks don’t help and give me a rash). Why is the church looking to the CDC for how to respond to anything? Also, the pastor says he’s on the side of “choosing life,” so that’s why they are asking everyone to love their neighbor and wear a mask. Our main problem after the one mentioned above is that the church shouldn’t be pointing its members to the government for information on how to live! The government has already proven itself to be untrustworthy and not a friend of the church. Also, masks are full of germs themselves and deprive people of fresh air that they need to keep their immune systems healthy. When we mentioned this to several elders (who didn’t seem to agree with us), we heard that the point was to love others by wearing the masks, and that there were people equally passionate about mask-wearing as we are about not wearing masks. We were also told that they weren’t mandating them and that we were still welcome to come, but obviously this makes things awkward because it looks like we have decided not to love our neighbor by not wearing them.
To me, this is a simple case of “truth matters”—if masks let viruses through, aren’t we being unloving by allowing these immuno-compromised people believe we are keeping them out of danger? Then, there’s the vaccine thing—why are our pastors not having the discernment to see that there is something wrong with the vaccine, either that it’s dangerous or that the government is up to no good?
To boot, we got sick this week and had to postpone our meeting, which doesn’t help our case (maybe it’s because we didn’t wear masks). Anyway, our pastors preach the gospel better than anyone else around (we’ve seen a lot of messed up churches that are more about self-help and don’t even use their Bibles), or else we would just find a church where they didn’t think that they should accept advice from the CDC, if those even exist in our area.
Anyway, we are about to meet with them and share our concerns that: 1. bringing government recommendations about masks into the church IS divisive 2. Masks don’t keep out viruses, per the manufacturer, 3. The church shouldn’t be told to look to the CDC for guidance. We probably won’t mention the vaccine issues but if there is a biblical reason to resist them (other than what I would consider discernment but they wouldn’t think so because they got the shot), it might be helpful to mention that.
Do you have some thoughts or tips on how to handle this? We love our church and don’t want to be divisive, but the thought of wearing masks to church to “love” others when they do nothing but harm makes me angry and upset at the church. We want to handle our meeting with the pastors maturely and not get overly passionate and say stuff we’ll regret. Please help!
H
H, if the elders are not requiring the masks, but simply encouraging them, then I would be as peaceable as you possibly can be. Offer to sit in the balcony, or way in the back. Offer to come right on time, and leave immediately. Defer to those who are scared of you unmasked, but not to the point where you participate in the lie.
We praise the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for you, your family, and broader ministry (and ministry partners)!
We live in crazy times, as you well know, and with the 4th wave of COVID looming, my family and a number of our friends would love to seek your counsel on how church members should navigate interacting with church leadership in areas of disagreement over “righteous” resistance, personal / corporate public dissent, and the dystopian potential of requiring valid COVID-passports to attend church. To be clear, the latter point has not been revealed as a government mandate, but a number of us imagine it could (or perhaps even may) be a necessary implication of the direction we’re heading. We love our church and believe it has been a faithful and fruitful witness, but also recognize it may, we may, lack the necessary convictions to faithfully navigate what’s to come.
Without going into too much speculation or delving inappropriately into castle intrigues it seems plain to the average man that strong theological disagreements are present within our leadership / eldership team on the role of the church in relationship to the state. If the mandates continue, it seems that an 8.2 magnitude earthquake is about to be unleashed and our church, presently with divided and or underdeveloped convictions in this area, may be left substantially fractured.
Assuming that my analysis of the current situation is largely accurate, what recommendation would you give to church members who want to both honour their leaders and help them in an area of perceived need?
I’m sure you get a bunch of these questions so I’ll get to work in writing out a plan in the meantime. If you’re able to respond I’ll be sure to double back and take heed of your counsel prior to taking any action.
Such a blessing to have faithful fathers in the faith!
In His Loving Grip,
NF
NF, my counsel would be to be as hard as nails in your position, but tender-hearted in your demeanor. If they stop short of mandating “the things,” then do what you can to make it work. But if they become an enforcer for a panicked state, then I think it is time to move on. But do it without anger, without drama, and without trying to make people feel sorry for you.
Since the start of COVID, I have been putting a lot of thought into such topics as civil disobedience and Christian resistance, and trying to understand just how far that goes, and in which situations.
I have primarily read Groen van Prinsterer on the subject, which was helpful. However, I would like to dig more into the ideas of men like Knox, Cromwell, and Rutherford. I’m just not sure where to start.
Part of the reason I’m asking you is because of a response you wrote to a letter you received. You mentioned that the reformers developed principles for when and how to resist. In summary, I believe you wrote that, first, we are to preach the gospel. If we are forced to stop, we are to flee. If we can’t flee, then we defend ourselves from violent attacks, provided we have the means to do so. If we do not have the means, then we die for our faith.
Do you have any recommended books to learn more about this?
Thanks!
Mike
Mike, I would start your study here.
Tithing Question
I’m confused. Am I supposed to give my tithes or eat them? I’ve always assumed that I should give the first and best to God (e.g. Malachi 3:10, 1 Corinthians 16:2) and that this transaction was best expressed by giving the full tithe to the local church where I am a member and from whom I receive care (e.g. Galatians 6:6, 1 Corinthians 9:7-12). Reading Deuteronomy 14:22-29 this morning, however, I noticed that the instruction here to is to bring it and consume it oneself in the presence of God or turn it into money that can be used to purchase something to be consumed. Is this in addition to or instead of my previous tithing practices? Have I been doing it wrong? And if not, what is this passage referring to and how in principle should I currently apply it?
Todd
Todd, I believe it is one of the legitimate uses of the tithe, and I believe there are three such uses. There is tithing that relieves the poor, tithing that supports the formal ministry, and the party tithe. I believe that the total of what it given in this way should add up to ten percent.
