So, to some it is okay to burn down a church where there is no hard evidence that anyone will get hurt by going to the services but it’s not okay to burn down an abortion clinic where babies are killed every day. Seems a little lop sided but as long as I know the rules I will try to adjust my thinking processes.
Trust me, I am not in favor of arson or violence from anybody. I know that evidence of "group spread" is anecdotal ,but that don't mean it ain't correct! Nobody, I mean nobody is trying to violate your rights. Bullshit! Case after case of proven mass gathering spreads are on record. Evangelical Christians are chief among the offenders. Why the push back? Just doesn't make sense to me. God will still know you love him, He isn't so jealous that he needs a rally to sustain his power is he? Just give it a bit and things will come around!
Well said Pete but here’s the deal. Some if not most Pentecostals are known for a few things and one of them is that they believe that if they aren’t in the house of the Lord on a given day, it’s a sin and with that they also believe in loss of Salvation. Combine the two and add that God will provide safety to His faithful and you have a good recipe for the reason those people in particular will outright refuse any and all edicts that keep them out of their house of worship. I’m nondenominational and understand that there’s some wiggle room but my grandfather was a Pentecostal pastor so I also understand how unshakable they can be. Whilst burning down that building saddened all and probably infuriated most of the congregation, if anything else it also made them all even more steadfast than they were before the arsonist(s) performed his and / or her act. Ephesians chapter six proclaims that “we do not battle with flesh and blood but against powers, principalities and things of the air” so you can best bet that that church will gather again whether at another building or a tent this next week. All that arsonist did was to make the congregation of that church stronger and more convicted that what they are doing is right.
Although the "Church" is really not a building...but all those who have become beloved children of God by their Redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ....still there are those that just cannot separate those two things...and they definitely should not be denied the right to gather together for worship...nor should anyone have the right to burn down the place they gather to worship in.
Even with some of the churches being forced to close, people are finding places to worship together. I have seen stories of them worshiping at Walmart (where no covid is permitted), and out doors on the beach and in parking lots. Even the Cowboy Church has found a new place to worship.
You all have covered all the bases about this, except maybe one. A far-right tyranny has a 'preferred' religion. A far-left tyranny persecutes religion. It seems many follow the conspiracy theory that Christianity, especially among our religions, is under attack by far-leftists who would pursue atheistic government. But I ask, is such a threat plausible? There are too many Christians in this country and too many who would stand beside them in resisting such a thing. Our religious freedom is a.precious a thing that I think even the non-religious recognize as such. Am I being too idealistic about our fellow citizens? I've been wrong before. Once back in 1978 I was wrong about something.
How many of these churches and Christians have stood up to the governors who closed their churches? Despite several sermons that I have sat through about the importance of Christians meeting together as a church, the common opinion was that the state controls the church when the state wants to control the church. In her first lockdown orders, our governor considered tattoo parlors to be essential while churches had to close, and I don't know of any church in Maine that defied her orders.
A small study of Romans 13:1-7 might lend a little light as to why most Christians are hesitant to “kick against the pricks”, so to speak. Did Paul mean that we need to submit to the rulers of a nation or was it those who were put in place to be the rulers (or authority) over the church or both? Most certainly, he didn’t mean that the rulers over a portion or all of a nation were all ministers of God and for the better good.......or did he? I have always believed that when in doubt about anything in the New Testament, go back to what Jesus said about the subject and I find that Jesus had no problem placing a line between God and earthly rulers. That written, it would “seem” as though Paul has drawn no such line in the renderings of those 7 verses when writing about our authorities. Are we right not to gather because of a state based authority or just using those verses as a crutch? I’m just throwing this out there and maybe between us, a better understanding might be brought to the surface.
'Evangelicals for Trump' Defy Church Ban, Worship in Casino https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/...apers&ats_es=1662918599abca866fdde14e192404dd “The governor allows hundreds to thousands to assemble in pursuit of financial fortunes but only 50 to gather in pursuit of spiritual ones. That is unconstitutional,” the church argued in court documents, according to CBN." So no solution in sight.
There are a couple of sides to the problem. On the “believer’s” side we have those who are for and those against coming together. Those against fellowshipping en mass are (a) still afraid of spreading the virus and / or (b) afraid of going against whatever authority is placed over them. Then there are those who, even when they are told that they can worship as individuals (which is true) they still reference Matthew 18:20: “For where 2 or 3 (or more) are gathered together in my name there I will be in the midst of them”. In other words, there’s strength in numbers which gives a lot of substance and reasoning for coming together in a place of worship. Then of course we have a totally contrary “other” side which among some very powerful people in authority, would like to see the whole concept of God based beliefs, both material and spiritual completely abolished. Most non-believing politicians will not voice this stance because it’s a political killer but they’re there with the authority to do whatever and if not the authority, they have a vote. In my way of thinking, the leaders of each sect or free standing congregation needs to make a stand one way or the other and stick with it leaving the politicians in the dust.
Whatever happened to 'live and let live'? At the risk of sounding trite and parroting the Bond title, is it turning to 'live and let die'? On the one hand I don't support the flouting of rules meant to keep us safe. On the other, I support people of faith generally. Like in a lot of other things in this modern world, you can't seem to find the moral middle ground. Keep the faith in a good future, people.
Gotta agree with you Dwight but I believe that most folks are stuck between the definitions or morality and ethics. e.g. The ethical person knows it’s wrong to cheat on one’s mate but the it’s the moral person who doesn’t. Now, where things go askew is when those who are placed in authority over us have a blurred version of either and attempt to force that version upon individual lives. Alas, from what I have seen, most die hard politicians are neither moral, nor ethical but are more “methodical” in that they switch between the two as they see fit to lord over the population.
Bobby, these topics are so wearying to me that I wasn't going to reply, but only hit the 'like' button. Then I thought how inane that would be because I certainly don't 'like' what you're saying. You're most likely right, especially about the 'methodical' methods being used on us and I sure don't like it. I'm taking a couple day's break from the forum. I'm just worn out, spiritually ill, and need to regroup. I wouldn't mind if anyone wanted to pray for me.