LogFAQs > #959992562

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Church is called EVIL for NOT allowing MASKLESS MAN Pray and caused a BRAWL!!!
SKARDAVNELNATE 11/14/21 1:08:33 PM #75:	adjl posted... They're explicit directions. That's as much a teaching as anything else in there. Wrong. The altar example is more in line with 'this person did this at this time'. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a passage which says when you build an altar you must do it this way. As for redeeming a horse it says that if you don't it's better that you snap its neck, however it's generally thought by theologians that the mandate for animal sacrifices was a temporary measure until Jesus served as the true sacrifice. So we have one case of not an instruction to follow, and one case of being countermanded later on. adjl posted... You'll notice Zacchaeus was previously making efforts to incorporate Jesus into his life The guy in this story was there to worship and join in what the church was doing. Much more like Zacchaeus than the hypothetical gunman you keep comparing him to. adjl posted... Jesus did not befriend him in spite of outright hostility, which is what would need to happen for this situation to be analogous. I think you can argue that about a gunman shooting Christians. But not the guy in this story. That is, he wasn't showing hostility until they tried to remove him. Even then the hostility was defensive to the hostility they enacted on him. adjl posted... You seem to be approaching this issue (both here and in similar topics) under the belief that people entering places that require masks without masks are making an innocent mistake. Not a mistake. I think they are in the right and mandates are wrong. But that's an argument about civil liberties and government overreach. Other places don't really have a position already in place regarding that. I think this church is in the wrong for the reason of going against scripture which tells them not to treat people the way they did. adjl posted... Do you genuinely believe that it is possible to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control by waiting until somebody is confirmed to be infectious before expecting them to follow infection control precautions? Yes, and here's an example to back up that belief. I recall reading about how the Amish community were effected. They were hit hard and early. But once they recovered it hasn't been a problem again. Plus with everything else shut down the situation has been rather lucrative for them since thy can move around freely and do jobs that others are stopped from doing. The restrictions are prolonging the pandemic and making things worse for society. The current approach is detrimental to resolving it. adjl posted... The mere existence of the pandemic proves the risk. This is demonstrably false. There are ample cases of people testing positive and never developing symptoms. There is also the under-reporting of comorbidity, where people didn't die of the infection but of pre-existing conditions that were made worse. These factors serve as a basis to determine who is and is not at risk. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:959992562] in Church is ... [t:79731933]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>They're explicit directions. That's as much a teaching as anything else in there.</quote>Wrong. The altar example is more in line with 'this person did this at this time'. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a passage which says when you build an altar you must do it this way. As for redeeming a horse it says that if you don't it's better that you snap its neck, however it's generally thought by theologians that the mandate for animal sacrifices was a temporary measure until Jesus served as the true sacrifice. So we have one case of not an instruction to follow, and one case of being countermanded later on. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>You'll notice Zacchaeus was previously making efforts to incorporate Jesus into his life</quote>The guy in this story was there to worship and join in what the church was doing. Much more like Zacchaeus than the hypothetical gunman you keep comparing him to. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Jesus did not befriend him in spite of outright hostility, which is what would need to happen for this situation to be analogous.</quote>I think you can argue that about a gunman shooting Christians. But not the guy in this story. That is, he wasn't showing hostility until they tried to remove him. Even then the hostility was defensive to the hostility they enacted on him. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>You seem to be approaching this issue (both here and in similar topics) under the belief that people entering places that require masks without masks are making an innocent mistake.</quote>Not a mistake. I think they are in the right and mandates are wrong. But that's an argument about civil liberties and government overreach. Other places don't really have a position already in place regarding that. I think this church is in the wrong for the reason of going against scripture which tells them not to treat people the way they did. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Do you genuinely believe that it is possible to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control by waiting until somebody is confirmed to be infectious before expecting them to follow infection control precautions?</quote>Yes, and here's an example to back up that belief. I recall reading about how the Amish community were effected. They were hit hard and early. But once they recovered it hasn't been a problem again. Plus with everything else shut down the situation has been rather lucrative for them since thy can move around freely and do jobs that others are stopped from doing. The restrictions are prolonging the pandemic and making things worse for society. The current approach is detrimental to resolving it. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>The mere existence of the pandemic proves the risk.</quote>This is demonstrably false. There are ample cases of people testing positive and never developing symptoms. There is also the under-reporting of comorbidity, where people didn't die of the infection but of pre-existing conditions that were made worse. These factors serve as a basis to determine who is and is not at risk. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1