Take Off the Kid Gloves?
At what point will you get more severe with Christian leaders whose only move is to try to obstruct those who try to respond to this crisis? Jesus had no problem calling out the Pharisees of His day, who were the great-great-great grandpappies of so-called “progressive Christians” today, and the Apostle Paul made no bones about the severity of his confrontation with Peter over Peter’s hypocrisy. Something about rabbits and hutches sounds more like Monty Python than John Murray (no, the other one).
D
D, thanks for the admonition, and it is entirely conceivable to me that my rabbit/hutch joke didn’t land right (although I still think it is hilarious). But before I confront someone specifically (by name) as a hypocrite, I need to know more than I currently do. I need to know more than what people claim about that person on the web—I need something in their own words, for example. But when that becomes clear, I am perfectly willing to be confrontational—as I have done in the past with leaders transitioning out of evangelicalism, while still pretending to be faithful. Heaven knows it has happened enough.
Classical Christian School
I’m a new pastor at a small church that we recently planted. We have some young, large families, and are interested in starting a co-op for our children, as well as others. Ideally, I’d like to run this as a ministry of our church, with free or very inexpensive tuition for families that are not members of our church as well. Which books of yours/others would you recommend we read together to get on the same page with plans/expectations for a Christian School/co-op from a classical perspective that is organized as a ministry of our local church?
Thanks,
Thomas
Thomas, I would start with Classical Education and the Home School, and then move on to The Case for Classical Christian Education.
Great Question
Good afternoon (or morning/ evening when you read this; if it makes it to you)
I was working through your book “When The Man Comes Around” and had a question regarding your comments on Rev 16:9-10. . . Could it be that John was referencing the passage in Isaiah 13:13 regarding the “burning anger” of the LORD when he wrote about men being scorched with fire/ a fierce heat?
I was looking at the fourth plague (flies – Ex 8:24) and the overlapping context of Is 13:13-16, and saw a comparison of how the flies (or whatever debated translation of animal) laid waste to the land just as the burning anger of the LORD laid waste to the land of Israel (prophesied by Isaiah). Instead of flies though, the laying of said waste in Isaiah was done by the sword (I take that as army etc. . .). We see then an overlap in Revelation 16 as the Kings of the East/ the whole world would come to lay waste to Jerusalem (Babylon) after the bowl of God’s burning anger was poured out onto the land. There is also the overlap of spacey (drawing a blank on the sophisticated word for Astronomy talk) language in Is 13:10 with that of the fourth trumpet blowing (Rev 8:12).
So, with all that said, do you think it’s plausible to say that John was referencing “The burning anger of the LORD ” in Rev 16:9-10? Thank you in advance and thank you for all that you do for the Kingdom.
God bless,
Jordan
Jordan, that seems like a reasonable correlation to make, although it might not be as strong as “referencing.” It could just be an allusion, for example. Manifestations of the wrath of God are going to have certain things in common always. And the word you were looking for is decreation.
C.S. Lewis and Fractals
Just finished Perelandra again being inspired by your recent references to “That Hideous Strength” (e.g. reading list) . . . (I began this time with THS, then OOTSP, then Perelandra).
At the end of the book, C.S. Lewis’s description of The Great Dance looked uncannily like the infinite voyage into the detail of a Fractal (e.g. the Mandelbrot set) . . . only discovered in the 1980’s.
Is this a common observation that people make about The Great Dance? . . . and/or do you think Fractals echo other, long known, realities of infinite similarities and variations, etc.?
Thanks,
Robert
Robert, your suggestion is the first time I have heard that connection made. But the cosmos is gloriously odd, and the more we discover its twists and turns, the more we realize that we are not the first to recognize this basic truth. And I think you would enjoy this book that I am currently reading—Fractals by Jason Lisle.
The Case for Postmill
Can you please make the case for Post-Millennialism?
Shiela
Shiela, happy to—here go.
On Dispensationalism
I hope you and your family are well. I am wondering if you can help me with some questions that have been bugging me a lot over the last year or so about dispensationalism. I grew up reading the Ryrie Study Bible and some of my family members knew Ryrie personally. I have come to not believe any of the dispensationalist ideas and have become a reformed Calvinist, but with that said, I remain puzzled with where that leaves the dispensationalists. I do not think it is another religion but a lot of their beliefs are unbiblical. Is it at most heretical and at least, poor hermeneutics? If it is heretical, should we be going into dispensational hot spots and correcting their teaching? If not, how do we unite the church with this kind of belief? In other words, how do I confront a dispensationalist? To me, it does seem like a large issue especially when it comes to the Great Comission and what that looks like for the future of this world. Please let me know.
In Christ,
Grant
Grant, I suppose there are some extreme forms of dispensationalism that could veer into heresy (e.g. Bullingerites), but I think we have to be careful. Not only are dispensationalists solid on all the basics (Scripture as absolute foundation, the Deity of Christ, His substitutionary death and resurrection, all the basic Apostles Creed stuff), they were basically the ones who kept this basic orthodox faith alive in North America over the course of the 20th century. So while I do believe their distinctives are weird, I hold this conviction at the same time as having an extreme gratitude for them.
