There should not be any pushback to orders mandating that no more than 10 in some places 12 ppl per gathering at religious services. I know its hard when we see gatherings elsewhere by people ‘less concerned’ about the Covid-19.
Just remember that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, the lord is there. Also remember this too will pass.
Much love to all the believers and much MORE love to all the unbelievers. Stay safe, restart things intelligently and love your neighbor.
Dawg
I guess the Lord wasn’t there during that choir practice which was one of the first documented cases of super spreading in the United States.
Please - go ahead and congregate. Pray for Trump too.
From a purely secular standpoint, it makes perfectly good sense to limit the number of people who can congregate at religious services.
But from a religious standpoint, it does not.
Note: Those who see all religion–and especially Christianity–as downright silly, will surely gravitate toward the secular standpoint.
No, from a public health point of view it does not make sense for people to congregate together.
What a wonderful post ROKDAWG.
Back at ya, my friend.
I’ve never felt the Lord isn’t there even if two or three are not present. 
Oh the Lord was there friend…that’s a certainty…common sense may have taken the day off though.
The public-health standpoint–without any serious regard for the religious ramifications–is surely consistent with the purely secular standpoint.
Christianity has survived, even flourished, in worse times than these. Remember what happens to the trivial squabbles when all Americans are attacked, like on 9/11? Christians will NOT be goated into a race war. I will kneel WITH a black man before the spirit of another brown man who knows me well - Y’eshua , Emanuel, The Christ Jesus! LOL trust me, I’m not a bible thumper - there is new covenant, I speak the truth.
The Lord is there even when you pray alone.
I tend to agree with this debater on that topic.
It is really not a question of whether Christianity will “survive,” in my mind–of course it will–but whether our society will continue to be congenial to Christianity, or whether it will become hostile to Christianity.
In some modern societies, Christians are routinely persecuted. And in first-century Asia, even worse was true.
But do we really want to move in this direction?
It depends on whether Christianity returns to its values of morality and character that was so important to them during the Clinton presidency that they abandoned to embrace Trump…
Kind of hard to show congeniality towards people who are incredible…
Would you say, then, that Bill Clinton–who was a notorious womanizer; and who was utterly amoral–was the very apotheosis of “the values and character” of Christianity?
No, Donald Trump is not, either.
His displaying of the Bible, in a photo op the other day, at St. John’s church, was rather embarrassing, I thought.
But if our society becomes openly hostile to Christianity–which blue-state America already seems to be–it will certainly mark a major development in our society.
And not one for the better, either.
No. Of course I wouldn’t… but they certainly are both womanizers.
Why, then, did you write that it is important that “Christianity returns to its values of morality and character that was so important to them during the Clinton presidency”?
Oh, by the way: Please do not try to paint me into the corner of defending Donald Trump: As I mentioned previously, his waving the Bible recently, at St. John’s church, was rather embarrassing, I thought.
I simply do not think that “return[ing]” to the “values of morality and character” displayed by Bill Clinton is the proper way to lead this country by example, either.
I thought that was obvious, if they hope to regain any legitimacy…
I think you misunderstood, not that they need to return to Bill Clinton values, but the values they claimed were so important during his presidency when they were so highly critical of him. The ones they subsequently abandoned in order to embrace Trump.
No, I think it is you that misunderstands.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists (as regarding which, I am not one), surely, do not generally approve of Donald Trump’s behavior.
However, he has frequently spoken words and instituted policies with which they strongly agree.
More importantly, he has made many federal-court nominations–and not just to the SCOTUS, either; it gets all the attention; but lower federal courts often decide an issue, which never is taken up by the Supreme Court–that evangelicals and fundamentalists find appealing.
So one must ask oneself the question: Is it worthwhile to have a person in the White House who seems hypocritical, when he (perhaps ostentatiously) appropriates to himself the symbols of Christianity–but who institutes policies, and makes federal-court nominations, that could have a long-term impact that most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians will find appealing?
But some people simply wish to influence evangelicals and fundamentalists, to sit on their hands in November–or even to vote Democratic–and therefore such people ignore these complicating issues…
Then they should not be supporting him…
And that explained it, the evangelical right have collectively shelved their moral values to get what they want. They have lost any legitimacy that they may have had.
Bill Clinton, along with his wife, is ■■■■■■■
He declared he was prepared to die for Israel, while he was a known draft dodger in America.
Needless to say, his “values” are corrupt, totally pharisee.