dad2

No problem. God shares the same problem, because He finds it nauseating when people are lukewarm and spineless.

Yes

Looking at the mobs roaming the streets and rioting, looting etc getting sick is not the biggest worry for some folks.

Yes it is.

I don't plan to. Now all I have to do is not get sick seeing others do so.

I would agree that getting prostate face down, or bowing knees seems wicked and creepy.

OK. Here is my two bits.. I think people lying on the ground prostate or bowed down to a mob seem less than brave and upstanding.

Seems like mob rule.

When people fear man and want to be seen to be one of the crowd is that not a form or worship? There were some folks in the old testament that wanted to bow the knee in man's temple's as well as in the temple of God. That was frowned upon by God. Daniel refused to bow the knee before the king's idol, but he did pray in his window and was seen bowing to God.

People should only 'bow the knee' to God. Today, we see people bowing the knee to all sorts of things such as protests against police. I wonder if any Christians are among them?

Often it seems the choices in voting is not between good and bad. It is the lesser of evils in many cases. I live in Canada, and they basically did all that anyhow.

Medical? Does that mean dentists and abortion centres, or would you pick and choose what 'medical' services you would deem important? Not six? Or the rest of their lives? How can you do that unless you pay them? What, you simply declare that certain businesses must operate for free? Yet you print money for other folks? Is that the sort of masks that supposedly work and they said we should not wear a while ago? Or is that any useless face covering? If masks are needed for food, I assume you would provide them? Then we have an army of snitches running around closing stores of fining them? I guess that is an essential service too? I am not sure a president has the kind of power to do all this in the way they might like.

Yet I read that the virus sticks around for days on stuff, and also a long time in the air. If many people were carriers in a store, it seems there is basically no way of avoiding it, whether 6, or 10, or 12 feet away. Since there is no real mass testing we can't know who has it. Some people say wear masks and gloves, others say that hand washing is better than gloves and that masks are more or less useless. Then we have some legislators deeming abortion clinics and such things as essential. In other case we hear of people getting pulled in from out on the ocean on a paddle board or some such and treated like a bio terrorist. (exaggeration)

So who determines what is needed? Some weeks ago churches were virtually almost terrorists for endangering the population. Now they are an essential service in the US!

Driving to work is being in harm's way. Being in the military or police is being in harm's way. Should everyone stop living to avoid being in harm's way? Being a medical worker is being in harm's way. Does this mean that they should all quit if they think God may allow them to be sick or die? Some people seem to think that something like missionary work or doing God's will in some way is 'putting yourself in harm's way'. I can understand if someone like the former Howard Hughes wanted to stay in a room and grow fingernails and avoid germs. What I have some problem with is when such people want everyone else to also!

I am not sure if I will shun a vaccine. I tend to avoid them. Guess we'll see what the options are.

Needles go into the body. OK

I said what I said too.

Not sure anyone here said it was? If so I must have missed it. The issue is that it is moving in that direction. Are you suggesting that people take no matter what any country wants to force on them and in their body just because it it not the mark of the beast yet? Not all people would come up with the same conclusion about what is best. If it is mandatory, it is not like there is a whole lot of choice about it. All well and good if it is optional. Right.

Don't preach to me about killing billions. I mentioned the best thing would be to trust God, and how a nation would need to repent to do that. This is no more preaching than you defending using weapons of mass murder.

Whoever (is blamed) for shooting first doesn't really matter so much. The result is a radioactive death mess. Is that really a way to save your country? I would think the best way is ask for God's protection. That cannot come when they are having drag queen shows introduced to little children, and hundreds of millions of babies killed, and Sodom pride days and 'marriages' etc etc. God can't (won't) protect that kind of country and neither can the weapons or war that country has!

No. I am looking at the results of shooting. Is killing billions of people something we would do if saved? Is that God's way of preaching the gospel and overcoming evil?

No. It sounds like the sign was about Jesus. Like the Passover where they had a mark on their doors (a literal mark in that case) "and mark thou tau on the foreheads," tau was that which was ordered to be placed on the foreheads of those mourners; and Jerome says, that this Hebrew letter tau was formerly written like a cross. So then the people were to be signed with the sign of the cross! It is certain that on the ancient Samaritan coins, which are yet extant, the letter tau is in the form +, which is what we term St. Andrew's cross. The sense derived from this by many commentators is, that God, having ordered those penitents to be marked with this figure, which is the sign of the cross, intimated that there is no redemption nor saving of life but by the cross of Christ, and that this will avail none but the real penitent. All this is true in itself, but it is not true in respect to this place. The Hebrew words signify literally, thou shalt make a mark, or sign a sign, but give no intimation what that mark or sign was. It was intended here to be what the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb on the lintels and door-posts of the Israelites was, namely, a notice to the destroying angel what house he should spare. As the whole of this matter only passed in vision we are bound to neither letter, nor any other kind of figure. The symbolical action teaches us that God, in general judgments, will make a distinction between the innocent and the guilty, between the penitent and the hardened sinner. " http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=eze&chapter=9&verse=3#Eze9_3 It looks like the sign was not for men but angels, so that they know who to spare. Confirming this in another commentary, we see that the ones that had charge over the place were angels. "Cause ye them that have charge over the city… (Ezekiel 9:1). These words need to carry a more ominous import; and Cooke translated this sentence, Approach, ye executioners of the city" http://classic.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=eze&chapter=9&verse=3#Eze9_3 In another commentary we see that the 'man' in verse 3 was also an angel. "Verse 3. And he called to the man The person here who called was that who sat on the chariot of the Divine glory. See Ezekiel 1:26. " http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=eze&chapter=9&verse=3#Eze9_3 In Revelation the mark of the beast is on real men. They cannot buy or sell in the physical world without that mark, so it is no invisible mark seen only by angels. The mark is given by a world leader, not angels. There is a warning not to receive this mark. That means that there is a point where people come to receive it. It is not a spiritual mark, but physical. (and of course has spiritual implications as well)

The people who own it now according to wiki are Elbert county. They might as well have put it up since they allow it and do nothing about it. That is their statement now. (and since we don't know who put it up, it might as well always have been)

That comes with a problem. If you shoot nukes at just one place, you may get retaliation in another.