This was my comment from the old post about vaccines six years ago. I feel like a prophet. “One issue that I see on this topic that is not really being addressed is the issue of cronyism in the case of private pharmaceutical companies using the government to either coerce (or at the very least spin up heavy social pressure to conform) parents to spend their dollars or the dollars of their insurance company for their own profit. Is that not morally wrong? At the very least, should this coercive conflict of interest not be eliminated? I am open to… Read more »
In a perfect world, what would be the better way to administer a public health measure that has wide benefits for the population, and is necessarily administered at a population level because it deals with a contagious phenomenon? What if children really do survive childhood at a substantially higher rate if they get Vaccine X, and Vaccine X’s efficacy is vastly improved the more widely distributed it is through the population? Does the potential pecuniary benefit to the manufacturer make it morally wrong for such a beneficial measure to be widely advocated? This almost sounds like the equivalent of one… Read more »
Jane, please show me where there is a biblical warrant to force parents to vaccinate their children for the benefits of the “population”. The main problem here is the coercion. To answer your question, in a perfect world, there would be no contagious phenomenon. At the end of the day, your line of thinking leads to statism. The state becomes the savior, because “the population” doesn’t do what is in it’s best welfare. It must then force people to do what is best for them. Except that biblically, the state is God’s minister to put down evil, not make sure… Read more »
Sam, your argument doesn’t take into account the nature of infectious diseases, and specifically the fact that, rather than telling individuals that they do not know what is best for them personally, a vaccine mandate is telling individuals that they are not acting in a way that is best for the whole. In short, it’s an attempt to avoid the old tragedy of the commons problem. (There are a number of examples in OT civil law of essentially mandatory provisions to protect the lives of others, although the details can be a bit tricky to apply in a very different… Read more »
Nathan, we are getting to the real question here: What is the state for? The state is for the putting down of evil, mostly. It has negative sanctions to deal with that. It is a minister of good. Please show me in the Bible where state has the authority to coerce the many for the sake of the one (“the population”). The state has the authority to enforce God’s law. The only time in scripture that I can remember where the state enforced a health mandate was the separation of the leper. It dealt with a problem, not a “might… Read more »
Sam Rutherford, you said “The state has the authority to enforce God’s law” may I ask you a probing (or “litmus test”) sort of question regarding this statement and forgive me if I’m taking you out of context, but do you think the State has the right to enforce traffic laws?
Robert, yes, the state has the right to pass traffic laws (I think this should be done at the local level). I don’t think they have the right to create a bureaucracy to enforce it. Just like in Deuteronomy 22:8 where a rooftop railing was required on a new home build, or a when a pit had to be filled in.
God requires personally responsibility, not a nanny state looking over every move.
Thanks Sam. I’m trying to understand the very best/biblical of the arguments from post-mil/reconstruction/dominion folks on how they understand (e.g.) Romans 13 where they/we draw the line between “resisting tyranny” and refusing to obey a law because I just don’t like it. — (and every man defining “tyranny” in his own way) — to me that looks like outright lawlessness. I’m also trying to understand the biblical basis for “resisting tyranny”, especially since (as I understand) Romans 13 was written under the reign of a perverted madman. Not to mention the example of the Jews in Babylon, etc.
Sam, do you think it is legitimate for the state to draft people to war who aren’t personally affected by the war? Or to tax the population to pay for such a war, even taxing those persons who don’t support the war or believe it should involve them?
If a foreign power invades Hawaii, would it be justifiable for the state to engage in a concerted effort that affects everyone simply to save the “part”?
Jonathan, I haven’t thought about this one, but off the top of my head, I don’t see a biblical warrant for a draft. Although you can read 1 Sam 8 on the curse that he promised Israel for their desire for a king like the nations around them…
Sam, take a look at Deuteronomy 20. It will give you some insight in how an army should work.
Also, notice how hard our elected officials are pushing to reinstate a draft including women.
Dave, thanks for adding that! It would seem to be the exact opposite of the draft.
I didn’t say anything about force.
Maybe because there weren’t vaccines until the mid-twentieth century?
Edward Jenner started using his smallpox vaccine in 1796 and its use became compulsory in the UK in 1853. There were massive protests with a lot of the same arguments we hear today. In the US, Massachusetts mandated smallpox vaccinations for its public schools in 1827.By 1900, it was compulsory for all children and adults in eleven states. By the 1930s we had vaccines for diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, yellow fever,and rabies.
Didn’t Jonathan Edwards die from complications of the smallpox vaccine?
Robert,
He did indeed. Or rather from an inoculation. Edward’s was very interested in science and apparently quite excited to get the inoculation. I haven’t studied it closely, but I believe that by the 1750s (when Edward’s died) the death rate from inoculation was down to around 1% (maybe <1%, just like the covid vaccine!!) but still claimed many lives.
Yes, he did in 1758 when it was still new and considered experimental. Edwards felt his example would encourage other people to get the vaccine. I don’t suppose it worked out that way!
Cotton Mather was a proponent of small pox inoculations during the 1721 Boston epidemic. He had a bomb thrown through his window for his trouble. Inoculation isn’t vaccination, but it is similar enough to be in the discussion.
The 1721 inoculation killed about 2% of those who received it, which was considered so successful that basically everyone in Boston was subsequently inoculated. Be thankful for modern medicine.
I would provide links to this fascinating episode, but then my comment would be eaten.
I looked him up. Reportedly Mather heard about variolation from his African slave Onesimus!
Yeah, it’s crazy. Would be hard not to read yourself as Philemon… apparently Onesimus would not convert and caused quite a lot of heartache for Cotton.
Would you agree that it was a rudimentary vaccine at best?
I know little about vaccines in general, but I wouldn’t call Jenner’s vaccine rudimentary. Smallpox with its 30% mortality rate (70% in children) killed 400,000 Europeans every year in the eighteenth century. In places where vaccination became compulsory, there was a drastic reduction in the number of deaths. The word I would use myself is miraculous.
If the health measure is indeed beneficial for the population, and works better when administered at the wider population level, then make that case and persuade people. When advances in hygiene or medicine are made, it may take a few years for the message to be received and believed, but it does happen. If the measure is questionable or leaves a certain percentage harmed, then it will be harder to persuade. That’s just reality. If a company makes a good product, hygiene or medicinal, and they are able to sell it, I am quite happy for them to make buckets… Read more »
It would help if the “case-making” wasn’t hampered by a constant stream of misinformation that impedes many regular citizens from being able to make an informed decision.
