LogFAQs > #959993372

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

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.

You mean interpreting a biblical teaching in the context of other passages and/or modern life can lead to disregarding or tweaking it to ensure it's properly applicable? Man, if only somebody else in this discussion had tried to make that point already.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not a mistake. I think they are in the right and mandates are wrong.

So they're deliberately acting in a manner that places those around them at unnecessary risk? Not just making an innocent mistake and being crucified for it? And here I thought you were trying not to paint them as being hostile.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

But that's an argument about civil liberties and government overreach.

Yeah, but you've previously indicated that you think traffic laws are an immoral infringement on personal freedom, so I think those of us that live in reality can safely disregard anything you have to say about civil liberties and government overreach.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

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.

Tell you what: You go and dig up actual statistics on how the Amish have been doing compared to the rest of the world over the past year and a half, as well as their compliance rates with other precautions, show conclusively that they have managed to resolve the situation more effectively than anyone else, and then I'll accept that as a legitimate example. It still isn't going to make much of an argument, given that a single, vague anecdote never does, but at least it'll be a legitimate example and I can work on your misconceptions from there. Until then, I can say with the utmost certainty that you have no reason to believe that the pandemic will be resolved without taking precautions like this (at least, not without racking up a catastrophic body count in the process).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This is demonstrably false

It's axiomatically true. The risk of being infectious exists for every single human that has not gone to considerable lengths to prove that they are safe. I don't know why you're struggling so much with understanding this fact.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

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.

Well, that might explain it. Asymptomatic transmission is a thing, and dying because of pre-existing comorbidities indicates nothing about the risk of transmitting it to others. If that's your reason for believing there's no risk, then believing there's no risk means you just plain don't understand how infectious diseases work.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Your assumption about the purpose of the question is wrong. At this point I doubt we agree on moral values under normal circumstances let alone extenuating ones. That was what I was trying to determine and applying your response to the story would come later. So I do not care about the question being analogous at this stage. What I care about is how you respond.

Then my response is "No, I wouldn't randomly punch somebody for coming to visit in person instead of calling unless there were extenuating circumstances that warranted such a response." I don't know why you're asking that, since that has nothing to do with the situation at hand unless additional conditions are applied to make it analogous, but you do you.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
Looking back through the discussion I said "The hypocrisy is obvious".

In that case, there's no further reason to pursue that line of argument. The hypocrisy is not obvious, because nothing about Christian practice requires people to be such doormats as to compromise personal safety just so somebody doesn't have to wear a a mildly uncomfortable piece of cloth or watch the service from home, but if you're not trying to more broadly paint them as hypocrites, then carry on.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
I imagine you've forgotten what we were talking about. We were on the subject of "showing compassion to him in some other way". We were debating if being hostile at one time is made up for by showing kindness another time. That debate is not impacted by the advent of germ theory.

The advent of germ theory, however, indicates that allowing this guy to worship in person compromises personal safety to such an extent that booting him out by force is justifiable (provided suitable non-violent means were tried first, which they were). A justifiable violent act doesn't have to be made up for, because it's already justified. Therefore, being kind enough to invite him to attend service virtually or while properly masked satisfies the call to be compassionate to him.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.