Depopulation Agenda - Make it so women can't get pregnant, and if they do get pregnant, get an abortion. The others can have a "vaccine". Pfizer, a Planned Parenthood donor, markets contraceptive hormones for women, and testosterone to cause women to look like men.

submitted by In-the-clouds from hostux.pics

all 33 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

I don't trust Pfizer for a second, but if you think having kids is so important that you're worried about a depopulation agenda...do you think Jesus and Paul had a depopulation agenda, seeing that they discouraged marriage, sex, and reproduction?

A lot of Christians seem to think not marrying and having as many kids as possible as quickly as possible is a sin. As if a faith that regards our current existence as worthless would be preoccupied entirely with earthly matters. This life is merely a drop in the ocean, but the most important thing is getting married and having 2.5 kids as soon as possible. Even though their own book says otherwise. Where does this come from?

[–]Bigs 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Out of curiosity, where in the bible does it discourage marriage and children?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. I'm not surprised you've never seen it before. You'll never hear it from a pulpit, and they don't want you to know.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Good question!

A chapter Vulptex answered you with: Matthew 19, shows that God is against divorce. God joins a man and his wife together, so man should not try to break them apart. Jesus said the only reason God consents to a man divorcing his wife is if she is an adulteress. But even then, God does not command the man to divorce her.

If a man is not married, he will spare himself many troubles if he remains unmarried. But it is not a sin to marry. And if he is unhappy being alone and feels tempted to have sex outside of marriage, then he should get married.

"To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:2

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In Matthew 19, you conveniently skipped over the part where the man says if divorce isn't an option, then it's better to not marry. Which Jesus then affirms.

I do not say that it is wrong to marry. But it is not recommended. Yet we treat marrying and raising a family as the be-all end-all.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

you conveniently skipped over the part where the man says if divorce isn't an option, then it's better to not marry.

I said, "If a man is not married, he will spare himself many troubles if he remains unmarried."

I do not say that it is wrong to marry.

But you said, "God is against marriage and sex." If he were against marriage, then it would be wrong to marry. Anything God is against is a sin, because it would be outside of his will. But God is not against marriage and sex between a husband and his wife.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It goes further than that. The married person is also preoccupied with the affairs of the world and how to please their spouse. It isn't wrong to marry, but it isn't the best idea either. Not something we should be encouraging in most cases, let alone demanding. We seem to think being unmarried is actually a bad thing.

I think the root of the problem is the current preoccupation with gender. Without a traditional marriage, gender is no longer even a noteworthy aspect of our being, and gender roles are made redundant. Evangelicals for whatever reason have been really attached to 1950s gender roles ever since the gender issues flared up, and I think mass marriages are their way of keeping them alive in the church.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is not the 1950s. This is the last generation, where people are so confused, they do not even know what they are.

Our faith should not be in a man-made church, but in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Our faith should not be in a man-made church, but in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Exactly.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think another aspect is just the modern obsession with sexual relations in general. Before, marriage was always a decision like any other. But in western pop culture, everyone is destined to fall in love with their "soul mate", like in a Disney princess romance movie. It's not hard to translate that into "God made you a soul mate who he wants you to find and marry". I suppose then refusing to marry could be seen as both rejecting God's will and depriving your intended spouse of their partner. But the fact is, there is no such thing, and our culture is way too obsessed with sexual relations (seriously, something like 98% of music is about sex). I kind of believe in soul mates, but definitely not that they equal spouses.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

do you think Jesus and Paul had a depopulation agenda, seeing that they discouraged marriage, sex, and reproduction?

God is not against sex between a husband and his wife, but against fornication and adultery.

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews 13:4

Regarding the original post, Jesus and the prophets do not approve of:

  • abortion
  • women trying to change themselves into men
  • men trying to change themselves into women
  • injections of harmful pharmaceuticals AKA "vaccines"

And those are the things that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer either fund directly or receive funding for.

The Depopulation Agenda is not only about reducing the birth rate, but actually involves killing the people already here: killing babies in their mother's womb, killing men and women and chilldren with cancer, heart disease, and infections.... This will be followed by the mark of the beast. And then, whoever refuses to worship the beast will be killed by the Antichrist and his worldwide government. Jesus is the only hope for humanity, who died on the cross in our place.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

God is against marriage and sex. It's permitted, but discouraged. But we seem to think God requires us to marry and have as many kids as possible.