It is hard (impossible?) to know what authority is giving true facts.
It is not that hard, but it is certainly made much more difficult by people constantly pushing misinformation. Here’s the start: doctors state specific conclusions (subject to prosecution if they are falsified) regarding what is happening to their patients. These reports are tabulated by their hospitals and given to county health departments, which are then tabulated by the state. The #’s at the state and county level are public information and the hospital-level information can be accessed by a large # of people and is often public as well. For this information to be falsified across the entire country –… Read more »
To put it a simpler way, how many times would you have to see Doug Wilson give demonstrably false information on here before you would come to the conclusion that he’s listening to the wrong “authorities”?
What “demonstrably false information?”
Also, how many times would you have to see it to stop constantly being involved on the site? You sure seem to care a lot about something you reject…
Like posting that perhaps our testing can’t distinguish between flu and covid so maybe all the flu cases were being turned into covid. Like claiming that covid cases weren’t spiking when they clearly were. Like posting that Fauci had completely discredited himself by suggesting the death toll could surpass 200,000 and that was reason enough to stop listening to him. Like claiming that history would judge the Covid pandemic as far less serious than recent flu pandemics. Like claiming that “covid cases were skyrocketing at the same time deaths were plummeting.” There are dozens of examples like that, if we… Read more »
“Your pictures proved nothing because all of them were outdoors, most weren’t even during flu season, and pointing out some people weren’t masking in one random picture in no way shows that everyone wasn’t.” From two weeks ago
Jonathan, how many times do we have to correct you on your exaggerations and lies before reaching a conclusion that as a Christian brother, you are not a reliable source?
Gentle Readers, if you noticed two weeks ago, Jonathan ignored the photos of Chinese during seasonal flu not wearing masks indoors and then jumped off the deep end of his argument.
Dave, I’m going to stop following your troll tactics of incessantly repeating losing arguments in one thread after another in the hopes that I’ll eventually give up and leave. Your claim that no one in Hong Kong was masking up during flu outbreaks was obviously wrong and proven wrong many times over. We’re done with that.
Jonathan, I’m not trolling you. I am holding you to your baptism. Previously, you said that you are here to help Wilson and others understand how to interpret scripture. You call those who disagree with your wooden scripture interpretations or who post items that destroy your arguments liars. When you are caught, you drop off for a while, change the argument, move the goal posts, call them liars, call the others wrong when in fact you are. Your baptism says you are a Christian brother. Stop calling everyone else liars when they defeat your arguments. Stop it! My claim was… Read more »
Dave, that isn’t the progression of the discussion at all (for starters, you didn’t even start anywhere near the beginning with the original claim. Numerous points you’ve made there are false, just like you made numerous false claims in the discussion itself. But I’m not going to re-litigate it over and over out of context. Either bring up your complaints in the original discussion or they will get ignored.
Jonathan, pray tell, what is the progression?
The problem is that you said all my photos were outdoors. They weren’t. That’s a fib.
-Jonathan, did you call Wilson out? Yes.
-Do you call others here liars because you don’t like their arguments? Yes.
-Do you attribute to others that which you do? Yes.
I post here so you can’t hide your exaggerations and fibs, not where they are hidden from view.
Your original claim was that masks were only worn in 3 Asian countries and even there only by a few people. You claimed those very few Asians who wore them didn’t wear masks to stop disease but were just “being polite”. You posted random personal pictures, most of which were outdoors and the vast majority of which weren’t even during that year’s flu season. As far as I recall not a single picture was from public transport or close confines. When I posted numerous articles and pictures showing people from multiple Asian countries wearing masks in multiple flu seasons, as… Read more »
Jonathan, I’m holding you to your baptism. You may not hide your false narrative and fibs by using a two week old thread. That is one method you use to avoid your erroneous arguments when they are challenged by truth. Stop attempting to blame others for what you are doing. Stop it! “You posted random personal pictures, most of which were outdoors and the vast majority of which weren’t even during that year’s flu season. As far as I recall not a single picture was from public transport or close confines.” Thank you for admitting that you fibbed about all… Read more »
Dave, I showed pictures and articles during the 2009, 2014, and 2018 flu outbreaks. Your claim was that residents DIDN’T wear the masks to prevent disease but only wore them to “be polite”. Then you shifted the goalposts “But that’s just SARS that doesn’t count…but that’s swine flu that doesn’t count…..but that’s Vancouver that doesn’t count.” You are the only one who randomly decided that Swine Flu “doesn’t count”, that had nothing to do with your original argument. The point was that they CLEARLY wore masks to prevent disease.
And you also falsely claimed that they only reached 99% mask wearing due to mandates. They did it without any mandate in Hong Kong, but only due to their experience wearing flu masks to stop disease:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30100-0/fulltext
And your only “evidence” in the entire conversation was some random pictures you took. You still don’t realize those pictures are meaningless. Random pictures of some people not wearing masks some of the time doesn’t cancel out other pictures where they ARE wearing masks, that’s not how logic works. And after I pointed out that your pictures weren’t even during that year’s flu season, you won’t back down. What does it matter if it was the “standard” season when that year’s flu hadn’t started yet? Why would they start wearing the masks before the flu was actually bad that year?
Finally, your whole goal-post shift to the argument that they “only” wear masks during SARS, Covid-19, Swine Flu, and the 1968 Hong Kong Flu, while itself false, also destroys your initial argument that they are only wearing masks to “be polite”. If it’s just for politeness, then why is mask-wearing most obvious during the worst diseases? They CLEARLY wear masks to stop disease. That was what our entire debate hinged on. We’re done here.
