This is a valid rebuttal only if you are claiming that there is no causal connection between large groups of people gathering together in close proximity and the spread of contagious disease.
I’ll grant that if there are reports that the church services were conducted under rigorous social distancing protocols, perhaps less harsh judgment is warranted. But it’s hardly a “jump” to suggest that there’s a causal connection between gathering in large groups and the spread of contagious disease. Whether or not the spread occurred at the church or at the supermarket, the church services increase the risk. Just as with cancer we can often not say definitively that one specific thing caused it, it’s a question of risk factors. If large numbers of people start going back to mass religious services, that additional risk factor will cause harm, even if we can’t pin down the causal chain in any specific instance.
They are not supposed to be doing that.
They are not supposed to be doing that.
What sports?
Oh, and they are not supposed to be doing that.
What we can take from the article is that people who were infected with the virus went to church and exposed others. How many got infected by attending services vs going to the Satruday night card game is not relevant, what is relevant is that people with the virus came in contact with a large group of people that did not.
For that to make sens,e you’d have to think that something about the church itself is causing the virus to spread. There is a pretty decent chance that if you go to church, that no one in attendance has it. If no one has it, then there is nothing to be spread. If anyone has it, then it can spread to all those they come into contact with.
Talk about bias though, you ever notice that the media only talks about the accidents, and never covers all the drunk drivers that made it home safely?
The implication, it seems to me, is that the church service resulted in a (pretty efficient, you may even say) spread that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Not there is some small risk that it did, but that it did. It’s the kind of thinking that doesn’t appreciate, as I heard it put recently, that closing a cinema in a little town in the middle of Iowa is not the same thing as closing a theater on Broadway. Yes, there is risk in everything that doesn’t keep you in a bubble, but that doesn’t give us license to start thinking we know things we don’t know.
Non-essential to you, maybe. Perhaps there are people who see church services as an essential or the most essential part of their lives.
As Jesus said, we do not worship the Lord on this mountain or in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth.
Jesus also said to love your neighbor as yourself. To put your own need (such as it is) to meet with fellow believers under one roof ahead of the well-being of the larger community is doing quite the opposite.
Do these people not own radios or TVs? A computer? At any given moment, a person in need of a good ole churching-up can find what they’re looking for by turning a dial, clicking the clicker, or hitting a button. There are also such things as prayer hotlines. And of course, if someone is that much of a devoted church member, they should be able to ring up Pastor if they need words of encouragement. That’s what their tithes and offerings help to pay for.
There are all kinds of people who think non-essential things are actually essential. It is perfectly OK to judge these people negatively when their beliefs are putting other people’s lives at risk.
Now this, OTOH, is bullshit. “Good ole churching-up” isn’t something you can just tune into on the radio, or get by clicking on a website. Church is about being part of a faith community, and none of these suggestions have anything to do with that. Church isn’t something you receive; it’s something you participate in.
Better than nothing, I guess, but a more personalized one-to-many relationship still isn’t a community.
Imagine, for instance, that this message board went down, and it was replaced (for paid members, anyway) by personalized messages of encouragement from Cecil Adams. Would you feel that was a meaningful replacement? Me either. But that’s a pretty good equivalent of what you’re suggesting.
Indeed, their hearts yearn for their church service. But, as Jermiah says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”
I think he meant that, if it is the wrong thing to do, then really,really wanting to do it doesn’t magically transform it in to the right thing to do.
You’ve got the nerve to lecture me about bullshit?! There are plenty of devoted Christians who cannot go to church, but they are still manage to participate in a faith community. Why do you think televangelists are so successful? Do you think the people who tune into the 700 Club every day aren’t participating in something much bigger than themselves?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’ve never met Cecil Adams. I’ve never heard him speak. I don’t know anything about him. So of course a personalized message from him wouldn’t mean anything to me.
But Pastor is presumably someone a church-goer has met before. They’ve listened to his or her sermons every week. They’ve at least shaken his or her hand, if not full-on embraced them and invited them over for dinner. A regular church-goer (you know, the person who thinks church is essential) should have a personal connection to their pastor. If Pastor (or an associate minister) is someone they can’t call up in times of spiritual crisis, then why the hell are they going to church?
My mother is an associate minister at her medium-sized church. Her phone has stayed busy over the past couple of months as her congregants have reached out to her for comfort and spiritual guidance. Do you really think it is reasonable to liken her to Cecil Adams? Do you really think that’s how she sees herself? Do you think that’s a fair, non-bullshit characterization?!
You’ve got to come up with a better analogy than that, bruh.
More church infections. This one comes in direction violation of the lockdown order in California.
The person infected tested positive a day after the service. There were more than 180 attendees that all had to be notified by the government that they had been exposed.
The pastor said that he would never put people in harm’s way. :smack: But he justified it by saying that getting together was essential. He took down the post and stopped answering questions about it later.
If any others in the congregation get the coronavirus, they’ll be not getting together for a lot longer.
This next example comes from a livestreamed event. The people livestreaming didn’t take the necessary precautions and got each other sick and then passed it on.
Seems relevant in this thread
I grew up Methodist, and was taught not to tempt the Lord. The Lord has given us knowledge on how the corona virus works. Church is wherever you and the Lord are together.
Why pile up in a building when God specifically says it’s not necessary?
Can anybody top this for “Imagine the COVID spread at a gathering, religious or otherwise?” WSJ article is behind a paywall for me, but here’s an intriguing title:
Muslims Worry Coronavirus Will Prompt Saudi Arabia to Cancel This Year’s Hajj
The five-day religious event, which gathers millions of people in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca and other sites, is due to begin in late July
Bars (for example) are packed, but not with millions of people. People spend an evening in bars, not five days. And the people in bars are probably not from all over the world.
It seems only fair that if people are going to assert that one religious service is essential (e.g. a Sunday service at your local Baptist church), then this pilgrimage would be as well. IANA Muslim, but if I understand correctly, it’s one of the five pillars—a very big deal to believers.
I’m sorry, but if I can go months without hitting bars, y’all can go without church.
Well, I think you’ve got a lot of chutzpah to lecture me about Christianity.
And if you think that’s the same thing as attending church, I gotta wonder where you’re coming from.
OK, make it TubaDiva. Whatever.
We aren’t talking about a time of spiritual crisis. We’re talking about a stand-in for ongoing participation in a community.
No, the occasional phone chat with the minister can’t replace that. Not to mention, it’s a bit much to ask the minister to be the only one everybody in the church is interacting with.
Well, good for her. But I would HOPE that she’s doing a bit more than that - that she’s trying to help her congregation find alternative ways of connecting with each other during this time, like small-group Bible studies on Zoom or something.
Like I said, try TubaDiva instead of Cecil. Whatever.
And OK, your mother’s a minister, but don’t take this quite so personally, OK?
Sure, sis.
Yeah, that’s one more thing. Here you have a church - a community of people who profess some sort of spiritual connection with the Lord who created the Universe and everything in it.
One would hope they’d be a bit more resilient and less needy than the average person lacking such a connection, that they wouldn’t need coddling and special treatment.
Moderating
Dial it back, please.
Colibri
QZ Moderator
Will do. Apologies.
Saudi Arabia have been considering suspending the hajj for this year for a while. Unsurprisingly it’s not a decision they will make lightly.