You have zero evidence for Jesus, or any follower, prohibiting those things. One of them did not even exist yet in their time. Even abortion, although I think it is wrong, that is the result of my own conclusion that abortion is murder. But if you want to be an inerrantist and literalist, the Bible's only remark on abortion is actually forcing a woman to have one. I see that no differently than all the calls for genocide of the goyim and stoning people to death for petty reasons. But a fundamentalist has to take it at face value, or be a hypocrite.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

How do you know all these things? Did God tell you? Or did you read it somewhere? If you do not give your sources, then you are the one with zero evidence.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The burden of proof is on you. It is extremely difficult to prove a negative, and entirely unfair to expect that. When you make a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you. So if you say that Jesus did not approve of those things, you have to have evidence for it. But you are expecting your claims to be assumed true until they're disproven, as if you know more than everybody else. The burden of proof is always on your opponent and never on you. That is not fair at all.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I cited the Holy Bible: Genesis 9:1 You made no citations that support the claim that God is "against" marriage and sex.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You gave entire chapters, but the chapters are not only about marriage and sex. So, can you cite the verses?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7:28-35

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nine Inch Nails - The Day the World Went Away (Mashup with 1 Corinthians 7)

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Those are good scriptures, for sure, and are reasonable to me, but they do not say God is "against" marriage and sex.

"If you marry, you have not sinned." 1Corinthians 7:28

You have since changed your wording to agree, saying it is "not wrong" to marry, so I think we are now in agreement on this one point.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

God was for marriage and sex between a husband and his wife, when he told Noah, who was married, and his sons, who had wives:

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Genesis 9:1

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Noah...whose family was the only one on earth. That book records one other instance of that instruction being given. And who was it given to? Adam, whose family was also the only one on earth. For everyone else, this is not preferred. And both of them were already married anyway.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Also, the mark of the beast already happened. In the first place it's really looking like Revelation is a forgery, which makes sense seeing that it doesn't mesh with the rest of the New Testament at all. Secondly, thanks to a textual variant, the meaning of 666 has been rediscovered: it's Nero. Nero persecuted Christians exactly like "the beast" is said to do. And although something like that has and could easily happen again, that specific incident is over.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I believe God's Word is true. Vulptex says it is not.... it's a mis-translation, or even a forgery. Or he says it would sound better this way, or that.

Jesus warned:

Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Mark 13:6

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. Matthew 24:11

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You are reading so many modern ideas in. The Bible does not ever claim to be infallible. And even if it did, it never tells us what the canon is, so we don't know which books constitute the Bible in that case. The ones we currently have were picked by the Roman church and the Jewish orthodoxy, and they chose some fraudulent books and excluded some good ones. Contrary to popular belief, just because something brands itself as "Christian" does not mean they are always right. Some say we should turn the other cheek, and others say death to all who oppose us. They can't both be true. At least one of them must be wrong.

And you apparently not only believe that the Bible is infallible, but that even the translation of the Bible is infallible. Why then are they different? Some translate something one way and others another. Some select different textual variants. Are they all correct, even though they disagree? I believe in this case that we can be more objective, because the fact is the original language is undeniably future tense. Therefore changing it to an imperative is inaccurate.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." Proberbs 30:5

I trust God and his word and thank him for his promises, for his peace and mercy. If you do not trust God's word, what do you put your trust in?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Every word of God is indeed pure. Every word of God, not the words written down and corrupted by scribes, and certainly not human-authored words which humans call God's word. I could call my own words God's word, and by your current logic you would be obligated to treat them as such. Because who ever designated the Bible as God's word, except other humans?

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for instruction in righteousness. If anyone wants to know if what they are hearing is the truth, they can pray to God and he will help them.

Example: Lord, this man raises doubts about the book of Revelation. Is that book really your word? And I hear: YES!

The New World Order would love for people to discard that book, because it proclaims the end to the kingdom of darkness and the reign of the Lord of lords and King of kings over all the nations of earth. It also warns people to not accept the mark of the beast in the right hand or the forehead. Of course, the dark rulers of the world want to discredit that book! They want everyone to be marked like cattle and to remain their slaves. They do not want people to be made free by the blood of Jesus.

Jesus promised this: For those who believe in him, they will receive a Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. That Spirit helps a man think clearly about everything he has spoken.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If anything the Bible is confusing, because there are so many contradictions that you have to jump through hoops to make any sense of it.

I wouldn't take a mark like that under any circumstances. It's not a good idea. A specific warning isn't necessary. And that particular mark is no longer, because ultimately Nero met his end and the Roman empire fell.

[–]In-the-clouds[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You again raise doubts, but no hope.