Thanks, I guess I misunderstood you the first time around.
Perhaps I was confusing. I do not oppose making money from selling medicine or vaccines, or whatever. I oppose the crony relationship between pharmaceutical companies and those issuing mandates. Earlier, Doug was supportive of those mandates, so I wanted to challenge him on that area. Now that he has flipped, it’s a moot point. But, I feel prophetic, because money is exactly what is driving the pandemic mandates.
I have a hard time understanding how you can support for-profit medicine and yet oppose crony relationships between companies and politicians unless you substantially reduce the influence of money in politics. And if there’s one thing political conservatives consistently refuse to do, it’s get money out of politics.
That being said, I have trouble seeing how you can make a very strong case that money is driving the mandates, considering that most of the private companies and state/local officials pushing mandates are pretty far removed financially from these pharmaceutical companies.
BJ, I agree to a degree with your main point, but in terms of your example, wasn’t Obamacare fairly irrelevant to pharmaceutical regulation? A better example of government giveaway to pharmaceutical companies would have been Medicare Part D.
I think if you would’ve told us you were doing a Carnac bit, the joke about the rabbits and hutch would’ve landed better.
Pastor Wilson, Really glad you are reading that book on Fractals :) Since I “semi-retired” my book budget is lower but I am thinking about getting that book, as well as the more famous one, “Chaos” recommended by someone in a previous “Letters” comment. On a side note…. Psalm 19 talks about the glory of God displayed in the Heavens… I was a little disappointed because for whatever reason, I see more glory in the details of creation on earth — variety of plants, animals, biology, physiology, math, physics — (albeit mainly “dilettante-ish”)… so I was encouraged to see that… Read more »
Doug, can we please stop with the reoccurring “treated with a vaccine that has a less than 1% fatality rate?” Do you know what’s less than 1%? Zero, zero is less than 1%. The current estimate based on an awfully large sample group is .0018%. Lets just use that number. We can argue and fight over statistics that are messier but when we have reliable data lets just use it. Instead of misleading with disingenuous statements that don’t help the dialogue.
For those wondering, there is a number here that is very similar to what James posted:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
And near the bottom of this page, there is a chart where CDC estimates roughly the same death rates for children who get COVID:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
But aside from the case of children, the point by James is quite right. The question of vaccination for (USA) adults turns on factors that have little to do with the risk of dying from the shot, unless you already had a clear-cut case of COVID and therefore don’t need to take the (tiny) risk.
Thanks, David. That is just the raw number of VAERS death reports divided by total doses.
David and James, that’s the estimate based on VAERS, which accumulates every report submitted of death after vaccine even if the vaccine wasn’t shown to have anything to do with the death. It’s difficult to tell how many of those 0.0018% of vaccine recipient deaths reported to VAERS were actually related to the vaccine, considering that 0.03% of Americans die every 2 weeks even outside of a Covid pandemic. Even if you assume that 95% of deaths would never be confused with a vaccine-death and reported to VAERS, just the remaining 5% of potentially confused cases (sudden heart attack in… Read more »
The disease has more like a 20% fatality rate, for certain populations, and we do care about those populations. And the vaccine has more like a .0001% fatality rate for all populations, if you eliminate those with allergies to the vaccine components, who are already being omitted from the vaccinations.So maybe it’s not that absurd?
I see below that James has a different number for the vaccine fatality rate. I’ll go with his, since it’s considerably higher, but still makes the point.
I’m curious where James got his number though… it looks far too high. From what I have. Seen it should be 0.00082%, that us a fairly conservative number, but still takes into account a number of assumptions.
Regardless, saying “both covid and the covid vaccine have a fatality rate of <1%" could be a text book false equivalence.
I can do this too: "both car crashes and eating salad have fatality rates of <1%."
That was the number I was using as well, rounded. But for the sake of argument, I’ll take the higher number, because it’s still really low and still so much “less than 1%” that it makes the point that “less than 1%” is being used in a highly equivocal way.
That’s the fatality rate so far…for less than a year with no real idea what long-term effects there may be. It may be a good risk:reward for some groups, but not necessarily for those of us with no other risk factors (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular problems) who have already had COVID. In fact, new data from Israel is showing great promise for natural immunity. Natural Immunity VS Enhanced Immunity: New Data in Israel – YouTube I have no problem with people taking the vax of their choice (or all of them)…and as many boosters as they want. I think immune… Read more »
Of course if there really is no real idea what long-term effects there may be then all the long-term effects arguments against the vaccine also fall in the no real idea category. On the other hand we do have a good idea, by way of observing what actually has happened, what both the immediate, and long term, effects of the disease can be.
Anyway, I have my doubts that concern of effects is the real reason people are refusing the vaccine, except in a small minority of cases.
Of course passive-aggressive types will impugn the motives of others…especially when their very flawed-but-comfortable take on Rom. 13 = “shut up and obey, lest we cause a ruckus…”
Actually it is shut up and obey God “not only to avoid God’s wrath (which you can trust involves no mere ruckus) but also for the sake of conscience”. Does that make you uncomfortable? Truth is, sometimes it does me, but that is something wrong with me, not with the idea of obedience.
In any case, it has nothing to do with reasonable assessment of taking or foregoing a vaccine.
Good point, JohnM.
It seems to me, the way some Post-Mil/Reconstructionist/Dominion folks interpret (e.g.) Romans 13 is similar to how some “Arminians” interpret clear passages on God’s Sovereignty. …. they want to “shoehorn” the (seemingly) clear meaning of the passage into their preconceived conclusions…. which it seems to me, in the case of Romans 13, etc. plays to our natural/fallen love of rebellion.
What kind of action on the part of the state would it take for you to rebel? Genuine question, not trying to trap you or something.
Hi Jonathan, I hope and pray I will rebel/disobey (respectfully) when they require me to deny Jesus Christ. and/or to affirm something that is unbiblical (e.g. homosexual practice is not a sin). I read and hear about Christian martyrs who suffer death rather than deny Christ. I want to be like that if/when the time comes. I think about the famous old godly saint in ancient Rome when the soldiers came to take him to the Colosseum to die (I can’t remember his name), he kindly fixed them a meal before going off with them to his death where he… Read more »
Robert, I think this is a pretty good answer, but I would add a few things. 1. I don’t think we should even “rebel.” What we should do is obey/follow a different legitimate authority. In the context of a government compelling to you sin that authority is our King, Christ. It could also be a local Sherrif or county alderman or state governor who is using his office to resist a different level of government. 2. Resisting isn’t always rebellion. If my city council passes am ordinance I don’t like I have a number of ways to resist that don’t… Read more »
I agree with you, Demo, and I would add that good manners and a pleasant attitude make it much harder for people to refuse to give you a hearing. We assume malice when stupidity, incompetence, and simple error are just as likely. I have done quite well with “I wonder if you could possibly be mistaken in applying Section 3(A)(2)(iii)to my case. I have printed out some court rulings that seem to suggest that wording doesn’t apply to my situation.” People who start yelling about their First Amendment rights tend to produce automatic eye rolls–especially since so often they have… Read more »
very helpful, Jill. Thanks.
Great points, demosthenes1d …. I think I’m with you 100%
I wonder how Doug Wilson would view this?
You are thinking about dear St. Polycarp who served food and drink to the Roman soldiers while he spent a final hour in prayer. I am also very fond of St. Lawrence who was executed on a gridiron with hot coals underneath. After a while he said to his tormentors, ‘Please turn me over. I’m cooked on this side.” He is, quite understandably, the patron saint of cooks and chefs. As a young Catholic preparing for confirmation, I had been warned that the bishop anoints your forehead and then lightly slaps your left cheek. This is not, as was rumored,… Read more »
Thanks Jill.
What a lovely symbolism, Jill. I like that.
I have no doubt that natural immunity is better. The problem is that to get that natural immunity, you have to assume the higher risk of not surviving the disease or being long term damaged by it, as opposed to the much, much lower risk (even in low risk populations) of the vaccines. It’s a very simple risk/reward calculation: the risk of dying of the disease is 1000 times higher than the risk of dying from the vaccine. Now there are other factors involved besides the risk calculation, I will grant; but if you’re going to make the risk calculation,… Read more »
And I agree, I am against mandatory vaccines. But you can oppose mandatory vaccines without obfuscating the actual risk/reward issues. In fact, your case is better when you say things that actually make sense.
Well, if we want to talk about things that make sense, let’s start with stats that factor in co-morbidities instead of generalizing for the entire population. The 320-pound, Type 2 diabetic scooting around Costco with 2 hot dogs has a very different level of risk than someone with near-perfect labs and low visceral fat.
CDC Finds that 94% of US COVID-19 Deaths Include Comorbid Factors – SWFI (swfinstitute.org)
That’s all true, but I don’t particularly want that person (or the less extreme case of a more typical, moderately obese person with type 2 diabetes) to die 20 years earlier than he otherwise might, of a substantially preventable disease that is a fairly awful way to die. The fact that there are identifiable risk factors doesn’t really change the fact that some given percentage of those people are going to be quite dead. I don’t want them to be if it’s avoidable, and they presumably don’t want to be even more than I don’t want them to be. Beyond… Read more »
That’s a very good point. That’s a prime example of loving your neighbor.
Not only are some of those people going to be quite dead, some of them are going to live but suffer ongoing , maybe permanent , damage…and all of them are going to tax the healthcare system, among other things denying hospital beds to people having non-COVID related conditions. Some of those people will have infected other people in the meantime, some of whom are equally vulnerable. Finally, those people may well have served as mutant incubators, insuring the thing never quite goes away. If Doug Wilson is right, that last bit may well, ironically, be just the playing into… Read more »
Jane, With regards to question 1, the most common comorbidities for covid death are obesity and hypetension. Around 42% of the population is obese and around 45% have hypertension. There is a lot of overlap, but it isn’t complete. It is safe to say that over half of the population has one of these two conditions alone (and not just people wheeling around Costco eating two hotdogs). I strongly assume that a person with a BMI of 45 had a much worse risk profile than someone with a BMI of 30, but the enormous prevalence of these conditions confounds the… Read more »
Right, I figured the numbers were somewhere along those lines, but my point more specifically was that we need the actual numbers for that, not just vague allusions to the fact that it “only” creates high risk for people with those factors. “It only creates high risk for people with certain risk factors so the risk isn’t high for everyone” is about as rich in useful content as “less than 1%.”
So what? Are you okay with letting them die? How would you feel if you infected your mother Covid-19 and she died? Unbeknownst to you, you could have undiagnosed comorbidities.
Are you okay with businesses requiring proof of vaccination or a recent (within 2 days) negative COVID test before entry into their place of business? Are you okay with colleges requiring them? How about schools and nursing homes? Food service workers? Are you okay with business owners requiring their employees to be vaccinated
No, I’m not. And having said that, I’m not going to argue and defend my position to a troll like you. But since you asked, there’s your answer.
I will say that I’m not in favor of private employers/businesses requiring vaccination or proof of negative test because I think it is currently imprudent. I don’t think it should be banned by law in most cases, and for some businesses, like nursing homes, I think it may be prudent. I feel for those who are concerned about vaccines who work for medical providers, etc. but I am also sympathetic to those institutions who are trying to protect their patients.
Yeah, my answer might be a bit more nuanced than “no I’m not,” but generally speaking, I’m not. You might be able to persuade me about edge cases.
Are you happy with businesses refusing service to homosexuals?
Or hospitals refusing care to homosexuals?
That’s a great point about hospitals. How many COVID “vaccine” pushers are openly calling for hospitals to refuse treatment of those who choose not to get the jab? The key word here is “choose”. The argument is that those who choose to engage in risky behavior should be refused care. OK, then. That same argument especially applies to the left’s precious homosexuals. Homosexuals choose to engage in risky behavior that results in poor health outcomes, the least of which is rectal incontinence, the worst of which is AIDS. Speaking of AIDS, how much money have we spent as a society… Read more »
Well I guess with that rhetorical shutdown, hospitals are going to have to start providing care to unvaccinated people again.
Also Jonathan: OMG!!!!! Like, 99.9999999999999999999999999% of COVID hospitalizations are for the unvaccinated!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for proving once again that concepts such as “credibility” don’t matter to ideologues such as yourself.
Neither the unvaccinated nor those who engage in homosexual sex are in the slightest danger of being banned from hospitals by liberals or conservatives FP.
For some reason, unvaccinated health care workers are being told get the jab or get gone from our hospital. Apparently, they don’t count as the unjabbed here.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/hospitals-health-systems-mandating-vaccines-for-workersjune17.html
Dave, they will still be treated if they get sick, that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misunderstood the discussion rather than purposely trolling.
Gentle Readers, nurses don’t count anymore.
Idaho’s governor is trying hard to get more Federal money and claims that Idaho ICU’s are almost overrun. Too bad that nurses are faced with get the jab or get fired.
The sad part is that the administrators are amazed that with the hospital demand, as nurses are fired or quit, they don’t have staff to take care of patients. Then the governor can make political hay and gather in the Federal bucks because the hospitals are busy.
What a country!
Nurses do count Dave. Any nurse who gets sick will be treated in the hospital whether she was vaccinated or not.
Gentle Readers, it’s a good thing nurses can be treated at a hospital where they are banned from working. What a strange world we live in.
Many people are treated at hospitals yet have not followed the rules to work there. That’s not a strange thing at all. In fact nothing that a nurse does to get fired would disqualify them from receiving medical care from the same institution.
We’ll add hypotheticals to the list of things you don’t comprehend.
If you can’t follow the argument, why don’t you simply say so?
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
I guess in the hypothetical case that hospitals stopped providing medical care to unvaccinated folk, then they would be vaguely sort of hypothetically hypocritical in an indirect way.
If you disapprove the current vaccines, are there any being worked on that you would or might approve? Think I read somewhere that around 100 assorted covid vaccines were being worked on. And/or do you have specific, spelled-out criteria for a vaccine you’d take? /// For a deadlier disease, would you approve of vaccines no better than these? /// (My family, those old enough, have had Pfizer or Moderna; and it seems to me the FDA should let parents have younger children vaccinated, tho we have more to learn about what works best, rather than protect the viruses from the… Read more »
Thomas, go to Canon Press and add the book on the history of Logos School by Tom Garfield.
Some data, for those who consider that helpful.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e5.htm
Judson: “…newly zealous parents find themselves lacking any training in logic or spotting fallacies…” Ladies and Gentlemen, here is but a sampling of the fallacies from Newly Zealous Parent, Judson — presented affectionately, of course: Anecdote, possible Strawman fallacy: For example, I am encountering some of God’s people who are firmly convinced that, for example, companies are procuring new abortions in order to make the COVID vax. Nice sleight of hand there, champ. I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that their argument is more along the lines of companies using already-existing fetal cell lines from aborted babies, specifically… Read more »
It’s interesting to me that Pastor Wilson just wrote an entire post about the fact that he supported quarantining the unvaccinated in 2015 and yet is telling people not to get vaccinated and even falsely claim vaccination to avoid vaccine rules in 2021….and yet didn’t give a single reason for why he pulled a complete 180 in his argument in just 6 years. Other than trying to grab the political wind, what justification is there for saying you can have the strongest rules against the unvaccinated then and then turning around and claiming all rules are wrong now?
Didn’t give a single reason, huh? Since all it takes is one counter-example to refute your asinine claim…. From Doug’s post, entitled “A Brief Word With My Past Self”: And here is the reason this is badly put. I started by referring to someone who was contagious (“that same contagious disease he has”), and moved seamlessly to someone who is “not vaccinated.” Those are not the same things at all. So strike that, and go to the file cabinet and look for Retractions under R. And do so with my regrets and apologies in mind. Now, since you were so… Read more »
He didn’t give any reason. He just retracted one “not vaccinated” line. He didn’t say one word about why is was fine back then (not retracted at the time despite much discussion) and suddenly retracted now. It’s not as if he mentioned vaccination on accident, the title of the post is “And Now a Brief Word on Vaccines” and the entire post is about vaccines. For example, how about this earlier paragraph where he makes the same argument? Now I do have views on the efficacy of vaccines, but I want to address another element of this — the idea… Read more »
One change is that he was previously, clearly, referring to a “perfect vaccine,” (which I’ve also heard referred to as a “sterile vaccine”)—a vaccine which will actually keep one from spreading the disease.
He wrote the previous piece in the context of a pertussis outbreak at Logos. That vaccine is between 70% and 85% effective at full effect, and effectiveness declines by 2-10% per year after vaccination. It also has a worse side-effect profile than the covid vaccine, causing febrile seizures in a little less than 1% of patients and hypotonic episodes (basically completely unresponsive children, sometimes turning blue) in about 0.05% of children. These side effects are quite scary.
My daughter and I,both fully vaccinated, picked up pertussis at the first children’s birthday party she ever attended. I had it as a child and again three decades later. I suppose the vaccine might have given us a milder case but no one would have guessed that from the amount of whooping going on. I felt like Ma in the Little House series when everyone comes down with the ague.
Ree, there was nothing about a “perfect vaccine” in Pastor Wilson’s post and I haven’t seen Pastor Wilson state that he would change his position on Covid vaccine mandates if a “perfect vaccine” were developed, nor do his arguments against vaccine mandates rely on that point.
True and I don’t know if he would or not and didn’t claim to. But it’s clear from the context of what he wrote then that by “vaccine,” he was referring to what is normally thought of when we think of a vaccine—which is something that will prevent one from being infected by, and from transmitting, a disease. And that he was not referring to an experimental injection that won’t prevent either.
Ree, that’s a made-up definition of vaccine that wasn’t used until this year. Demo just pointed out to you that the pertussis vaccine which was the very object of Pastor Wilson’s original post wouldn’t be a “vaccine” by your definition. Nor would the flu vaccine, nor would the TB vaccine, nor would the typhoid vaccine. Even MMR doesn’t fit that definition.
Looking up a few others: Chickenpox: 85-90% effective Polio: 99% effective after the 3rd dose. Flu: 20-60% effective depending on the year. Cholera: 50% effective against illness and 70% against severe disease Rabies: 100% effective Hib: 84% against invasive Hib disease, 75% against meningitis, and 69% against pneumonia Shingles: 90-97% effective depending on age Diphtheria: 97% after 3 doses Anthrax: 93% after initial 3-dose series if you maintain your regular booster shots TB: Around 20% effective in preventing infection, 40-60% effective in preventing severe disease and 70% effective in preventing death. Hepatitis B: 75-100% effective depending on age Meningococcal: 85-90%… Read more »
Be that as it may, Jonathan, it’s irrelevant. The point was that Doug’s words in the prior post were clearly referring to a situation where getting a vaccine would eliminate the threat from a given person passing around a highly fatal and infectious disease. It wasn’t referring to something like covid which is fatal to only a very small minority of the infected and for which the vaccines do little to nothing to prevent the subject from spreading the disease. He retracted the post, acknowledging its poor wording, but an honest and intelligent reader of the post would obviously understand… Read more »
It’s false that Covid vaccines do “little or nothing” to prevent the subject from spreading the disease. They are at least as effective at preventing the spread of the disease as pertussis vaccines are, which was the exact context of Doug’s column. The studies suggest something around 80-85% effective at preventing disease and 70-80% effective at preventing transmission even if you do get infected. And Covid is just as deadly as pertussis as well. And the suggestion “Covid has only killed 650,000+ Americans in the last year and that’s not deadly enough to count” doesn’t follow from Doug’s logic anywhere.… Read more »
I hope you see how much these narratives are driven by people with an agenda. The entire “true vaccines are 100% effective” claim that is being passed around was literally made up just to attack Covid vaccines. It’s never been true, but it is assumed true just for the sake of pushing forward disingenuous arguments.
Yeah, the whole concept of perfect/sterile vaccines vs. leaky/non-sterile vaccines, and the possible serious but unintended consequences from the latter, was made up (well prior to covid in the literature) to attack covid. Go with that.
Why are you ignoring the %’s I pointed out to you already that show Covid effectiveness is well within the standard for the vaccines we already take regularly?
And you’ve shifted from “if it’s not 100% it’s not a true vaccine” to the difference between sterile/non-sterile vaccines.
The idea of a “perfect” vaccine is extraordinarily rare, and the literature regarding “leaky” vaccines always focuses on a chicken vaccine that doesn’t stop infection or transmission at all. Covid is well within the norm for the vaccines we have always taken.
I know there’s a formula for determining the supposed percentage of effectiveness of a vaccine, but what’s happening in the real world is what’s significant, not some hypothetical percentages. Vaccinated people are being infected and are passing on covid in significant numbers. I’m seeing it among people I know. My nurse friend who works in a local Kaiser hospital is saying that a significant percentage of hospitalized covid patients are vaccinated. The head of the CDC acknowledged it when she started recommending masking for the vaccinated again. I grant that flu vaccines aren’t any better. Chicken pox and some others,… Read more »
You can’t handwave away the actual % effectiveness of vaccines just because of some random hearsay.
Yes there are vaccinated people getting infected and passing on the disease. In far lower numbers than unvaccinated people are doing, but we still notice the vaccinated folk doing it too because we’re in the middle of a novel global pandemic.
Chickenpox mostly went away after vaccination because most people were already immune so only the youngest needed to be vaccinated. And over 90% of those children get the vaccination.
And again, this entire back-and-forth started with your original claim that Pastor Wilson was writing about a “perfect vaccine” in 2015 but assuming a “leaky vaccine” in 2021. Both of those claims are still false – first because the 2015 pertussis vaccine no more “perfect” than the 2021 covid vaccines, and second because his arguments in both years didn’t hinge on % effectiveness at all.
My response wasn’t in regard to Pastor Wilson’s understanding of the technical definitions of perfect vaccine vs. leaky vaccine. I doubt he’d ever heard of those categories at the time and I know I hadn’t. The point was that his post implied a vaccine that worked (which I only much later heard referred to as a “perfect vaccine.”) As opposed to a vaccine like the flu vaccines and these covid ones that don’t. And you can hand wave away all the “breakthrough cases” as some kind of rare anomaly and “mere anecdote,” but that’s discordant with what’s happening in the… Read more »
In May 2020 Doug Wilson wrote that if some infected person failed to quarantine and someone else got sick and died as a result, then the person who failed to quarantine should be liable for the other person’s death. And he said that if the person who failed to quarantine was anti-vaccination then that should be taken not as a mitigating factor but as an exacerbating one.